for these years, including during the summer months. The City obtains the majority of its water supplies from managed groundwater basins which are not subject to seasonal fluctuation. Consequently, an evaluation regarding water supplies on a monthly basis was not considered.
SUBMITTAL TABLES
The applicable standardized Submittal Tables referenced within Chapter 7 are provided below.
OPTIONAL TABLE 7-1: BASIS OF WATER-YEAR DATA (WSRA)
Table 7-1 Basis of Water-Year Data (Reliability Assessment)
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
TABLE 7-2: NORMAL-YEAR SUPPLY AND USE COMPARISON
Table 7-2 Normal-Year Supply and Use Comparison
2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF) 2050 (AF)
Supply totals
(autofill from Submittal
Table 6-9 R)
14,773 16,144 16,225 16,308 16,388
Use totals
(autofill from Submittal
Table 4-2 R)
14,773 16,144 16,225 16,308 16,388
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply
augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction
savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions
Submittal Table 7-2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Use Comparison Water Code Section 10635 (a)
NOTES:
DWR NOTES : Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
TABLE 7-3: SINGLE-DRY-YEAR SUPPLY AND USE
COMPARISON
Table 7-3 Single-Dry-Year Supply and Use Comparison
Supply totals 15,283 16,701 16,785 16,871 16,954
Use totals 15,283 16,701 16,785 16,871 16,954
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply
augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction
savings benefit
Revised
Surplus/(shortfall)
2050 (AF)
DWR NOTES : Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
NOTES
Submittal Table 7-3 Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Use Comparison Water Code Section 10635(a)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions
2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF)
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
TABLE 7-4: MULTIPLE DRY YEARS SUPPLY AND USE
COMPARISON
Table 7-4 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Use Comparison
2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF) 2050 (AF)
Supply totals 17,385 18,998 19,094 19,191 19,286
Use totals 17,385 18,998 19,094 19,191 19,286
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 18,246 19,939 20,039 20,142 20,241
Use totals 18,246 19,939 20,039 20,142 20,241
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 18,501 20,218 20,320 20,424 20,524
Use totals 18,501 20,218 20,320 20,424 20,524
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 16,248 17,755 17,844 17,936 18,024
Use totals 16,248 17,755 17,844 17,936 18,024
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 13,113 14,330 14,402 14,475 14,546
Use totals 13,113 14,330 14,402 14,475 14,546
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Submittal Table 7-4 Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Use Comparison Water Code Section 10635(a)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions
Third year
Fifth year
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP ActionsFourth year
NOTES:
First year
OPTIONAL WSCP Actions Second year
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
TABLE 7-5: FIVE-YEAR DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 7-5 Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment
2026 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 15,993
Total Supplies (AF) 16,399
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 406
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF)
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2027 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 17,150
Total Supplies (AF) 17,211
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 61
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF)
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2028 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 17,760
Total Supplies (AF) 17,452
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action (308)
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF) 308
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
2029 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 15,922
Total Supplies (AF) 15,326
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action (596)
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF) 596
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
2030 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 13,113
Total Supplies (AF) 12,369
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action (744)
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF) 744
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
NOTES:
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain
consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
Submittal Table 7-5 Retail: Five-Year Drought Risk
Assessment
Water Code Section 10635(b)(3)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation)
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
CHAPTER 8
WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
LAY DESCRIPTION – CHAPTER 8
WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
Chapter 8 (Water Shortage Contingency Plan) of the City’s 2025 Plan discusses and provides the following:
x The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan is a detailed approach which presents how the City intends to act, or respond, in the case of an actual water shortage contingency.
x Preparation of the City’s “Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment” (or Annual Assessment) is discussed. The City is required to submit annually an Annual Assessment. The Annual Assessment includes a review of the City’s “unconstrained” water demands for the current year and for a potential upcoming single dry year. Unconstrained water demands represent the City’s water demands prior to any “response actions” the City may invoke pursuant to the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
x The City will manage water supplies to minimize the adverse impacts of water shortages. The City’s plan for water usage during periods of shortage is designed to incorporate six standard water shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges from up to a 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent shortage, and greater than a 50 percent shortage.
x For each declared water supply shortage level, customers will be required to reduce their consumption by the percentage specified in the corresponding water supply shortage level.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
x For each declared water supply shortage level, the City has established response actions to reduce demand on water supplies and to reduce any shortage gaps in water supplies. These demand reduction actions include irrigation and other outdoor use restrictions, rate structure changes, and other water use prohibitions. x The operational changes the City will consider in addressing water shortages on a short-term basis are discussed and include improved monitoring, analysis, and tracking of customer water usage to enforce demand reduction measures. x The City’s Emergency Response Plan is summarized. The Emergency Response Plan provides the management, procedures, and designated actions the City and its employees will implement during emergency situations (including catastrophic water shortages) resulting from natural disasters, system failures, and other unforeseen circumstances.
x The preparation of the City’s seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan is discussed. The locations of earthquake faults in the vicinity of the City’s water service area are provided.
x The effectiveness of the shortage response actions for each of the City’s standard water shortage levels is presented. The City has been able to provide sufficient water supplies to its customers, including during long-term droughts and years with historically high water demands.
x The communication protocols implemented by the City when it declares any water shortage level are presented.
x The compliance and enforcement procedures associated with City’s standard water shortage levels are presented.
x The legal authorities associated with City’s standard water shortage levels are presented.
x The financial consequences associated with City’s standard water shortage levels are presented.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
x The City will evaluate the need for revising the Water Shortage Contingency Plan in order to resolve any water shortage gaps, as necessary. The steps necessary for the City to adopt and amend its Water Shortage Contingency Plan are presented.
The following Water Shortage Contingency Plan includes references to Chapters and Sections from the City of Arcadia’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan:
WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
CWC 10632.
(a)(1) The analysis of water supply reliability conducted pursuant to Section 10635.
CWC 10632.5.
(a) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 10632, beginning January 1, 2020, the plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan to assess the vulnerability of each of the various facilities of a water system and mitigate those vulnerabilities.
The City’s sources of supply were discussed in Section 6.2 of the 2025 Plan and consist of groundwater from Main and Raymond Basins, and treated imported water purchased from MWD through Upper Water. The Main and Raymond Basins are adjudicated and groundwater supplies are managed. The reliability of the various sources of supply are discussed in Chapter 7 of the 2025 Plan. Imported water supplies (treated) may be impacted in the event MWD implements its WSAP due to a water supply shortage. A seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan is discussed in Section 8.4.6.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
CWC 10632.
(a) Every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt a water shortage contingency plan as part of its urban water management plan that consists of each of the following elements
CWC 10632.
(a)(2) The procedures used in conducting an annual water supply and demand assessment that include, at a minimum, both of the following:
(A) The written decision-making process that an urban water supplier will use each year to determine its water supply reliability.
(B) The key data inputs and assessment methodology used to evaluate the urban water supplier’s water supply reliability for the current year and one dry year, including all of the following:
(i) Current year unconstrained demand, considering weather, growth, and other influencing factors, such as policies to manage current supplies to meet demand objectives in future years, as applicable.
(ii) Current year available supply, considering hydrological and regulatory conditions in the current year and one dry year. The annual supply and demand assessment may consider more than one dry year solely at the discretion of the urban water supplier.
(iii) Existing infrastructure capabilities and plausible constraints.
(iv) A defined set of locally applicable evaluation criteria that are consistently relied upon for each annual water supply and demand assessment.
(v) A description and quantification of each source of water supply.
CWC 10632.1.
An urban water supplier shall conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10632 and, on or before July 1 of each year, submit an annual water shortage assessment report to the department with information for anticipated shortage, triggered shortage response actions, compliance and enforcement actions, and communication actions consistent with the supplier’s water shortage contingency plan. An urban water supplier that relies on imported water from the State Water Project or the Bureau of Reclamation shall submit its annual water supply and demand assessment within 14 days of receiving its final allocations, or by July 1 of each year, whichever is later.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
By July 1 st of every year, the City is required to submit an “Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment” (Annual Assessment) in accordance with DWR’s guidance and requirements. The Annual Assessment includes a review of the City’s unconstrained water demands (i.e. water demands prior to any projected response actions the City may trigger under this Water Shortage Contingency Plan) for the current year and the upcoming (potential single dry) year. The Annual Assessment also includes information regarding anticipated shortages, triggered shortage response actions, compliance and enforcement actions, and communication actions consistent with the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
For each Annual Assessment, the City plans to prepare a preliminary assessment which evaluates the adequacy of its water supplies for the current and upcoming years by April of each year. The preliminary assessment will include a review of water supplies for at least a single dry year.
During the preparation of each Annual Assessment, the City will evaluate the adequacy of its water supplies for the current and upcoming years. The evaluation will include a review of water supplies for at least a single dry year.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
The City produces groundwater from the Main Basin as its primary source of water supply and that basin is managed on a fiscal year basis. Consequently, during the third quarter of each fiscal year the City will review its water demands from the initial six months along with the current groundwater basin conditions and local hydrology. This information will be used to help develop the Annual Assessment. A draft of the Annual Assessment will be circulated internally within the City for peer review and comment. Based on comments received, a redraft will be prepared and provided to City managers during the Spring of each year. The draft will subsequently be provided to the General Manager for final
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
review. If necessary, a final draft of the Annual Assessment will be provided to the City Council for review and included in the agenda as part of a City meeting such that it can be approved and any recommended specific shortage response actions may be enacted.
The final Annual Assessment will be provided to DWR no later than July 1 of each year.
The Annual Assessments will be instrumental in providing guidance to the City for decisions regarding potential declarations of a water supply shortage and implementation of water reduction stages, instituting mandatory water restrictions, promoting water use efficiency and conservation programs, water rates and drought rate surcharges, and the necessity of pursuing alternative water supplies. This process will help ensure adequate water supplies resources are available to the City.
DATA AND METHODOLOGIES
The key data inputs and methodologies which will be evaluated by the City during the preparation of the Annual Assessment will include the following:
1) Evaluation Criteria: The locally applicable evaluation criteria used to prepare the Annual Assessment will be identified. The evaluation criteria will include, but is not limited to, an analysis of current local hydrology (including rainfall and groundwater levels), current water demands, a review of water system improvement plans which may impact infrastructure availability, and water quality regulations which may impact groundwater availability.
2) Water Supply: A description of each available water supply source will be provided.
The descriptions will include a quantification of each available water supply source and will be based on review of current production capacities, historical production, Urban Water Management Plans, and prior water supply studies (including Water Supply Assessments and/or Master Plans).
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
3) Unconstrained Water Demand: The potential unconstrained water demands during the current year and the upcoming (potential single dry) year will be reviewed. The review will include factors such as weather, existing and projected land uses and populations, actual customer consumption and water use factors, monthly Urban Water Supplier Monthly Reports, existing water shortage levels (see Section 8.3), and existing water conservation ordinances (see Section 9.1).
4) Planned Water Use for Current Year Considering Dry Subsequent Year: The water supplies available to meet the demands during the current year and the upcoming (potential single dry) year will be considered and identified by each type of supply.
The evaluation will include factors such as estimated water demands, weather, groundwater basin operating safe yields, water quality results, existing available pumping capacities, imported water allocations, contractual obligations, regulatory issues, use of emergency interconnections, and the costs associated with producing each water supply source.
5) Infrastructure Considerations: The capabilities of the water distribution system infrastructure to meet the water demands during the current year and the upcoming (potential single dry) year will be considered. Available production capacities (e.g. groundwater well capacities) and distribution system water losses (see Section
4.3) will be reviewed. In addition, capital improvement and replacement projects, as well as potential projects which may increase water system and production capacities (see Section 6.2.10), will be considered.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
SIX STANDARD WATER SHORTAGE LEVELS
CWC 10632.
(a)(3)(A) Six standard water shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges of up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent shortages and greater than 50 percent shortage. Urban water suppliers shall define these shortage levels based on the suppliers’ water supply conditions, including percentage reductions in water supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation or level of subsidence, or other changes in hydrological or other local conditions indicative of the water supply available for use.
Shortage levels shall also apply to catastrophic interruption of water supplies, including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, and other potential emergency events.
(a)(3)(B) An urban water supplier with an existing water shortage contingency plan that uses different water shortage levels may comply with the requirement in subparagraph (A) by developing and including a cross-reference rela ting its existing categories to the six standard water shortage levels.
The City has a legal responsibility to provide water utility services, including water for residential, commercial, industrial, public authority, and for public fire hydrants and private fire services. The City will manage water supplies prudently to minimize the adverse impacts of water shortages. The City’s plan for water usage during periods of shortage is designed to provide a minimum of 50 percent of normal supply during a severe or extended water shortage. Water shortage trigger mechanisms have been established to ensure that this policy is implemented.
For each declared water supply shortage level, customers will be required to reduce their water consumption by the percentage specified in the corresponding water supply shortage level.
The City’s water conservation plan previously established eight (8) water shortage levels.
A copy of City’s water conservation plan is provided in Appendix J. In accordance with the California Water Code in which urban water suppliers are required to define six standard water shortage level, the City has developed the crosswalk illustrated below
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
(also included in the City’s 2020 Plan) that translated the City’s previously established shortage levels to the mandated standard shortage levels. Table 8-1 also provides a cross-reference between the City’s previously established shortage levels and the mandated standard shortage levels.
Corresponding Relationships Between Supplier's Established Shortage Levels and the WSCP Mandated Shortage Levels
Established
Level
Supply
Condition/Shortage
WSCP
Standard
Level
Shortage Level
1 1 to 10%
2 10% 2 10 to 20%
3 11 to 15% 3 20 to 30%
4 16 to 20% 4 30 to 40 %
5 21 to 25%
5 40 to 50 %
6 26 to 30% 6 > 50 %
7 31 to 40%
8 41 to 50%
SHORTAGE RESPONSE ACTIONS
CWC 10632.
(a)(4) Shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels and include, at a minimum, all of the following:
(A) Locally appropriate supply augmentation actions.
(B) Locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages.
(C) Locally appropriate operational changes.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
(D) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specif ic water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions and appropriate to the local conditions.
(E) For each action, an estimate of the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action.
SUPPLY AUGMENTATION
As discussed in Chapter 6, the City’s sources of water supply include groundwater produced from the Main Basin and Raymond Basin and imported surface water purchased from MWD through Upper Water. As noted in Section 8.2, the City is required to annually prepare and submit an Annual Assessment which will include a review of water supplies available to meet water demands for the current and upcoming years. If the City is currently in, or considers entering into, one of the standard water shortage levels identified in Section 8.3, the City will consider the water supply augmentation actions described below.
For each water shortage level discussed in Section 8.3, the City will consider supplementing its existing water supplies through purchase of additional imported water supplies. Due to previous critically dry conditions, MWD developed the “Water Supply Allocation Plan” whereby available supplies are equitably allocated to its member agencies, including Upper Water. The WSAP establishes ten different shortage levels and a corresponding drought allocation to each member agency. Based on the shortage level established by MWD, the WSAP provides a reduced drought allocation to a member agency for its Municipal and Industrial retail demand. The ratio of MWD water supply drought allocation to local water supply will change based on the WSAP stage. The MWD drought allocation can be used to make Full Service water deliveries at the Tier 1 rate up to a Tier 1 allocation. Any Full Service water delivered in excess of a drought allocation is subject to a penalty rate in addition to the normal rate paid for the water.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
In addition to the WSAP, MWD describes supply augmentation actions in its Regional 2025 UWMP, which is incorporated by reference. MWD’s primary first response to any gap between core supplies (from the State Water Project and Colorado River) and demand is to make optimal use of its supply augmentation options, consisting of drawing from flexible supply programs and storage reserves. MWD has developed and actively manages a portfolio of water supply programs including water transfer, storage, and exchange agreements. MWD pursues voluntary water transfer and exchange programs to help mitigate supply/demand imbalances and provide additional dry-year supply sources. In addition, MWD has developed significant storage capacity in reservoirs, conjunctive use, and other groundwater storage programs totaling approximately 6.0 million AF. Based on MWD’s historical and on-going water supply and storage programs and management practices, the City can potentially rely on purchased imported water supplies from MWD through Upper Water for adequate supply augmentation in response to each of the standard water shortage levels identified in Section 8.3.
The City will consider supplementing its existing water supplies through production of additional groundwater from the Main Basin. As noted in Section 6.2.2, the Main Basin is managed by the Main Basin Watermaster. During the period of management under the Main Basin Judgment, significant drought events have occurred. In each drought cycle the Main Basin has been managed to maintain water levels. Parties to the Main Basin Judgment, including the City, are authorized to produce groundwater in excess of their rights and pay assessments for such production to the Main Basin Watermaster. The assessments are used to purchase untreated imported water to replenish the Main Basin.
The Main Basin Watermaster purchases untreated imported water to replenish the Main Basin from MWD through Upper Water. An additional potential source of replenishment water is recycled water. Groundwater quality is carefully monitored and managed by the Main Basin Watermaster. Treatment facilities and/or blend plans have been developed by water agencies to meet potable water standards and to prevent the spread of any groundwater contamination. Groundwater quality in the Main Basin is not expected to
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
impact potable supplies or constrain supply reliability. Based on historical and on-going management practices, the City will be able to continue relying on the Main Basin for adequate supplies in response to each of the standard water shortage levels identified in Section 8.3.
DEMAND REDUCTION
The City may establish water shortage response actions to reduce demand on water supplies. These demand reduction actions include irrigation and other outdoor use restrictions, rate structure changes, and other water use prohibitions. Depending on the percent reduction in the City’s water supply and corresponding water shortage level, regulations are made to conserve water and reduce the shortage gap in normal supply levels. Many demand reduction actions, identified as voluntary or mandatory conservation measures, are applicable to all levels of water shortages. The structure of water shortage levels are designed to strongly encourage customers with high per capita usage to achieve proportionally greater reduction than those with low usage. Violations of these demand reduction actions will be considered waste and an unreasonable use of water.
Table 8-3 describes each demand reduction action and its effect on reducing the shortage gap.
Upon adoption of a water supply shortage stage, as described Table 8-1, the restrictions and mandatory water reduction demands will be effective immediately. A full listing of the restrictions/prohibitions associated with each shortage level is provided below.
Water Shortage Level 1
(a) There shall be no hose washing of sidewalks, walkways, driveways, or parking areas.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
(b) There shall be no hose washing of a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or similar device that causes the hose to cease dispensing water immediately when not in use.
(c) No water shall be used to clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains unless such water is part of a recirculating system.
(d) No restaurant, hotel, cafe, cafeteria, bar or other public place where food or beverage is served or offered for sale, shall serve drinking water to any customer unless expressly requested by the customer.
(e) No hotel or motel shall launder towels and linens of an occupied guestroom on a daily basis, unless expressly requested by the guest. The hotel or motel shall prominently display a notice in each guestroom of the guest's option not to have towels and linens laundered daily.
(f) No customer of the Water Division shall permit water to leak from any facility on his premises.
(g) No lawn, landscape, or other turf areas shall be watered or irrigated between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Pacific time.
(h) No lawn, landscape, or other turf areas shall be watered or irrigated during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall.
(i) No lawn, landscape, or other turf areas shall be watered or irrigated more than 3 days per week, or such other number of days as the City Council may prescribe by resolution from time to time
10. The three days per week shall be
Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday or such other days as the City Council may prescribe by resolution from time to time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon written application to and approval by the City's Public Works Services Director, an owner of property used primarily for commercial, industrial or institutional
10 Pursuant to Resolution No. 7430 adopted by City Council in May 2022, no lawn, landscape, or other turf areas shall be watered or irrigated more than two (2) days per week (on Tuesday and Saturday). From May to October, outdoor watering of lawn, landscape or other turf areas shall be limited to no more than 10 minutes per station on each day allowed. Resolution No, 7430 is provided in Appendix N.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
purposes may irrigate lawn, landscape or other turf areas of such property such number of days per week as approved by the Public Works Services Director if such owner provides evidence, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Services Director, that the owner has reduced overall bi-monthly water use for such property by at least twenty-five percent (25%) from the same bi-monthly period in 2013, or by such other measurement of reduction adopted by resolution of the City Council from time to time
11. (j) No lawn, landscape or other turf areas shall be watered in a wasteful manner.
For example, in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures.
(k) Additional restrictions and conservation measures may be adopted from time to time by resolution of the City Council and shall become effective upon their adoption. Any and all such restrictions and measures shall be subject to all enforcement provisions, including without limitation fines and penalties, as are otherwise applicable to the provisions set forth in this Section.
Water Shortage Level 2
No use of water may be made contrary to the provisions of Water Shortage Level 1. No customer shall make, cause use or permit the use of water from the Water Division for any purpose in an amount in excess of eighty percent (80%) of the amount used during the base period as defined in this Urgency Ordinance.
11 Pursuant to Resolution No. 7430 adopted by City Council in May 2022, an owner of property used primarily for commercial, industrial, or institutional purposes may not irrigate non-functional turf areas. "Non- functional turf' means turf that is solely ornamental and not regularly used for human recreational purposes or for civic or community events. Resolution No, 7430 is provided in Appendix N.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
Water Shortage Level 3
No use of water may be made contrary to the provisions of Water Shortage Level 1. No customer shall make, cause, use or permit the use of water from the Water Division for any purpose in an amount in excess of seventy percent (70%) of the amount used during the base period as defined in this Urgency Ordinance.
Water Shortage Level 4
No use of water may be made contrary to the provisions of Water Shortage Level 1. No customer shall make, cause, use or permit the use of water from the Water Division for any purpose in an amount in excess of sixty percent (60%) of the amount used during the base period as defined in this Urgency Ordinance.
Water Shortage Level 5
No use of water may be made contrary to the provisions of Water Shortage Level 1. No customer shall make, cause, use or permit the use of water from the Water Division for any purpose in an amount in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the amount used during the base period as defined in this Urgency Ordinance.
Water Shortage Level 6
No use of water may be made contrary to the provisions of Water Shortage Level 1. No customer shall make, cause, use or permit the use of water from the Water Division for any purpose in an amount more than fifty (50%) of the amount used during the base period as defined in this Urgency Ordinance.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
During a water supply shortage situation, the City will manage its water supply resources to provide sufficient water supplies capable of meeting the demands of its customers.
Section 8.4.1 describes the City’s water supply sources and water supply augmentation actions available. Section 8.4.2 describes the City’s standard water shortage levels and associated demand reduction measures. The supply augmentation actions and demand reduction measures, when implemented, may potentially result in short-term operational changes which are necessary to allow the City to utilize all available water supply sources in response to water shortage situations.
As noted in Section 8.2, the City is required to annually prepare and submit an Annual Assessment which will include a review of the water supplies available to meet water demands for the current and upcoming years. Preparation of the Annual Assessment will assist the City in determining any potential operational changes. In addition, the City’s standard water shortage levels and the associated demand reduction measures, in conjunction with the City’s existing Demand Management Measures (discussed in Chapter 9), will be essential to the City in reducing water demands during any water shortage period. The operational changes the City will consider in addressing non- catastrophic water shortages on a short-term basis include the following:
x Improved monitoring, analysis, and tracking of customer water usage to enforce demand reduction measures
x Optimized production from existing available water supply sources x Potential use of emergency supply sources, including emergency interconnections x Potential blending of water supply resources
x Improved monitoring, maintenance, and repairs to reduce water distribution system losses
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
ADDITIONAL MANDATORY RESTRICTIONS
The mandatory restrictions which are implemented by the City to reduce customer demands are discussed in Section 8.4.2. There are no additional mandatory restrictions planned at this time.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
Catastrophic water shortages are incorporated in the City’s standard water shortage levels (identified in Section 8.3) and the associated demand reduction measures (described in Section 8.4.2). In addition to the water supply augmentation actions (Section 8.4.1) and potential operational changes (Section 8.4.3) which the City may consider in order to continue providing sufficient water supplies, the City will review and implement any necessary steps included in its “Emergency Response Plan”.
The City’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP), updated in 2021, provides the management, procedures, and designated actions the City and its employees will implement during emergency situations (including catastrophic water shortages) resulting from natural disasters, system failures and other unforeseen circumstances. The City’s ERP (which is incorporated by reference) provides the guidelines for evaluating an emergency situation, procedures for activating an emergency response, and details of the different response phases in order to ensure that customers receive a reliable and adequate supply of potable water. The scope of the ERP includes emergencies which directly affect the water system and the ability to maintain safe operations (such as a chlorine release, and earthquake or a threat of contamination). The ERP also incorporates the following:
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
x Strategies and resources to improve resilience, including physical and cybersecurity
x Plans and procedures for responding to a natural hazard or malevolent act x Actions and equipment to lessen the impact of a natural hazard or malevolent act x Strategies to detect natural hazards or malevolent act
The City will review the ERP for procedures regarding the utilization of alternative water supply sources in response to water supply shortages, including during the standard water shortage levels. The City will also review applicable procedures described in the ERP regarding any necessary temporary shutdown of water supply facilities, including appropriate regulatory and public notifications.
SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN
CWC 10632.5.
(a) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 10632, beginning January 1, 2020, the plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan to assess the vulnerability of each of the various facilities of a water system and mitigate those vulnerabilities.
(b) An urban water supplier shall update the seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan when updating its urban water management plan as required by Section 10621.
(c) An urban water supplier may comply with this section by submitting, pursuant to Section 10644, a copy of the most recent adopted local hazard mitigation plan or multihazard mitigation plan under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) if the local hazard mitigation plan or multihazard mitigation plan addresses seismic risk.
The City prepared a “Local Hazard Mitigation Plan” in 2022. The Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies effective ways to assess the significant natural hazards (including earthquakes) that may affect the City and its residents. The Hazard Mitigation Plan provides resources, information, and strategies to reduce the City’s vulnerability to these hazards, while providing guidance for the coordination of mitigation activities throughout the City. The
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
Hazard Mitigation Plan includes mitigation projects necessary to reduce seismic risk to the City’s water distribution system facilities (including its distribution system pipelines, groundwater wells, booster pumps, and storage reservoirs) and potential disruptions in providing water service. The City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan is provided in Appendix K.
The County of Los Angeles prepared a “All-Hazards Mitigation Plan” in 2025 which identified methods to assess significant natural hazards (including earthquakes) affecting areas throughout Los Angeles County, and the mitigation strategies necessary to reduce risks, including seismic risk. The County’s All-Hazards Mitigation Plan is provided in Appendix L.
The California Geological Survey has published the locations of numerous faults which have been mapped in the Southern California region. Although the San Andreas fault is the most recognized and is capable of producing an earthquake with a magnitude greater than 8 on the Richter scale, some of the lesser-known faults have the potential to cause significant damage. The locations of these earthquake faults in the vicinity of the City’s water service area are provided in the figure below. The faults that are located in close proximity to and could potentially cause significant shaking in the City’s water service area include the San Andreas fault, the Walnut Creek fault, the Whittier fault, the San Jose fault, the Raymond fault, the Cucamonga fault, the Chino fault, the Sierra Madre fault, and the East Montebello fault.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
Location of Earthquake Faults
Source: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/App/
The California Geological Survey provides earthquake hazard maps 12 based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale, which measures earthquake shaking intensity and its impacts on people, objects, and buildings. The area within the City’s service area has an MMI of approximately 9.6 calculated based on the level of shaking that has a 2 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years (or the level of shaking with an approximate 2,500- year average repeat time). An MMI at this intensity (violent shaking) can result in buildings shifted off foundations, cracked, or tilted, the ground cracked, and underground pipes broken. As discussed in Section 8.4.5, the City has prepared an Emergency Response Plan which provides the management, procedures, and designated actions the
12 https://conservation.ca.gov/cgs/sh/earthquake-shaking-potential City’s Service Area
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
City and its employees will implement during emergency situations resulting from natural disasters, including during earthquakes, to ensure that customers receive a reliable and adequate supply of potable water. The City’s ERP is referenced herein.
SHORTAGE RESPONSE ACTION EFFECTIVENESS
The effectiveness of the shortage response actions for each of the standard water shortage levels identified in Section 8.3 is evident in the City’s historical ability to meet its customer’s water demands in response to a water supply shortage. In addition, the City imposes water consumption regulations and restrictions, and supports local agencies in efforts to enforce regulations and prohibitions on water use. The effectiveness of each of the City’s shortage response actions, in order to reduce any potential gaps between supply and demand, has been quantified in the expected demand reduction provided in Table 8-2 and Table 8-3.
Section 6.1 provides a tabulation of the City’s historical annual water demands for each water supply source. During the past 15 years, the City experienced a five-year consecutive drought within its service area from FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16. Throughout this extended dry year period, the City’s annual water production ranged from 12,369 AF to 17,452 AF, with an average of approximately 15,751 AF. In addition, historical records indicate the City previously produced a maximum of up to 18,668 AF during FY 2006-07.
The City has been able to provide sufficient water supplies to its customers, including during long-term droughts and years with historically high water demands. In addition, the City has been able to provide water service to meet maximum day water demands for these years, including during the summer months.
The City’s water demands during the most recent five years (from FY 2020-21 to FY 2024- 25) averaged approximately 13,215 AFY. Due to conservation efforts and demand management measures (discussed in Chapter 9), the City’s recent water demands have
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
been significantly less than its historical water demands, including during long-term droughts. The City’s projected water demands (during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years) are provided in Section 7.2.3 and are anticipated to incorporate similar reductions in water use rates as a result of the shortage response actions, ongoing conservation efforts, and demand management measures. Because the City’s projected water demands are similar to or less than its historical water demands, it is anticipated the City will be able to continue providing sufficient water supplies to its customers to meet projected water demands, including during long-term droughts. In addition, as discussed in Section 8.4.1, based on historical and on-going management practices, the City will be able to continue relying on its water supply sources from the Main Basin and Raymond Basin for adequate supply augmentation in response to each of the standard water shortage levels identified in Section 8.3.
Based on the City’s ability in meeting water demands during past water supply shortages, adopted water shortage levels, adjusted operating safe yields, and long-term droughts, it is anticipated that the City will be able to continue providing sufficient water supplies to its customers during any of its standard water shortage levels. Although adequate supplies are anticipated, the cost of those water supplies may become incrementally more expensive. The City will enact varying levels of its water shortage contingency plan to encourage retail customers to reduce water consumption and at the same time reduce the need to use the more expensive water supplies. Notwithstanding, the effectiveness of each of the City’s shortage response actions, in order to reduce any potential gaps between supply and demand, has been quantified in the expected demand reduction provided in Table 8-2 and Table 8-3. The effectiveness of the City’s shortage response actions is based on the City’s water demands prior to 2015 (unconstrained demands).
The City reduced its water demands in 2015 in response to the Governor’s April 1, 2015 Executive Order B-29-15 which mandated statewide reduction in water use of 25 percent.
During this period, the City was able to reduce its water demands by approximately 29 percent. This historical water demand reduction was used to estimate the extent of water
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
use reductions for the City’s Water Shortage Stages. The City’s Water Shortage Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are expected to reduce water demands by up to 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and greater than 50%, respectively.
Emergency regulations previously adopted by the SWRCB pursuant to Executive Order N-7-22 (issued on March 28, 2022 by California Governor Gavin Newsom) required urban water suppliers to implement Level 2 of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans meant to address up to a 20% shortage of water supplies. The regulations also required urban water suppliers to establish a ban on irrigating non-functional turf at commercial, industrial, and institutional properties (including grass in front of or next to large industrial or commercial buildings). The ban did not include watering turf that is used for recreation or other community purposes, water used at residences or water to maintain trees.
Pursuant to Executive Order N-5-23 issued on March 24, 2023 by California Governor Gavin Newsom, the requirement for urban water suppliers to implement Level 2 of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans was removed. As of June 5, 2024, SWRCB statewide water conservation emergency regulations have expired and there are no current statewide water conservation emergency regulations.
COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS
CWC 10632.
(a)(5) Communication protocols and procedures to inform customers, the public, interested parties, and local, regional, and state governments, regarding, at a minimum, all of the following:
(A) Any current or predicted shortages as determined by the annual water supply and demand assessment described pursuant to Section 10632.1.
(B) Any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered by the annual water supply and demand assessment described pursuant to Section 10632.1.
(C) Any other relevant communications.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
The City is required to submit an “Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment” (Annual Assessment) in accordance with DWR’s guidance and requirements. The Annual Assessment will include a review of the City’s unconstrained water demands (i.e. water demands prior to any projected response actions the City may trigger under this WSCP) for the current year and the upcoming (potential single dry) year. The City will also include information regarding anticipated shortages, triggered shortage response actions, compliance and enforcement actions, and communication actions consistent with the City’s WSCP. See Section 8.2 for further discussion regarding the Annual Assessment.
The City will evaluate the projected supply and demand for water by its customers and shall recommend to the City Council the extent of the conservation required by the customers of the Water Division. The City Council will discuss the appropriate phase of water conservation be implemented, modified or rescinded. The City will publish information regarding the adoption of any resolution declaring a water shortage level in a daily newspaper of general circulation. The information provided will include the declared shortage level, response action associated with each shortage level, and any other relevant information relating to the resolution.
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
CWC 10632.
(a)(6) For an urban retail water supplier, customer compliance, enforcement, appeal, and exemption procedures for triggered shortage response actions as determined pursuant to Section 10632.2.
It is unlawful and a misdemeanor for any customer to fail to comply with any provisions of the regulations and restrictions on water use set forth in the City’s Ordinance. The City
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
has implemented a three-step enforcement plan for the Phase I Prohibitions. Customers violating the mandatory prohibitions will be subject to the procedures and/or penalties as outlined below.
First Violation: For the first violation by any customer of the Water Division of any of the provisions discussed in Section 8.4.2, a surcharge penalty, in addition to the current water rate, is imposed in an amount equal to two times the current water rate for those billing units used in excess of base.
Second Violation: For the second violation by any customer of the Water Division of any of the provisions discussed in Section 8.4.2, a surcharge penalty, in addition to the current water rate, is imposed in an amount equal to three times the current water rate for those billing units used in excess of base.
Third Violation: For the third violation by any customer of the Water Division of any of the provisions discussed in Section 8.4.2, a surcharge penalty, in addition to the current water rate, is imposed in an amount equal to four times the current water rate for those billing units used in excess of base.
If any customer fails to comply with any provision of the regulations and restrictions on water use set forth in the City’s Ordinance, the Water Division may reduce the amount of water provided to that customer to the level which that customer would be using said water if he were complying with the provisions. The reduction in water supplies may be applied in lieu of, or in addition to, any other penalties provided in this Chapter, in the discretion of the Water Division, and will be applied without regard to the status or nature of the customer.
The following procedural requirements shall apply with regard to an appeal:
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
(a) An appeal may be filed within ten (10) working days after a final decision by the Water Division to the Water Appeals Board. The appeal should state the grounds upon which it is based, and what remedy, if any, the Appellant seeks.
LEGAL AUTHORITIES
CWC 10632.
(a)(7)(A) A description of the legal authorities that empower the urban water supplier to implement and enforce its shortage response actions specified in paragraph (4) that may include, but are not limited to, statutory authorities, ordinances, resolutions, and contract provisions.
(B) A statement that an urban water supplier shall declare a water shortage emergency in accordance with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 350) of Division 1. [see below]
(C) A statement that an urban water supplier shall coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water supply services for the possible proclamation of a local emergency, as defined in Section 8558 of the Government Code.
CWC Division 1, Section 350
The governing body of a distributor of a public water supply, whether publicly or privately owned and including a mutual water company, shall declare a water shortage emergency condition to prevail within the area served by such distributor whenever it finds and determines that the ordinary demands and requirements of water consumers cannot be satisfied without depleting the water supply of the distributor to the extent that there would be insufficient water for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection.
In the event that the demand of water consumers cannot be satisfied without depleting a substantial amount of water supply needed for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection, the City shall declare a water shortage emergency (in accordance with Water Code Chapter 3 commencing with Section 350 of Division 1 regarding water shortage emergencies). The City shall coordinate with any city or county within its service area for possible declaration of a local emergency, as defined in Section 8588 of the Government Code.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
The City’s Ordinance No. 2327 implements measures to ensure sufficient water supplies are available for sanitation, fire suppression, and domestic use. The City adopted Ordinance No. 2036 which added three water shortage levels, exceeding the State’s requirement. The City incorporated more shortage levels to provide additional flexibility and prevent over-mandated water conservation by its customers.
FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF WSCP
CWC 10632.
(a)(8) A description of the financial consequences of, and responses for, drought conditions, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) A description of potential reve nue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions described in paragraph (4).
(B) A description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions described in paragraph (4).
(C) A description of the cost of compliance with Chapter 3.3 (commencing with Section 365) of Division 1. [retail urban suppliers only]
During periods of water supply shortages, state-mandated water use restrictions, or emergency conditions, the City may require its customers to reduce demands below levels projected under the current water rate structure. Under any of these circumstances, the City may experience a decrease in revenues that may result in insufficient funds to meet projected expenses.
The City’s Water Fund, commonly referred to as “financial reserves”, is comprised of an Operating Fund and Equipment Fund. The Water Fund is available to be used for water system expenditures to make up for shortfalls in water revenue. Based on the Cost of
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
Service Study, the City targets an Operating Fund equivalent to 90 days of operating expenses and has historically maintained an Equipment Fund (Facilities Reserve).
Revenue collected as a result of penalties imposed (discussed in Section 8.6) shall be used for, but not limited to the purchase of imported water, increasing water supplies, maintenance of the City's water system, and water conservation efforts including public education.
MONITORING AND REPORTING
CWC 10632.
(a)(9) For an urban retail water supplier, monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance and to meet state reporting requirements.
The City employs a Management Analyst who is responsible for responding to reports of water waste or noncompliance. Upon receiving public reports, work orders will be generated and two written notices, which will include a date by which a customer must resolve violations, will be physically left at the property and sent by mail. In addition, courtesy phone calls may be made to follow up with the violator. The SFR water meter will be data logged showing hourly use over 7 days after the mailed deadline. If the violator is nonresponsive after review of the data log, then a citation will be issued for $100.
Subsequent violations may receive citations up to $500.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
WSCP REFINEMENT PROCEDURES
CWC 10632.
(a)(10) Reevaluation and improvement procedures for systematically monitoring and evaluating the functionality of the water shortage contin gency plan in order to ensure shortage risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented as needed.
The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been prepared as an adaptive management plan. As discussed in Section 8.9, the City will monitor and report on the implementation of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The City will review the implementation results for any current or potential shortage gaps between water supplies and demands. The City will evaluate the need for revising the Water Shortage Contingency Plan in order to resolve any shortage gaps, as necessary. The City will consider the following potential revisions in the event of a potential shortage gap:
x Implementation of additional public outreach, education, and communication programs (in addition to the programs discussed in Chapter 9). x Implementation of more stringent water use restrictions under the standard water shortage levels (discussed in Section 8.4)
x Implementation of stricter enforcement actions and penalties (discussed in Section
8.6)
x Improvements to the water supply augmentation responses (discussed in Section
8.4.1), as well as any associated operational changes (discussed in Section 8.4.3) which may be required
x Incorporation of additional actions recommended by City staff or other interested parties
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
The City will use the monitoring and reporting data to evaluate the ability for these potential revisions to resolve any shortage gaps which may occur within the standard water shortage levels.
This Water Shortage Contingency Plan is adopted as part of the City’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan adoption process discussed in Section 10.3. It is anticipated the City will review, revise, and adopt an updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan as part of preparing its 2030 Urban Water Management Plan as necessary. However, the City will continue to review the monitoring and reporting data, and if needed, update the Water Shortage Contingency Plan more frequently. Any updates to the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan will include a public hearing and adoption process by the City Council (see Section 8.12).
SPECIAL WATER FEATURE DISTINCTION
CWC 10632.
(b) For purposes of developing the water shortage contingency plan pursuant to subdivision (a), an urban water supplier shall analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 115921 of the Health and Safety Code.
The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan defines “decorative water features” as water features which are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, but excluding pools and spas. In general, there are additional health and safety considerations in the water supplied to pools and spas compared to decorative water features. As a result, the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan has reviewed the response actions, enforcement actions, and monitoring and reporting programs separately for decorative water features and for pools and spas, as applicable. As noted
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
under Water Shortage Level 1, “No water shall be used to clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains unless such water is part of a recirculating system”.
PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AV AILABILITY, AND AMENDMENT
PROCEDURES
CWC 10632.
(c) The urban water supplier shall make available the water shortage contingency plan prepared pursuant to this article to its customers and any city or county within which it provides water supplies no later than 30 days after adoption of the water shortage contingency plan.
The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan is adopted as part of the City’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan adoption process discussed in Chapter 10. The process for adopting the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan includes the following:
x The City will conduct a public hearing and make the Water Shortage Contingency Plan available for public inspection.
x The City will provide notification of the time and place of the public hearing to any city or county in which water is provided.
x The City will publish notice of public hearing in a newspaper once a week, for two successive weeks (with at least five days between publication dates). x The City Council will adopt the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and the Water Shortage Contingency Plan
x As part of submitting the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan to DWR, the City will also submit the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (electronically through DWR’s online submittal tool) within 30 days of adoption and by July 1, 2026. The City will submit a copy of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to the California
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
State Library and to any city or county in which water is provided within 30 days of adoption. In addition, the City will make the Water Shortage Contingency Plan available for public review within 30 days of adoption.
If there are any subsequent amendments required, the process for adopting an amended Water Shortage Contingency Plan includes the following:
x The City will conduct a public hearing and make the amended Water Shortage Contingency Plan available for public inspection.
x The City Council will adopt the amended Water Shortage Contingency Plan x The City will submit the amended Water Shortage Contingency Plan to DWR (electronically through DWR’s online submittal tool) within 30 days of adoption
Additional information regarding the adoption, submittal, and availability of the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (and 2025 Urban Water Management Plan) is provided in Chapter 10.
RESOURCES AND REFERENCES
DWR’s Final 2025 UWMP Guidebook provides a listing of resources and references which can be helpful during the preparation of a Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
SUBMITTAL TABLES
The applicable standardized Submittal Tables referenced within Chapter 8 are provided below.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
TABLE 8-1: CROSS REFERENCE FOR STANDARD VS.
SUPPLIER SHORTAGE LEVELS
Table 8-1 Cross-Reference for Standard vs. Supplier Shortage Levels
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
TABLE 8-2: SUPPLY AUGMENTATION AND OTHER ACTION
Table 8-2 Supply Augmentation and Other Actions
Yes
Volume or
Percentage
Drop down
Shortage Gap
Reduction Value
(May be a range)
(AF)
1 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
2 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
3 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
4 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
5 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
6 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
Submittal Table 8-2 Retail: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions Water Code Section 10632(a)(4)(A),(C) and (E)
Add additional rows as needed
NOTES: The City will consider increased production from the Main Basin using existing facilities to address increased demands.
As noted on Table 8-3, the City plans to implement demand reduction measures in the event water supplies from existing sources are not sufficient to meet anticipated demands.
Is the Supplier completing this table using the standard six levels? (yes/no) How much is this going to reduce the
shortage gap?
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
Shortage
Level
Supply Augmentation Methods and
Other Actions by Water Supplier
Drop down list
These ar e the only categor ies that will
be accepted by the WUEdata online
s ubmittal tool
Additional Explanation or Reference
(OPTIONAL)
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
TABLE 8-3: DEMAND-REDUCTION ACTIONS
Table 8-3 Demand-Reduction Actions
Yes
Volume or
Percentage
Drop down
Shortage Gap
Reduction Value
(May be a range)
(AF)
1 Landscape - Restrict or prohibit
runoff from landscape irrigation Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 Other - Require automatic shut of
hoses Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific days Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Pursuant to Resolution No. 7430 adopted by City
Council in May 2022, no lawn, landscape, or
other turf areas shall be watered or irrigated
more than two (2) days per week (on Tuesday
and Saturday).
Yes
1 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific times Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
No lawn, landscape, or other turf areas shall be
watered or irrigated between the hours of 9:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Pacific time.
Yes
1 Landscape - Prohibit certain types
of landscape irrigation Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Pursuant to Resolution No. 7430 adopted by City
Council in May 2022, an owner of property used
primarily for commercial, industrial, or
institutional purposes may not irrigate non-
functional turf areas.
Yes
1 Landscape - Other landscape
restriction or prohibition Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
No irrigation during and within 48 hrs of
measurable rainfall Yes
Is the Supplier completing this table using the standard six levels? (yes/no) Submittal Table 8-3 Retail: Demand Reduction Actions
Water Code Section 10632(a)(4)(B),(D), and (E)
Add additional rows as needed
How much is this going to reduce the
shortage gap?
Shortage
Level
Demand Reduction Actions
Drop down list
The se are t he only cate gorie s that will
be accepted by the WUEdata online
submi ttal tool . Sel ect those that appl y.
Additional Explanation or Reference
(OPTIONAL)
Penalty, Charge,
or Other
Enforcement?
For Retail Suppliers
Only
Drop Down List
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
1 CII - Lodging establishment must
offer opt out of linen service Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 CII - Restaurants may only serve
water upon request Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 Water Features - Restrict water use
for decorative water features, such
as fountains
Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 Other - Customers must repair
leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a
timely manner
Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 Other - Prohibit use of potable
water for washing hard surfaces Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
2O t h e r V o l u m e
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 2 actions is up
to 3,442 AF
All actions under Shortage Level 1 Yes
3O t h e r V o l u m e
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 3 actions is up
to 5,163 AF
All actions under Shortage Level 2 Yes
4O t h e r V o l u m e
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 4 actions is up
to 6,884 AF
All actions under Shortage Level 3 Yes
5O t h e r V o l u m e
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 5 actions is up
to 8,605 AF
All actions under Shortage Level 4 Yes
6O t h e r V o l u m e
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 6 actions is
greater than 8,605
AF
All actions under Shortage Level 5 Yes
NOTES:
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
CHAPTER 9
DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
LAY DESCRIPTION – CHAPTER 9
DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Chapter 9 (Demand Management Measures) of the City’s 2025 Plan discusses and provides the following:
x The City has implemented “Demand Management Measures” to reduce its water demands and achieve its water use targets (discussed in Chapter 5) x The City’s Demand Management Measures include adoption of an ordinance to prevent water waste.
x The City’s Demand Management Measures include metering of all customer connections, including separate metering for single-family residential, commercial, industrial, large landscape and institutional/governmental facilities. x The City’s Demand Management Measures include conservation pricing. The City’s current water rate structure is tiered to promote water conservation by customers.
x The City’s Demand Management Measures include public education and outreach programs regarding water conservation.
x The City’s Demand Management Measures include various actions to assess and manage water distribution system losses.
x Additional Demand Management Measures including rebate, conservation, and educational programs are discussed.
x A summary of the Demand Management Measures the City has implemented over the past five (5) years is provided. The City met the 2020 Water Use Target
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
(discussed in Chapter 5) through the implementation of these Demand Management Measures.
DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR RETAIL SUPPLIERS
CWC 10631.
(e) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1)(A) For an urban retail water supplier, as defined in Section 10608.12, a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The narrative shall describe the water demand management measures that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20.
(B) The narrative pursuant to this paragraph shall include descriptions of the following water demand management measures:
(i) Water waste prevention ordinances.
(ii) Metering.
(iii) Conservation pricing.
(iv) Public education and outreach.
(v) Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss.
(vi) Water conservation program coordination and staffing support.
(vii) Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measures, if implemented.
IMPLEMENTATION OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS
The City is committed to implementing water conservation programs and works collaboratively with Upper Water to provide water conservation programs for its residents.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
As a sub-agency of Upper Water, the City’s residents have the benefit of participating in Upper Water’s conservation efforts. The highlights of DMM implementation over the past five years are described below.
As discussed in Section 9.1.3.1, the City has adopted and implemented Ordinance No. 2327 and Resolution 7430 concerning outdoor irrigation and prohibited water uses. New restrictions on outdoor irrigation and prohibited water uses were adopted.
