Glendale City Council
June 9, 2026

9.1.3.3 CONSERVATION PRICING
The City’s water rates structure includes a customer charge and a variable charge. The customer charge is based on meter size. The variable charge is based on usage and includes three tiers for single family custom ers and two tiers for multi-family customers.

The tiered rate structure was designed to encourage water conservation and discourage waste. The City’s water rates structure also includes a recycled water rate with reduced unit rates. The City’s water rates structure effectively promotes water conservation by providing financial incentives to its customers through the City's rate schedule. The City’s current rate structure showing conservation pricing is provided in Appendix J.

9.1.3.4 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
The City funds a number of water conser vation programs and activities. GWP’s public education coordinators work directly with other City divisions, community-based organizations, non-profits, and service club s on a variety of levels to disseminate information and increase awareness of water-related issues.

From the Source Newsletter
The GWP Communications Coordinator is the editor of a bi-monthly newsletter, “From the Source”. It is mailed directly to every cu stomer who receives a water and/or electric utility billing from GWP. Th is publication provides info rmation regarding conservation programs, and GWP news and servic es. This newsletter is also displayed on all City Departments’ public counters and past issues can be viewed on the GWP website.

Water Insight Program – Home Water Reports
GWP’s Water Insight Program encourages more water conservation among residential customers. The program provides a portal which gives customers the ability to view near real-time water usage, check for potential wate r leaks, sign up for water leak alerts, 798 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

compare your usage, and view water saving ti ps. A bi-monthly Home Water Report can also be provided which shows water usage ov er the past bill and how the customer compare to similar homes.

Drought Tolerant Demonstration Garden
To demonstrate techniques to achieve water use efficiency, GWP constructed a water- saving demonstration garden at the Downtown Central Library. The garden demonstrates the potential for water-saving landscaping by using water-wise plant and low-water using irrigation. To educate both business lead ers and the public, the garden has themed signage identifying plant names, plant requirements, and irrigation techniques. The plants used in the garden design are availa ble at local nurseries so that visitors can replicate it in their own yards.

Being Water Wise Contest
“Being Water Wise” is a student art contest sponsored by the City and MWD. Students from kindergarten to 12
th grade within the City are eligible to create artwork portraying the theme “Being Water Wise” for a chance to be featured in MWD’s annual calendar

City Website
The City’s website provides links to water conservation and water saving web pages. https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-water-and-power/about-your-water/water-conservation

9.1.3.5 PROGRAMS TO ASSESS AND MANAGE DISTRIBUTION

SYSTEM REAL LOSS
The City’s estimated water system losses ar e discussed in Section 4.3. As a part of normal operation and maintenance of the water system, City staff performs preventive maintenance. This includes regular checks on valves and meters, and pipeline maintenance. If leaks are encountered or su spected during routine inspection of the 799 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

system, further evaluation is conducted. If l eaks are found, they are repaired. The City monitors the water system for loss by comparing water production to water sales.

The City has an active Pipeline Management Program to pro-actively replace and rehabilitate water mains within its system. Additionally, GWP has a fully implemented an Asset Management Program that includes a GIS database where water main and service line breaks and replacements are tracked for future planning purposes.

In order to prevent real water loss before it starts, the City implemented a full Automated Metering Infrastructure Project (AMI). In 2010, the pr ogram included the installation of Itron Mlogonline Leak Water System, approximately every 5 meters throughout the City, that effectively monitors and manages distri bution leaks within a water distribution network. Itron’s acoustic leak sensors pl aced throughout a water distribution network allows for detecting existing or newly emerging leaks.

The City will continue these programs to assess and manage dist ribution system real losses.

9.1.3.6 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM COORDINATION AND

STAFFING SUPPORT
The City has trained its staff in water aw areness and to perform wa ter audits at meter locations where abnormal water consumption is noted through water billing meter reads.

City staff are responsible for the monitoring of conservation measures, as they oversee the metering and billing aspects. In addition, City staff are available to assist in all aspects of public education, conservation policies, research, and training related to water conservation.

800 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

9.1.3.7 OTHER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Rebate Programs
Rebate programs are available to the City ’s customers through MWD. MWD offers rebates to customers within their distribution te rritory through its “S oCal Water$mart” rebate program. Through MWD’s SoCal Water$mart, residential and commercial customers are eligible for rebates to help encourage water efficiency and conservation.

The SoCal Water$mart program offers r ebates on a wide variety of water-saving technologies including high efficiency clot hes washers and toilets. Rebates are also available for outdoor plumbing include thos e for weather-based irrigation controllers, rotating sprinkler nozzles, and replacement of irrigated lawn with drought tolerant plants or other approved landscape options.

Turf Replacement Program
Through the City’s Turf Replacement Program, homeowners are eligible to receive $3 per square foot rebate for replacing turf with drought tolerant and native plants, retrofitting to a drip/efficient irrigation system, and capturing rainwater (synthetic turf is not an approved conversion option for this progr am). Every turf replacement pr oject will include three (3) plants per 100 square feet of area transformed, A stormwat er retention feature, no hardscape within the transformed area, e xcept permeable hardscape, and replacement or modification of overhead spray sprinklers.

801 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

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 distri bution system asset management and wholesale supplier assistance programs.

The City is not a wholesale agency and is not required by DWR to complete Section 9.2.

802 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

CHAPTER 10

PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION

LAY DESCRIPTION – CHAPTER 10

PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION

Chapter 10 (Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementati on) of the City’s 2025 Plan discusses and provides the following:

 The steps the City has performed to adopt and submit its 2025 Plan are detailed  The steps the City has performed to adopt and submit its Water Shortage Contingency Plan are detailed
 The City coordinated the pr eparation of its 2025 Plan with the Cities of Burbank, Los Angeles, and Pasadena, Cr escenta Valley Water Dist rict, Foothill Municipal Water District, Valley Water Company, and the County of Los Angeles. 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.
 The City provided a notice of the publ ic hearing to the same agencies regarding the time, date, and place of the public hearing.
 The City published a news paper notification of the public hearing, once a week for two successive weeks
 The City conducted a public hearing to discuss and adopt the City’s 2025 Plan and City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
 Within 30 days of adoption, the City submitted the 2025 Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan to the California Department of Water Resources. 803 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

 Within 30 days of adoption, the City subm itted all data tables associated with the 2025 Plan to the California Department of Water Resources.  Within 30 days of adoption, the City subm itted a copy of the 2025 Plan to the State of California Library.
 Within 30 days of adoption, the City s ubmitted 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.
 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.  The steps the City will perform to am end 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 CY basis through December 31, 2025 (as discussed in Section 2.5).

NOTICE OF PLAN PREPARATION

CWC 10621.

(b) Every urban water supplier required to prepar e 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 review ing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan.

804 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

As discussed in Section 2.4.2., the City coordinated the preparation of the 2025 Plan with the Cities of Burbank, Los Angeles, and Pa sadena, Crescenta Valley Water District, Foothill Municipal Water District, Valley Water Company, and the County of Los Angeles.

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 heari ng to the Cities of Burbank, Los Angeles, and Pasadena, Crescenta Valley Water Distric t, Foothill Municipal Water District, Valley Water Company, and the County of Los Angeles. The notice includes the time and place of the public hearing. Copies of the notice of the public hearing are provided in Appendix D. Table 10-1 summarizes the agencies which were provided notifications by the City.

805 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

The City encouraged the active involvement of the population within its service area prior to and during the preparation of the Plan. Pursuant to Sect ion 6066 of the Government Code, the City published a notice of public hearing in the newspaper during the weeks of May 14, 2026 and May 21, 2026. A notice of public hearing was also provided to the City Clerk’s office and was posted throughout the City of Glendale 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 and made a copy available for review on its website.

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 continge ncy 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 contingen cy plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing or hearings.

Government Code Section 7291

…every local public agency… serving a substant ial number of non- English-Speaking people, shall employ a sufficient number of qualified bili ngual 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.

Prior to adopting the draft 2025 Plan and the draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan, the City held a public hearing on June 2, 2026 which included input from the community regarding the City’s draft 2025 Plan and the draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

806 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

Following the public hearing, the City adopted both the draft 2025 Plan and the draft Water Shortage Contingency Plan (inc luded in Chapter 8). A copy of the resolution adopting the 2025 Plan and the Water Shortage Contingency Plan is provided in Appendix K.

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.

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 we re submitted through DWR’s “Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Data Portal” website.

807 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

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.

SUBMITTING A UWMP, I NCLUDING 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 Ca lifornia 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

808 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

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.

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 c ontingency plan with the department, the urban water supplier and the depa rtment 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 Ci ty Clerk’s Office located at City Hall during normal business hours and on the City’s website. 809 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

NOTIFICATION TO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

CWC 10621.

(c) An urban water supp lier regulated by the Pub lic Utilities Commission sh all 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.

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.

810 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

(a)(1) Copies of amendments or changes to the plans shall be submitted to the department, the California State Library, and any city or coun ty 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 A 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 30 days of adoption, the amended Plan will t hen be submitted to DWR, the State of California Library, the County of Los Angeles Registrar / Recorders office, and the City Clerk’s Office.

SUBMITTING REVISED 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 wate r 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 (inc luding the Water Shortage Contingency Plan), the amended Plan (and Water Short age 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 subm itted to DWR, the State of California 811 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

Library, the County of Los A ngeles 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 DW R’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.

SUBMITTAL TABLES
The applicable standardized Submittal Tables referenced within Chapter 10 are provided below.

SUBMITTAL TABLE 10-1: NO TIFICATION TO CITIES AND

COUNTIES

812 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale

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)
Glendale Yes Yes
Burbank Yes Yes
Pasadena Yes Yes
Los Angeles 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:
813 of 1278

210
5 5
Magnolia Blvd Cahuenga
BlvdOxnard St
Lankershim
BlvdHollyw
ood
Fw
y
Hansen Dam
Golf Course
Fond
Wilderness
Preserve
Angeles Forest
Adjacent Open
SpaceHansen Dam
Park
La Tuna Canyon
Park
Hollywood
Burbank Airport
Burbank
CahuengaBlvd
W
Ventura Blvd
W Alameda Ave
2 210
210W
Glenoaks Blvd
Verdugo
Mountains Open
Space Preserve
San Rafael
Mountains Open
Space
Deukmejian
Wilderness Park
Wildwood
Canyon Park
La Cañada
Flintridge
Altadena
La
Crescenta-Montrose
2 S
Brand
Blvd
S tat e R oute 134
Griffith Park
South
Pasadena
Glendale Pasadena
2 N
Altadena
Dr
E Foothill Blvd
East Pasadena
East San
Gabriel
Document Path: J:\jn2948\CityofCerritosServiceBoundary_Updated2026.aprx CityofGlendora_WaterServiceArea

CITY OF GLENDALE

WATER SERVICE AREA
Ü
0 0.6 1.2
Miles
FIGURE 1
Water System Boundary
814 of 1278

210
5 5
Magn olia B lvd Cah
uenga B
lvdOxnar d St
Lankersh
im Blvd
Hollywood Fw
y
Hansen Dam
Golf Course
Fond
Wilderness
Preserve
Angeles Forest
Adjacent Open
SpaceHansen Dam
Park
La Tuna Canyon
Park
Hollywood
Burbank Airport
Burbank
Cahuen
gaBl
vd
W
Ve ntura Blvd
W Alame
da Av
e
2 210
210W G
leno
aks
Blvd
Verdugo
Mountains Open
Space Preserve
San Rafael
Mountains Open
Space
Deukmejian
Wilderness Park
Wildwood
Canyon Park
La Cañada
Flintridge
Altadena
La
Crescenta-Montrose
2 S B
rand
Blvd
S tat e R oute 134
Griffith Park
South
Pasadena
Glendale P asadena
2 N
Alta
den
a Dr
E Foot hill Blv d
East Pasadena
East San
Gabriel
Document Path: J:\jn2948\CityofCerritosServiceBoundary_Updated2026.aprx CityofGlendora_WaterServiceAreaandCityBoundaries

CITY OF GLENDALE

WATER SERVICE AREA AND CITY BOUNDARIES
Ü
0 0.6 1.2
Miles
FIGURE 2
City Boundary
Water System Boundary
815 of 1278

CITY

OF GLENDALE
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX A
DWR ST

ANDARDIZED SUBMITTAL TABLES

EXHIBIT B
816 of 1278

CA1910043 City of Glendale 36,074 22,977
36,074 22,977
Submittal Table 2-1 Retail: Public Water Systems
Add additional rows as needed
NOTES:

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.

Total
Public Water System
Number
Public Water System
Name
Number of Municipal
Connections 2025
817 of 1278

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.
818 of 1278

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).
01/01
DWR NOTES:

Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent
throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.

NOTES:
819 of 1278

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
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NOTES:
820 of 1278

2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050(opt)
189,562 194,327 199,212 201,046 202,897 204,765
Submittal Table 3-1 Retail: Population - Current and Projected Water Code Section 10631(a)
Population
Served
NOTES:
821 of 1278

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)
Drop down list
Volume (AF)
Single Family Potable 8,088
Multi-Family Potable 8,358
Commercial Potable 3,236
Industrial Potable 329
Institutional/Governmental Potable 327
Landscape Potable 559
Landscape Recycled Water Non-Potable 1,260
Other (optional) Potable 45
Distribution System Water Loss Potable 775
21717
1260
22,977Total
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)
822 of 1278

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)
Drop down list
2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF) 2050 opt (AF)
Single Family Potable 8,442 8,654 8,734 8,814 8,895
Multi-Family Potable 8,724 8,943 9,026 9,109 9,193
Commercial Potable 3,378 3,462 3,494 3,527 3,559
Industrial Potable 343 352 355 358 362
Institutional/Governmental Potable 341 350 353 356 360
Landscape Potable 583 598 604 609 615
Landscape Recycled Water Non-Potable 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Other (optional) Potable 47 48 48 49 49
Distribution System Water Loss Potable 809 830 837 845 853 22,667 23,237 23,451 23,667 23,886
1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
24,167 24,737 24,951 25,167 25,386
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
823 of 1278

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. 824 of 1278

Public Water System ID #
Reported in Table 2-1 R Reporting Period
Submitted to DWR Water
Loss Audit Program
(yes/no)
2020 Yes
2021 Yes
2022 Yes
2023 Yes
2024 Yes
Submittal Table 4-5 Retail: Water Loss Audit Reporting
Water Code Section 10631(d)(3)(A)
CA1910043
DWR NOTES: Suppliers will provide a link to the WUEdata submittals of their Water Loss Audit Reports.

NOTES:

Report submittal status for all five years for each Public Water System as available.

Add rows as needed
825 of 1278

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)
CA1910043 Yes 14.3
Gallons per
Service
Connection per
Day (GPSCD)
34216 1305.234 34.1 5.8
Gallons per
Service
Connection per
Day (GPSCD)
34216 163.522 4.3
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:

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
826 of 1278

Actual 2025 GPCD
(From SB X7-7
Compliance Form)
Did Supplier meet
the 2020 Target in
2025?
No Individual
Target 137 104 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?
Drop 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.

NA=Not Applicable
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?
827 of 1278

Groundwater Type
Drop Down List
May use each category
multiple times
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 San Fernando Basin 7698 6725 6941 7183 7185 Alluvial Basin Potable Verdugo Basin 836 778 516 156 0
8,534 7,503 7,457 7,339 7,185
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) 828 of 1278

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
Glendale Department of
Public Works Estimated 14,700 Los Angeles-Glendale
WWRP, Place ID 235738 Yes
14,700
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
829 of 1278

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
Los Angeles-Glendale
WWRP, Place ID No 14700 14700 Tertiary 1,260
14,700 14,700 1,260 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 selected 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)
830 of 1278

Volume Narrative page number
(OPTIONAL)
Landscape irrigation (exc golf
courses) Non-Potable 1259 1498 1498 1498 1498 1498
Golf course irrigation Non-Potable 1 2 2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,260 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0
1260 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 0 0Total
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 selected 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
Check box if recycled water is not used and is not planned for use within the service area of the supplier. The supplier will only 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) :
831 of 1278

2020 Projection
for 2025 (AF)
2025 Actual
Use (AF)
1,505 1259
407 1
1,912 1,260
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
Golf course irrigation
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
Landscape irrigation (exc golf courses)
832 of 1278

Section 6.2.5
Name of Action Description Expected Increase in Recycled Water Use (AF)
Retrofits Retrofit landscape irrigation systems 120
Recycled Water
Distribution System
Expansion
Expand existing reycycled water distribution
system 120
240
240
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
Ongoing
Ongoing
833 of 1278

Section 6.2.10
Drop Down
List
(yes/no)
If Yes, Supplier Name
Construction of
Additional
Groundwater Wells
No
Construction of
additional groundwater
wells in the San
Fernando Basin
Potable Ongoing All Year Types 2,000 AFY for
each well
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 agency'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
834 of 1278

Water Supply
Drop down list
May use each category multiple
times. These are the only water
supply categories that will be
recognized by the WUEdata online
submittal tool
Potable or Non-Potable
(after treatment if treated)
(OPTIONAL)
Drop Down list
Actual Volume
(AF)
Total Entitlement
(OPTIONAL)
See 'DWR Notes'
below (AF)
Groundwater (not desalinated) San Fernando Basin Potable 7,185 Groundwater (not desalinated) Verdugo Basin Potable 0
Purchased or Imported Water MWD Potable 14,532
Recycled Water Non-Potable 1,260
21,717 0
1,260 0
22,977 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)
835 of 1278

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)
San
Fernando
Basin
Potable 7,667 8,237 8,451 8,667 8,886
Groundwater (not
desalinated)
Verdugo
Basin Potable 0 0 0 0 0
Purchased or Imported MWD Potable 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Recycled Water Non-Potable 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 22,667 0 23,237 0 23,451 0 23,667 0 23,886 0
1,500 0 1,500 0 1,500 0 1,500 0 1,500 0
24,167 0 24,737 0 24,951 0 25,167 0 25,386 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
May use each category
multiple times. These are the
only water supply categories
that will be recognized 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. 836 of 1278

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 1/1/2025
End Date of Reporting Period 12/31/2025
Is upstream embedded energy in the values reported? No
Units of Measure for Water AF Total Utility
See DWR NOTES Hydropower Net Utility
21,717 21,717 12,132,121 12,132,121 1,714 - 1,714 Quantity of Self-Generated Renewable Energy
0 kWh
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 consumed includes electricity usage for general administration (which is not an identified water management process), general administration energy 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 (excluding 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 deliver water in the distribution system. Energy consumption is associated with operating groundwater water treatment. Energy consumption is also associated with plant lighting and air conditioning, and operating the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system and chlorination injection pumps.

Volume of Water Entering Process
Energy Consumed (kWh)
Energy Intensity (kWh/vol. converted to MG)
837 of 1278

% of Average Supply
Average Year 2020 100%
Single-Dry Year 2017 98.4%
Consecutive Dry Years 1st Year 2011 108.1%
Consecutive Dry Years 2nd Year 2012 112.7%
Consecutive Dry Years 3rd Year 2013 115.6%
Consecutive Dry Years 4th Year 2014 110.7%
Consecutive Dry Years 5th Year 2015 95.6%
25547
25148
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.
27623
28789
NOTES:
29520
28269
24421
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 versions of Submittal Table 7-1 R, in the "Note" section of each submittal table, state that multiple versions of Submittal 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. 838 of 1278

2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF) 2050 (AF)
Supply totals
(autofill from Submittal
Table 6-9 R)
24,167 24,737 24,951 25,167 25,386
Use totals
(autofill from Submittal
Table 4-2 R)
24,167 24,737 24,951 25,167 25,386
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.
839 of 1278

Supply totals 23,790 24,351 24,562 24,774 24,990
Use totals 23,790 24,351 24,562 24,774 24,990
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)
840 of 1278

2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF) 2050 (AF)
Supply totals 26,131 26,747 26,979 27,212 27,449
Use totals 26,131 26,747 26,979 27,212 27,449
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 27,234 27,876 28,117 28,361 28,608
Use totals 27,234 27,876 28,117 28,361 28,608
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 27,925 28,584 28,831 29,081 29,334
Use totals 27,925 28,584 28,831 29,081 29,334
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 26,742 27,373 27,609 27,848 28,091
Use totals 26,742 27,373 27,609 27,848 28,091
Surplus/(shortfall) 0 0 0 0 0
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
Supply totals 23,102 23,647 23,851 24,058 24,267
Use totals 23,102 23,647 23,851 24,058 24,267
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
841 of 1278

2026 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 25,101
Total Supplies (AF) 27,623
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 2,522
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF)
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2027 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 26,429
Total Supplies (AF) 28,789
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 2,360
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF)
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2028 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 27,375
Total Supplies (AF) 29,520
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 2,145
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF)
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2029 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 26,479
Total Supplies (AF) 28,269
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 1,790
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF)
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2030 Total
Total Water Use (AF) 23,102
Total Supplies (AF) 24,421
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action 1,319
WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF)
WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF)
Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
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)
842 of 1278

Standard
Shortage
Levels
Percent
Shortage Range
Suppliers
Shortage
Levels
Percent
Shortage
Range
1 Up to 10% 1 Up to 10%
2 Up to 20% 2 Up to 20%
3 Up to 30% 3 Up to 30%
4 Up to 40% 4 Up to 40%
5 Up to 50% 5 Up to 50%
6 >50% 5 Up to 50%
Submittal Table 8-1: Cross-reference for Standard vs
Supplier Shortage Levels
Water Code Section 10632(a)(3)(B)
Check the box if the Supplier uses the
Standard six levels of water shortage.

Proceed to the next table.

NOTES:
843 of 1278

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 San Fernando 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 are the only categories that will
be accepted by the WUEdata online
submittal tool
Additional Explanation or Reference
(OPTIONAL)
844 of 1278

Yes
Volume or
Percentage
Drop down
Shortage Gap
Reduction Value
(May be a range)
(AF)
1 Other - Prohibit use of potable
water for washing hard surfaces Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,670 AFY
Yes
1 Landscape - Restrict or prohibit
runoff from landscape irrigation Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,670 AFY
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 1,670 AFY
No filling of exterior fountains or water
features, except for City water play features. 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 1,670 AFY
72 hours Yes
1 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific times Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,670 AFY
No irrigation between 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Yes
1 Other - Prohibit vehicle washing
except at facilities using recycled or
recirculating water
Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,670 AFY
Yes
1 Other - Prohibit use of potable
water for construction and dust
control
Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,670 AFY
Yes
1 CII - Restaurants may only serve
water upon request Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,670 AFY
Yes
1 CII - Lodging establishment must
offer opt out of linen service Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 1 actions is up
to 1,670 AFY
Yes
2 Other Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 2 actions is up
to 3,339 AFY
All actions under Shortage Level 1 Yes
2 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific times Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 2 actions is up
to 3,339 AFY
Limited to 10 minutes per day Yes
2 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific days Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 2 actions is up
to 3,339 AFY
Limited to Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays Yes
2 Landscape - Prohibit certain types
of landscape irrigation Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 2 actions is up
to 3,339 AFY
No new or retrofit landscaping or turf planting
requiring potable water irrigation services Yes
3 Other Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 3 actions is up
to 5,009 AFY
All actions under Shortage Level 2 Yes
3 Other water feature or swimming
pool restriction Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 3 actions is up
to 5,009 AFY
Limit City water play features to no more than 5
hours per day. Yes
3 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific times Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 3 actions is up
to 5,009 AFY
Limited to 10 minutes per day Yes
3 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific days Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 3 actions is up
to 5,009 AFY
Limited to Tuesdays and Saturdays 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
These are the only categories that will
be accepted by the WUEdata online
submittal tool. Select those that apply.

Additional Explanation or Reference
(OPTIONAL)
Penalty, Charge,
or Other
Enforcement?
For Retail Suppliers
Only
Drop Down List
845 of 1278

4 Other Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 4 actions is up
to 6,679 AFY
All actions under Shortage Level 3 Yes
4 Water Features - Restrict water use
for decorative water features, such
as fountains
Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 4 actions is up
to 6,679 AFY
No filling of exterior fountains or water features
with potable water Yes
4 Other water feature or swimming
pool restriction Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 4 actions is up
to 6,679 AFY
No filling lakes or ponds with potable water Yes
4 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific times Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 4 actions is up
to 6,679 AFY
Limited to 15 minutes per day Yes
4 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific days Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 4 actions is up
to 6,679 AFY
Limited to Saturdays Yes
5 Other Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 5 actions is up
to 8,349 AFY
All actions under Shortage Level 4 Yes
5 Water Features - Restrict water use
for decorative water features, such
as fountains
Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 5 actions is up
to 8,349 AFY
No filling of exterior or interior fountains or
water features with potable water Yes
5 Other water feature or swimming
pool restriction Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 5 actions is up
to 8,349 AFY
Limit City water play features to no more than 4
hours per day. Yes
5 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific times Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 5 actions is up
to 8,349 AFY
Limited to 20 minutes per day Yes
5 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific days Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 5 actions is up
to 8,349 AFY
Limited to 1st and 3rd Saturdays Yes
6 Other Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 6 actions is
greater than 8,349
AFY
All actions under Shortage Level 5 Yes
6 Water Features - Restrict water use
for decorative water features, such
as fountains
Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 6 actions is
greater than 8,349
AFY
No filling of exterior or interior fountains or
water features with potable water Yes
6 Other water feature or swimming
pool restriction Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 6 actions is
greater than 8,349
AFY
Limit City water play features to no more than 4
hours per day. Yes
6 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific times Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 6 actions is
greater than 8,349
AFY
Limited to 20 minutes per day Yes
6 Landscape - Limit landscape
irrigation to specific days Volume
Collective reduction
from all Shortage
Level 6 actions is
greater than 8,349
AFY
Limited to 1st and 3rd Saturdays Yes
NOTES:

DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. 846 of 1278

City Name 60 Day Notice
Drop Down (yes/no)
Notice of Public
Hearing
Drop Down (yes/no)
Glendale Yes Yes
Burbank Yes Yes
Pasadena Yes Yes
Los Angeles 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:
847 of 1278

CITY OF GLENDALE
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX B

COMPLETED PLAN CHECKLIST

848 of 1278

Retail
(x = required)
Wholesale
(x = required
)
Order 2025 Guidebook Location Water Code Section 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. Plan 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 water 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 water 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 projections. 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
849 of 1278

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. System 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 readily 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 WSCP. Water shortage contingency planning n/a Section 8.6
850 of 1278

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 electronically. 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
851 of 1278

CITY OF GLENDALE
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX C

DEMONSTRATION OF REDUCED DELTA RELIANCE
852 of 1278

C-1

DEMONSTRATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE DELTA PLAN FOR

PARTICIPANTS IN COVERED ACTIONS
(2015 THROUGH 2050)

CITY OF GLENDALE

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, and 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 853 of 1278

C-2

efficiency is considered a new source of water supply, consistent with Water Code section 1011(a).