As discussed in Section 9.1.3.2, the City metered all customer connections, including separate metering for single-family residential, commercial, large landscape, and institutional/governmental facilities during the past five years. Furthermore, if there was new development within the City, each facility was individually metered. Service charges for the City are based on the customers’ connection size.
As discussed in Section 9.1.3.3, The City’s Mandatory Water Conservation Program contains penalties for overuse of water during drought times that are based on the various stages enacted upon by resolutions passed by the Arcadia City Council. The City maintains a tiered rate structure for residential customers to promote water conservation.
A water rate sheet showing current rates is provided in Appendix M.
As discussed in Section 9.1.3.4, The City informs and educates its customers on water conservation through its quarterly newsletters, water bills, bill stuffers, biannual postcards, social media websites, and the City’s website. The City participates in numerous workshops throughout the year to promote water conservation (e.g. rain harvesting, leak detection, etc.) Upper Water partners with the Discovery Science Center and THINK Together to provide a free water conservation and sustainable watershed curriculum program for fourth through sixth graders at schools within Upper Water. In 2020, the program was proposed to expand to provide online options, as well as adding a seventh- grade curriculum.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
As discussed in Section 9.1.3.5, the City utilizes WaterSmart Software that sends customized monthly to quarterly consumption reports to residents. WaterSmart can alert customers of irregular use, which may be caused by a leak . The City distributed water conservation literature that alerted customers to be on the lookout for water system leaks and to correct them promptly.
As a part of normal operation and maintenance of the water system, City staff performed preventive maintenance. This included regular checks on valves and meters, and pipeline maintenance. The City monitored the water system for losses by comparing water production to water sales.
As described in Section 9.1.3.6, the City employs a Management Analyst who manages the City’s water conservation program, completing state mandated reports, enforcing ordinance, seeking grants, and conducting public outreach. The City plans to continue to provide water conservation programs and staffing support.
As discussed in Section 9.1.3.7, the City participates in a regional rebate program, which is available to the City’s residential and commercial customers. There are rebates available for indoor plumbing including high efficiency clothes washers and toilets.
Rebates are also available for outdoor plumbing including those for weather-based irrigation controllers, rotating sprinkler nozzles, and replacement of irrigated lawn with drought tolerant plants or other approved landscape options. The City’s commercial customers are offered rebates for retrofitting certain high water-use fixtures/equipment with more water efficient models. The City plans to continue implementation of the programs described to promote water conservation.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
IMPLEMENTATION TO ACHIEVE WATER USE TARGETS
CWC 10631.
(e)(1)(A) For an urban retail water supplier, as defined in Section 1 0608.12, a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The narrative shall describe the water demand management measures that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20.
As indicated in Section 5.2.2, the City previously met its 2020 Water Use Target as part of the 2020 Plan. The City met the 2020 Water Use Target through the implementation of the Demand Management Measures discussed in Section 9.1.3. Continued implementation of these Demand Management Measures will assist the City in meeting water use targets and objectives.
REQUIRED DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
9.1.3.1 WATER WASTE PREVENTION ORDINANCES
The City adopted Ordinance No. 2327 in April 2015 concerning outdoor irrigation and prohibited water uses. The water demand reduction actions associated with Ordinance No. 2327 are included under Water Shortage Level 1 described in Section 8.4.2.
As part of Ordinance No. 2327, the City Council is able to adjust the number of days per week in which lawn, landscape, or other turf areas can be watered or irrigated. In May 2022, the City adopted Resolution No. 7430 which includes the following updated provisions:
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
x In winter (November through April) no lawn, landscape, or other turf areas shall be watered or irrigated more than two (2) days per week, or such other number of days as the City Council may prescribe by resolution from time to time. The two days per week shall be Tuesday and Saturday or such other days as the City Council may prescribe by resolution from time to time.
x In summer (May through October) no lawn, landscape, or other turf areas shall be watered or irrigated more than two (2) days per week, or such other number of days as the City Council may prescribe by resolution from time to time. The two days per week shall be Tuesday and Saturday or such other days as the City Council may prescribe by resolution from time to time. Furthermore, outdoor watering of lawn, landscape or other turf areas shall be limited to no more than 10 minutes per station on each day allowed for such watering. x Notwithstanding the foregoing, an owner of property used primarily for commercial, industrial, or institutional purposes may not irrigate non-functional turf areas. "Non- functional turf' means turf that is solely ornamental and not regularly used for human recreational purposes or for civic or community events. Non-functional turf does not include sports fields and turf that is regularly used for human recreational purposes or for civic or community events.
Copies of the resolution and ordinance are provided in Appendix N.
The City’s service crews and meter readers also report wasteful uses of water, and residents are contacted regarding leaks and significant sprinkler run-off.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
9.1.3.2 METERING
CWC 526.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an urban water supplier that, on or after January 1, 2004, receives water from the federal Central Valley Project under a water service contract or subcontract… shall do both of the following:
(1) On or before January 1, 2013, install water meters on all service connections to residential and nonagricultural commercial buildings… located within its service area.
CWC 527.
(a) An urban water supplier that is not subject to Section 526 shall do both of the following:
(1) Install water meters on all municipal and industrial service connections located within its service area on or before January 1, 2025.
The City is fully metered for all customer sectors, including separate meters for single- family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, institutional and governmental facilities. Furthermore, if there is new development within the City, each facility is individually metered. Service charges for the City are based on the customers’ connection size. The City’s system effectively promotes water conservation by being completely metered. The City is continuing to install radio frequency read meters. Further information regarding the City’s service fees and conservation pricing is provided in Section 9.1.3.3.
9.1.3.3 CONSERVATION PRICING
The City’s Mandatory Water Conservation Program, as outlined in its Municipal Code, contains penalties for overuse of water during drought times that are based on the various stages enacted upon by resolutions passed by the Arcadia City Council.
The City’s water rate structure consists of two components; a monthly service charge and
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
a monthly water rate. The monthly water rate includes three tiers for single family residential customers and two tiers for multi-family residential customers. The City’s rate structure is designed to proportionately allocate a greater share of the costs of service to those whose higher water usage generates additional costs to the water utility and promotes efficient water usage and conservation. A water rate sheet showing current rates is provided in Appendix M.
In addition, Upper Water implements conservation pricing to encourage subagencies to conserve water. Additional information regarding Upper Water's conservation pricing can be found in its 2025 Plan and is incorporated by reference.
9.1.3.4 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
The City informs its customers about water conservation through its public information programs. The City has a quarterly newsletter that is sent to the City’s customers, which provides information about water conservation on a seasonal basis. The City also prints water conservation messages periodically on its customer’s water bills. In addition, the City’s “Hot Sheet”, which is mailed with the City’s water bills (a two-sided, one-page leaflet), is also used to remind residents of useful water conservation tips, purposely focused on a bimonthly basis either on indoor or outdoor conservation practices. The City mails biannual postcards informing its customers of the City’s Seasonal Watering Schedules. Lastly, the City is active on social media websites and the City’s website contains additional useful information.
The City periodically holds public workshops to promote water conservation. The City provides rainwater harvesting workshops and hosts an annual Earth Day workshop on water conservation. The City’s Water Conservation Program also hosts free workshops on leak detection to promote awareness during national Fix-a-Leak Week. In addition,
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
the City annually participates in the Wyland Foundation’s National Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation to spread awareness on good household water efficiency habits.
The City customers can also receive public information about water conservation through Upper Water’s various public information programs. Upper Water offers conservation brochures, posters, activity booklets, public outreach display and workshops. Upper Water also raises awareness about water conservation through paid advertising, press releases, news ads and media events. The City participates annually in Upper Water’s annual Water 101 Forum, a large-scale educational event focused on water conservation.
Furthermore, the City along with the Los Angeles County Office of Education and Los Angeles County of Public Works participate in the annual Los Angeles County Environmental Education Fair (LAEEF), held at the Arboretum which is located in the City of Arcadia. City staff is able to continue its dissemination of water conservation information and related take home items by manning booths and speaking with area residents, school-age children and educators.
The City’s customers receive educational tools regarding water conservation through Upper Water’s school educational programs. Upper Water partners with the Discovery Science Center and THINK Together to provide a free water conservation and sustainable watershed curriculum program for fourth through sixth graders at schools within Upper Water. The City’s customers may also participate in educational school programs through MWD, which has extensive educational programs that includes schools within the City’s boundaries.
Upper Water directly offers school education programs in an effort to raise awareness of water issues. Upper Water started its school education programs in September 1992 and the materials and presentations meet state education framework requirements. The following is a list of Upper Water’s school educational programs:
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
x “Water is Life” Art Contest
x Watershed Restoration Program
x Sustainable Watershed Education Program
9.1.3.5 PROGRAMS TO ASSESS AND MANAGE DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM REAL LOSS
The City’s estimated water system losses are discussed in Section 4.3. The City continues installing radio frequency read meters to provide secure and accurate meter data collection. The City repairs leaks within its distribution system on an as-needed basis. The City closely monitors its water production and consumption use tabulating the amount of “unaccounted for water”. The City has replaced many of its water meters with newer models, significantly reducing the water loss compared to previous years. The City’s current estimated “unaccounted for water” is less than one percent of the water demand. The City calculates the amount of “unaccounted for water” by finding the difference between the amount of water the City pumped and the amount of water sold to its customers. This program is effective in maintaining distribution systems that deliver water effectively and efficiently with the least amount of water loss. The amount of water conserved through the City’s system water audits, leak detection and repair program can be estimated by evaluating the average amount of “unaccounted for water”.
The City monitors customer’s water use through its computerized billing system. The City utilizes WaterSmart Software that sends customized monthly to quarterly consumption reports to residents. The City’s billing system automatically audits customer’s water bills and flags those bills that show unusual or high consumption. The City’s billing system alerts the City when a customer’s bill is flagged for high consumption and a customer can make a request to have a service representative inspect their system to make necessary repairs. In addition, City staff can review water usage bills to determine if “excessive water
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
use” occurred and can help customers individually determine the reason for the “excessive water use.
The City will continue these programs to assess and manage distribution system real losses.
9.1.3.6 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM COORDINATION AND
STAFFING SUPPORT
The City’s Management Analyst is responsible for all aspects of environmental issues including water conservation measures for residents and business owners. The City’s Management Analyst coordinates public water awareness materials, public outreach events, seek grants, completing state mandated reports, speaks with residents/business owners who contact the City for water conservation information, and participates in the active dissemination of Upper Water efforts such as the High Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebate Program. The City has staff whose primary function is water conservation. Duties include outreach to various customer classes, response to customer inquiries, complaints, and provide assistance to business customers in achieving water use reduction. Staff will also work with field crews to enforce water conservation regulations.
As a member of Upper Water, the City can utilize Upper Water’s water conservation coordinator to promote water conservation issues and programs within the City. The water conservation coordinator does research on water management practices and advises retail water purveyors on water conservation matters. Upper Water’s water conservation coordinator is effective at informing the public on water awareness and is involved in public information programs and school education programs.
The water conservation coordinator employed by Upper Water promotes water conservation issues and programs. The position was created in 1992 as a full-time
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
position. The water conservation coordinator does research on water managements practices and advises the Upper Water Board Members and its subagencies, including the City, on water conservation matters. More information about Upper Water’s conservation coordinator can be found in its 2025 Plan, which is incorporated by reference.
9.1.3.7 OTHER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Rebate Programs
Upper Water, in partnership with MWD, implement region-wide rebate programs through MWD’s SoCal Water$mart program. As a sub-agency of Upper Water, the City currently offers rebates to qualifying residential customers for high-efficiency washing machines, high-efficiency toilets, energy star dishwashers, weather-based irrigation controllers, rain barrels and pool covers. The rebate application, along with a list of qualifying appliances, are listed on MWD’s “Be Water Wise” website.
DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR WHOLESALE SUPPLIERS
CWC 10631.
(e) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(2) For an urban wholesale water supplier, as defined in Section 10608.12, a narrative description of the items in clauses (ii), (iv), (vi), and (vii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), and a narrative description of its distribution system asset management and wholesale supplier assistance programs.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
The City is not a wholesale agency and is not required by DWR to complete Section 9.2.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
CHAPTER 10
PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION
LAY DESCRIPTION – CHAPTER 10
PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Chapter 10 (Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation) of the City’s 2025 Plan discusses and provides the following:
x The steps the City has performed to adopt and submit its 2025 Plan are detailed x The steps the City has performed to adopt and submit its Water Shortage Contingency Plan are detailed
x The City coordinated the preparation of its 2025 Plan with the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, Upper Water, City of Monrovia, City of Pasadena, City of Sierra Madre, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, Golden State Water Company, California American Water Company, and Sunny Slope Water Company. The City notified these agencies at least sixty (60) days prior to the public hearing of the preparation of the 2025 Plan and invited these agencies to participate in the development of the 2025 Plan.
x The City provided a notice of the public hearing to the same agencies regarding the time, date, and place of the public hearing.
x The City published a newspaper notification of the public hearing, once a week for two successive weeks
x The City conducted a public hearing to discuss and adopt the City’s 2025 Plan and City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
x Within 30 days of adoption, the City submitted the 2025 Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan to the California Department of Water Resources.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
x Within 30 days of adoption, the City submitted all data tables associated with the 2025 Plan to the California Department of Water Resources. x Within 30 days of adoption, the City submitted a copy of the 2025 Plan to the State of California Library.
x Within 30 days of adoption, the City submitted a copy of the 2025 Plan (and Water Shortage Contingency Plan) to the County of Los Angeles Registrar/Recorders office and the City Clerk’s Office.
x Within 30 days after submittal of the 2025 Plan to the California Department of Water Resources, the City made the 2025 Plan (including the Water Shortage Contingency Plan) available at the City Clerk’s Office and on the City’s website. x The steps the City will perform to amend the 2025 Plan and/or the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, if necessary, are provided.
PLAN COMPLETION TIMELINE
The data provided in the City’s 2025 Plan and the Water Shortage Contingency Plan is provided on a FY basis through June 30, 2025 (as discussed in Section 2.5).
NOTICE OF PLAN PREPARATION
CWC 10621.
(b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall … at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan … notify any city or county within which the supplier provides waters supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
As discussed in Section 2.4.2., the City coordinated the preparation of the 2025 Plan with the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, Upper Water, City of Monrovia, City of Pasadena, City of Sierra Madre, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, Golden State Water Company, California American Water Company, and Sunny Slope Water Company. The City notified these agencies, as well as to the cities and county within which the City provides water supplies, at least sixty (60) days prior to the public hearing of the preparation of the 2025 Plan and invited them to participate in the development of the Plan. A copy of the notification letters sent to these agencies is provided in Appendix D.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CWC 10642.
…Prior to adopting either, the urban water supplier shall make both the plan and the water shortage contingency plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing or hearings thereon. Prior to any of these hearings, notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be published within the jurisdiction of the publicly owned water supplier pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code. The urban water supplier shall provide notice of the time and place of a hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies.
Government Code 6066.
Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once a week for two successive weeks.
Two publications in a newspaper published once a week or oftener, with at least five days intervening between the respective publication dates not counting such publication dates, are sufficient. The period of notice commences upon the first day of publication and terminates at the end of the fourteenth day, including therein the first day.
The City provided a notice of the public hearing to the County of Los Angeles Registrar Recorder, Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, Upper Water, City of Monrovia, City of Pasadena, City of Sierra Madre, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, Golden State Water Company, California American Water Company, and Sunny Slope Water Company. The notice includes the time and place of the public hearing. Copies of the notice of the public
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
hearing are provided in Appendix D. Table 10-1 summarizes the agencies which were provided notifications by the City.
The City encouraged the active involvement of the population within its service area prior to and during the preparation of the Plan. Pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code, the City published a notice of public hearing in the newspaper during the weeks of June 1, 2026 and June 8, 2026. A notice of public hearing was also provided to the City Clerk’s office and was posted throughout the City of Arcadia and on the City’s website. A copy of the published notice is provided in Appendix D. To ensure the draft 2025 Plan and the draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan were available for review, the City placed a copy at the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, at the Public Works Services Center located at 11800 Goldring Road, and made a copy available for review on its website at www.ArcadiaCA.gov/UWMP.
PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION
CWC 10642.
Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of both the plan and the water shortage contingency plan. Prior to adopting either, the urban water supplier shall make both the plan and the water shortage contingency plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing or hearings thereon…. After the hearing or hearings, the plan or water shortage contingency plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing or hearings.
Government Code Section 7291
…every local public agency… serving a substantial number of non- English-Speaking people, shall employ a sufficient number of qualified bilingual persons in public contact positions or as interpreters to assist those in such positions, to ensure provision of information and services in the language of the non-English-speaking person.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
Prior to adopting the draft 2025 Plan and draft the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, the City held a public hearing on June 16, 2026 which included input from the community regarding the City’s draft 2025 Plan and the draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
Following the public hearing, the City adopted both the draft 2025 Plan and the draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan (included in Chapter 8). A copy of the resolution adopting the 2025 Plan and the Water Shortage Contingency Plan is provided in Appendix O.
PLAN SUBMITTAL
CWC 10621.
(e) .Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2025 plan to the department by July 1, 2026…
CWC 10635.
(c) The urban water supplier shall provide that portion of its urban water management plan prepared pursuant to this article to any city or county within which it provides water supplies no later than 60 days after the submission of its urban water management plan.
CWC 10644.
(a) (1) An urban water supplier shall submit to the department, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies a copy of its plan no later than 30 days after adoption.
The City’s submittal process for its 2025 Plan and the Water Shortage Contingency Plan is discussed below.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
SUBMITTING A UWMP AND WATER SHORTAGE
CONTINGENCY PLAN TO DWR
Within 30 days of adoption of the 2025 Plan by the City Council, the City submitted the adopted 2025 Plan (including the Water Shortage Contingency Plan) to DWR. The 2025 Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan were submitted through DWR’s “Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Data Portal” website.
DWR developed a checklist which was used by the City to assist DWR with its determination that the City’s 2025 Plan has addressed the requirements of the California Water Code. The City has completed the DWR checklist by indicating where the required CWC elements can be found within the City’s 2025 Plan (See Appendix B).
ELECTRONIC DATA SUBMITTAL
CWC 10644.
(a)(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department …shall be submitted electronically and shall include any standardized forms, tables, or displays specified by the department.
Within 30 days of adoption of the 2025 Plan, the City submitted all data tables associated with the 2025 Plan through DWR’s “Water Use Efficiency Data Portal” website.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
SUBMITTING A UWMP, INCLUDING WSCP, TO THE
CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY
Within 30 days of adoption of the 2025 Plan by the City Council, a copy (CD or hardcopy) of the 2025 Plan was submitted to the State of California Library. A copy of the letter to the State Library will be maintained in the City’s file. The 2025 Plan will be mailed to the following address if sent by regular mail:
California State Library
Government Publications Section
Attention: Coordinator, Urban Water Management Plans
P.O. Box 942837
Sacramento, CA 94237-0001
The 2025 Plan will be mailed to the following address if sent by courier or overnight carrier:
California State Library
Government Publications Section
Attention: Coordinator, Urban Water Management Plans
900 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBMITTING A UWMP TO CITIES AND COUNTIES
Within 30 days of adoption of the 2025 Plan (including the Water Shortage Contingency Plan) by the City Council, a copy of the 2025 Plan was submitted to the County of Los Angeles Registrar / Recorders office and the City Clerk’s Office. A copy of the letter to the County of Los Angeles will be maintained in the City’s file.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
PUBLIC AVAILABILITY
CWC 10645.
(a) Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the urban water supplier and the department shall make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.
(b) Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the urban water supplier and the department shall make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.
Within 30 days after submittal of the 2025 Plan to DWR, the City made the 2025 Plan (including the Water Shortage Contingency Plan) available at the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall during normal business hours and on the City’s website.
NOTIFICATION TO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CWC 10621.
(c) An urban water supplier regulated by the Public Utilities Commission shall include its most recent plan and water shortage contingency plan as part of the supplier’s general rate case filings.
The City is not regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
CWC 10643.
An urban water supplier shall implement its plan adopted pursuant to this chapter in accordance with the schedule set forth in its plan.
The City will implement any schedules set forth in the adopted 2025 Plan.
AMENDING AN ADOPTED UWMP OR WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY
PLAN
CWC 10621.
(d) The amendments to, or changes in, the plan shall be adopted and filed in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640).
CWC 10644.
(a)(1) Copies of amendments or changes to the plans shall be submitted to the department, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies within 30 days after adoption.
The City’s amendment process for its 2025 Plan is discussed below.
AMENDING A UWMP OR WSCP
If the City amends the adopted 2025 Plan, the City will conduct a similar notification and public hearing process for the amended 2025 Plan as discussed in Sections 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4. The amended Plan will undergo adoption by the City’s governing board. Within
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
30 days of adoption, the amended Plan will then be submitted to DWR, the State of California Library, the County of Los Angeles Registrar / Recorders office, and the City Clerk’s Office.
AMENDING A WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
CWC 10644.
(a) If an urban water supplier revises its water shortage contingency plan, the supplier shall submit to the department a copy of its water shortage contingency plan prepared…no later than 30 days after adoption, in accordance with protocols for submission and using electronic reporting tools developed by the department.
If the City amends the adopted 2025 Plan (including the Water Shortage Contingency Plan), the amended Plan (and Water Shortage Contingency Plan) will undergo adoption by the City’s governing board. Within 30 days of adoption, the amended Plan (and Water Shortage Contingency Plan) will then be submitted to DWR, the State of California Library, the County of Los Angeles Registrar / Recorders office, and the City Clerk’s Office.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES REVIEW OF
SUBMITTED PLANS
As discussed in Section 1.5, DWR will review the 2025 Plans to ensure that they address the California Water Code requirements. Following DWR’s review, water suppliers will be notified of the results of the review via a formal review letter. These review letters will also be available to the public on DWR’s WUEdata portal. In cases where DWR finds that a Plan does not properly address item(s) in the Water Code, DWR will reach out to the water supplier to discuss needed corrections and correction procedures.
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Arcadia
SUBMITTAL TABLES
The applicable standardized Submittal Tables referenced within Chapter 10 are provided below.
SUBMITTAL TABLE 10-1: NOTIFICATION TO CITIES AND
COUNTIES
Table 10-1 Notification to Cities and Counties
City Name 60 Day Notice
Drop Down (yes/no)
Notice of Public
Hearing
Drop Down (yes/no)
Arcadia Yes Yes
Monrovia Yes Yes
Sierra Madre Yes Yes
Pasadena Yes Yes
County Name
Drop Down List
60 Day Notice
Drop Down (yes/no)
Notice of Public
Hearing
Drop Down (yes/no)
Los Angeles County Yes Yes
Submittal Table 10-1 Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties
Water Code Section 10621(b) and 10642
Add additional rows as needed
Add additional rows as needed
NOTES:
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE,
Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P ,
NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong
Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User
Community
Document Path: J:\jn2741\Arcadia_ServiceArea.mxd
CITY OF ARCADIA
WATER SERVICE AREA
Ü
00 . 51
Miles
FIGURE 1
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE,
Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P ,
NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong
Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User
Community
Unincorporated
Arcadia
El Monte
Irwindale
Monrovia
Pasadena
Sierra Madre
Temple City
Mayflower
Village
North El
Monte
South
Monrovia
Island
East
Pasadena
East San
Gabriel
El Monte
Unincorporated
Document Path: J:\jn2741\Arcadia_ServiceArea_CityBoundaries.mxd
CITY OF ARCADIA
WATER SERVICE AREA
AND CITY BOUNDARIES
Ü
00 . 51
Miles
FIGURE 2
City of Arcadia
City Boundary
UV710
UV66
UV72
UV60
UV57
UV71
UV134
UV11 0
UV19
§¨¦210
§¨¦605
§¨¦710
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
Document Path: J:\jn2741\Arcadia_SGBasin_Location.mxd
CITY OF ARCADIA
MAIN SAN GABRIEL BASIN LOCATION Ü
01 . 53
Miles
FIGURE 3
Basin Boundary
Water System B oundary
Santa Anita
Subarea
Monk Hill
Subarea
Pasadena
Subarea
UV710
UV2
UV19
UV11 0
UV134
§¨¦210
§¨¦605
§¨¦5
Document Path: J:\jn2741\Arcadia_RaymondBasin_Location.mxd
CITY OF ARCADIA
RAYMOND BASIN LOCATION Ü
012
Miles
FIGURE 4
Basin Boundary
Water System B oundary
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX A
DWR STANDARDIZED TABLES
CA1910003 City of Arcadia 15,564 13,294
15,564 13,294Total
Public Water System
Number
Public Water System
Name
Number of Municipal
Connections 2025
Submittal Table 2-1 Retail: Public Water Systems
Add additional rows as needed
NOTES: Units are in acre-feet (AF)
Volume of Water
Supplied 2025 (AF)
DWR NOTES:
Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3.
Select
One
Name of Regional Alliance or
RUWMP (Drop Down List)
NOTES:
Submittal Table 2-2: Plan Identification
Type of Plan
Individual UWMP
If Water Supplier is also a member of a SB X7-7
Regional Alliance, select name from the drop-
down.
Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP)
If Supplier selected RUWMP, select name from
the drop-down.
Supplier is a wholesale supplier
Supplier is a retail supplier
UWMP Tables are in calendar years
UWMP Tables are in fiscal years
Unit AF
Submittal Table 2-3: Supplier Identification
Type of Supplier (select one or both)
Fiscal or Calendar Year (select one)
If using fiscal years provide month and date that the fiscal year begins (mm/dd)
Units of measure used in UWMP
(Select from the drop down list).
07/01
DWR NOTES:
Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent
throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
NOTES:
cal o
Submittal Table 2-4 Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange Water Code Section 10631(h)
The retail Supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use.
Wholesale Water Supplier Name
Add additional rows as needed
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
NOTES:
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050(opt)
54,700 60,303 65,903 66,233 66,564 66,897
Submittal Table 3-1 Retail: Population - Current and Projected Water Code Section 10631(a)
Population
Served
NOTES:
Use Type
Drop down list
May select each use multiple times
These are the only use types that will be
recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool
Potable or Non-
Potable
(OPTIONAL)
Dr op down list
Volume (AF)
Single Family Potable 7,010
Multi-Family Potable 1,863
Commercial Potable 2,284
Institutional/Governmental Potable 937
Other (optional) Fire Hydrants Potable 1
Landscape Potable 135
Distribution System Water Loss Potable 1,064
13294
0 13,294Total
Submittal Table 4-1 Retail: Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water — Actual Water Code Section 10631(d)(1)
NOTES:
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3. 2025 Actual Water Use
Add additional rows as needed
Subtotal Potable
Subtotal Non-Potable
Additional Description
(as needed)
Use Type
Drop down list
May se le ct e ach use m ultiple tim e s
The se are the only Use Type s that will be
re cognize d by the WUEdata online subm ittal tool
Potable or Non-Potable
(OPTIONAL)
Drop down list
2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF) 2050 opt (AF)
Single Family Potable 7,790 8,513 8,556 8,599 8,642
Multi-Family Potable 2,070 2,262 2,273 2,285 2,296
Commercial Potable 2,538 2,774 2,788 2,802 2,816
Institutional/Governmental Potable 1,041 1,138 1,144 1,150 1,155 Other (optional) Fire Hydrants Potable 1 1 1 1 1
Landscape Potable 151 164 165 166 167
Distribution System Water Loss Potable 1,182 1,292 1,298 1,305 1,311 14,773 16,144 16,225 16,308 16,388
0000 0
14,773 16,144 16,225 16,308 16,388
Add additional rows as needed.
Submittal Table 4-2 Retail: Total Uses for Potable, and Non-Potable Water — Projected Water Code Section 10631(d)(1)
Projected Water Use
(Report To the Extent that Records are Available)
Additional Description
(as needed)
NOTES:
Total
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3.
Subtotal Non-Potable
Subtotal Potable
Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections?
Drop down list (y/n) Yes
If "Yes" to above, state the section or page number, in the cell to the right, where citations of the codes, ordinances, or otherwise are utilized in demand projections are found.
Optional Suppliers may complete Optional Submittal Table 4-4 R to quantify the expected savings.
Section 4.2.5
and Chapter
8 Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included In Projections? Drop down list (y/n) Yes
Optional If the method for accounting Lower Income Residential Demands has been included, provide page number where this accounting can be found.
Submittal Table 4-3 Retail: Inclusion in Water Use Projections Water Code Section 10631 (a), 10631 (d)(4)(A), and 10631 (d)(4)(B) NOTES:
DWR NOTES: Additional guidance is provided in Appendix K.
Public Water System ID #
Reported in Table 2-1 R Reporting Period
Submitted to DWR Water
Loss Audit Program
(yes/no)
2020 No
2021 No
2022 Yes
2023 No
2024 No
Submittal Table 4-5 Retail: Water Loss Audit Reporting
Water Code Section 10631(d)(3)(A)
CA1910003
DWR NOTES: Suppliers will provide a link to the WUEdata submittals of their Water Loss Audit Reports.
NOTES: The City has also prepared Water Loss Audits representing Calendar Year 2020, Calendar Year 2021, and Fiscal Year 2024-25 and will be submitting these audits to DWR.
Report submittal status for all five years for each Public Water System as available.
Add rows as needed
2028 Real Water Loss
Standard per Unit per
day
Units for Real
Water Loss
Drop down list
Number of Units
(Connections or
Miles corresponding
with units selected)
Volume of Total Real
Loss
(from AWWA Water
Loss Audit)
(AF)
2028 Apparent
Water Loss
Standard per Unit
per Day
Units for
Apparent Water
Loss
Number of
Connections
Volume of Total
Apparent Loss
(from AWWA Water
Loss Audit)
(AF)
CA1910003 Yes 19.0
Gallons per
Service
Connection per
Day (GPSCD)
14958 792.144 47.3 44.4
Gallons per
Service
Connection per
Day (GPSCD)
14958 162.426 9.7
Gallons per
Service
Connection per
Day (GPSCD)
Gallons per
Service
Connection per
Day (GPSCD)
Submittal Table 4-6 Retail: Progress Towards 2028 Water Loss Standard Water Code Section 10631(d)(3)(C)
NOTES: Information used to complete the table above was based on the Water Loss Audit from FY 2022-23. The City has also prepared Water Loss Audits representing Calendar Year 2020, Calendar Year 2021, and Fiscal Year 2024-25 and will be submitting these audits to DWR.
Apparent Water Loss
Did the Water Board Calculate
a Water Loss Standard for this
Public Water System? (y/n)
If no, Supplier will not
complete this row.
Real Water Loss
Water Board's Calculated Water Loss Standards
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) for Water Loss MUST remain consistent with units reported in Submittal Table 2-3. The units reported in Submittal Table 2-3 are used in this table 's calculations.
Public Water
System ID #
Reported in
Submittal Table 2-
1 R
Add additional rows as needed.
Most Recent AWWA Water Loss Audit
Real Water
Loss Per Unit
per Day
Most Recent AWWA Water Loss Audit
Apparent Water
Loss Per Unit per
Day
State Water Board Standard State Water Board Standard
Actual 2025 GPCD
(From SB X7-7
Compliance Form)
Did Supplier meet
the 2020 Target in
2025?
No Individual
Target 238 230 Yes NA
Submittal Table 5-1 Retail: SB X7-7 2020 Target Progress Water Code Section 10608.40
NOTES:
Did Supplier
Achieve Targeted
Reduction for
2020?
Actual 2020
GPCD2020 Target
Regional
Alliance Target
or Individual
Target?
Dr op down list
DWR NOTES:
Suppliers calculating a 2025 GPCD will need to complete and submit SB X 7-7 Compliance Tables to verify the use of SB X7-7 Methodologies.
Suppliers that were part of a merger or consolidation since 2020 see Chapter 5 and Appendix P for guidance.
Check the box if the Supplier was not an Urban Water Supplier during or before the 2020 UWMP reporting cycle.
Proceed to the next table.
Only for suppliers that did not meet
the Target in 2020
See DWR NOTES below.
Was Supplier part of
a merger or
consolidation since
2020?
Groundwater Type
Drop Down List
May use each category
m ultiple tim e s
Potable or
Non-Potable
(OPTIONAL)
Drop down list
Location or Basin Name 2021 (AF) 2022 (AF) 2023 (AF) 2024 (AF) 2025 (AF) Alluvial Basin Potable East Raymond Basin 2216 2179 1734 2060 2167 Alluvial Basin Potable West Raymond Basin 678 621 641 286 772 Alluvial Basin Potable Main Basin 12116 11480 9245 9528 10355 15,010 14,280 11,620 11,874 13,294
Add additional rows as needed
Submittal Table 6-1 Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped
Water Code Section 10631(4) and 10631(4)(c)
DWR NOTES:
Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3.
NOTES
Total
Check the box if the Supplier does not pump groundwater.
Proceed to the next table.
Check the box if all or part of the groundwater described below is desalinated. (OPTIONAL)
Name of Wastewater
Collection Agency
Wastewater
Volume
Metered or
Estimated?
OPTIONAL
Drop Down List
Volume of
Wastewater Collected
from UWMP Service
Area 2025 (AF)
Name of Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) and
Place ID Number
Drop down list
Is WWTP
Located Within
UWMP Area?
Drop Down List
LACSD Estimated 123
Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant, Place ID
235826
No
LACSD Estimated 821
San Jose Creek Water
Reclamation Plant, Place ID
260156
No
LACSD Estimated 3,283 A.K. Warren Water Resource
Facility, Place ID 234156 No
4,227
Check the box if there is no wastewater collection system.
Proceed to the next table.
NOTES:
Submittal Table 6-2 Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area Water Code Section 10633(a)
Percentage of 2025 service area population served by wastewater collection system (OPTIONAL)
Percentage of 2025 service area served by wastewater collection system (OPTIONAL) DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3.
Additional Guidance: See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table.
Wastewater Collection Recipient of Collected Wastewater Total Wastewater Received from UWMP
Service Area in 2025:
Add additional rows as needed
Treatment
Level
Drop down list
Volume
(AF)
Treatment
Level
Drop down list
Volume
(AF)
Treatment
Level
Drop down list
Volume
(AF)
Treatment
Level
Drop down list
Volume
(AF)
Treatment
Level
Drop down list
Volume
(AF)
Name of other
entity
0- 0 0 0 0 0
Submittal Table 6-3 Retail: Wastewater Treatment and Outcomes Within UWMP Service Area Water Code Section 10633(b)
DWR NOTES:
Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selec ted in Submittal Table 2-3.
IPR: Indirect Potable Reuse would have the treatment level of its end use requirement in the Level of Treatment drop-down.
Additional Guidance: See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table.
Water Recycled Outside
of UWMP Service Area
(enter data as applicable)
Effluent Discharge that is
not a Permitted Recycled
Water Use
(enter data as applicable)
Required Discharge for
Instream Flow
(enter data as applicable)
Delivered to Another Entity for Additional
Treatment
(enter data as applicable)
Add additional rows as needed
2025 Outcomes of Treated Wastewater
Check the box if no wastewater is treated or disposed of within the UWMP service area.
Proceed to the next table.
Does This
Plant Treat
Wastewater
Generated
Outside the
UWMP Service
Area?
(OPTIONAL)
Drop down list
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Name and Place ID
Number
Drop down list
Total 2025
Volume of
Water
Treated
(AF)
NOTES:
Total
2025 Volume
of Wastewater
Received from
UWMP Service
Area
(As Reported
in Submittal
Table 6-2 R)
(AF)
Water Recycled Within
UWMP Service Area
(enter data as applicable)
Volume Narrative page number
(OPTIONAL)
00 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Check box if recycled water is not used and is not planned for use within the service area of the supplier. The supplier will o nly complete the column on "Potential Recycled Water Use" and submit an accompanying narrative on the feasibility of that potential recycled water use.
Submittal Table 6-4 Retail: Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area Water Code Section 10633 (c),(d),(e)
Potential Recycled Water Use
Name(s) of Facility/ies Producing (Treating) the Recycled Water (OPTIONAL) :
Name of Supplier Operating the Recycled Water Distribution System (OPTIONAL) :
Volume of Supplemental Water Added in 2025 (OPTIONAL) :
Source of 2025 Supplemental Water (OPTIONAL) :
Total
Use Type
Drop down list
Potable or Non-Potable
(after treatment if treated)
(OPTIONAL)
Drop down list
Additional Information
(as needed)
Add additional rows as needed
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure sele cted in Submittal Table 2-3.
Additional Guidance: See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table.
Potential recycled water use: a description of the feasibility of these uses must be included in the narrative.
Multiple Producers: If you have multiple recycled water producers, submit a separate table for each.
NOTES:
2050 (AF)2025 (AF) 2030 (AF) 2035
(AF)
2040
(AF)
2045
(AF)
Subtotal Potable
Subtotal Non-Potable
2020 Projection
for 2025 (AF)
2025 Actual
Use (AF)
00 Submittal Table 6-5 Retail: 2020 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2025 Actual
Water Code Section 10633(e)
Check the box if recycled water was not used in 2025 nor previously projected for use in 2020.
Proceed to the next table.
Add additional rows as needed
NOTES:
Total
DWR NOTES:
Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure reported in Submittal Table 2-3
Additional Guidance: See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table.
Use Type
Drop Down list
Section 6.2.5
Name of Action Description Expected Increase in Recycled Water Use (AF)
0 0
Total (AF)
DWR NOTES:
Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) MUST remain consistent with units reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3.
The unit conversion to Acre Feet addresses the Water Code's requirement that this value be provided in acre-feet.
NOTES:
Submittal Table 6-6 Retail: Methods to Encourage Future Recycled Water Use Water Code Section 10633(f)
Check the box if the Supplier does not plan to expand recycled water use in the future. Supplier will not complete the table below but will provide narrative explanation.
Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP
Add additional rows as needed
Unit Conversion to AF
Planned Implementation
Year
Section 6.2.10
Drop Down
List
(yes/no)
If Yes, Supplier Name
New Groundwater
Well (Goldring) Yes City of Sierra Madre New Main Basin well Potable 2027 All Year Types 1,600 Planned for Use
in Year Type
Drop Down List
NOTES:
Submittal Table 6-7 Retail: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs Water Code Section 10631(f)
DWR NOTES:
Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
Check the box if some or all of the supplier's future water supply projects or programs are not compatible with this table and are described in a narrative format.
Check the box if there are no expected future water supply projects or programs that provide a quantifiable increase to the age ncy's water supply.
Proceed to the next table.
Planned
Implementation
Year
Add additional rows as needed
Joint Project with other
suppliers? Expected
Increase in
Water Supply
to Supplier
(This may be
a range) (AF)
Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP
Name of Future
Projects or Programs
Additional Description
(as needed)
Potable or Non-Potable
(after treatment if treated)
(OPTIONAL)
Drop Down list
Water Supply
Drop down list
May use e ach cate gory m ultiple
ti mes. These are the onl y water
supply categories that w ill be
recogni zed by the WUEdata onl i ne
submittal tool
Potable or Non-Potable
(after treatment i f treated)
(OPTIONAL)
Drop Down list
Actual Volume
(AF)
Total Entitlement
(OPTIONAL)
See 'DWR Notes'
below (AF)
Groundwater (not desalinated) East Raymond Basin Potable 2,167 Groundwater (not desalinated) West Raymond Basin Potable 772 Groundwater (not desalinated) Main Basin Potable 10,355 Purchased or Imported Water MWD Potable 0
13,294 0
00 13,294 0
Submittal Table 6-8 Retail: Water Supplies — Actual
Water Code Section 10631(b)
2025
NOTES:
DWR NOTES:
Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3.
Total Entitlement: e.g. Water Right, Groundwater Allocation, Contracted Amount.
Add additional rows as needed
Total
Subtotal Potable
Subtotal Non-Potable
Additional Description
(as needed)
Water Supply
Reasonably
Available
Volume
(AF)
Total
Entitlement
(OPTIONAL)
See 'DWR Notes'
below (AF)
Reasonably
Available
Volume (AF)
Total
Entitlement
(OPTIONAL)
See 'DWR Notes'
below (AF)
Reasonably
Available
Volume
(AF)
Total
Entitlement
(OPTIONAL)
See 'DWR Notes'
below (AF)
Reasonably
Available
Volume (AF)
Total
Entitlement
(OPTIONAL)
See 'DWR Notes'
below (AF)
Reasonably
Available
Volume (AF)
Total
Entitlement
(OPTIONAL)
See 'DWR Notes'
below (AF)
Groundwater (not
desalinated)
East
Raymond
Basin
Potable 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300
Groundwater (not
desalinated)
West
Raymond
Basin
Potable 800 800 800 800 800
Groundwater (not Main Basin Potable 11,673 13,044 13,125 13,208 13,288 Purchased or Imported
Water MWD Potable 0 0 0 0 0
14,773 0 16,144 0 16,225 0 16,308 0 16,388 0
0 0 0 0 0 00000
14,773 0 16,144 0 16,225 0 16,308 0 16,388 0
Submittal Table 6-9 Retail: Water Supplies — Projected
Water Code Section 10631 (b)
Projected Water Supply (Report to the Extent Practicable) Drop down list
M ay use each category
multiple times. These are the
only water supply categories
that will be r ec ognized by the
WUEdata online submittal
tool
Additional
Detail on
Water
Supply
Potable or Non-Potable
(after treatment if treated)
(OPTIONAL)
Drop Down list
2050 (opt)
Add additional rows as needed
Total
NOTES:
2030 2035 2040 2045
Subtotal Non-Potable
Subtotal Potable
DWR NOTES:
Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
Total Entitlement: e.g. Water Right, Groundwater Allocation, Contracted Amount.
Water Delivery Product
drop down list
(If delivering more than one type of product recommend
using Table O-1C)
Retail Potable
Deliveries
Start Date of Reporting Period 7/1/2024
End Date of Reporting Period 6/30/2025
Is upstream embedded energy in the values reported? No
Units of Measure for Water AF Total Utility
See DWR NOTES Hydropower Net Utility
13,294 13,294 10,785,416 10,785,416 2,490 - 2,490 Quantity of Self-Generated Renewable Energy
0k W h
Data Quality (Estimate, Metered Data, Combination of Estimates and Metered Data) Combination of Estimates and Metered Data
Data Quality Narrative:
Narrative:
Optional Submittal Table O-1B: Recommended Energy Reporting - SINGLE DELIVERY PRODUCT - TOTAL UTILITY
APPROACH
The total energy consumed was identified based on Southern California Edison (SCE) billing records. Although the total energy c onsumed includes electricity usage for general administration (which is not an identified water management process), general administration ener gy use is considered to be negligible compared to overall water system use and has not been netted out.
Only for Water Delivery Products Under the Urban Water Supplier's Operational Control
Sum of All Water
Management Processes Non-Consequential Hydropower
DWR NOTES:
Total Utility:The volume of water entered in the “Total Utility” column should equal the volume of water entering the distribution system (ex cluding recycled water); in most cases, this is the total volume calculated in UWMP Table 4-1: 2025 Actual Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water. Note if recycled water is included in your Submittal Table 4-1, you must exclude it from your volume in this table.
NOTES:
The total energy consumption includes energy associated with operating groundwater production wells and booster pumps to delive r water in the distribution system. Energy consumption is associated with operating groundwater water treatment. Energy consumption is also a ssociated with plant lighting and air conditioning, and operating the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system and chlorination injec tion pumps.
Volume of Water Entering Process
Energy Consumed (kWh)
Energy Intensity (kWh/vol. converted to MG)
% of Average Supply
Average Year 2020 100%
Single-Dry Year 2018 103.5%
Consecutive Dry Years 1st Year 2012 117.7%
Consecutive Dry Years 2nd Year 2013 123.5%
Consecutive Dry Years 3rd Year 2014 125.2%
Consecutive Dry Years 4th Year 2015 110.0%
Consecutive Dry Years 5th Year 2016 88.8%
13935
14416
Year Type
Base Year
If not using a
calendar year, type
in the last year of
the fiscal, water
year, or range of
years, for example,
water year 2024-
2025, use 2025
Optional Submittal Table 7-1 Retail: Basis of Water Year Data (Reliability Assessment) Available Supplies if
Year Type Repeats
Check the box if quantification of available supplies
is not compatible with this table and is provided
elsewhere in the UWMP.
Location: [insert location from UWMP]
Volume Available (AF)
Quantification of available supplies is provided in this table as either volume only, percent only, or both.
16399
17211
NOTES:
17452
15326
12369
DWR NOTES: Supplier may use multiple versions of Submittal Table 7-1 R if different water sources have different base years and the supplier chooses to report the base years for each water source separately. If a Supplier uses multiple ve rsions of Subm ittal Table 7-1 R, in the "N ote " se ction of e ach subm ittal table , state that m ultiple ve rsions of Subm ittal Table 7-1 R are being used and identify the particular water source that is being reported in each submittal table.
Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table reports the units of measure reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF) 2050 (AF)
Supply totals
(autofill from Submittal
Table 6-9 R)
14,773 16,144 16,225 16,308 16,388
Use totals
(autofill from Submittal
Table 4-2 R)
14,773 16,144 16,225 16,308 16,388
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply
augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction
savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions
Submittal Table 7-2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Use Comparison Water Code Section 10635 (a)
NOTES:
DWR NOTES : Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
Supply totals 15,283 16,701 16,785 16,871 16,954
Use totals 15,283 16,701 16,785 16,871 16,954
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply
augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction
savings benefit
Revised
Surplus/(shortfall)
2050 (AF)
DWR NOTES : Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
NOTES
Submittal Table 7-3 Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Use Comparison Water Code Section 10635(a)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions
2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF)
2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF)2050 (AF)
Supply totals 17,385 18,998 19,094 19,191 19,286
Use totals 17,385 18,998 19,094 19,191 19,286
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 18,246 19,939 20,039 20,142 20,241
Use totals 18,246 19,939 20,039 20,142 20,241
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 18,501 20,218 20,320 20,424 20,524
Use totals 18,501 20,218 20,320 20,424 20,524
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 16,248 17,755 17,844 17,936 18,024
Use totals 16,248 17,755 17,844 17,936 18,024
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 13,113 14,330 14,402 14,475 14,546
Use totals 13,113 14,330 14,402 14,475 14,546
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Submittal Table 7-4 Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Use Comparison Water Code Section 10635(a)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions
Third year
Fifth year
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP ActionsFourth year
NOTES:
First year
OPTIONAL WSCP Actions Second year
2026 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 15,993
Total Supplies (AF) 16,399
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 406
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF)
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2027 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 17,150
Total Supplies (AF) 17,211
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 61
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF)
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2028 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 17,760
Total Supplies (AF) 17,452
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action (308)
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF) 308
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
2029 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 15,922
Total Supplies (AF) 15,326
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action (596)
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF) 596
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
2030 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 13,113
Total Supplies (AF) 12,369
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action (744)
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF) 744
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) 0
NOTES:
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain
consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
Submittal Table 7-5 Retail: Five-Year Drought Risk
Assessment
Water Code Section 10635(b)(3)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation)
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation)
Standard
Shortage
Levels
Percent
Shortage Range
Suppliers
Shortage
Levels
Percent
Shortage
Range
1 Up to 10% 1, 2 Up to 10%
2 Up to 20% 3, 4 Up to 20%
3 Up to 30% 5, 6 Up to 30%
4 Up to 40% 7 Up to 40%
5 Up to 50% 8 Up to 50%
6 >50% 8 50%
Submittal Table 8-1: Cross-reference for Standard vs
Supplier Shortage Levels
Water Code Se ction 10632(a)(3)(B)
Check the box if the Supplier uses the
Standard six levels of water shortage.
Proceed to the next table.
NOTES:
Yes
Volume or
Percentage
Drop down
Shortage Gap
Reduction Value
(May be a range)
(AF)
1 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
2 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
3 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
4 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
5 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
6 Transfers Volume 0 Not applicable (see Notes)
Submittal Table 8-2 Retail: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions Water Code Section 10632(a)(4)(A),(C) and (E)
Add additional rows as needed
NOTES: The City will consider increased production from the Main Basin using existing facilities to address increased demands.
As noted on Table 8-3, the City plans to implement demand reduction measures in the event water supplies from existing sources are not sufficient to meet anticipated demands.
Is the Supplier completing this table using the standard six levels? (yes/no) How much is this going to reduce the
shortage gap?
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
Shortage
Level
Supply Augmentation Methods and
Other Actions by Water Supplier
Drop down list
These ar e the only c ategor ies that will
be accepted by the WUEdata online
submittal tool
Additional Explanation or Reference
(OPTIONAL)
Yes
Volume or
Percentage
Drop down
Shortage Gap
Reduction Value
(May be a range)
(AF)
1 Landscape - Restrict or prohibit
runoff from landscape irrigation
Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 Other - Require automatic shut of
hoses Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific days Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Pursuant to Resolution No. 7430 adopted by City
Council in May 2022, no lawn, landscape, or
other turf areas shall be watered or irrigated
more than two (2) days per week (on Tuesday
and Saturday).
Yes
1 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific times Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
No lawn, landscape, or other turf areas shall be
watered or irrigated between the hours of 9:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Pacific time.
Yes
1 Landscape - Prohibit certain types
of landscape irrigation Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Pursuant to Resolution No. 7430 adopted by City
Council in May 2022, an owner of property used
primarily for commercial, industrial, or
institutional purposes may not irrigate non-
functional turf areas.
Yes
1 Landscape - Other landscape
restriction or prohibition Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
No irrigation during and within 48 hrs of
measurable rainfall Yes
1 CII - Lodging establishment must
offer opt out of linen service Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 CII - Restaurants may only serve
water upon request Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 Water Features - Restrict water use
for decorative water features, such
as fountains
Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 Other - Customers must repair
leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a
timely manner
Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
1 Other - Prohibit use of potable
water for washing hard surfaces Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,721 AF
Yes
2O t h e r V o l u m e
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 2 actions is up
to 3,442 AF
All actions under Shortage Level 1 Yes
3O t h e r V o l u m e
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 3 actions is up
to 5,163 AF
All actions under Shortage Level 2 Yes
4O t h e r V o l u m e
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 4 actions is up
to 6,884 AF
All actions under Shortage Level 3 Yes
5O t h e r V o l u m e
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 5 actions is up
to 8,605 AF
All actions under Shortage Level 4 Yes
6O t h e r V o l u m e
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 6 actions is
greater than 8,605
AF
All actions under Shortage Level 5 Yes
Is the Supplier completing this table using the standard six levels? (yes/no) Submittal Table 8-3 Retail: Demand Reduction Actions
Water Code Section 10632( a)(4)(B),(D), and (E)
Add additional rows as needed
How much is this going to reduce the
shortage gap?
Shortage
Level
Demand Reduction Actions
Drop down list
The se are the only cate gorie s that will
be accepted by the WUEdata online
submittal tool. Select those that apply.
Additional Explanation or Reference
(OPTIONAL)
NOTES:
Penalty, Charge,
or Other
Enforcement?
For Retail Suppliers
Only
Drop Down List
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
City Name 60 Day Notice
Drop Down (yes/no)
Notice of Public
Hearing
Drop Down (yes/no)
Arcadia Yes Yes
Monrovia Yes Yes
Sierra Madre Yes Yes
Pasadena Yes Yes
County Name
Drop Down List
60 Day Notice
Drop Down (yes/no)
Notice of Public
Hearing
Drop Down (yes/no)
Los Angeles County Yes Yes
Submittal Table 10-1 Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties
Water Code Section 10621(b) and 10642
Add additional rows as needed
Add additional rows as needed
NOTES:
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX B
COMPLETED PLAN CHECKLIST
Retail
(x = required)
Wholesale
(x = required
)
Order 2025 Guidebook Location Water Code Se ction Summary as Applies to UWMP Subject Relevant Submittal Table 2025 UWMP Location
x x 1 Chapter 1 10615 A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities. Introduction and overview n/a Chapter 1 Lay Description x x 1 Chapter 1 10630.5
Each plan shall include a simple description of the Supplier’s plan including water availability, future requirements, a strategy for meeting needs, and other pertinent information. Additionally, a Supplier may also choose to include a simple description at the beginning of each chapter.
Plan preparation n/a Beginning of each Chapter
x x 2.1 Section 2.1 10620(b) Every person that becomes a Supplier shall adopt UWMP within one year after it has become a Supplier. Pl an preparation n/a Section 2.1 x n/a 2.5 Section 2.5 10644 Supplier shall report the Public Water Systems number, volume of delivered water, and number of connections that are included in this UWMP. Plan preparation 2-1 Sections 2.1 and 2.5 x x 2.5 Section 2.5 10644 Supplier shall report if this UWMP is an individual UWMP and whether the Supplier belongs to a regional UWMP or regional alliance. Plan preparation 2-2 Sections 2.2 and 2.5 x x 2.5 Section 2.5 10644 Supplier shall report whether the data is in fiscal or calendar years and the units of measure used for reporting water volumes. Plan preparation 2-3 Sections 2.3 and 2.5 x x 2.4 Section 2.4 10642
Provide supporting documentation that the Supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan and contingency plan.
Plan preparation n/a Section 2.4
x x 2.4 Section 2.4.2 10620(d)(3)
Coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other Suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.
Plan preparation n/a Section 2.4.2
x n/a 2.4 Section 2.4.1 10631(h) Retail Suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their Wholesale Supplier(s)—if any—with water use projections from that source. Plan preparation 2-4 R Sections 2.4.1 and 2.5 n/a x 2.4 Section 2.4.1 10631(h)
Wholesale Suppliers will provide their Suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the Wholesale Supplier to the Supplier during various water year types.
Plan preparation 2-4 W n/a
x x 3 Chapter 3.0 10631(a) Describe the Supplier service area. System description n/a Section 3.1 and 3.2 x x 3.3 Section 3.3 10631(a) Describe the climate of the Supplier’s service area. System description n/a Section 3.3 x x 3.4 Section 3.4.1 10631(a) Provide the current and projected service area populations for 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045 and optionally 2050. System description 3-1 Sections 3.4 and 3.6
x x 3.4 Section 3.4.2 10631(a) Describe other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the Supplier’s water management planning. System description n/a Section 3.4.2
x x 3.5 Section 3.5 10631(a)
Describe the land uses within the service area… include the current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the Supplier’s water management planning. Describe the land uses within the service area.
System description and
baselines n/a Section 3.5
x Optional 4.2 Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 10631(d)(1) Quantify past, current, and projected water use, identifying the uses among wate r use sectors. System water use 4-1 and 4-2 Sections 4.2 and 4.4 x Optional 4.3 Section 4.3.1 10631(d)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for each of the five years preceding the plan update. System water use 4-5 Sections 4.3 and 4.4 x n/a 4.3 Section 4.3.2 10631(d)(3)(C) Retail Suppliers shall provide data to show the distribution loss standards were met. System w ater use 4-6 Sections 4.3 and 4.4 x n/a 4.2 Section 4.2.5.4 10631.1(a) Include projected water use needed for lower income housing projected in the service area of the Supplier. System water use 4-3 Sections 4.2.5.5 and 4.4 x n/a 4.2 Section 4.2.5.3 10631(d)(4)(A) In projected water use, include estimates of water savings from adopted codes, plans, and other policies or laws. System water use 4-3 Section 4.2.5.3
x n/a 4.2 Section 4.2.5.3 10631(d)(4)(B) Provide citations of codes, standards, ordinances, or plans used to make water use projecti ons. System water use 4-3 Sections 4.2.5.3 and 9.1 x n/a 4.2 Section 4.2.5.3 10631(d)(4)(B)(ii)
To the extent that a Supplier reports the information described in subparagraph (A), an urban water Supplier shall… Indicate the extent that the water use projections consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. Water use projections that do not account for these water savings shall be noted of that fact.
System water use 4-3 Section 4.2.5.3
x x 4.2 Section 4.2.5.6 10635(b) Demands under climate change considerations must be included as part of the drought risk assessment . System water use n/a Section 4.2.5.6 n/a x 5.1 Section 5.1 10608.36 Wholesale Suppliers shall include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help their Retail Suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions. Baselines and targets n/a n/a x n/a 5.2 Section 5.2 10608.4
Retail Suppliers shall report on their compliance in meeting their water use targets. Reporting requirements will vary depending on whether the Supplier:
- Was considered an urban retail water supplier in 2020, - Met its 2020 target in 2020, or
- Was part of a merger or consolidation since 2020.
Chapter 5 Subsections 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 5.2.3 address each of these situations.
Baselines and targets 5-1 Sections 5.2 and 5.3
x x 6.1 Section 6.1 10631(b)(2) When multiple sources of water supply are identified, describe the management of each supply in relationship to other identified supplies. System supplies n/a Sections 6.1 and 6.2 x x 6.1 Sections 6.1 and 6.2 10631(b)(1)
Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, including changes in supply due to climate change.
System supplies n/a Sections 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, and 7.2
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.2 10631(b)(4)(C)
Indicate whether groundwater is an existing or planned source of water available to the Supplier. If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water… (include) a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the Supplier for the past five years.
Water supplies and recycled
water 6-1 Sections 6.2.2 and 6.4
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.2 10631(b)(4)(A)
Indicate whether a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan has been adopted by the Supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization.
System supplies n/a Section 6.2.2
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.2 10631(b)(4)(B) Describe the groundwater basin. System supplies n/a Section 6.2.2 x x 6.2 Section 6.2.2 10631(b)(4)(B) Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated and include a copy of the court order or decree and a description of the amount of water the Supplier has the legal right to pump. System supplies n/a Section 6.2.2 x x 6.2 Section 6.2.2 10631(b)(4)(B) For unadjudicated basins… (include) information as to whether DWR has identified the basin as a high- or medium-priority basin in the most current official departmental bulletin… Water supplies and recycled
water n/a Section 6.2.2
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.2 10631(b)(4)(B) For unadjudicated basins… describe efforts by the Supplier to coordinate with sustainability or groundwater agencies to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions.
Water supplies and recycled
water n/a Section 6.2.2
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.2. 10631(b)(4)(C)
If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water… (include) a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the Supplier for the past five years.
System supplies n/a Section 6.2.2
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.2 10631(b)(4)(D) Provide a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped. System supplies 6-9 Section 6.2.2
x x 6.1 Section 6.1 10631(b) Identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045 and optionally 2050. System supplies 6-8 and 6-9 Section 6.4 x x 6.2 Section 6.2.7 10631(c) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis. Sys tem supplies n/a Section 6.2.7 x n/a 6.2 Section 6.2.5 10633(a) Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the Supplier’s service area with quantified amount of collection and treatment and the disposal methods.
System supplies (recycled
water) 6-2 Sections 6.2.5 and 6.4
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.5 10633(b) Describe the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project.
System supplies (recycled
water) 6-3 Sections 6.2.5 and 6.4
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.5 10633(c) Describe the recycled water currently being used in the Supplier's service area. System supplies (recycled water) 6-4 Sections 6.2.5 and 6.4
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.5 10633(d) Describe and quantify the potential uses of recycled water and provide a determination of the technical and economic feasibility of those uses.
System supplies (recycled
water) 6-4 Sections 6.2.5 and 6.4
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.5 10633(e) Describe the projected use of recycled water within the Supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and describe the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected.
System supplies (recycled
water) 6-4 and 6-5 Sections 6.2.5 and 6.4
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.5 10633(f) Describe the actions that may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.
System supplies (recycled
water) 6-6 Sections 6.2.5 and 6.4
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.5 10633(g) Provide a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the Supplier's service area. System supplies (recycled water) n/a Sections 6.2.5 and 6.4
x x 6.2 Section 6.2.6 10631(g) Describe desalinated water project opportunities for long-term supply. System supplies 6-7 Section 6.2.6 x x 6.2 Section 6.2.10 10631(f)
Describe the expected future water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water Supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and for a period of drought lasting five consecutive water years.
System supplies 6-7 Sections 6.2.10 and 6.4
x x 6.3 Section 6.3 and Appendix O 10631.2(a) The UWMP must include energy information, as stated in the code, that a Supplier can r eadily obtain. System suppliers, energy intensity
O-1A, O-1B, O-1C,
and O-2 Section 6.3
x 7.1 Section 7.1 10634 Provide information on the quality of existing sources of water available to the Supplier and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability.
Water supply reliability
assessment n/a Section 7.2
x x 7.2 Section 7.2 10635(a)
Service Reliability Assessment: Assess the water supply reliability during normal, dry, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years by comparing the total water supply sources available to the Supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years.
Water supply reliability
assessment 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 Sections 7.3 and 7.4
x x 7.2 Section 7.2.3 10620(f) Describe water management tools and options to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions.
Water supply reliability
assessment n/a Section 7.2.3
x x 7.3 Section 7.3 10635(b) Provide a drought risk assessment as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects.
Water supply reliability
assessment n/a Section 7.3
x x 7.3 Section 7.3 10635(b)(1) Include a description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts five consecutive years.
Water supply reliability
assessment n/a Section 7.3
x x 7.3 Section 7.3 10635(b)(2) Include a determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions.
Water supply reliability
assessment n/a Section 7.3
x x 7.3 Section 7.3 10635(b)(3) Include a comparison of the total water supply sources available to the Supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period.
Water supply reliability
assessment 7-5 Section 7.3
x x 7.3 Section 7.3 10635(b)(4)
Include considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria.
Water supply reliability
assessment n/a Section 7.3
x x 8 Chapter 8 10632(a) Provide a water shortage contingency plan (WSCP) with specified elements below. Water shortage contingency planning n/a Chapter 8
x x 8 Chapter 8 10632(a)(1) Provide an analysis of water supply reliability (from Guidebook Chapter 7) in the WSCP. Water shortage contingency planning n/a Chapter 8
x x 8.2 Section 8.2 10632(a)(2)(A) Provide the written decision-making process and other methods that the Supplier will use each year to determine its water reliability.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.2
x x 8.2 Section 8.2 10632(a)(2)(B) Provide data and methodology to evaluate the Supplier’s water reliability for the current year and one dry year pursuant to factors in the code.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.2
x x 8.3 Section 8.3 10632(a)(3)(A)
Define six standard water shortage levels of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% shortage, and greater than 50% shortage. These levels shall be based on supply conditions, including percent reductions in supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation, or other conditions. The shortage levels shall also apply to a catastrophic interruption of supply.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.3
x x 8.3 Section 8.3 10632(a)(3)(B)
Suppliers with an existing WSCP that uses different water shortage levels must cross reference their categories with the six standard categories.
Water shortage contingency
planning 8-1 Sections 8.3 and 8.14
x x 8.4 Section 8.4 10632(a)(4)(A) Suppliers with WSCPs that align with the defined shortage levels must specify locally appropriate supply augmentation actions.
Water shortage contingency
planning 8-2 Sections 8.4.1 and 8.14
x x 8.4 Section 8.4 10632(a)(4)(B) Specify locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. Water shortage contingency planning 8-3 Sections 8.4.2 and 8.14
x x 8.4 Section 8.4 10632(a)(4)(C) Specify locally appropriate operational changes. Water shortage contingency planning 8-2 Section 8.4.3
x x 8.4 Section 8.4 10632(a)(4)(D) Specify additional mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to State- mandated prohibitions are appropriate to local conditions.
Water shortage contingency
planning Table 8-3 Section 8.4.4
x x 8.4 Section 8.4 10632(a)(4)(E) Estimate the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action.
Water shortage contingency
planning 8-2 and 8-3 Sections 8.4.7 and 8.14
x x 8.4 Section 8.4.6 10632.5 The UWMP shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan. Water shortage contingency plan n/a Section 8.4.6
x x 8.5 Section 8.5 10632(a)(5)(A) Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any current or predicted water shortages.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.5
x x 8.5 Section 8.5 10632(a)(5)(B),
10632(a)(5)(C)
Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered and other relevant communications.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.5
x n/a 8.6 Section 8.6 10632(a)(6) Retail Supplier must describe how it will ensure compliance with and enforce provisions of the WSC P. Water shortage contingency planning n/a Section 8.6
x x 8.7 Section 8.7 10632(a)(7)(A) Describe the legal authority that empowers the Supplier to enforce shortage response actions. Water shortage contingency planning n/a Section 8.7
x x 8.7 Section 8.7 10632(a)(7)(B) Provide a statement that the Supplier will declare a water shortage emergency per Water Code Chapter 3. Water Shortage Emergencies.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.7
x x 8.7 Section 8.7 10632(a)(7)(C) Provide a statement that the Supplier will coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water for the possible proclamation of a local emergency.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.7
x x 8.8 Section 8.8 10632(a)(8)(A) Describe the potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.8
x x 8.8 Section 8.8 10632(a)(8)(B) Provide a description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.8
x n/a 8.8 Section 8.8 10632(a)(8)(C) Retail Suppliers must describe the cost of compliance with Water Code Chapter 3.3, Excessive Residential Water Use During Drought.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.8
x n/a 8.9 Section 8.9 10632(a)(9) Retail Suppliers must describe the monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data are collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.9
x x 8.10 Section 8.10 10632(a)(10) Describe reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluation the WSCP to ensure risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.10
x n/a 8.11 Section 8.11 10632(b) Analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Section 8.11
x x 8.12 Section 8.12 10632(c) Make available the WSCP to customers and any city or county where it provides water within 30 days after adoption of the plan.
Water shortage contingency
planning n/a Sections 8.12 and 10.6
x n/a 9.1 Sections 9.1 10631(e)(1)
Retail Suppliers shall provide a description of the nature and extent of each demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code.
Demand management
measures n/a Section 9.1.1
n/a x 9.2 Sections 9.2 10631(e)(2) Wholesale Suppliers shall describe specific demand management measures listed in code, their distribution system asset management program, and Supplier assistance program.
Demand management
measures n/a n/a
x n/a 10 Chapter 10 10608.26(a) Retail Suppliers shall conduct a public hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, and economic impact of water use targets (recommended to discuss compliance).
Plan adoption, submittal, and
implementation n/a Sections 10.3 and 10.4
x x 10.2 Section 10.2.1 10621(b) Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, any city or county within which the Supplier provides water that the Supplier will be reviewing the UWMP and considering amendments or changes to the plan.
Plan adoption, submittal, and
implementation 10-1 Section 10.2
x x 10.4 Section 10.4 10621(f) Each urban water Supplier shall update and submit its 2025 plan to DWR by July 1, 202 6. Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation n/a Section 10.5
x x 10.2 Sections 10.2.2, 10.3, and
10.5 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the Supplier made the UWMP and WSCP available for public inspection, published notice of the public hearing, and held a public hearing about the UWMP and WSCP.
Plan adoption, submittal, and
implementation n/a Sections 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4
x x 10.2 Section 10.2.2 10642 The Supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the Supplier provides water.
Plan adoption, submittal, and
implementation 10-1 Section 10.3
x x 10.3 Section 10.3.2 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the UWMP and WSCP has been adopted as prepared or modified. Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation n/a Sections 10.4 and 10.9
x x 10.4 Section 10.4 10644(a) Provide supporting documentation that the Supplier has submitted their UWMP to the California State Library.
Plan adoption, submittal, and
implementation n/a Section 10.5.3
x x 10.4 Section 10.4 10644(a)(1) Provide supporting documentation that the Supplier has submitted their UWMP to any city or county within which the Supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption.
Plan adoption, submittal, and
implementation n/a Section 10.5.4
x x 10.4 Sections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 10644(a)(2) The UWMP, or amendments to the UWMP, submitted to DWR shall be submitted electronica lly. Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation n/a Sections 10.5 and 10.9
x x 10.7 Section 10.7.2 10644(b) If revised, submit a copy of the WSCP to DWR within 30 days of adoption. Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation n/a Section 10.9
x x 10.5 Section 10.5 10645(a) Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its UWMP with DWR, the Supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.
Plan adoption, submittal, and
implementation n/a Section 10.6
x x 10.5 Section 10.5 10645(b) Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its WSCP with DWR, the Supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.
Plan adoption, submittal, and
implementation n/a Section 10.6
x x 10.6 Section 10.6 10621(c) If Supplier is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, include its plan and contingency plan as part of its general rate case filings.
Plan adoption, submittal, and
implementation n/a Section 10.7
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX C
DEMONSTRATION OF REDUCED IMPORTED WATER
RELIANCE
DEMONSTRATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE DELTA PLAN FOR
PARTICIPANTS IN COVERED ACTIONS
(2015 THROUGH 2050)
CITY OF ARCADIA
Introduction
Pursuant to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), an urban water supplier that anticipates participating in or receiving water from a proposed project (or “covered action”) such as a multi-year water transfer, conveyance facility, or new diversion that involves transferring water through, exporting water from, or using water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) should provide information in their 2015, 2020, 2025 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) for use in demonstrating consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, “ Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance”. In addition, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 23, § 5003:
(c)(1) Water suppliers that have done all of the following are contributing to reduced reliance on the Delta and improved regional self-reliance and are therefore consistent with this policy:
(A) Completed a current Urban or Agricultural Water Management Plan (Plan) which has been reviewed by the California Department of Water Resources for compliance with the applicable requirements of Water Code Division 6, Parts 2.55,
2.6, and 2.8;
(B) Identified, evaluated, and commenced implementation, consistent with the implementation schedule set forth in the Plan, of all programs and projects included in the Plan that are locally cost effective and technically feasible which reduce reliance on the Delta; and
(C) Included in the Plan, commencing in 2015, the expected outcome for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improvement in regional self-reliance.
The expected outcome for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improvement in regional self-reliance shall be reported in the Plan as the reduction in the amount of water used, or in the percentage of water used, from the Delta watershed. For the purposes of reporting, water efficiency is considered a new source of water supply, consistent with Water Code section 1011(a).
The City is member agency of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Water District, which in turn is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). As noted in MWD’s document entitled “Infeasibility of Accounting Supplies from the Delta Watershed for Metropolitan’s Member Agencies and their Customers” (which is included in MWD’s 2025 Regional UWMP, Appendix 10 (provided as Attachment 1 below), “...
Metropolitan and its members as well as their customers are measurably reducing reliance on the Delta and improving regional self-reliance, both as an amount of water used and as a percentage of water used.”
In addition, MWD’s 2025 Regional UWMP indicates “...in accordance with UMWP requirements, Metropolitan’s member agencies and their customers (many of them, retail agencies) also report demands and supplies for their service areas in their respective UWMPs. The data reported by those agencies are not additive to the regional totals shown in Metropolitan’s UWMP; rather, their reporting represents subtotals of the regional total and should be considered as such for the purposes of determining reduced reliance on the Delta…While the demands that Metropolitan’s member agencies and their customers report in their UWMPs are a good reflection of the demands in their respective service areas, they do not adequately represent each water supplier’s contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta. In order to calculate and report their reliance on water supplies from the Delta watershed, water suppliers that receive water from the Delta through other regional or wholesale water suppliers would need to determine the amount of Delta water that they receive from the regional or wholesale supplier. Two specific pieces of information are needed to accomplish this: first is the quantity of demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier that accurately reflect a supplier’s contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta, and second is the quantity of a supplier’s demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier that are met by supplies from the Delta watershed…For water suppliers that make investments in regional projects or programs it may be infeasible to quantify their demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier in a way that accurately reflects their individual contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta.” Nonetheless, the City has taken proactive measures to help reduce regional reliance on imported water supplies and is discussed in the following sections.
Reduced Reliance Calculation Tables
Pursuant to DWR guidance, Tables C-1 through C-4 were prepared to show the potential reduction of reliance on imported water supplies for the City. The City has used these tables to demonstrate its reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies, but not specifically Delta Watershed supplies. For each of the tables, a “Baseline year” was selected. Water demands during subsequent years (from 2015 through 2050 in five-year increments) were compared to water demands during the Baseline year. Table C-1 considers the population and service area water demands, and a demand in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) water use rate was calculated for each of the years following the Baseline year. The calculated reduction in GPCD from the Baseline year was then translated to an estimated amount of water saved as a result of water conservation measures. Table C-2 references the estimated amount of water saved from Table C-1 and shows the City’s water demand without water use efficiency in effect.
A method of showing reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies is to show increased regional self-reliance. Table C-3 lists water supply sources that contribute to regional self-reliance, including water use efficiency (from Table C-1 and C-2) and groundwater recharge activities. Regional self-reliance is expressed both in terms of acre feet (AF) and as a percentage.
The calculation of reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies is shown on Table C-4. Table C-4 also shows the percent change in imported water supplies relative to the City’s total supply. A negative percent change of imported water supplies indicates the City has reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies.
Since the Baseline year, the City has decreased its reliance on imported water supplies in 2015, 2020, 2025, and anticipates doing so through 2050.
The City has reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies through the following:
x The demand in GPCD for the "Baseline year" was compared to the GPCDs in subsequent years (from 2015 through 2050, in five-year increments). The reduced GPCD multiplied by the population in these subsequent years is indicative of the potential reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies and is included in Table C-1.
x To the extent the Main Basin Watermaster has, or plans to, use recycled water to replenish the Main Basin, the City’s proportional share (up to the total replenishment water obligation) will be included in Table C-1.
These categories of reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies are discussed below. The sum of the increased regional self-reliance and the sum of the reduced regional reliance on imported water demand resulting from these categories is reflected on Table C-3 and Table C-4, respectively, and is reflective of the City’s overall reduced reliance.
Reduced GPCD
Section 6.2.2 of the City’s 2025 UWMP describes the management of the Main Basin.
The City relies on groundwater produced from the Main Basin, which is adjudicated and managed by the Main Basin Watermaster. To the extent the City historically (baseline during 2011) has produced groundwater in excess of its water rights, it has paid assessments to the Main Basin Watermaster which are then used to purchase untreated imported water from the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (Upper Water), which is in turn purchased water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The untreated imported water subsequently is delivered to replenish the Main Basin and to supplement local storm water replenishment. In addition, the City can purchase treated imported water from Upper Water which is ultimately provided by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Chapter 9 of this 2025 UWMP describes the Demand Management Measures which the City has implemented to reduce the amount water used by its customers. In addition, Chapter 6 of the 2025 UWMP describes the groundwater basin management measures implemented by the Main Basin Watermaster. Collectively these actions translate to a reduction in the GPCD usage rate which is described further in Chapter 5 of the 2025 UWMP. These actions directly impact total water demands, and consequently, the quantity of imported water which may be required. Absent the proactive measures taken by the City, it is anticipated there may have been a greater demand on imported water supplies.
Pursuant to DWR guidance, reduced reliance on imported water supplies can be demonstrated by first selecting a “Baseline” water demand, represented by total potable water demands during 2011. Table C-1 summarizes the “Baseline” water usage by the City in 2011 (assuming demand reduction efforts had not been implemented); actual water usage in 2015, 2020, and 2025; and projected water usage through 2050 in five- year increments. Furthermore, it is assumed that as of 2011 the City was already exceeding its water rights and was required to fund the purchase of untreated imported water. Table C-2 demonstrates that, if water conservation measures had not been implemented by the City, there may have been a greater reliance on untreated imported water supplies during subsequent years as compared to the Baseline year. However, as discussed below and shown in Table C-1, the reduced water demands have resulted in reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies as compared to the Baseline year.
The City’s potable water demand during 2011, along with the corresponding service area population, were used to determine the Baseline GPCD. Subsequently, the actual demands for 2015, 2020, and 2025 were compared to the calculated population to obtain the recent GPCD which includes the water conservations measures which have been implemented (those demand management measures are described in Chapter 9 of the 2025 UWMP). The “Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance" are also provided in Table C-3. The differences between the Baseline GPCD and the 2015, 2020, 2025 GPCDs are effectively considered a demonstration of the reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies with the understanding that any potential increased demand by the City resulting from increased population could have been required from imported water supplies, absent the City’s new water supplies which contribute to self-reliance. A similar methodology is used for the projected potable water demands (2025 UWMP Table 4-2) and populations (2025 UWMP Table 3-1).
Recycled Water for Groundwater Replenishment
In addition to the historical actions the City has taken in conjunction with groundwater management agencies, the City is involved in a regional program to deliver recycled water to the San Gabriel Valley to replenish the Main San Gabriel Basin. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is developing its “Regional Recycled Water Program” (RRWP). MWD is partnering with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) to investigate the viability of providing up to 150 million gallons per day (MGD) (approximately 168,000 AFY) of advanced treated wastewater from LACSD’s Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in Carson, California (Carson Plant). The RRWP would deliver purified water from the Carson Plant through up to 60 miles of transmission pipelines to groundwater basins within MWD’s service area, including the Main Basin.
The purified water would be used in various locations within MWD’s service area for groundwater recharge, groundwater storage, and industrial facilities. In addition, purified water could potentially be treated further at two of MWD’s existing water treatment plants for direct potable reuse. The locations of the proposed pipeline alignments are provided in the figure below.
Regional Recycled Water Program Location
Source: https://www.mwdh2o.com/building-local-supplies/pure-water-southern-california/
MWD began construction of a $17 million small-scale demonstration plant (0.5 MGD) in late 2017 which was completed in October 2019. The results of the demonstration plant will allow MWD and others to determine whether expansion to a full-scale plant is beneficial. Once approved the full-scale plant, associated pipelines and ancillary facilities would take approximately 11 years to construct at an estimated cost of over $3 billion.
Pursuant to MWD’s “Regional Recycled Water Program Conceptual Planning Studies Report”, February 2019, the proposed Pure Water project would potentially provide 60,000 to 80,000 AFY to replenish the Main Basin. A portion of the replenished recycled water may be designated as Replacement Water (see Section 6.2.2 of the 2025 UWMP) and will offset all State Water Project water (on an AF for AF basis) which historically has been used to replenish the Main Basin groundwater supplies and is essential to sound basin management. Furthermore, some of the replenished recycled water may be used for general Basin benefit which will result in higher groundwater levels and potentially
enable the Operating Safe Yield to be established at a higher amount than had no deliveries occurred. For the Main Basin, MWD has entered into a letter of intent with Upper Water for at least 35,000 AFY and with Three Valleys District for at least 6,500 AFY, and will potentially provide up to 60,000 to 80,000 AFY, collectively.
For the purposes of this Plan and to illustrate the anticipated benefits the Pure Water project will have for reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies, it is assumed 20,000 AFY from the Pure Water project will be replenished in the Main Basin commencing in the year 2035 and up to 40, 000 AFY will be replenished commencing in the year 2040 and thereafter. The recharged water hypothetically assigned to the City is based on projected groundwater use less the City’s share of the Main Basin's current Operating Safe Yield (150,000 AFY). The balance is production in excess of water rights and subject to replenishment; 50 percent of that amount is assumed to be delivered from the Pure Water project in 2035 and 100 percent in 2040 and thereafter. Because all SWP water deliveries will be offset through the Pure Water project, Table C-3 includes 50 percent of the City’s Replacement Water requirement in 2035 (under Advanced Water Technologies) and all of the Replacement Water requirement in 2040 and thereafter.
The decrease in GPCD compared to the Baseline year has resulted in an overall decrease in reliance on water supplies from imported water supplies. As shown in Table C-4, the percentage of water supplies from imported water supplies relative to the City’s total supply has decreased, and is projected to decrease, from the percentage in the Baseline year.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
In addition, as the wholesale provider, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has included a detailed discussion regarding measurable reduction in Delta reliance in Appendix 10 of its 2025 Regional Urban Water Management Plan. That discussion is included by reference and also included in Attachment 1 of this Plan.
Table C-1: Optional Calculation of Water Use Efficiency -To be completed if Water Supplier does not specifically estimate Water Use Efficiency as a supply Service Area Water Use Efficiency Demands
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Service Area Water Demands with Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 16,399 12,369 13,935 13,29 4 14,773 16,14 4 16,225 16,308 16,388 Non-Potable Water Demands
Potable Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 16,399 12,369 13,935 13,294 14,773 16,144 16,225 16,308 16,388 Total Service Area Population
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Service Area Population 54,000 55,342 53,998 54,700 60,303 65,903 66,233 66,56 4 66,897 Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Per Capita Water Use (GPCD) 271 200 230 217 219 219 219 219 219 Change in Per Capita Water Use from Baseline (GPCD) (72) (41) (54) (52) (52) (52) (52) (52) Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline 4,438 2,463 3,318 3,540 3,870 3,889 3,906 3,927 Table C-2: Calculation of Service Area Water Demands Without Water Use Efficiency Total Service Area Water Demands
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Service Area Water Demands with Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 16,399 12,369 13,935 13,29 4 14,773 16,14 4 16,225 16,308 16,388 Reported Water Use Efficiency or Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline 4,438 2,463 3,318 3,540 3,870 3,889 3,906 3,927 Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 16,399 16,806 16,398 16,611 18,313 20,014 20,114 20,214 20,315 Table C-3: Calculation of Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Water Use Efficiency - 4,438 2,463 3,318 3,540 3,870 3,889 3,906 3,927 Water Recycling
Stormwater Capture and Use
Advanced Water Technologies (Pure Water - Main Basin)
1 - - - - - 3,349 6,779 6,862 6,942 Conjunctive Use Projects
Local and Regional Water Supply and Storage Projects
Other Programs and Projects the Contribute to Regional Self-Reliance Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance - 4,438 2,463 3,318 3,540 7,218 10,667 10,768 10,869 Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency (Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 16,399 16,806 16,398 16,611 18,313 20,01 4 20,11 4 20,21 4 20,315
Change in Regional Self Reliance
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance - 4,438 2,463 3,318 3,540 7,218 10,667 10,768 10,869 Change in Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 4,438 2,463 3,318 3,540 7,218 10,667 10,768 10,869 Percent Change in Regional Self Reliance
(As Percent of Demand w/out WUE)
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Percent of Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 0.0% 26.4% 15.0% 20.0% 19.3% 36.1% 53.0% 53.3% 53.5% Change in Percent of Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 26.4% 15.0% 20.0% 19.3% 36.1% 53.0% 53.3% 53.5% Table C-4: Calculation of Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
CVP/SWP Contract Supplies
Delta/Delta Tributary Diversions
Transfers and Exchanges
Other Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed (Untreated) 2 5,369 3,114 5,216 4,008 5,327 3,349 - - - Total Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 5,369 3,114 5,216 4,008 5,327 3,349 - - - Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency (Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 16,399 16,806 16,398 16,611 18,313 20,01 4 20,11 4 20,21 4 20,315 Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 5,369 3,114 5,216 4,008 5,327 3,349 - - - Change in Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed (2,255) (153) (1,361) (43) (2,020) (5,369) (5,369) (5,369) Percent Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(As a Percent of Demand w/out WUE)
Baseline
(2011) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Percent of Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 32.7% 18.5% 31.8% 24.1% 29.1% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Change in Percent of Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed -14.2% -0.9% -8.6% -3.7% -16.0% -32.7% -32.7% -32.7% 1 2
The Pure Water Southern California Project is anticipated to meet all of the City's water replenishment obligations in the Main Basin. Based on the City's production less the City's share (4.23099%) of the Main Basin's Operating Safe Yield (150,000 AFY). It is assumed that 50% of the recharged water will be available in 2035 before Pure Water is fully operational in 2040.
Represents imported untreated water to satisfy replenishment obligations due to Main Basin overproduction. Based on the City's production less water available to the City from Pure Water and less the City's share (4.23099%) of the Operating Safe Yield (150,000 AFY).
Appendix 10
QUANTIFYING REGIONAL SELF-RELIANCE AND
REDUCED RELIANCE ON WATER SUPPLIES FROM THE
DELTA WATERSHED
$WWDFKPHQW
Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.10-1
Appendix 10
METROPOLITAN’S
REDUCED DELTA RELIANCE REPORTING
A.10.1 Background
Under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, state and local public agencies proposing a covered action in the Delta,
1 prior to initiating the implementation of
that action, must prepare a written certification of consistency with detailed findings as to whether the covered action is consistent with applicable Delta Plan policies and submit that certification to the Delta Stewardship Council.
2 Anyone may appeal a certification of
consistency, and if the Delta Stewardship Council grants the appeal, the covered action may not be implemented until the agency proposing the covered action submits a revised certification of consistency, and either no appeal is filed, or the Delta Stewardship Council denies the subsequent appeal.
3 An urban water supplier that anticipates participating in or receiving water from a proposed covered action such as a multi-year water transfer, conveyance facility, or new diversion that involves transferring water through, exporting water from, or using water in the Delta should provide information in their 2015 and subsequent Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) that can then be used in the covered action process to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (WR P1).
4 WR P1 details what is needed for a covered action to demonstrate consistency with reduced reliance on the Delta and improved regional self-reliance. WR P1 subsection (a) states that:
(a) Water shall not be exported from, transferred through, or used in the Delta if all of the following apply:
(1) One or more water suppliers that would receive water as a result of the export, transfer, or use have failed to adequately contribute to reduced reliance on the Delta and improved regional self-reliance consistent with all of the requirements listed in paragraph (1) of subsection (c); (2) That failure has significantly caused the need for the export, transfer, or use; and
(3) The export, transfer, or use would have a significant adverse environmental impact in the Delta.
WR P1 subsection (c)(1) further defines what adequately contributing to reduced reliance on the Delta means in terms of (a)(1) above.
1 Water Code, § 85057.5; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, § 5001. 2 Water Code, § 85225; Delta Plan, App. D.
3 Water Code, §§ 85225.10-85225.25; Delta Plan, App. D. 4 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5003.
A.10-2 Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting
(c)(1) Water suppliers that have done all the following are contributing to reduced reliance on the Delta and improved regional self-reliance and are therefore consistent with this policy:
(A) Completed a current Urban or Agricultural Water Management Plan (Plan) which has been reviewed by the California Department of Water Resources for compliance with the applicable requirements of Water Code Division 6, Parts
2.55, 2.6, and 2.8;
(B) Identified, evaluated, and commenced implementation, consistent with the implementation schedule set forth in the Plan, of all programs and projects included in the Plan that are locally cost effective and technically feasible which reduce reliance on the Delta; and
(C) Included in the Plan, commencing in 2015, the expected outcome for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improvement in regional self- reliance. The expected outcome for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improvement in regional self-reliance shall be reported in the Plan as the reduction in the amount of water used, or in the percentage of water used, from the Delta watershed. For the purposes of reporting, water efficiency is considered a new source of water supply, consistent with Water Code section 1011(a).
The analysis and documentation provided below include all of the elements described in WR P1(c)(1) that need to be included in a water supplier’s UWMP to support a certification of consistency for a future covered action.
A.10.2 Summary of Expected Outcomes for Reduced Reliance on the Delta As stated in WR P1(c)(1)(C), the policy requires that, commencing in 2015, UWMPs include expected outcomes for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improved regional self-reliance. WR P1 further states that those outcomes shall be reported in the UWMP as the reduction in the amount of water used, or in the percentage of water used, from the Delta.
The expected outcomes for Metropolitan’s Delta reliance and regional self-reliance were developed using the approach and guidance described in Appendix C of DWR’s Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook 2025 (Guidebook Appendix C) issued in 2025.
The data used in this analysis represent the total regional efforts of Metropolitan and its member agencies and their customers (many of them, retail agencies) and were developed in conjunction with Metropolitan’s member agencies as part of the UWMP coordination process as described in Chapter 5 of Metropolitan’s UWMP. In accordance with UWMP requirements, Metropolitan’s member agencies and their customers (many of them, retail agencies) also report demands and supplies for their service areas in their respective UWMPs. The data reported by those agencies are not additive to the regional totals shown in Metropolitan’s UWMP; rather, their reporting represents subtotals of the regional total and should be considered as such for the purposes of determining reduced reliance on the Delta.
Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.10-3
While the demands that Metropolitan’s member agencies and their customers report in their UWMPs are a good reflection of the demands in their respective service areas, they do not adequately represent each water supplier’s contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta.
In order to calculate and report their reliance on water supplies from the Delta watershed, water suppliers that receive water from the Delta through other regional or wholesale water suppliers would need to determine the amount of Delta water that they receive from the regional or wholesale supplier. Two specific pieces of information are needed to accomplish this: first is the quantity of demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier that accurately reflect a supplier’s contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta, and second is the quantity of a supplier’s demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier that are met by supplies from the Delta watershed.
For water suppliers that make investments in regional projects or programs it may be infeasible to quantify their demands on the regional or wholesale water supplier in a way that accurately reflects their individual contributions to reduced reliance on the Delta. Due to the extensive, long-standing and successful implementation of regional demand management and local resource incentive programs in Metropolitan’s service area, this infeasibility holds true for Metropolitan’s members as well as their customers. For Metropolitan’s service area, reduced reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed can only be accurately accounted at the regional level, as is demonstrated in this analysis.
The following provides a summary of the near-term (2030) and long-term (2050) expected outcomes for Metropolitan’s Delta reliance and regional self-reliance. The results show that as a region, Metropolitan and its members as well as their customers are measurably reducing reliance on the Delta and improving regional self-reliance, both as an amount of water used and as a percentage of water used.
Expected Outcomes for Regional Self-Reliance
x Near-term (2030) – Normal water year regional self-reliance is expected to increase by 601 TAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents an increase of almost 20 percent of 2030 normal water year retail demands (Table A.10-2).
x Long-term (2050) – Normal water year regional self-reliance is expected to increase by more than 1.02 MAF from the 2010 baseline, this represents an increase of more than 20 percent of 2050 normal water year retail demands (Table A.10-2).
Expected Outcomes for Reduced Reliance on Supplies from the Delta Watershed x Near-term (2030) – Normal water year reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed decreased by 466 TAF from the 2010 baseline, this represents a decrease of more than 6 percent of 2030 normal water year retail demands (Table A.10-3). x Long-term (2050) – Normal water year reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed decreased by 537 TAF from the 2010 baseline, this represents a decrease of just over 9 percent of 2050 normal water year retail demands (Table A.10-3).
A10.3 Demonstration of Reduced Reliance on the Delta
The methodology used to determine Metropolitan’s reduced Delta reliance and improved regional self-reliance is consistent with the approach detailed in DWR’s UWMP Guidebook Appendix C, including the use of narrative justifications for the accounting of supplies and
A.10-4 Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting
the documentation of specific data sources. Some of the key assumptions underlying Metropolitan’s demonstration of reduced reliance include:
x All data were obtained from the current 2025 UWMP or previously adopted UWMPs and represent average or normal water year conditions.
x All analyses were conducted at the service area level, and all data reflect the total contributions of Metropolitan and its members as well as their customers. x No projects or programs that are described in the UWMPs as “Projects Under Development” were included in the accounting of supplies.
Baseline and Expected Outcomes
In order to calculate the expected outcomes for measurable reduction in Delta reliance and improved regional self-reliance, a baseline is needed to compare against. This analysis uses a normal water year representation of 2010 as the baseline, which is consistent with the approach described in the Guidebook Appendix C. Data for the 2010 baseline were taken from Metropolitan’s 2005 UWMP as the UWMPs generally do not provide normal water year data for the year that they are adopted (i.e., 2005 UWMP forecasts begin in 2010, 2010 UWMP forecasts begin in 2015, and so on).
Consistent with the 2010 baseline data approach, the expected outcomes for reduced Delta reliance and improved regional self-reliance for 2015, 2020, and 2025 were taken from Metropolitan’s 2010, 2015, and 2020 UWMPs respectively. Expected outcomes for 2030- 2050 are from the current 2025 UWMP. Documentation of the specific data sources and assumptions are included in the discussions below.
Service Area Demands Without Water Use Efficiency
In alignment with the Guidebook Appendix C, this analysis uses normal water year demands, rather than normal water year supplies to calculate expected outcomes in terms of the percentage of water used. Using normal water year demands serves as a proxy for the amount of supplies that would be used in a normal water year, which helps alleviate issues associated with how supply capability is presented to fulfill requirements of the Act versus how supplies might be accounted for to demonstrate consistency with WR P1.
Because WR P1 considers water use efficiency savings a source of water supply, water suppliers such as Metropolitan that explicitly calculate and report water use efficiency savings in their UWMP will need to make an adjustment to properly reflect normal water year demands in the calculation of reduced reliance. As explained in the Guidebook Appendix C, water use efficiency savings must be added back to the normal year demands to represent demands without water use efficiency savings accounted for; otherwise the effect of water use efficiency savings on regional self-reliance would be overestimated.
Table A.10-1 shows the results of this adjustment for Metropolitan. Supporting narratives and documentation for all of the data shown in Table A.10-1 are provided below.
Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.10-5
Table A.10-1
Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For
Total Service Area Water Demands
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 4,628,000 4,563,000 4,163,000 3,763,000 3,798,000 3,879,000 3,920,000 3,945,000 3,972,000 Reported Water Use Efficiency 865,000 936,000 1,056,000 1,162,000 1,171,000 1,223,000 1,289,000 1,357,000 1,419,000 Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency
Accounted For
5,493,000
5,499,000
5,219,000
4,925,000
4,969,000
5,102,000
5,209,000
5,302,000
5,391,000
Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency
The service area demands shown in Table A.10-1 represent the total retail water demands for Metropolitan’s service area and include municipal and industrial demands, agricultural demands, seawater barrier demands, and storage replenishment demands. These demand types and the modeling methodologies used to calculate them are described in Chapter 2.2 and Appendix 1 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Water Use Efficiency
The water use efficiency numbers shown in Table A.10-1 represent the total water use efficiency savings (conservation) for Metropolitan’s region, including savings from active, code-based, price-effect and pre-1990 sources. These sources of water use efficiency and the methodologies used to calculate them are described in Chapter 2.2, Chapter 3.4, Chapter 3.7 and Appendix 1 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
The demand and water use efficiency data shown in Table A.10-1 were collected from the following sources:
x Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 2005 UWMP, Table 2-6: Metropolitan Regional Water Demand Average Year
x 2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, Table 2-8: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
x 2020 values – Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
x 2025 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Normal Water Year
x 2030-2050 values – Metropolitan’s 2025 UWMP, Table 2-1: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Normal Water Year
Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance
For a covered action to demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan, WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(C) states that water suppliers must report the expected outcomes for measurable improvement in regional self-reliance. Table A.10-2 shows expected outcomes for supplies contributing to regional self-reliance both in amount and as a percentage. The numbers shown in Table A.10-2 represent efforts to improve regional self-reliance for Metropolitan’s entire service area and include the total contributions of Metropolitan and its members as
A.10-6 Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting
well as their customers. Supporting narratives and documentation for the all of the data shown in Table A.10-2 are provided below.
The results shown in Table A.10-2 demonstrate that Metropolitan’s service area is measurably improving its regional self-reliance. In the near-term (2030), the expected outcome for normal water year regional self-reliance increases by 601 TAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents an increase of almost 20 percent of 2030 normal water year retail demands. In the long-term (2050), normal water year regional self-reliance is expected to increase by more than 1.0 MAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents an increase of 20 percent of 2050 normal water year retail demands.
Table A.10-2
Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance
Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Water Use Efficiency 865,000 936,000 1,056,000 1,162,000 1,171,000 1,223,000 1,289,000 1,357,000 1,419,000 Water Recycling 316,000 348,000 436,000 550,000 520,000 608,000 641,000 648,000 656,000 Stormwater Capture and Use 100,000 103,000 110,000 80,000 76,000 73,000 70,000 71,000 72,000 Advanced Water Technologies 111,000 101,000 194,000 194,000 200,000 215,000 218,000 220,000 222,000 Conjunctive Use Projects 1,416,000 1,429,000 1,303,000 1,255,000 1,222,000 1,239,000 1,244,000 1,243,000 1,242,000 Local and Regional Water Supply and Storage Projects 252,000 224,000 261,000
257,000
97,000
96,000
96,000
95,000
94,000
Other Programs and Projects that Contribute to Regional Self-Reliance 875,000 1,250,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,25 0,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance
3,935,000
4,391,000
4,560,000
4,748,000
4,536,000
4,704,000
4,808,000
4,884,000
4,955,000
Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 5,493,000 5,499,000 5,219,000 4,925,000 4,969,000 5,102,00 0 5,209,000 5,302,000 5,391,000
Change in Regional Self Reliance
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 3,935,000 4,391,000 4,560,000 4,748,000 4,536,000 4,704,000 4,808,0 00 4,884,000 4,955,000 Change in Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance NA 456,000 625,000 813,000 601,000 769,000 873,000 949,000 1,020,000
Percent Change in Regional Self Reliance
(As Percent of Demand w/out WUE)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Percent of Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 71.6% 79.9% 87.4% 96.4% 91.3% 92.2% 92.3% 92.1% 91.9% Change in Percent of Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance NA 8.2% 15.7% 24.8% 0 20.6% 20.7% 20.5% 0
Water Use Efficiency
The water use efficiency information shown in Table A.10-2 is taken directly from Table A.10-1 above.