The City of Glendale (the City) is member sub-agency of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). As noted 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 854 of 1278

C-3

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.

855 of 1278

C-4

Since the Baseline year, the City has decreased its reduced regional 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:

 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 populations in these subsequent years is indicative of the potential reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies and is included in Table C-1.
 The recycled water use from 2015 through 2050, in five-year increments, also demonstrates reduced regional reliance on imported water supplies and 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 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 6.2.1 of the 2025 UWMP describes the City’s purchases of imported water. The City can purchase treated imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Chapter 9 of the 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 Upper Los Angeles River Area 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 856 of 1278

C-5

measures taken by the City, it is anticipated there may have been a greater demand on imported water.

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 2010. Table C-1 summarizes the “Baseline” water usage by the City in 2010 (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 2009 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 2010, 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, and 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 Use
857 of 1278

C-6

The City has also constructed infrastructure to deliver recycled water to its customers instead of continuing to use its potable water supplies. The historical recycled water demands for 2015, 2020, and 2025, along with the projected recycled water demands (2025 UWMP Table 4-2) are incorporated in Table C-1. These quantities are in addition to the reduced demand resulting from decreased GPCD.

The decrease in GPCD and increase in recycled water use compared to the Baseline year has resulted in an overall decrease in regional reliance on imported water supplies.

As shown in Table C-4, the percentage of 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.

858 of 1278

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
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Service Area Water Demands with Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 27,081 24,421 25,547 22,977 24,167 24,737 24,951 25,167 25,386 Non-Potable Water Demands 1,537 1,598 1,811 1,260 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Potable Service Area Demands with Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 25,544 22,823 23,736 21,717 22,667 23,237 23,451 23,667 23,886 Total Service Area Population Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Service Area Population 198,903 196,682 202,831 189,562 194,327 199,212 201,046 202,897 204,765 Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Per Capita Water Use (GPCD) 115 104 104 102 104 104 104 104 104 Change in Per Capita Water Use from Baseline (GPCD) (11) (10) (12) (11) (11) (11) (11) (11) Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline 2,436 2,312 2,628 2,289 2,347 2,368 2,390 2,411 Table C-2: Calculation of Service Area Water Demands Without Water Use Efficiency Total Service Area Water Demands
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Service Area Water Demands with Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 27,081 24,421 25,547 22,977 24,167 24,737 24,951 25,167 25,386 Reported Water Use Efficiency or Estimated Water Use Efficiency Since Baseline 2,436 2,312 2,628 2,289 2,347 2,368 2,390 2,411 Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 27,081 26,856 27,859 25,604 26,456 27,084 27,319 27,557 27,797 Table C-3: Calculation of 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
(Optional)
Water Use Efficiency - 2,436 2,312 2,628 2,289 2,347 2,368 2,390 2,411 Water Recycling 1,537 1,598 1,811 1,260 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Stormwater Capture and Use
Advanced Water Technologies
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 1,537 4,033 4,123 3,888 3,789 3,847 3,868 3,890 3,911 Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency (Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 27,081 26,856 27,859 25,604 26,456 27,084 27,319 27,557 27,797 Change in Regional Self Reliance
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 1,537 4,033 4,123 3,888 3,789 3,847 3,868 3,890 3,911 Change in Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 2,496 2,586 2,351 2,252 2,310 2,331 2,353 2,374 Percent Change in Regional Self Reliance
(As Percent of Demand w/out WUE)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Percent of Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 5.7% 15.0% 14.8% 15.2% 14.3% 14.2% 14.2% 14.1% 14.1% Change in Percent of Water Supplies Contributing to Regional Self-Reliance 9.3% 9.1% 9.5% 8.6% 8.5% 8.5% 8.4% 8.4% Table C-4: Calculation of Reliance on Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 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 (Treated)1 15,873 14,726 15,476 14,532 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Total Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 15,873 14,726 15,476 14,532 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency (Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Service Area Water Demands without Water Use Efficiency Accounted For 27,081 26,856 27,859 25,604 26,456 27,084 27,319 27,557 27,797 Change in Supplies from the Delta Watershed
(Acre-Feet)
Baseline
(2010) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(Optional)
Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 15,873 14,726 15,476 14,532 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Change in Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed (1,147) (397) (1,341) (873) (873) (873) (873) (873) 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
(Optional)
Percent of Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed 58.6% 54.8% 55.6% 56.8% 56.7% 55.4% 54.9% 54.4% 54.0% Change in Percent of Water Supplies from the Delta Watershed -3.8% -3.1% -1.9% -1.9% -3.2% -3.7% -4.2% -4.6% 1 Represents treated imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 859 of 1278

Appendix 10

QUANTIFYING REGIONAL SELF-RELIANCE AND

REDUCED RELIANCE ON WATER SUPPLIES FROM THE

DELTA WATERSHED
Attachment 1
860 of 1278

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 w ould 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.
861 of 1278

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 Agricu ltural 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 im plementation, 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.
862 of 1278

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
 Near-term (2030) – Normal water year region al 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).
 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  Near-term (2030) – Normal water year re liance 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).  Long-term (2050) – Normal water year relia nce 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 863 of 1278

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:
 All data were obtained from the current 2025 UWMP or previously adopted UWMPs and represent average or normal water year conditions.
 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.  No projects or programs that are de scribed 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.

864 of 1278

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:
 Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 200 5 UWMP, Table 2-6: Metropolitan Regional Water Demand Average Year
 2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, Table 2-8: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
 2020 values – Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
 2025 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Normal Water Year
 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 865 of 1278

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 316,000 348,000 436,000 550,0 00 520,000 608,000 641,000 648,000 656,000 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 866 of 1278

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:
 Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 200 5 UWMP, Table 2-6: Metropolitan Regional Water Demand Average Year
 2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, Table 2-8: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
 2020 values – Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Average Year
 2025 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, Table 2-3: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Normal Water Year
 2030-2050 values – Metropolitan’s 2025 UWMP, Table 2-1: Metropolitan Regional Water Demands Normal Water Year
867 of 1278

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:
 Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 200 5 UWMP, Table A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Year 2010 (Average Year)  2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, T able A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Year 2015 (Average Year)
 2020 values – Metropolitan's 2015 UWMP, T able A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Year 2020 (Average Year)
 2025 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, T able A.3-7: Maximum Expected Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries Year 2025 (Normal Water Year)  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. 868 of 1278

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% 869 of 1278

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:
 Baseline (2010) values – Metropolitan’s 200 5 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2010 (Average Year)
 2015 values – Metropolitan’s 2010 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2015 (Average Year)
 2020 values – Metropolitan’s 2015 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2020 (Average Year)
 2025 values – Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP, Table A.3-7: California Aqueduct Program Capabilities Year 2025 (Normal Water Year)
 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.
870 of 1278

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.

871 of 1278

CITY OF GLENDALE
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX D

60-DAY NOTIFICATION LETTERS
872 of 1278

873 of 1278

874 of 1278

875 of 1278

876 of 1278

877 of 1278

878 of 1278

879 of 1278

880 of 1278

CITY OF GLENDALE
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX E

CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS (CAL- ADAPT
DATA)
881 of 1278

Annual Averages https://cmip5.cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages 1 of 5 3/19/2026, 10:50 AM
882 of 1278

Annual Averages https://cmip5.cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages 2 of 5 3/19/2026, 10:50 AM
883 of 1278

Annual Averages https://cmip5.cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages 3 of 5 3/19/2026, 10:50 AM
884 of 1278

885 of 1278

Annual Averages https://cmip5.cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages 5 of 5 3/19/2026, 10:50 AM
886 of 1278

Annual Averages https://cmip5.cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages 1 of 5 3/19/2026, 10:47 AM
887 of 1278

Annual Averages https://cmip5.cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages 2 of 5 3/19/2026, 10:47 AM
888 of 1278

Annual Averages https://cmip5.cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages 3 of 5 3/19/2026, 10:47 AM
889 of 1278

890 of 1278

Annual Averages https://cmip5.cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages 5 of 5 3/19/2026, 10:47 AM
891 of 1278

CITY OF GLENDALE
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX F

COURT JUDGMENT ON GROUNDWATER RIGHTS IN

THE SAN FERNANDO AND VERDUGO BASINS
892 of 1278

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE CITY OF LOS AL'lGELES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) NO. 650079
vs. )
)
CITY OF SAL'l FE RNAH DO , et al.. )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
JUDGHEtlT
January 26, 1979
893 of 1278

1 2
3 4'
5 6
7 8 1
12 13
14 15
16 !
ji
17 'I
II
ORiGINAL FILm
JAN::~G'-,'~
lC:::, : Coc.COR.;X c"uo:):,,~

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
--------------~-----------)
No. 650079

JUDGMENT
18 Ii There follows by consecutive paging a Table of Contents ii
19 II (pages i. to vi.), Recitals (page 1), Definitions and , 20 i' List of Attachments (pages 1 to 6), Designation of Parties i!
21 I (page 6), Declaration re Geology and Hydrology (pages 6 22 to 12), Declaration of Rights (pages 12 to 21), Injunc- 23 tions (pages 21 to 23), Continuing Jurisdiction (page 23), 24 Watermaster (pages 23 to 29), Physical Solution (pages 29 I
25! to 34), and Miscellaneous Provisions (pages 34 to 35), ,
26: and Attachments (pages 36 to 46). Each and all of said 27 several parts constitute a single integrated ~udgment 28 herein.
894 of 1278

1 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
3 1. RECITALS. . . . . . • • • •
41 2. DEFINITIONS AND ATTACHMENTS
I
5 6'
71 I 3.
8!
i
911
I·
10 11
4 .
11'
12 13
14 15
16 1711
I!
18 1!
HI!
20 21
22 23
24 25
261
; ,
28: 1 S.

2.1 Definitions of Terms

2.2 List of Attachments

PARTIES

3.1 Defaulting and Disclaiming Defendants

3.2 No Rights Other Than as Herein Declared

DECLARATION RE GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY

4.1 Geology.

4.1.1 ULARA

4.1.2 San Fernando Basin •

4.1.3 Sylmar Basin

4.1.4 Verdugo Basin

4.1.5 Eagle Rock Basin

4.2 Hydrology ....

4.2.1 Water Supply

4.2.2 Ground Water Ilovement

4.2.3 Separate Ground Water Basins

4.2.4 Safe Yield and Native Safe Yield

4.2.5 Separate Basins -- Separate Rights

4.2.6 Hydrologic condition of Basins

4.2.6.1 San Fernando Basin

4.2.6.2 Sylmar Basin

4.2.6.3 Verdugo Basin

4.2.6.4 Eagle Rock Basin

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
i.

Pacre ._-"-
1 1
1 5
6 o
6 6
7 8
9 .lJ..
11 895 of 1278

I
1 2
11 12
131
141
151
16 1
i
17 18
19 22
23 24
I
25 !
261i
27 I
" "
28 :i
11 5.1 Right to Native v/aters ........ .

5.2 5.1.1 Los Angeles River and San Fernando Basin

5.1.1.1 Los Angeles' Pueblo Right

5.1.1.2 Extent of Pueblo Right

5.1.1.3 Pueblo Right -- Nature and
Priority of Exercise

5.1.1.4 Rights of Other Parties

5.1.2 Sylmar Basin Rights

5.1.2.1 No Pueblo Rights

5.1.2.2 Overlying Rights

5.1.2.3 Appropriative Rights of San
Fernando and Los Angeles

5.1.2.4 No Prescription

5.1.2.5 Other Parties

5.1.3 Verdugo Basin Rights.

5.1.3.1 No Pueblo Rights

5.1.3.2 Prescriptive Rights of Glendale
and Crescenta Valley

5.1.3.3 Other Parties.

5.1.4 Eagle Rock Basin Rights

5.1.4.1 No Pueblo Rights

5.1.4.2 No Rights in Native Waters
Rights to Imported Ivaters

5.2.1 San Fernando Basin Rights

5.2.1.1 5.2.1.2
Rights to Recapture Import Return
II/a ter
Rights to Store and Recapture
Stored \>later .
ii.
12 12
13 13
13 14
14 14
14 14
15 15
15 15
l5
15 16
16 16
16 16
16 16
896 of 1278

I
I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 :1
811 ,I
9[i ,I
10 Ii
nl
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 6 .
23 24
25 Ii
"
261: ,.

I
27 L
i
281;
~ i ., .,

5.2.1.3 Calculation of Import Return
Water and Stored Water Credits 17

5.2.1.4 Cummulative Import Return
Water Credits ..

5.2.1.5 Overextractions .

5.2.1.6 Private Defendant

5.2.2 Sylmar Basin Rights

5.2.2.1 Rights to Recapture Import
Return l'laters
~
- . . .

5.2.2.2 Rights to Store and Recapture
Stored Water

5.2.2.3 Carry Over

5.2.2.4 Private Defendants

5.2.3 Verdugo Basin Rights ....

5.2.3.1 Glendale and Crescenta Valley

5.2.3.2 Los Angeles ....

5.2.3.3 Private Defendants

5.2.4 Eagle Rock Basin Rights

5.2.4.1 Los Angeles ..

5.2.4.2 Private Defendants

DI,TUNCTIONS

6.1 Each and Every Defendant
G.2 Each and Every Private Defendant

6.3 Defaulting and Disclaiming Parties

6.4 Glendale

6.5 Burbank

6.6 San Fernando
iii.
18 18
18 19
19 19
19 20
20 20
20 20
20 20
21 21
21 21
21 21
22 22
897 of 1278

1 2 6.7 Crescenta Valley 22
:3 6.8 Los Angeles 22
41 51 7 .

6.9 Non-Consumptive and Hinimal Consumptive Use Parties 22 CONTINUING JURISDICTION . . 23
6 1
71 8.

7.1 Jurisdiction Reserved
WATER11.l\STER . . .
23 23
811 ,8.1 Designation and Appointment 23
9 ii Ii 8.1.1 v,a termaster Appointment 23
10H - If
111

8.2 Powers and Duties

8.2.1 Scope
24 24
12 8.2.2 Requirement for Reports, Information and
13 Records 24
14 8.2.3 Requirement of Measuring Devices 24
15 8.2.4 Inspection by Watermaster 24
16 8.2.5 Policies and Procedures 24
17 8.2.6 Data Collection 25
18 i I
I

8.2.7 Cooperation With Other Agencies 25
19,1
"

8.2.8 Accounting for Non-consumptive Use 25
201 1 8.2.9 Accounting for l\ccumulated Import Retclrn
211: i Water and Stored Water 25
22 8.2.10 Recalculation of Safe Yield 26
23 8.2.11 Watermaster Report 26
24 8.2.12 Active Party List 26
25 8.3 Administrative Committee 26
26 8.3.1 Committee to be Formed 26
I,
I'
27 i 8.3.2 Organization and Voting 27
I
281
I

8.3.3 Function and Powers 27
iv.
898 of 1278

1 2 8.4 I'latermaster Budget and Assessments 27
3 8.4.1 Ivatermaster' s Proposed Budget 27
411 8.4.2 Objections and Review 28
5 I 8.4.3 Notice of Assessment 28
6 8.4.4 Payment 28
7 1
!I
8" " !I

8.5 Review of l'latermaster Activities

8.5.1 Review Procedures
28 911 I 1011

8.5.1.1 Noticed Hotion

8.5.1.2 De Novo Nature of Proceedings 28
1 11 8.S.1.3 Decision 29
12 9. PHYSICAL SOLUTION 29
13 9.1 Circumstances Indicating Need for Physical Solution 29 14 9.2 Prior Stipulated Judgment .. 29
15 i
I! 16 11

9.2.1 Eagle RocK Basin Parties
9~2.2 Non-Consumptive or r1inimal-Consum?t.i 1]'::)
30 171:

I, Opera tions . . 3.')
lsi! 9.2.3 Abandoned Operations j..L.
19 1:
!'

9.3 Private Defendants 01
-' .~
201
211 9.3.2 Reports and Accounting
22 Q.3.3 Payment
23 9.3.3.1 Los Angeles 32
24 9.3.3.2 Glendale or Burbank
25 9.4 Glendale and Burbank
26 9.S San Pernando
27 ' 9.6 Effective Date
28 10. 11ISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
I v.
899 of 1278

1 2 10.1 Designation of Address for Notice and Service
3 10.2 Notice of Change in Hydrologic Condition--
4 5
6 7
81 ti
Sylmar Basin .. . . .. . .

10.3 Judgment Binding on Successors

10.4 Costs . . . . . . .. . .. .. ..

ATTACHMENTS
9il "A" -- Map entitled "Upper Los Angeles River Area", !,
10li h
11' "B"
12 "e"
13 "D"
14 "E"
15 "Fit
16 showing separate basins therein
List of "Dismissed Parties"
List of "Defaulted Parties"
List of "Disclaiming Parties
List of "Prior Stipulated Judgment"
List of "Stipulated Non-consumptive or Hinimal-
consumptive Use Practices"
17 "G" -- Map entitled "Place of Use and Service Area of 18 Private Defendants" .. . .. . .. .. .
34 35
35 35
36 37
39 41
42 43
45 19 "H" -- ~\ap entitled "Public .1l.gency Water Service Areas" 46 20 21
22 23
24 25 I
I
I!
26 j:
i' 27 :'
28 II
j' il
:1
vi.
900 of 1278

1 2
3 [I
II
4 il
51,
611 II
711
8 :i
I
9 Ii
" ;1
10"
nil
12 'I
13 II
14 I
15 it
" iI
16 !i
17 "
18 'i
I' ,I
19 ;i
I,
20 :
"
21 i;
i'
221i
I'
23 il II
'I
24 1
1 I'
25 11
;
26'
27 "

1. RECITALS
This matter was originally tried before the Honorable Edmund M. Moor, without jury, commencing on March 1, 1966, and concluding wi th entry of Findings, Conc lusions and ,Tudgment on Harch 14, 1968, after more than 181 trial days. Los Angeles appealed from said judgment and the California Supreme Court, by unanimous opinion, (14 Cal. 3d 199) reversed and remanded the case; after trial of some remaining issues on remand, and consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court, and pursuant to stipulations, the Court signed and filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Good cause thereby appearing,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

2. DEFINITIONS AND ATTACHMENTS

2.1 Definitions of Terms. As used in this Judgment, the following terms shall have the meanings herein set forth:
[lJ Basi~ or Ground ;'iater Basin -- A subsurface geo-
logic formation with defined boundary conditions, containing a ground water reservoir, which is capahle of yielding a sig- nificant quantity of ground water.
[2J Burbank Defendant City of Burbank.
[3J Crescenta Vallez -- Defendant Crescenta Valley
County Water District.
[4J Colorado Aqueduct -- The aqueduct facilities and
system owned and operated by MWD for the importation of water from the Colorado River to its service area.
[5J Deep Rock -- Defendant Evelyn r1. Pendleton, dba
28,i Deep Rock Artesian Water Company.

Ii Ii
['I' -I-
ii
901 of 1278

1 2
3 [6] Delivered Water -- Water utilized in a water supply distribution system, including reclaimed water.
[7] Eagle Rock Basin -- The separate ground water basin i,
4 II underlying the area shown as such on Attachment "A".

I
51 [8J Extract or Extraction -- To produce ground water, 6 or its production, by pumping or any other means.
7 :1 [9J Fiscal Year July 1 through June 30 of the
if 8 Ii following calendar year. ii
[10] Foremost -- Defendant Foremost Foods COMpany,
successor to defendant Sparkletts Drinking Water Corp.
[llJ Forest Lawn -- Collectively, defendants Forest
Lawn Cemetery Association, Forest Lawn Company, Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association, and American Security and Fidelity Corporation.
[12 J Gage F-S7 -- The surface stream gaging station
16 il operated by Los Angeles County Flood Control District and 17i situated in Los Angeles Narrows immediately upstream from the intersection of the Los Angeles River and Arroyo Seco, at which pOint the surface outflow from ULARA is measured. 20" [13] Glendale -- Defendant City of Glendale.
21 il [14] Ground l"iater -- l"iater beneath the surface of the i:
22 iI ground and wi thin the zone of saturation.
i
23 II [lSJ Hersch & Plumb -- Defendants David and Eleanor A. 24 Iii, Hersch and Gerald B. and Lucille Plumb, successors to " II
25 Ii Wellesley and Duckworth defendants.
il
26,' [16] Import Return Water -- Ground water derived from 27 " percolation attributable to delivered imported water. 28 1
I
[17J Imported Water -- Water used wiJ:hin ULARA, which
,I
II -2-
902 of 1278

1 2
3 4
5 6.
7 1
81,
gl
10 I I
11 12
13 14
15 16
1 171
~: I
20 II
!
21 i
22 23
24 25
261
271
!.
28'
is derived from sources outside said watershed. Said term does not include inter-basin transfers wholly within ULARA. [18J In Lieu Storage -- The act of accumulating ground
water in a basin by intentional reduction of extractions of ground water which a party has a right to extract.
[19J Lockheed -- Defendant Lockheed Aircraft corporation,. [20J Los Angeles Plaintiff City of Los Angeles,
acting by and through its Department of Water and Power. [21] Los Angeles Narrows The physiographic area
northerly of Gage F-57 bounded on the east by the San Rafael and Repetto Hills and on the west by the Elysian Hills, through which all natural outflow of the San Fernando Basin and the Los Angeles River flow en route to the Pacific Ocean. [22] MWD -- The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a public agency of the State of California. [23] Native Safe Yield -- That portion of the safe
yield of a basin derived from native waters.
[24] Native \Vaters -- Surface and ground waters derived from precipitation within ULARA.
[25J Overdraft -- A condition which exists when U~e
total annual extractions of ground water from a basin exceed its safe yield, and when any temporary surplus has been removed.
[26] Owens-Mono Aqueduct -- The aqueduct facilities
owned and operated by Los Angeles for importation to rJLAPA water from the Owens River and Mono Basin watersheds easterly of the Sierra-Nevada in Central California.
[27] Private Defendants -- Collectively, all of those
-3-
903 of 1278

1 defendants who are parties, other than Glendale, Burbank, San 2 Fernando and Crescenta Valley.
3 [28] Reclaimed Water Water which, as a result of
4 processing of waste water, is made suitable for and used for 5 a controlled beneficial use.
6 7
8 " \,
U
9 'I II I,
10 q
11 12
[29] Regulatory Storage capacity -- The volume of
storage capacity of San Fernando Basin which is required to regulate the safe yield of the basin, without significant loss, during any long-term base period of water supply. (30] Rising Water -- The effluent from a ground water
basin which appears as surface flow.
[31] Rising Water Outflow -- The quantity of rising
13 water which occurs within a ground water basin and does not 14 rejoin the ground water body or is not captured prior to 15 flowing past a point of discharge from the basin.
16: (32J Saf~~ield -- The maximum quantity of water which I 17 11 can be extracted annually from a ground water bas in under a 1811 given set of cuI tural conditions and extraction patterns, 19 II based on the long-term supply, without causing a continuing 20 i reduction of water in storage.

I
21 I (33J San Fernando -- Defendant City of San Fernando. 22 [34] San Fernando Basin -- The separate ground water 23 basin underlying the area shown as such on Attachment nAn. [35] Sportsman's Lodge Defendant Sportsman's Lodge
Banquet Association.
[36] Stored Water -- Ground water in a basin consisting of either (1) imported or reclaimed water which is inten- tionally spread, or (2) safe yield water which is allowed to -4-
904 of 1278

1 2
3 4
5 .•..
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15 I
I
Id i! , 7 ~I .. :
,
18 Ii II ,-
" 19 ~i
" 20 ~
21 ii -,
Ii
2211
23 '
24 25 !I
2611
~ i
27 : I
281,
II I.

II
accumulate by In Lieu Storage. Said ground waters are dis- tinguished and separately accounted for in a grourid water basin, notwithstanding that the same may be physically com- mingled with other waters in the basin.
[37] Sylmar Basin -- The separate ground water basin
underlying the area indicated as such on Attachment "A". [38) Temporary Surplus -- The amount of ground water
which would be required to be removed from a basin in order to avoid waste under safe yield operation.
[39) Toluca Lake Defendant Toluca Lake Property
Owners Association.
[40) ULARA or upper Los Angeles River Area -- The Upper Los Angeles River watershed, being the surface drainage area of the Los Angeles River tributary to Gage F-S7.
[41) Underlying Pueblo Waters -- Native ground waters
in the San Fernando Basin which underlie safe yield and stored waters.
[42) Valhalla -- Collectively, Valhalla Properties,
Valhalla Memorial Park, Valhalla Mausoleum Park.
[43] Van de Kamp -- Defendant Van de Kamp's Holland
Dutch Bakers, Inc.
[44) Verdugo Basin -- The separate ground water basin
underlying the area shown as such on Attachment "A".
[45] Water Year -- October 1 through September 30 of
the following calendar year.

Geographic Names, not herein specifically defined, are used to refer to the places and locations thereof as shown on Attachment

2.2 List of Attachments. There are attached hereto the
-5-
\1 ... !1
" .
905 of 1278

1 following documents, which are by this reference incorporated in 2 this Judgment and specifically referred to in the text hereof:
3 "A" -- Map entitled "Upper Los Angeles River Area",
41 showing Separate Basins therein.
5 6
11 7 II
I
8!
"
911
" Ii 10 :1
i'
111 , ,
121
13 14
15 16
tlB" List of "Dismissed Parties."
lie" List of "Defaulted Parties."
"D" List of "Disclaiming Parties."
"E" List of "Prior Stipulated Judgments. "
"Ftt List of "Stipulated Non-Consumptive or ~·1inirnal- Consumptive Use Practices."
"G" -- Map entitled "Place of Use and Service Area of
Private Defendants."
"H" -- Map entitled "Public Agency Water Service Areas."