Water Recycling
The water recycling values shown in Table A.10-2 reflect the total recycled water production in Metropolitan’s service area as described in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Stormwater Capture and Use
The stormwater capture and use data shown in Table A.10-2 include supplies from local surface water production as described in Chapter 1.4 and Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
These values do not include production from regional storage reservoirs; storage in these reservoirs is comprised of previously stored water from sources already reflected in
Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.10-7
Tables A.10-2 and A.10-3. These regional storage resources are generally used to provide additional regional self-reliance in dry years, which is not reflected in this normal water year analysis. The regional storage reservoirs and their yields are described in Chapter 3.6, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
The stormwater capture and use values shown in Table A.10-2 also do not include stormwater capture that is used to recharge local groundwater basins. Stormwater capture for groundwater recharge supports production of groundwater in the region, and for the purposes of this analysis that production is already captured in Table A.10-2 under conjunctive use projects.
Advanced Water Technologies
The advanced water technologies data shown in Table A.10-2 include total groundwater recovery and seawater desalination production in Metropolitan’s service area as described in Chapter 3.5 and Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Conjunctive Use Projects
The values for conjunctive use projects shown in Table A.10-2 represent total groundwater production in the region as described in Chapter 1.4 and Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
The conjunctive use projects numbers shown in Table A.10-2 do not include production from regional groundwater conjunctive use programs. As described in the stormwater capture and use discussion above, these regional storage programs rely on previously stored water from sources already reflected in Tables A.10-2 and A.10-3 and are generally used to provide additional regional self-reliance in dry years. The regional groundwater conjunctive use programs and their yields are described in Chapter 3.6 and Appendix 3.
Local and Regional Water Supply and Storage Programs
The data for local and regional water supply and storage programs shown in Table A.10-2 include supplies from the Los Angeles Aqueduct. This supply is described in Chapter 1.4 and Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
The local and regional supply numbers shown in Table A.10-2, except for “Other Programs and Projects that Contribute to Regional Self-Reliance” which is discussed below, were obtained from the following sources:
x Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 2005 UWMP, Table 2-6: Metropolitan Regional Water Demand Average Year
x 2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, Table 2-8: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
x 2020 values – Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
x 2025 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Normal Water Year
x 2030-2050 values – Metropolitan’s 2025 UWMP, Table 2-1: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Normal Water Year
A.10-8 Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting
Other Programs and Projects that Contribute to Regional Self-Reliance Other programs and projects that contribute to regional self-reliance shown in Table A.10-2 include current programs from the Colorado River Aqueduct. Colorado River supplies include Metropolitan’s basic Colorado River apportionment, as well as supplies that result from existing and committed programs, including those from the IID-MWD Conservation Program, the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), related agreements, and the exchange agreement with SDCWA. Colorado River Aqueduct supplies and programs are described in Chapter 3.1 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
The values shown in Table A.10-2 for other programs and projects that contribute to regional self-reliance come from the following sources:
x Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 2005 UWMP, Table A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Year 2010 (Average Year) x 2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, Table A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Year 2015 (Average Year)
x 2020 values – Metropolitan's 2015 UWMP, Table A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Year 2020 (Average Year)
x 2025 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, Table A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Year 2025 (Normal Water Year) x 2030-2050 values – Metropolitan’s 2025 UWMP, Table A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Years 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, 2050 (Normal Water Year)
Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
In order for a covered action to demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan, WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(C) requires that water suppliers report the expected outcomes for measurable reductions in supplies from the Delta watershed either as an amount or as a percentage. This analysis provides both calculations. Based on the methodology described in Guidebook Appendix C, and consistent with the approach of this analysis in not including projects under development, this accounting does not include any supplies from potential future covered actions. Table A.10-3 shows the expected outcomes for reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed for Metropolitan’s service area. Supporting narratives and documentation for the all of the data shown in Table A.10-3 are provided below.
The results shown in Table A.10-3 demonstrate that Metropolitan’s service area is measurably reducing its Delta reliance. In the near-term (2030), the expected outcome for normal water year reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed decreased by 466 TAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents a decrease of 6 percent of 2030 normal water year retail demands. In the long-term (2050), normal water year reliance on supplies from the Delta watershed decreased by 537 TAF from the 2010 baseline; this represents a decrease of just over 9 percent of 2050 normal water year retail demands.
Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.10-9
Table A.10-3
Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
CVP/SWP Contract Supplies
The CVP/SWP contract supplies shown in Table A.10-3 include Metropolitan’s SWP Table A and Article 21 supplies. These supplies are described in Chapter 3.2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
The values shown in Table A.10-3 do not include Desert Water Agency/Coachella Valley Water District SWP contract supplies. These supplies are exchanged with Desert Water Agency and Coachella Valley Water District for an equal amount of Colorado River water, which is reflected in the Colorado River Aqueduct supplies shown in Table A.10-2. In addition, Desert Water Agency and Coachella Valley Water District should include their SWP contract supplies in their own accountings of reduced reliance. Additional information on these exchange agreements can be found in Chapter 3.2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
These values also do not include supplies from San Luis Carryover storage or Central Valley storage programs because storage in these programs comprises previously stored water from sources already reflected in Table A.10-3. These storage programs are generally used to provide additional regional self-reliance in dry years, which is not reflected in this normal water year analysis. The Central Valley storage projects and their yields are described in Chapter 3.3, and Appendix 3. San Luis Carryover storage is described in Chapter 3.2 and Appendix 3.
Transfers and Exchanges of Supplies from the Delta Watershed The transfers and exchanges of supplies from the Delta watershed shown in Table A.10-3 include supplies from the San Bernardino Valley MWD Program, Yuba River Accord Purchase Program, the San Gabriel Valley MWD Program, Irvine Ranch Water District Storage and Exchange Program, and other generic SWP and Central Valley transfers and exchanges. These programs are described in Chapter 3.2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CVP/SWP Contract Supplies 1,472,000 1,029,000 984,000 1,133,000 949,000 924,000 901,000 877,000 877,000 Delta/Delta Tributary Diversions - - - - - - - - - Transfers and Exchanges of Supplies from the Delta Watershed 20,000 44,000 91,000 58,000 77,000 77,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 Other Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed - - - - - - - - - Total Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 1,492,000 1,073,000 1,075,000 1,191,000 1,026,000 1,001,000 979,000 955,000 955,000 Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Service Area Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 5,493,000 5,499,000 5,219,000 4,925,000 4,969,000 5,102,000 5,209,000 5,302,000 5,391,000 Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 1,492,000 1,073,000 1,075,000 1,191,000 1,026,000 1,001,000 979,000 955,000 955,000 Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed NA (419,000) (417,000) (301,000) (466,000) (491,000) (513,000) (537,000) (537,000) Percent Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(As a Percent of Demand w/out WUE)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Percent of Supplies from the Delta Watershed 27.2% 19.5% 20.6% 24.2% 20.6% 19.6% 18.8% 18.0% 17.7% Change in Percent of Supplies from the Delta Watershed NA -7.6% -6.6% -3.0% -6.5% -7.5% -8.4% -9.1% -9.4%
A.10-10 Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting Supplies from the Delta Watershed shown in Table A.10-3 are from the following sources:
x Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 2005 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2010 (Average Year)
x 2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2015 (Average Year)
x 2020 values – Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2020 (Average Year)
x 2025 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2025 (Normal Water Year)
x 2030-2050 values – Metropolitan’s 2025 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Years 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, 2050 (Normal Water Year) A.10.4 UWMP Implementation
In addition to the analysis and documentation described above, WR P1 subsection (c)(1)(B) requires that all programs and projects included in the UWMP that are locally cost-effective and technically feasible, which reduce reliance on the Delta, are identified, evaluated, and implemented consistent with the implementation schedule. WR P1 (c)(1)(B) states that:
(B) Identified, evaluated, and commenced implementation, consistent with the implementation schedule set forth in the Plan, of all programs and projects included in the Plan that are locally cost effective and technically feasible which reduce reliance on the Delta[.]
In accordance with Water Code Chapter 10631(f), water suppliers must already include in their UWMP a detailed description of expected future projects and programs that they may implement to increase the amount of water supply available to them in normal and single- dry water years and for a period of drought lasting five consecutive years. The UWMP description must also identify specific projects, include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project, and include an estimate regarding the implementation timeline for each project or program.
Chapter 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP summarizes the implementation plan and continued progress in developing a diversified water portfolio to meet the region’s water needs.
Water Use Efficiency
The water use efficiency numbers used in this analysis include the total water use efficiency savings (conservation) for the service area, including savings from active, code- based, price-effect and pre-1990 savings. The specific water use efficiency programs and their implementation are described in Chapter 3.4 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Water Recycling
The water recycling values used in this analysis reflect the total recycled water production in Metropolitan’s service area. Water recycling programs and implementation are discussed in Chapter 3.5 of Metropolitan’s UWMP. In addition, individual project-level details are provided in Appendix 5.
Metropolitan’s Reduced Delta Reliance Reporting A.10-11 Stormwater Capture and Use
The stormwater capture and use data used in this analysis include supplies from local surface water production. Local surface water production and its implementation are discussed in Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Advanced Water Technologies
The advanced water technologies data used in this analysis include total groundwater recovery and seawater desalination production in Metropolitan’s service. Groundwater recovery and seawater desalination programs and implementation are described in Chapter 3.5 of Metropolitan’s UWMP. In addition, individual project-level details are provided in Appendix 5.
Conjunctive Use Projects
The values for conjunctive use projects used in this analysis represent total groundwater production in the region. Groundwater production and its implementation are discussed in Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Local and Regional Water Supply and Storage Programs
The data for local and regional water supply and storage programs shown in this analysis include supplies from the Los Angeles Aqueduct. This program and its implementation are described in Appendix 2 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Other Programs and Projects that Contribute to Regional Self-Reliance Other programs and projects that contribute to regional self-reliance used in this analysis include current programs from the Colorado River Aqueduct. Colorado River supplies include Metropolitan’s basic Colorado River apportionment, as well as supplies that result from existing and committed programs, including those from the IID-MWD Conservation Program, the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), related agreements, and the exchange agreement with SDCWA. Colorado River Aqueduct programs and their implementation are described in Chapter 3.1 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
CVP/SWP Contract Supplies
The CVP/SWP contract supplies shown in this analysis include Metropolitan’s SWP Table A and Article 21 supplies. These supplies and their implementation are described in Chapter 3.2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
Transfers and Exchanges of Supplies from the Delta Watershed The transfers and exchanges of supplies from the Delta watershed shown in this analysis include supplies from the San Bernardino Valley MWD Program, Yuba River Accord Purchase Program, the San Gabriel Valley MWD Program, Irvine Ranch Water District Storage and Exchange Program, and other generic SWP and Central Valley transfers and exchanges. These programs and their implementation are described in Chapter 3.2 and Appendix 3 of Metropolitan’s UWMP.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX D
NOTIFICATION LETTERS AND NOTICES OF PUBLIC
HEARING
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX E
CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS (CAL- ADAPT
DATA)
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX F
LONG BEACH JUDGMENT
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G
MAIN BASIN JUDGMENT
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX H
RAYMOND BASIN ADJUDICATION
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX I
DRAFT RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRAFT
City of Arcadia
Recycled Water Feasibility Study
November 2006
November 29, 2004
Prepared for:
City of Arcadia
Stetson Engineers Inc.
861 Village Oaks Drive, Covina, California 91724
Phone: (626) 967-6202, Fax: (626) 331-7065
Covina, CA San Rafael, CA Mesa, AZ
Recycled Water Deamnd /2
Demand No. Customer Nam e Address
1 Arcadia High 180 Campus Dr. 46 27 0.025 0.061 0.184 128 2 Baldwin Stocker Elementary 422 W Lemon Ave. 5 3 0.003 0.007 0.020 14 3 Camino Grove School 700 Camino Grove 6 3 0.003 0.008 0.023 16 4 Dana Middle School 1401 S. First Ave. 9 6 0.005 0.012 0.037 26 5 First Ave Middle School 301 S. First Ave. 12 7 0.006 0.015 0.046 32 6 Foothills Middle School 171 E. Sycamore Ave. 5 3 0.003 0.007 0.020 14 7 Highland Oaks Elementary 10 Virginia Dr. 3 2 0.002 0.005 0.014 10 8 Holly Ave Elementary 360 W. Duarte Rd. 14 8 0.008 0.019 0.057 39 9 Hugo Reid Elementary 1000 Hugo Reid Dr. 1 1 0.001 0.001 0.004 3 10 Hugo Reid Primary 1000 Hugo Reid Dr. 4 2 0.002 0.005 0.015 10 11 Longley Way Elementary 2601 S. Longley Wy. 7 4 0.004 0.010 0.029 20 12 Rancho High/Serendipity School 120 - 150 S. Third Ave. 5 3 0.002 0.006 0.018 13 13 Holly Angels School Campus Dr. & Holly Ave. 2 1 0.001 0.002 0.007 5 14 Serendipity School (Part of No. 12) 120 - 150 S. Third Ave. 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 15 Santa Anita Golf Course 405 S. Santa Anita Ave. 156 109 0.097 0.243 0.730 507 16 Santa Anita Park (Race Track) 285 W. Huntington Dr. 162 121 0.108 0.271 0.812 564 17 LA County & State Arboretum S. Baldwin Ave. 93 79 0.070 0.176 0.528 367 18 Arcadia County Park 78 W Huntington Dr. 125 106 0.095 0.237 0.712 495 19 Baldwin Stocker Park 422 W. Lemon Ave. 5 5 0.004 0.010 0.031 22 20 Bicentennial Park 526 E. Longden Ave. 1 1 0.001 0.003 0.008 6 21 Bonita Park 207 Bonita St. 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.001 0
22 Camino Grove Park 1420 S. Sixth Ave. 2 2 0.002 0.004 0.012 8 23 Civic Center Athletic Field 240 W. Huntington Dr. 8 7 0.006 0.016 0.048 33 24 Eisenhower Memorial Park 601 N. Second Ave. 20 17 0.015 0.037 0.112 78 25 Fairview Avenue Park 542 Fairview Ave. 3 3 0.002 0.006 0.018 12 26 Forest Avenue Park 132 W. Forest Ave. 1 1 0.001 0.003 0.008 6 27 Highland Oaks Park 10 W. Virginia Rd. 6 5 0.004 0.011 0.032 22 28 Hugo Reid Park 1153 De Anza Pl. 10 9 0.008 0.019 0.057 40 29 Longden Avenue Park 1179 E. Longden Ave. 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 30 Newcastle Park 143 W. Colorado Blvd. 8 7 0.006 0.016 0.047 33 31 Orange Grove Park 670 W. Orange Grove Ave. 0 0 0.000 0.001 0.002 1 32 Par-3 Golf Course 620 E. Live Oak Ave. 44 31 0.028 0.069 0.207 144 33 Tierra Verde Park 200 E. Camino Real Ave. 7 6 0.006 0.014 0.042 29 34 Tripolis Friendship Park 1003 S. Golden West Ave. 3 2 0.002 0.005 0.015 11 35 Wilderness Park 2240 N. Highland Oaks Dr. 8 7 0.006 0.016 0.047 33 36 Santa Anita Median 105 N Santa Anita Ave. 47 47 0.042 0.104 0.313 218 37 Baldwin Median 460 N Baldwin Ave. 15 15 0.013 0.033 0.098 68 38 Hungtington Median 32 E Huntington Dr. 17 17 0.015 0.038 0.115 80 39 Live Oak Median 43 E Live Oak Ave. 5 5 0.005 0.011 0.034 24 40 Fashing Car Wash 425 N Santa Anita Ave. 37 24 0.021 0.053 0.160 111 41 Calco Farms 11921 Goldring Rd. 15 12 0.011 0.028 0.084 58 42 Caltrans 223 N Fifth Avenue 4 4 0.003 0.009 0.026 18 43 Caltrans 4 E Forest Ave 12 12 0.011 0.027 0.082 57
44 Caltrans 170 W Forest Ave 7 7 0.007 0.017 0.050 35
45 Caltrans 900 N Michillinda Ave 1 1 0.001 0.001 0.004 3 46 Caltrans 1015 N Old Ranch Road 1 1 0.001 0.003 0.010 7 47 Caltrans 1009 San Carlos Road 5 5 0.005 0.012 0.036 25 Total 948 740 0.661 1.652 4.956 3,442
Hi-Lited Totals (Customers Along Proposed Recycled Water Pipeline Route) 644 0.575 1.438 4.315 2,996 /1 Values shown are actual metered usage Jan. 1999 and Jan. 2004. Supplied by City Of Arcadia staff. /2 Demand Reduction Factors: Schools 40%, Golf Courses 30%, Parks 15%, Arboretum 15%, Race Track 25%, Car Wash 35%, and Calco Farms 15%. Medians and Caltrans not reduced. Maximum Day Demand = 2.5 X Average Day Demand. Maximum Peak Hour Demand = 3 X Maximum Day Demand Water Demand /1 (AFY) Annual Average (AFY)
Proposed Recycled Water Users Within City Of Arcadia
Average Day (MGD)
Max Day Demand
(MGD)
Max Peak Hour
Demand (MGD)
Max Peak Hour
Demand (GPM)
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX J
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
Footnotes:
--- (1) ---
(Division 3 added by Ord. 1930 adopted 2-5-91)
Arcadia, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
1 of 10 4/14/2026, 4:39 PM
Arcadia, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
2 of 10 4/14/2026, 4:39 PM
Arcadia, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
3 of 10 4/14/2026, 4:39 PM
Arcadia, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
4 of 10 4/14/2026, 4:39 PM
Arcadia, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
5 of 10 4/14/2026, 4:39 PM
Arcadia, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
6 of 10 4/14/2026, 4:39 PM
Arcadia, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
7 of 10 4/14/2026, 4:39 PM
Arcadia, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
8 of 10 4/14/2026, 4:39 PM
Arcadia, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
9 of 10 4/14/2026, 4:39 PM
Arcadia, CA Code of Ordinances about:blank
10 of 10 4/14/2026, 4:39 PM
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX K
CITY OF ARCADIA LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN
City of Arcadia
Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan
May 11, 2022
City of Arcadia
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Table of Contents
Introduction
Section 1 - Executive Summary 1-1
Section 2 - Resolution adoption by Council 2-1
Section 3 - FEMA Crosswalk & Approval Letter 3-1
Section 4 - Community Profile 4-1
Section 5 - Planning Process 5-1
Section 6 - Risk Assessment 6-1
Section 7
Natural Hazards 7
Section 7.1 - Earthquake 7.1
Section 7.2 - Flood 7.2
Section 7.3 Slope Failure Debris/Mud Flow 7.3
Section 7.4 - Windstorm 7.4
Section 7.5 - Wildfire 7.5
Section 7.6 - Drought 7.6
Section 8 - Human Caused Hazards 8
Section 8.1 - Hazardous Materials 8.1
Section 8.2 - Terrorism 8.2
Section 8.3
Train Accident 8.3
Section 9 - Mitigation Strategy 9-1
Section 10 - Plan Maintenance 10-1
Appendix
Appendix A - Economic Analysis A-1
Appendix B - Acronyms B-1
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 1 Executive Summary
1-1
Five -Year Action Plan Matrix
The City of Arcadia Local Hazards Mitigation Action Plan includes resources and information to assist City residents, public and private sector organizations, and others interested in participating in planning for local hazards. The mitigation plan provides a list of activities that may assist City of Arcadia in reducing risk and preventing loss from future hazardous events. The action items address multi-hazard issues, as well as activities for earthquakes, flooding, debris flow / Slope Failures, windstorms, wildfires, drought, hazardous materials, transportation emergencies and terrorism
How is the Plan Organized?
The Mitigation Plan contains a five-year action plan matrix, background on the purpose and methodology used to develop the mitigation plan, a profile of City of Arcadia, sections on hazards that occur within the City, and a number of appendices.
Who Participated in Developing the Plan?
The City of Arcadia
Local Hazard Mitigation Action Plan is the result of a collaborative , public agencies, non-profit organizations, the
private sector, and regional and state organizations. Public participation played a key role in development of goals and action items. A meeting was held with stakeholders in the City, and two public meetings
development. A Hazard Mitigation Committee guided the process of developing the plan.
What is the Plan Mission?
The mission of the City of Arcadia
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is to promote sound
public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities, infrastructure, private property, and the environment from potential hazards. This can be achieved by increasing public awareness, documenting the resources for risk reduction and loss- prevention, and identifying activities to guide the City towards building a safer, more sustainable community.
What are the Plan Goals?
organizations, and citizens can take to work toward mitigating risk from hazards. The goals are stepping-stones between the broad direction of the mission statement and the specific recommendations outlined in the action items.
Protect Life and Property
Implement activities that assist in protecting lives by making homes, businesses, infrastructure, critical facilities, and other property more resistant to losses from natural hazards.
Reduce losses and repetitive damages for chronic hazard events while promoting insurance coverage for catastrophic hazards.
Improve hazard assessment information to make recommendations for discouraging new development in high hazard areas and encouraging preventative measures for existing development in areas vulnerable to hazards.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 1 Executive Summary
1-2
Public Awareness
Develop and implement education and outreach programs to increase public awareness of the risks associated with natural hazards.
Provide information on tools; partnership opportunities, and funding resources to assist in implementing mitigation activities.
Natural Systems
Balance natural resource management, and land use planning with local hazard mitigation to protect life, property, and the environment.
Preserve, rehabilitate, and enhance natural systems to serve local hazard mitigation functions.
Partnerships and Implementation
Strengthen communication and coordinate participation among and within public agencies, citizens, non-profit organizations, business, and industry to gain a vested interest in implementation.
Encourage leadership within public and private sector organizations to prioritize and implement local and regional hazard mitigation activities.
Emergency Services
Establish policy to ensure mitigation projects for critical facilities, services, and infrastructure.
Strengthen emergency operations by increasing collaboration and coordination among public agencies, non-profit organizations, business, and industry.
Coordinate and integrate hazard mitigation activities, where appropriate, with emergency operations plans and procedures.
How are the Action Items Organized?
The action items are a listing of activities in which City agencies and citizens can be engaged in to reduce risk. The action items are organized within the following matrix, which lists all of the multi-hazard and hazard-specific action items included in the mitigation plan. Data collection, research, and the public participation process resulted in the development of these action items (see Section 9). The matrix includes the following information for each action item:
Coordinating Organization
The coordinating organization is the public agency with regulatory responsibility to address hazards, or that is willing and able to organize resources, find appropriate funding, or oversee activity implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Coordinating organizations may include local, county, or regional agencies that are capable of or responsible for implementing activities and programs.
Time line
Action items include both short and long-term activities. Each action item Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 1 Executive Summary
1-3
includes an estimate of the time line for implementation. Short-term action items are activities which City agencies are capable of implementing with existing resources and authorities within one to two years. Long-term action items may require new or additional resources or authorities, and may take between one and five years (or more) to implement.
Ideas for Implementation
Each action item includes ideas for implementation and potential resources, which may include grant programs or human resources.
Plan Goals Addressed
The plan goals addressed by each action item are included as a way to monitor and evaluate how well the mitigation plan is achieving its goals once implementation begins. The plan goals are organized into the following five areas:
1. Protect Life and Property
2. Public Awareness
3. Natural Systems
4. Partnerships and Implementation
5. Emergency Services
Constraints
Constraints may apply to some of the action items. These constraints may be a lack of city staff, lack of funds, or vested property rights, which might expose the City to legal action as a result of adverse impacts on private property.
How Will the Plan be Implemented, Monitored, and Evaluated? The Plan Maintenance Section of this document details the formal process that will Local Hazards Mitigation Plan remains an active and
relevant document. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the Plan annually and producing a plan revision every five years. This section describes how the City will integrate public participation throughout the plan maintenance process. Finally, this section includes an explanation of how the City of Improvement Plans, and Building & Safety Codes.
Plan Adoption
Adopti
body is one of the prime requirements for approval of the plan. Once the plan is reviewed
Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan. The local agency governing body has the responsibility and authority to promote sound public policy regarding hazards. The City Council will periodically need to re-adopt the plan as it is revised to meet changes in the hazard risks and exposures in the community. The approved Local Hazard Mitigation Plan will be significant in the future growth and development of the community.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 1 Executive Summary
1-4
Coordinating Body
The
coordinating implementation of Plan action items and undertaking the formal review process. The City Manager will assign representatives to the Hazard Mitigation Committee and assign a Project Manager.
Convener
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the
Hazard Mitigation Committee will take responsibility for plan implementation. The Project Manager will serve as a convener to facilitate the Hazard Mitigation Committee meetings, and will assign tasks such as updating and presenting the Plan to the members of the committee. Plan implementation and evaluation will be a shared responsibility among all of the Local Hazard Committee Members.
Implementation through Existing Programs
The City of Arcadia addresses statewide planning goals and legislative requirements through its General Plan, Capital Improvement Plans, Fire Codes, City Building & Safety Codes and other related documents. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a series of recommendations that are closely related to the goals and objectives of these existing planning programs. City of Arcadia will have the opportunity to implement recommended mitigation action items through existing programs and procedures.
Economic Analysis of Mitigation Projects
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's approaches to identify costs and benefits associated with hazard mitigation strategies or projects fall into two general categories:
benefit/cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Conducting benefit/cost analysis for a mitigation activity can assist communities in determining whether a project is worth undertaking now, in order to avoid disaster-related damages later. Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates how best to spend a given amount of money to achieve a specific goal.
Determining the economic feasibility of mitigating hazards can provide decision makers with an understanding of the potential benefits and costs of an activity, as well as a basis upon which to compare alternative projects.
Formal Review Process
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan will be evaluated on an annual basis to determine the effectiveness of programs, and to reflect changes in land development or programs that may affect mitigation priorities. The evaluation process includes a firm schedule and time line, and identifies the local agencies and organizations participating in plan evaluation. The Project Manager or designee will be responsible for contacting the Hazard Mitigation Committee members and organizing the annual meeting. Committee members will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the progress of the mitigation strategies in the Plan.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 1 Executive Summary
1-5
Continued Public Involvement
The City of Arcadia is dedicated to involving the public directly in the continual review and updates of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Copies of the plan will be catalogued and . The
existence and location of these copies will be publicized in City newsletters. In addition, locations of the Plan and any proposed changes will be posted on the City website. This site will also contain an email address and phone number to which people can direct their comments and concerns.
Changes to Priorities
The City of Arcadia updated its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2012. There have been no changes in priorities since the adoption of the plan.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 2 Resolution Adoption by Council
2-1
On May 3, 2022 this plan was adopted by the Arcadia City Council. The staff report and Resolution are included in this section.
DATE: May 3, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Barry R. Spriggs, Fire Chief
By: Chen Suen, Deputy Fire Chief
Maria Lourdes A. Taylor, Sr. Management Analyst
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 7429 APPROVING TH E CITY OF ARCADIA LOCAL
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Recommendation: Adopt
SUMMARY
Local governments are required to have an approved Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in place to receive pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation federal funding. The City has updated its Plan to address modern threats to the community and to adhere to federal standards and guidelines. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7429, approving the City of Arcadia’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, prior to its submittal to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) for final approval.
BACKGROUND
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 was a law enacted by the federal government that places emphasis on hazard mitigation planning for local municipalities. The law requires local governments to develop and adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (“LHMP”) with final approval given by FEMA. An LHMP is a document that identifies potential natural and human-caused disasters specific to a community and contains information to assist the community, its residents, and other interested parties to plan for local hazards.
Essentially, FEMA requires a local government to update their LHMP every five years.
The City of Arcadia’s previous LHMP was adopted in 2013. For this most recent LHMP update, City staff began working with FEMA in 2017 with the final draft subsequently approved by FEMA in April 2022.
On April 5, 2022, after completing its review of the LHMP, FEMA advised staff that the plan was eligible for final approval pending its adoption by the City. Upon City Council’s approval of the LHMP, formal adoption documentation will be forwarded to FEMA to satisfy the final requirement of the review process.
Adopt Resolution 7429
Arcadia Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
May 3, 2022
DISCUSSION
After a disaster strikes, repair and construction efforts are often undertaken to restore infrastructure to pre-disaster conditions. Although such efforts expedite a return to normal functioning, the replications of pre-disaster conditions could result in a cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Hazard mitigation planning ensures such cycles are broken and that post-disaster repairs and reconstruction result in vulnerability reduction.
While disasters may be unpreventable, the devasting effects may be reduced or eliminated through well-organized public education and awareness efforts, preparedness, and mitigation. For those hazards that cannot be fully mitigated, the community must be prepared to provide efficient and effective response and recovery services.
The mission of the LHMP is to promote sound public policy designed to protect residents, critical facilities, infrastructure, private property, and the environment from natural and human caused hazards. This mission will be achieved by increasing public awareness, documenting resources for risk reduction and lo ss prevention, and identifying activities that will guide the City toward building a safer, more sustainable community.
The document was prepared through a concerted and collaborative effort of City departments, citizens in the community, and ma jor stakeholders in the region. All City departments met regularly, coordinated resources, and compiled information required for the document. Public workshops were held to gather ideas and opinions on community mitigation goals and activities. In addition, a stakeholder meeting was conducted, which was attended by emergency service coordinators within the region, representatives from the Arcadia Unified School District, American Red Cross, Santa Anita Racetrack, civic groups, and the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce.
The end-product is a comprehensive City of Arcadia Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Over 100 pages in length, excluding appendices and maps, the document reviews action items from the previous LHMP and evaluates if those goals have been met. It also discusses in detail nine (9) possible natural and human-caused hazards that could impact the City, which include the following:
1) Earthquake
2) Flood
3) Slope Failure Debris/Mud Flow
4) Windstorm
5) Wildfire
6) Drought
7) Hazardous Materials
8) Terrorism
Adopt Resolution 7429
Arcadia Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
May 3, 2022
9) Train Accident
The LHMP includes a description, risk analysis, and mitigation strategies for each hazard.
For example, the earthquake section of the document discusses: the definition of an earthquake; earthquakes in Southern California and in Arcadia; earthquake hazard assessment and a list of the nearby fault lines that affect Arcadia; risk analysis of the probability of an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.0 or greater occurring in the next five (5), 10, 20, and 50 years; the City’s current mitigation of earthquake hazards; and a resource directory pertaining to earthquake preparedness and mitigation. Other sections follow similar patterns.
The adoption of Resolution No. 7429 by the City Council is the final requirement in the plan approval process. The document has already been approved by the California Office of Emergency Services (“Cal-OES”). Additionally, the document has been approved by FEMA, pending the formal adoption by the City Council. Upon City Council’s adoption, the document will be available for public review in the City Manager’s Office, City Clerk’s Office, and the Arcadia Public Library. A copy will also reside on the City’s website.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The LHMP is subject to a statutory exemption pursuant to Section 15252 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines because it is a feasibility and planning study.
Additionally, the document is consistent with the City’s General Plan in implementing certain Public Safety Element goals, objectives, and policies outlined in Resolution No. 7429.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of Resolution No. 7429 has no direct fiscal impact to the City. Arcadia will have the opportunity to implement recommended mitigation action items through existing programs and procedures.
Failure to adopt an LHMP will forfeit the City’s eligibility to receive federal funding for both pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation projects.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7429 approving the City of Arcadia’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Adopt Resolution 7429
Arcadia Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
May 3, 2022
Attachments: Resolution 7429
City of Arcadia Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, GENE GLASCO, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 742
was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 3rd of May, 2022 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Danielson, Tay, Verlato, Cheng, and Beck NOES: None
ABSENT: None
_________________________
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 3 FEMA Crosswalk and Approval Letter
3-1
On May 11, 2022, this plan was approved by FEMA. The approval letter and crosswalk are included in this section.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
FEMA Region 9
1111 Broadway, Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94607
www.fema.gov
May , 2022
Barry Spriggs
Fire Chief
Arcadia Fire Department
710 S. Santa Anita Ave.
Arcadia, CA 91006
Dear Chief Spriggs:
The City of Arcadia Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022 was officially adopted by the City of Arcadia on May 3, 2022 and submitted for review and approval to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The review is complete, and FEMA finds the plan to be in conformance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Part 201, Section 6 (44 C.F.R. 201.6).
This plan approval ensures the City of Arcadia’s continued eligibility for funding under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs, including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program (BRIC), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. All requests for funding are evaluated individually according to eligibility and other program requirements. Approved hazard mitigation plans may also be eligible for points under the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System (CRS).
FEMA’s approval is for a period of five years, effective starting the date of this letter. Prior to May
, 2027, the City of Arcadia must review, revise, and submit their plan to FEMA for approval to maintain eligibility for grant funding. The enclosed plan review tool provides additional recommendations to incorporate into future plan updates.
If you have any questions regarding the planning or review processes, please contact the FEMA Region 9 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Kathryn Lipiecki
Director, Mitigation Division
FEMA Region 9
Enclosure (1)
City of Arcadia Plan Review Tool, dated May , 2022
www.fema.gov
City of Arcadia Hazard Mitigation Plan Approval Notice
May
, 2022
cc: Alison Kearns, Planning and Implementation Branch Chief, FEMA Region 9 Jennifer Hogan, State Hazard Mitigation Officer, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Victoria LaMar-Haas, Hazard Mitigation Planning Chief, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool (Version 4/12/2021) 1
REGION IX LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL
Last Updated: April 12, 2021
The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool demonstrates how the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan meets the regulation in 44 CFR §201.6 and offers State and FEMA Mitigation Planners an opportunity to provide feedback to the community.
• The Regulation Checklist provides a summary of FEMA’s evaluation of whether the plan has addressed all requirements.
• The Plan Assessment identifies the plan’s strengths as well as documents areas for future improvement. This section also includes a list of resources for implementation of the plan. • The Multi-Jurisdiction Summary Sheet is a mandatory worksheet for multi-jurisdictional plans that is used to document which jurisdictions are eligible to adopt the plan. • The Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Matrix is a tool for plan reviewers to identify if all components of Element B are met.
Jurisdiction:
City of Arcadia, California
Title of Plan:
City of Arcadia Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan
Date of Plan:
December 31, 2019
Local Point of Contact:
Barry Spriggs
Address:
710 S. Santa Anita Ave.
Arcadia, CA 91006
Title:
Fire Chief
Agency:
Arcadia Fire Department
Phone Number:
626 574 5107
E-Mail:
[email protected]
State Reviewer(s):
Karen McCready-Hoover
(916) 845-8177
[email protected]
Title:
Emergency Services Coordinator
Date:
April 13, 2021
Date Received at State Agency 1/9/20, 6/24/20, 3/12/21, 3/17/21, 4/7/21 Date Sent to FEMA 4/13/21
FEMA Reviewer(s):
Emily Breen
Title:
Community Planner
Date:
May 3, 2021
Date Received in FEMA Region IX April 13, 2021
Date(s) Revisions Requested May 24, 2021, April 1, 2022 Date Approvable Pending Adoption (APA) April 5, 2022
Date Approved May 11, 2022
2 FEMA Region IX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
SECTION 1:
REGULATION CHECKLIST
INSTRUCTIONS: The Regulation Checklist must be completed by FEMA. The purpose of the Checklist is to identify the location of relevant or applicable content in the plan by element/sub- element and to determine if each requirement has been ‘Met’ or ‘Not Met.’ The ‘Required Revisions’ summary at the bottom of each element must be completed by FEMA to provide a clear explanation of the revisions that are required for plan approval. Required revisions must be explained for each plan sub-element that is ‘Not Met.’ Sub-elements should be referenced in each summary by using the appropriate numbers (A1, B3, etc.), where applicable.
Requirements for each Element and sub-element are described in detail in the Local Plan Review Guide in Section 4, Regulation Checklist.
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Location in
Plan
(section
and/or
page number)
Met Not
Met
ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS
A1. Does the plan document the planning
process, including how it was prepared
and who was involved in the process for
each jurisdiction? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(1))
a. Does the plan provide
documentation of how the plan was
prepared? This documentation must
include the schedule or timeframe and
activities that made up the plan’s
development as well as the planning
team members who were involved.
P 5-1 & 5-2
X
b. Does the plan list the jurisdiction(s)
participating in the plan that are
seeking approval?
P 1-3
X
c. Does the plan identify who
represented each jurisdiction on the
planning team? At a minimum, it must
identify the jurisdiction represented
and the person’s position or title and
agency within the jurisdiction.)
P 5-1 & 5-2
X
A2. Does the plan document an
opportunity for neighboring communities,
local and regional agencies involved in
hazard mitigation activities, agencies that
have the authority to regulate
development as well as other interests to
be involved in the planning process?
(Requirement §201.6(b)(2))
a. Does the plan document an
opportunity for stakeholders from
neighboring communities, local, and
regional agencies involved in hazard
mitigation activities, agencies that
have the authority to regulate
development, as well as other
interested parties to be involved in the
planning process?
P 5-3
X
b. Does the plan identify how the
stakeholders were invited to
participate in the process?
P 5-3
X
FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool (Version 4/12/2021) 3
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Location in
Plan
(section
and/or
page number)
Met Not
Met
A3. Does the plan document how the
public was involved in the planning
process during the drafting stage?
(Requirement §201.6(b)(1))
a. Does the plan document how the
public was given the opportunity to be
involved in the planning process?
P 5-3, 6-1
X
b. Does the plan document how the
public’s feedback was incorporated
into the plan?
P 1-1, 5-3,
6-1 X
A4. Does the plan describe the review and incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? (Requirement §201.6(b)(3)) P 5-3 to 5-
4,
P 7.1-10,
7.2-7, 7.3-8,
7.4-9, 7.5-
10 X
A5. Is there discussion of how the community(ies) will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii)) P 1-5, 10-3 X
A6. Is there a description of the method
and schedule for keeping the plan current
(monitoring, evaluating and updating the
mitigation plan within a 5-year cycle)?
(Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i))
a. Does the plan identify how, when,
and by whom the plan will be
monitored (how will implementation
be tracked) over time?
P 1-3 to 1-
4, 10-1 to
10-2 X
b. Does the plan identify how, when,
and by whom the plan will be
evaluated (assessing the effectiveness
of the plan at achieving stated purpose
and goals) over time?
P 1-3 to 1-
4,
10-1 to 10-2
X
c. Does the plan identify how, when,
and by whom the plan will be updated
during the 5-year cycle?
P 1-3 to 1-
4,
10-2 to 10-3 X
ELEMENT A: REQUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
(Reviewer: See Section 4 for assistance with Element B) B1. Does the plan include a description of
the type, location, and extent of all
natural hazards that can affect each
jurisdiction(s)? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(i))
a. Does the plan include a general
description of all natural hazards that
can affect each jurisdiction?
P 6-1
X
b. Does the plan provide rationale for
the omission of any natural hazards
that are commonly recognized to
affect the jurisdiction(s) in the planning
area?
P 6-1
X
c. Does the plan include a description
of the type of all natural hazards that
can affect each jurisdiction?
P 7.1-1,
7.2-1 to 7.2-
2, 7.3-1,
7.4-1, 7.5-1,
7.6-1
X
4 FEMA Region IX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Location in
Plan
(section
and/or
page number)
Met Not
Met
d. Does the plan include a description
of the location for all natural hazards
that can affect each jurisdiction?
P 7.1-10,
7.1-4, 7.2-
4, 7.2-8,
7.2-9, 7.3-
6, 7.3-9,
7.4-5, 7.5-
11, 7.6-1
X
e. Does the plan include a description
of the extent for all natural hazards
that can affect each jurisdiction?
P 7.1-1 to
7.1-4, 7.2-
3, 7.3-1,
7.4-1 to
7.4-4, 7.5-
3 to 7.5-6,
7.6-1 to
7.6-3, 7.6-
8 X
B2. Does the plan include information on
previous occurrences of hazard events
and on the probability of future hazard
events for each jurisdiction? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(i))
a. Does the plan include information
on previous occurrences of hazard
events for each jurisdiction?
P 7.1-1 to
7.1-3, 7.2-2
to 7.2-4,
7.3-2 to 7.3-
4, 7.4-3 to
7.4-4, 7.5-2
to 7.5-4,
7.5-6, 7.6-2
to 7.6-6
X
b. Does the plan include information
on the probability of future hazard
events for each jurisdiction?
P 7.1-5, 7.2-
4, 7.2-8,
7.2-9, 7.3-5
to 7.3-6,
7.4-4, 7.5-6,
7.6-8
X
B3. Is there a description of each
identified hazard’s impact on the
community as well as an overall summary
of the community’s vulnerability for each
jurisdiction? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(ii))
a. Is there a description of each
hazard’s impacts on each jurisdiction
(what happens to structures,
infrastructure, people, environment,
etc.)?
P 7.1-1 to
7.1.-3, 7.1-5
to 7.1-9,
7.2-3, 7.2-5
to 7.2-6,
7.3-2 to 7.3-
4, 7.3-6 to
7.3-7, 7.4-3
to 7.4.9,
7.5-1, 7.5-4,
7.6-6 to 7.6-
7 X
FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool (Version 4/12/2021) 5
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Location in
Plan
(section
and/or
page number)
Met Not
Met
b. Is there a description of each
identified hazard’s overall vulnerability
(structures, systems, populations, or
other community assets defined by the
community that are identified as being
susceptible to damage and loss from
hazard events) for each jurisdiction?
P 7.1-5 to
7.1-9, 7.2-
5 to 7.2-7,
7.3.4, 7.3-
6 to 7.3-8,
7.4.3-
7.4.9, 7.5-
1, 7.5-5,
7.5-7, 7.5-
10 to 7.5-
11, 7.6-10
X
B4. Does the plan address NFIP insured structures within the jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii))
7.2-4 X
ELEMENT B: REQUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY
C1. Does the plan document each
jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies,
programs and resources and its ability to
expand on and improve these existing
policies and programs? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(3))
a. Does the plan document each
jurisdiction’s existing authorities,
policies, programs and resources?
P 9-6 to 9-9
X
b. Does the plan document each
jurisdiction’s ability to expand on and
improve these existing policies and
programs?
P 9-7 to 9-9
X
C2. Does the plan address each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii))
P 7.2-4
X
C3. Does the plan include goals to reduce/avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i))
P 1-1 to 1-3
X
C4. Does the plan identify and analyze a
comprehensive range of specific
mitigation actions and projects for each
jurisdiction being considered to reduce
the effects of hazards, with emphasis on
new and existing buildings and
infrastructure? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(ii))
a. Does the plan identify and analyze a
comprehensive range of specific
mitigation actions and projects to
reduce the impacts from hazards?
9-1 to 9-6
X
b. Does the plan identify mitigation
actions for every hazard posing a
threat to each participating
jurisdiction?
9-1 to 9-6
X
c. Do the identified mitigation actions
and projects have an emphasis on new
and existing buildings and
infrastructure?
P 9-1, 9-2,
9-4, 9-6 X
6 FEMA Region IX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Location in
Plan
(section
and/or
page number)
Met Not
Met
C5. Does the plan contain an action plan
that describes how the actions identified
will be prioritized (including cost benefit
review), implemented, and administered
by each jurisdiction? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(iii))
a. Does the plan explain how the
mitigation actions will be prioritized
(including cost benefit review)?
P 9-1, 10-2
X
b. Does the plan identify the position,
office, department, or agency
responsible for implementing and
administering the action, potential
funding sources and expected
timeframes for completion?
P 9-1 to 9-
4,
9-6
X
C6. Does the plan describe a process by
which local governments will integrate the
requirements of the mitigation plan into
other planning mechanisms, such as
comprehensive or capital improvement
plans, when appropriate? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(4)(ii))
a. Does the plan identify the local
planning mechanisms where hazard
mitigation information and/or actions
may be incorporated?
P1 - 4 ,9 - 6 t o
9-7, 10-1 to
10-2 X
b. Does the plan describe each
community’s process to integrate the
data, information, and hazard
mitigation goals and actions into other
planning mechanisms?
P 9-6 to 9-7
,
10-1 to 10-2
X
c. The updated plan must explain how
the jurisdiction(s) incorporated the
mitigation plan, when appropriate, into
other planning mechanisms as a
demonstration of progress in local
hazard mitigation efforts.
P 9-6 to 9-7
,
10-1 to 10-2
X
ELEMENT C: REQUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT D. PLAN REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION
(Applicable to plan updates only)
D1. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3))
P 4-1, 4-4 X
D2. Was the plan revised to reflect progress in local mitigation efforts? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3))
P 5-4 to 5-9 X
D3. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) P 1-5 X ELEMENT D: REQUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT E. PLAN ADOPTION
E1. Does the plan include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5))
P 2-1
X
FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool (Version 4/12/2021) 7
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Location in
Plan
(section
and/or
page number)
Met Not
Met
E2. For multi-jurisdictional plans, has each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan documented formal plan adoption? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5)) NA
ELEMENT E: REQUIRED REVISIONS
OPTIONAL: HIGH HAZARD POTENTIAL DAM RISKS (Applicable to jurisdictions interested in becoming sub applicants to FEMA’s Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPD) Grant Program only) HHPD1. Did Element A4 (planning process) describe the incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information for high hazard potential dams?
HHPD2. Did Element B3 (risk assessment) address HHPDs?
HHPD3. Did Element C3 (mitigation goals) include mitigation goals to reduce long- term vulnerabilities from high hazard potential dams that pose an unacceptable risk to the public?
HHPD4. Did Element C4-C5 (mitigation actions) address HHPDs prioritize mitigation actions to reduce vulnerabilities from high hazard potential dams that pose an unacceptable risk to the public?
REQUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT F. ADDITIONAL STATE REQUIREMENTS
(Optional for State Reviewers only; not to be completed by FEMA) F1.
F2.
ELEMENT F: REQUIRED REVISIONS
8 FEMA Region IX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
SECTION 2:
PLAN ASSESSMENT
A. 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
Strengths:
1) The City did a nice job of involving the public through both a public meeting and surveys. 2) The City clearly incorporates the review of existing studies, reports, and technical information into the plan.
Opportunities for Improvement:
1) In future plans, please provide documentation such as sign-in sheets or # of surveys received that evidence how the public was given the opportunity to be involved in the HMP development process.
2) With respect to monitoring plan implementation, in future plans, consider describing the system by which the status of actions will be tracked – this could be as simple as a spreadsheet or a more complex web-based tool.
3) In addition to the avenues for public involvement listed in the plan, consider celebrating successes with the community, such as sharing with the public when the plan is approved, or when a mitigation action is successfully completed, through avenues such as websites, newsletters, or social media.
Element B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Strengths:
1) The plan contains succinct and clear descriptions of the hazards that can affect the City, and comprehensive descriptions of potential impacts and previous occurrences.
Opportunities for Improvement:
1) The plan includes a well-developed community profile section. In future plans, consider weaving these community aspects in with the discussion of vulnerabilities for each hazard.
This was done nicely with wildfire hazard – connecting development growth into Wildland Urban Interface areas and the vulnerabilities associated with wildfire. Are there other unique sectors of communities within Arcadia that are particularly vulnerable to the other hazards potentially impacting the city?
2) In some cases, only certain areas of a community may be at risk to an identified hazard, while in other cases, the whole community may be equally at risk to a particular hazard. In future plans, if the whole city is at equal risk to a hazard, please note this explicitly in the plan.
FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool (Version 4/12/2021) 9 Element C: Mitigation Strategy
Strengths:
1) The plan does an excellent job listing existing authorities, policies, programs and resources and directly addresses how the jurisdiction could expand and improve.
Opportunities for Improvement:
1) It is important that mitigation actions and strategies be clear and actionable. While the mitigation strategies included in the current plan are adequate, they are somewhat broad which could make implementation challenging. In future plans, consider crafting strategies that are more detailed and actionable, such as the items listed under the ‘ideas for implementation’.
Element D: Plan Update, Evaluation, and Implementation (Plan Updates Only) Strengths:
1) The plan comprehensively and clearly addresses changes in development and how these changes increase vulnerabilities, particularly in the Wildland Urban Interface.
Opportunities for Improvement:
1) None at this time.
10 FEMA Region IX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
B. Resources for Implementing and Updating Your Approved Plan This resource section is organized into three categories:
1) Guidance and Resources
2) Training Topics and Courses
3) Funding Sources
Guidance and Resources
Local Mitigation Planning Handbook
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31598 Level Up! Podcast Series on Hazard Mitigation
https://www.georgetownclimate.org/articles/level-up-audio-project.html Beyond the Basics
http://mitigationguide.org/
Mitigation Ideas
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/30627 Plan Integration: Linking Local Planning Efforts
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/108893 Coastal Plan Alignment Compass
https://resilientca.org/topics/plan-alignment/
Integrating Disaster Data into Hazard Mitigation Planning https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/103486 Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning
https://www.fema.gov/ar/media-library/assets/documents/4317 Guides to Expanding Mitigation
https://www.fema.gov/about/organization/region-2/guides-expanding-mitigation Community Rating System User Manual
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/8768 U.S. Climate Resilient Toolkit
https://toolkit.climate.gov/
2018 National Climate Assessment
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf FY15 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/103279 A Guide to Supporting Engagement and Resiliency in Rural Communities https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_rural-guide_jan-2021.pdf Guide to Virtual Hazard Mitigation Planning Meetings
https://www.mass.gov/doc/guide-to-virtual-hazard-mitigation-planning- meetings/download#:%7E:text=Guide%20to%20Virtual%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Planning%20Meetings.% 20This,valuable%20input%20into%20the%20mitigation%20planning%20process,%20from FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool (Version 4/12/2021) 11 Training
More information at https://training.fema.gov/emi.aspx or through your State Training Officer Mitigation Planning
IS-318 Mitigation Planning for Local and Tribal Communities https://training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=is-318 IS-393 Introduction to Hazard Mitigation
https://training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=is-393.a G-318 Preparing and Reviewing Local Plans
G-393 Mitigation for Emergency Managers
Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Grant Programs
IS-212.b Introduction to Unified HMA
http://www.training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=IS-212.b IS-277 Benefit Cost Analysis Entry Level
http://www.training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=IS-277 E-212 HMA: Developing Quality Application Elements
E-213 HMA: Application Review and Evaluation
E-214 HMA: Project Implementation and Programmatic Closeout E-276 Benefit-Cost Analysis Entry Level
GIS and Hazus-MH
IS-922 Application of GIS for Emergency Management
http://www.training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=IS-922 E-190 ArcGIS for Emergency Managers
E-296 Application of Hazus-MH for Risk Assessment
E-313 Basic Hazus-MH
Floodplain Management
E-273 Managing Floodplain Development through the NFIP
E-278 National Flood Insurance Program/ Community Rating System Potential Funding Sources
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
POC: FEMA Region IX and State Hazard Mitigation Officer Website: https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Grant Program POC: FEMA Region IX and State Hazard Mitigation Officer Website: https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-resilient-infrastructure-communities Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program
POC: FEMA Region IX and State Hazard Mitigation Officer Website: https://www.fema.gov/flood-mitigation-assistance-grant-program Emergency Management Performance Grant Program
POC: FEMA Region IX
Website: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-management-performance-grant-program
12 FEMA RIX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
SECTION 3:
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS: For multi-jurisdictional plans, this summary sheet must be completed by listing each participating jurisdiction that is eligible to adopt the plan.
MULTI-JURISDICTION SUMMARY SHEET
# Jurisdiction Name Jurisdiction Type
Eligible to
Adopt the
Plan?
Plan POC Email
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 13 FEMA RIX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
SECTION 4:
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX (OPTIONAL)
INSTRUCTIONS: This matrix can be used by the plan reviewer to help identify if all of the components of Element B have been met.
List out natural hazard names that are identified in the plan in the column labeled “Hazards” and put a “Y” or “N” for each component of Element B.
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Hazard
Requirement Met? (Y/N)
Type Location Extent Previous
Occurrences Probability Impacts Vulnerability Mitigation Action
Earthquake P 7.1-1 P 7.1-10, 7.1-
4 P 7.1-1 to
7.1-4
P 7.1-1 to 7.1-
3 P 7.1-5 P 7.1-1 to
7.1.-3; P 7.1-5
to 7.1-9
P 7.1-5 to 7.1-
9 9-2
Flood P 7.2-1 to
7.2-2
P 7.2-4, 7.2-8,
7.2-9
P 7.2-3 P 7.2-2 to 7.2-
4 P 7.2-4, 7.2-8,
7.2-9
P 7.2-3, 7.2-5
to 7.2-6
P 7.2-5 to 7.2-
7 Slope Failure -
Debris/Mud Flow
P 7.3-1 P 7.3-6, 7.3-9 P 7.3-1 P 7.3-2 to 7.3-
4 7.3-5 to 7.3-6 P 7.3-2 to
7.3-4, 7.3-6
to 7.3-7
P 7.3.4, 7.3-6
to 7.3-8
9-3
Windstorm P 7.4-1 P 7.4-5 7.4-1 to 7.4-4 P 7.4-3 to 7.4- 4 7.4-4 7.4-3 to 7.4.9 P 7.4.3-7.4.9 9-4
Wildfire P 7.5-1 7.5-11 7.5-3 to 7.5-6 P 7.5-2 to 7.5-
4, 7.5-6
7.5-6 7.5-1, 7.5-4 P 7.5-1, 7.5-5,
7.5-7, 7.5-10
to 7.5-11
9-1
Drought P 7.6-1 7.6-1 7.6-1 to 7.6-
3, 7.6-8
P 7.6-2 to 7.6-
6 7.6-8 7.6-6 to 7.6-7 7.6-10 9-6
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 4 Community Profile
4-1
Why Plan for Hazards in City of Arcadia?
Hazards can impact citizens, property, environment, and the economy of City of Arcadia.
Earthquakes, flood, Slope Failures, windstorms, wildfires, drought, hazardous materials, transportation emergencies and terrorism have exposed City of Arcadia residents and businesses to the financial and emotional costs of recovering after disasters. The risk associated with hazards increases as more people move to areas affected by those hazards.
-
land remaining for development; population density continues to increase when low- density housing is replaced with medium and high-density development projects.
The inevitability of hazards, and the growing population and activity within the City create an urgent need to develop strategies, coordinate resources, and increase public awareness to reduce risk and prevent loss from future hazardous events. Identifying the risks posed by hazards, and developing strategies to reduce the impact of a hazardous event can assist in protecting the life and property of communities. Local residents and businesses can work together with the City to create a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that addresses the potential impacts of hazard events.
Geography and the Environment
City of Arcadia has an area of 11.3 square miles and is located in Greater Los Angeles County area. Elevations in the City range from a high of 1,200 feet to a low of 300 feet.
The terrain of the city is from the valley floor sweeping to the foothills.
Community Profile
The 11.3 square mile City of Arcadia
Located in the western San Gabriel Valley south of the San Gabriel Mountains, Arcadia, also known as the "Community of Homes", is a picturesque, affluent, largely built out community, with an outstanding public school system. The Los Angeles County Arboretum, Westfield Mall at Santa Anita, Santa Anita Race Track, Arcadia County Park, and the Santa Anita Golf Course annually attract a substantial number of visitors into Arcadia from Southern Calif ornia. With its rich history and quality of development, Arcadia will remain a premier community.
Transportation
The 210 freeway serves the City, and the major arterial highways are Santa Anita Avenue and Baldwin Avenue, which run north to south and Huntington Drive (Route 66), Live Oak Avenue, Duarte Road, Foothill Boulevard and Longden Avenue, which run east to west.
The City also has a light rail transportation system running through the center of town.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority operates the Metro Gold Line light rail system. The Gold Line operates a 31 mile light rail between Azusa and East Los Angeles. There is a station in the center of town with parking for 300 vehicles.
The estimated weekday ridership of the Gold Line is 49,500 riders.
The MTA also operates various bus lines within the City of Arcadia.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 4 Community Profile
4-2
Major Rivers
The nearest major river is the Los Angeles River (or San Gabriel River). This River does not have any potential impact on the City of Arcadia. Normally this river channel is dry and only carries a significant water flow during a major rainstorm. The river channel is a concrete channel and part of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District.
Climate
Temperatures in the City of Arcadia range from 40 degrees in the winter months to 100 degrees in the summer months. However the temperatures can vary over a wide range, particularly when the Santa Ana winds blow, bringing higher temperatures and very low humidity. Temperatures rarely exceed 110 degrees F in the summer months (June - September), and rarely drop below 30 F in the winter months (November-March).
The City of Arcadia over the last seventy years of recorded rainfall has had a low of 5.27 inches of rainfall in 1947 to a high of 41.23 in 1969. Rainfall in the city averages eighteen inches of rain per year.
Furthermore, actual rainfall in Southern California tends to fall in large amounts during sporadic and often heavy storms rather than consistent storms at somewhat regular intervals. In short, rainfall in Southern California might be characterized as feast or famine within a single year. Because the metropolitan basin is largely built out, water originating in higher elevation communities can have a sudden impact on adjoining communities that have a lower elevation.
Minerals and Soils
The characteristics of the minerals and soils present in City of Arcadia indicate the potential types of hazards that may occur. Rock hardness and soil characteristics can determine whether or not an area will be prone to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, liquefaction and Slope Failures.
Arcadia is located at the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic province of Southern California. The City overlays two groundwater basins:
The Raymond Water Basin on the north and the San Gabriel Water Basin on the south.
The basins are separated by the northeast trending Raymond Fault, which acts as a hydrological barrier, and defines the boundary between the two.
The Raymond Basin is an alluvial valley covering approximately 40 square miles and is bordered by the San Gabriel Mountains on the north, San Rafael Hills on the west, and the Raymond Fault on the south and east. The general east-west trend of the San Gabriel Mountains, the north-south trend of the San Rafael Hills, and northeast trend of the Raymond Fault result in the basin having a triangular form.
The limits of the San Gabriel Valley are generally defined on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains and the Raymond Fault, on the west by the Repetto and Merced Hills, on the south by the Puente Hills, and on the east by the San Jose Hills. The total area of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 4 Community Profile
4-3
the alluvial valley is approximately 167 square miles. Arcadia is located at the extreme northwest portion of the San Gabriel Valley.
Bedrock:
The bedrock geology of the Raymond Basin and vicinity consists of a complex array of granitic and metagranitic rocks of pre-Cretaceous age. Although outcrops are typically fractured, the granitic bedrock underlying the alluvial sediment at the base of the basin is not considered water bearing.
Older and Younger Alluvium:
Total alluvial thickness is as much as 1,100 feet in the Raymond Basin and as much as 1,900 feet in the San Gabriel Basin. The older alluvium is distributed throughout the entire basin and its water transmitting properties vary depending upon the degree to which it has been weathered and/or cemented. Older alluvium consists primarily of sand, gravel and boulders with minor interbedded clay layers.
Younger alluvium consists predominantly of sand, gravel and boulders, is less consolidated than the older alluvium and yields water more readily and consistently.
Faulting and Ground Water Barriers:
Major faults in the vicinity of Arcadia include the Sierra Madre Fault Zone and the Raymond Fault. The Raymond Fault is the most geohydrologically significant fault in Arcadia. The fault acts as a barrier impeding ground water movement from the Raymond Basin into the Main San Gabriel Basin to the south. The barrier effect is reflected by significant differences in ground water level across the fault. In addition, artesian conditions and ponded surface water have been observed north of the fault during periods
Concerns:
Based on the Raymond Fault creating a ground water barrier the area located to the north of the fault can be prone to the occurrence of liquefaction or has the potential for permanent ground displacement. The steep foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains have a potential of the earthquake-induced Slope Failures or the permanent ground displacement in the north part of Arcadia.
Other Significant Geologic Features
The City of Arcadia, like most of the Los Angeles Basin, lies over the area of one or more known earthquake faults, and potentially many more unknown faults, particularly so-called lateral or blind thrust faults.
The major faults that have the potential to affect the greater Los Angeles Basin, and therefore the City of Arcadia are: San Andreas, Newport Inglewood, Palos Verdes, Whittier, Santa Monica, Raymond, and Sierra Madre.
In addition, many areas in the Los Angeles Basin have sandy soils that are subject to liquefaction and land movement.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 4 Community Profile
4-4
Population and Demographics
City of Arcadia has an estimated population of about 59,000 in an area of 11.3 square miles.
has increased annually at a rate of 4.3% since 2010.
The increase of people living in City of Arcadia creates more community exposure, and changes how agencies prepare for and respond to hazards. For example, more people living on the urban fringe increase the risk of wildfire. Wildfire has an increased chance of starting due to human activities in the urban/rural interface, and has the potential to injure more people and cause more property damage.
Furthermore, increased density can affect risk. For example, narrower streets are more difficult for emergency service vehicles to navigate, the higher ratio of residents to emergency responders affects response times, and homes located closer together increase the chances of fires spreading.
The ethnic and cultural diversity suggests a need to address multi-cultural needs and services.
Vulnerable populations, including seniors, disabled citizens, women, and children, those people may be disproportionately impacted by disasters.
Land and Development
including residential, commercial and industrial areas. This plan is one of the City's most important tools in addressing environmental challenges including transportation, air quality, growth management, conservation of natural resources, clean water, and open spaces.
The environment of most Los Angeles County cities is nearly identical with that of their immediate neighbors and the transition from one incorporated municipality to another is seamless to most people. Seamless too are the exposures to the hazards that affect all of Southern California.
Housing and Community Development
In the City of Arcadia, the demand for housing outstrips the available supply, and the recent low interest rates have further fueled a pent up demand. There are more single family homes in the City in comparison to the number of apartments and condominiums.
The development of condominiums has increased significantly along with the development of mixed-use properties.
Employment and Industry
Employment and Industry - The City of Arcadia has a very broad employment base.
There are major retail, industrial, office, and specialty employers throughout the City.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 4 Community Profile
4-5
The major employers in the City include the Santa Anita Race Track, Methodist Hospital of Southern California, and the Westfield at Santa Anita.
The City of Arcadia also lies within a "Sixty Mile Circle" centered on Los Angeles, a dynamic concentration of population, employment, business, industry and finance. Two- thirds of the State's 100 largest corporations are headquartered within the circle.
Additionally, several federal and state highways, two nearby rail lines, and three international airports, as well as the 210 Freeway passing through Arcadia, provide ready access to regional, national and international markets.
Mitigation activities are needed at the business level to ensure the safety and welfare of workers and limit damage to industrial infrastructure. Employees are highly mobile, commuting from surrounding areas to industrial and business centers. This creates a greater dependency on roads, communications, accessibility and emergency plans to reunite people with their families. Before a disastrous event occurs large and small businesses can develop strategies to prepare, respond efficiently, and prevent loss of life and property.
Transportation and Commuting Patterns
The City of Arcadia is located in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Statistical Area (LAMSA)
The I-210 Foothill Freeway traverses the City of Arcadia, connecting the city to east and north valleys of Los Angeles County, and the I-605 San Gabriel Freeway is located four -mile road system
includes 37 miles of arterial highways, 113 miles of local roads, and 37 bridges.
Private automobiles are the dominant means of transportation in Southern California and in the City of Arcadia. However, the C ity of Arcadia meets its public transportation needs utilizing the numerous local public transportation options available in the region.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and Foothill Transit operate a total of 11 bus routes and one light rail line through the city.
Additionally, the Arcadia Transit offers Arcadia residents convenient, affordable transit within the city limits and to five (5) designated medical facilities located beyond the city limits. The City participates in regional efforts to improve air quality by promoting rideshare alternatives to its employees.
DR
RD
CANYON
SUNSET
M
ICHILLINDA
ORANGE GROVE
ELKINS AV
HIGHLAND
VISTA
LAS TUNAS DR
CENTENNIAL
REAL
GOLDRING
CLARK
AZUSA
RD
LOWER
PECK RD
LIVE OAK AV
RD
CAMINO
SIERRA MADRE BL
AV
AV
GRAND VIEW
DR
OAKS
HIGHLAND
ST JOSEPH
ST
DR
CAMPUS DR
DUARTE
AV
WAY
HUNTINGTON
BALDW
IN AV
HUNTINGTON
AV
6TH
AV
10TH
1STAV
AV
ANITA
SANTA
EL M
ONTE
REALCAMINO
HOLLY
RD
AV
AV AV
LONGDEN
AV
2ND
GOLDEN W
EST
BALDWI
N
BL
BLADW
IN
AV
COLORADO BL
DR
HUNTINGTON
BLFOOTHILL
COLORADO ST
SANTA CLARA ST
ARCADIA H S
HUGO REID
PRIMARY
SERENDIPITY
SCHOOL
CONTINUATION
SCHOOL
HUGO REID
ELEM.
BALDWIN
STOCKER
ELEM.
LONGLEY
WAY
ELEM.
CAMINO
GROVE
ELEM.
RICHARD H DANA
JR H S
1ST AVENUE
JR H S
FOOTHILLS
JR H S
HIGHLAND OAKS
ELEM
HOLLY
AVENUE
ELEM
TIERRA
VERDE
PARK
WINNIE
WAY
PARK
BICENTENNIAL
PARK
LONGDEN
AVENUE
PARK
BALDWIN
STOCKER
PARK
HOLLY
AVENUE
PARK
FAIRVIEW
AVENUE
PARK
WILDERNESS
PARK
TRIPOLIS
FRIENDSHIP
PARK
HUGO REID
PARK
CIVIC
CENTER
ATHLETIC
FIELD
HIGHLAND
OAKS
PARK
PARK
BONITA
EISENHOW
ER PARK
FOREST PARK
PARK
GROVE
CAM
INO
ORANGE
GROVE
PARK
NEWCASTLE
PARK
FYFOOTHILLRTE 210
RTE 210
LIMA
PUBLIC WORKS
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
RECREATION & COMMUNITY
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
METHODIST
HOSPITAL
WESTFIELDSHOPPING TOWNATSANTA ANITA
PD
ARCADIA
PECK ROAD WATER & CONSERVATION PARK
GOLF
ARCADIA
S A N T A
A N
I T
A
WASH
FIRE
STATION
ANITASANTA WASH
LIBRARY
STATION
FIRE
WASH
SIERRA MADRE
D E
B R I S D I S P O S
A L
SAW
PIT
GOLF COURSE
SANTA ANITA
P A R K
A R C A D I A C O U N T YC I T Y
STATION
FIRE
A R B O R E T U M
S T A T E
A N D C O U N T Y
L O S A N G E L E S
RACE TRACK
P A R K
ANITA
SANTA
W
ASH
ARCADIA
ARCADIA EAST
BRANCH
LATERAL
A R E A
W
ASH
H A L L
COURSE
GROVE
PLANT
ORANGE
ST JOSEPH
PLANT
PECK ROAD
PLANT
SANTA
ANITA
PLANT
LIVE OAK
PLANT
LOWER
CANYON
PLANT
UPPER
CANYON
PLANT
LONGLEY
WELL
LONGDEN
PLANT
BALDWIN
PUMP
PLANT
RANCHO WELL
NO. 6
HUGO REID
WELL
BALDWIN
WELL
NO. 2
CHAPMAN
PLANT
ANOKIA
WELL
CAMINO REAL
PLANT
TORREY PINE
RESERVOIRS
3 8
1 2
9 6
5 10
4 HIGH PRESS
URE GAS
PIPELINE
HIGH PRESSURE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
GAS PIPELINE
7 11
ARCADIA
GOLDLINE
STATION
RESERVOIRS
CRITICAL BUILDINGS
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 5 Planning Process
5-1
The City of Arcadia Local Hazard Mitigation Plan integrates a cross-section of citizen input throughout the planning process. To accomplish this goal, the City of Arcadia Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee developed a public participation process through three components: (1) developing a planning committee; (2) conducting stakeholder interviews to target the specialized knowledge of individuals working with populations or areas at risk from natural hazards; and (3) conducting one public workshops to identify common concerns and ideas regarding hazard mitigation and to discuss specific goals and actions of the mitigation plan.
Integrating public participation during the development of the City of Arcadia Local Hazards Mitigation Plan has ultimately resulted in increased public awareness. Through citizen involvement, the mitigation plan reflects community issues, concerns, and new ideas and perspectives on mitigation opportunities and plan action items.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee
The first step in reviewing and updating the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was to develop a committee comprised of at least one member of each department within the City. Table B.1 lists the committee members and their department at the beginning of the review.
Table B.2 lists the current committee members and their department.
Initial Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Table B.1
Name Title Department
Barry Spriggs Battalion Chief - Project Manager Fire
Todd Morehead Fire Captain Fire
Paul Foley Police Captain Police
Jackie Mercado Management Analyst Public Works
Ryan Wright Assistant Recreation Director Recreation and Community Services Roger Hiles Library Services Manager Library and Museum Services Vanina
Rynkiewicz Purchasing Officer Administrative Services
Jim Kasama Planning and Community Development Director Development Services Laena Shakarian Management Analyst City Manager's Office
Current Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Table B.2
Name Title Department
Barry Spriggs Fire Chief - Project Manager Fire
Tom Devlin Battalion Chief Fire
Charlie Tuggle Fire Captain Fire
Tom Cullen Lieutenant Police
Carmen Masud Senior Management Analyst Public Works
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 5 Planning Process
5-2
Candice Cheung Assistant Recreation Director
Recreation and Community
Services
Roger Hiles Library Services Manager Library and Museum Services Vanina
Rynkiewicz Purchasing Officer Administrative Services
Lisa Flores Planning and Community Development
Director Development Services
Jennifer Brutus Senior Management Analyst City Manager's Office
Meetings
Members of the Committee had several meetings amongst themselves, with employees with special areas of expertise, and with outside representatives. Though not every meeting was logged the following list gives a brief synopsis of the meetings and their content.
January 18, 2017 to February 25, 2017
There were many meetings amongst only two individuals that did not get logged. The meetings were often between the project leader and another committee member to ensure the timely completion of a specific task. They also entailed preparation for upcoming stakeholder, committee, and community meetings.
January 11, 2017
The City of Arcadia Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee assembled and provided an overview to the committee about the current Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and the review process that was about to be undertaken.
The project Manager introduced the planning committee. Each committee member described the department they represented. The goals from the current NHMP were reviewed and assessed as to their completion. Various tasks were assigned to each member of the committee. The committee agreed on the need to add drought, hazardous materials, and terrorism to the new LHMP.
February 8, 2017
The Committee met and the project manager discussed the following:
Committee Members completed Worksheet #1 Identifying the hazards and Worksheet #2 Asset Identification Checklist.
Committee members reviewed the base map from the previous plan and added an additional 12 critical facilities to the base map including the Gold Line Light Rail.
Methods to gain community input were discussed including a community meeting, stakeholder meeting and advertising the process through the City Hot Sheet and Quarterly Newsletter.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 5 Planning Process
5-3
March 17, 2017
The Committee met and the project manager discussed the following:
LHMP hazards were discussed in the February meeting. The committee decided to group the hazards into two large categories, natural and human caused. The natural hazards addressed by the plan are: Wildfire, Earthquake, Flood, Windstorm, Debris Flow/Landslide, Drought.
The human caused hazards will be Hazardous Materials, Transportation and Terrorism
Dates were set for the public meeting and the stakeholder meeting. The public meeting will be April 10, 2017 and the Stakeholder Meeting will be April 12, 2017.
Mitigation items for the hazards were also discussed at this meeting.
October 2018
Project manager met with Arcadia Public Works Services Division and updated base maps and hazard maps for the community.
February 12, 2019
The LHMP Committee met and were asked to provide feedback to develop mitigation goals for the new plan. Feedback from the committee was obtained the following week and the mitigation goals for the plan were finalized.
Community Meeting
Community members were invited to a meeting to review the current and new hazards the City is including in the mitigation plans. This was an opportunity for the community to learn what the City is doing and also for members of the community to provide their input on the hazards that they felt necessary to plan for. The committee also provided a questionnaire to the attendees in order to gain further input.
The meeting was announced to the public following the Cities regular announcement procedures. The meeting information was published in the newspaper and on the City website
Meeting was conducted on:
April 10, 2017 at 1900hrs in the Council Chambers Conference Room
Stakeholders Meeting
Stakeholders were invited to a meeting on April 12, 2017 at Fire Station 106 to review the current and new hazards the City is including in the mitigation plans. This was an opportunity for the organizations to learn what the City is doing and also to provide their input on the hazards that they felt necessary to plan for. The committee also provided a questionnaire to the stakeholders in order to gain further input.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 5 Planning Process
5-4
The following stakeholders were all contacted about the meeting via phone and or email.
Mitigation Plan Stakeholders Table B.3 Arcadia Methodist Hospital
American Red Cross
Sierra Madre Fire Department
Monrovia Fire and Rescue
Arcadia Unified School District
Chamber of Commerce
Santa Anita Racetrack
Westfield Shopping Towne
SoCal Edison
SoCal Gas Company
CalTrans
Office of Civil Defense Disaster Management
Metro Goldline
Review of the 2012 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
An important part of the planning process is to evaluate the plan that was approved by the City Council and FEMA in 2012. During its meetings the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee reviewed the sections of the plan. Both the multi hazard goals and the specific hazard goals were reviewed to see if they had been achieved during the five-year period or if the goals were still a work in progress.
The hazards that were addressed in the 2012 plan were also looked at. The eight hazards: Earthquake, Landslide/Debris Flow, Flood, Wildfire, Windstorm, Drought, Terrorism, Hazardous Materials were considered to still be hazards to the community.
Action Items from the 2012 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
The following action items were placed into three categories based on the 2012 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee
s recommendations. The LHMP Committee
considered ease, cost, and importance of completion. The following three categories rank the achievability of each action item; category one action items being the action items to be completed first, and respectively category three being the last.
Category One
Flood A
Enhance the City of Arcadia s dam failure preparedness.
Ideas for Implementation:
Incorporate dam inundation maps into the EOP. - Completed
Coordinating Organization: Fire Department
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 5 Planning Process
5-5
Funding Source: Fire Department
Timeline: Within the next six months
Constraints: Limited staff time
Wildfire A
Enhance emergency services to increase the efficiency of wildfire response.
Ideas for Implementation:
Continue to update the City of Arcadia Brush Plan. Updated Summer 2021 Develop, approve, and promote fire protection agreements and partnerships.
Updated June 2021
Coordinating Organization: Fire Department
Funding Source: Fire Department
Timeline: Ongoing
Constraints: none
Wildfire B
Continue to educate the public on wildfire safety.
Ideas for Implementation
Continue to utilize the Arcadia Fire Department Brush Clearance Inspection Program. - Completed
Continue to utilize the Arcadia Fire Prevention Bureau public service announcements. Completed and Ongoing
Coordinating Organization: Fire Department
Funding Source: Fire Department
Timeline: Ongoing
Constraints: Funding
Multi Hazard A & B
Multi Hazard A
Continue to develop and implement programs that encourage Arcadia residents and business owners to prepare for an emergency or disaster situation.
Multi Hazard B
Create and maintain communication vehicles through which the City can communicate with the public on both an outgoing and incoming basis.
Implementation Ideas:
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 5 Planning Process
5-6
Work with City departments to develop and distribute informational pamphlets concerning specific areas of emergency and disaster preparedness. - Ongoing Work with City departments and the School District to provide age-appropriate emergency preparedness information to students. - Ongoing Promote emergency/disaster preparedness to the local business community by reaching out to local merchants and to the Chamber of Commerce. Conducted safety presentations
As appropriate, work with the Fire and Police Departments to update the preparedness information contained on the City website. In the event of a significant local disaster use the website to inform the public on a timely basis of the status of the emergency, evacuation plans and any other information that is pertinent to their well-being. On an ongoing basis advise the public that the website will be used to relay important information in the event of an emergency.
used to relay information to residents and businesses by way of telephone in the event of a significant disaster. Entered into contract in 2016 Be prepared to implement in a timely fashion, a telephone hotline that residents can call for information and a distribution system that can be used in coordination with other methods to relay critical information. Changed from hotline to links to information on city website.
Keep City employees informed about the need to be prepared for an emergency both at home and at work and
recall policy. Completed and ongoing
Coordinating Organization: City Manager
s Office
Funding:
Office, Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works Services Department
Timeline: Ongoing
Constraints: Staff time
Multi Hazard C
Develop an evacuation plan for future disastrous events.
Ideas for implementation:
Establish procedures for notifying residents in the event that a mandatory evacuation is necessary. - Completed
Determine primary and alternate routes for the safe evacuation of residents.
Integrate the evacuation routes data into the Ci
Operations Plan. Completed and Evacuation annex was evaluated after being put into use during 2020 Bobcat Fire.
Develop a plan to coordinate the restriction of inbound traffic into the hazard area. - Completed
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 5 Planning Process
5-7
Coordinating Organization: City of Arcadia Development Services, Fire and Police Departments
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeline: Within the next one year
Constraints: Limited staff time, cost
Category Two
Landslide A
Improve the capabilities of managing debris from Landslide events by developing a debris management strategy for the City of Arcadia.
Ideas for implementation:
Determine the necessary equipment and personnel needed to develop a coordinated response to managing debris. Completed debris management plan annex in City Emergency Operations Plan
Identify local debris removal sites and routes to expedite the process of debris removal. - Ongoing
Coordinating Organization: City of Arcadia Public Works Services Funding Source: Public Works
Timeline: Within the next three years
Constraints: Limited staff time, lack of equipment needed to manage debris, cost associated with purchasing
equipment.
Windstorm A
Identify and implement projects to reduce the damage caused by trees during a windstorm.
Ideas for Implementation:
Continue regular tree trimming procedures:
o Continue four-year tree trimming grid for optimum effectiveness to maintain healthy trees.
o Ensure trees in the public right-of-way are trimmed to maintain a clearance from all electric power lines as specified in the California Code of Regulations and the California Public Utilities Commission o Continue to remove trees that are dead, diseased, or dying. o Continue the Crown Restoration Program to preserve the health of large aging trees
o Ensure proper tree trimming techniques as approved by the Professional Arborist Association
o Provide public education materials to residents to make them aware of the need to regularly maintain and trim their own trees
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 5 Planning Process
5-8
o Update Urban Forest Master Plan to include type of trees to plant, when to plan, where easement trees will be placed, and how and when they will be maintained.
o Completed and updated regularly
Create and include a coordination plan with Southern California Edison to determine power line maintenance program and emergency procedures for fallen power lines. - Completed and updated regularly
Create an emergency contact list for mutual aid or other responsible agencies to be added to the EOP. Completed and updated regularly
Coordinating Organization: Public Works Services Department Funding Source: General Fund and Gas Tax
Timeline: Ongoing
Constraints: Limited staff time and capital resources to fund Tree Trimming Contractors
Status
Ongoing
Hazardous Materials A
Ideas for Implementation:
-Mat policy and incorporate it into the EOP. - Completed and ongoing
Update known hazardous material storage locations. - Completed and ongoing
Coordinating Organization: Fire Department
Funding Source: Fire Department
Timeline: Annually
Constraints: Staff time for updating policies
Terrorism A
Create a Standing Operating Guideline for City personnel responding to a terrorist incident.
Implementation Ideas:
Meet with representation from the appropriate City departments to develop a SOG that will outline the guidelines for the safest and most efficient way to respond and operate during a terrorist incident. Completed and Ongoing.Terrorism annex added to Emergency Operations Plan.
Coordinating Organization: Police Department
Funding Source: General Fund, Police, Fire, and Public Works budgets Timeline: One year
Constraints: Limited staff time
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 5 Planning Process
5-9
Category Three
Multi Hazard D
Integrate new earthquake, wildfire, Landslide, and flood hazard mapping data for the City of Arcadia and improve technical analysis of earthquake hazards.
Ideas for Implementation:
Develop the City of Arcadia earthquake HAZUS data using more localized data including the building inventory to improve accuracy of the vulnerability assessment for the City Arcadia.
Not completed
Conduct risk analysis incorporating HAZUS data and hazard maps using GIS technology to identify risk sites and further assist in prioritizing mitigation activities and assessing the adequacy of current land use requirements.
Not
completed
Coordinating Organization: Development Services
Funding: Unfunded; possibly EOC
Timeline: Within the next three years
Constraints: Funding for a HAZUS computer; staff time
Drought
Identify and implement projects to reduce the impact of drought.
Ideas for Implementation:
Conserve water resources by:
o Improving leak detection capability of the Public Works Services Staff o Continuing to provide water audits for indoor/outdoor uses o ater Management Plan to ensure water supply
in the future
o Funding Capital Improvement Projects to improve the reliability and
o Develop and implement a Tiered Water Rate Pricing Structure o Completed - City Public Works developed Drought Master Plan
Coordinating Organization: Public Works Services Department Funding Source: Water Fund (revenue generated from billing for water s e r v i c e )
Timeline: Short Term (within the next five years)
Constraints: Limited staff time, resistance from public and lack of public participation.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 6 Risk Assessment
6-1
What is a Risk Assessment?
Conducting a risk assessment can provide information on the location of hazards, the value of existing land and property in hazard locations, and an analysis of the risk to life, property, and the environment that may result from hazardous events. The following steps were taken into consideration during the risk assessment.
Hazard Identification
This is the description of the geographic extent, potential intensity, and the probability of occurrence of a given hazard. In the plan approved in 2012, the hazards that were identified were earthquake, landslide, windstorm, wildfire, flooding, drought, terrorism, and hazardous materials.
Part of the planning process was to survey residents and stakeholders to see what they felt to be hazards that could affect the City of Arcadia. In addition to the above eight hazards, the surveys indicated that one additional hazard could adversely affect the City of Arcadia. The one additional hazard is transportation. The main reason to add transportation is that since the adoption of the previous plan, a countywide light rail mass transportation system has been extended to and through Arcadia.
There are many possible hazards listed by FEMA in Guide 386-2, Understanding Your Risks. This Local Hazard Mitigation Plan will only address those hazards listed above.
All of the hazards were considered but many were ruled out based on the survey completed by stakeholders and looking back through historical data for this community.
Profiling Hazard Events
This process describes the causes and characteristics of each hazard, how it has affected the City of Arcadia in the past, and what part of the City's population, infrastructure, and environment has historically been vulnerable to each specific hazard. The hazards impacting the City of Arcadia can be divided into two broad categories. The categories are natural caused hazards and human caused hazards. A profile of each hazard is provided in each hazard specific section. For a full description of the history of hazard specific events, please see the appropriate hazard chapter.
Vulnerability Assessment/Inventorying Assets
This is a combination of hazard identification with an inventory of the existing (or planned) property development(s) and population(s) exposed to a hazard. Critical facilities are of particular concern because these entities provide essential products and services to the general public that are necessary to preserve the welfare and quality of life in the City and fulfill important public safety, emergency response, and/or disaster recovery functions. The critical facilities have been identified, mapped, and are illustrated in the City base map. In addition, this plan includes a community issues summary in each hazard section to identify the most vulnerable and problematic areas in the City, including critical facilities, and other public and private property.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 6 Risk Assessment
6-2
Risk Analysis
Estimating potential losses involves assessing the damage, injuries, and financial costs likely to be sustained in a geographic area over a given period of time. Risk Analysis discusses the possible effect of hazards on parts of the City including but not limited to:
bridges, critical infrastructure, dams, businesses, and residential areas.
Assessing Vulnerability/ Analyzing Development Trends
This step provides a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in land use planning and future land use decisions. This plan provides comprehensive description of the character of the City of Arcadia in the Community Profile. This description includes the geography and environment, population and demographics, land use and development, housing and community development, employment and industry, and transportation and commuting patterns. Analyzing these components of City of Arcadia can help in identifying potential problem areas and can serve as a guide for incorporating the goals and ideas contained in this mitigation plan into other community development plans.
Maps can be found at the back of each hazard specific section for which they are appropriate.
*Infrastructure and critical facilities maps have been withheld due to security concerns post 9-11.
Note: The information on the maps in this plan was derived from City of Arcadia's GIS. Care was taken in the creation of these maps, but is provided "as is" City of Arcadia cannot accept any responsibility for any errors, omissions or positional accuracy, and therefore, there are no warranties that accompany these products (the maps). Although information from land surveys may have been used in the creation of these products, in no way does this product represent or constitute a land survey. Users are cautioned to field verify information on this product before making any decisions.
Hazard assessments are subject to the availability of hazard-specific data. Gathering data for a hazard assessment requires a commitment of resources on the part of participating organizations and agencies. Each hazard-specific section of the plan includes a section on hazard identification using data and information from City, County or State agency sources.
Regardless of the data available for hazard assessments, there are numerous strategies the City can take to reduce risk. These strategies are described in the action items detailed in the Mitigation Strategy section of this Plan. Mitigation strategies can further reduce disruption to critical services, reduce the risk to human life, and alleviate damage to personal and public property and infrastructure. Action items throughout the hazard sections provide recommendations to collect further data to map hazard locations and conduct hazard assessments.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 6 Risk Assessment
6-3
Federal Requirements for Risk Assessment
Recent federal regulations for hazard mitigation plans outlined in 44 CFR Part 201 include a requirement for risk assessment. This risk assessment requirement is intended to provide information that will help communities to identify and prioritize mitigation activities that will reduce losses from the identified hazards. There are nine hazards profiled in the mitigation plan, including earthquakes, earth movements, flooding, wildfires, windstorms, drought, terrorism, transportation and hazardous materials. The Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan meets those criteria is outlined in Table 3-2 below.
Table 3-2. Federal Criteria for Risk Assessment
Section 322 Plan
Requirement
How is this addressed?
Identifying Hazards Each hazard section includes an inventory of the best available data sources that identify hazard areas. To
the extent GIS data are available, the City developed
maps identifying the location of the hazard in the City .
The Executive Summary and the Risk Assessment
sections of the plan include a list of the hazard maps.
Profiling Hazard Events Each hazard section includes documentation of the history, and causes and characteristics of the hazard in the City.
Assessing Vulnerability:
Identifying Assets
Where data is available, the vulnerability assessment
for each hazard addressed in the mitigation plan
includes an inventory of all publicly owned land within hazardous areas. Each hazard section provides
information on vulnerable areas in the City in the
Community Issues section.
Assessing Vulnerability:
Estimating Potential Losses:
The Risk Assessment Section of this mitigation plan
identifies key critical facilities and lifelines in the City and includes a map of these facilities. Vulnerability
assessments have been completed for the hazards
addressed in the plan, and quantitative estimates were
made for each hazard where data was available.
Assessing Vulnerability:
Analyzing Development
Trends
The City of Arcadia Profile Section of this plan
provides a description of the development trends in the City, including the geography and environment,
population and demographics, land use and
development, housing and community development,
employment and industry, and transportation and
commuting patterns.
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Facilities critical to government response and recovery activities (i.e., life safety and property and environmental protection) include: 911 centers, emergency operations centers, police and fire stations, public works facilities, communications centers, sewer Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 6 Risk Assessment
6-4
and water facilities, hospitals, light rail lines, bridges and roads, shelters, and facilities that, if damaged, could cause serious secondary impacts may also be considered "critical." A hazardous material facility is one example of this type of critical facility.
Critical and essential facilities are those facilities that are vital to the continued delivery recover from the emergency. These facilities may include: buildings such as the jail, law enforcement center, public services building, community corrections center, the courthouse, and juvenile services building and other public facilities such as schools.
The attached charts/maps illustrate the critical facilities, essential facilities, public infrastructure, and emergency transportation routes within the City of Arcadia.
Summary
Hazard mitigation strategies can reduce the impacts concentrated at large employment and industrial centers, public infrastructure, and critical facilities. Hazard mitigation for industries and employers may include developing relationships with emergency management services and their employees before disaster strikes, and establishing mitigation strategies together. Collaboration among the public and private sector to create mitigation plans and actions can reduce the impacts of disasters.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7 Natural Hazards
7 When developing the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of Arcadia, the committee decided to place the hazards into two broad categories. The categories are Natural Hazards and Human Caused Hazards. Section 7 of the plan covers Natural Hazards. The hazards are:
Section 7.1 Earthquake
Section 7.2 Flood
Section 7.3 Slope Failure - Debris/Mud Flow
Section 7.4 Windstorm
Section 7.5 Wildfire
Section 7.6 Drought.
All data tables and maps included in this section were updated during the revision of this plan.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.1 Earthquake
7.1-1
Definition of an Earthquake
A shaking or trembling of the earth that is volcanic or tectonic in origin.1 Earthquake Related Hazards
Ground shaking, slope failures, liquefaction, and amplification are the specific hazards associated with earthquakes. The severity of these hazards depends on several factors, including soil and slope conditions, proximity to the fault, earthquake magnitude, and the type of earthquake.
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is the motion felt on the earth's surface caused by seismic waves generated by the earthquake. It is the primary cause of earthquake damage. The strength of ground shaking depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, the type of fault, and the distance from the epicenter. Buildings on poorly consolidated and thick soils will typically see more damage than buildings on consolidated soils and bedrock.
Earthquake Induced Slope failures
Earthquake induced slope failures are secondary earthquake hazards that occur from ground shaking. Many communities in Southern California have a high likelihood of encountering such risks, especially in areas with steep slopes. Map 7-3 identifies the areas vulnerable to slope failures within the city of Arcadia.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when ground shaking causes wet granular soils to change from a solid state to a liquid state. This results in the loss of soil strength and the soil's ability to support weight. Buildings and their occupants are at risk when the ground can no longer support these buildings and structures. Many communities in Southern California are built on ancient river bottoms and have sandy soil. In some cases, this ground may be subject to liquefaction, depending on the depth of the water table. Map 7-3 also identifies areas vulnerable to liquefaction within the city of Arcadia.
Amplification
Soils and soft sedimentary rocks near the earth's surface can modify ground shaking caused by earthquakes. One of these modifications is amplification. Amplification increases the magnitude of the seismic waves generated by the earthquake. The amount of amplification is influenced by the thickness of geologic materials and their physical properties. Buildings and structures built on soft and unconsolidated soils can face greater risk. Amplification can also occur in areas with deep sediment filled basins and on ridge tops.
History of Earthquakes in Southern California
The most recent significant earthquake event affecting Southern California was the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake. The Ridgecrest earthquake sequence included a magnitude-6.4 foreshock on July 4, followed by a magnitude-7.1 mainshock nearly 34 hours later. The earthquakes resulted in one death, 25 people injured and approximately 5.3 billion dollars in damages.ii
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.1 Earthquake
7.1-2
The most impactful to the L.A. Basin was the 6.7 magnitude Northridge Earthquake that occurred on January 24, 1994. 57 people were killed, and more than 1,500 people seriously injured. For days afterward, thousands of homes and businesses were without electricity, tens of thousands had no gas, and nearly 50,000 had little or no water.
Approximately 15,000 structures were moderately to severely damaged, which left thousands of people temporarily homeless. About 66,500 buildings were inspected.
Nearly 4,000 were severely damaged and over 11,000 were moderately damaged. Several collapsed bridges and overpasses created commuter havoc on the freeway system.
Ground shaking caused extensive damage, but earthquake triggered liquefaction and dozens of fires also caused additional severe damage. This extremely strong ground motion in large portions of Los Angeles County resulted in record economic losses.
The earthquake occurred early in the morning on a holiday. This circumstance considerably reduced the potential effects. Many collapsed buildings were unoccupied, and most businesses were not yet open. The direct and indirect economic losses ran into the tens of billions of dollars.
Historical and geological records show that California has a long history of seismic events. Southern California is probably best known for the San Andreas Fault, a 400- mile-long fault running from the Mexican border to a point offshore, west of San Geologic studies show that over the past 1,400 to 1,500 years large earthquakes have occurred at about 130-year intervals on the southern San Andreas Fault.
As the last large earthquake on the southern San Andreas occurred in 1857, that section of the fault is considered a likely location for an earthquake within the next few decades.
iii
San Andreas is only one of dozens of known earthquake faults that crisscross Southern California. Some of the better-known faults include the Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, Chatsworth, Elsinore, Hollywood, Los Alamitos, and Palos Verdes faults. Beyond the surface of Southern California. One such blind fault was involved in the Whittier Narrows earthquake in October 1987.
Although the most famous of the faults, the San Andreas, is capable of producing an earthquake with a magnitude of 8+
the potential to inflict greater damage on the urban core of the Los Angeles Basin.
Seismologists believe that a 6.0 earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood would result in far Andreas is relatively remote from the urban centers of Southern California. Refer to the following table 7.1-1 of Earthquake Events in the Southern California Region.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.1 Earthquake
7.1-3
Table: 7.1-1 Southern California Earthquakes with a Magnitude 5.0 or Greater since 1960 1971 San Fernando 1992 Landers 2001 Anza
1973 Point Mugu 1992 Big Bear 2003 Big Bear 1986 North Palm Springs 1994 Northridge 2004 Parkfield 1987 Whittier Narrows 1999 Hector Mine 2008 Chino Hills 2010 Baja California 2014 La Habra 2019 Ridgecrest
History of Earthquakes in the City of Arcadia
The most recent large-scale destruction to strike Arcadia was during the 1994 earthquake. it is estimated that the event directly or indirectly affected about 3% of the City's 53,000 residents. The City sought and received a County, State, and Presidential Disaster Declaration to obtain assistance for its recovery effort. Even though the earthquake was respond and repair large-scale damage without the assistance of the county, state, and federal government.
Even though a lesser known fault line, the Raymond Fault, is only predicted to have a major rupture about once every 4500 years it still crosses right through the City of Arcadia, and there are even a couple of schools sitting directly on the Fault itself. The last major rupture of the Raymond Fault occurred sometime in the last 2000 years. However, the most recent notable seismic activity of the Fault occurred in the southern area of Pasadena with a magnitude of 5.0. Even though there were only a few minor injuries and slight damage reported, the Raymond Fault still has the potential to cause severe damage to the City of Arcadia and its residents.
A more well know fault that crosses through the north end of Arcadia is the Sierra Madre Fault Line. Though its last major rupture occurred in the Holocene era and it is predicted to have major seismic activity about once every several thousand years it could still cause great damage to the City of Arcadia and its neighboring communities.
Although the Clamshell-Sawpit Canyon Fault does not cross directly through Arcadia it should still be considered a great threat to the community. On June 28, 1991 seismic activity of about a 5.8 magnitude occurred on the Clamshell-Sawpit Canyon Fault, an offshoot of the Sierra Madre fault zone in the San Gabriel Mountains. ivBecause of its
depth and moderate size, it caused no surface rupture, but it did trigger rockslides that blocked some of the local mountain roads. Roughly $40 million in property damage occurred in the San Gabriel Valley; unreinforced masonry buildings were hardest hit, and many brick chimneys collapsed. Two deaths resulted from this earthquake -- one person was killed in Arcadia, and one person in Glendale died from a heart attack. In all, at least 100 others were injured, though the injuries were mostly minor. v
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.1 Earthquake
7.1-4
Earthquake Hazard Assessment
The San Gabriel Valley is littered with both surface and blind fault lines. Though the Raymond and Sierra Madre Fault Lines cross directly through the City of Arcadia there are many other faults that pose a great risk to the community including but not limited to the Clamshell-Sawpit, San Gabriel, and San Andreas Faults.
Many organizations, in partnership with other state and federal agencies, have undertaken a rigorous program in California to identify seismic hazards and risks including active fault identification, bedrock shaking, tsunami inundation zones, ground motion amplification, liquefaction, and earthquake induced slope failures. Seismic hazard maps have been published and are available for many communities in California through the State Division of Mines and Geology. Map 7-1 illustrate the known earthquake faults in the San Gabriel Valley, and Arcadia.
The City of Arcadia is at risk from many fault lines throughout California. The following Table 7.1-2 shows the distance between the fault line and the City of Arcadia.