3. PARTIES

3.1 Defaulting and Disclaiming Defendants. Each of the
17 defendants listed on Attacr.ment .. c .. and Attachment "D" lS ",ithout 18 any right, title or interest in, or to any claim to extract ground 19 water from ULARA or any of the separate ground water basins therein. 20 3.2 No Rights Other Than as Herein Declared. ~o partv to 21!i this action has any rights in or to the waters of ULARA except to I
22i1 the extent declared herein.
)
23 '
I
24 I 4. DECLARATION RE GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY ,
25 II 4.1 Geology.
261i 4.1.1 ULARA. ULARA (or Upper Los Angeles Riv,~r Area), 27 !i is the watershed or surface drainage area tributary to the II
28 JI Los Angeles River at Gage F-S7. Said watershed contains a I'
!I
I' -6-
II
906 of 1278

1 total of 329,000 acres, consisting of approximately 123,000 2 acres of valley fill area and 206,000 acres of hill and 3 mountain area, located primarily in the County of Los Angeles, 4 with a small portion in the County of Ventura. Its boundaries 5 are shown on Attachment "A". The San Gabriel .~lountains form 6 the northerly portion of the watershed, and from them two' 7 major washes--the Pacoima and the Tujunga--discharge southerly 8 Tujunga Wash traverses the valley fill in a southerly direc- 9 tion and joins the Los Angeles River, which follows a~ east- 10 erly course along the base of the Santa rlonica Mountains 11 before it turns south through the Los Angeles Narrows. The 12 waters of Pacoima Wash as and when they flow out of Sylmar 13 Basin are tributary to San Fernando Basin. Lesser tributary 14 washes run from the Simi Hills and the Santa Susana Mountains 15 in the westerly portion of the watershed. Other minor washes, 16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I
26 27
28 including Verdugo Wash, drain the easterly portion of the watershed which consists of the Verdugo Mountains, the Elysian, San Rafael and Repetto Hills. Each of said washes is a non­ perennial stream whose flood flows and rising waters are naturally tributary to the Los Angeles River. The Los Angeles River within ULARA and most of said tributary natural washes have been replaced, and in some instances relocated, by concrete-lined flood control channels. There are 85.3 miles of such channels within ULARA, 62% of which have lined con­ crete bottoms.

4.1.2 San Fernando Basin. San Fernando Basin is the
major ground water basin in ULARA. It underlies 112,047 acres and is located in the area shown as such on Attachment "A". -7-
907 of 1278

1 2
3 11
4 !I
I,
51 61
711
8 11
9 il
10 ['
111
12 13
141
15 16
17 18
19 20
,
il Ii q
21 II
22 ii
"
23 II
241
25/1
I: 26 I'
27 :
28 i
Boundary conditions of the San Fernando Basin consist on the east and northeast of alluvial contacts with non-waterbearing series along the San Rafael Hills and Verdugo aountains and the Santa Susana Mountains and Simi Hills on the northwest and west and the Santa Monica Hountains on the south. Water- bearing material in said basin extends to at least 1000 feet below the surface. Rising water outflow from the San Fernando Basin passes its downstream and southerly boundary in the vicinity of Gage F-57, which is located in Los Angeles Narrows about 300 feet upstream from the Figueroa Street (Dayton Street) Bridge. The San Fernando Basin is separated from the Sylmar Basin on the north by the eroded south limb of the Little Tujunga Syncline whiCh causes a break in the ground water surface of about 40 to 50 feet.

4.1.3 Sylmar Basin. Sylmar Basin underlies 5,565 acres
and is located. in the area shown as such on Attachment "An. l.Jater-bearing material in said basin extends to depths in ex- cess of 12,000 feet below the surface. Boundary conditions of Sylmar Basin consist of the San Gabriel Mountains on the nor~h; a topographic divide in the valley fill between the Mission Hills and San Gabriel Mountains on the west, the Mission Hills on the southwest, Upper Lopez Canyon Saugus Formation on the east, along the east bank of Pacoima Wash, and the eroded south limb of the Little Tujunga Syncline on the south.

4.1.4 Verdugo Basin. Verdugo Basin underlies 4,400 acres and is located in the area shown as such on Attachment "A".

Boundary conditions of Verdugo Basin consist of the San Gabriel 110untains on the north, the Verdugo Mountains on the -8-
908 of 1278

1 2
3 411
511
6 1
7 811
I
9 1
10 II
111 121
131
14 15 i ,
16 : , ,
17 .
south and southwest, the San Rafael Hills on the southeast and the topographic divide on the east between the drainage area that is tributary to the Tujunga Wash to the west and Verdugo Wash to the east, the ground water divide on the west between Monk Hill-Raymond Basin and the Verdugo Basin on the east and a submerged dam constructed at the mouth of Verdugo Canyon on the south.

4.1.5 Eagle Rock Basin. Eagle Rock Basin underlies 307
acres and is located in the area shown as such on Attachment "A". Boundary conditions of Eagle Rock Basin consist of the San Rafael Hills on the north and west and the Repetto Hills on the east and south with a small alluvial area to the southeast consisting of a topographic divide.

4.2 Hydrology.

4.2.1 Water Supply. The water supply of ULARA consists, of native waters, derived from precipitation on the valley floor and runoff from the hill and mountain areas, and of im- 18 :i ported water from outside the watershed. The major source of 19 20
21 i:
:i
22 II
I
23 i
241
251
1 26 Ii
27 :,
II
"
28 1
1 I 'I I,
I
imported water has been from the Owens-Mono Aqueduct, but additional supplies have been and are now being imported through MWD from its Colorado Aqueduct and the State Aqueduct.

4.2. 2 Ground Water !1ovement. The rna j or wa ter- bear ing formation in ULARA is the valley fill material bounded by hills and mountains which surround it. Topographically, the valley-fill area has a generally uniform grade in a southerly and easterly direction with the slope gradually decreasing from the base of the hills and mountains to the surface drainage outlet at Gage F-57. The valley fill material is a -9-
909 of 1278

1 heterogeneous mixture of clays, silts, sand and gravel laid 2 down as alluvium. The valley fill is of greatest permeability 3 along and easterly of Pacoima and Tujunga Washes and generally. 4 throughout the eastern portion of the valley fill area, 5 except in the vicinity of Glendale where it isof lesser 6 i permeability. Ground water occurs mainly within the valley 7 I fill, with only negligible amounts occurring in hill and 81 mountain areas. There is no significant ground water movement II
9 i" from the hill and mountain formations into the valley fill. !
10 I Available geologic data do not indicate that there are any 11 sources of native ground water other than those derived from 12 precipitation. Ground water movement in the valley fill 13 generally follows the surface topography and drainage except 14 where geologic or man-made impediments occur or where the 15 I natural flow has been modified by extensive pumpi~g. 16 ',,!
if II

4.2.3 Separate Ground Water Basins. The physical and

17., geologic characteristics of each of the ground water basins, 18 Ii Eagle Rock, Sylmar, Verdugo and San Fernando, cause impedi- 19 Ii ments to inter-basin ground water flow whereby there is 21'
221
23 I
24 I
:: JI
27 "
28 11
!!
11 II
II
created separate underground reservoirs. Each of said basins contains a common source of water supply to parties extracting ground water from each of said basins. The amount of under- flow from Sylmar Basin, Verdugo Basin and Eagle Rock Basin to San Fernando Basin is relatively small, and on the average has been approximately 540 acre feet per year from the Sylmar Basin; 80 acre feet per year from Verdugo Basin; and 50 acre feet per year from Eagle Rock Basin. Each has physiographic, geologic and hydrologic differences, one from the other, and -10-
910 of 1278

1 each meets the hydrologic definition of "basin." The ex- 2 tractions of water in the respective basins affect the other water users within that basin but do not significantly or materially affect the ground water levels in any of the other 5 basins. The underground reservoirs of Eagle Rock, Verdugo and 6 Sylmar Basins are independent of one another and of the San I 7 Fernando Basin.
8 9
10,
I
111
12 I
13 1
14/
15 \
1 sit
17,

4.2.4 Safe Yield and Native Safe Yield. The safe yield
and native safe yield, stated in acre feet, of the three largest basins for the year 1964-65 was as follows:

Basin Safe Yield Native Safe Yield
San Fernando 90,680 43,660
Sylmar 6,210 3,850
Verdugo 7,150 3,590
The safe yield of Eagle Rock Basin is derived from imported water delivered by LOS Angeles. There is no measurable
native safe yield.

4.2.5 Separate Basins -- Separate Rights. The rights
19: of the parties to extract ground water within ULARA are 20 ;
'I
Ii
21 " n
22)1
23 !I
" II
24 II
1 25 I ,
!
26 27
" '!
28 separate and distinct as within each of the several grou~d water basins within said watershed.

4.2.6 Hydrologic Condition of Basins. The several
basins within ULARA are in varying hydrologic conditions, which result in different legal consequences.

4.2.6.1 San Fernando Basin. The first full year
of overdraft in San Fernando Basin was 1954-55. It
remained in overdraft continuously until 1968, when an
injunction herein became effective. Thereafter, the
-11-
911 of 1278

21 •
22 I'
Ii 23 Ii
U
!I 24 !I
" i!
25 "
26 27
28 basin was placed on safe yield operation. There is no surplus ground water available for appropriation or
overlying use from San Fernando Basin.

4.2.6.2 Sylmar Basin. Sylmar Basin is not in
overdraft. There remains safe yield over and above the
present reasonable beneficial overlying uses, from which safe yield the appropriative rights of Los Angeles and
San Fernando may be and have been exercised.

4.2.6.3 Verdugo Basin. Verdugo Basin was in
overdraft for more than five consecutive years prior to 1968. Said basin is not currently in overdraft, due to
decreased extractions by Glendale and Crescenta Valley on account of poor water quality. However, the combined
appropriative and prescriptive rights of Glendale and
Crescenta Valley are equivalent to the safe yield of the Basin. No private overlying or appropriative rights
exist in Verdugo Basin.

4.2.6.4 Eagle Rock Basin. The only measurable
water supply to Eagle Rock Basin is import return wa~er by reason of importations by Los Angeles. Extrac~~ons bv Foremost and Deep Rock under the prior s::ipulated
judgments have utilized the safe yield of Eagle Rock
Basin, and have maintained hydrologic equilibrL:m
therein.

5. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

5.1 Right to Native Waters.

5.1.1 Los Angeles River and San Fernando Basin.
-12-
912 of 1278

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
I
17,
Ii " 18
1 II
19 II
II
20 Ii I'
i!
2lji
221
23 1
241
2511
26 11
!!
I' ,
27 I
28 5.1.1.1 Los Angeles' Pueblo Right. Los Angeles,
as the successor to all rights, claims and powers of the Spanish Pueblo de Los Angeles in regard to water rights, is the owner of a prior and paramount pueblo right to the surface waters of the Los Angeles River and the native
ground waters of San Fernando Basin to meet its reason- able beneficial needs and for its inhabitants.

5.1.1.2 Extent of Pueblo Right. Pursuant to said
pueblo right, Los Angeles is entitled to satisfy its
needs and those of its inhabitants within its boundaries as from time to time modified. Water which is in fact
used for pueblo right purposes is and shall be deemed
needed for such purposes.

5.1.1.3 Pueblo Right -- Nature and Priority of
Exercise. The pueblo right of Los Angeles is a prior and paramount right to all of the surface waters of the Los Angeles River, and native ground water In San Fernando
Basin, to the extent of the reasonable neees and uses of Los Angeles and its inhabitants throughout t~e cor~orate area of Los Angeles, as its boundaries roa; exis~ from
time to time. To the extent that the Basin contains
native waters and imported waters, it is presumed that
the first water extracted by Los Angeles in any water
year is pursuant to its pueblo right, up to the arr,Gunt of the native safe yield. The next extractions by Los
Angeles in any year are deemed to be f~om i:npoL"t ret:lrn water, followed by stored water, to the full extent of
Los Angeles' right to such import return water and stored -13-
913 of 1278

l'
2 3
4 5
6 'I
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15 h
"
16 ij
17 18
19 .
22 23
27 ':
water. In the event of need to meet water requirements
of its inhabitant~, Lo~ Anqdles haR tilP additional riqht, pursuant to its pueblo right, withdraw t<'nll'ur.'l Ily rl'lI!lI storage Underlying Pueblo Waters, subject to an obliga- tion to replace such water as soon as practical.

5.1.1.4 Rights of Other Parties. No other party
to this action has any right in or to the surface waters of the Los Angeles River or the native safe yield of the San Fernando Basin.

5.1.2 Sylmar Basin Rights.

5.1.2.1 No Pueblo Rights. The pueblo right of
Los Angeles does not extend to or include ground waters in Sylmar Basin.

5.1.2.2 Overlying Rights. Defendants Moordigian
and Hersch & Plumb own iands overlying Sylmar Basin and have a prior correlative right to extract native waters from said Basin for reasonable beneficial uses on. their said overlying lands. Said right is appurtenant to said overlying landa and water extracted pursuant thereto may not be exported from said lands nor can said right be
transferred or assigned separate and apart from HDj~
overlying lands.

5.1.2.3 Appropriative Rights of San Fernando
and Los Angeles. San Fernando and Los Angeles Ovm
appropriative rights, of equal priority, to extract and put to reasonable beneficial use for the needs of said
cities and their inhabitants, native waters of the
Sylmar Basin in excess of the exercised reasonable
-14-
914 of 1278

1 2
31 41 ,
51 1
61 1
711
;'
8i ,
i
91 .10
11 12
13 14
liJl I.
16 17
18 19

20. 21
22;
I'
23 ;
i I,
24 ii :1
25 26
27 ,: • 1
ii
28 II
beneficial needs of overlying users. Said appropriative rights are:

San Fernando 3,580 acre feet
Los Angeles 1,560 acre feet.

5.1.2.4 No Prescription. The Sylmar Basin is not
presently in a state of overdraft and no rights by
prescription exist in said Basin against any overlying
or appropriative water user.

5.1.2.5 Other Partie~. No other party to this
action owns or possesses any right to extract native
ground waters from the Sylmar Basin.

5.1.3 Verdugo Basin Rights.

5.1.3.1 No Pueblo. Rights. The pueblo right of
Los Angeles does not extend to or include ground water
in v"t.du(Jo BIHdn.

5.1.3.2 Prescriptive Rights of Glendale nnd
,
Crescenta Valley. Glendale and Crescenta Valle, own
prescriptive rights as against each other ond alia i nf; t all private overlying or appropriativ0 parties in ~hc
Verdugo Basin to extract, with equal priority, the
following quantities of water from the combined safe
yield of native and imported waters in Verdugo Basin:

Glendale 3,856 acre feet
Crescenta Valley 3,294 acre feet.

5.1.3.3 Other Parties. No other party to this
action owns or possesses any right to extract native
ground waters from the Verdugo Basin .
-15-
915 of 1278

1 2
3 4
5 6
I
I
711
8 1
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18.
19 20
21 22 ,;
23 ,
:: ,
" 24 !,
25 :;
Ii
" 26 !i
27 28, ,
I

5.1.4 Eagle Rock Basin Rights.

5.1.4.1 No Pueblo Rights. The pueblo right of
Los Angeles does not extend to or include ground water
in Eagle Rock Basin.

5.1.4.2 No Rights in Native Waters. The Eagle
Rock Basin has no significant or measurable native safe yield and no parties have or assert any right or claim
to native waters in said Basin.

5.2 Rights to Imported 1'1aters.

5.2.1 San Fernando Basin Rights.

5.2.1.1 Rights to Recapture Import Return Water.

Los Angeles, Glendale, Burbank and San Fernando have each caused imported waters to be brought into ULARA and to be delivered to lands overlying the San Fernando Basin, with the result that percolation and return flow of such
delivered water has caused imported waters to become a
part of the safe yield of San Fernando Basin. Eac~ of
said parties has a right to extract from San Fernando
Basin that portion of the safe yield of the Basin attri- buta);)le to such import return waters.

5.2.1.2 Rights to Store and Recapture Stored
Water. Los Angeles has heretofore spread imported water directly in San Fernando Basin. Los Angeles, Glendale,
Burbank and San Fernando ea~h have rights to store water in San Fernando Basin by direct spreading or in lieu
practices. To the extent of any future spreading or in
lieu storage of import water or reclaimed water by Los
Angeles, Glendale, Burbank or San Pernando, the party
-16-
916 of 1278

1 2
31 4
5 6
I
7 1
81 91
10 I I
11 I
12 I
13 I
14 I
15,1
" "
16 "
17 18"
19 20
2l
22 ,:!
23 II Ii
Ii
24 II I,
25 1
1 26 !I
27 ,I
i!
28 ;;
I
Ii
" q
II
- - -
- - -
causing said water t.o be s.o st.ored shall have a right te extract an equivalent am.ount .of gr.ound water frem San Fernand.o Basin. The right te extract waters attributable te such sterage practices is an undivided right te a
quantity .of water in San Fernande Basin equal te the
am.ount .of such Stered Water t.o the credit .of any party, as reflected in Watermaster rec.ords.

5.2.1.3 Calculatien .of Impert Return Water and
Stered Water Credits. The extracti.on rights .of L.os
Angeles, Glendale, Burbank and San Fernande in San
Fernand.o Basin in any year, ins.ofar as such rights are based upen imp.ort return water, shall .only extend t.o the ameunt .of any accumulated imp.ort return water credit .of such party by rea sen .of imp.orted water delivered after September 30, 1977. The annual credit fer such import
return water shall be calculated by Watermaster based
upon the amount of delivered water during the preceding water year, as follews:

Les Angeles:

San Fernando:

Burbank:
-17-

20.8% .of all delivered water
(including reclaimed water) to
valley fill lands of San
Fernando Basin.

26.3% of all imported and
reclaimed water delivered to
valley-fill lands .of San
Fernando Basin.

20.0% of all delivered water
(including reclaimed water) te
San Fernando Basin and its
tributary hill and mountain
areas.
917 of 1278

1 2
3 4
:1
7 8
9 10
1 11
12 13
14 I
15 Ii
.i
"
16 17
18·
19 20
21 22 .
23 :;
24 !i Ii
'I
:: II
27 28
Glendale: 20.0% of all delivered water
(including reclaimed water) to
San Fernando Basin and its
tributary hill and mountain
areas (i.e., total delivered
water, [including reclaimed
water), less 105% of total
sales by Glendale in Verdugo
Basin and its tributary hills).

In calculating Stored Water credit, by reason of direct spreading of imported or reclaimed water, Watermaster
shall assume that 100% of such spread water reached the ground water in the year spread.

5.2.1.4 Cummulative Import Return Water Credits.

Any import return water which is not extracted in a given water year shall be carried over, separately accounted
for, and maintained as a cummulative credit for purposes of future extractions.

5.2.1.5 Overextractions. In addition to extrac-
tions of stored water, Glendale, Burbank or San Fernando may, in any water year, extract from San Fernando Basin an amount not exceeding 10% of such party's last annual credit for import return water, subj~ct, ~ow~ver, to an obligation to replace such overextraction by reduced
extractions during the next succeeding water year. Any
such overextraction which is not so replaced shall con- stitute physical solution water, which shall be deemed
to have been extracted in said subsequent water year.

5.2.1.6 Private Defendant. No private defendant
is entitled to extract water from the San Fernando Basin on account of the importation of water thereto by over- lying public entities.
-18-
918 of 1278

1 2
6 7
8 1
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 '
II
16'
17 .

IS "
19,i

20. 21: !I
" ':
22 ii
23 L
24 II il
251
2611 :,
27 "
2sl!
ii
II
"
"
II

5.2.2 Sylmar Basin Rights.

5.2.2.1 Rights to Recapture Import Return Waters.

Los Angeles and San Fernando have caused imported waters to be brought into ULARA and delivered to lands overly ins the Sylmar Basin with the result that percolation and re- turn flow of such delivered water has caused imported
waters to become a part of the safe yield of Sylmar Basin.

Los Angeles and San Fernando are entitled to recover from Sylmar Basin such imported return waters. In calculating the annual entitlement to recapture such import recurn
water, Los Angeles and San Fernando shall be entitled to

35.7% of the preceding water year's imported water de-
livered by such party to lands overlying Sylmar Basin.

Thus, by way of example, in 1976-77, Los Angeles was
entitled to extract 2370 acre feet of ground water from Sylmar Basin, based on delivery to lands overlying said Basin of 6640 acre feet during 1975-76. The quanticy of San Fernando's imported water to, and the return flow
therefrom, in the Sylmar Basin in the past has been of
such minimal quantities that it has not been calculated.

5.2.2.2 Rights to Store and Recapture Stored
Wa ter. Los Angeles and San Fernando each have the right to store water in Sylmar Basin equivalent to their rights in San Fernando Basin under paragraph 5.2.1.2 hereof.

5.2.2.3 Carry Over. Said right to recapture
stored water, import return water and other safe yield
waters to which a party is entitled, if not exercised in a given year, can be carried over for not to exceed five -19-
919 of 1278

1 21
31 I
41 I
5 6
11 7 l'
8 11
II I.
91 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 ;1
I'
!
I
22i
i
23 :,
II
24 25 ii "
Ii
26 i;
27 28 Ii , ,
years, if the underflow through Sylmar Notch does not
exceed 400 acre feet per year.

5.2.2.4 Private Defendants. No private defendant
is entitled to extract water from ~lithin the Sylmar Basin on account of the importation of water thereto by over- lying public entities.

5.2.3 Verdugo Basin Rights.

5.2.3.1 Glendale and Crescenta valley. G:endale
and Crescenta valley own appropriative and prescriptive rights in and to the total safe yield of Verdugo Basin, without regard as to the portions thereof derived from
native water and from delivered imported waters, notwith- standing that both of said parties have caused waters to be imported and delivered on lands overlying Verdugo
Basin. Said aggregate rights are as declared ill Para-
graph 5.1.3.2 of these Conclusions.
right to recapture its import return watDr~ by :e~sc~ of delivered import water in the 3asl~; base~ ~PGr
Watermaster not lacer than the year Following suct lID- port and on subsequent order after hearing by the Co~rt.

5.2.3.3 Private Defendants. :To private de:enda:1t,
as such, is entitled to extract water ~rom wlthin the
Verdugo Basin on account of the importation of water
thereto by overlying public entities.

5.2.4 Eagle Rock Basin Rights.

5.2.4.1 Los Angeles. Los Angeles has caused
-20-
920 of 1278

1 2
1 8'
91 I
10 11
12 1,
13 'I
14 15 i
16 I,
17 18
19 20·
21 22
23 " :! -,
24 :i -I
i
25 'I 'I ,I
26 :: q
27 I'
28 imported water to be delivered for use on lands overlying Eagle Rock Basin and return flow from said delivered
imported water constitutes the entire safe yield of Eagle Rock Basin. Los Angeles has the right to extract or
cause to be extracted the entire safe yield of Eagle Rock Basin.

5.2.4.2 Private Defendants. No private defend-
ants have a right to extract water from within Eagle ROCK Basin, except pursuant to the physical solution herein.

6. INJUNCTIONS
Each of the parties named or referred to in this Part 6, its officers, agents, employees and officials is, and they are, hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from doing or causing to be done any of the acts herein specified:

6.1 Each and Every Defendant -- from diverting the surface waters of the Los Angeles River or extracting the native waters of SAN FERNANDO BASIN, or in any manner interfering with the prior anc paramount pueblo rig:1t of Los Angeles in and to such waters, except pursuant to the physical solution herein decreed.

6.2 Each and Every Private Defendant -- from extracting ground water from the SAN FERNANDO, VERDUGO, or EAGLE ROCK BASINS, except pursuant to physical solution provisions hereof.

6.3 Defaulting and Disclaiming Parties (listed in Attachments "c" and "D") -- from diverting or extracting water within ULARA, except pursuant to the physical solution herein decreed.

6.4 Glendale from extracting ground water from SAN
FERNANDO BASIN in any water year in quantities exceeding its -21-
921 of 1278

1 21
31 41
I
import return water credit and any stored water credit, except pursuant to the physical solution; and from extracting water from VERDUGO BASIN in excess of its appropriative and prescriptive right declared herein.
51 6.5 Burbank -- from extracting ground water from SAN FERNANDO 61'BASIN in any water year in quantities exceeding its import return I 7 il
I!
8! I
91,
Ii
10 II I,
11 i'
I
121
13 !
14 1 5 ii II
Ii 16
17 water credit and any stored water credit, except pursuant to the physical solution decreed herein.

6.6 San Fernando -- from extracting ground water from SAN FERNANDO BASIN in any water year in quantities exceeding its import return water credit and any stored water credit, except pursuant to the physical solution herein decreed.

6.7 Crescenta Valley -- from extracting ground water from VERDUGO BASIN in any year in excess of its appropriative and prescriptive right declared herein.

6.8 Los Angeles -- from extracting ground water from SAN FERNANDO BASIN in any year in excess of the native safe yield, 18 " plus any import return water credit and stored water credit of said 19 city; provided, that where the needs of Los Angeles ~e0uire the 2) extraction of Underlying Pueblo Waters, Los A~geles na~1 extract 21 such water subject to an obligation to replace such excess as soon 22 'i as practical; and from extracting ground water from VERDUGO BASIN 23 :!
'I in excess of any credit for import return water which Los Angeles 24,may acquire by reason of delivery of imported water for use ('ver- i!
25 II lying said basin, as hereinafter confirmed on application to 26 Watermaster and by SUbsequent order of the Court.
27 6.9 Non-consumptive and Minimal Consumptive Use Parties. 2sl!The parties listed in Attachment "F" are enjoined from extracting i
\: -22-
922 of 1278

1 water from San Fernando Basin, except in accordance with practices 2 specified in Attachment "F", or pursuant to the physical solution herein decreed. 3 7. CONTINUING JURISDICTION

7.1 Jurisdiction Reserved. Full jurisdiction, power and 41 51 61 authority are retained by and reserved to the Court for purposes of 7 , enabling the Court upon application of any party or of the Water­ sllmaster by motion and upon at least 30 days' notice thereof, and 9 I after hearing thereon, to make such further or supplemental orders I
10 I or directions as may be necessary or appropriate, for interpreta- 11 II tion, enforcement or carrying out of this Judgment, and to modify, 12 I amend or amplify any of the provisions of this Judgment or to add 13 !I to the provisions thereof consistent with the rights herein decreed; 141 provided, however, that no such modification, amendment or ampli- 15 Ii fication shall result in a change in the provisions of Section ii 16 !,5.2.1.3 or 9.2.1 hereof.
" I,
" 17 ::

8. WATERMASTER
19' 8.1 Designation and Appointment.
21 22, I!
25 1 I,
26 II
27 28
i:

8.1.1 Watermaster Qualification and Appointment. A
qualified hydrologist, acceptable to all active public agency parties hereto; will be appointed by subsequent order of the Court to assist the Court in its administration and enforce- ment of the provisions of this Judgment and any subsequent orders of the Court entered pursuant to the Court's continuing jurisdiction. Such Watermaster shall serve at the pleasure of the Court, but may be removed or replaced on motion of any party after hearing and showing of good cause.
-23-
923 of 1278

1 2
3 4
5 6
12 8.2 Powers and Duties.

8.2.1 Scope. Subject to the continuing supervision and
control of the Court, \vatermaster shall exercise the express powers, and shall perform the duties, as provided in this Judgment or hereafter ordered or authorized by the Court in the exercise of the Court's continuing jurisdiction.

8.2.2 Requirement for Reports, Information and Records.

Water~aster may require any party to furnish such reports, information and records as may be reasonably necessary to determine compliance or lack of compliance by any party with the provisions of this Judgment.

8.2.3 ~irement of Measuring Devices. Watermaster
13 shall require all parties owning or operating any facilities 14 for extraction of ground water from ULARA to install and 15 maintain at all times in good I"orking order, at such party's II 16 II own expense, appropriate meters or other measuring devices !; 17 II sa tis factory to the Wa termaster.
1aterrnaster shall make
19 -I inspections of fa) srOll~d water extr3cti~~ Eaci:ities a~d 20 measuring devices of an" part'::" arlu I:»-! I,.;a:.:e~ c.3e practices to.; 21 and as often as mav he reasonable under the circ~mstances to verify reported data and practices of such party. Watermaster shall also identify and report on any new or proposed new ground water extractions by any party or non-party.

8.2.5 Policies and Procedures. Watermaster shall, with
the advice dnd consent cf the Administ::·J.tive com.."!'.it1:e-a, ad-Jr.:.:. and amend from time to time Policies anJ Procedures as may be ':
-24-
924 of 1278

II
Ii
1 i 11 reasonably necessary to guide Watermaster in perforMance of 21 its duties, powers and responsibilities under the provisions 31 of this judgment.
i 41 8.2.6 Data Collection. Watermaster shall collect and 5 verify data relative to conditions of ULARA and its ground 6 I.;ater basins from the parties and one or More other govern- 7 Ii mental agencies. Where necessary, and upon approval of the II
" 8 1' Ii
91'
I
10 II
11 I!
12 il
!
13 I
'I
1411
15 1
1 ,I
16 ;
"
17 18
19 20
21 22 i;
23 "
"
24 25
11 26 :
27 'I 28 "
AdMinistra ti ve Commi ttee, Ivatermaster may develop supplemental data.

8.2.7 Cooperation l'/i th Other Agencies. vlatermaster may act jointly or cooperate with agencies of the United States and the State of California or any political suhdivisions, municipalities or districts (including any party) to secure or exchange data to the end that the purpose of this ,Judgment, including its physical solution, may be fully and economicallv carried out.

8.2.8 Accounting for Non-consumptive rJs~_. ~,\;ate::"master shall calculate and report annually the non-consumptive and consumptive uses of extracted ground water bv each carty listed in Attachment "F."
and Stored Water. Watermaster shall record and verify addi- tions, extractions and losses and maintain an annual and cummulative account of all (a) stored water and (h) import return water in San Fernando Basin. ralculation of losses attributable to Stored Water shall he approved by the Adminis- trative Committee or bv suhseauent order of the ~ourt. ~or purposes of such accounting, extractions in any water year by -25-
925 of 1278

6 7 'i I,
8 H
'I
911
10 :1
I:
11 II
121i
13 II
Ii
l4 !i
!!
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 ,I
23 i' ,I
" 24 :i
2 5 1
I,
2d :!
27 28 1
Glendale, Burbank or San Pernando shall be assumed to be first from accumulated import return water, second from stored water, and finally pursuant to physical solution; provided, that any such city may, by written notice of intent to Water- master, alter said priority of extractions as between import return water and stored water.

8.2.10 Recalculation of Safe Yield. Upon request of the Administrative Committee, or on motion of any party and sub- sequent Court order, Watermaster shall recalculate safe yield of any basin within ULARA. If there has been a material long- term change in storage over a base period (excluding any effects of stored water) in San Fernando Basin the safe vield shall be adjusted by making a corresponding change in native safe yield of the Basin.

B.2.11 Watermaster Report. Watermaster shall prepare
annually and (after review and approval by 'dministrative Committee) cause to be served on all active parties, on or before May 1, a report of hydrologic conditions and :Jater- master activities within CLARA cluring the precedlng I,ater year. Watermaster's annual report shall contain such infor- rnation as may be reauested by the ,!>.dministrative Cornrr'·.it::ee, required by Watermaster Policies and Procedures or specified by subsequent order of this Court.

8.2.12 Active Partv List. Watermaster shall maintain at all times a current list of active parties and their addresses.

8.3 Administrative Committee.

2.3.1 COmMittee to be Formed. 1\n 1\dministrati'/e COmT"i t- tee shall be formed to advise with, reouest or consent to, and -26-
926 of 1278

11 21
3 II
411
I' .1
51 61
71 8 ~I
" I
9 I I
10 II
1111
12[1
!I
13 11
14 II
15 !i ii
16 ii
Ji> ' 7 -,-,
18 19
20 21
22 i
I
23 i
24 25\ ,
26 1
i 27 ; ,
28 i
review actions of Watermaster. Said ~dministrative Committee shall be composed of one representative of each party having a right to extract ground water from ULARA, apart from the physical solution. Any such party not desiring to participate in such committee shall so advise Watermaster in writing.

8.3.2 Organization and Voting. m.he Administrative
Committee shall organize and adopt appropriate rules and regulations to be included in Watermaster Policies and Pro- cedures. Action of the Administrative Committee shall be by unanimous vote of its members, or of the members affected in the case of an action which affects one or more basins but less than all of ULARA. In the event of inability of the Committee to reach a unanimous position, the matter may, at the request of Ivatermaster or any party, be referred to the Court for resolution by subsequent order after notice and hearing.

8.3.3 Function and Powers. The;;dministrative Committee shall be consulted by Watermaster and shall request or approve all discretionary ~atermaster determinations. In the event 0::
disagreement between i'ia termaster and the;;dminis tra ti ve Committee, the matter shall he submitted ta the Court for review and resolution.

8.4 Watermaster Budget and Assessments.

8.4.l Watermaster's Proposed Budget. \'iatermaster
shall, on or before ~Iay l, prepare and submit to the Admin- istrative Committee a budget for the ensuing water Year.

The budget shall be determined for each basin separately and allocated between the separate ground water basins. The -27-
927 of 1278

1 total for each basin shall be allocated between the public 2 agencies in proportion to their use of ground water from such 3 basin during the preceding water year.
4 8.4.2 Objections and Review. Any party who objects to 5 the proposed budget, or to such party's allocable share there- 6 of, nay apply to the Court within thirty (30) days of receipt 7 of the proposed budget from Watermaster for review and modifi- 8 cation. Any such objection shall be duly noticed to all in- 9 terested parties and heard within thirty (30) days of notice. 10 8.4.3 Notice of Assessment. After thirty (30) days from 11 deliverv of \',atermaster's proposed budget, or after the order 12 of Court settling any objections thereto, Watermaster shall 13 serve notice on all parties to be assessed of the amount of 14 assessment and the required payment schedule.
15 8.4.4 Payme~!:.. All assessments for 'riatermaster expenses 16 shall be payable on the dates designated in the notice o£ , N
.!. (
18 8.5 Review of Uatermaster Activities.
19 8.5.1 R(~\i""t2\v' ?rocE::dures. Al.I acticr.s of ~vaterElast?r 2'" <~ (other than budget and assessment matters, which are provlded 2: for l:'~ Pd~a0r3p:l 8.4.2) shall be subjecc to review h~ t~e 22 Court on its Own motion or on motion by any party, as follows:
2 3 ~:
"

8.5.1.1 Noticed Motion. Any party may, by a
2t. regularly noticed motion, apply to the Court for review 25 :i
:1 of any Watermaster's action. Notice of such motion shall 26 i! be served personally or mailed to Wat~rmaster and to all 27 :' :! active parties.
',:")
~ .• I) • 1 . 2 ,e ~iOVO Nature of Proceedings. r)pon t~e :'
-28-
928 of 1278

II
I ,
i
1 2
I
3 ;i
41! II I'
51 1
61 711
811
"
9 il
ij
10 Ii
Ii
llij
II
12 ii ,I ,
13 Ii ,i
'I
filing of any such motion, the Court shall require the
moving party to notify the active parties of a date for taking evidence and argument, and on the date so desia- nated shall review de novo the question at issue. Water- master's findings or decision, if any, May be received
in evidence at said hearing, but shall not constitute
presumptive or prima facie proof of any fact in issue.

8.5.1.3 Decision. The decision of the Court in
such proceeding shall be an appealable supplemental order in this case. \'ihen the same is final, it shall be
binding upon the Iva termaster and all parties.
q. PHYSICAL SOLUTION
14 II !, 9.1 Circumstances Indicating Need for Phvsical Solution.

Ii
15 'i During the period between 1913 and 15l55, when there existed tempor- 16 ary surplus waters in the San Fernando Basin, overlving clties and 17 ~rivate overlying landowners undertook to install an~ one,:~t€ water 18 extraction, storage and transmission facilities to utiliZE s~ch 19 temporary surplus waters. If the injunction aoainst l::~er~e~e~cE 20 \-lith the prior and paramount rights of Los ,',ngeles +:0 che waT.ers OC 21 the San Fernando and Eagle Rock aasins were strictly enforced, t~~e 22 value and utility of those water systems and facilicies would be 23 :: lost or impaired. :: It is appropriate to allow continued limited 24 " extraction from the San Fernando and Eagle !',ock Basins bv parcies 'I
25 !I other than Los Angeles, subject to assurance that Los Angeles will 26 Ii be compensated for any cost, expense or loss incurred as a rnsult 27 I' thereof.
28 '
- 2 9-
929 of 1278

I
I
J
1 heretofore entered into separate stipulated judgments herein, 2 during the period ,Tune, 1')58 to November, 1965, each of which 3 judgments was subject to the Court's continuing jurisdiction. 411 Without modification of the substantive terms of said prior judg- 5 I ments, the same are categorized and merged into this judgment and 6 superseded hereby in the exercise of the Court's continuing juris- 7 II' diction, as follOt"s:
8 9.2.1 Eagle Rock Basin Parties. Stipulating defendants 9 il
10 I
I
II il
121[
131
141
15 1',
16 Foremost and Deep Rock have extracted water from Eagle Rock Basin, whose entire safe yield consist of import return waters of Los Angeles. Said parties may continue to extract water from Eagle Rock Basin to supply their bottled drinking water requirements upon filing all required reports on said extraction with Watermaster and LOS Angeles and paying Los Angeles annually an amount equal to ~21.78 per acre foot for the first 200 acre feet, and $39.20 per acre foot for any additional water extracted in any water vear.

9.2.2 Non-consumptive or Minimal-consumptlve O~~r~t:ons.

Certain stipulating defendants extract water from S,,,,, "2:r.aClCn Basin for uses which are either non-consuM~ti~~ 0:: ~nve 3 l7IiniP.1al consumptive impact. Each of sai(~ def(?;~da((ts '.·.:r·c r.:'v'2 a minimal consumptive impact has a connection to the City of Los Angeles water system and purchases aClnualiv an amount of water at least eauivalent to the consumptive loss of 2xtr3,::tec ground water. Said defendants are:

Non-Consumptive
Walt Disney Productions
Sears, Roebuck NCO.
-30-
930 of 1278

II
;
1 2
31 1 41,
.i
5 il
61 I
7i
8:
i,
"
91 !
10 i
llii
I!
12 ii
131
14 II
i 15 ! ,:
16 17
18 19
20 21
"
Minimal-Consumptive
Conrock Co., for itself and as successor to California
14aterials Co.; constance Ray White and Lee TH "i!lite; Hary L. Akl!ladzich and Peter J. Akl!ladzich
Livingston Rock & Gravel, for itself and as successor
to Los Angeles Land & Water Co.

The nature of each said defendant's water use practices is described in Attachment "." Subject to required reoorts to and inspections by Watermaster, each said defendant mav continue extractions for said purposes so long as in any year such party continues such non-consumptive or miniMal-
consumptive use practices.
~.2.3 Abandoned Operations. The following stipulating
defendants have ceased extracting water from San .ernando Basin and no further need exists for physical solution in their behaE:

Knickerbocker Plastic (:orn~anv,
carnation Company
Bidden Hills I'utual "iater (:omp~l!c:,'
Southern Pacific Railroad Co.

Pacific "ruit Express Co.

I
22,' 9.3 Private Defendants. There are private defendants who in-II 23 Jlstalled during the years of temporary surplus relativelv substantial 'i
24 facilities to extract and utilize ground waters o· S3n Ve~~Gn~o 25113asin. Said defendants may continue their extractions ~or consump- 26 iltive use up to the indicated annual quantities upon oayment of com- I,
27 i! pensation to the appropriate city wherein their use ~).:: I.rat,::r i::::
2,3 principallv located, on the basis of the follo\,·;ino pt-:'.'s::'J::al :'5:::"U;::"'):-"I:

II ,
-31-
931 of 1278

9.3.1 Private Defendants and A~ate cities. Said
2 private defendants and the cities to which their said extrac- 3 tions shall be charged and to which physical solution payment 4 51
shall be made are:

Los Angeles
Glendale
Burbank
Toluca Lake
Sportsman's Lodge
Van de Kaml'
Porest Lawn
Southern Service Co.

Valhalla
Lockheed
Annual 0uantities
(acre feet)
.~-'-'---
l'lO
25 120
400
75 30r)
25 111
1211 Provided that said private defendants shall not develop, 13 install or operate new wells or other facilities which will 14,1 increase existing extraction capacities.
15 II 9.3.2 l1.eports and /\.ccounting. nIl extractions pursuant II 16: to this physical solution shall be subject to such reasonat-le

17. reports and inspections as may he required by '·:atennaster. 18 •.
19 2-:;
Q.3.3 Payment. I'later extracted pursuant herete shall
be compensated for by annual payment to [,as Angeles. and as agreed upon pursuant to paragraph °.3.3.2 to r.lemiale and 21' Burbank, thirty days from day of notice ~y Water~aster. on 22 L the following basis:
i

24.'
25 'I
261!
27 :,
23 ,i
:i ,
'I

9.3.3.1 Los Angeles. An amount eaual to what
such party would have paid had water ~een delivered frc~ the distrihution system of Los Angeles. less the average . energy cost of extraction or ground water by Los Angeles from San Pernando.

9.3.3.2 r,lendale or Burbank. nn amount eeual to
-32-
932 of 1278

'I
1 6
9 10 I
111
121
13 14
151
~ i
16 II
the sum of the amount payable to Los A.ngeles under para- graph 9.4 hereof and any additional charges or conditions agreed upon by either such city and any private defendant.

9.4 Glendale and Burbank. Glendale and Burbank have each installeu, during said years of temporary surplus, substantial facilities to extract and utilize waters of the San Pernando Basin.

In addition to the use of such facilities to recover import return water, the distribution facilities of such cities can be most efficiently utilized by relying upon the San Pernando Basin for peaking supplies in order to reduce the need for extensive new surface storage. Glendale and Burbank may extract annual quanti- ties of ground water from the San Fernando Basin, in addition to their rights to import return water or stored water, as heretofore declared, in C1uantities up to:

Glendale 5,500 acre feet
Burbank 4,200 acre feet;
17 nrovided, that said cities shall comcensate Los ~ngeles annually 18· for any such excess extractions over and ahove tneir declared 19 rights at a rate per acre foot equal to the average 'Mn price for 20 municipal and industrial water delivered to Gos ~ngeles during the 21 fiscal year, less the average energy cost of extraction o~ ground 22 ,! water by Los Angeles from San Fernando Basin during the preceding 23!i fiscal year. Provided, further, that ground water extracted by ,
,
24 Forest Lawn ahd Southern Service Co. shall be included in the 25 amount taken by Glendale, and the amount extracted by Valhalla and 26 Lockheed shall be included in the amount taken hy Burbank. All 27 'dater taken by Glendale or Burhank pursuant '1e~0'=o s!call he. Ch3~""oc:
28 against Los Angeles' rights in the year o~ such extractions. -33-
933 of 1278

II
ii
l' In the event of emergency, and upon stipulation or motion 2 and subsequent order of the Court, said cruantities may be enlarcred I
3 II in any year.
:!
ii
5!
61 7 !j
;1 I
81 I,
9 Ii
10 II
11 if
"
12 ii
i
13,
14 !I II
15 II
i:
16 'i
17 18
19 20
21 9.5 San Fernando. San Fernando delivers imported water on lands overlying the San Fernando Basin, by reason of which said city has a right to recover import return water. San Fernando does not have water extraction facilities in the San Fernando 3asi~, nor would it be economically or hydrologically useful for such facil- ities to be installed. Both San Fernando and Los Angeles have decreed appropriative rights and extraction facilities in the Sylmar Basin. San Fernando may extract ground water from the Sylmar Basin in a quantity sufficient to utilize its San Fernahdo Basin import return water credit, and Los Angeles shall reduce its Sylmar Basin extractions by an equivalent amount and receive an offsetting entitlement for additional San Fernando Basin extractions.

9.6 Effective Date. This physical solution shdll be effec- tive on October 1, 1978, based upon extractions during wa~er 'lear 1978-79.

10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

10.1 Designation o~ Address for ~Totice dn~ SerV1C~.
22 ,i party shall designate the name and address to he used for purposes 23,; of all subsequent notices and service herein by a separate desig-:; 24 nation to be filed with vlatermaster within thirty (31') da'is ",ft:er 28 '
i;
II
Notice of Entry of Judgment has been served. Said designation may be changed from time to time by filing a written notice of such change with the Watermaster. Any party desiring to be relieved of receiving notices of Watermaster activity may file a waiver o~ - 34-
934 of 1278

I
I!
1 Ii notice on a form to be provided by l-\fatermaster. Thereafter such 21 party shall be removed from the ,lI.ctive Party list. For purposes of I 31 service on any party or active party by the Watermaster, by any 4' other party, or by the Court, of any item required to be served I
51 upon or delivered to such party or active party under or pursuant 6 II to the Judgment, such service shall be made personally or by de- 7 I,posit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, !I "
8 :1 addressed to the designee and at the address in the latest desig- 9 ilnation filed by such party or active party.

I,
10;! 10.2 Notibe of Change in Hydrologic Condition -- Sylmar Basin.

II
j!
11 "If Sylmar Basin shall hereafter be in a condition of overdraft due " ,
12 iito increased or concurrent appropriations by Los Angeles and San ii
13 II Fernando, Wa,termaster shall so notify the Court and parties concern- 14 i ed, and notice of such overdraft and the adverse effect thereof on 15 Ii private overlying rights shall be given by said cities as prescribed , , 16 by subsequent order of the Court, after notice and hearinc. 17 10.3 Judament Binding on Successors. This Judg~ent ani all -~~~~.~~~~~~~-
18 provisions thereof are applicable to and binding upon not only the I
!!
19 parties to this action, but also upon their respective heirs, 20 executors, administrators, successors, assigns, lessees and :~cen- 21 sees and JPon the agents, employees and attorne~s in ~act o~ a~l 22 'j such persons.
23 10.4 Costs. Ordinary court costs shall be borne by each 24 party, and reference costs shall be borne as heretofore allocated 25 'I and paid.
"
26 ii DATED:. j,.~ u
;1
, 1979.
27 28
935 of 1278

<n w ; ..J
d w«
! ~ I (!)w Za: ... «« . ,.
pi <na: . ;
I 'I Ow j ! i ..J> ' . a: a: w
~ a. ; • , i a. ! • I. ::>
i
• 0
36 r
" ' , ,...
..' ~
l :ll
0 ]II!
• •
• «
• 0 • • ~ ~
;! ~
•
" • • ;; • u 0
• u •
" ·
it
• : • • •
"
936 of 1278

ATTACHt-lEN'l' "a"
LIST OF DISmSSF.D PJ\RTII:S
A.dams, Catherine
A.dair, Leo tv.

Anderson, Jesse E.

Anderson, Eliznbeth A.

Anderson, Leland H.

Anderson, Bessie E.

Bank vf America, N.T. & S.A.,
(Trustee)
Becker I Barbara
Beatrice Foods Company
Becker, Bert
Bishop, Elfreda M.

Bishop, William E.

Block, Leonard ~V'.

Block, Margery J.

Burbank C. U. School District
Susk, Rodney E.

California, State of
California Trust Company,
(Trustee)
California Trust Company,
Tr\lstec for Pirst National
B~nk of Glendale
Citizens N.T.S. Bank of L.A.,
Trustee of M. H. Crenshaw
Citizens National Trust &
Savings B~,n)z of Los t\ngelcs
Ci~i~cns ~:3tion31 Trust &
S,:;'.'5:iS~ R.11',;. o~ Los .\n<jcles,
Trustee, D0Cd of Trust 3724
Color Corporntion of America
Corpor~tion of America
Cot"t='orC'ltion of A:llcrica, Trustee
fo~ D~nk of Am~ricn 32
Doe CorporatiO[l, 10-50
Fitz-Patrick, AdR H.

Fitz-Patrick, C. C.

Frank X. Enderle, Inc., Ltd.

George, Florence H.

George, Elton
Ghiglia, Frank P.

Givan, Amelia (Deceased)
Glendale Junior CollE.~gc District
of Los Angeles County
Glendale Unified School District
Glenhaven He::lorial Park, Inc.

Griffith, Howard Barton
Handorf, August V" Heirs of
Hanna, George
Hicks, Forrest w., Executor of
Estate of (California Bank)
Houston-Fearless Corp., ?he
Industrial Fuel. Supply Co.

Intervalley Savings & Loan
Association
Julius, Adenia C,
Julius, Louis r,.,
Kaesemeycr, F.dna :-1.

Karagozian, Charles
Kates, ~~ntha;. "s CO-;"'X'JC,;:c:',
Estate o~ Duc~~or~h
Kelley, J~l.t'
Kelley, Victor n.

Kiener, liarry, Deceased,
Heirs of
KI1UPP, Guy, Trustee
Landes, Cldra B~~tlGtt
Lentz, Rich~rd
Doe 18-500 Los Angelc~ Countv Flood
Control District
Duck ..... or.th, ,lohn t·;., (E!')tate of)
Equ j.l<1bl ... ~ Ll [,"" 1\55ur.1nc~
S0~i~I~' of tt10 llJlitcd SlJtc:;
Fidvlit'/ F..;.!rt·:~l ~;,l\,j!l'l$ E.

T,o,Jn t\:,!.~,:;,(.~ji\li\.'n . -37-
Los AnclClC's Land and \\'<lt~r
Comp.;ny
Los I\;W'~; ";':'\,.;~~ u;,l :,: .... i:·,.

Dcpr):; i.t ((\;:-,;,,:1:1::' (Salt.:)
937 of 1278

,
Los Angeles Snfe Deposit
Company, Trustee for Security
First National Bank of
Los Angeles
Los Angeles Trust and Safe
Deposit Company, Trustee
for H. Kiener
Lytle, Lydia L.

Massachusetts l-1utual Life
·Insurance Company
Mahannah, E. E.

Mahannah, Hazel E.

M.C.A., Inc.

Mangan, Blanche M.

Mangan, Nicholas
McDougal, Hurray
McDougal, Marian Y.
~1ellenthin, Helen Louise
l>1ellenthin, William
Metropollt3n Life Insurance
Company
Morgan, Kenneth H.

Morgan, Anne
Hulholland Orchard Company
Mutual Life Insurance Company
of New York
Northwestern Hutual Life
Insurance Company
Oakmont Club
Oakwood Ce::rr.ctel:Y Association
P,1zadcna S<lvinc:s & Loan
ASS0ciation
Pagliai, Bruno
Pacific Lighting Corporation
Richardson, William L.

Security First National Bank
of Los Angeles, Trustee
Security First ~ational Bank
of Los Angeles, Trustee for
L. Schwaiger, etc.

Smith, T. A.

Smith, Sidney, Estate of,
F. Small, Administrator
Southern California Service
Corp., Trustee for Verdugo
Savings and Loan Association
Sylmar Properties Inc.

Title Insurance and Trust Co.,
Trustee for ~1etropolitan Life
Insurance Company, I. 1570
Title Insurance and Trust Co.,
Trustee for Nestern Mortgage
Company
Title Guarantee & Trustee Company,
Trustee
Title Insurance & Trust Company,
Trustee for C. Fitz-Patrick
Title Insurance & Trust Company,
Trustee for Intervalley Savings
and Loan Association, 1114
Title Insurance & Trust Company,
for Fidelity Savinrys & Loan
Association
Title Insur~nce & Trust Com;~any
for Equitable Life Assurance
Society, u.s.

Union Bank & Trust Co~?any of
Los Angeles Trustee for
B. Becker, ct al.

Valliant, GI~ce C.

Verdugo S<1vil:QS & Loan l',ssociatio:,
Warner Brolhers Pictures, Inc.

Warner Ranch Company, Inc.

Pierce Brothers ~1ortuary tQalleck, Henry L., as Execut'Jr of the Estate of A. Givan
Premier Laundry Company, Inc.