Table 7.1-2 Distances and Estimated Earthquake Strengths for Regional Faults Fault Name Approximate Distance from
Arcadia
Maximum Credible Earthquake
(MCE)
Sierra Madre 0 miles 6.7 MCE
Raymond 0 miles 6.5 MCE
Clamshell-Sawpit 1 mile 6.5 MCE
San Gabriel 4 miles 7.0 MCE
Verdugo 8 miles 6.7 MCE
Whittier-North Elsinore 10 miles 7.0 MCE
Elysian Park 11 miles 6.7 MCE
Santa Monica-Hollywood 13 miles 6.6 MCE
San Jose 14 miles 6.5 MCE
Chino 18 miles 6.7 MCE
San Andreas (Mojave section) 21 miles 7.1 MCE
Cucamonga 22 miles 7.0 MCE
Newport-Inglewood 23 miles 6.9 MCE
Oak Ridge 24 miles 6.9 MCE
Newport-Inglewood (offshore) 26 miles 6.9 MCE
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.1 Earthquake
7.1-5
Probability
The U.S.G.S. in March 2015 published Version 3 of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF).
vi This document lists the probability and magnitude of an earthquake occurring in many regions of California including the Los Angeles Region.
Below is the table for the Los Angeles Region:
Magnitude Greater or Equal
Than To Average Repeat Time
30 Year Likelihood or one or
more events
5 1.4 100%
6 10 96%
6.7 40 60%
7 61 46%
7.5 109 31%
8 532 7%
Risk Analysis
Risk analysis involves estimating the damage and costs likely to be experienced in a geographic area over a period of time. Factors included in assessing earthquake risk include population and property distribution in the hazard area, the frequency of earthquake events, slope failure susceptibility, buildings, infrastructure, and disaster preparedness of the region. This type of analysis can generate estimates of the damages to the region due to an earthquake event in a specific location.
Damages from a large earthquake almost anywhere in Southern California are likely to run into the billions of dollars. Although building codes are some of the most stringent in the world, tens of thousands of older existing buildings were built under less rigid codes. many building owners have retrofitted their buildings, hundreds of pre-1933 buildings still have not been brought up to current standards. All existing uncensored masonry buildings in the City of Arcadia have been seismically retrofitted to comply with the "1990 Revised Model Ordinance for the Seismic Retrofit of Hazardous unreinforced Masonry Buildings" as developed by the State of California Seismic Safety Commission.
Economic Impact
The City of Arcadia has a total assessed valuation of $15,676,471,562. This can be further broken into:
Residential properties valued at $12,959,501,963
Commercial properties valued at $ 1,524,210,934
Other properties valued at $ 1,192,758,665
Arcadia
s Current Mitigation of Earthquake Hazards
Earthquake damage occurs because humans have built structures that cannot withstand severe shaking. Buildings, airports, schools, and lifelines (highways and utility lines) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.1 Earthquake
7.1-6
suffer damage in earthquakes and can cause death or injury to humans. The welfare of homes, major businesses, and public infrastructure is very important. Addressing the reliability of buildings, critical facilities, and infrastructure, and understanding the potential costs to government, businesses, and individuals as a result of an earthquake, are challenges faced by the city.
Dams
There is a total of 103 dams in Los Angeles County, owned by 23 agencies or organizations, ranging from the Federal government to Homeowner Associations. vii
These dams hold billions of gallons of water in reservoirs.
There are portions of the City that are located within the flood hazard areas (or inundation areas) of three (3) dams, including the Eaton Wash Dam in East Pasadena, the Santa Anita Dam, which is located in the Angeles National Forest above Arcadia, and the Sawpit Dam, which is located in Monrovia. A portion of the Sierra Madre Dam hazard area is also located within the City boundary but the dam was recently modified and no longer poses a potential threat to the City. For further information on dams and flood waters please see Section 7.2 Flooding Hazards.
Infrastructure and Communication
Residents in the City of Arcadia commute frequently by automobiles and public transportation such as buses and light rail. An earthquake can greatly damage bridges and roads, hampering emergency response efforts and the normal movement of people and goods. Damaged infrastructure strongly affects the economy of the community because it disconnects people from work, school, food, and leisure, and separates businesses from their customers and suppliers.
Bridge Damage
Even modern bridges can sustain damage during earthquakes, leaving them unsafe for use. Some bridges have failed completely due to strong ground motion. Bridges are a vital transportation link - with even minor damages making some areas inaccessible.
Because bridges vary in size, materials, location and design, any given earthquake will affect them differently. Bridges built before the mid-1970' s have a significantly higher risk of suffering structural damage during a moderate to large earthquake compared with those built after 1980 when design improvements were made.
The FHWA requires that bridges on the National Bridge Inventory be inspected every 2 years. CalTrans checks when the bridges are inspected because they administer the Federal funds for bridge projects. Even though the bridges in the City of Arcadia are state, county, or privately owned (including railroad bridges) all of the inspected bridges earned a Satisfactory rating or better. Prior to the opening of the Goldline Light Rail Extension through Arcadia in 2016
way were rebuilt to current building code standards.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.1 Earthquake
7.1-7
Damage to Lifelines
Lifelines are the connections between communities and outside services. They include water and gas lines, transportation systems, electricity, and communication networks.
Ground shaking and amplification can cause pipes to break open, power lines to fall, roads and railways to crack or move, and radio and telephone communication to cease.
Disruption to transportation makes it especially difficult to bring in supplies or services.
Lifelines need to be usable after an earthquake to allow for rescue, recovery, and rebuilding efforts and to relay important information to the public.
Disruption of Critical Services
Critical facilities include police stations, fire stations, hospitals, shelters, and other facilities that provide important services to the community. These facilities and their services need to be functional after an earthquake event. Many critical facilities are housed in older buildings that are not up to current seismic codes. However, all critical public buildings in Arcadia have been built to code and are considered seismically sound.
Individual Preparedness
Because the potential for earthquake occurrences and earthquake related property damage is relatively high in the City of Arcadia, increasing individual preparedness is a significant need. Strapping down heavy furniture, water heaters, and expensive personal property, as well as being earthquake insured, and anchoring buildings to foundations are just a few steps individuals can take to prepare for an earthquake. The residents and business owners of Arcadia can visit any fire station to obtain literature on earthquake preparedness and survival.
Fire
Downed power lines or broken gas mains can trigger fires. Major incidents will demand a larger share of resources, and initially smaller fires and problems will receive little or insufficient resources in the initial hours after a major earthquake event. Loss of electricity may cause a loss of water pressure in some communities, further hampering firefighting ability. In the event of an earthquake the Arcadia Fire Department has an Earthquake Policy. The policy states: when and where off-duty personnel should report, initial tasks of on duty personnel, and provides initial assignments for determining the amount of damage the City and its occupants suffered. The City of Arcadia also has a Disaster Recall Policy encompassing all departments which details when and where City Employees are to report and the responsibilities of each person.
Debris
After damage to a variety of structures, much time is spent cleaning up brick, glass, wood, steel or concrete building elements, office and home contents, and other materials.
The City of Arcadia has a debris management annex in its Emergency Operations Plan.
City staff is also working with Los Angeles County Public Works on a Debris Management Plan for the entire county of Los Angeles.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.1 Earthquake
7.1-8
Buildings
The built environment is susceptible to damage from earthquakes. Buildings that collapse can trap and bury people. Lives are at risk and the cost to clean up the damages is great. In most California communities, including the city of Arcadia, many buildings were built before 1993 when building codes were not as strict. In addition, retrofitting is not required except under certain conditions and can be expensive. Therefore, the number of buildings at risk remains high. The California Seismic Safety Commission makes annual reports on the progress of the retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings. All unreinforced masonry buildings both publicly and privately owned in are Arcadia have been retrofitted to meet current standards.
City of Arcadia Codes
Implementation of earthquake mitigation policy most often takes place at the local government level. The City of Arcadia Development Services Department enforces building codes pertaining to earthquake hazards. The City of Arcadia has adopted the 2019 California Building Code. Therefore, all earthquake hazard mitigation measures specified in the Code are enforced by the City of Arcadia for new and remodeled buildings and structures. This ensures that all buildings be built and remodeled at the most current seismic standards.
Generally, these codes seek to discourage development in areas that could be prone to flooding, slope failure, wildfire and / or seismic hazards; and where development is permitted, that the applicable construction standards are met. Developers in hazard-prone areas may be required to retain a qualified professional engineer to evaluate level of risk on the site and recommend appropriate mitigation measures.
The City of Arcadia also requires that site-specific seismic hazard investigations be performed for new essential facilities, major structures, hazardous facilities, and special occupancy structures such as schools, hospitals, and emergency response facilities.
Businesses/Private Sector
Seismic activity can create economic loss that presents a burden to large and small shop owners who may have difficulty recovering from their losses. When a company is forced to stop production for just a day, the economic loss can be tremendous. In fact, of all businesses which close following a disaster, more than forty-three percent never reopen, and an additional twenty-nine percent close for good within the next two years. viii The
disaster planning toolkit to help guide businesses in preparing for and dealing with the adverse effects of natural hazards. The kit integrates protection from natural disasters into the company's risk reduction measures to safeguard employees, customers, and the investment itself. The guide helps businesses secure human and physical resources during disasters and helps to develop strategies to maintain business continuity before, during, and after a disaster occurs.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.1 Earthquake
7.1-9
Hospitals
in response to the moderate Magnitude 6.6 Sylmar Earthquake in 1971 when four major hospital campuses were severely damaged and evacuated. Two hospital buildings collapsed killing forty-seven people. Three others were killed in another hospital that nearly collapsed.
In approving the Act, the Legislature noted that:
Hospitals, that house patients who have less than the capacity of normally healthy persons to protect themselves, and that must be reasonably capable of providing services to the public after a disaster, shall be designed and constructed to resist, insofar as practical, the forces generated by earthquakes, gravity and winds. (Health and Safety Code Section 129680)
When the Hospital Act was passed in 1973, the State anticipated that, based on the regular and timely replacement of aging hospital facilities, the majority of hospital years. However,
hospital buildings were not, and are not, being replaced at that anticipated rate. In fact,
orthridge Earthquake,
expanded the scope of the 1973 Hospital Act. Under SB 1953, all hospitals are required, as of January 1, 2008, to survive earthquakes without collapsing or posing the threat of significant loss of life. The 1994 Act further mandates that all existing hospitals be seismically evaluated, and retrofitted, if needed, by 2030, so that they are in substantial compliance with the Act (which requires that the hospital buildings be reasonably capable of providing services to the public after disasters). SB 1953 applies to all urgent care facilities (including those built prior to the 1973 Hospital Act) and affects approximately 2,500 buildings on 475 campuses.
Community Issues Summary
One fault line runs diagonally through Arcadia. A large earthquake on that fault would impact:
City owned roadways, water infrastructure and radio repeater site.
Interstate 210
Metro Gold Line Light Rail
One middle school
Two elementary schools
A Regional Mall
A horse racing track with a capacity for over 50,000 patrons A major natural gas distribution line feeding the San Gabriel Valley runs through Arcadia and crosses the fault line
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.1 Earthquake
7.1-10
Works Cited
1 http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/when.html
iiAnalysis of recent Ridgecrest, California earthquake sequence reveals complex, damaging fault systems, California Institute of Technology (October 17, 2019) iii http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/when.html
iv (Haukson, 1994
v http://www.data.scec.org/chrono_index/sierrama.html
vi
March 2015
viiSource: Los Angeles County Public Works Department, March 2004 viiiInstitute for Business and Home Safety Resources (April 2001),
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.2 Flood
7.2-1
Definition of Flooding
A rising and overflowing of a body of water especially onto normally dry land.i
Flood Related Hazards
Flooding occurs when climate, geology, and hydrology combine to create conditions where water flows outside of its usual course. While the City of Arcadia has some of these conditions, it has been fortunate enough to have no experience of flooding in the City.
Winter Rainfall
Over the last 125 years, the average annual rainfall in Los Angeles has been 14.9 inches. But the only 4.35 inches in 2001-2002 to 38.2 inches in 1883-1884. In fact, in only fifteen of the past 125 years, has the annual rainfall been within plus or minus 10% of the 14.9 inch average. And in only 38 years has the annual rainfall been within plus or minus 20% of the 14.9 inch average.
This makes the Los Angeles basin a land of extremes in terms of annual precipitation. The City of Arcadia is centrally located in the San Gabriel Valley. It is up against the San Gabriel Mountains or hills, which could increase the collection of rainwater.
Monsoons
Another relatively regular source for heavy rainfall, particularly in the mountains and adjoining cities is from summer tropical storms.
Riverine Flooding
Riverine flooding is the overbank flooding of rivers and streams. The natural processes of riverine flooding add sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. Flooding in large river systems typically results from large-scale weather systems that generate prolonged rainfall over a wide geographic area, causing flooding in hundreds of smaller streams, which then drain into the major rivers.
Shallow Area Flooding
Shallow area flooding is a special type of riverine flooding. FEMA defines shallow flood hazards as areas that are inundated by the 100-year flood with flood depths of only one to three feet. These areas are generally flooded by low velocity sheet flows of water.
100-Year Flood
The 100-year flooding event is the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in magnitude in any given year. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a flood occurring once every 100 years. The 100-year floodplain is the area adjoining a river, stream, or watercourse covered by water in the event of a 100-year flood.
Urban Flooding
As land is converted from fields or woodlands to roads and parking lots, it loses its ability to absorb rainfall. Urbanization of a watershed changes the hydrologic systems of the basin.
Heavy rainfall collects and flows faster on impervious concrete and asphalt surfaces. The water moves from the clouds, to the ground, and into streams at a much faster rate in urban areas.
Adding these elements to the hydrological systems can result in flood waters that rise very Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.2 Flood
7.2-2
rapidly and peak with violent force.
Dam Failure Flooding
Loss of life and damage to structures, roads, and utilities may result from a dam failure.
Economic losses can also result from a lowered tax base and lack of utility profits. These effects could certainly accompany the failure of one of the major dams surrounding the City of Arcadia.
There are no
located within the flood hazard areas (or inundation areas) of three (3) dams, including the Eaton Wash Dam in East Pasadena, the Santa Anita Dam, which is located in the Angeles National Forest above Arcadia, and the Sawpit Dam, which is located in Monrovia.
History of Flooding in Southern California
There are a number of rivers in the Southern California region, but the river with the best recorded history is the Los Angeles River. The flood history of the Los Angeles River is generally indicative of the flood history of much of Southern California.
Records show that since 1811, the Los Angeles River has flooded 30 times, on average once every 6.1 years. But averages are deceiving, for the Los Angeles basin goes through periods of drought and then periods of above average rainfall. Between 1889 and 1891 the river flooded every year, and from 1941 to 1945, the river flooded 5 times. Conversely, from 1896 to 1914, a period of 18 years, and again from 1944 to 1969, a period of 25 years, the river did not have serious floods.
ii
A Sample of Major Floods of the Los Angeles River Table 7.2 1825 L.A. River changed its course back from the Ballona wetlands to San Pedro 1861-62 Heavy flooding. Fifty inches of rain falls during December and January. 1867 Floods create a large, temporary lake out to Ballona Creek. 1884 Heavy flooding caused river to change course, turning east to Vernon & then south to San Pedro. 1914 Heavy flooding. Great damage to the harbor.
1934 Moderate flood starting January 1. Forty dead in La Canada. 1938 Great County-wide flood with 4 days of rain. Most rain on day 4. 1941-44 L.A. River floods five times.
1969 One heavy flood after 9 day storm. One moderate flood. 1979 Los Angeles experiences severe flooding and mudslides. 1980 Flood tops banks of river in Long Beach. Sepulveda Basin spillway almost opened. 1983 Flooding kills six people.
1992 15 year flood. Motorists trapped in Sepulveda basin. Six people dead. 1994 Heavy flooding
Sources: http://www.lalc.k12.ca.us/target/units/river/tour/hist.html and (http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/History/hi01i.htm)
While the City of Arcadia is 15 miles east of Los Angeles, it is not so far away as to not be Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.2 Flood
7.2-3
affected by the heavy rains that brought flooding to Los Angeles. In addition, the towering mountains that give the Los Angeles region its spectacular views also bring a great deal of rain out of the storm clouds that pass through. Because the mountains are so steep, the rainwater moves rapidly down the slopes and across the coastal plains on its way to the ocean.
surround three sides of the valley, seldom reach heights above three thousand feet. The western San Gabriel Mountains, in contrast, have elevations of more than seven thousand feet. These higher ridges often trap eastern-moving winter storms. Although downtown Los Angeles averages just fifteen inches of rain a year, some mountain peaks in the San Gabriels receive more than forty iii
Naturally, this rainfall moves rapidly downstream, often with severe consequences for anything in its path. In extreme cases, flood-generated debris flows will roar down a canyon at speeds near 40 miles per hour with a wall of mud, debris and water tens of feet high.
In Southern California, stories of floods, debris flows, persons buried alive under tons of mud and rock and persons swept away to their death in a river flowing at thirty-five miles an hour are without end. No catalog of chaos could contain all the losses suffered by man and his possessions from the Regions Rivers and streams.
Arcadia and surrounding areas are, like most of Southern California, subject to unpredictable seasonal rainfall. Most years, the scant winter rains are barely sufficient to turn the hills green for a few weeks, but every few years the region is subjected to periods of intense and sustained precipitation that sometimes results in localized flooding. Natural (Storm) Flooding In Southern California, storm flooding is difficult to predict, and thus plan for, because rainfall varies from year to year. Flood hazards related to storm events generally are described in terms of a 100- or 500-year flood. A 100-year flood is defined as a major flood event that has a one percent or greater chance of occurring during any one year. Flood hazard planning practices addresses such storms, as well as 500-year events. These floods are considered severe; however, these floods can be reasonably predicted and therefore reasonably mitigated. As noted above, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works has constructed regional flood and debris control facilities throughout the region, including the flood control channels in Arcadia that direct runoff water through the City into regional facilities to the south. A system of spreading basins manages storm water runoff and helps recharge groundwater basins. Locally, the City maintains approximately four miles of subsurface storm drains that flow into the regional channels. Due to the combination of these two systems, no areas in Arcadia lie within a 100-year iv
The City has experienced Urban Flooding.
storm. The water overflowed onto the City streets but caused little to no damage to any public or private property. Once the rainfall lessened, the sewer system was able once again channel the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.2 Flood
7.2-4
water through and away from the City. The 2010 City of Arcadia General Plan under Chapter 8 superior storm draining and flood control facilities
that minimize the risk of flooding. The goal is achieved through the following policies:
Policy S-
prone to localized ponding and flooding.
Policy S-2.2: Continue rigorous maintenance of storm drainage and flood control
Policy S-2.3: Require that new development projects retain as much runoff as possible on the development site to reduce flow volumes into the storm drain system, allow for requirements (consistent with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems program, or NPDES) and employ Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Policy S-2.4: Support efforts of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and other agencies responsible for the maintenance of dams and reservoirs above Arcadia to improve conditions of the facilities and reduce the risk of inundation resulting from dam or reservoir failure.
National Flood Insurance Program
The City of Arcadia does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Flooding Hazard Assessment
The most current FEMA map confirms that the City of Arcadia is rated area X, areas to be outside the .2% annual chance floodplain and in area D, areas in which flood hazards are undetermined but possible. Due to the fact Arcadia does not have areas considered to be flood prone the City does not have recurring loss properties. However, there are portions of the City that are located within the inundation areas of three (3) dams, including the Morris S. Jones Reservoir in East Pasadena, the Santa Anita Dam, which is located in the Angeles National Forest above Arcadia, and the Sawpit Dam, which is located in Monrovia. See Map 7.2a for flood inundation areas.
Risk Analysis
Risk analysis is the third and most advanced phase of a hazard assessment. It builds upon the hazard identification and vulnerability assessment. A flood risk analysis for the City of Arcadia should include two components: (1) the life and value of property that may incur losses from a flood event (defined through the vulnerability assessment); and (2) the number and type of flood events expected to occur over time. Within the broad components of a risk analysis, it is possible to predict the severity of damage from a range of events. Flow velocity models can assist in predicting the amount of damage expected from different magnitudes of flood events.
The data used to develop these models is based on hydrological analysis of landscape features.
Changes in the landscape, often associated with human development, can alter the flow velocity and the severity of damage that can be expected from a flood event.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.2 Flood
7.2-5
Using GIS technology and flow velocity models, it is possible to map the damage that can be expected from flood events over time. It is also possible to pinpoint the effects of certain flood events on individual properties.
Economic Impact
There are four dam inundation zones that impact the City of Arcadia. As mentioned in this section, the zones are Morris S. Jones Reservoir Inundation Area, Santa Anita Dam Inundation Area, and Sawpit Dam Inundation. The assessed valuation for the three areas are as follows:
Sawpit Dam Inundation Area $276,166,986
Santa Anita Dam Inundation Area $669,813,106
Morris Jones Reservoir $271,501,566
Community Flood Issues
What is Susceptible to Damage during a Flood Event?
The largest impact on communities from flood events is the loss of life and property. During certain years, property losses resulting from flood damage are extensive. Property loss from floods strikes both private and public property. Because the City of Arcadia does not lie in a flood plain, the damage to property in the City has been minimal since incorporation.
Property Loss Resulting from Flooding Events
The type of property damage caused by flood events depends on the depth and velocity of the flood waters. Faster moving flood waters can wash buildings off their foundations and sweep cars downstream. Pipelines, bridges, and other infrastructure can be damaged when high waters combine with flood debris. Extensive damage can be caused by basement flooding and landslide damage related to soil saturation from flood events. Most flood damage is caused by water saturating materials susceptible to loss (i.e., wood, insulation, wallboard, fabric, furnishings, floor coverings, and appliances). In many cases, flood damage to homes renders them unlivable.
Business/Industry
Flood events impact businesses by damaging property and by interrupting business. Flood events can cut off customer access to a business as well as close a business for repairs. A quick response to the needs of businesses affected by flood events can help a community maintain economic vitality in the face of flood damage. Responses to business damages can include funding to assist owners in elevating or relocating flood-prone business structures.
Public Infrastructure
Publicly owned facilities are a key component of daily life for all citizens of the county. Damage to public water and sewer systems, transportation networks, flood control facilities, emergency facilities, and offices can hinder the ability of the government to deliver services. Government can take action to reduce risk to public infrastructure from flood events, as well as craft public policy that reduces risk to private property from flood events.
Roads
During natural hazard events, or any type of emergency or disaster, dependable road connections Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.2 Flood
7.2-6
are critical for providing emergency services. The Public Works Services Department maintains roads systems in the City of Arcadia. Federal, state, county, and city governments all have a stake in protecting roads from flood damage. Road networks often traverse floodplain and floodway areas. Transportation agencies responsible for road maintenance are typically aware of roads at risk from flooding.
Bridges
Bridges are key points of concern during flood events because they are important links in road networks and can inhibit the flow of water during flood events. The bridges in the City of Arcadia are state, county, city, or privately owned. A state-designated inspector must inspect all state, county, and city bridges every two years; but private bridges are not inspected, and can be very dangerous. The inspections are rigorous, looking at everything from seismic capability to erosion and scour.
Storm Water Systems
Local drainage problems are common throughout the City of Arcadia. While the City does not have a drainage master plan, Public Works staff is aware of local drainage threats. The problems are often present where storm water runoff enters culverts or goes underground into storm sewers. Inadequate maintenance can also contribute to the flood hazard in urban areas.
Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities
There is one sanitary district that services the City of Arcadia (Los Angeles County Sanitation).
There are also four (4) water service companies and or districts in the City of Arcadia. This number includes the water service provided to the residents by the City of Arcadia.
Wastewater Management
Arcadia's sewer system is a series of privately owned lateral connections from individual businesses and residences, which connect to larger City-owned main lines - then to subsequently larger trunk lines, which then take Arcadia's sanitary and industrial wastes to treatment plants operated by the LA County Sanitation District. These wastes are treated to varying degrees and either used for specific industrial purposes such as freeway irrigation or power (plant) generation, or discharged in to water bodies of the State, where they flow to the Pacific Ocean.
Water Districts
All of the water districts in the City as well as the City Public Works Services Department are in the process of replacing old cast iron pipes with more ductile iron pipes, which will be more resilient in disaster situations. During a disaster, water districts in the region work together to provide water for the city of Arcadia residents.
Water Quality
The City of Arcadia is committed to making sure that water from the water supply as well as storm water, which make its way into the water conveyance system, are safe and reliable by complying with all Federal and State water standards. The City of Arcadia water supply is always tested to make sure there are no harmful constituents.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.2 Flood
7.2-7
Community Issues Summary
Flood is not a high hazard for the City of Arcadia. This statement is based on lack of a history of flooding within the City of Arcadia along with what is depicted on the most current FEMA map.
The details from the most current FEMA map can be found on page 7.2-4 under the heading "Flood Hazard Assessment" The City of Arcadia does not have areas considered to be flood prone and does not have recurring loss properties.
Works Cited
i http://www.merriam-webster.com/
ii. http://www.lalc.k12.ca.us/target/units/river/tour/hist.html iii. Gumprecht, Blake, 1999, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
iv City of Arcadia General Plan Chapter 8 Safety Element, Flooding Section City of Arcadia
Flood Hazards Map
MAP 7-2.1
Monrovia
El Monte
Te m p l e C i t y
Irwindale
Sierra Madre
Pasadena
Los Angeles
County
Las Tunas Dr
Ca mi no Re al
Huntington Dr
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet
Mapped by: Hogle-Ireland Inc., 2010.
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
September 26, 2008. National Flood Hazards Layer (NFHL).
FEMA Map Service Center: Web Page, <http://msc.fema.gov> Base Map Features
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Freeway
Railroad
City Road
Water Feature
Flood Hazard Zones
Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood.
Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
ANITA
SANTA WASH
LIBRARY
STATION
FIRE
WASH
SIERRA MADRE
D E
B
R I S
D I S
P O S
A
L
DR
RD
CANYON
SUNSET
M
ICHILLINDA
ORANGE GROVE
ELKINS AV
HIGHLAND
VISTA
SAW
PIT
GOLF COURSE
SANTA ANITA
P A R K
A R C A D I A C O U N T YC I T Y
STATION
FIRE
A R B O R E T U M
S T A
T E A N D C O U N T Y
L O S A N G E L E S
RACE TRACK
P A R K
ANITA
SANTA
WASHARCADIA
ARCADIA
ARCADIA H S
HUGO REID
PRIMARY
SERENDIPITY
SCHOOL
CONTINUATION
SCHOOL
HUGO REID
ELEM.
BALDWIN
STOCKER
ELEM.
LONGLEY
WAY
ELEM.
CAMINO
GROVE
ELEM.
RICHARD H DANA
JR H S
1ST AVENUE
JR H S
FOOTHILLS
JR H S
HIGHLAND OAKS
ELEM
HOLLY
AVENUE
ELEM
TIERRA
VERDE
PARK
WINNIE
WAY
PARK
BICENTENNIAL
PARK
LONGDEN
AVENUE
PARK
BALDWIN
STOCKER
PARK
HOLLY
AVENUE
PARK
FAIRVIEW
AVENUE
PARK
WILDERNESS
PARK
TRIPOLIS
FRIENDSHIP
PARK
HUGO REID
PARK CIVIC
CE
NTER
ATHL
ETIC
FIELD
HIGHLAND
OAKS
PARK
PARK
BONITA
EISENHOW
ER PARK
FOREST PARK
PARK
GROVE
CAM
INO
ORANGE
GROVE
PARK
NEWCASTLE
PARK
SANTA CLARA ST
H A L L
COURSE
ARCADIA
GOLF
ARCADIA
S A N
T
A
A N
I T A
WASH
FIRE
STATION
EAST
BRANCH
LATERAL
A R E
A
W
ASH
LAS TUNAS DR
FYFOOTHILLRTE 210
RTE 210
CENTENNIAL
REAL
GOLDRING
CLARK
AZUSA RD
LOWER
PECK RD
LIVE OAK
AV
RD
CAMINO
SIERRA MADRE BL
AV
AV
GRAND VIEW
DR
OAKS
HIGHLAND
ST JOSEPH
ST
DR
CAMPUS DR
DUARTE
AV
WAY
HUNTINGTON
BALDW
IN AV
HUNTINGTON
AV
6TH
AV
10TH
1STAV
AV
ANITA
SANTA
EL M
ONTE
REALCAMINO
HOLLY
RD
AV
AV AV
LONGDEN
AV
2ND
GOLDEN W
EST
BALDW
IN
BL
BLADW
IN
AV
COLORADO BL
DR
HUNTINGTON
BLFOOTHILL
COLORADO ST
LIMA
PUBLIC WORKS
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
RECREATION & COMMUNITY
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
METHODIST
HOSPITAL
WESTFIELDSHOPPING TOWNATSANTA ANITA
PD
CITY OF MONROVIA
CITY OF EL MONTE
CITY OF IRWINDALETEMPLE CITY
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST
LOS ANGELES COUNTYCITY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
TEMPLE CITY
E SIERRA MADRE BLVD
HASTINGS RANCH DR
HAMPTON RD
N ALTURA RD
N ROSEMEAD BLVD
MONTE VERDE DR
VOLANTE DR
WOODLAND DR
CHURCHILL RD
FOOTHILL AV
N CANON AV
RANCHO RD
S ALTA VISTA AV
VIOLET AV
S MAYFLOWER AV
EL NIDO AV
SIERRA M
ADRE VILLA AV
CITY OF PASADENA
PECK ROAD
PLANT
SANTA
ANITA
PLANT
LIVE OAK
PLANT
LOWER
CANYON
PLANT
UPPER
CANYON
PLANT
LONGLEY
WELL
LONGDEN
PLANT
BALDWIN
PUMP
PLANT
RANCHO WELL
NO. 6
HUGO REID
WELL
BALDWIN
WELL
NO. 2
CHAPMAN
PLANT
ANOKIA
WELL
CAMINO REAL
PLANT
TORREY PINE
RESERVOIRSGROVE
PLANT
ORANGE
ST JOSEPH
PLANT
PECK ROAD WATER &
CONSERVATION PARK
HIGH PR
ESSU
RE
GAS
PI
PEL
INE
HIGH PRESSURE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
GAS PIPELINE
3 8
1 2
9 6
5 10
4 7
11 ARCADIA
GOLDLINE
STATION
LEGEND
SANTA ANITA DAM INUNDATION AREA
MORRIS S. JONES RESERVOIR INUNDATION AREA
SIERRA MADRE DAM INUNDATION AREA
SAWPIT DAM INUNDATION AREA
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
RESERVOIRS
CRITICAL BUILDINGS
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.3 Slope Failure
7.3-1
Definition of a Slope Failure
Slope failure, also referred to as mass wasting, is the. downslope movement of rock debris and soil in response to gravitational stresses. Three major types of mass wasting are classified by the type of downslope movement: falls, slides, and flows.1
Slope Failure Hazards
Slope Failure
and flows. Slope Failures can be initiated by rainfall, earthquakes, volcanic activity, changes in groundwater, disturbance and change of a slope by fabricated construction activities, or any combination of these factors.
The size of a Slope Failure usually depends on the geology and the initial cause of the Slope Failure. Slope Failures vary greatly in their volume of rock and soil, the length, width, and depth of the area affected, frequency of occurrence, and speed of movement.
Some characteristics that determine the type of Slope Failure are slope of the hillside, moisture content, and the nature of the underlying materials. Slope Failures are given different names, depending on the type of failure and their composition and characteristics.
Slides move in contact with the underlying surface. These movements include rotational slides, where sliding material moves along a curved surface, and translational slides, where movement occurs along a flat surface. These slides are generally slow moving and can be deep. Slumps are small rotational slides that are generally shallow. Slow-moving Slope Failures can occur on relatively gentle slopes and can cause significant property damage, but they are far less likely to result in serious injuries than rapidly moving Slope Failures.
2 exceeds the strength of the earth materials that compose the slope. They can move slowly (millimeters per year), or they can move quickly and disastrously, as is the case with debris-flows. Debris-flows can travel down a hillside of speeds up to 200 miles per hour (more commonly, 30
50 miles per hour), depending on the slope angle, water content, and type of earth and debris in the flow. These flows are initiated by heavy, usually sustained, periods of rainfall, but sometimes can happen because of short bursts of concentrated rainfall in susceptible areas. Burned areas charred by wildfires are particularly susceptible to debris flows, given certain soil characteristics and slope 3 A debris or mudflow is a river of rock, earth, and other materials, including vegetation that is saturated with water. This high percentage of water gives the debris flow a very rapid rate of movement down a slope. Debris flows often with speeds greater than 20 mile per hour and can often move much faster.
4 This high rate of speed makes debris
flows extremely dangerous to people and property in its path.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.3 Slope Failure
7.3-2
History of Slope Failures in Southern California
Slope Failures are a serious geologic hazard in almost every state in America. Nationally, Slope Failures cause 25 to 50 deaths each year.5 The best estimate of direct and indirect costs of Slope Failure damage in the United States range between $1 and $2 billion annually.6 As a seismically active region, California has had significant number of locations impacted by Slope Failures. Some Slope Failures result in private property damage; other Slope Failures impact transportation corridors, fuel and energy conduits, and communication facilities. They can also pose a serious threat to human life.
Below is a list of some of the major Slope Failures and their results in recent Southern Californian history.
1963 Baldwin Hills Dam Failure.
On December 14, the 650-foot long by 155-foot high earth fill dam gave way and sent 360 million gallons of water in a fifty-foot high wall cascading onto the community below, killing five persons, and damaging 50 million (1963 dollars) dollars in property.
1971 Upper and Lower Van Norman Dams, San Fernando, California Earthquake-induced Slope Failures. Cost estimate $302.4 million (2000 dollars). Damage due to the February 9, 1971, magnitude 7.5 San Fernando, California, earthquake. The earthquake of February 9 severely damaged the Upper and Lower Van Norman Dams. 7 1971 Juvenile Hall, San Fernando, California
Slope Failures caused by the February 9, 1971, San Fernando, California, earthquake Cost, $266.6 million (2000 dollars). In addition to damaging the San Fernando Juvenile Hall, this 1.2 km-long slide damaged trunk lines of the Southern Pacific Railroad, San Fernando Boulevard, Interstate Highway 5, an electrical converter station, and several pipelines and canals.
8 1978 Bluebird Canyon Orange County, California
October 2, 1978. Cost estimate $52.7 million (2000 dollars). Sixty houses destroyed or damaged. Unusually heavy rains in March of 1978 may have contributed to initiation of the Slope Failure. Although the 1978 slide area was approximately 3.5 acres, it is suspected to be a portion of a larger, ancient Slope Failure. 9 1978-1979, 1980 San Diego County, California
Experienced major damage from storms in 1978, 1979, and 1979-80, as did neighboring areas of Los Angeles and Orange County, California. One hundred and twenty Slope Failures were reported to have occurred in San Diego County during those two years.
Rainfall for the rainy seasons of 1978-79 and 1979-80 was 14.82 and 15.61 inches (37.6 and 39.6 cm) respectively, compared to a 125-year average (1850-1975) of 9.71 inches (24.7 cm). Significant Slope Failures occurred in the Friars Formation; a unit that was noted as slide-prone in the Seismic Safety Study for the City of San Diego. Of the nine Slope Failures that caused damage in excess of $1 million, seven occurred in the Friars Formation, and two in the Santiago Formation in the northern part of San Diego Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.3 Slope Failure
7.3-3
County.10
1994 Northridge, California, earthquake Slope Failures
As a result of the magnitude 6.7 Northridge, California, earthquake, more than 11,000 Slope Failures occurred over an area of 10,000 km2. Most were in the Santa Susana Mountains and in mountains north of the Santa Clara River Valley. Destroyed dozens of homes, blocked roads, and damaged oil-field infrastructure.
March 1995 Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, Southern California Above normal rainfall triggered damaging debris flows, deep-seated Slope Failures, and flooding. Several deep-seated Slope Failures were triggered by the storms, the most notable was the La Conchita Slope Failure, which in combination with a local debris flow, destroyed or badly damaged 11 to 12 homes in the small town of La Conchita, about 20 km west of Ventura. There also was widespread debris-flow and flood damage to homes, commercial buildings, and roads and highways in areas along the Malibu coast that had been devastated by wildfire two years before.
11 June 2005 Bluebird Canyon, Laguna Beach, California
In the early morning of June 1, 2005, a Slope Failure began moving in the Bluebird Canyon area of Laguna Beach, California. No rainfall or earthquake activity occurred during or immediately before the Slope Failure movement. This movement is almost certainly related to the extremely heavy winter rains that occurred from December through February. Rainfall from the winter season has been slowly percolating downward through the soil and is gradually raising ground-water levels. As ground water rises, slopes can become unstable and begin to move, even if no rain is presently occurring.
12 January 2005 La Conchita, California
On January 10, 2005, a Slope Failure struck the community of La Conchita in Ventura County, California, destroying or seriously damaging 36 houses and killing 10 people.
Although rainfall intensities were not extreme, moderate- to high-intensity rainfall persisted for more than two weeks, and the Slope Failure occurred at the culmination of this 15-day high-rainfall period.
13 January February 2010 La Cañada Flintridge, California Heavy winter storms hit the hills of La Cañada Flintridge in the early months of the year.
The area had already been devastated in the summer of 2009 with one of the largest wildfires in modern history. The loss of so much vegetation combined with the downpour of rains caused significant mudslides to the area. Over 500 homes evacuated, about fifty homes were damaged, and another twenty were red tagged. Initial estimates of damage were in excess of $20 million (2010 dollars).
January 2018 Montecito, CA
A heavy winter storm hit the mountains above Montecito and Carpenteria California in January of 2018. The area had burned during the devastating Thomas Fire in December of 2017 which burned 115,000 acres. The mudflow caused 21 reported deaths.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.3 Slope Failure
7.3-4
Approximately 163 people were hospitalized with various injuries, including four in critical condition. The mudflows caused at least $177 million (2018 dollars) in property damage, cost at least $7 (2018 dollars) million in emergency responses, and another $43 (2018 dollars) million to clean up.
History of Slope Failures in Cities in the San Gabriel Valley
December 2008
Sierra Madre, CA. In May 2008, over 600 acres of mountainside north of our neighboring city of Sierra Madre burned again in the Santa Anita II Fire. Portions of their hillside communities were inundated with mud and debris following the rains in the winter of 2008 and 2009.
November 2013
Monrovia, CA. In May of 2013, approximately 213 acres above the city of Monrovia were burned in the Madison Fire. In the fall of that year, the foothills of City of Monrovia experienced mud and debris flows in the neighborhoods up against the foothills.
November 2014
Glendora/Azusa, CA. In January of 2014, the Colby Fire burned 1,192 acres above the cities of Azusa and Glendora approximately 14 miles from the City of Arcadia. In November and December of 2014 both communities developed mudflow action plans and placed the plans into action and during periods of heavy rain during late fall and winter.
November 2016
Duarte/Azusa CA. In June of 2016, the Fish Fire burned 3,700 acres in the foothills above Duarte and Azusa, CA 4 miles from the City of Arcadia. In November and December of 2016 both communities developed mudflow action plans and placed the plans into action and during periods of heavy rain during late fall and winter.
History of Slope Failures in Arcadia
January
February 2000
In the wake of the December 27, 2000, Santa Anita Wildfire heavy rains brought mudslides to the north end of Arcadia. The Arcadia City Council appropriated $334,000 to purchase K-rail, fill sandbags, clear debris basins, among numerous other costs in response, minimal damage occurred to private properties. 14
January 2005
Heavy rainstorms triggered as many as 18 mudslides in Santa Anita Canyon, two of which were enormous events that buried the roadway under mounds of debris. The first major slide deposited about 6,000 cubic yards of debris on the road. A Forest Service Fire Station had to be shut down due to lack of access and a pack station owner said that the road closures had devastated her business financially.
15 Slope Failure Hazard Assessment
Locations at risk from Slope Failures or debris flows include areas with one or more of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.3 Slope Failure
7.3-5
the following conditions:
1. On or close to steep hills.
2. Steep road-cuts or excavations.
3. Existing Slope Failures or places of kn own historic Slope Failures (such sites often have tilted power lines, trees tilted in various directions, cracks in the ground, and irregular-surfaced ground).
4. Steep areas where surface runoff is channeled, such as below culverts, V-shaped valleys, canyon bottoms, and steep stream channels.
5. Fan-shaped areas of sediment and boulder accumulation at the outlets of canyons.
6. Canyon areas below hillsides and mountains that have recently (within 1-6 years) been subjected to a wildland fire.
On December 27, 1999, a fire occurred in the Angeles National Forest north of the City of Arcadia that resulted in the burning of over 500 acres of chaparral. The U.S. Forestry Service classified this as a medium intensity fire that burned off vegetation at the surface level, however left the root structures intact. Initial estimates are that the natural recovery process will take between four to ten years for full restoration of the vegetation and chaparral.
In the interim, the burn area is barren of vegetation. The soil is composed of loose gravel and dirt and due to burn, which creates a coating, having a water repelling effect. This means that the normal absorption and stability of the soil is diminished. With the lack of vegetation and water repellency of the soil, geologists and hydrologists surveying the area forecast the likelihood of natural soil erosion and runoff with or without rainfall.
The City of Arcadia anticipated that with rainfall, flooding and mudslides were likely.
The degree of flooding or mudslides depended upon the amount and intensity of rainfall; however, experts believe that one-half inch of rain falling over a short period of time could be sufficient to create a problem.
Several residences were identified as being threatened to varying degrees by mudslides and flooding due to their proximity to the mountainside and the watersheds where water and debris naturally flowed. Furthermore, several streets possessed the potential of being impacted by flooding, mud, and debris flow.
The Public Works Services Department created an action plan to coincide with the overall city emergency operations plan in preparation for the anticipated flood, mud, and debris programs.
Probability
Once a wildfire occurs the next greatest concern for the foothill community that experiences the wildfire is a Slope Failure or debris flow when the winter rains arrive.
Looking at other data from debris flows in Los Angeles County, once a wildfire burns through an area, that location is an area of concern for the next five years. A significant rainstorm in the year following a wildfire creates the highest degree of probability of Slope Failure or debris flow. This probability is directly tied to a wildfire occurring in Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.3 Slope Failure
7.3-6
the months leading up to the rainy season. The communities of Monrovia, Duarte, Azusa and Glendora, California all experienced significant Slope Failure or debris flows in the winter months after the Madison, Fish and Colby Fires. With the foothills above Arcadia experiencing a wildfire every 4.5 years as outlined in the Wildfire section of this report, the probability of Slope Failure or debris flows in the fire impacted areas could also be every 4.5 years.
Risk Analysis
Vulnerability assessment for Slope Failures will assist in predicting how different types of property and population groups will be affected by a hazard. 16 Data that includes
specific Slope Failure-prone and debris flow locations in the city can be used to assess the population and total value of property at risk from future Slope Failure occurrences.
indicator of hill slope stability. The City uses a 20% or greater threshold to identify potentially unstable hill slopes. The Mt. Wilson and El Monte seismic hazard maps, which are published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines, show that the extreme northeast section of the City is the only portion of the City with the potential for Slope Failures. Although the acreage has not been calculated, it accounts for a very small part of the City.
While a quantitative vulnerability assessment (an assessment that describes number of lives or amount of property exposed to the hazard) has not yet been conducted for City of Arcadia Slope Failure events, there are many qualitative factors that point to potential vulnerability. Slope Failures can impact major transportation arteries, blocking residents from essential services and businesses.
Past Slope Failure events have caused property damage or significantly impacted City residents and continuing to map City Slope Failure and debris flow areas will help in preventing future loss.
Factors included in assessing Slope Failure risk include population and property distribution in the hazard area, the frequency of Slope Failure or debris flow occurrences, slope steepness, soil characteristics, and precipitation intensity. This type of analysis could generate estimates of the damages to the City due to a specific Slope Failure or debris flow event. At the time of publication of this plan, data was insufficient to conduct a risk analysis and the software needed to conduct this type of analysis was not available.
To view potential areas for Slope Failures, see the Slope Failure and Debris Flow Map 7- 3 Economic Impact
The City of Arcadia has a total assessed valuation of $15,676,471,562. This can be further broken into:
Residential properties valued at $12,959,501,963
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.3 Slope Failure
7.3-7
Commercial properties valued at $1,524,210,934
Other properties valued at $ 1,192,758,665
A Slope Failure or debris flow could only affect a small portion of the City of Arcadia.
Until further studies are run, no more specific information is available.
Arcadia
s Current Mitigation of Slope Failure Hazards
Slope Failures can affect utility services, transportation systems, and critical lifelines.
Communities may suffer immediate damages and loss of service. Disruption of infrastructure, roads, and critical facilities may also have a long-term effect on the economy. Utilities, including potable water, wastewater, telecommunications, natural gas, and electric power, are all essential to service community needs. Loss of electricity has the most widespread impact on other utilities and on the whole community. Natural gas pipes as small as an inch or two may also be at risk of breaking during Slope Failure movements.
Roads and Bridges
Losses incurred from Slope Failure hazards in the City of Arcadia have been associated with roads. The City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department is responsible for responding to slides that inhibit the flow of traffic or are damaging a road/bridge.
Lifelines and Critical Facilities
Lifelines and critical facilities should remain accessible, if possible, during a hazardous event. The impact of closed transportation arteries may be increased if the closed road or bridge is critical for hospitals and other emergency facilities. Therefore, inspection and repair of critical transportation facilities and routes is essential and should receive high priority. Losses of power and phone service are also potential consequences of Slope Failure events. Due to heavy rains, soil erosion in hillside areas can be accelerated, resulting in loss of soil support beneath high voltage transmission towers in hillsides and remote areas. Flood events can also cause Slope Failures, which can have serious impacts on gas lines that are located in vulnerable soils.
Slope Failure Building/Zoning Codes
building and zoning codes. The codes outline standards for development within the hillside area of the City. Generally, the ordinance requires geotechnical and engineering geologic studies for developments proposed on slopes of 20 percent or greater. More detailed surface and subsurface investigations shall be warranted if indicated by the geotechnical and geologic studies. This may include soils, vegetation, geologic formations, and drainage patterns. Site evaluations may also occur where stability might be lessened by proposed grading/filling or land clearing.
Residential Areas
Even minor amounts of rain and mud flow have the potential to cause extensive damage to homes and properties. In order to assist the residents of Arcadia, the City provides free sandbags to help in their mitigation activities.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.3 Slope Failure
7.3-8
Community Issues Summary
The hillsides above the residences in the WUI area of Arcadia are very steep. In the past rainstorms following a wildland fire have created slope failures and debris flows in the residential areas.
Works Cited
1 Geosciences, Idaho State University
3 Ibid.
4 Barrows, Alan and Smith, Ted, DMG Note 13,
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_33/
5 Mileti, Dennis, Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States (1999) Joseph Henry Press, Washington D.C.
6 Brabb, E.E., and B.L Harrod. (Eds) Slope Failures: Extent and Economic Significance.
Proceedings of the 28th International Geological Congress Symposium on Slope Failures. (1989) Washington D.C., Rotterdam: Balkema.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11Ibid.
12 http://www.usgs.gov/homepage/Slope Failure_laguna.asp
13 http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1067/pdf/OF2005-1067.pdf
14Pasadena Star News, Feb 24, 2000
15 Pasadena Star News, Jan 29, 2005 Pg. A1 and A4
16 Burby, R. (Ed.) Cooperating With Nature (1998) Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
LAS TUNAS DR
CENTENNIAL
REAL
GOLDRING
CLARK
AZUSA RD
LOWER
PECK RD
LIVE OAK AV
RD
CAMINO
SIERRA MADRE BL
AV
AV
GRAND VIEW
DR
OAKS
HIGHL
AND
ST JOSEPH
ST
DR
CAMPUS DR
DUARTE
AV
WAY
DR
HUNTINGTON
BALDW
IN AV
HUNTINGTON
AV
6TH
AV
10TH
1STAV
AV
ANITA
SANTA
EL M
ONTE
REALCAMINO
HOLLY
RD
AV
AV AV
LONGDEN
AV
2ND
GOLDEN W
EST
BALDW
IN
BL
BLADW
IN
AV
COLORADO BL
DR
HUNTINGTON
BLFOOTHILL
COLORADO ST
SANTA CLARA ST
DR
RD
CANYON
SUNSET
M
ICHILLINDA
AV
ORANGE GROVE
ELKINS AV
HIGHLAND
VISTA
ARCADIA H S
HUGO REID
PRIMARY
SERENDIPITY
SCHOOL
CONTINUATION
SCHOOL
HUGO REID
ELEM.