Pur-o-Spr ing \','0 tel: Company
Western Horlgug~ Company
Wheeland. H. ~'l.

Renfrow, H.1.ry Hi ldred
Renfrow, rleas~nt Thomas
Wise, Constan-::e ~lul ia R£>inC'rt, fl. C,
Wis0., Robert 7ay~cr
-38- Young, Hdl"cia S,
938 of 1278

ATTACHHENT "C"
LIST OF DEFAUL1'ED PARTIES
Aetna Life Insurance Company
American Savings & Loan
Association
Babikian, Helen
Bank of ~el'ica, N.T. & 5.10..,
Trustee
Bannan, B. A.

Bannan, Clotilde R.

Berkerneyer, Henry N.

Berkemcyer, Hildur M.

Bell, William M.

Bell, Sallie C.

Borgia, Andrea, Estate of
Borgia, Frances
Brown, Stella f.1.

Burns, George A.

Burns, Louise J.

California Bank, Trustee re
Hollywood St"te Bank
California Bank, Trustee
Citizens Nalion~l D~nk &
Savings Bank of Los Angeles,
Trust for H. Stavert
Citizens ~ati,onal T~ust &
Savings Bank of Los Angeles,
Mort. 1. 164
Citizens Nationcl Trust &
Savinqs bank of Los Angeles
Trustee
Citizens ~;atj()!1a,L Trust &
S«vings B~nk of Lo~ Angeles,
Co-Trustee for Estate of
A. V. Bandorf
Clauson, Emna S.

Continental Auxillary
Company (Due Corporation 1)
Cowlin, Josephine HcC.

Cowl in, Donald G.

Cowlin, Dorothy N.
-39-
Corporation of' America, Trustee
for Bank of America, I. 54
Oesco Corp.

Diller, Michael
ErratchuQ, Richard
Glendale Towel and Linen Supply
Company
Guyer, I rene vi.

Herrmann, Emily Louise by
Louis T. Herrmann, Successor
In Interest
Hicks, Forrest \1., Executor
of Estate of (California
Bank)
Hidden Hills Corporation
Holmgrin, Neva Bartlett
Hope, Lester To",tnes
Hope, Dolores Defina
Huston Homes (Doe Corporation 8)
Johnson, William Arthur, Sr.
(Doe 11)
Johnson, Grace LuvencJ (Doc 12)
Jessup, r-1argucr ite R., Trustee
(for 6)
Jessup, Marguerite Rice
Jessup, Roger
La Haida, James V. (Doe 10)
La Marda, Tony {La MaicL;
Lancaster, P~ul S.

Lancaster, Willi~m
Land Ti tle Insurance COffip<1ny,
as Trustee
Land Title Insurance Co:nrany
Los Angeles Pet Cemetary
Metropolitan Suvings & Loon
Association of Los Angeles
Monteria Lake Association
939 of 1278

Mosher, Eloise V.
t-tosher, w. E.

Hurrny, Marie
Pacific Lighting and Gas
Supply Co.

Plemmons, ' Plorcncc S.

Plemmon~, John R.

Polar Water Company
Pryor, Charles
Rauch, Phil
Roger Jessup Farms
Rushworth, Helen
Rushworth, Lester
Schwaiger, Cecil A.

Schto/aiger I Lester R.

Sealand Investment Corporation,
Trustee for Metropolitan
Savings & Loan Association
Sealand Investment Corporation
Smith, Florence S. (Plemmons)
Southern Service Company, Ltd.

Stavert, \·laltc::.- W.

Sun Valley National Bank of
Los Angeles
Title Insurance ~nd Trust Co.,
Trust ee T. I. Deed of Trust,

1. 31, 32
Title InStlr~ncc alld Trust Co.,
T~ustce for Irltcrv~llcy
Savings & Loan Association
I. 2509
Title Insurance & Trust Co.,
Trustee for ~1a ssachusetts
Mutu~l Life Insurance Co.

Title Insurance ~ni Trust Co.

Title Insurallce and Trust Co.,
Trustee A.

Title Insurance and Trust Co.,
Trustee for Sun Vnlley
N(l. tional Rank o( Los Angeles
-40-
Title Insurance and Trust Co.,
Trustee for J. Moe. Cowl in
Title Insuranc~ and Trust Co.,
Trustee for P. E. Lancaster
Title Insurance and Trust Co.,
Trustee T. I., Deed of Trust
I. 829
Ti tle Insurance and Trust COol
Trustee for C. R. Bannan,
et al.

Wheeland, Henry R.
11heeland, Elizabeth A.
t40·odward, E. C., Co-Trustee of
the Estate of A. V. Handorf
Wright, Alice M;
wright, J. J-klrion
Wright, Irene Evelyn
Wright, Ralph Carver
940 of 1278

ATTACHMENT "0"

DISCLAIMING PARTIES
Andre\~ Jergens Company, The
Boyar, Mark
Chace, William M.
(dba V. P . L. C. )
DeMille, Cecil B., Estate of
Drewry Photocolor Corp.

Hayes, Hay B. (Hal)
Houston Color Film
Laboratories, Inc.

Krown, Samuel P.

La Canada Irrigation District
Lakeside Golf Club (of Hollywood)
Lakewood Water & Power Company
!1ack, Luc ille
Hollin Investment Co.

Mulholland, P. & R., Trustees
for R. Wood
Mulholland, Rose
-41-
Mulholland, Perry
~1ulholland, Thomas
Mureau, Charles
Nathan, Julia N., Trustee
Oakmont Country Club
Platt, George E. Company
Richfield Oil Corporation
Riverwood Ranch Mutual I~ater
Company
Smith, Benjamin B.

Southern California Edison
Company
Spinks Realty Company
Sportsman's Lodge Banquet
Corporation
Stetson, G. Henry
Technicolor Corporation
Valley Lawn !1emorial Park
941 of 1278

ATTACHMENT "E"

LIST OF PRIOR STIPULATED JUDGMENTS
PARTY
Akmadzich, Mary L.

Akmadzich, Peter J.

California Materials Company
Carnation Company
Consolidated Rock Products Co.

Hidden Hills Mutual Water Company
Knickerbocker Plastic Company, Inc.

Livingston Rock & Gravel Co., Inc.

Pacific Fruit Express Company
Pendleton, Evelyn M., dba Deep Rock
Artesian Water Company
Sears, Roebuck and Company
Southern Pacific Company
Sparkletts Drinking Water Corporation
Valley Park Corporation
Walt Disney Productions
White, Constance Ray
White, Leo L.
-42-
DATE

JUDGMENT FILED
July 24, 1959
July 24, 1959
July 24, 1959
Nov. 20, 1958
July 24, 1959
March 11, 1965
Feb. 15, 1960
July 24, 1959
March 11, 1965
Nov. 1 , 1965
June 9 , 1958
March 11, 1965
Nov. 1, 1965
July 24, 19~9
May 15, 196:'
Feb. 15, 1960
Feb. 15, 1960
942 of 1278

2 6
7 1,
I' I all II
1:) llil Ii
1211
" 13
1 14
1 15 i
i ~
ATTACHMENT "F"

STIPULATED

NON-CONSUMPTIVE OR MINIMAL-CONSUMPTIVE USE

PRACTICES
Non-Consumptive Uses
Disney -- extracted ground water is used for air conditioning cooling water in a closed system, which discharges to the channel of the Los Angeles River and is subsequently spread and recharges San Fernando Basin, without measurable diminu- tion or loss.

Sears, Lockheed and Carnation -- extracted ground water, or a portion thereof, is used for air conditioning cooling in a closed system, which discharges to San Fernando Basin through an injection well.
16 i Toluca Lake -- that portion of extracted ground water which is r.ot , !i
17· consumptively used, by evaporation or otherwise, is circu- 18 [I lated and passed through the lake to the channel of the Los 19 Ii Angeles River immediately upstream from Los Angeles' spread- 21 :;
22 Ii
23 il
24 I' .1
II
25 il
II
26 11 27 "
"
ing grounds. where such water is percolated into ~he gr·j~nc water of the Basin without measurable diminution or ioss.

Sportsman's Lodge -- that portion of extracted ground water which is not consumptively used, by evaporation or otherwise, is circulated and passed through fish ponds and returnee to channels tributary to Los Angeles River upstream from Los Angeles' spreading grounds, where such water is percolated into the ground water of the Basin without measurable loss. -43-
943 of 1278

1 2 Conrock
3 &
4 Li vings ton
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 I
"
I;
18 11 19
11 20 h
I :;
211'
Ii
221'
I
23 i
24 25
26 27
I
28 I
Ii
11INIIlAL-CONSUl1PTIVE USES
extracted ground water is used in rock, sand and
gravel, and ready-mix concrete operations with net
consumptive use of 10%, ~;ith the remaininq 90%
returning to the ground water. Each party purc~ases
surface water from Los Angeles in amounts at least
equivalent to such consumptive losses.
-44-
944 of 1278

I
I -4
I
I
I
I
i
. .-l :i
~ ._- . :""J I' I _~ -"'" SIN '-~ , "" IV: 'sY'.AR., ;j. / - J'..~ .)"~' '-.. A_. ,.. '_. __ • ( ."''" .. ,,' Q""\( i • d , •• £- ,~. .r> .. ," suS....... ~ ~ .. ,,~~, "'> ( " i, ~ ~' ;' "
-, \ --...fi:_ ~', ," l. ~ , 1, ...... , .... " .. ~ ., t 'fl- I \\'~~~:::;C/":' •
..:X~\ :", -L 0> (J )1.._) ,I '.' -''',''f, & .. / , ;(. l. l!P~ 1 / I . ~ " '_.
/ ,," .. - .. . • .-. 00 .'s," I / • i I' ['PiNfER'A' , {' " .. . ..,\. . . , ". -~-~ .," --- 'i' , " . .:" ''', , i.
\. ,. " , I· I~ ._
~ ... ' '" ( , .
\';"'v
I ~.~ I"'. . ~ I I, y'/ flf / J1 -'0' , I II
".. ~, -~, h .' f)" . '. r .
/ _A, .. f! Ar-~-:",;...
\ ' .. i ( ""'~'A .. r"'-
\. ,:'"'ef·,.. h "'''"C'-:~~.,," j'C?
.' '- ~~, • 0 • , • • ~ - -- l.r :t"- --y I ./'_,/ -..J 1'" II T" \...., _____ ~--r ! ~ ..... ,-.... "" ....... J '. I ......... ~
a
!
0" ...
.' ,
I
s ..... GAII""t<
OUOltIIUIT ....." MD tOlllrflflCATIOO
,
"
"'O"HI"'H~
.
,'''",
~
"
S=
./
r----.... ,/
1 ) ?-\
~
J
~
~\
.• "" 'f
-;,'
<$>
I
_ ....... ------,
LUI""
-.,,.,-, .. ,~.
, ....... _ .. ..... "' .... -
<r .•• rr-.:.~!::=~
PLACE Of USE
ANO SERVICE AREA.

OF PRII/ATE DEFENDANTS
"s! . ..,. ¥ "C"
AT lA!;tlMUOI. "G".
,.
~. :!
,,_ .. _. --------''----------------------'
'1.1..,.., UlIItrl&O ~ OJ,T.
• L.A.C.r.C.o.

U TIIII AJlOJIZW .11 ..... 00.

U 'UntCK F'OOOI 00.
11 CAWrONUA MTU,U.I .. CO.
l! CAJOIA'flOll CO.
)0 o.:.sou~T&O IIXI: 'JII)O. 00.
)4 tw.a' ~ Ala'alM WAn. 00.
n D&8O.) CDIW_
M ONtfkf PtIOTOCQLO... CO».

It P'OllDT LAW CO.
41 rll&SKPUki .... n. co.
4) ~ TQW&t. " UlGJI .onLY 00.
n GIA*lAVlQI KUlJalAL , .... rw::.
•• ~ ox.oa nUl 1M. lItC.
.. IOflCQ:fIIII()C:UJI f"L,MTIC CO •• rM:.
.. t.AU51D1!1 OCJ{J cua or .-Ju:rwooo
U LIVIIlGl!lTOIIII.xx .. GAAYU. CO.

U t£X::XliUO AIMClUlT 00 ...
56 we: AJlGItLU PST aJCTE~
41 K)tI"t"BIUA L..\D .u.oc.
61 Mlnn::)(.l..oVIP OJlOlAJt:O CO.
.... 0AnI000 C&lC"nIU ASSOC.
.. PAClrlC LlIMTIIlG .. G.U alWf1.f co.
., GIOtIQI: •• PlATT CO.

M I'Ol,..U .. AT... ro.
1O aI Y1NIfCOP a.wcs IC.l'T'I.lAL on. co.
n IIOG ... JUSU1' rAb16
'4 SILU<4 .... ucx .. 00.
l! ~ CAL. IlDIIKM CO.
76 1KX.I'tti1.,.. PAClnc. Ml~ co.
n fUVt'KU,III 'P!VlC2 00 •• LTD.
'I' UUJ:lA1'TS~" WAft. <Xl'M'.
'19 .. 1 .... taALTf 00.
1(1 '1"OM"a1 •• ', r..ooc.. De.
al ~lCXlLOll aJO.
t7 TOLUCA tAQ PlOP, c.w:a. UIOC.
9"J UIIII V1i:Nl1U. PICTUka OD.
101 VAU'AJ..U\ ICIM:)IUAL fAa
104 VIU'I os UMP8 0U1'CII IADM PC.
1 05 liM" Ot8QT PfilOOUCTlOilt
1'06 .... 1<Ifl'JI IUIOS, PICTUka. 1*:.
117 lIU.l.IM O •• ARntOLOMAOI
llO tllENJl.Y lI •• aJl.JtElGYltt
12 ~ a1.TIU&OA". SUMO'
111 ''l''IU.A ft. ,kMII
126 MJII: IOtU
U' Ga91'1Ga A. IU.'
III WILLI"" ft. CH.ACa
1H ICtfMA L. CLA,USC*
U. ct:CIL •• OOlILUl
141 M.UIJIB DUCll)l()fmt
141 1U000aD BIUlATClfUO
141 _un a.uttON GlUrTtTa
15) IfEVi\ aA.R1'L&Tl'
164 •• B. IWtAHNM
168 cat.asTl LOOISII MeO.I'
11] K.UAG lCOaDIGU .. I
111 ,)OfnI'. IC1l.Llll
11) cau::t..aS I«IJISAU

1.. noaDCa s .• UJtIQrI
1M J..&8TK1I IIVSJM)JI'l'!I
195 Lan:A.. ICMfAlGIP

19. UDIIn' SKInt
300 g .... a~
;,04 A... wAJIIfP
105 ILlIMn!I A .........
~,ll ALlCl; •• WJUCOIrf

00. CO .. 4 IIlLLtI 1.., .... =1 COW.
(01 DW.T LOUIe .. .....

COl tf r..arra __ ...
945 of 1278

CITY OF GLENDALE
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX G

CITY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 13.36 (WATER

CONSERVATION)
946 of 1278

City of Glendale, CA
Thursday, March 19, 2026
Title 13. Public Services
Chapter 13.36. WATER CONSERVATION
§ 13.36.010. Established.

There is established a city mandatory water conservation plan. (Prior code § 9-150)
§ 13.36.020. Policy.

It is declared that, because of th e conditions prevailing in the city and in the areas of this state and elsewhere from which the city obtains its water supplies, because water needs are projected to increase in the future and while water is a renewable resource, it is a finite one, the general welfare requires that the water resources available to the city be put to the maximum beneficial use to the extent to which they are capable, and that th e waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the inte rests of the people of the city and for the public welfare.
(Prior code § 9-151; Ord. 5112 § 61, 1996)
§ 13.36.030. Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a mandatory water conservation plan to minimize the effect of a shortage of water to the customers of the city and, by means of this chapter, to adopt provisions that will significantly reduce th e consumption of water over an extended period of time thereby extending the available water required for the cust omers of the city, to protect basic human health, safety and quality of life, to share the impacts ca used by the water shortage in accord with the severity of the water shortage, and to minimize the hardship to the city and the general public to the greatest extent possible.
(Prior code § 9-153; Ord. 5112 § 62, 1996)
§ 13.36.040. Definitions.

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall be construed as defined in this section unless from the context a different m eaning is intended or unless a different meaning is specifically defined within individual sections of this chapter:
"California-friendly plantings" or "California-friendly landscaping" means those landscape plantings, including, but not limited to, trees, shrubs, perennials, groundcovers, ornamental grasses and California-native plants, that require low water use for maintenance and that are included in the Metropolitan Water District's California Friendly Garden Guide catalogue, available at http:// www.bewaterwise.com.

WATER CONSERV ATION - City of Glendale, CA https://ecode360.com/print/GL4929?guid=43350020 1 of 9 3/19/2026, 3:49 PM
947 of 1278

A.

1. 2.

3. 4.
"Dining establishment" means a catering business or a restaurant, hotel, café, cafeteria or other public place where food or drink is sold, served or offered for sale. "Low income individual" means any individual that is eligible for participation in the division's public benefit charge low-income program.
"Potable water" shall be defined as set forth in Section 13.28.020 of this code. "Process water" means water used to manufacture, alter, convert, clean, heat or cool a product, or the equipment used for such purpose; water used for plant and equipment washing and for transporting the raw materials and products; and water used to grow and maintain trees and plants for sale or installation. Process water does not include water used in the preparation of food or drinks.
"Recycled water" shall be defined as set forth in Section 13.38.020 of this code. (Prior code § 9-154; Ord. 5112 § 63, 1996; Ord. 5660 § 3, 2009; Ord. 5854 § 1, 2015) § 13.36.050. Scope.

The provisions of this chapter shall apply to al l water customers and property served water by the department wherever situated, and shall also apply to all pr operty and facilitie s owned, maintained, operated or under the jurisdiction of the various officers, boards, departments or agencies of the city. (Prior code § 9-156; Ord. 5660 § 4, 2009)
§ 13.36.060. No water waste policy.

There is in effect at all times in the city a "n o water waste" policy as set forth herein. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, at no time shal l any person make, cause, use, or permit the use of water from the department for residential, comme rcial, industrial, agricultural, governmental, or any other purpose in a manner contrary to any provis ion of this chapter or in an amount in excess of that use permitted by the conservation phase then in effect pursuant to action taken by the city council in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Water Use Restrictions.

Hose Washing. Potable water shall not be used for hose washing of sidewalks, walkways, driveways, or parking areas, tennis courts, patios, porches or other paved areas, except: (a) where necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary hazards, and then only by use of a handheld bucket or similar container or a hand-held hose equipped with a water shut-off device; (b) when using a low-volume high-pressure cleanin g machine; or (c) that flammable or other dangerous substances may be disposed of by direct hose flushing by public safety officers for the benefit of public health and safety.

Overspray or Runoff. There shall be no use of water for any purpose which results in overspray, runoff in flooding or runoff onto ha rdscape, driveways, streets, adjacent lands or into gutters.

Decorative Fountains. Except for water play features in city parks, no water shall be used to clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains or similar structures unless such water is part of a recirculation system or unless such water is recycled water, which must be clearly posted.

Leaks. No water customer of the department sh all permit water to leak from any facility on his or her premises; failure to effect the repair of any leak, within 72 hours after the customer is notified of or discovers the leak , shall subject said customer to all penalties provided herein for waste of water.

WATER CONSERV ATION - City of Glendale, CA https://ecode360.com/print/GL4929?guid=43350020 2 of 9 3/19/2026, 3:49 PM
948 of 1278

5. a.
b.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10. a.
b.

11. 12.

13. 14.

B.

Irrigation Times.

No landscaped or vegetated areas, whether or not such areas include California- friendly plantings and including, but not limited to, grass, lawn, groundcover, shrubbery, annual and perennial plants, crops, and trees, including in golf courses, cemeteries, parks and school areas, shall be watered, sprinkled, or irrigated between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except for very short periods of time for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation syst em. Irrigation using recycled water is exempt from this limitation provided such usage is permitted by law and is clearly posted.

No landscaped or vegetated areas, whether or not such areas include California- friendly plantings, shall be watered, sprinkled or irrigated on days when the wind is blowing causing overspray and on days when it is raining, or within 48 hours after it rains.

Vehicle Washing. The washing of commercial and noncommercial privately owned automobiles, trucks, trailers, motor homes, boats, buses, airplanes and other types of vehicles is restricted to use of a hand-hel d bucket and quick rinses using a hose with a positive shutoff nozzle. Exceptions: the use of wash water which is on the immediate premises of a commercial car wash or commerc ial service station; or where health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning, such as garbage trucks and vehicles which transport food and perishables.

Commercial Car Wash and Laundry Systems. The installation of a nonrecirculating water system for any new commercial conveyor car wash system or new commercial laundry system is prohibited. Effective July 1, 2014, no commercial conveyor car wash may use a nonrecirculating water system in its operation.

Water for Construction Purposes. Water for construction purposes including, but not limited to, debrushing of vacant land, compaction of fills and pa ds, trench backfill and other construction uses, shall only be used in an ef ficient manner which will not result in runoff.

Recycled water shall be used whenever it is an available and feasible alternative source of water.

Fire Hydrants. Unless a permit has been obtained in accordance with Section 13.04.080 of this code, the use of potable water from fire hydrants shall be limited to firefighting, related activities or other activities immediately nec essary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city.

Dining Establishments.

No dining establishment shall serve drinking water to any customer unless expressly requested by the customer.

Effective January 1, 2010, dining establishments are prohibited from using nonwater- conserving pre-rinse dishwashing spray valves.

Conservation Notices. Dining establishments , hotels, motels and other commercial lodging establishments are required to post notices informing their guests about the city's "no water waste policy" and urging guests to conserve water.

Laundry Service. Hotels, motels and other commercial lodging establishments are required to post notices giving their guests the option of not laundering towels and linens daily.

Single Pass Cooling Systems. The installation of a single pass cooling system is prohibited in any building requesting new or expanded water service from the department.

Process Water. Process water shall be recycled to the greatest extent possible.

The water use restrictions set forth in subsection A of this section shall be in effect at all times, WATER CONSERV ATION - City of Glendale, CA https://ecode360.com/print/GL4929?guid=43350020 3 of 9 3/19/2026, 3:49 PM
949 of 1278

A.

1. a.

B.

1. a.
b.
i.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
except that in the event that the city council de clares the need for conservation as set forth in Section 13.36.080, the water use restrictions shall be amended and the use of water shall be further restricted as required by the phase of conservation then in effect, as described in Section

13.36.070.
(Ord. 5112 § 64, 1996; Ord. 5660 § 5, 2009; Ord. 5675 § 1, 2009; Ord. 5854 § 2, 2015) § 13.36.070. Phases.

Phase I.

Water Use Restrictions.

No use of water may be made contrary to the provisions of the no water waste policy set forth in Section 13.36.060(A)(1) through (14). During conservation phase I, the division of parks, recreation and community se rvices will review its irrigation system for possible efficiencies.

Phase II.

Water Use Restrictions.

No use of water may be made contrary to the no water waste policy set forth in Section

13.36.060(A)(1) through (14).

During conservation phase II, the following additional water use restrictions shall also be in effect:

Landscape Irrigation Days and Durations. The use of potable water to irrigate any landscaped or vegetated areas shall only be permitted on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, for no more than 10 minutes per watering station per permitted irrigation day.

Exceptions.

The director of parks, recreation and community services may establish different irrigation days for any or all city park land, provided that such irrigation shall be limited to three days per week and 10 minutes per watering station per permitted irri gation day, unless otherwise exempted by this chapter.

Irrigation by a drip irrigation system or with low-flow sprinkler heads that require additional watering time are exempt from the 10 minute time limitation, but such irrigation shall be limited to the permitted irrigation days and times of day.

Irrigation with a hand-held bucket or similar container, or a hand-held hose equipped with a water shut off nozzle or device are exempt from the 10 minute time limitation and from th e restriction on landscape irrigation days set forth in subsection (B)(1)(b)(i) of this section, provided that such irrigation occurs before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m.

The restriction on landscape irrigation days and durations shall not apply to: (a) an area designated by the fire chief or city engineer as an area that must be watered for fire prevention or for erosion control; (b) commercial nurseries and commercial growers that water to the extent necessary to sustain plants, trees, shrubs, crops or other vegetation intended for lawful commercial sale; (c) watering to the extent necessary to maintain vegetation, including fruit trees and shrubs, intended for consumption; (d) WATER CONSERV ATION - City of Glendale, CA https://ecode360.com/print/GL4929?guid=43350020 4 of 9 3/19/2026, 3:49 PM
950 of 1278

ii.
iii.

C.

1. a.
b.
i.
ii.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
watering to the extent necessary to establish newly-planted landscaping, during the first two weeks after su ch landscaping has been planted; and (e) irrigation with recycled water in a manner that complies with all applicable laws.

Landscaping Projects. Except for California- friendly landscaping, there shall be a deferral of all new or retrofit landscaping or turf planting requiring potable water service for irrigation. However, the deferral shall not be required for any new or retrofit landscaping plans that have been approved in accordance with Chapter

30.47 of the code prior to the date of adoption of a resolution implementing conservation phase II, III, IV or V, as applicable.

New and Retrofit City and Agency Landscapes. Except for California-friendly landscaping, there shall be a deferral of all new and retrofit landscape and turf planting which requires potable water service for irrigation, on any property owned, controlled or maintained by the city or the redevelopment agency. However, the deferral shall not be required for any new or retrofit landscaping plans that have been approved in accordance with Chapter 30.47 of the code prior to the date of adoption of a resolution implementing conservation phase II, III, IV or V, as applicable.

Phase III.

Water Use Restrictions.

Except as further restricted or as amended by this subsection C, no use of water may be made contrary to the provisions of the no water waste policy set forth in Section

13.36.060(A)(1) through (14) and conservati on phase II as set forth in subsection B of this section.

During conservation phase III, the following additional water use restrictions shall also be in effect:

Water play features. The operation of city-owned water play features such as splash fountains in children's playgrounds, but not including swimming pools or wading pools, shall be limited to no more than five hours per day.

Landscape irrigation days and durations. The use of potable water to irrigate any landscaped or vegetated areas shall only be permitted on Tuesdays and Saturdays, for no more than 10 minutes per watering station per permitted irrigation day.

Exceptions.

The director of parks and recreationa l services may establish different irrigation days for any or all city park land, provided that such irrigation shall be limited to three days per week and 10 minutes per watering station per permitted irrigation day, unless otherwise exempted by this chapter.

Irrigation by a drip irrigation system or with low-flow sprinkler heads that require additional watering time are exempt from the time limitation, but such irrigation shall be limited to the permitted irrigation days and times of day.

Irrigation with a hand-held bucket or similar container, or a hand-held hose equipped with a water shut off nozzle or device are exempt from the 10 minute time limitation, but shall be limited to the permitted irrigation days and times of day.

WATER CONSERV ATION - City of Glendale, CA https://ecode360.com/print/GL4929?guid=43350020 5 of 9 3/19/2026, 3:49 PM
951 of 1278

(4)
D.

1. a.
b.
i.
ii.
iii.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The restriction on landscape irrigation days and durations shall not apply to: (a) an area designated by the fire chief or city engineer as an area that must be watered for fire prevention or for erosion control; (b) commercial nurseries and commercial growers that water to the extent necessary to sustain plants, trees, shrubs, crops or other vegetation intended for lawful commercial sale; (c) watering to the extent necessary to maintain vegetation, including fruit trees and shrubs, intended for consumption; (d) watering to the extent necessary to establish newly-planted landscaping, during the first two weeks after su ch landscaping has been planted; and (e) irrigation with recycled water in a manner that complies with all applicable laws.

Phase IV.

Water Use Restrictions.

Except as further restricted or as amended by this subsection D, no use of water may be made contrary to the provisions of Sections 13.36.060(A)(1) through (14) and conservation phases II and III as set forth in subsections B and C of this section.

During conservation phase IV, the following additional water use restriction shall also be in effect:

Decorative Fountains. The use of potable water to clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative exterior fountains or similar exterior structures is prohibited.

Lakes or Ponds. The use of potable water to fill decorative lakes or ponds is prohibited, except to the extent necessary to maintain aquatic life.

Landscape Irrigation Days and Durations. The use of potable water to irrigate any landscaped or vegetated area s shall only be permitted on Saturdays, for no more than 15 minutes per watering station.

Exceptions.

The director of parks, recreation and community services may establish different irrigation days for any or all city park land, provided that such irrigation shall be limited to three days per week and 10 minutes per watering station per permitted irri gation day, unless otherwise exempted by this chapter.

Irrigation by a drip irrigation system or with low-flow sprinkler heads that require additional watering time are exempt from the time limitation, but such irrigation shall be limited to the permitted irrigation days and times of day.

Irrigation with a hand-held bucket or similar container, or a hand-held hose equipped with an automatic sh ut off nozzle or device are exempt from the 15 minute time limitation, but shall be limited to the permitted irrigation days and times of day.

The restriction on landscape irrigation days and durations shall not apply to: (a) an area designated by the fire chief or city engineer as an area that must be watered for fire prevention or for erosion control; (b) commercial nurseries and commercial growers that water to the extent necessary to sustain plants, trees, shrubs, crops or other vegetation intended for lawful commercial sale; (c) watering to the extent necessary to maintain vegetation, including fruit trees and shrubs, intended for consumption; and (d) irrigation with recycled water in a manner that complies with all applicable laws.

WATER CONSERV ATION - City of Glendale, CA https://ecode360.com/print/GL4929?guid=43350020 6 of 9 3/19/2026, 3:49 PM
952 of 1278

E.

1. a.
b.
i.
ii.
iii.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
iv.

Phase V.

Water Use Restrictions.

Except as further restricted or as amended by this subsection E, no use of water may be made contrary to the provisions of the no water waste policy set forth in Section

13.36.060(A)(1) through (14) and conservation phases II, III, and IV as set forth in subsections B, C and D of this section.

During conservation phase V, the following additional water use restriction shall also be in effect:

Decorative Fountains. The use of potable water to clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains or similar structures, whether such fountains or structures are on the interior or exterior of a site, is prohibited.

Water Play Features. The operation of city-owned water play features such as splash fountains in children's playgrounds, but not including swimming pools or wading pools, shall be limited to no more than four hours per day.

Landscape Irrigation Days and Durations. The use of potable water to irrigate any landscaped or vegetated areas shall only be permitted on the first and third Saturdays of each month. Irrigation is lim ited to the deep irrigation of trees and shrubs for no more than 20 minutes per permitted watering station per irrigation day.

Exceptions.

The director of parks, recreation and community services may establish different irrigation days for any or all city park land, provided that such irrigation shall be limited to three days per week and 10 minutes per watering station per permitted irri gation day, unless otherwise exempted by this chapter. Irrigation of city park land shall not be limited to the deep irrigation of trees and shrubs.

Irrigation by a drip irrigation system that requires additional watering time is exempt from the time limitation, but such irrigation shall be limited to the permitted irrigation days and times of day.

Irrigation of trees or shrubs with a hand-held bucket or similar container, or a hand-held hose equipped with an automatic shut off nozzle or device are exempt from the 20 minute time lim itation, but shall be limited to the permitted irrigation days and times of day.

The restriction on landscape irrigation days and durations shall not apply to: (a) an area designated by the fire chief or city engineer as an area that must be watered for fire prevention or for erosion control; (b) commercial nurseries and commercial growers that water to the extent necessary to sustain plants, trees, shrubs, crops or other vegetation intended for lawful commercial sale; (c) watering to the extent necessary to maintain vegetation, including fruit trees and shrubs, intended for consumption; and (d) irrigation with recycled water in a manner that complies with all applicable laws.

Vehicle Washing. There shall be no washing of any commercial or noncommercial privately-owned automobile, truck, trailer, motor home, boat, bus, airplane or other types of vehicles, except by the use of wash water which is on the immediate premises of a commercial car wash or commercial service station; or where health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning, such as garbage trucks and vehicles which transport food and WATER CONSERV ATION - City of Glendale, CA https://ecode360.com/print/GL4929?guid=43350020 7 of 9 3/19/2026, 3:49 PM
953 of 1278

F.

A.

B.

A.

1. 2.

3. perishables.

Exception. The prohibited use of water fr om the department provided for by Section

13.36.060(A)(1) through (14) and subsections (A)(1), (B)(1), (C)(1), (D)(1) and (E)(1) of this section are not applicable to that use of water necessary to preserve the public health and safety or for essential government services su ch as police, fire, and other similar emergency services.
(Prior code § 9-157; Ord. 5112 § 65, 1996; Ord. 5660 § 6, 2009; Ord. 5675 § 2, 2009) § 13.36.080. Phase implementation and exemptions.

The department shall monitor and evaluate the pr ojected supply and demand for water by its customers monthly, and shall recommend to the city manager the extent of the conservation required by the customers of the department in order for the department to prudently plan for and supply water to its customers. The city manager shall, in turn, notify and recommend to the city council the appropriate phase of water conservation to be implemented. Such phase implementation shall be made by council resolution. Any such resolution shall include such findings or other determinations as may be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Such phase implementation and the water use restrictions for the declared conservation phase shall become operable immediately upon the effective date of the resolution of the council and shall be published once in a daily newspaper of general circulation. Each new customer of the department shall be provided with a copy of said prohibited use provisions at the time of application for service.

Any customer of the department may prospectively apply to the general manager for a modification of, or an exemption from, the water use restrictions set forth in this chapter based upon the unique needs and circumstances of the customer or his or her premises. The general manager may grant such modifications or exemptions, provided that such modifications or exemptions are consistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter. (Prior code § 9-158; Ord. 5112 § 66, 1996; Ord. 5660 § 7, 2009; Ord. 5675 § 3, 2009) § 13.36.090. Enforcement.

Penalties. It is unlawful for any customer of the department to fail to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter. The penalties set forth in this section shall be additional to those penalties provided in any other section of this code. The penalties for failure to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter shall be as follows:

For the first observed or reported violation of any of the provisions of subsection (A)(1) through (14) of Section 13.36.060 and subsections (A)(1), (B)(1), (C)(1), (D)(1) or (E)(1) of Section 13.36.070, in accordance with the applicable water conservation phase in effect at the time of the violation, the department shall issue a written warning notice of the fact of such violation to the customer and a written copy of Chapter 13.36 of this title.

Any subsequent violation of any of the provisions of subsections (A)(1) through (14) of Section 13.36.060 and subsections (A)(1), (B)(1), (C)(1), (D)(1) or (E)(1) of Section

13.36.070, in accordance with the applicable water conservation phase in effect at the time of the violation, shall be punishable as an infraction in accordance with Chapter 1.20 and Chapter 1.24 of the code.

In addition to the penalties set forth in Chapter 1.20 and Chapter 1.24 of the code, the city may pursue any available civil remedies and cr iminal penalties, including, but not limited to, seek a court order permitting the installati on of a flow-restricting device and/or disconnection of water service on the service of the customer at the premises at which the violation occurred or is occurring, together with any and all costs incurred by the city as a WATER CONSERV ATION - City of Glendale, CA https://ecode360.com/print/GL4929?guid=43350020 8 of 9 3/19/2026, 3:49 PM
954 of 1278

B.

C.

A.

B.
result of the waste of water, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, the costs of installation and removal of said flow restrictor and the cost of disconnection and restoration of service.

The general manager, or designee, may enter into a written agreement to resolve any violation provided that such agreement is consistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter.

Reservation of Rights. The rights of the department hereunder shall be cumulative to any other rights of the department, including, but not limited to, its right to discontinue service. (Prior code § 9-159; Ord. 5112 § 67, 1996; Ord. 5660 §§ 8, 9, 2009; Ord. 5854 § 3, 2015) § 13.36.100. Reports.

All commercial and industrial cu stomers of the department using 25,000 billing units per year or more shall submit a water conservation plan to the city manager's office and the general manager. These users shall submit quarterly to the city manager's office and the general manager a report on the progress of their conservation plans.

All city departments shall submit to the city manager and the general manager an annual public report on their water conservation efforts. The reports are to present the level of performance compared to their water conservation plans.
(Prior code § 9-160; Ord. 5112 § 68, 1996; Ord. 5660 §§ 10, 11, 2009) § 13.36.110. Rules and regulations.

The general manager shall have the power to establish rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of this chapter for the administration of the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 5660 § 12, 2009)
WATER CONSERV ATION - City of Glendale, CA https://ecode360.com/print/GL4929?guid=43350020 9 of 9 3/19/2026, 3:49 PM
955 of 1278

CITY OF GLENDALE
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX H

CITY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
956 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018
City of Glendale
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents City of Glendale, California
2018 i

Table of Contents
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-1
I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 - 2
Why Develop a Local Hazard Mit i g a t i o n P l a n ? 1 - 3 Who is covered by the Mitigation Plan? 1-3
Natural Hazard Land Use Policy in California 1-4
Support for Hazard Mitigation 1-6
P l a n M e t h o d o l o g y 1 - 6
Input from the Steering Committee 1-7
S t a k e h o l d e r I n t e r v i e w s 1 - 7 State and Federal Guidelines and Requirements for Mitigation Plans 1-8 H a z a r d S p e c i f i c R e s e a r c h 1 - 9 P u b l i c W o r k s h o p s 1 - 9
H o w i s t h e P l a n U s e d ? 1 - 9
Volume I: Mitigation Action Plan 1-10
Volume II: Hazard Specific Information 1-11
V o l u m e I I I : R e s o u r c e s 1 - 1 2 SECTION 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE 2-1
Why Plan for Natural and Manmade Hazards in the City of Glendale? 2-2 H i s t o r y o f G l e n d a l e 2 - 2
G e o g r a p h y a n d t h e E n v i r o n m e n t 2 - 3 M a j o r R i v e r s 2 - 5
C l i m a t e 2 - 6
R o c k s a n d S o i l 2 - 6
Other Significant Geologic Features 2-7
P o p u l a t i o n a n d D e m o g r a p h i c s 2 - 1 0 L a n d a n d D e v e l o p m e n t 2 - 1 3
H o u s i n g a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t 2 - 1 4 E m p l o y m e n t a n d I n d u s t r y 2 - 1 6 Transportation and Commuting Patterns 2-17
Extensive Transportation Network 2-18
SECTION 3: RISK ASSESSMENT 3-1
What is a Risk Assessment? 3-2
957 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents City of Glendale, California
2018 ii

Federal Requirements for Risk Assessment 3-7
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 3-8
S u m m a r y 3 - 9
SECTION 4: MULTI-HAZARD GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS 4-1
M i s s i o n 4 - 2
G o a l s 4 - 2
A c t i o n I t e m s 4 - 2
Mitigation Plan Goals and Public Participation 4-2
H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n P l a n A c t i o n I t e m s 4 - 4 M u l t i - H a z a r d A c t i o n I t e m s 4 - 5 S E C T I O N 5 : P L A N M A I N T E N A N C E 5 - 1 1 Monitoring and Implementing t h e P l a n 5 - 1 2 Implementation through Existing Programs 5-13
Evaluating and Updating the Plan 5-15
SECTION 6: EARTHQUAKES 6-1
Why Are Earthquakes a Threat to the City of Glendale? 6-2 E a r t h q u a k e H a z a r d A s s e s s m e n t 6 - 2 0 Existing Mitigation Activities 6-81
Earthquake Mitigation Action Items 6-85
E a r t h q u a k e R e s o u r c e D i r e c t o r y 6 - 9 0 S E C T I O N 7 : W I L D F I R E S 7 - 1
Why are Wildfires a Threat to Glendale? 7-2
C o m m u n i t y W i l d f i r e I s s u e s 7 - 2 2 W i l d f i r e M i t i g a t i o n A c t i o n I t e m s 7 - 4 3 W i l d f i r e R e s o u r c e D i r e c t o r y 7 - 4 9 SECTION 8: FLOODS 8-1
Why are Floods a Threat to the City of Glendale? 8-2 H a z a r d A s s e s s m e n t 8 - 2 6
C o m m u n i t y F l o o d I s s u e s : 8 - 3 1 Flood Mitigation Action Items 8-39
F l o o d R e s o u r c e D i r e c t o r y 8 - 4 3 S E C T I O N 9 : L A N D S L I D E S 9 - 1
Why are Landslides a Threat to City of Glendale? 9-3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents City of Glendale, California
2018 iii

Landslide Hazard Assessment 9-13
Community Landslide Issues 9-17
L a n d s l i d e R e s o u r c e D i r e c t o r y 9 - 2 3 SECTION 10: MAN-MADE HAZARDS 10-1
Why Are Man-Made Hazards A Threat to The City of Glendale? 10-2 H a z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s 1 0 - 2
Off-Site Hazardous Materials Characteristics in Glendale 10-4 Historical Incidents of Hazardous Materials Release 10-4 V u l n e r a b i l i t y a n d R i s k 1 0 - 4 Hazardous Materials Incident Response 10-5
I n c i d e n t R e c e i p t 1 0 - 5
T y p e C o d e 1 0 - 5
D i s p a t c h O p e r a t i o n s 1 0 - 6
Terrorism & Weapons of Mass D e s t r u c t i o n ( W M D ) 1 0 - 7 Terrorist Target Characteristics 10-7
H a z a r d A n a l y s i s 1 0 - 7
Terrorist Incident Response 10-8
M a j o r A c c i d e n t R e s p o n s e 1 0 - 9 Man-Made Hazard Mitigation Action Items 10-13
R e s o u r c e s 1 0 - 1 6
SECTION 11: PANDEMIC 11-1
Introduction 11-2
Pandemic Influenza Guidelines for Ems Providers 11-4 R i s k A n a l y s i s 1 1 - 9
R e s e a r c h N e e d s 1 1 - 9
Pandemic Mitigation Action Items 11-9
Pandemic Influenza Planning 11-10
P u b l i c a t i o n s 1 1 - 1 2

958 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-1

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Table of Contents

I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 - 2
Why Develop a Local Hazard Mit i g a t i o n P l a n ? 1 - 3 Who is covered by the Mitigation Plan? 1-3
Natural Hazard Land Use Policy i n C a l i f o r n i a 1 - 4 S u p p o r t f o r H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n 1 - 6 P l a n M e t h o d o l o g y 1 - 6
Input from the Steering Committee 1-7
S t a k e h o l d e r I n t e r v i e w s 1 - 7 State and Federal Guidelines and Requirements for Mitigation Plans 1-8 H a z a r d S p e c i f i c R e s e a r c h 1 - 9 P u b l i c W o r k s h o p s 1 - 9
H o w i s t h e P l a n U s e d ? 1 - 9
V o l u m e I : M i t i g a t i o n A c t i o n P l a n 1 - 1 0 V o l u m e I I : H a z a r d S p e c i f i c I n f o r m a t i o n 1 - 1 1 V o l u m e I I I : R e s o u r c e s 1 - 1 2

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-2

Introduction
Throughout history, the residents of Southern California, including the City of Glendale, have experienced and dealt with a variety of natural hazards common to the area. While the residents of this area did not have access to the same technology to monitor and document the various hazards they faced in the 1700s and 1800s, we do have documentation that shows their effects. The survivors often recorded their impressions in journals, letters, newspaper articles, and toward the end of nineteenth century, in photographs. In the 1900s, people began to not only document these hazards, but also to study and modify the natural environment to reduce the impact of these natural hazards on the local population and the environment. These studies were also often documented in scientific journals. Many of these sources are referred to in the following chapters in an effort to document the area’s past vulnerability to specific natural hazards, and to assess the area’s potential future risks. This is especially important because as the population of Southern California increases, natural hazards have the potential to pose an even higher risk to the population and the economic welfare of the area.

People originally from all over the United States and the world now call the City of Glendale home because of its gentle Mediterranean climate and its geographical attributes (the ocean and mountains are both within a one- to two-hour drive). However, the area’s terrain is the product of powerfully active natural forces forming and tearing down mountains at r e m a r k a b l e r a t e s b y g e o l o g i c a l s t a n d a r d s . W h e n h u m a n s i n t e r a c t w i t h t h i s c h a n g i n g environment, there is an increased possibility for the population to be negatively impacted.

Thus, a natural event, such as an earthquake, clearly has the potential to cause significant damage at personal, local, and regional levels. In this document, we discuss scenarios that estimate how much damage (in terms of loss of life, injuries, and economic loss) an earthquake could cause in Glendale.

In addition to earthquakes, the City of Glendale, like most of the region, is also subject to wildfires, floods, landslides and debris flows, windstorms, tornadoes, and other geological hazards. The historical record and our current state of knowledge indicate that those hazards with the potential to cause the most damage in Glendale, listed in order of decreasing 959 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-3

severity, include earthquakes, wildfires, floods, and landslides. These are the four natural hazards that are covered in most detail in this document, given that it is possible to minimize the losses that result from these hazards through careful planning and community participation in the implementation of natural hazard reduction measures.

Why Develop a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan?
As the costs of damage from natural disasters continue to increase, communities realize the importance of identifying effective ways to reduce their vulnerability to disasters. Hazard mitigation plans assist communities in doing so by identifying resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction, while guiding and coordinating mitigation activities throughout the area. This document aims to do just that for the city of Glendale, California.

The Plan provides a set of action items that, if implemented, can help reduce the risk from hazards through education and outreach programs, the development of partnerships, and the implementation of preventive activities (such as land use programs) that restrict and control development in areas subject to damage from natural hazards.

The resources and information contained within the Mitigation Plan:
x Establish a basis for coordination and collaboration among agencies and the public in the City of Glendale;
x Identify and prioritize future mitigation projects; and x Assist in meeting the requirements of federal assistance programs.

The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan works in conjunction with other City plans, including the City’s Safety Element of the General Plan and the City’s Emergency Operations Plans.

Who is covered by the Mitigation Plan?
Glendale’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan covers the population that lives and works within the city’s official boundaries (see Map 1-1 below). This Plan provides a framework to plan for the four main natural hazards that pose the greatest risk to the Glendale area, as well as some man-made hazards. The resources and background information in the Plan are applicable city-wide, and the goals and recommendations can lay the groundwork for local mitigation plans and partnerships.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-4

Natural Hazard Land Use Policy in California
Planning for natural hazards should be an integral element of any city’s land use planning program. All California cities and counties are required to have a Safety Elements section in their General Plan that documents the natural hazards specific to the area and provides the framework by which ordinances should reduce these hazards1. However, Safety Elements are typically updated only once every 15 to 25 years and are often superseded by other local and statewide planning regulations. While Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) requirements are similar to municipal Safety Elements, FEMA requires state, tribal, and local governments to develop and adopt hazard mitigation plans as a condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance, including funding for mitigation projects. Jurisdictions must update their hazard mitigation plans and re-submit them for FEMA approval every five years to maintain eligibility. Current Safety Elements, such as Glendale’s (adopted in October 2003 and updated in 2010), emphasize hazard mapping and develop forward-looking land use planning policies to minimize those hazards. FEMA has directed that, following the hazard mapping effort, an emphasis be placed on hazard mitigation policies that are based on quantifiable vulnerability, loss, and risk analysis. FEMA also requires extensive public participation in this process, because they recognize that without public education and citizen buy-in of mitigation needs, it is nearly impossible to mobilize the level of support necessary to fully begin to work on multi-hazard mitigation over multi-decadal timescales.

1 http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_C4_final.pdf

960 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-5

Map 1-1 – City of Glendale

Source: Google Maps 2018
The continuing challenge faced by local officials and state government is to maintain the local hazard mitigation plans’ abilities to respond to the changing conditions and needs of California’s diverse and growing communities. This includes addressing the effects of low- probability but high-risk that natural events (such as major earthquakes and floods, which can skip entire generations and are, therefore, likely to be dismissed over time) can have on the built environment. This is particularly true in the case of planning for natural hazards where communities must balance development pressures with detailed information on the nature and extent of hazards. Planning for natural hazards, therefore, calls for local plans to include inventories, policies, and ordinances to guide the safe development of areas that history shows can be greatly affected by infrequent but large-magnitude natural hazard events. These inventories should include the multitude of hazards facing the community, the built environment at risk, the personal property that may be damaged by hazard events, and most importantly, the people who live in a hazard zone.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-6

Support for Hazard Mitigation
All mitigation is local, and the local jurisdictions have primary responsibility for development and implementation of risk reduction strategies and policies. Local jurisdictions, however, are not alone. Partners and resources exist at the regional, state, and federal levels. Numerous California state agencies have a role in the research and public education about natural hazards and in natural hazard mitigation. Some of these key agencies include:
භ The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is responsible for disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and the administration of federal funds after a major disaster declaration;
භ The Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) gathers information about earthquakes, integrates this information on earthquake phenomena, and communicates this to end-users and the general public to increase earthquake awareness, reduce economic losses, and save lives;
භ The California Division of Forestry and Fire Protections (CAL Fire) is responsible for all aspects of wildland fire protection on state lands, and administers forest practices regulations on non-federal lands;
භ The California Geological Survey (CGS) maps and analyzes data on the state's diverse geologic environment, earthquakes, and other geologic hazards and mineral resources to provide critical information to protect life, property, commerce, and the environment from natural hazards.
භ The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) manages California's water resources, systems, and infrastructure, including the State Water Project (SWP), in a responsible, sustainable way. Their responsibilities and duties include preventing and responding to floods, droughts, and catastrophic events; informing and educating the public on water issues; developing scientific solutions; restoring habitats; planning for future water needs, climate change impacts, and flood protection; constructing and maintaining facilities; generating power; ensuring public safety; and providing recreational opportunities.

Plan Methodology
Information in the Mitigation Plan is based on research from a variety of sources, with emphasis on data previously collected by the consultant for the City’s Safety Element of the General Plan, a document adopted by City Council in 2003 and revised in 2010. The consultant was helped on this effort by staff from the City of Glendale, who conducted data research, facilitated steering committee meetings and public workshops, and developed the final Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The research methods and various contributions to the 961 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-7

Plan include:

Input from the Steering Committee
Internal and External Stakeholders guided development of the Mitigation Plan. This group played an integral role in developing the mission, goals, and action items for the Mitigation Plan. The group consisted of representatives of public and private agencies, as well as organizations in the City of Glendale, including:
x City of Glendale Fire Department, including Emergency Services x City of Glendale Planning Division – Community Development Department x City of Glendale Building and Safety Division – Community Development Department x City of Glendale Management Services Department
x City of Glendale Police Department
x City of Glendale Engineering Division - Public Works Department x Glendale Water and Power
x City of Glendale Community Services and Parks Department x City of Glendale Information Services Department
x Glendale Unified School District
x Dignity Health Glendale Memorial Hospital and Health Center x USC Verdugo Hills Hospital

Stakeholder Interviews
City staff conducted interviews with individuals and specialists from organizations interested in natural hazards planning. The interviews identified common concerns related to natural hazards and identified key long and short-term activities to reduce risk from natural hazards. A complete listing of all stakeholders is located in Appendix B. Stakeholders interviewed for the Plan included representatives from:
x Water Providers
x School District(s)
x Los Angeles County Fire Department
x Los Angeles County Public Works
x Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management
x Utility Providers
x Local Businesses
x Glendale Chamber of Commerce
x American Red Cross
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-8

State and Federal Guidelines and Requirements for Mitigation Plans Following are the Federal requirements for approval of a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan:
භ Open public involvement, with public meetings that introduce the process and project requirements.
භ The public must be afforded opportunities for involvement in identifying and assessing risk, drafting a Plan, and being involved in the approval stages of the Plan. භ Community cooperation, with opportunity for other local government agencies, the business community, educational institutions, and non-profits to participate in the process.
භ Incorporation of local documents, including the City’s General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Building Codes, and other pertinent documents.

The following components must be part of the planning process:
භ Complete documentation of the planning process;
භ A detailed risk assessment on hazard exposures in the community; භ A comprehensive mitigation strategy, which describes the goals and objectives, including proposed strategies, programs, and actions to avoid long-term vulnerabilities;
භ A maintenance plan, which describes the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the Plan, and integration of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan into other planning mechanisms;
භ Documentation of formal adoption by the City Council; and භ Plan review by both FEMA and Cal OES.

These requirements are spelled out in greater detail in the following sections of the Plan and supporting documentation.