BALDWIN
STOCKER
ELEM.
LONGLEY
WAY
ELEM.
CAMINO
GROVE
ELEM.
RICHARD H DANA
JR H S
1ST AVENUE
JR H S
FOOTHILLS
JR H S
HIGHLAND OAKS
ELEM
HOLLY
AVENUE
ELEM
TIERRA
VERDE
PARK
WINNIE
WAY
PARK
BICENTENNIAL
PARK
LONGDEN
AVENUE
PARK
BALDWIN
STOCKER
PARK
HOLLY
AVENUE
PARK
FAIRVIEW
AVENUE
PARK
WILDERNESS
PARK
TRIPOLIS
FRIENDSHIP
PARK
HUGO REID
PARK CIVIC
CENTER
ATHLETIC
FIELD
HIGHLAND
OAKS
PARK
PARK
BO
NITA
EISENHOW
ER PARK
FOREST PARK
PARK
GROVE
CAM
INO
ORANGE
GROVE
PARK
NEWCASTLE
PARK
S A
N T
A
A
N I T
A
WASH
EAST BRANCH
ARCADIA
LIBRARY
STATIO
N
FIRE
WASH
SANTA ANITAOFFICE
POST
EAST
BRANCH
WASH
ARCADIA
ARCADIA
DRAIN
W
ASH
SAN
GABRIEL
6' SEW
ER EASE
W
ASH
GOLF COURSE
SANTA ANITA
H A L L
STATIO
N
FIRE
A R B O R E T U M
S T A T E A N D C O U N T Y
L O S A N G E L E S
RACE TRACK
P A R K
ANITA
SANTA
WASH
SANTA
ANITA
ARCADIA
POST
OFFICE
A R E
A
W
ASH
SIERRA MADRE D E
B R
I S D
I S
P
O
S A
L
ELEM
RIO HONDO
COURSE SAW
PIT
FIRE
DRAIN
STATION
W
ASH
ARCAD
IA
LATERA
L
W
ASH
SANTA ANITA
LIMA
SANTA ANITA W
ASH DEBRIS BASIN
GOLF
ARCADIA
CHANNEL
HONDORIO
PUBLIC WORKS
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
PD
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE RECREATION & COMMUNITY
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
METHODIST
HOSPITAL
C I T Y
RIVER
WESTFIELDSHOPPING TOWNATSANTA ANITA
ARCADIA
COUNTY PARK
PECK ROAD
WATER &
CONSERVATION PARK
GROVE
PLANT
ORANGE
ST JOSEPH
PLANT
PECK ROAD
PLANT
SANTA
ANITA
PLANT
LIVE OAK
PLANT
LOWER
CANYON
PLANT
UPPER
CANYON
PLANT
LONGLEY
WELL
LONGDEN
PLANT
BALDWIN
PUMP
PLANT
RANCHO WELL
NO. 6
HUGO REID
WELL
BALDWIN
WELL
NO. 2
CHAPMAN
PLANT
ANOKIA
WELL
CAMINO REAL
PLANT
TORREY PINE
RESERVOIRS
HIGH PRES
SURE GAS PIPELINE
HIGH PRESSURE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
GAS PIPELINE
3 8
1 2
9 6
5 10
4 7
11 ARCADIA
GOLDLINE
STATION
Liquefaction
Earthquake-Induced
Landslides
RESERVOIRS
CRITICAL BUILDINGS
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2022
Section 7.4 WINDSTORM
7.4-1
Definition of a Windstorm
A storm marked by high wind with little or no precipitation
Windstorm Related Hazards
Santa Ana Winds
Santa Ana winds are generally defined as warm, dry winds that blow from the east or northeast (offshore). These winds occur below the passes and canyons of the coastal ranges of Southern California and in the Los Angeles basin. Santa Ana winds often blow with exceptional speed in the Santa Ana Canyon (the canyon from which it derives its name). Forecasters at the National Weather Service offices in Oxnard and San Diego usually place speed minimums on these winds and reserve the use of "Santa Ana" for winds greater than 25 knots. 1 These winds accelerate to
speeds of 35 knots as they move through canyons and passes, with gusts to 50 or even 60 knots.
The complex topography of Southern California combined with various atmospheric conditions creates numerous scenarios that may cause widespread or isolated Santa Ana events. Commonly, Santa Ana winds develop when a region of high pressure builds over the Great Basin (the high plateau east of the Sierra mountains and west of the Rocky mountains including most of Nevada and Utah). Clockwise circulation around the center of this high-pressure area forces air down slope from the high plateau. The air warms as it descends toward the California coast at the rate of 5 degrees F per 1000 feet due to compressional heating. Thus, compressional heating provides the primary source of warming. The air is dry since it originated in the desert, and it dries out even more as it is heated.
2 These regional winds typically occur from October to March, and, according to most accounts, are named either for the Santa Ana River Valley where they originate or for the Santa Ana Canyon, southeast of Los Angeles, where they pick up speed.
Tornados
Tornadoes are spawned when there is warm, moist air near the ground, cool air aloft, and winds that speed up and change direction. An obstruction, such as a house, in the path of the wind causes it to change direction. This change increases pressure on parts of the house, and the combination of increased pressures and fluctuating wind speeds creates stresses that frequently cause structural failures.
In order to measure the intensity and wind strength of a tornado, Dr. T. Theodore Fujita developed the Fujita Tornado Damage Scale. This scale compares the estimated wind velocity with the corresponding amount of suspected damage. The scale measures six classifications of
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2022
Section 7.4 WINDSTORM
7.4-2
The chart below depicts the Fujita Tornado Damage Scale:
Scale
Wind
Estimate
(mph)
Typical Damage
F0 < 73 Light damage. Some damage to chimneys and TV antennas; breaks twigs off trees; pushes over shallow-rooted trees.
F1 73-112
Moderate damage. Peels surface off roofs; windows broken; light trailer houses pushed or overturned; some trees uprooted or snapped; moving automobiles pushed off the road. 74 mph is the beginning of hurricane wind speed.
F2 113-157
Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses leaving strong upright walls; weak buildings in rural areas demolished; trailer houses destroyed; large trees snapped or uprooted; railroad boxcars pushed over; light object missiles generated; cars blown off highway.
F3 158-206
Severe damage. Roofs and some walls torn off frame houses; some rural buildings completely demolished; trains overturned; steel-framed hangar-warehouse-type structures torn; cars lifted off the ground; most trees in a forest uprooted snapped, or leveled.
F4 207-260
Devastating damage. Whole frame houses leveled, leaving piles of debris; steel structures badly damaged; trees debarked by small flying debris; cars and trains thrown some distances or rolled considerable distances; large missiles generated.
F5 261-318
Incredible damage. Whole frame houses tossed off foundations; steel-reinforced concrete structures badly damaged; automobile- sized missiles generated; trees debarked; incredible phenomena can occur.
F6-
F12
319 to
sonic
Inconceivable damage. Should a tornado with the maximum wind speed in excess of F5 occur, the extent and types of damage may not be conceived. A number of missiles such as iceboxes, water heaters, storage tanks, automobiles, etc. will create serious secondary damage on structures.
Source: http://weather.latimes.com/tornadoFAQ.asp
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2022
Section 7.4 WINDSTORM
7.4-3
Microbursts
Unlike tornados, microbursts are strong, damaging winds, which strike the ground and often give the impression a tornado has struck. They frequently occur during intense thunderstorms. The origin of a microburst is downward moving air from a thunderstorm's core. However, unlike a tornado, they affect only a rather small area.
Tornados, like those that occur every year in the Midwest and Southeast parts of the United States, are a rare phenomenon in most of California, with most tornado-like activity coming from microbursts.
History of Windstorms in Southern California
While the effects of Santa Ana Winds are often overlooked, it should be noted that in 2003, two deaths in Southern California were directly related to the fierce condition. A falling tree struck one woman in San Diego.
3 The second death occurred when a flying pickup truck cover launched by the Santa Ana Winds hit a passenger in a vehicle.4
Windstorms in Arcadia
December 1988 - Windstorm
Fifty- to sixty-mile per hour winds blew through Arcadia. Over forty trees were uprooted, power lines were knocked down, structures were damaged, and there was even a 150-gallon diesel fuel spill when a semi- fuel line was ripped apart by a fallen street sign. Some residents were left without power for days and about 200 lost telephone services. City officials said it would take about a week to 10 days to clean up all the debris. 5 January 2003 Windstorm
Eighty- to one hundred-mile an hour winds swept through Arcadia causing major damage to the south end of the City. Twenty-nine Edison power poles were knocked down and another six suffered severe damage; all needing to be replaced by metal poles. More than 250,000 people were without power. Businesses suffered damage, lost customers, and product spoiled. One business owner said he lost over $500 in spoiled food that required refrigeration and at least twenty-five regular customers.
6 October 2009 -Windstorm
High winds with gusts up to eighty miles per hour blew through Southern California. Although Arcadia received less damage than some other southland cities, power lines were damaged and caused 16,000 Edison customers in and around Arcadia to be without electricity. 7 December 2011 Windstorm
High north winds with gusts up to 70 miles per hour blew through the San Gabriel Valley. For a period of time the entire community of Arcadia was without electrical power and many major transportation arteries were blocked with down trees and wires. The City of Arcadia activated its Emergency Operations Center and declared a local emergency. The EOC remained fully LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2022
Section 7.4 WINDSTORM
7.4-4
activated through December 5, 2011. Many residents were without electrical service for up to one week. The City of Arcadia opened up a warming/charging center for residents during the event. Emergency crews worked through the first week clearing trees from roadways to gain emergency access. Public works crews worked through January 2012 clearing debris piles in the public right of ways. The total cost to the City of Arcadia for response to and recover from the incident was approximately $2,800.000.
Windstorm Hazard Assessment
A windstorm event in the region can range
from short term microburst activity lasting
only minutes to a long duration Santa Ana
wind condition that can last for several days
as in the case of the January 2003 Santa Ana
wind event. Windstorms in the City of
Arcadia area can cause extensive damage
including heavy tree stands, exposed coastal
properties, road and highway infrastructure,
and critical utility facilities.
The map shows clearly the direction of
the Santa Ana winds as they travel from
the stable, high-pressure weather system
called the Great Basin High through the
canyons and towards the low-pressure
system off the Pacific. Clearly the area of
the City of Arcadia is in the direct path of the ocean-bound Santa Ana winds.
Probability
When looking at damaging wind events, it is important to look at the frequency they have occurred in order to estimate the probability of an event taking place in the future. After the 2011 Windstorm event, Scott Sukup of the NOAA/NWS Oxnard, CA office wrote a paper titled Downslope Wind E
strong north to NNE flow over the San Gabriel Mountain Range are a very rare phenomenon.
From October 1979 through March 2014, there were only nine events with documented wind damage in this area. Of these nine events, the 1 December 2011 and 6 January 1997 events were the only events to produce widespread damage across most of the foothill and valley areas south of the SGM. It is estimated that extreme events such as these occur about once every 10-20 years, while less significant events occur once every 3-5 years. 8 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2022
Section 7.4 WINDSTORM
7.4-5
Risk Analysis
With an analysis of the
can deduce the common windstorm impact areas including impacts on life, property, utilities, infrastructure, and transportation. Additionally, if a windstorm disrupts power to local residential communities, the American Red Cross and City resources might be called upon for care and shelter duties. Displacing residents and utilizing City resources for shelter staffing and disaster cleanup can cause an economic hardship on the community.
Life and Property
Based on the history of the region, windstorm events can be expected, perhaps annually, across widespread areas of the region, which can be adversely impacted during a windstorm event.
This can result in the involvement of City of A
wide-ranging windstorm or microburst tornadic activity. Both residential and commercial structures with weak reinforcement are susceptible to damage. Wind pressure can create a direct and frontal assault on a structure, pushing walls, doors, and windows inward. Conversely, passing currents can create lift suction forces that pull building components and surfaces outward. With extreme wind forces, the roof or entire building can fail causing considerable damage. Such damage occurred to property on December 2011 when severe windstorm knocked down power lines, disrupted traffic and electrical service.
Debris carried along by extreme winds can directly contribute to loss of life and indirectly to the failure of protective building envelopes, siding, or walls. When severe windstorms strike a community, downed trees, power lines, and damaged
property can be major hindrances to emergency
response and disaster recovery.
The Beaufort scale below, coined and developed by Sir Francis Beaufort in 1805, illustrates the effect that varying wind speed can have on sea swells and structures:
Beaufort
Force
Speed
(mph) Wind Description - State of Sea - Effects on Land 0 Less 1 Calm - Mirror-like - Smoke rises vertically
1 1-3 Light - Air Ripples look like scales; No crests of foam - Smoke drift shows direction of wind, but wind vanes do not
2 4-7 Light Breeze - Small but pronounced wavelets; Crests do not break - Wind vanes move; Leaves rustle; You can feel wind on the face
3 8-12 Gentle Breeze - Large Wavelets; Crests break; Glassy foam; A few whitecaps - Leaves and small
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2022
Section 7.4 WINDSTORM
7.4-6
twigs move constantly; Small, light flags are extended
4 13-18 Moderate Breeze - Longer waves; Whitecaps - Wind lifts dust and loose paper; Small branches move
5 19-24 Fresh Breeze - Moderate, long waves; Many whitecaps; Some spray - Small trees with leaves begin to move
6 25-31 Strong Breeze - Some large waves; Crests of white foam; Spray - Large branches move; Telegraph wires whistle; Hard to hold umbrellas
7 32-38 Near Gale - White foam from breaking waves blows in streaks with the wind - Whole trees move; Resistance felt walking into wind
8 39-46 Gale - Waves high and moderately long; Crests break into spin drift, blowing foam in well marked streaks - Twigs and small branches break off trees; Difficult to walk 9 47-54 Strong Gale - High waves with wave crests that tumble; Dense streaks of foam in wind; Poor visibility from spray - Slight structural damage
10 55-63 Storm - Very high waves with long, curling crests; Sea surface appears white from blowing foam; Heavy tumbling of sea; Poor visibility - Trees broken or uprooted; Considerable structural damage 11 64-73
Violent Storm - Waves high enough to hide small and medium sized ships; Sea covered with patches of white foam; Edges of wave crests blown into froth; Poor visibility - Seldom experienced inland; Considerable structural damage
12 >74 Hurricane - Sea white with spray. Foam and spray render visibility almost non-existent - Widespread damage. Very rarely experienced on land.
Source: http://www.compuweather.com/decoder-charts.html Utilities
Historically, falling trees have been the major cause of power outages in the region. Windstorms such as strong microbursts and Santa Ana Wind conditions can cause flying debris and downed utility lines. For example, tree limbs breaking in winds of only 45 mph can be thrown over 75 feet. As such, overhead power lines can be damaged even in relatively minor windstorm events.
Falling trees can bring electric power lines down to the pavement, creating the possibility of lethal electric shock. Rising population growth and new infrastructure in the region creates a higher probability for damage to occur from windstorms as more life and property are exposed to risk.
Infrastructure
Windstorms can damage buildings, power lines, and other property and infrastructure due to falling trees and branches. During wet winters, saturated soils cause trees to become less stable and more vulnerable to uprooting from high winds.
Windstorms can result in collapsed or damaged buildings or blocked roads and bridges, damaged traffic signals, streetlights, and parks, among others. Roads blocked by fallen trees during a LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2022
Section 7.4 WINDSTORM
7.4-7
windstorm may have severe consequences to people who need access to emergency services.
Emergency response operations can be complicated when roads are blocked or when power supplies are interrupted. Industry and commerce can
suffer losses from interruptions in electric services and from extended road closures. They can also sustain
direct losses to buildings, personnel, and other vital
equipment. There are direct consequences to the local
economy resulting from windstorms related to both
physical damages and interrupted services.
Increased Fire Threat
Perhaps the greatest danger from windstorm activity in
Southern California comes from the combination of
the Santa Ana winds with the major fires that occur
every few years in the urban/wildland interface. With
the Santa Ana winds driving the flames, the speed and
reach of the flames is even greater than in times of calm wind conditions. The higher fire hazard raised by a Santa Ana wind condition requires that even more care and attention be paid to proper brush clearances on property in the wildland/urban interface areas.
Transportation
Windstorm activity can have an impact on local transportation in addition to the problems caused by downed trees and electrical wires blocking streets and highways. During periods of extremely strong Santa Ana winds, major highways can be temporarily closed to truck and recreational vehicle traffic. However, typically these disruptions are not long lasting, nor do they carry a severe long-term economic impact on the region.
Existing Windstorm Mitigation in Arcadia
As stated, one of the most common problems associated with windstorms is power outage. High winds commonly occur during winter storms, and can cause trees to bend, sag, or fail (tree limbs or entire trees), coming into contact with nearby distribution power lines. Fallen trees can cause short-circuiting and conductor overloading. Wind-induced damage to the power system causes power outages to customers, incurs cost to make repairs, and in some cases can lead to ignitions that start wild land fires.
One of the strongest and most widespread existing mitigation strategies pertains to tree clearance. Currently, California State Law requires utility companies to maintain specific clearances (depending on the type of voltage running through the line) between electric power lines and all vegetation.
Enforcement of the following California Public Resource Code Sections provides guidance on tree pruning regulations:
9 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2022
Section 7.4 WINDSTORM
7.4-8
4293: Power Line Clearance Required
4292: Power Line Hazard Reduction
4291: Reduction of Fire Hazards Around Buildings
4171: Public Nuisances
The following pertain to tree pruning regulations and are taken from the California Code of Regulations:
Title 14: Minimum Clearance Provisions
Sections 1250-1258
General Industry Safety Orders
Title 8: Group 3: Articles 12, 13, 36, 37, 38
California Penal Code Section 385
Finally, the following California Public Utilities
Commission section has additional guidance:
California Public Utilities Commission
General Order 95: Rule 35
Homeowner Liability
Failure to allow a utility company to comply with the law can result in liability to the homeowner for damages or injuries resulting from a vegetation hazard. Many insurance companies do not cover these types of damages if the policy owner has refused to allow the hazard to be eliminated.
The power companies, in compliance with the above regulations, collect data about tree failures and their impact on power lines. This mitigation strategy assists the power company in preventing future tree failure. From the collection of this data, the power company can advise residents as to the most appropriate vegetative planting and pruning procedures.
Economic Impact
The City of Arcadia has a total assessed valuation of $15,676,471,562. This can be further broken into:
Residential properties valued at $12,959,501,963
Commercial properties valued at $ 1,524,210,934
Other properties valued at $ 1,192,758,665
A windstorm would only influence a specific portion of the city and each event would be unique.
A more detailed projected economic impact cannot be obtained. The impact of a wind driven wildfire will be discussed under the section devoted to a wildfire hazard. 1http://www.treesaregood.com/tree
care/avoiding_conflicts.asp
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2022
Section 7.4 WINDSTORM
7.4-9
Community Issues Summary
A windstorm within Arcadia can create local impacts with power outages in neighborhoods and trees down blocking traffic. Major streets blocked by trees would also impact traffic within neighboring communities. Several major power lines that feed the San Gabriel Valley run through Arcadia and have been impacted by previous windstorms.
Works Cited:
1 http://nimbo.wrh.noaa.gov/Sandiego/snawind.html
2 Ibid
3 www.cbsnews.com, January 8, 2003
4 www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/06/national/
5 Arcadia Tribune 12/11/1988 Pg A1-A2
6 Pasadena Star News 01/08/2003 Pg A1-A4
7 www.nbclosangeles.com/news/loacl-beat/Fierce-Wind-Storm-Rips-Through-Southern
8 DAMAGING DOWNSLOPE WIND EVENTS IN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCOTT SUKUP NOAA/NWS, Oxnard, California
9 www.cpuc.ca.gov/js.asp
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.5 Wildfires
7.5-1
Definition of a Wildfire
A sweeping and destructive conflagration especially in a wilderness or a rural area.i
Wildfire Related Hazards
There are three categories of interface fire:
ii The classic wildland/urban interface exists
where well-defined urban and suburban development presses up against open expanses of wildland areas. The mixed wildland/urban interface is characterized by isolated homes, subdivisions, and small communities situated predominantly in wildland settings. The occluded wildland/urban interface exists where islands of wildland vegetation occur inside a largely urbanized area. Certain conditions must be present for significant interface fires to occur. The most common conditions include hot, dry and windy weather; the inability of fire protection forces to contain or suppress the fire; the occurrence of multiple fires that overwhelm committed resources; and a large fuel load (dense vegetation). Once a fire has started, several conditions influence its behavior, including fuel topography, weather, drought and development.
Southern California has two distinct areas of risk for wildland fire. The foothills and lower mountain areas are covered with scrub brush or chaparral. The higher elevations of mountains also have heavily forested terrain. The lower elevations covered with chaparral create one type of exposure.
The Interface
One challenge Southern California faces regarding the wildfire hazard is from the increasing number of houses being built on the urban/wildland interface. Every year the growing population has expanded further and further into the hills and mountains, including forestlands. The increased "interface" between urban/suburban areas and the open spaces created by this expansion has produced a significant increase in threats to life and property from fires and has pushed existing fire protection systems beyond original or current design and capability. Property owners in the interface are not aware of the problems and threats they face. Therefore, many owners have done very little to manage or offset fire hazards or risks on their own property. Furthermore, human activities increase the incidence of fire ignition and potential damage.
Fuel
Fuel is the material that feeds a fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel is classified by volume and by type. Volume is described in terms of "fuel loading," or the amount of available vegetative fuel. The type of fuel also influences wildfire. Chaparral is a primary fuel of Southern California wildfires. Chaparral communities experience long dry summers and receive most of their annual precipitation from winter rains.
Although chaparral is often considered as a single species, there are two distinct types:
hard chaparral and soft chaparral. Within these two types are dozens of different plants, each with its own particular characteristics.
Topography
Topography influences the movement of air, thereby directing a fire course. For example, if the percentage of uphill slope doubles, the rate of spread in wildfire will Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.5 Wildfires
7.5-2
likely double. Gulches and canyons can funnel air and act as chimneys, which intensify fire behavior and cause the fire to spread faster. Solar heating of dry, south-facing slopes produces up slope drafts that can complicate fire behavior. Unfortunately, hillsides with hazardous topographic characteristics are also desirable residential areas in many communities. This underscores the need for wildfire hazard mitigation and increased education and outreach to homeowners living in interface areas.
Weather
Weather patterns combined with certain geographic locations can create a favorable climate for wildfire activity. Areas where annual precipitation is less than 30 inches per year are extremely fire susceptible.
iii High-risk areas in Southern California share a hot, dry season in late summer and early fall when high temperatures and low humidity favor fire activity. The so-
they
flow down to Southern California from Utah, create a particularly high risk, as they can rapidly spread what might otherwise be a small fire.
Drought
Recent concerns about the effects of climate change, particularly drought, are contributing to concerns about wildfire vulnerability. The term drought is applied to a period in which an unusual scarcity of rain causes a serious hydrological imbalance.
Unusually dry winters, or significantly less rainfall than normal, can lead to relatively drier conditions and leave reservoirs and water tables lower. Drought leads to problems with irrigation and may contribute to additional fires, or additional difficulties in fighting fires.
Development
Growth and development in scrubland and forested areas is increasing the number of human-made structures in Southern California interface areas. Wildfire has an effect on development, yet development can also influence wildfire. Owners often prefer homes that are private, have scenic views, are nestled in vegetation and use natural materials. A private setting may be far from public roads, or hidden behind a narrow, curving driveway. These conditions, however, make evacuation and firefighting difficult. The scenic views found along mountain ridges can also mean areas of dangerous topography.
Natural vegetation contributes to scenic beauty, but it may also provide a ready trail of fuel leading a fire directly to the combustible fuels of the home itself.
History of Wildfires in California
Large fires have been part of the Southern California Landscape. Five of the top ten fires based on acreage in California have occurred since 2003. On the next page is the top ten list.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.5 Wildfires
7.5-3
Table 7.5-1 Ten Largest Wildfires in California Based on Acreage.
Fire Name Date County Acres
August Complex August 200
Mendocino,
Humboldt,
Trinity,
Tehama,
Glenn, Lake
& Colusa
1,032,649
Mendocino
Complex July 2018
Colusa, Lake,
Mendocino &
Glenn
459,123 SCU Lightning
Complex August 2020
Stanislaus,,
Santa Clara,
Alameda,
Contra costa,
San Joaquin 396,624
Creek Fire
September
2020
Fresno &
Madrea 377,693
LNU Lightning
Complex August 2020
Sonoma,
Lake, Napa,
Yolo &
solano
363,220
North Complex August 2020 Butte, Plumas
& Yuba 318,930
Thomas December-17
Ventura &
Santa
Barbara
287,893
Cedar October-03 San Diego 273,246
Rush August-12 Lassen
271,911 CA /
43,666 NV
Rim August-13 Tuolumne 257,314
CALFIRE 11/3/2020
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.5 Wildfires
7.5-4
History of Wildfires in and near Arcadia
Bobcat Fire
In September 2020 the Bobcat Fire began at the Cogswell Reservoir area of the Angeles National Forest. Throughout the next week fire burned toward the City of Arcadia. One week after the Bobcat Fire started, it had reached the ridge line directly above the City of Arcadia. Three hundred homes were evacuated as a precaution. Due to firefighting efforts, no homes were damaged within Arcadia. All the displaced residents were allowed back into their homes four days later. In total the Bobcat Fire burned for more than three weeks and consumed over 116,000 acres within the Angeles National Forest.
Santa Anita II Fire
In April 2008 the Santa Anita II Fire began on Santa Anita Canyon Road and burned West to the foothills above Sierra Madre, CA. Over 600 acres burned, one out building was lost, and four minor injuries to personnel fighting the fire. Over 400 people had to be evacuated from the community of Sierra Madre as the fire raged dangerously close to homes. The fire consumed almost 600 acres and was contained in about a week.
Madison Fire
In April 2013 the Madison Fire took place in foothills above the community of Monrovia immediately adjacent to the City of Arcadia. When the fire was contained 213 acres had been consumed and no property was damaged.
Colby Fire
In January of 2014 the Colby Fire took place in the foothill above the communities of Azusa and Glendora in the East end of the San Gabriel Valley. The fire burned more than 1,992 acres and destroyed 15 properties including 5 residences.
Fish Fire
In June of 2016 the Fish Fire broke out above the community of Duarte in the San Gabriel Valley. 3,700 acres were burned in the fire and there was no reported damage to structures.
Station Fire
In late August 2009, an arsonist started a fire in the hills above La Cañada Flintridge, California. The flames raged for over two months and experts stated that the embers wo
160,577 acres (251 sq. mi), 209 structures destroyed, including 89 homes, and the lives of two LA County Firefighters The blaze threatened 12,000 structures in the National Forest and the nearby communities of La Cañada Flintridge, Glendale, Acton, La Crescenta, Littlerock and Altadena, as well as the Sunland and Tujunga neighborhoods of the City of Los Angeles. The blaze is the 15
th largest in California history.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.5 Wildfires
7.5-5
Wildfire Hazard Assessment
Wildfire hazard areas are commonly identified in regions of the wildland/urban interface.
Ranges of the wildfire hazard are further determined by the ease of fire ignition due to natural or human conditions and the difficulty of fire suppression. The wildfire hazard is also magnified by several factors related to fire suppression/control such as the surrounding fuel load, weather, topography, and property characteristics. Generally, hazard identification rating systems are based on weighted factors of fuels, weather and topography. Table 11.3 illustrates a rating system to identify wildfire hazard risk (with a score of 3 equaling the most danger and a score of 1 equaling the least danger.)
Sample Hazard Identification Rating System Table Table 7.5-2 Category Indicator Rating
Roads and Signage Steep; narrow; poorly signed 3
One or two of the above 2
Meets all requirements 1
Water Supply None, except domestic 3
Hydrant, tank, or pool over 500 feet away 2
Hydrant, tank, or pool within 500 feet 1
Location of the
Structure
Top of steep slope with brush/grass below 3
Mid-slope with clearance 2
Level with lawn, or watered groundcover 1
Exterior Construction Combustible roofing, open eaves, Combustible siding 3 One or two of the above 2
Non-combustible roof, boxed eaves, non-combustible
siding
1 In order to determine the "base hazard factor" of specific wildfire hazard sites and interface regions, several factors must be taken into account. Categories used to assess the base hazard factor include: topographic location, characteristics, and fuels; site/building construction and design; site/region fuel profile (landscaping); defensible space; accessibility; fire protection response; and water availability.
The use of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology in recent years has been a great asset to fire hazard assessment, allowing further integration of fuels, weather, and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.5 Wildfires
7.5-6
topography data for such ends as fire behavior prediction, watershed evaluation, mitigation strategies, and hazard mapping.
Probability
Southern California and Los Angeles County have an extensive history of wildfires.
Between 1993 and today, there have be wildland fires in the foothills of Arcadia on numerous occasions. These include:
Year Fire Name Acerage
1993 Kinneloa 5700
1999 Santa Anita I 100
2002 Chantry Rd 11
2008 Santa Anita II 600
2009 Station Fire 160,577
2013 Madison 213
2017 Norumbega 5
2021 Chantry Flats 3
2021 Bobcat 116,000
These fires took place either above Arcadia or an immediate neighbors of Sierra Madre and Monrovia. This averages out to a significant wildland fire once every 4.5 years.
Risk Analysis
Southern California residents are served by a variety of local fire departments as well as county, state and federal fire resources. Data that includes the location of interface areas in the county can be used to assess the population and total value of property at risk from wildfire and direct these fire agencies in fire prevention and response.
Key factors included in assessing wildfire risk include ignition sources, building materials and design, community design, structural density, slope, vegetative fuel, fire occurrence and weather, as well as occurrences of drought. Refer to Map 7-5 to see the wildfire hazard ratings in the City of Arcadia.
The National Wildland/Urban Fire Protection Program has developed the Wildland/Urban Fire Hazard Assessment Methodology tool for communities to assess their risk to wildfire. For more information on wildfire hazard assessment refer to http://www.Firewise.org.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.5 Wildfires
7.5-7
Growth and Development in the Interface
The hills and mountainous areas of Southern California are considered to be interface areas. The development of homes and other structures is encroaching onto the wildland and is expanding the wildland/urban interface. The interface neighborhoods are characterized by a diverse mixture of varying housing structures, development patterns, ornamental and natural vegetation and natural fuels.
In the event of a wildfire, vegetation, structures and other flammables can merge into unwieldy and unpredictable events. Factors important to the fighting of such fires include access, firebreaks, proximity of water sources, distance from a fire station and available firefighting personnel and equipment. Reviewing past wildland/urban interface fires shows that many structures are destroyed or damaged for one or more of the following reasons: Combustible roofing material; Wood construction; Structures with no defensible space; Fire department with poor access to structures; Subdivisions located in heavy natural fuel types; Structures located on steep slopes covered with flammable vegetation; Limited water supply; and Winds over 30 miles per hour.
Economic Impact
The assess valuation of the Wildland Interface Area is $829,408,125.00. This is for all of the properties located in the Interface area as depicted on Map 7-5. A fire impacting the area on a small scale would obviously result in less of an economic impact.
Current Mitigation in Arcadia
Buildings
Often times the reason structures are lost or damaged in wildland urban interface fires is due to wood shake roof coverings. The City of Arcadia Municipal Code 8130.18 has been implemented to reduce the risk of fire to structures in the City.
Arcadia Municipal Code 8130.18
The roof covering on any structure regulated by this code shall have a minimum class A rating in the Wildland Interface Fire Area Boundaries and a class A or B rating in all other areas outside the Wildland Interface Fire Area Boundaries of the City. Pressure treated or untreated wood shakes and wood shingles shall not be installed on any building or structure located in the Wildland Interface Fire Area Boundaries. (See Map 7-5).
The City of Arcadia implements Title 19 California Health and Safety Code and the City of Arcadia Municipal Codes to ensure the fire safety in building construction and materials.
Equipment
The Arcadia Fire Department has outfitted all of their stations with new engines capable of producing Compressed Air Foam systems (CAFs). CAFs enable firefighters to pre- treat homes with retardant foam in the event of a fire nearby. It also enables firefighters Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.5 Wildfires
7.5-8
to extinguish fires using less water, thus putting less demand on an already inundated water system.
Operations
On Red Flag Warning days the Arcadia Fire Department often staffs extra personnel and makes patrols in areas with high probability of wildfire ignition.
In the event a wildland fire does occur in or around the City of Arcadia the Fire Department has created a Brush and Structure Pre-Fire Plan. The plan includes maps of the City with vital information required for operations on a wildland fire. Information includes but is not limited to: location of hydrants, potential staging areas, potential command posts, safe refuge zones, schools, and other critical information for use in the event of a wildland urban interface fire in or near the City of Arcadia.
Road Access
Road access is a major issue for all emergency service providers. As development encroaches into the rural areas of the county, the number of houses without adequate turn-around space is increasing. In many areas, there is not adequate space for emergency vehicle turnarounds in single-family residential neighborhoods, causing emergency workers to have difficulty doing their jobs because they cannot access houses.
As fire trucks are large, firefighters are challenged by narrow roads and limited access, when there is inadequate turn around space, the fire fighters can only work to remove the occupants, but cannot safely remain to save the threatened structures. However, pre- planning, evacuation notices, and road closures help to assist firefighters with mobility in the event of a fire.
Water Supply
Firefighters in remote and rural areas are faced by limited water supply and lack of hydrant taps. Rural areas are characteristically outfitted with small diameter pipe water systems, inadequate for providing sustained firefighting flows.
In the City of Arcadia all new water main lines are eight inch and fire hydrant laterals are six inch. However, older pipes that were installed years ago do not meet the size standards and may be only four inches. Older pipes are upgraded as funds become available or as an opportunity arises and are addressed in sections of our Water Master Plan. They are also addressed completely in Section 7 (Domestic Water System) in City Water Standards. Replacement of older pipes is ongoing. Fire hydrants in Arcadia are spaced at 300 feet in both commercial and residential areas. Though there are some areas where spacing is greater, Public Works adds hydrants and adjusts spacing as lines are replaced. Most hydrants in the City are supplied at about one hundred psi. However, the City has a minimum pressure of twenty psi that each hydrant is to be supplied at all times.
The water system is gravity fed and will supply water to hydrants for at least two hours in the event the City is without power.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.5 Wildfires
7.5-9
Interface Fire Education Programs and Enforcement
The biggest concern during a wildland urban interface fire is loss of life and property.
Mitigation of loss to life and property begins with the residents and their pre-plans. To assist the residents in planning for a wildland urban interface fire the Arcadia Fire Department implemented an Annual Brush Clearance Program. The program begins by mailing a pamphlet detailing fire hazard reduction and safety guidelines. The pamphlet includes information about maintaining a defensible space, use of fire resistive building materials, planning escape routes, and preparations in the event of a fire near their home.
The program is continued by Fire Department inspections of homes. Every May, firefighters asses the defensible space and specific hazards in order to further mitigate loss of life and property. The inspections also help to familiarize firefighters with the area to further assist them in the event of a fire.
The Arcadia Fire Department Prevention Bureau has also produced various public safety announcements about smoke alarms, wildfire safety, holiday safety, and the use of fire extinguishers. The videos are played on the Arcadia City channel and are designed to help educate the public on fire safety.
Federal Programs
The role of the federal land managing agencies in the wildland /urban interface is reducing fuel hazards on the lands they administer; cooperating in prevention and education programs; providing technical and financial assistance; and developing agreements, partnerships and relationships with property owners, local protection agencies, states and other stakeholders in wildland/urban interface areas. These relationships focus on activities before a fire occurs, which render structures and communities safer and better able to survive a fire occurrence.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Programs, FEMA is directly responsible for providing fire suppression assistance grants and, in certain cases, major disaster assistance and hazard mitigation grants in response to fires. The role of FEMA in the wildland /urban interface is to encourage comprehensive disaster preparedness plans and programs, increase the capability of state and local governments and provide for a greater understanding of FEMA programs at the federal, state and local levels. iv
U.S. Forest Service
The U. S. Forest Service (USFS) is involved in a fuel-loading program implemented to assess fuels and reduce hazardous buildup on forestlands. The USFS is a cooperating agency and, while it has little to no jurisdiction in the lower valleys, it has an interest in preventing fires in the interface, as fires often burn up the hills and into the higher elevation US forest lands.
Other Mitigation Programs and Activities
Some areas of the country are facing wildland/urban issues collaboratively. These are model programs that include local solutions. Summit County, Colorado, has developed a hazard and risk assessment process that mitigates hazards through zoning requirements.
In California, the Los Angeles County Fire Department has retrofitted more than 100 fire Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.5 Wildfires
7.5-10
engines with fire retardant foam capability and Orange County is evaluating a pilot insurance grading and rating schedule specific to the wildland/urban interface. All are examples successful programs that demonstrate the value of pre-suppression and prevention efforts when combined with property owner support to mitigate hazards within the wildland/urban interface.
Community Issues Summary
Radio repeater sites are in the WUI area of Arcadia. These serve radios within Arcadia and neighboring communities. There are four reservoir locations within the WUI area of Arcadia
Works Cited
i http://www.merriam-webster.com/
ii Planning for Natural Hazards: The Oregon Technical Resource Guide, (July 2000) Department of Land Conservation and Development
iii Planning for Natural Hazards: The Oregon Technical Resource Guide, (July 2000), Department of Land Conservation and Development
iv Source: National Interagency Fire Center, Boise ID and California Division of Forestry, Riverside Fire Lab.
DR
RD
CANYON
SUNSET
M
ICHILLINDA
ORANGE GROVE
ELKINS AV
HIGHLAND
VISTA
LAS TUNAS DR
CENTENNIAL
REAL
GOLDRING
CLARK
AZUSA
RD
LOWER
PECK RD
LIVE OAK AV
RD
CAMINO
SIERRA MADRE BL
AV
AV
GRAND VIEW
DR
OAKS
HIGHLAND
ST JOSEPH
ST
DR
CAMPUS DR
DUARTE
AV
WAY
HUNTINGTON
BALDW
IN AV
HUNTINGTON
AV
6TH
AV
10TH
1STAV
AV
ANITA
SANTA
EL M
ONTE
REALCAMINO
RD
AV
AV AV
LONGDEN
AV
2ND
GOLDEN W
EST
BALDW
IN
BL
BLADW
IN
AV
COLORADO BL
DR
HUNTINGTON
BLFOOTHILL
COLORADO ST
SANTA CLARA ST
ARCADIA H S
HUGO REID
PRIMARY
SERENDIPITY
SCHOOL
CONTINUATION
SCHOOL
HUGO REID
ELEM.
BALDWIN
STOCKER
ELEM.
LONGLEY
WAY
ELEM.
CAMINO
GROVE
ELEM.
RICHARD H DANA
JR H S
1ST AVENUE
JR H S
FOOTHILLS
JR H S
HIGHLAND OAKS
ELEM
HOLLY
AVENUE
ELEM
TIERRA
VERDE
PARK
WINNIE
WAY
PARK
BICENTENNIAL
PARK
LONGDEN
AVENUE
PARK
BALDWIN
STOCKER
PARK
HOLLY
AVENUE
PARK
FAIRVIEW
AVENUE
PARK
WILDERNESS
PARK
TRIPOLIS
FRIENDSHIP
PARK
HUGO REID
PARK
CIVIC
CENTER
ATHLETIC
FIELD
HIGHLAND
OAKS
PARK
PARK
BONITA
EISENHOW
ER PARK
FOREST PARK
PARK
GROVE
CAM
INO
ORANGE
GROVE
PARK
NEWCASTLE
PARK
FYFOOTHILLRTE 210
RTE 210
LIMA
PUBLIC WORKS
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
RECREATION & COMMUNITY
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
METHODIST
HOSPITAL
WESTFIELDSHOPPING TOWNATSANTA ANITA
PD
ARCADIA
PECK ROAD WATER & CONSERVATION PARK
GOLF
ARCADIA
S A N T A
A N
I T
A
WASH
FIRE
STATION
ANITASANTA WASH
LIBRARY
STATION
FIRE
WASH
SIERRA MADRE
D E
B R I S D I S P
O S
A L
SAW
PIT
GOLF COURSE
SANTA ANITA
P A R K
A R C A D I A C O U N T YC I T Y
STATION
FIRE
A R B O R E T U M
S T A T E
A N D C O U N T Y
L O S A N G E L E S
RACE TRACK
P A R K
ANITA
SANTA
W
ASH
ARCADIA
ARCADIA EAST
BRANCH
LATERAL
A R E A
W
ASH
H A L L
COURSE
GROVE
PLANT
ORANGE
ST JOSEPH
PLANT
PECK ROAD
PLANT
SANTA
ANITA
PLANT
LIVE OAK
PLANT
LOWER
CANYON
PLANT
UPPER
CANYON
PLANT
LONGLEY
WELL
LONGDEN
PLANT
BALDWIN
PUMP
PLANT
RANCHO WELL
NO. 6
HUGO REID
WELL
BALDWIN
WELL
NO. 2
CHAPMAN
PLANT
ANOKIA
WELL
CAMINO REAL
PLANT
TORREY PINE
RESERVOIRS
3 8
1 2
9 6
5 10
4 HIGH PRESS
URE GAS
PIPELINE
HIGH PRESSURE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
GAS PIPELINE
7 11
ARCADIA
GOLDLINE
STATION
RESERVOIRS
CRITICAL BUILDINGS
HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.6 Drought
7.6-1
Definition of Drought
There are four different ways that drought can be defined:
Meteorological
a measure of departure of precipitation from normal. Due to climatic differences, what is considered a drought in one location may not be a drought in another location.
Agricultural
refers to a situation when the amount of moisture in the soil no longer meets the needs of a particular corp.
Hydrological
occurs when surface and subsurface water supplies are below normal.
Socioeconomic
refers to the situation that occurs when physical water shortage begins to affect people.
Location of Impact
Drought has the potential to impact all areas of the City of Arcadia.
Concept of Drought
Drought is an insidious hazard of nature. Although it has different definitions, it originates from a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or more. This deficiency results in a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental sector. Drought should be considered relative to some long-term average condition of balance between precipitation and evapo-transpiration (i.e., evaporation + transpiration) in a particular area, a condition often percei
occurrence, delays in the start of the rainy season, occurrence of rains in relation to principal crop growth stages) and the effectiveness of the rains (i.e., rainfall intensity, number of rainfall events). Other climatic factors such as high temperature, high wind, and low relative humidity are often associated with it in many regions of the world and can significantly aggravate its severity. Drought should not be viewed as merely a physical phenomenon or natural event. Its impacts on society result from the interplay between a natural event (less precipitation than expected resulting from natural climatic variability) and the demand people place on water supply. Human beings often exacerbate the impact of drought. Recent droughts in both developing and developed countries and the resulting economic and environmental impacts and
A five-year drought has parched soils, lowered reservoirs and weakened forests. If the past is any guide, the dry spell could go on for decades.
One dry year does not normally constitute a drought in California, but serves as a reminder of the need to pl
its
reservoirs, groundwater basins, and inter-regional conveyance facilities mitigates the effect of short-term dry periods for most water users. Hydrologic conditions constituting a drought for water users in one location may not constitute a drought for water users elsewhere, or for water users having a different water supply. Individual water suppliers may use criteria such as Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.6 Drought
7.6-2
rainfall/runoff, amount of water in storage, or expected supply from a water wholesaler to define their water supply conditions.
Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or forest fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response.
Droughts occur slowly, over a multiyear period. There is no universal definition of when a drought begins or ends. Impacts of drought are typically felt first by those most reliant on annual rainfall
ranchers engaged in dry land grazing, rural residents relying on wells in low-yield rock formations, or small water systems lacking a reliable source. Criteria used to identify statewide drought conditions do not address these localized impacts. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought, as carry-over supplies in reservoirs are depleted and water levels in groundwater basins decline.
Past California Droughts
Droughts exceeding three years are relatively rare in Northern California, the source of much of -34 drought established the criteria commonly
used in designing storage capacity and yield of large Northern California reservoirs.
reconstruct data through the study of tree rings (called dendrochronology). Information on the thickness of annual growth rings can be used to infer the wetness of the season. Site-specific approaches to supplementing the historical record can include age-dating dry land plant remains now submerged in place by rising water levels, or sediment and pollen studies. For example, a 1994 study of relict tree stumps rooted in present-day lakes, rivers, and marshes suggested that California sustained two epic drought periods, extending over more than three centuries. The first epic drought lasted more than two centuries before the year 1112; the second drought lasted more than 140 years before 1350. In this study, the researcher used drowned tree stumps rooted in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, West Walker River, and Osgood Swamp in the central Sierra Nevada. These investigations indicate that California has been subject to droughts more severe and more prolonged than those witnessed in the brief historical record.
Between 1986 and 1992, California endured one of its longest droughts ever observed. Drought worsened in 1988 as much of the United States also suffered from severe drought. In California, the six-year drought ended in late 1992 after a significant El Niño event.
Between 2007 and 2009, California saw three years of drought conditions, the 12th worst drought period in the state's history, and the first drought for which a statewide proclamation of emergency was issued. This period of drought also saw greatly reduced water diversions from the state water project. The summer of 2007 saw some of the worst wildfires in Southern California history
Between 2011 and 2017 California was in a statewide drought. In January 2014, California Governor Brown issued a drought emergency proclamation. The actions taken by the City of Arcadia during this time period are
section later in this document.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.6 Drought
7.6-3
Extent of Drought
The Drought Severity Classification Table below describes the significance of each drought category
Source: https://www.weather.gov/riw/drought_index
The following maps show the extent of drought between 2015 and 2020. The City of Arcadia is located in Los Angeles County in the State of California. Los Angeles County is circled in each map. The maps can be found at: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Maps/MapArchive.aspx.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.6 Drought
7.6-4
2015
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Maps/MapArchive.aspx
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.6 Drought
7.6-5
2017
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.6 Drought
7.6-6
2020
Impacts of Drought
Drought produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the economy and reaches well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to our ability to produce goods and provide services.
Impacts are commonly referred to as direct or indirect. Reduced crop, rangeland, and forest productivity; increased fire hazard; reduced water levels; increased livestock and wildlife mortality rates; and damage to wildlife and fish habitat are a few examples of direct impacts. The consequences of these impacts illustrate indirect impacts. For example, a reduction in crop, rangeland, and forest productivity may result in reduced income for farmers and agribusiness, increased prices for food and timber, unemployment, reduced tax revenues because of reduced expenditures, increased crime, foreclosures on bank loans to farmers and businesses, migration, and disaster relief programs. Direct or primary impacts are usually biophysical. Conceptually speaking, the more removed the impact from the cause, the more complex the link to the cause.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.6 Drought
7.6-7
In fact, the web of impacts becomes so diffuse that it is very difficult to come up with financial estimates of damages. The impacts of drought can be categorized as economic, environmental, or social.
Many economic impacts occur in agriculture and related sectors, including forestry and fisheries, because of the reliance of these sectors on surface and subsurface water supplies. In addition to obvious losses in yields in both crop and livestock production, drought is associated with increases in insect infestations, plant disease, and wind erosion. Droughts also bring increased problems with insects and diseases to forests and reduce growth. The incidence of forest and range fires increases substantially during extended droughts, which in turn places both human and wildlife populations at higher levels of risk.