A minimum of two public workshops (or other public forums) is recommended to meet the requirement for public participation, in addition to the inclusion of representatives from outside organizations on the planning committee itself. The timing and scheduling of the workshops may vary from one community to another depending on how each city’s committee organizes its work and the particular needs of the community.

Glendale’s City staff examined existing mitigation plans of neighboring cities, current FEMA hazard mitigation planning standards (386 series), and the State of California Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Guidance.

Other reference materials consisted of county and city mitigation plans, including:
භ City of Long Beach Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
962 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-9

භ Upper Arkansas Area Risk Assessment and Hazard Mitigation Plan භ State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan
භ City of Santa Clarita Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan භ City of Monterey Hazards Mitigation Plan
භ City of Santa Monica Hazard Mitigation Plan
භ Los Angeles Specific Planning Guidebook provided by the DMAC’s of Area’s C Hazard Specific Research
Glendale’s City staff collected data and compile d r e s e a r c h o n f o u r hazards: earthquakes, wildfires, flooding, and landslides. Research materials used include publications by federal agencies, such as FEMA and the U.S. Geological Survey; state agencies, such as CGS, Cal OES and CDF; the City of Glendale’s Safety Element, and other sources. Extensive research was conducted by referencing historical local sources, interviewing long-time City of Glendale employees who provided invaluable data regarding past local disasters, and locating information specific to the City of Glendale in historical documents.

City of Glendale’s staff evaluated the feasibility and potential effectiveness of the proposed mitigation activities, resources and programs, and potential action items based on their experience in implementing the action items in the Safety Element and from feedback from stakeholder interviews.

Public Workshops
City of Glendale’s staff facilitated several public workshops to gather comments and ideas from City of Glendale citizens about mitigation planning and priorities for mitigation plan goals. Workshops were held on July 19, 2018 and August 20, 2018. Please refer to Appendix B for meeting details.

The resources and information cited in the Hazard Mitigation Plan provide a strong local perspective and help identify strategies and activities to make the City of Glendale more disaster resilient.

How is the Plan Used?
Each section of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provides information and resources to assist people in understanding the hazard-related issues facing Glendale’s citizens, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-10

businesses, and environment. Combined, the sections of the Plan create a document that provides guidelines on how to reduce risk and prevent loss from future natural hazard events.

The structure of the Plan enables the user to refer to specific sections of interest to him or her. It also allows City government to review and update sections when new data becomes available. The ability to update individual sections of the Hazard Mitigation Plan places less of a financial burden on the City. Decision-makers can allocate funding and staff resources to selected pieces in need of review; thereby, avoiding a full update that can be costly and time-consuming. New data can be easily incorporated, resulting in a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that remains current and relevant to the City of Glendale.

Glendale’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is organized in three volumes. Volume I contains the executive summary followed by Sections 1 through 5: introduction, community profile, risk assessment, multi-hazard goals and action items, and plan maintenance. Volume II contains the four natural hazard sections (Sections 6 through 9), Man-made Hazards (Section 10), and Pandemic (Section 11). Volume III contains the appendices. Each section of the Plan is briefly described below.

Volume I: Mitigation Action Plan
Executive Summary: Five-Year Action Plan
The Five-Year Action Plan provides an overview of the Hazard Mitigation Plan’s mission, goals, and action items. The Plan’s action items address multi-hazard issues, as well as hazard-specific activities that are and continue to be implemented to reduce risk and prevent loss from future natural hazard events.

Section 1: Introduction
The Introduction describes the background and purpose of updating the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of Glendale.
963 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-11

Section 2: Community Profile
This section presents the history, geography, demographics, and socioeconomics of the City of Glendale. It serves as a tool to provide a historical perspective of natural and manmade hazards in the city, and a springboard to understand how these hazards can impact the city in the future.

Section 3: Risk Assessment
This section provides information on hazard identification, vulnerability, and risk associated with natural hazards in the city of Glendale.

Section 4: Multi-Hazard Goals and Action Items
This section provides information on the process used to develop goals and action items that cut across the four natural hazards addressed in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Section 5: Plan Maintenance
This section provides information on Plan implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.

Volume II: Hazard Specific Information
Hazard-specific information on four persistent hazards is addressed in this Plan. Persistent hazards occur with some regularity and may be forecasted through historic evidence and scientific methods. Catastrophic hazards do not occur with the frequency of persistent hazards, but, as their name denotes, can have devastating impacts on life, property, and the environment. In Southern California, because of its geology and terrain, earthquakes, wildfires, floods, and landslides have the potential to be catastrophic, as well as persistent hazards. Man-made and pandemic hazards also have the potential to affect the area.

Additionally, for the coastal areas of Southern California, tsunamis, while very rare, have the potential to devastate low-lying coastal areas.

The hazards addressed in the Plan include:

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-12

Section 6: Earthquakes
Section 7: Wildfires
Section 8: Floods, Mudflows, and Catastrophic Inundation due to Failure of Reservoirs
Section 9: Landslides and Slope Instability
Section 10: Man-Made Hazards
Section 11: Pandemic
Each of the hazard-specific sections include information on the history; hazard causes and characteristics; hazard assessment; goals and action items; and local, state, and national resources available to mitigate or reduce the impact of these hazards.

Volume III: Resources
The Plan’s appendices are designed to provide users of Glendale’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan with additional information to assist them in understanding the contents of the Mitigation Plan, along with resources to assist them with implementation.

Appendix A: Plan Resource Directory
This appendix provides a resource directory, which includes city, regional, state, and national resources and programs that may be of technical and/or financial assistance to the City of Glendale during Plan implementation.

Appendix B: Public Participation Process
This appendix includes specific information on the various public processes used during development of the Plan.

Appendix C: Benefit Cost Analysis
This appendix describes FEMA's requirements for benefit cost analysis in natural hazards mitigation, as well as various approaches for conducting economic analysis of proposed mitigation activities.
964 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction City of Glendale, California
2018 1-13

Appendix D: List of Acronyms
This appendix provides a list of acronyms for city, regional, state, and federal agencies and organizations that may be referred to within Glendale’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Appendix E: Glossary
This appendix provides a glossary of terms used throughout the Plan.

Appendix F: California Disasters
This appendix lists major California disasters since 1950.

Appendix G: List of Dams
This appendix provides a list of major dams and reservoirs in Los Angeles County.

Appendix H: Maps
This appendix contains the maps referenced throughout the Plan.

Appendix I: References
This appendix contains a listing of references used in the preparation of the Plan.

Appendix J: Plan Adoption
Documentation regarding the formal adoption of the Plan.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-1

SECTION 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE

Table of Contents

Why Plan for Natural and Manmade Hazards in the City of Glendale? 2-2 H i s t o r y o f G l e n d a l e 2 - 2
G e o g r a p h y a n d t h e E n v i r o n m e n t 2 - 3 P o p u l a t i o n a n d D e m o g r a p h i c s 2 - 1 0 L a n d a n d D e v e l o p m e n t 2 - 1 3
E m p l o y m e n t a n d I n d u s t r y 2 - 1 6 Transportation and Commuting Patterns 2-17
Extensive Transportation Network 2-18

965 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-2

Why Plan for Natural and Manmade Hazards in the City of Glendale? Natural and man-made hazards impact citizens, property, the environment, and the economy of any city. Earthquakes, floods, hazardous materials, severe weather, landslides, and wildfires have exposed Glendale residents and businesses to the financial and emotional costs of recovering after natural disasters. The risk associated with natural and man-made hazards increases as more people move to areas affected by these hazards.

The inevitability of natural and man-made hazards, along with 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 natural and man- made hazard events. Identifying the risks and developing strategies to reduce the impact of a hazard event can assist in protecting life and property of communities and their citizens.

Input from local residents and businesses, along with a general understanding of the community profiles is imperative in crafting a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

History of Glendale

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-3

City of Glendale
On February 16, 1906, the City of Glendale was incorporated and spans approximately 30.6 square miles. The City of Glendale is the fourth largest city in Los Angeles County and is home to more than 203,000 people. The City enjoys a mild climate with about 20 inches of rainfall every year.

Glendale is a full-service Charter City governed by a Council-Manager form of government.

Five Council members are elected at-large and serve four-year terms. Elections take place every other year during odd numbered years on the first Tuesday in April. Each year, the Council selects one Council member to serve as the City’s mayor. The City Clerk and City Treasurer are also elected at-large, while the City Manager and City Attorney are appointed by the City Council. A variety of Boards, Commissions, and Committees assist the City Council in serving the Glendale community. These bodies identify specific needs and problems within their purview. Each body meets on a regular basis and each meeting is open to the public. The length of member terms and the interval of appointments vary.

The City Manager, who is appointed by the City Council, acts as the chief executive officer responsible for the daily operations of the City. The City Manager appoints all non-elected department executives. Department executives are responsible for the daily operations within their individual departments, and after appropriate recruitment processes, select various management and support staff members.

Geography and the Environment
The City of Glendale is located in northeast Los Angeles County at the eastern end of the San Fernando Valley. The city has a total area of 30.6 square miles of developed and undeveloped land and is characterized by sharp contrasts in terrain. Distinct topographic features separate the city into four specific areas. From north to south these include: 1) the steeply rising range front of the San Gabriel Mountains, 2) the gently south-dipping but elevated alluvial fan surface known as the La Cañada Valley at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, 3) the lower bedrock highlands of the Verdugo Mountains and the San Rafael Hills, and 4) the even more gently south-dipping alluvial surface (piedmont) at the base of the Verdugo 966 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-4

Mountains. Farther south, just outside city limits, is the northeastern end of the Santa Monica Mountains, which are locally referred to as the Hollywood Hills.

Elevations in the southern part of the city range from about 420 feet above sea level at its southernmost point to about 800 feet at the base of the Verdugo Mountains. Mount Verdugo reaches an elevation of 3,126 feet, whereas the top of Flint Peak in the San Rafael Hills sits at an elevation of 1,889 feet. In the San Gabriel Mountains, the highest point within the city is at an elevation of about 4,800 feet.

The City is minutes away from downtown Los Angeles, Pasadena, Burbank, and Universal City. The city’s historic success at attracting employers is partially attributed to the result of its location at the center of three major freeways. The Golden State Freeway (I-5), Glendale Freeway (SR-2), and Ventura Freeway (SR-134) as well as the 210 Foothill Freeway, all provide easy access for residents, workers, and customers from around the region (see Map 2-1). Its major streets and boulevards include Brand Boulevard, Central Avenue, Chevy Chase Drive, Glendale Avenue, Canada Boulevard, and La Crescenta Avenue, which run generally north to south, and Glenoaks Boulevard, Colorado Street, Broadway Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, and Honolulu Avenue, which run primarily east to west.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
20182-5
Map 2-1: Freeways and Major Arterial Highways in the Glendale Area Major Rivers
The nearest major river to Glendale is the Los Angeles River, located at its closest reach about

0.5 miles west of the southern one-third of the city. The Los Angeles River hugs the north side of the Hollywood Hills and it flows easterly through the area. When it reaches the eastern end of the hills, the river veers south to flow through the “Narrows” and the City of Los Angeles on its way to the Pacific Ocean. The two heavily populated alluvial surfaces at the base of the Verdugo and San Gabriel Mountains are linked by the south-trending canyon carved by the Verdugo Wash that separates the Verdugo Mountains on the west from the San Rafael Hills on the east.
967 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-6

The steep southern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains is deeply incised by gorges and canyons that drain south into the La Cañada Valley, where they have been channelized, conveying their flows south to Verdugo Wash (see Plate H-1: Geomorphic Map of Glendale in Appendix H). The three canyons that are located mostly within city limits include Ward, Dunsmore, and Cooks. Several other streams draining from the San Gabriel Mountains are also channelized through the La Crescenta area and into the northern portion of Glendale.

These include the Eagle Canyon, Pickens, Hills, and Winery Canyon channels. Nearly all the tributaries flowing northerly and easterly out of the Verdugo Mountains and westerly out of the San Rafael Hills empty into Verdugo Wash. South of the mountains, Verdugo Wash turns to the west-southwest and joins the Los Angeles River near the junction of Highway 134 with the 5 Freeway (Interstate 5). Drainage from the southwestern slope of the Verdugo Mountains flows directly across the alluvial fan and into the Los Angeles River. Verdugo Wash has been confined to a man-made channel through most of Glendale to reduce the potential for it to flood the city.

Climate
The City of Glendale enjoys a mild climate with an average high temperature of 77 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures in the city can range from a low of 43 degrees in the winter months to a typical high of low-to-mid 90 degrees in the summer months. Rainfall in the city averages 17.8 inches of rain per year. However, the term “average rainfall” is misleading because over the recorded history of rainfall in Glendale, rainfall amounts have ranged from one-third the normal amount to more than double the normal amount. Furthermore, rainfall in Glendale, as in most of Southern California, tends to fall in large amounts during sporadic and often heavy storms rather than consistently over storms at somewhat regular intervals.

In short, rainfall in Southern California might be characterized as “feast or famine” within a single year.

Rocks and Soil
The properties of the rocks and soils underlying the City of Glendale determine to some extent the potential geologic hazards that may occur in the area. These include the susceptibility of an area to earthquake-induced liquefaction, expansive soils, and landslides.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-7

Therefore, understanding the geologic characteristics of the bedrock and soils of Glendale is an important step in hazard mitigation and avoiding at-risk development. The types and characteristics of the bedrock, unconsolidated sediments (weathered rock material), and soil that underlie the city also reflect the geologic and climatic processes that have affected this region over the past few million years.

The most striking geologic features of the Glendale area are the Verdugo and San Gabriel Mountains; ranges that form a dramatic backdrop to the southern and northern portions of the city. These rugged, geologically young uplands consist of a series of predominantly east- west trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys. The mountains are made up of various bedrock types, including igneous (granite and diorite) and metamorphic (gneiss and quartzite) rocks (see Plate H-2: Geologic Map of Glendale, in Appendix H). As this bedrock weathers and breaks down over time, it forms unconsolidated sediments made-up of silt-, sand-, and gravel-sized pieces of granite and gneiss. These unconsolidated sediments are transported into the intervening valleys by running water, gravity, and wind, where they are deposited on the floodplain and fans as alluvium and fan material. This process has been occurring for thousands of years, and some of the earliest alluvium (referred to as older alluvium), which crops out in the La Cañada Valley and the piedmont surface south of the Verdugo Mountains, has developed secondary clay minerals that makes the deposits weakly consolidated, and has a slightly red color as a result of some of its iron minerals turning to rust.

Other Significant Geologic Features
Glendale, like most of the Los Angeles Basin, overlies and is near to several known faults capable of producing damaging earthquakes. The major faults that have the potential to affect the City of Glendale include the Sierra Madre, Verdugo, Hollywood, Raymond, Puente Hills Blind Thrust, San Andreas, San Gabriel, Newport-Inglewood, and Palos Verdes faults (refer to Section 6, see Map 2-2, and Plate H-4 in Appendix H). The San Gabriel Mountains are being uplifted along the Sierra Madre fault zone, whereas the Verdugo Mountains are being uplifted along the Verdugo fault. Uplift of these mountains accelerated in mid- Pleistocene time, about 500,000 years ago and continues to this day. 968 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-8

Map 2-2: Regional Active and Potentially Active Faults near Glendale

The history of the Los Angeles Basin is punctuated by several relatively frequent, powerful earthquakes. The first historical earthquake was recorded in 1769, when the Portola expedition was camped next to the Santa Ana River in what is now the city of Orange, but earthquakes undoubtedly have shaken the area for millennia. Other more recent earthquakes were recorded in 1812, 1857, 1933 (Long Beach), 1971 (Sylmar), 1987 (Whittier), and 1994 (Northridge). The 1857 Fort Tejon event was a large magnitude 8 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault that caused only minor damage because the epicentral area was largely unpopulated. A similar sized earthquake today would likely result in thousands of casualties and billions of dollars in property loss. Given that paleo seismological research indicates that great earthquakes (i.e., M8.0+) occur on the San Andreas Fault at intervals between 45 and 332 years, with an average interval of 140 years, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-9

another similar M8 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault is considered likely to occur sometime in the next 30 years. This fact alone should encourage local governments to strengthen their infrastructure and prepare for “the Big One.” Furthermore, as we will discuss in this document, there are other lesser-known faults closer to Glendale that have the potential to cause more damage to the city than the more distant San Andreas Fault. The earthquake hazard to the Los Angeles basin, and the cities therein, is severe.

In addition, many areas in the Los Angeles basin, including the City of Glendale, have sandy soils that are subject to liquefaction. The liquefaction-susceptible zones in the City of Glendale are shown on Plate H-5 (Appendix H). These zones include the youthful sandy sediments of Verdugo Wash and La Cañada Valley, along the Los Angeles River floodplain in the southwest part of the city.

Glendale also has areas of slope instability potential. Evidence of past slope failures are found throughout the mountain- and foothill-regions of the city. The crystalline bedrock of the San Gabriel Mountains, weakened by fracturing, shearing, and crushing along numerous fault zones (particularly near the range front), combined with the moderate to extremely steep slopes that have resulted from rapid uplift of the mountains, are important elements that create the setting for the development of slope failures. Similar conditions are present in the Verdugo Mountains and the San Rafael Hills, where rocks are highly weathered and slope gradients of 30 degrees or steeper are common. However, an unpublished engineering geology report records several talus rockfalls on steep slopes and road cuts in the Verdugo Mountains (R. T. Frankian & Associates, 1968).

The common occurrence of rockfalls can also be inferred by the abundant talus at the base of steep slopes and in canyons of the San Gabriel Mountains. However, areas of gross instability, such as large deep-seated landslides, have not been mapped in the Glendale area.

This is primarily due to the fact that the highly fractured crystalline rocks that underlie the San Gabriel and Verdugo Mountains and the San Rafael Hills rarely fail as large cohesive units. All of the landslides mapped within city limits are relatively small in area and limited to the Verdugo Mountains and San Rafael Hills. The larger of these landslides are shown on Plates H-2 and H-11 (in Appendix H). The distribution of existing landslides in the Glendale 969 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-10

area and vicinity was compiled from various publications, including Morton and Streitz, (1969), Crook et al. (1987), and Dibblee, (1989a, 1989b, 1991a, 1991b, 2002).

Population and Demographics
The United States Census Bureau estimates Glendale’s population at 203,054, as of July 1, 20172. The city’s population steadily increased from 1940 through 1990 after a sharp increase of about 50,000 between 1930 and 1940 (see Chart 2.3 below). Although population growth continued into the 1990s, the city’s growth rate slowed to about 8 percent from 1990 to 2000 from an average of about 20 percent per decade for the previous 50 years. There was a slight decrease of approximately 3,200 people in population between the 2000 Census and the 2010 Census. However, the population has grown by almost 12,000 people between 2010 and 2017. This population is not evenly distributed throughout the city’s 30.6 square miles and is primarily concentrated in the lowland portions of the city, south of the Verdugo Mountains, and between the Verdugo Mountains to the south and the San Gabriel Mountains to the north.

An increase in population creates more community exposure in the face of natural and man- made hazards, and changes how agencies prepare for and respond to natural and man-made hazards. For example, more people living at the wildland/urban interface, such as in the Verdugo Hills of Glendale, can increase the risk of wildland fire. This increased potential for wildfires is due to the fact that most fires are caused by human activities. Therefore, when there are more people living and playing in the area, there are more opportunities for fires to start. Additionally, a larger number of people at the wildland/urban interface means that more people are exposed to and can, therefore, be injured by fire or suffer from property damage. Urban/wildland fires are not the only concern in Glendale. In the 1987 publication, Fire Following Earthquake issued by the All Industry Research Advisory Council, Charles Scawthorn explains how a post-earthquake urban conflagration would develop.

2 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/glendalecitycalifornia/PST045217 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-11

Chart 2.1: Population Change Glendale 3

The conflagration would be started by fires resulting from earthquake damage, worsened by the loss of pressure in the fire mains, caused by either lack of electricity to power water pumps, and/or loss of water pressure resulting from broken water mains. Furthermore, increased density would increase risk, as high-density housing increases the chances of fire spreading from one structure to the next. Also, the higher ratio of residents to emergency responders places a greater strain on response capabilities and may likely increase response times.

Natural hazards do not discriminate. The vulnerability of different populations and their ability to recover vary greatly. According to Peggy Stahl of FEMA’s Preparedness, Training, and Exercise Directorate, 80 percent of the disaster burden falls on the public, and a disproportionate percentage of the burden are placed upon special needs groups, including the elderly, women, children, minorities, and the poor.

Table 2-1: U.S. Census Bureau Information for Glendale, CA Population
Population estimates, July 1, 2017, (V2017) 203,054

3 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning- division/services/census-information
970 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-12

Population estimates base, April 1, 2010, (V2017) 191,670 Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 (estimates base) to July 1, 2017, (V2017) 5.9% Population, Census, April 1, 2010 191,719
Age and Sex
Persons under 5 years, percent 5.3%
Persons under 18 years, percent 18.0%
Persons 65 years and over, percent 16.4%
Female persons, percent 52.2%
Race and Hispanic Origin
White alone, percent 72.1%
Black or African American alone, percent 1.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent 0.3%
Asian alone, percent 16.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent 0.1% Two or More Races, percent 3.6%
Hispanic or Latino, percent 18.3%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent 61.0%
Population Characteristics
Veterans, 2012-2016 4,269
Foreign born persons, percent, 2012-2016 54.4%
Housing
Housing units, July 1, 2017, (V2017) NA
Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2012-2016 34.5%
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2012-2016 $639,700 Median selected monthly owner costs -with a mortgage, 2012-2016 $2,716 Median selected monthly owner costs -without a mortgage, 2012-2016 $615 Median gross rent, 2012-2016 $1,355
Building permits, 2017 NA
Families & Living Arrangements
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-13

Households, 2012-2016 72,188
Persons per household, 2012-2016 2.72
Living in same house 1 year ago, percent of persons age 1 year+, 2012-2016 87.6% Language other than English spoken at home, percent of persons age 5 years+, 2012- 69.6% Education
High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2012-2016 85.1% Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2012-2016 39.0% Health
With a disability, under age 65 years, percent, 2012-2016 6.5% Persons without health insurance, under age 65 years, percent 15.2% Economy
In civilian labor force, total, percent of population age 16 years+, 2012-2016 62.7% In civilian labor force, female, percent of population age 16 years+, 2012-2016 57.5% Total accommodation and food services sales, 2012 ($1,000) 400,499 Total health care and social assistance receipts/revenue, 2012 ($1,000) 1,638,525 Total manufacturers’ shipments, 2012 ($1,000) 842,272
Total merchant wholesaler sales, 2012 ($1,000) 1,386,584 Total retail sales, 2012 ($1,000) 3,138,231
Total retail sales per capita, 2012 $16,137
Transportation
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16 years+, 2012-2016 27.7 Income & Poverty
Median household income (in 2016 dollars), 2012-2016 $56,069 Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2016 dollars), 2012-2016 $31,541 Persons in poverty, percent 14.7%

Land and Development
In the earliest days, development in Southern California was a cycle of boom and bust. The Second World War, however, dramatically changed that cycle. Military personnel and 971 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-14

defense workers came to Southern California to fill the logistical needs created by the war effort. The available housing was rapidly exhausted and existing commercial centers proved inadequate for the influx of people. Immediately after the war, construction began on the freeway system, and the face of Southern California was forever changed. Home developments and shopping centers sprung up everywhere, and, within a few decades, the central basin of Los Angeles County was significantly built out. This pushed new development farther and farther away from the urban center.

Glendale’s General Plan addresses the use and development of private land, including residential and commercial areas. This plan is one of the City's most important tools in addressing environmental challenges, including transportation and air quality, growth management, and the conservation of natural resources such as clean water and open spaces.

However, the environment of most cities in Los Angeles County is nearly identical with that of their immediate neighbors, and the transition from one incorporated municipality to another is often imperceptible to most people. This means that many of the environmental challenges listed above need to be addressed on a regional scale, rather than on a city-by- city basis to effect change. Similarly, the area’s exposure to natural hazards is similar to that of several neighboring communities, but a city’s response to that vulnerability can often by addressed independently. For example, liquefaction susceptible sediments underlie large portions of the Los Angeles River floodplain, oblivious to corporate boundaries. However, the City has chosen to implement more strict building codes to mitigate the hazard posed by liquefaction. The City has even chosen to restrict development in the most highly susceptible areas, thereby reducing its risk to a level below that of adjoining municipalities with a similar susceptibility, but less stringent development codes.

Housing and Community Development
In the year 2000, the median value of homes in the City of Glendale was estimated at $569,000 (2000 Census). Housing prices peaked in early 2005 and started to decline in 2006 and 2007. On December 30, 2008 the home price index reported its largest price drop in its history. Increased foreclosure rates in 2006–2007 among U.S. homeowners led to a crisis in August 2008 for the subprime, Alt-A, collateralized debt obligation (CDO), mortgage, credit, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-15

hedge fund, and foreign bank markets. However, as the economy stabilized, housing values began to increase again. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median value of owner- occupied housing units between 2012 and 2016 was $639,700.4 However, the demand for housing has outpaced the available supply. As of 2016, there were approximately 78,256 total housing units in the City of Glendale. Of these, 27,765 are single- family detached houses, 3,575 are single-family attached houses, 6,906 are multi-family building with 2-4 units, 39,960 are multi-family building with 5 or more units, and 50 are mobile homes. Seventy-one and a half (71.5) percent of these housing units were built before the 1980s, and before the more recent (and stringent) building and fire codes for public safety were adopted

5. To address development issues, the City of Glendale has engaged in activities that promote the quality of life for the citizens of Glendale. : The Glendale Housing Authority has supported the development of numerous affordable housing projects using affordable housing funding, since its inception in 1975. These projects continue to be very successful both in terms of design and operations. These housing projects have provided new affordable rental housing for seniors, families, and special needs populations, as well as home ownership opportunities for first time home buyers. To date, the Glendale Housing Authority has developed over 1,200 units of affordable housing for both low income renters and homeowners. The purpose of the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) is to provide resources to help cities counter the growing problems of neighborhood blight, economic decline, and the shortfall of social services to low- and moderate-income persons, the homeless, and persons with special needs.

This increased demand for housing coincides with an increased concentration of resources and capital in Glendale. The best indicator of this increased concentration is the increasing per-capita income in the region since the 1970s. Per-capita income, an estimate of total personal income divided by the total population, can be used to compare economic areas as a whole, but it does not reflect how the income is distributed among residents of the area

4 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/glendalecitycalifornia/PST045217 5 https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/Glendale.pdf
972 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-16

being examined.

This increased concentration of resources results in increased potential for loss during a disaster. These changes are continuous. There are a number of other factors that contribute to this increasing loss potential. First, populations continue to increase, putting more people at risk within a defined geographic space. Second, inflation increases the worth of real property and permanent improvements. Third, the amount of property owned per capita increases over time. Information from the U.S. Census Bureau shows gains in average housing standards in the United States (Table 2-5).

Table 2-2: Historical Trends in Housing Standards in the United States

PROPERTY 1975 1998 2010
Average size of new homes 1,645 sq. ft. 2,190 sq. ft. 2,392 sq. ft.

Homes with 4+ bedrooms 21% 33% 35%
Homes with 2½ or more baths 20% 52% 61%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Clearly, risk exposure in terms of potential loss has increased in recent years. What follows is a sample of the cost, in 2010 dollars, of some moderate to severe earthquakes in the United States. The scale of potential damage is staggering (Source: Risk Management Solutions). භ 1886 Charleston, South Carolina M7.3 earthquake.

Estimated insured damage if it happened today: $10 Billion භ 1906 San Francisco earthquake, significant fire following seismic damage.

Estimated insured damage if it happened today: $36 Billion භ 1811-12 New Madrid, Missouri earthquakes, series of 4 earthquakes over 7 weeks.

Estimated insured damage if this happened today: $88 Billion භ 1994 San Fernando Valley, Northridge Earthquake, significant seismic damage.

Estimated insured damage if it happened today: $12.5 Billion Employment and Industry
Glendale had a median household income of $56,069 between 2012 and 2016. The Jewel City is home to a plethora of national and international corporations across multiple business sectors. Glendale's diverse corporate profile includes the following top employers:
භ Avery Dennison
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
2018 2-17

භ CBRE L.A. North Industrial Team
භ Color Me Mine
භ Disney Consumer Products
භ KABC-7
භ LegalZoom
භ Univision Communications
භ Whole Foods Market
භ Glendale Community College
භ Glendale Unified School District
භ Glendale Adventist Medical Center
භ City of Glendale
භ Dignity Health Glendale Memorial Hospital and Health Center භ Public Storage Inc.
භ Walt Disney Imagineering
භ DreamWorks Studios
භ Forest Lawn Association
භ Yellow pages
භ Bank of America North America
භ USC Verdugo Hills Hospital
භ Apple One Services Ltd.
භ Nordstrom
භ Acco Engineered Systems
භ IHOP/Applebee’s (Dine Equity)
භ J’s Maintenance Services Inc.
භ Unum Provident Corporation
භ Technicolor
Transportation and Commuting Patterns
The City of Glendale is the 4th largest in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Statistical Area (LAMSA). Over the past decade, the LAMSA experienced rapid growth in employment and population, and there has been a constant increase in vehicle licensing transactions in the Los Angeles region.

Glendale has included a mobility plan in its General Plan. The City benefits from a diverse transportation system that includes transit, bicycle, and pedestrian links, as well as vehicular links. The City’s local system connects with the larger regional system, and the operation of the two systems is interdependent. The mobility plan establishes how the City manages the local system to provide for the safe and convenient movement of people and goods. It also addresses how the City influences and manages connections with the regional transportation system.
973 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
20182-18
Extensive Transportation Network
Ground
The City’s historic success at attracting employers rests on its location at the center of the “Golden Triangle” of freeways. The Golden State Freeway (I-5), Glendale Freeway (SR-2), Ventura Freeway (SR-134),), as well as the Foothill Freeway (I-210) all provide easy access for residents, workers, and customers from around the region.

Glendale offers its very own bus service, the Beeline, with 13 routes connecting residents to JPL and Burbank. The Beeline stops at many major City locations and is a low cost and efficient transportation alternative. The Beeline has service routes connecting to Metrolink Stations in Burbank and Glendale.

Air
The Hollywood Burbank Airport is the closest airport to Glendale and is located in the adjoining city of Burbank. The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority is a separate government agency created under a joint powers agreement between the three cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena in 1977 for the sole purpose of owning and operating Hollywood Burbank Airport. The airport serves the Los Angeles area including Glendale, Pasadena, Griffith Park, Hollywood, and the San Fernando Valley. It is also the only airport in the greater Los Angeles area with a direct rail connection to downtown Los Angeles. Non- stop flights from the airport go mostly to destinations within the western United States, but services also include Dallas/Fort Worth, Columbus, and New York City.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
20182-19
Glendale is located approximately 30 miles from the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).

Serving over 84 million passengers in 2017, it is the fifth busiest airport in the world and second in the United States in terms of commercial passenger volumes. Additionally, LAX’s ever-expanding air cargo system handled more than 2.1 million tons of goods in 2017 making it number four in the US in air cargo tonnage processed. International freights account more than 50 percent of this total. Convenient location, modern facilities, and superior sea/air/land connections have led to LAX’s designation as a world-class airport.

Rail
The Glendale Amtrak/Metrolink Station, now referred to as the Larry Zarian Transportation Center, in honor of former Glendale Mayor Larry Zarian, is an Amtrak and Metrolink rail station in the city of Glendale, California. This multi/modal center used to be known as Tropico. The LZTC located at 400 West Cerritos Avenue, was originally constructed in 1923 and was extensively renovated in September 1999. The LZTC serves as a central transportation hub for the City of Glendale. Several public transportation systems such as Amtrak, Metrolink, Greyhound, Metro, and the Glendale Beeline utilize the LZTC as a transfer point and/or layover. Ten Pacific Surfliner trains serve the station daily and 54 Metrolink trains serve the station each weekday, as well as serving the Antelope Valley Line on Saturdays.

Ports
The Port of Los Angeles, Southern California’s gateway to international commerce, is located in San Pedro Bay, just 30 miles from downtown Glendale. This booming seaport not only 974 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Community Profile City of Glendale, California
20182-20
sustains its competitive edge with record-setting cargo operations, but is also known for its groundbreaking initiatives, progressive security measures, and diverse recreational and educational facilities. The Port of Long Beach is the second-busiest port in the US and a trailblazer in goods movement and environmental stewardship. The port is only 33 miles from the City of Glendale.

Downtown Mobility
The City’s Downtown Mobility Study, adopted in March 2007, supports the Downtown Specific Plan by helping to accommodate downtown’s growth without significantly increasing traffic congestion. The study encourages walking, bicycling, and taking transit by designating a primary transportation mode for each of downtown’s major streets and identifying multiple strategies for accommodating the specific mode.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Risk Assessment City of Glendale, California
2018 3-1

SECTION 3: RISK ASSESSMENT

Table of Contents

What is a Risk Assessment? 3-2
H a z a r d I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 3 - 2 Vulnerability Assessment/Invento r y i n g A s s e t s 3 - 4 R i s k A n a l y s i s 3 - 5
Assessing Vulnerability/ Analyzing Development Trends 3-5 Federal Requirements for Risk Assessment 3-7
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 3-8
S u m m a r y 3 - 9

975 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Risk Assessment City of Glendale, California
2018 3-2

What is a Risk Assessment?
A risk assessment is the process of collecting information and assigning values to potential loss of life, injury, property and economic damage, defined as risk, resulting from hazards.

The type and severity of the impact a natural hazard has on people, property, and other community assets will vary depending on the extent of the hazard, the vulnerability of the asset, and the community’s capabilities to properly mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from that disaster. The risk assessment analysis is broken down into four essential steps: (1) identifying and understanding the hazards that can impact the community, (2) identifying and assessing the vulnerability of the community assets including its people, buildings, and infrastructure, (3) analyzing the risks, and (4) summarizing the vulnerabilities. Each of these tasks, as it pertains to the City of Glendale, is described further below.
1) Hazard Identification
This is the description of the geographic location, extent, previous occurrences, and potential probability of future occurrences of a given hazard. Maps are frequently used to display hazard identification data, while a table or matrix helps summarize information and identify which hazards are most significant to the planning area. The extent is defined as the strength or magnitude of the hazard and is based on the value of a scientific scale (e.g. the Richter Scale for earthquakes), the speed of onset, and the duration of the hazard event. Unlike an impact, the extent describes the characteristics of the hazard regardless of the people and property it affects. The City of Glendale and its residents can be impacted by earthquakes (and secondary hazards triggered by earthquakes), storm flooding and debris flows, urban and wildland fires, landslides, dam and water reservoir failures, strong winds (such as Santa Ana winds), and dangerous vectors, plants and animals. Possible technological disasters could be caused due to accidental releases of hazardous materials, aviation accidents, or major utility disruptions and failures. Likewise, man-made hazards that could impact the area include terrorist attacks using vehicles or weapons of mass destruction, and civil unrest events. These are the hazards with the potential to cause the most damage, in terms of loss, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Risk Assessment City of Glendale, California
2018 3-3

in the City of Glendale. Each of these hazards will be described in detail in the following sections. The geographic extent of each of the identified hazards has been identified in the City’s Safety Element of the General Plan using the most current data available, and the maps that accompany that document have been included throughout the text of the report, and in Appendix H (see list on Table 3-1 below).

Table 3-1: List of Maps that are Part of this Local Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan

Map/Plate Type of Map Section of the Plan

1.1 City of Glendale (boundaries and major
roads) Section 1: Introduction

2.1 Freeways and Major Arterials in the
Glendale Area
Section 2: Community
Profile

2.2 Regional Active and Potentially Active Faults Section 2: Community Profile

3.1 Critical Facilities in and Near Glendale Section 3: Risk Assessment

6.1 Faults in and Near Glendale Section 6: Earthquakes

6.2 Ground Shaking Zones in California Section 6: Earthquakes

6.3 Active Faults in the Los Angeles Basin Section 6: Earthquakes

6.4 Earthquake Scenario for the 1857 San
Andreas Fault Rupture
Section 6: Earthquakes

6.5 Segments of the Sierra Madre Fault Section 6: Earthquakes

6.6 Scenario for a M6.7 Earthquake on the
Verdugo Fault
Section 6: Earthquakes

6.7 Scenario for a M6.5 Earthquake on the
Raymond Fault
Section 6: Earthquakes

6.8 Distribution and Severity of Damaged
Residential Buildings in Glendale as a Result
of Three Different Earthquake Scenarios
Section 6: Earthquakes

6.9 Distribution and Severity of Damaged
Commercial Buildings in Glendale as a Result
of Three Different Earthquake Scenarios
Section 6: Earthquakes

6.10 Distribution and Severity of Damaged
Schools in Glendale as a Result of Three
Different Earthquake Scenarios
Section 6: Earthquakes

6.11 Distribution of Damaged Bridges in Glendale
as a Result of Three Different Earthquake
Scenarios
Section 6: Earthquakes

7.1 Historical Wildfires in the Glendale Area Section 7, same as H-6

7.2 Fire Hazard Areas in Glendale Section 7, same as H-7 976 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Risk Assessment City of Glendale, California
2018 3-4

Map/Plate Type of Map Section of the Plan

8.1 Geomorphic Map of Glendale Showing the
Canyons Referred to in the Text Section 8, same as H-1

8.2 Effects of the 1934 Flood in Glendale Section 8, same as H-9

8.3 Dam Inundation Areas in Glendale Section 8, same as H-10

9.1 Geologic Map of Glendale Section 9, same as H-2

9.2 Slope Instability Map of the Glendale Area Section 9, same as H-11 H-1 Geomorphic Map of Glendale Sections 1, 2, 6 – 9,
Appendix H
H-2 Geologic Map of Glendale Sections 1, 2, 6, 8, 9,
Appendix H
H-3 Historical Seismicity in Glendale Section 6, Appendix H H-4 Fault Map of Glendale Section 6, Appendix H
H-5 Seismic Hazards Map of Glendale Section 6, 7, 9, Appendix H H-6 Historical Wildfires in Glendale Section 7, Appendix H H-7 Fire Hazard Areas in Glendale Section 7, Appendix H H-8 Non-Compliant Roads in Glendale Section 7, Appendix H H-9 Damage Resulting from 1934 Floods in
Glendale Section 8, Appendix H
H-10 Dam Inundation Pathways in Glendale Section 8, Appendix H H-11 Slope Instability Map Section 9, Appendix H
H-12 Critical Facilities in Glendale Sections 2, 3,

Note: These maps were derived from data provided by the City and/or publicly available sources. Care was taken in the creation of these maps, but the maps are provided "as is." The City of Glendale cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions or positional accuracy, and therefore, there are no warranties that accompany these maps. Although information from land surveys may have been used in the creation of these maps, this does not mean that the maps represent or constitute a land survey. Users are cautioned to field verify the information on these products before making any decisions. 2) 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. Some assets are more vulnerable to hazards due to their unique physical characteristics or socioeconomic uses.

People represent the most important asset. Populations may face unique vulnerabilities, and some may be less able to respond to and recover from a disaster. Such populations include Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Risk Assessment City of Glendale, California
2018 3-5

visiting populations and access and functional needs populations. The risk assessment can identify location that offer health or social services that are critical to disaster response and recovery capabilities. The built environment is composed of existing structure, infrastructure systems, critical facilities, and cultural resources. 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 Glendale and fulfill important public safety, emergency response, and/or disaster recovery functions. The critical facilities in Glendale have been identified and are illustrated in Map 3-1 and in Plate H-12 (Appendix H). 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 properties. 3) Risk Analysis
Risk analysis is conducted after the hazards and assets have been properly identified. The purpose of this task is to estimate the potential losses in a geographic area over a given period of time by assessing the damage, injuries, and financial costs likely to be sustained.

Risk can be calculated using exposure analysis, historical analysis, and scenario analysis. The two measurable components of risk analysis are magnitude of the harm that may result and the likelihood of the harm occurring. Describing vulnerability in terms of dollar losses provides the community and the State with a common framework by which to measure the potential effects of a given hazard on the assets of the area. 4) Assessing Vulnerability/ Analyzing Development Trends This task 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 a comprehensive description of Glendale’s character in the Community Profile section (see Section 2). 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 Glendale can help identify potential problem areas and can serve as a guide for incorporating the goals and ideas contained in this Mitigation 977 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Risk Assessment City of Glendale, California
2018 3-6

Plan into other community development plans.

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.

Table 3-2 Summary of Natural and Man-made Hazard Threats to the City of Glendale

Natural Hazards Man-made Hazards
Earthquakes Transportation Incident (Rail,
Airplane)
Flooding Terrorism
Landslides / Mudslides Pandemic
Wildfires Dam Failure
Winter Storms Hazardous Materials

A loss estimate for the City of Glendale was conducted for the hazard of earthquakes. This estimate was done using HAZUS, a standardized methodology for earthquake loss estimation based on a geographic information system (GIS). HAZUS was created as a project of the National Institute of Building Sciences, funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and it is based on guidelines and procedures developed to make standardized loss estimates at a regional scale (allowing estimates to be compared from region to region). HAZUS is designed for use by State, regional and local governments in planning for loss mitigation, emergency preparedness, response and recovery. HAZUS addresses nearly all aspects of the built environment and many different types of losses, as well as newer components of the program that address loss estimates for hurricanes, and floods in addition to earthquakes. The earthquake component has been tested against the experience of several past earthquakes and against the judgment of experts. Vulnerability assessments and risk analyses for the other hazards addressed in the Plan including floods, wildfires, and landslides were not conducted, although qualitative assessments are included in the appropriate sections for each hazard.

Regardless of the data available for hazard assessments, there are numerous strategies the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Risk Assessment City of Glendale, California
2018 3-7

City of Glendale can take to reduce risk. These strategies are described in the action items detailed in each hazard 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.

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 requirement is intended to provide information that will help communities identify and prioritize mitigation activities that will reduce losses from the identified hazards. There are four natural hazards profiled in this Mitigation Plan, including earthquakes, wildfires, floods, and landslides. The Federal criteria for risk assessment and information on how Glendale’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan meets those criteria is outlined in the table below:

Table 3-3 - Federal Criteria for Risk Assessment

Section 322 Plan
Requirement
How is this addressed?
Identifying Hazards Each hazard section (Sections 6 through 10) includes an inventory of the best available data
sources that identify hazard areas. To the extent GIS
data is available, the City has developed maps that
identify the areas most likely to be impacted by each
hazard. These Hazard Maps are listed in Table 3-1
and are included in Appendix H.

Profiling Hazard Events Each hazard section includes documentation on the history of past hazard events, and the causes and
characteristics of the hazard in the City.

Assessing Vulnerability:

Identifying Assets
Where data are available, the vulnerability
assessment for each hazard addressed in the
mitigation plan includes an inventory of critical
facilities within hazardous areas. Each hazard
section provides information on vulnerable areas in
the City in the Community Issues section. Each
hazard section also identifies potential mitigation
strategies.
978 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Risk Assessment City of Glendale, California
2018 3-8

Assessing Vulnerability:

Estimating Potential Losses:

The Risk Assessment Section of this 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 were
available.

Assessing Vulnerability:

Analyzing Development
Trends

The Profile Section of this Plan provides a
description of development trends in the City,
including its geography and environment,
population and demographics, land use and
development, housing and community development,
employment and industry, and transportation and
commuting patterns (Section 2).

Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Critical facilities are those parts of a community's infrastructure that must remain operational after a disaster. Critical facilities include schools, hospitals, fire and police stations, emergency operation centers, and communication centers. A vulnerability assessment for these facilities involves comparing the locations of these facilities to the hazardous areas identified in the City.

Other important facilities often considered in risk assessments include:
x High-risk facilities, if severely damaged, may result in a disaster far beyond the facilities themselves. Examples include power plants, dams and flood control structures, freeway interchanges, bridges, and industrial plants that use or store explosives, toxic materials or petroleum products.
x High-occupancy facilities have the potential of resulting in a large number of casualties or crowd-control problems. This category includes high-rise buildings, large assembly facilities, and large multifamily residential complexes. x Dependent-care facilities, such as preschools and schools, rehabilitation centers, prisons, group care homes, and nursing homes, house populations with special evacuation considerations.
x Economic facilities are those facilities that should remain operational to avoid severe economic impacts. These facilities include banks, archiving and vital record- keeping facilities, airports, and large industrial or commercial centers.

Facilities critical to government response and recovery activities (i.e., life safety and property and environmental protection) include: 911 centers, emergency operations Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Risk Assessment City of Glendale, California
2018 3-9

centers, police and fire stations, public works facilities, communications centers, sewer and water facilities, hospitals, bridges and roads, and shelters. Facilities that if damaged could cause serious secondary impacts may also be considered "critical." Lifelines are those services that are critical to the health, safety, and functioning of the community. They are particularly essential for emergency response and recovery after a disaster. Furthermore, certain cri t i c a l f a c i l i t i e s d e s i g n e d t o r e m a i n f u n c t i o n a l d u r i n g a n d immediately after a disaster, such as an earthquake, may be able to provide only limited services if the lifelines they depend on are disrupted. Lifeline systems include water, sewage, electrical power, communication, transportation (highways, bridges, railroads, and airports), natural gas, and liquid fuel systems.

Some of the critical facilities in the City of Glendale are shown on Map 3-1 and in Plate H-12.

Summary
Hazard mitigation will lessen the impact populations, built environments and natural environments will suffer following a disaster. Mitigation strategies can reduce the impacts concentrated at large employment and industrial centers, public infrastructure, and critical facilities. Natural 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 natural hazards.
979 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Risk Assessment City of Glendale, California
2018 3-10

Map 3-1: Critical Facilities in and Near Glendale

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Risk Assessment City of Glendale, California
2018
3-11
Table 3-4 - Summary of Potential Significant Hazard-Related Exposure/Loss in City of Glendale Hazard Type
Exposed
Population
Residential Commercial Industrial Education Other
# of
Buildings
Value of
Structures
# of
Buildings
Value of
Structures
# of
Buildings
Value of
Structures
# of
Buildings
Value of
Structures
# of
Buildings
Value of
Structures

Earthquake 200,684 43,896 15.9 Billion 3902 3.8 Billion 851 622
Million 132 174 Million 61 75 Million
Wildland Fire 36,652 8,016 2.8 Billion 702
684
Million None None 24 31 Million 11 14 Million
Flood 12,150 2,633 954 Million 234
228
Million None None 8 10 Million 4 4.5 Million
Landslide 2,811 614 223 Million 55 53 Million None None 2 2.4 Million 1 1 million Hazardous
Material 200,684 43,896 15.9 Billion 3902 3.8 Billion 851 622
Million 132 174 Million 61 75 Million
Pandemic 200,684 43,896 15.9 Billion 3902 3.8 Billion 851 622
Million 132 174 Million 61 75 Million
Terrorism 200,684 43,896 15.9 Billion 3902 3.8 Billion 851 622
Million 132 174 Million 61 75 Million
FEMA requires that an estimation of loss be conducted for the identified hazards. Loss estimation can be conducted on the identified significant hazards. FEMA requires the "Vulnerability Analysis" to include the number of potential structures impacted by these hazards and the total potential costs. These estimates can be determined by utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS) overlay analysis software and tools. Existing GIS data layers, such as parcels, ca n be overlaid with theoretical h azard boundary extents. The n, using GIS overlay analysis software, items such as the number and value of structures affected by the hazard can be calculated and reported.

980 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
4-1
SECTION 4: MULTI-HAZARD GOALS AND ACTION ITEMS

Table of Contents

M i s s i o n 4 - 2
G o a l s 4 - 2
A c t i o n I t e m s 4 - 2
Mitigation Plan Goals and Public Participation 4-2 H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n P l a n A c t i o n I t e m s 4 - 4 M u l t i - H a z a r d A c t i o n I t e m s 4 - 5

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
4-2
This section provides information on the process used to develop goals and action items that pertain to the five natural hazards addressed in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. It also describes the framework that focuses on developing successful mitigation strategies. The framework is made up of three parts: the mission, goals, and action items.

Mission
The mission of the City of Glendale’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities, infrastructure, private property, and the environment from natural 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.

Goals
The Plan goals describe the overall direction that City agencies, organizations, and citizens can take to minimize the impacts of natural hazards. The goals are stepping-stones between the broad direction of the mission statement and the specific recommendations that are outlined in the action items.

Action Items
The action items are a listing of activities in which the City’s agencies and citizens can be engaged in to reduce risk. Each action item includes an estimated timeline for implementation. Short-term action items are activities that City agencies may implement 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.

Mitigation Plan Goals and Public Participation
The Plan goals help to guide direction of future activities aimed at reducing risk and preventing loss from natural hazards. The goals listed here serve as checkpoints as agencies and organizations begin implementing mitigation action items. 981 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
4-3
Protect Life and Property
x Implement activities that assist in protecting lives by making homes, businesses, infrastructure, critical facilities, and other property more resistant to natural, technological, and man-made hazards.
x Reduce losses and repetitive damages for chronic hazard events while promoting insurance coverage for catastrophic hazards.
x Improve hazard assessment information to make recommendations for discouraging new hazardous development and encouraging preventative measures for existing development in areas vulnerable to natural hazards.

Public Awareness
x Develop and implement education and outreach programs to increase public awareness of the risks associated with natural hazards. x Provide detailed information on tools, partnership opportunities, and funding resources to assist in implementing mitigation activities. x Keep the public informed on hazard mitigation initiatives and activities through newspapers, local access channels, City website, newsletters, and social media.

Natural Systems
x Balance watershed planning, natural resources management, and land use planning with natural hazard mitigation to protect life, property, and the environment. x Preserve, rehabilitate, and enhance natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions.

Partnerships and Implementation
x Strengthen communication and coordinate participation among and within public agencies, citizens, non-profit organizations, businesses, and industries to gain a vested interest in implementation.
x Encourage leadership within public and private sector organizations to prioritize and implement local, county, and regional hazard mitigation activities.

Emergency Services
x Establish policies to ensure mitigation projects for critical and essential facilities, services, and infrastructure.
x Strengthen emergency operations by increasing collaboration and coordination among public agencies, non-profit organizations, business, and industry. x Coordinate and integrate natural hazard mitigation activities, where appropriate, with emergency operations plans and procedures.

Public Participation
x Public input during development of the Mitigation Plan assisted in creating Plan goals.

Meetings with the project steering group, stakeholder interviews, and a public workshop served as methods to obtain input and identify priorities in developing goals for reducing risk and preventing loss from natural hazards in the City of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
4-4
Glendale.
x On May 31, 2018, the first public workshop was held to gather ideas from the City of Glendale residents regarding the goals for the City of Glendale’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. The attendees included representatives from public agencies, private organizations, the Hazard Mitigation Steering Group, and private residents. The attendees identified goals for the Plan by examining the issues and concerns that they have had regarding natural hazards, and further discussed potential action items for the Plan.
x The second public workshop was held 8/20/2018 to review Mitigation Plan action items and provide the participants with a chance to comment on the Plan recommendations. This workshop was also well attended and additional public input was obtained in the preparation of the Plan.
x As part of the public outreach and information collection plan, two surveys were conducted. The first was published on April 23, 2018 and solicited input on public experience and perception of various hazards. A second survey was published on Sep 5, 2018 to collect public comment on proposed Hazard Mitigation Action Plan items.

Hazard Mitigation Plan Action Items
The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies short and long-term action items developed through data collection and research, and the public participation process. Mitigation Plan activities may be considered for funding through Federal and State grant programs, and when other funds are made available through the City. Action items address multi-hazard (MH) and hazard-specific issues. To help ensure activity implementation, each action item includes information on the timeline and coordinating organizations. Upon implementation, the coordinating organizations may look to partner organizations for resources and technical assistance. A description of the partner organizations is provided in Appendix A, the Resource Directory of this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Coordinating Organization
The coordinating organization is the organization that is willing and able to organize resources, find appropriate funding and oversee activity implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Coordinating organizations may include local, City, or regional agencies that are capable of or responsible for implementing activities and programs.

Timeline
Action items