Income loss is another indicator used in assessing the impacts of drought because so many sectors are affected. Reduced income for farmers has a ripple effect. Retailers and others who provide goods and services to farmers face reduced business. This leads to unemployment, increased credit risk for financial institutions, capital shortfalls, and loss of tax revenue for local, state, and federal government. Less discretionary income affects the recreation and tourism industries. Prices for food, energy, and other products increase as supplies are reduced. In some cases, local shortages of certain goods result in the need to import these goods from outside the stricken region. Reduced water supply impairs the navigability of rivers and results in increased transportation costs because products must be transported by rail or truck. Hydropower production may also be curtailed significantly.
Environmental losses are the result of damages to plant and animal species, wildlife habitat, and air and water quality; forest and range fires; degradation of landscape quality; loss of biodiversity; and soil erosion. Some of the effects are short-term and conditions quickly return to normal following the end of the drought. Other environmental effects linger for some time or may even become permanent. Wildlife habitat, for example, may be degraded through the loss of wetlands, lakes, and vegetation. However, many species will eventually recover from this temporary aberration. The degradation of landscape quality, including increased soil erosion, may lead to a more permanent loss of biological productivity of the landscape. Although environmental losses are difficult to quantify, growing public awareness and concern for environmental quality has forced public officials to focus greater attention and resources on these effects.
Social impacts mainly involve public safety, health, conflicts between water users, reduced quality of life, and inequities in the distribution of impacts and disaster relief. Many of the impacts specified as economic and environmental have social components as well. Population out-migration is a significant problem, often stimulated by greater availability of food and water elsewhere. Migration is usually to urban areas within the stressed area or to regions outside the drought area; migration may even be to adjacent countries, creating refugee problems. However, when the drought has abated, these persons seldom return home, depriving rural areas of valuable human resources necessary for economic development. For the urban area to which they have immigrated, they place ever-increasing pressure on the social infrastructure, possibly leading to greater poverty and social unrest.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.6 Drought
7.6-8
Probability of Drought
Probability is the likelihood of a hazard occurring in the future. The graph below shows approximately four droughts between 2000 and 2020 in Los Angeles County. The drought between
2014-2017 was severe.
Source: National Weather Service https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Data/Timeseries.aspx
Below is a table listing the frequency and severity of drought in Los Angeles County. Based on the table, Los Angeles County has experienced three years of Exceptional Drought in the past 20 years. Therefore, the County has the potential to experience an Exceptional Drought once every
6.7 years. Climate change might increase or decrease this probability in the future.
Year Drought Condition Year Drought Condition
2001 None 2011 None
2002 Moderate Drought 2012 Moderate Drought
2003 Abnormally Dry 2013 Severe Drought
2004 Abnormally Dry 2014 Exceptional Drought
2005 None 2015 Exceptional Drought
2006 Abnormally Dry 2016 Exceptional Drought
2007 Severe Drought 2017 Abnormally Dry
2008 Moderate Drought 2018 Severe Drought
2009 Severe Drought 2019 Abnormally Dry
2010 None 2020 Abnormally Dry
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Maps/MapArchive.aspx
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.6 Drought
7.6-9
On the site listed above National Weather Service Forecast Offices were used for the Area Type and Los Angeles, CA (LOX) was used as the Area. The data compared the readings from the first week in December between 2001 and 2020.
r
Raymond Basin and direct delivery of treated imported water from Metropolitan Water District.
The reliability of the water supply for the City is primarily dependent upon the management of the Main San Gabriel Basin and Raymond Basin. The management of both basins is based on their adjudication. The City pumps groundwater from both basins and can rely on the water supply sources of both basins in an average water year, a single-dry water year and during multiple-dry water years.
California Drought Legislation
The State of California delegates drought planning to local authorities. However, in light of the current drought conditions for the past three (3) years, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 7x-7 of 2009, and the Governor signed it into law in November 2009. This comprehensive step towards ensuring a reliable water supply for future generations, as well as restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and other ecologically sensitive areas. More importantly, the law is directed at water conservation and includes the requirement that the State reduce urban per capita water use by twenty (20) percent by the year 2020.
Mitigating drought taking actions in advance of drought to reduce its long-term risk can involve a wide range of tools. These tools include policies, activities, plans, and programs.
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act, which became effective on January 1, 1985, requires every Urban Water Supplier to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan and to periodically review its Management Plan every five (5) years and make any amendments or changes which are indicated by review. The primary objective of the Act is to direct urban water suppliers to evaluate their existing water conservation efforts and, to the extent practicable, to review and implement alternative and supplemental water conservation measures. As such, the City has adopted and implemented the Urban Water Management Plan and continues to update it on a regular basis as required by law.
This Management Plan details demand management measures implemented by the City to increase and encourage water conservation in the community. Many demand management measures are in cooperation with the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District in
In the event of a water shortage or water emergency, the City has also established a Water Conservation Plan (Plan) in the Arcadia Municipal Code:
ARTICLE VII. - PUBLIC WORKS,
CHAPTER 5. - WATER RATES, SERVICE CHARGES AND REGULATIONS Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 7.6 Drought
7.6-10
PART 5. - REGULATIONS
DIVISION 3. - WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
The Plan is intended for the conservation of available water supply to minimize the adverse impacts of a drought or water supply emergency conditions. Specifically, the Plan implements water rationing in eight (8) phases, reducing water usage by a certain percentage in each phase.
To further mitigate the impacts of drought, the City is also exploring conservation pricing in order to encourage and enhance water conservation efforts.
claration, the
Arcadia City Council adopted Resolution No. 7009 in February 2014 to implement a voluntary Water Conservation Program to reduce water use by 20 percent. After several months of voluntary conservation Statewide, the target reduction percentage was far from being met. Therefore, in July 2014, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted emergency water conservation regulations consisting of the following elements: water restrictions on outdoor water use for all Californians; a requirement that water supplie rs implement their Water Shortage Contingency Plans; and the requirement that water suppliers provide monthly data on water production.
In order to comply with the regulations, the Arcadia City Council adopted Resolution No. 7044 on These regulations
are still in effect as of the writing of this plan.
Community Issues Summary
The City of Arcadia has its own water company and draws water from the water table beneath the community. A prolonged drought may impact our ability to obtain water from the aquifer. A prolonged drought would also change the susceptibility of the wildland fuel bed surrounding the north end of Arcadia making it more prone to a wildfire.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 8 Human Caused Hazards
8 When developing the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of Arcadia, the committee decided to place the hazards into two broad categories. The categories are Natural Hazards and Human Caused Hazards. Section 8 of the plan covers Human Caused Hazards. The hazards are:
Section 8.1 Hazardous Materials Release
Section 8.2 Terrorism Event
Section 8.3 Train Accident
All data tables and maps included in this section were updated during the revision of this plan.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 8.1 Hazardous Materials Release
8.1-1
Description of Hazard
Hazardous waste/materials are widely used at and/or created by facilities such as hospitals, wastewater treatment plants, water treatment plants and industrial manufacturing warehouses.
Several household products such as cleaning supplies and paint are also considered hazardous materials. Hazardous materials include:
Explosives
Flammable, nonflammable, and poisonous gases
Flammable liquids
Flammable, spontaneously combustible, and dangerous when wet solids Oxidizers and organic peroxides
Poisons and infectious substances
Radioactive materials
Corrosive materials.
Both mobile and external hazardous materials releases can spread and affect a wide area, through the release of plumes of chemical, biological, or radiological elements or leaks or spills.
Conversely, internal releases are more likely to be confined to the structure the material is stored in. Chemical may be corrosive or otherwise damaging over time. A hazardous materials release could also result in fire or explosion. Contamination may be carried out of the immediate area of the incident by people, vehicles, wind, and water. Weather conditions can increase the size and intensity of the hazardous materials release. Topography such as h hills and canyons can increase the size of the release or make it more difficult to contain.
Location and Extent of Hazard in Arcadia
Over 160 business owners within Arcadia are required to submit a hazardous materials business plan with the local Certified Unified Program Agencies. In addition to being present at known businesses, hazardous materials are transported within and through Arcadia on a daily basis.
History of Hazardous Materials Releases in Arcadia
Most releases that have occurred in Arcadia have been minor releases and easily mitigated in compliance with industry standards in accordance with State and Federal regulations. There have been no significant historical events to report to date.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 8.2 Terrorism Event
8.2-1
Description of Hazard
There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism, and it can be interpreted in many ways. The term usually refers to intentional, criminal malicious acts. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal
persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population , or any or the
purposes of this plan, terrorism refers to the use of weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons; arson, incendiary, explosive, and armed attacks; and industrial sabotage and intentional hazardous materials releases. Many of these incidents can be well-planned, coordinated attacks with multiple suspects, or the result of a lone individual on a rampage.
Location and Extent of Hazard
Terrorism can occur throughout the entire city but due to terrori most likely happen in more populous areas where more devastation, hear, and chaos will ensue
History of Terrorism Events in Arcadia
The city has little-to-no experience of terrorist events.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 8.3 Train Accident
8.3-1
Definition of Train Accident
Train accidents are defined as any accidents involving public or private trains carrying passengers or cargo along the rail corridor. Train accidents, like other transportation accidents, are less likely to lead to a state or federal disaster declaration, than other hazards previously and afore mentioned.
Train Accident Related Hazards
In September 2015, train service was re-established in the City of Arcadia. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority extended a light rail commuter line through Arcadia connecting communities in the eastern San Gabriel Valley with Downtown Los Angeles.
Train accidents are localized, and the incidents result in limited impacts at the community level.
However, if the train is in a highly populated death and injuries can occur.
With the exception of the light rail line, no other rail lines run through the City of Arcadia. The closest freight line is the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway located 4 miles south of Arcadia in the City of El Monte.
Train Accident Hazard Assessment
There is only one at grade crossing for the light rail train running through the City of Arcadia. A portion of the light rail in Arcadia is located in the center divider of the 210 Freeway.
Neighboring communities have had a few events involving big rig trucks that have come off the 210 Freeway and ended up on the train tracks
Train accidents can occur anytime during the year.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 9 Action Items
9-1
The following action items have been placed into three categories based on the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Committees recommendations. The LHMP Committee considered ease, cost, and importance of completion. The following three categories rank the achievability of each action item; category one action items being the action items to be completed first, and respectively category three being the last.
Category One
Wildfire A
Continue to maintain a separation between flammable vegetation and structures within the Wildland Urban Interface.
Implementation Ideas:
Continue annual brush safety inspections
Adopt new standards on building construction for hardening of structures in the wildland urban interface.
Look into funding options for vegetation clearance on public infrastructure in the wildland-urban interface
Coordinating Organization: Fire Department
Funding Source: Fire Department
Timeline: Ongoing
Constraints: Funding
Wildfire B
Work with partner agencies to limit the threat of a wind driven wildland fire to the community.
Implementation Ideas:
Incorporate SCE Public Safety Power Shutoff plans and grid maps into City of Arcadia Base Map.
Coordinating Organization: Fire Department
Funding Source: Fire Department
Timeline: Ongoing
Constraints: Funding
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 9 Action Items
9-2
Earthquake A
Work to ensure minimal interruption in city services in the event of an earthquake
Implementation Ideas
Integrate Earthquake Early Warning Systems into Fire Station Alerting Integrate Earthquake Early Warning Systems into operation of city water wells and pumping stations
Secure equipment within City facilities to protect employees and citizens.
Coordinating Organization Public Works Services / Fire Department Funding Source Operating Budget / Mitigation Grants
Timeline Ongoing
Constraints Funding
Earthquake B
Adopt and enforce current building safety and seismic regulations
Implementation Ideas
Adopt and incorporate new versions of Building and Fire Codes
Coordinating Organization Fire Department / Development Services Funding Source Operating Budget
Timeline During next code update cycle
Constraints None
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 9 Action Items
9-3
Multi Hazard A
Create and maintain communication mediums through which the City can communicate with the public on both an outgoing and incoming basis.
Implementation Ideas:
Continue to Update and Enhance methods to communicate with the public. Look into process to be able to provide Wireless Emergency Alerts to the community.
Coordinating Organization: City Manager
s Office
Funding:
Office, Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works Services Department
Timeline: Ongoing
Constraints: Staff time
Multi Hazard B
Work on lessening the impact a loss of electrical power would have on the community.
Implementation Ideas:
Update and maintain the back-up power that is available for key city infrastructure in the event of a power disruption to windstorm, wildfire, earthquake, etc.
Coordinating Organization: City of Arcadia Public Works Services Funding Source: Public Works
Timeline: Within the next three years
Constraints: Cost associated with purchasing equipment.
Category Two
Slope Failure A
Improve the capabilities of managing debris from Slope Failure events by developing a debris management strategy for the City of Arcadia.
Ideas for implementation:
Work with L.A. County Department of Public Works on establishing a regional Debris Management Plan.
Coordinating Organization: City of Arcadia Public Works Services. L.A. County Department of Public Works
Funding Source: Public Work Agencies
Timeline: Within the next three years
Constraints: Limited staff time,
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 9 Action Items
9-4
Windstorm A
Identify and implement projects to reduce the damage caused by trees during a windstorm.
Ideas for Implementation:
Continue regular tree trimming procedures:
o Continue four-year tree trimming grid for optimum effectiveness to maintain healthy trees.
o Ensure trees in the public right-of-way are trimmed to maintain a clearance from all electric power lines as specified in the California Code of Regulations and the California Public Utilities Commission o Continue to remove trees that are dead, diseased, or dying. o Continue the Crown Restoration Program to preserve the health of large aging trees
o Ensure proper tree trimming techniques as approved by the Professional Arborist Association
o Provide public education materials to residents to make them aware of the need to regularly maintain and trim their own trees
o Update Urban Forest Master Plan to include type of trees to plant, when to plan, where easement trees will be placed, and how and when they will be maintained.
Coordinating Organization: Public Works Services Department Funding Source: General Fund and Gas Tax
Timeline: Ongoing
Constraints: Limited staff time and capital resources to fund Tree Trimming Contractors
Hazardous Materials A
Reduce the threat of a Hazardous Materials Release in Arcadia.
Implementation Ideas:
Provide information to residents on Local Household Hazardous Materials Collection Events
Update known hazardous material storage locations.
Coordinating Organization: Fire Department
Funding Source: Fire Department
Timeline: Annually
Constraints: Staff time for updating policies
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 9 Action Items
9-5
Terrorism A
Lessen the impact that a terrorist event would have city infrastructure.
Implementation Ideas:
Strengthen City Facilities and Networks to prevent physical and cyber attacks
Coordinating Organization: Police Department
Funding Source: General Fund, Police, Fire, and Public Works budgets Timeline: One year
Constraints: Limited staff time
Terrorism B
Lessen the impact that a terrorist event would have on the community.
Implementation Ideas:
Develop a Stop the Bleed Campaign and provide stop the bleed materials in City Buildings
Coordinating Organization: Fire Department
Funding Source: General Fund, Grants budgets
Timeline: One year
Constraints: Limited staff time
Transportation A
Reduce the frequency of vehicle coming into contact with Metro Gold Line Train while travelling along with 210 Freeway
Implementation Ideas:
Work with CALTRANS to aid in increasing the height of the barrier wall separating the Gold Line right of way from the 210 Freeway to protect the light rail right of way from vehicles losing control and ending up on the tracks.
Coordinating Organization: Development Services Department Funding Source: State of California
Timeline: Within next three years
Constraints: Lengthy approval process
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 9 Action Items
9-6
Category Three
Drought A
Identify and implement projects to reduce the impact of drought.
Implementation Ideas:
Conserve water resources by:
o Improving leak detection capability of the Public Works Services Staff o Continuing to provide water audits for indoor/outdoor uses o
in the future
o Funding Capital Improvement Projects to improve the reliability and
o Develop and implement a Tiered Water Rate Pricing Structure
Coordinating Organization: Public Works Services Department Funding Source: Water Fund (revenue generated from billing for water s e r v i c e )
Timeline: Short Term (within the next five years)
Constraints: Limited staff time, resistance from public and lack of public participation.
Capability Assessment
carry out mitigation efforts.
The capabilities are divided into the four categories of Planning and Regulatory, Administrative and Technical, Financial and, Education and Outreach.
Planning and Regulatory
Plans
Yes/No
Year
Does the plan address hazards? Does the
plan identify projects to include in the
mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used
to implement mitigation actions?
City Master Plan (General Plan)
Yes
2010 Safety element of plan discusses hazards
Capital Improvement Plan
Yes
2020
Plan can be used to implement mitigation
actions
Economic Development Plan
Yes
2010 No
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 9 Action Items
9-7
Local Emergency Operations Plan
Yes
2013 The EOP address various hazards
Continuity of Operations plan No
Transportation Plan Yes Does not address hazards
Stormwater Management Plan
Yes
2015 Yes
Community Wildfire Protection Plan No
Building Code, Permitting and Inspections
Yes/No
Year Are Codes Adequately enforced?
Building Code
Yes
2019 Yes
Building Code Effectiveness grading schedule
(BCEGS) Score
Yes
2019 Score is 2 for residential and commercial
Fire Department ISO Rating
Yes
2018 Class I rating
Land Use Planning and Ordinances
Yes/No
Year
Is the ordinance an effective measure for
reducing hazard impacts? Is the ordinance
adequately administered and enforced?
Zoning Ordinance Yes Yes, yes
Subdivision Ordinance Yes Yes, Yes
Natural hazard specific ordinance
(stormwater, steep slope, wildfire) Yes Yes, yes
Floor Insurance Rate Maps No City does not participate in program.
How can Planning and Regulatory be expanded? This can be expanded by incorporating the plan into the upcoming General Plan update.
Administrative and Technical
Administrative Yes/No
Describe capability. Is coordination
effective?
Planning Commission Yes
Mitigation Planning Committee Yes
Consists of representatives from each city
department
Maintenance programs to reduce
risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing
drainage systems) Yes Arcadia Public Works have plans in place.
Mutual aid agreements Yes
Fire and Law have automatic and mutual aid
agreements in place. Coordination is
effective.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 9 Action Items
9-8
Staff
Yes/No
FT/PT
Is staffing adequate to enforce regulations?
Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation?
Is coordination between agencies and staff
effective?
Chief Building Official Yes FT Yes
Emergency Manager Yes PT Staff is trained and coordination takes place Community Planner Yes FT
Civil Engineer Yes FT
GIS Coordintor Yes PT
Staff from various departments handle GIS
needs for their respective departments
Technical Yes/No
Describe capability. Has capability been
used to assess/mitigate risk in the past?
Warning systems/services
(Reverse 911, outdoor warning
signals) Yes
Reverse 911. System has been used to
educate, warn and evacuate public.
Grant writing Yes
City staff has been assigned to apply for
grants. City staff can apply for FEMA
mitigation grants and other funding to be
used for mitigation activities.
HAZUS analysis No
How can these capabilities be expanded and improved to reduce risk? One method to increase in the above area is to get a dedicated GIS coordinator within the city to make the data easily available to all staff. These GIS capabilities can be used for mitigation planning, grant applications and coordination.
Financial
Funding Resource
Access /
Eligibility
(Yes/No)
Has the funding resource been
used in the past and for what
type of activities? Could the
resource be used to fund future
mitigation actions?
Capital improvements project
funding Yes
Funding used for annual
maintenance projects, drought
mitigation and wildfire response
equipment
Authority to levy taxes for
specific purposes Yes
Fees for water, sever, gas or
electric services. Yes
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 9 Action Items
9-9
Impact fees for new
development No
Incur debt through general
obligation bonds and/or special
tax bonds Yes
Obligation bond passed for build
grade separation for light rail
commuter line.
Community Development Block
Grant Yes
Other federal funding programs Yes SHSGP Recipient
How can these capabilities be expanded and improved to reduce risk? One method to use is to pursue additional grant opportunities for mitigation activities.
Education and Outreach
Program/Organization Yes/No
Describe program/organization
and how relates to disaster
resilience and mitigation. Could
the program/organization help
implement future mitigation
activities?
Local citizen group or non-profit
organizations focused on
environmental protection,
emergency preparedness, access
and functional needs
populations, etc. Yes
City partners with American Red
Cross for preparedness
outreaches
Ongoing public education or
information program (e.g.
responsible water use, fire
safety, household preparedness,
environmental education) Yes
Public education is conducted
through social media, city
newsletters, safety
demonstrations and information
tables at city events.
Natural disaster or safety related
school programs Yes
City annually participates in
Great Shakeout with community
partners
Firewise Communities
certification No
How can these capabilities be expanded and improved to reduce risk? One way to expand and/or improve would be to look into opportunities to educate the public on the hazards present in the community and ways individuals can mitigate those hazards to protect their homes and businesses.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 9 Action Items
9-10
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 10 Plan Maintenance Process
10-1
The plan maintenance section of this document details the formal process that will ensure Local Hazards Mitigation Plan remains an active and relevant document. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the Plan annually and producing a plan revision every five years. This section describes how the city will integrate public participation throughout the plan maintenance process. Finally, this section includes an explanation of government intends to incorporate the mitigation strategies outlined in this Plan into existing planning mechanisms such as the City General Plan, Capital Improvement Plans, and Building and Safety Codes.
Monitoring and Implementing the Plan
Plan Adoption
The City Manager or designee will be responsible for submitting it to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer at The California Office of Emergency Services (CAL OES). CAL OES will then submit the plan to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review. This review will address the federal criteria outlined in FEMA Interim Final Rule 44 CFR Part 201. Upon acceptance by FEMA, The City Council will be This
governing body has the authority to promote sound public policy regarding local hazards.
Coordinating Body
The
coordinating implementation of Plan action items and undertaking the formal review process. The City Manager will assign representatives to the Hazard Mitigation Committee and assign a Project Manager.
Convener
Hazard Mitigation Committee will take responsibility for plan implementation. The Project Manager will serve as a convener to facilitate the Hazard Mitigation Committee meetings, and will assign tasks such as updating and presenting the Plan to the members of the committee. Plan implementation and evaluation will be a shared responsibility among all of the Local Hazard Committee Members.
Implementation through Existing Programs
The City of Arcadia addresses statewide planning goals and legislative requirements through its General Plan, Capital Improvement Plans, City Building and Safety Codes and other city documents. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a series of recommendations - many of which are closely related to the goals and objectives of existing planning programs.
The 2012 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was referenced in the 2013 update of the City of adopted/referenced into any other City of Arcadia plans since its 2012 adoption.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 10 Plan Maintenance Process
10-2
During fiscal year 2021
will be updated. At that time staff will work toward adopting the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into the Safety Element.
The goals and action items in the mitigation plan may be achieved through activities recommended in the city's Capital Improvement Plans (CIP). Various city departments develop CIP plans, and review them on an annual basis.
Economic Analysis of Mitigation Projects
FEMA's approaches to identify the costs and benefits associated with natural hazard mitigation strategies, measures, or projects fall into two general categories: benefit/cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Conducting benefit/cost analysis for a mitigation activity can assist communities in determining whether a project is worth undertaking now, in order to avoid disaster- related damages later.
Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates how best to spend a given amount of money to achieve a specific goal. Determining the economic feasibility of mitigating natural hazards can provide decision-makers with an understanding of the potential benefits and costs of an activity, as well as a basis upon which to compare alternative projects.
Given federal funding, the City of Arcadia will use a FEMA-approved benefit/cost analysis approach to identify and prioritize mitigation action items. For other projects and funding sources, the Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee will use other approaches to understand the costs and benefits of each action item and develop a prioritized list. For more information regarding economic analysis of mitigation action items, please see Appendix A of the Plan.
Evaluating and Updating the Plan
Formal Review Process
Local Hazards Mitigation Plan will be evaluated on an annual basis to determine the effectiveness of programs, and to reflect changes in land development or programs that may affect mitigation priorities. The evaluation process includes a firm schedule and time line, and identifies the local agencies and organizations participating in plan evaluation. The convener or designee will be responsible for contacting the Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee members and organizing the annual meeting.
The committee will review the goals and action items to determine their relevance to changing situations in the city, as well as changes in State or Federal policy, and to ensure they are addressing current and expected conditions. The committee will also review the risk assessment portion of the Plan to determine if this information should be updated or modified, given any new available data. The coordinating organizations responsible for the various action items will report on the status of their projects, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Section 10 Plan Maintenance Process
10-3
success of various implementation processes, difficulties encountered, success of coordination efforts, and which strategies should be revised.
Continued Public Involvement
The City of Arcadia is dedicated to involving the public directly in review and updates of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The public will also have the opportunity to provide feedback about the Plan. Copies of the Plan will be catalogued and kept at all of the appropriate agencies in the city. The existence and location of these copies will be publicized in the quarterly city newsletter "Arcadia Community News", which reaches every household in the city
In addition, copies of the plan and any proposed changes will be posted on the city website. This site will also contain an email address and phone number to which people can direct their comments and concerns.
A public meeting will also be held after each annual evaluation or when deemed necessary by the City Manager. The meetings will provide the public a forum for which they can express its concerns, opinions, or ideas about the Plan.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Economic Analysis
A PPENDIX A
Appendix A-1
Benefit/cost analysis is a key mechanism used by the California Office of Emergency Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other state and federal agencies in evaluating hazard mitigation projects, and is required by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended.
This appendix outlines several approaches for conducting economic analysis of natural hazard mitigation projects. It describes the importance of implementing mitigation activities, different approaches to economic analysis of mitigation strategies, and methods to calculate costs and benefits associated with mitigation strategies. Information in this section is derived in part from:
The Interagency Hazards Mitigation Team, State Hazard Mitigation Plan, (Oregon State Police
Office of Emergency Management, 2000), and Federal Emergency Management Agency Publication 331, Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation.
This section is not intended to provide a comprehensive description of benefit/cost analysis, nor is it intended to provide the details of economic analysis methods that can be used to evaluate local projects. It is intended to one (1) raise benefit/cost analysis as an important issue, and two (2) provide some background on how economic analysis can be used to evaluate mitigation projects.
Why Evaluate Mitigation Strategies?
Mitigation activities reduce the cost of disasters by minimizing property damage, injuries, and the potential for loss of life, and by reducing emergency response costs, which would otherwise be incurred.
Evaluating the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provides decision-makers with an understanding of the potential benefits and costs of an activity, as well as a basis upon which to compare alternative projects. Evaluating mitigation projects is a complex and difficult undertaking, which is influenced by many variables. First, natural disasters affect all segments of the communities they strike, including individuals, businesses, and public services such as fire, police, utilities, and schools.
Second, while some of the direct and indirect costs of disaster damages are measurable, some of the costs are non-financial and difficult to quantify in dollars. Third, many of the impacts of such -
social and economic consequences.
While not easily accomplished, there is value, from a public policy perspective, in assessing the positive and negative impacts from mitigation activities, and obtaining an instructive benefit/cost comparison. Otherwise, the decision to pursue or not pursue various mitigation options would not be based on an objective understanding of the net benefit or loss associated with these actions.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Economic Analysis
A PPENDIX A
Appendix A-2
What are Some Economic Analysis Approaches for Mitigation Strategies? The approaches used to identify the costs and benefits associated with natural hazard mitigation strategies, measures, or projects fall into two general categories: benefit/cost analysis and cost- effectiveness analysis. The distinction between the two methods is the way in which the relative costs and benefits are measured. Additionally, there are varying approaches to assessing the value of mitigation for public sector and private sector activities.
Benefit/Cost Analysis
Benefit/cost analysis is used in local hazard mitigation to show if the benefits to life and property protected through mitigation efforts exceed the cost of the mitigation activity. Conducting benefit/cost analysis for a mitigation activity can assist communities in determining whether a project is worth undertaking now, in order to avoid disaster related damages later. Benefit/cost analysis is based on calculating the frequency and severity of a hazard, avoided future damages, and risk.
In benefit/cost analysis, all costs and benefits are evaluated in terms of dollars, and a net benefit/cost ratio is computed to determine whether a project should be implemented (i.e., if net benefits exceed net costs, the project is worth pursuing). A project must have a benefit/cost ratio greater than one in order to be pursued.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates how best to spend a given amount of money to achieve a specific goal. This type of analysis, however, does not necessarily measure costs and benefits in terms of dollars. Determining the economic feasibility of mitigating hazards can also be organized according to the perspective of those with an economic interest in the outcome. Hence, economic analysis approaches are covered for both public and private sectors as follows.
Investing in public sector mitigation activities
Evaluating mitigation strategies in the public sector is complicated because it involves estimating all of the economic benefits and costs regardless of who realizes them, and potentially to a large number of people and economic entities. Some benefits cannot be evaluated monetarily, but still affect the public in profound ways. Economists have developed methods to evaluate the economic feasibility of public decisions that involve a diverse set of beneficiaries and nonmarket benefits.
Investing in private sector mitigation activities
Private sector mitigation projects may occur on the basis of one of two approaches: it may be mandated by a regulation or standard, or it may be economically justified on its own merits. A building or landowner, whether a private entity or a public agency, required to conform to a mandated standard may consider the following options: Request cost sharing from public Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Economic Analysis
A PPENDIX A
Appendix A-3
agencies; Dispose of the building or land either by sale or demolition; Change the designated use of the building or land and the hazard mitigation compliance requirement; Evaluate the most feasible alternatives and initiate the most cost effective hazard mitigation alternative.
The sale of a building or land triggers another set of concerns. For example, real estate disclosure laws can be developed which require sellers of real property to disclose known defects and deficiencies in the property, including earthquake weaknesses and hazards to prospective purchasers. Correcting deficiencies can be expensive and time consuming, but their existence can prevent the sale of the building. Conditions of a sale regarding the deficiencies and the price of the building can be negotiated between a buyer and seller.
How can an Economic Analysis be Conducted?
Benefit/cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis are important tools in evaluating whether or not to implement a mitigation activity. A framework for evaluating alternative mitigation activities is outlined below:
1. Identify the Alternatives: Alternatives for reducing risk from natural hazards can include structural projects to enhance disaster resistance, education and outreach, and acquisition or demolition of exposed properties, among others. Different mitigation project can assist in minimizing risk to hazards, but do so at varying economic costs.
2. Calculate the Costs and Benefits: Choosing economic criteria is essential to systematically calculating costs and benefits of mitigation projects and selecting the most appropriate alternative. Potential economic criteria to evaluate alternatives include:
- Determine the project cost: This may include initial project development costs, and repair and operating costs of maintaining projects over time.
- Estimate the benefits: Projecting the benefits or cash flow resulting from a project can be difficult. Expected future returns from the mitigation effort depend on the correct specification of the risk and the effectiveness of the project, which may not be well known. Expected future costs depend on the physical durability and potential economic obsolescence of the investment. This is difficult to project. These considerations will also provide guidance in selecting an appropriate salvage value. Future tax structures and rates must be projected.
Estimating the costs and benefits of a hazard mitigation strategy can be a complex process.
Employing the services of a specialist can assist in this process.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Economic Analysis
A PPENDIX A
Appendix A-4
Financing alternatives must be researched, and they may include retained earnings, bond and stock issues, and commercial loans.
- Consider costs and benefits to society and the environment: These are not easily measured, but can be assessed through a variety of economic tools including existence value or contingent value theories. These theories provide quantitative data on the value people attribute to physical or social environments. Even without hard data, however, impacts of structural projects to the physical environment or to society should be considered when implementing mitigation projects.
- Determine the correct discount rate: Determination of the discount rate can just be the risk- ime
preference and also a risk premium. Inflation should also be considered.
3. Analyze and Rank the Alternatives: Once costs and benefits have been quantified, economic analysis tools can rank the alternatives. Two methods for determining the best alternative given varying costs and benefits include: net present value and internal rate of return.
- Net present value: Net present value is the value of the expected future returns dollars. If the net present value is greater than the project costs, the project may be determined feasible for implementation. Selecting the discount rate, and identifying the present and future costs and benefits of the project calculates the net present value of projects.
- Internal Rate of Return: Using the internal rate of return method to evaluate mitigation projects provides the interest rate equivalent to the dollar returns expected from the project. Once the rate has been calculated, it can be compared to rates earned by investing in alternative projects. Projects may be feasible to implement when the internal rate of return is greater than the total costs of the project.
Once the mitigation projects are ranked on the basis of economic criteria, decision- makers can consider other factors, such as risk; project effectiveness; and economic, environmental, and social returns in choosing the appropriate project for implementation.
How are Benefits of Mitigation Calculated?
Economic Returns of Local Hazard Mitigation
The estimation of economic returns, which accrue to building or land owners as a result of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Economic Analysis
A PPENDIX A
Appendix A-5
natural hazard mitigation, is difficult. Owners evaluating the economic feasibility of mitigation should consider reductions in physical damages and financial losses. A partial list follows:
- Building damages avoided
- Content damages avoided
- Inventory damages avoided
- Rental income losses avoided
- Relocation and disruption expenses avoided
ded
These parameters can be estimated using observed prices, costs, and engineering data. The difficult part is to correctly determine the effectiveness of the hazard mitigation project and the resulting reduction in damages and losses. Equally as difficult is assessing the probability that an event will occur. The damages and losses should only include those that will be borne by the owner. The salvage value of the investment can be important in determining economic feasibility. Salvage value becomes more important as the time horizon of the owner declines.
This is important because most businesses depreciate assets over a period of time.
Additional Costs of Disasters
Property owners should also assess changes in a broader set of factors that can change as a result negative, and include changes in the following:
- Commodity and resource prices
- Availability of resource supplies
- Commodity and resource demand changes
- Building and land values
- Capital availability and interest rates
- Availability of labor
- Economic structure
- Infrastructure
- Regional exports and imports
- Local, state, and national regulations and policies
- Insurance availability and rates
Changes in the resources and industries listed above are more difficult to estimate and require models that are structured to estimate total economic impacts. Total economic impacts are the sum of direct and indirect economic impacts. Total economic impact models are usually not combined with economic feasibility models. Many models exist to estimate total economic impacts of changes in an economy. Decision makers should understand the total economic impacts of natural disasters in order to calculate the benefits of a mitigation activity. This suggests that understanding the local economy is an important first step in being able to understand the potential impacts of a disaster, and the benefits of mitigation activities.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Economic Analysis
A PPENDIX A
Appendix A-6
Additional Considerations
Conducting an economic analysis for potential mitigation activities can assist decision-makers in choosing the most appropriate strategy for their community to reduce risk and prevent loss from natural hazards. Economic analysis can also save time and resources from being spent on inappropriate or unfeasible projects. Several resources and models are listed on the following page that can assist in conducting an economic analysis for hazard mitigation activities.
Benefit/cost analysis is complicated, and the numbers may divert attention from other important issues. It is important to consider the qualitative factors of a project associated with mitigation that cannot be evaluated economically. There are alternative approaches to implementing mitigation projects. Many communities are looking towards developing multi-objective projects.
With this in mind, opportunity rises to develop strategies that integrate local hazard mitigation with projects related to watersheds, environmental planning, community economic development, and small business development, among others. Incorporating natural hazard mitigation with other community projects can increase the viability of project implementation.
Assessed Values of City of Arcadia
The total assessed value for the City of Arcadia is $15,676,471,562. The nine hazards that could impact the City of Arcadia, would affect the city in various ways. Of all the hazards, only two would impact a specific area. Wildfire and Flooding. Four separate impact areas were looked at.
One for the wildfire impact area and three separate dam inundation areas.
Earthquake, Windstorm, Drought, Terrorism, Transportation, Debris Flow/Landslide, and Hazardous Materials Release hazards have the potential to impact any or all areas of the City of Arcadia so there was no separate study completed for those areas. The chart below indicated the assessed value in the City of Arcadia broken into entire city, residential property, commercial property and other. The chart also displays the assessed valuation in the dam inundation areas and the wildfire hazard area.
Area
Assessed
Valuation
Entire City 15,676,471,562
Residential 12,959,501,963
Commercial 1,524,210,934
Other 1,192,758,665
Sawpit Dam Inundation Area 276,166,986
Sierra Madre & Santa Anita Dam Inundation Area 669,813,106 Morris S. Jones Reservoir Inundation Area 271,501,566
Wildland Interface 829,408,125
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Economic Analysis
A PPENDIX A
Appendix A-7
Resources
CUREe Kajima Project, Methodologies For Evaluating The Socio-Economic Consequences Of Large Earthquakes, Task 7.2 Economic Impact Analysis, Prepared by University of California, Berkeley Team, Robert A. Olson, VSP Associates, Team Leader; John M. Eidinger, G&E Engineering Systems; Kenneth A. Goettel, Goettel and Associates Inc.; and Gerald L. Horner, Hazard Mitigation Economics Inc., 1997.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Benefit/Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects, Riverine Flood, Version 1.05, Hazard Mitigation Economics Inc., 1996.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation. Publication 331, 1996.
Goettel & Horner Inc., Earthquake Risk Analysis Volume III: The Economic Feasibility of Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings in The City of Portland, Submitted to the Bureau of Buildings, City of Portland, August 30, 1995.
Goettel & Horner Inc., Benefit/Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects Volume V,
Horner, Gerald, Benefit/Cost Methodologies for Use in Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Proposed Hazard Mitigation Measures, Robert Olson Associates, Prepared for Oregon State Police, Office of Emergency Management, July 1999.
Interagency Hazards Mitigation Team, State Hazard Mitigation Plan, (Oregon State Police
Office of Emergency Management, 2000).
Risk Management Solutions, Inc., Development of a Standardized Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, National Institute of Building Sciences, Volume I and II, 1994.
VSP Associates, Inc., A Benefit/Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Volumes 1 & 2, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, Publication Numbers 227 and 228, 1991.
VSP Associates, Inc., Benefit/Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects: Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Program and Section 406 Public Assistance Program, Volume 3: Seismic Hazard Mitigation Projects, 1993.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Economic Analysis
A PPENDIX A
Appendix A-8
VSP Associates, Inc., Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings: A Benefit/Cost Model, Volume 1, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, Publication Number 255, 1994.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Acronyms
Appendix B
Appendix B-1
This list is taken from the Emergency Management Glossary from the California Office of Emergency Services Website.
A - B
A&W - Alert and Warning
AA - Administering Agency
AAR - After Action Report
AFN - Access & Functional Needs
AFO - Area Field Office
ANG - Army National Guard
AO - Administrative Order
AR - Atmospheric River
ARB - Air Resources Board
ARC - American Red Cross
ARP - Accidental Risk Prevention
ATC-20 - Applied Technology Council-20
ATC-21 - Applied Technology Council-21
BCP - Budget Change Proposal
BOC - Business Operations Center
BSA - California Bureau of State Audits
C
CA-ESF - California Emergency Support Function
CAER - Community Awareness & Emergency Response
CalARP - California Accidental Release Prevention
CalBO - California Building Officials
CalEPA - California Environmental Protection Agency
CalREP - California Radiological Emergency Plan
CalSCIP
California Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan CalSIEC California Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee CALSTARS - California State Accounting Reporting System CARES - California Animal Response Emergency System
CalTRANS - California Department of Transportation
CBO - Community Based Organization
CCC - California Conservation Corps
CD - Civil Defense
CDE - California Department of Education
CDF - California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFA - California Department of Forest & Agriculture
CDHS California Department of Health Services
CDMG - California Division of Mines and Geology
CDPH - California Department of Public Health
CDSS - California Department of Social Services
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Acronyms
Appendix B
Appendix B-2
CEC - California Energy Commission
CEPEC - California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council CESRS - California Emergency Services Radio System
CGD - California Geological Survey
CHIP - California Hazardous Identification Program
CHMIRS - California Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System CHP - California Highway Patrol
CLETS - California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System CMD - California Military Department
CMAS California Multiple Award Schedules
CNG California National Guard
CONOPS - Continuity of Operations
COOP - Continuity of Operations Plan
CSTI - California Specialized Training Institute
CSWC California State Warning Center
CTD Communications and Technology Development Division (of OES) CUEA - California Utilities Emergency Association
CUPA - Certified Unified Program Agency
D
DAD - Disaster Assistance Division (of the state Office of Emergency Svcs) DFO - Disaster Field Office
DCPP - Diablo Canyon Power Plant
DGS - California Department of General Services
DGS-PD Dept General Services Procurement Division
DGS-TD Dept. General Services Telecommunications Division DHS Federal Department of Homeland Security
DHS-RHB - California Department of Health Services, Radiological Health Branch DMORT Disaster Mortality Assistance Team
DO - Duty Officer
DOC - Department Operations Center
DOD - Department of Defense
DOE - Department of Energy (U.S.)
DOF - California Department of Finance
DOJ - California Department of Justice
DPA - California Department of Personnel Administration DPH - Department of Public Health
DPIG - Disaster Preparedness Improvement Grant
DR - Disaster Response
DRCC - Disaster Recovery Center
DRCC Disaster Resistant California Conference
DSA - Division of the State Architect
DSR - Damage Survey Report
DSS - Department of Social Services
DSW - Disaster Service Worker
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Acronyms
Appendix B
Appendix B-3
DSTC CA Department of Toxic Substance Control
DWR - California Department of Water Resources
E - H
EAS - Emergency Alerting System
EDIS - Emergency Digital Information System
EDO - Executive Duty Officer
EERI - Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
EF - Emergency Function
EMA - Emergency Management Assistance
EMAC Emergency Management Assistance Compact
EMAP - Emergency Management Accreditation Program
EMI - Emergency Management Institute
EMMA - Emergency Managers Mutual Aid
EMPG Emergency Management Performance Grant
EMS - Emergency Medical Services
EO - Executive Order
EOC - Emergency Operations Center
EOP - Emergency Operations Plan
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)
EPEDAT - Early Post Earthquake Damage Assessment Tool
EPI - Emergency Public Information
EPIC - Emergency Public Information Council
ESC - Emergency Services Coordinator
ESF - Emergency Support Function
FAY - Federal Award Year
FCO Federal Coordinating Officer
FDAA - Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
FEAT -
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFY - Federal Fiscal Year
FIR - Final Inspection Reports
FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate maps
FIRESCOPE - Firefighting Resources of California Organized for Potential Emergencies
FMA - Flood Management Assistance
FMAG Fire Management Assistance Grant
FSA - Federal Staging Area
FSR - Feasibility Study Report
FY - Fiscal Year
GEOEC
GIS - Geographical Information System
GOAR
GO-BIZ - California Governor's Office of Business & Economic Development HAZMAT - Hazardous Materials
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Acronyms
Appendix B
Appendix B-4
HAZMIT - Hazard Mitigation
HAZUS - Hazards-United States (an earthquake damage assessment prediction tool) HCD - Housing and Community Development
HEICS - Hospital Emergency Incident Command System
HEPG - Hospital Emergency Planning Guidance
HIA - Hazard Identification & Analysis Unit
HMEP - Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness
HMGP - Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HSEEP Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program
I - O
IA - Individual Assistance
IAP - Incident Action Plan
IDE - Initial Damage Estimate
IC - Incident Commander
ICE - U.S. Immigration &Customs Enforcement
ICP Incident Command Post
ICS - Incident Command System
IFG - Individual & Family Grant (program)
IPA - Information and Public Affairs (of state Office of Emergency Services) IHP - Individuals & Households Program
IMAT - Incident Management Assistance Team
IND - Improvised Nuclear Device
IOF - Initial Operating Facility
IRG - Incident Response Geographic Information System
IRT Incident Response Team
JEOC Joint Emergency Operations Center
JFO Joint Field Office
JIC Joint Information Center
JIS - Joint Information System
JRIES Joint Regional Information Exchange System
LAC Local Assistance Center
LAN - Local Area Network
LEMA - Law Enforcement Mutual Aid
LEPC - Local Emergency Planning Committee
LEVS Law Enforcement and Victims Services Branch (of OES) MAC Group - Multiagency Coordination Group
MARAC - Mutual Aid Regional Advisory Council
MHID - Multi-hazard Identification
MHOAC - Medical Health Operational Area Coordinator
MOA - Memorandum of Agreement
MOU - Memorandum of Understanding
NBC - Nuclear, Biological, Chemical
NDRF - National Disaster Recovery Framework
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Acronyms
Appendix B
Appendix B-5
NEMA - National Emergency Management Agency
NEMIS - National Emergency Management Information System NFIP - National Flood Insurance Program
NGO - Non-Governmental Organization
NIMS - National Incident Management System
NIMSCAST - National Incident Management System Compliance Assistance Support Tool
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
NPP - Nuclear Power Plant
NRF - National Response Framework
NSF - National Science Foundation
NWS - National Weather Service
OA - Operational Area
OASIS - Operational Area Satellite Information System
OCC - Operations Coordination Center
OCD - Office of Civil Defense
OCJP Office of Criminal Justice Planning
OEP - Office of Emergency Planning
OES -
OHS Homeland Security
OPI Office of Public Information (of OES)
ORT - Operational Readiness Team
OSHPD - Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development OSPR - Oil Spill Prevention and Response
P - R
PA - Public Assistance
PC - Personal Computer
PDA - Preliminary Damage Assessment
PFO
Principle Federal Official
PIO - Public Information Officer
POD - Point of Distribution
POST - Police Officer Standards and Training
PPA/CA - Performance Partnership Agreement/Cooperative Agreement (FEMA) PRA Public Records Act
PSA - Public Service Announcement
PSC - Public Safety Communications (OES)
PSRSPC Public Safety Radio Strategic Planning Committee PSPS - Public Safety Power Shutoff
PTAB - Planning and Technological Assistance Branch
PTR - Project Time Report
PUC - Public Utilities Comission
RA - Regional Administrator (OES)
RADEF - Radiological Defense (program)
RAMP - Regional Assessment of Mitigation Priorities
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Acronyms
Appendix B
Appendix B-6
RAPID - Railroad Accident Prevention & Immediate Deployment RDD - Radiological Dispersal Device
RDMHS - Regional Disaster Medical Health Coordinator
RDO - Radiological Defense Officer
RDMHC - Regional Disaster Medical Health Coordinator
REOC - Regional Emergency Operations Center
REPI - Reserve Emergency Public Information
RES - Regional Emergency Staff
RIMS - Response Information Management System
RMP - Risk Management Plan
RPU - Radiological Preparedness Unit (OES)
RRCC - Regional Response Coordination Center
RRT - Regional Response Team
RSF - Recovery Support Function
RTTAC Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center
S - W
SA - Special Agent
SAA State Authorized Agency
SAM - State Administrative Manual
SAP - Safety Assessment Program
SAR - Search & Rescue
SARA - Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act
SAVP - Safety Assessment Volunteer Program
SBA - Small Business Administration
SCO -
SCO State Coordinating Officer
SEP - State Emergency Plan
SEMS - Standardized Emergency Management System
SEPIC - State Emergency Public Information Committee
SESC - Senior Emergency Services Coordinator
SHSGP State Homeland Security Grant Program
SITREP - Situation Report
SLA - State and Local Assistance
SOC - State Operations Center
SONGS - San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
SPR - Stakeholder Preparedness Review
SSA - Supervisory Special Agent
SSA - State Staging Area
STAC - State Threat Assessment Center
STTAC State Terrorism Threat Assessment Center
SWAT - Special Weapons & Tactics
SWEPC - Statewide Emergency Planning Committee
TA - Technical Assistance
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022
Acronyms
Appendix B
Appendix B-7
T&E Training and Exercise
TEC - Travel Expense Claim
THIRA - Threat Hazards & Identification Risk Assessment TICP Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan
TLO - Terrorism Liaison Officer
TRU - Transuranic
TTT - Train the Trainer
TTX - Tabletop Exercise
UASI - Urban Area Security Initiative
UC - Unified Command
UCG - Unified Coordination Group
UOC - Utilities Operations Center
UPA - Unified Program Account
UPS - Uninterrupted Power Source
USA - United States Army
USAF - United States Air Force
USBP - United States Border Patrol
USCG - United States Coast Guard
USDOT - United States Department of Transportation
USFS - United States Forest Service
USGAO - United States Government Accountability Office
USMC - United States Marine DCorps
USN - United States Navy
USAR - Urban Search and Rescue
USGS - United States Geological Survey
VAL - Volunteer Agency Liasion
VOAD - Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters
WAR Week Ahead Report
WAN - Wide Area Network
WIPP - Waste Isolation Pilot Project
WSCA - Western States Contracting Alliance
CITY OF ARCADIA
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX L
LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN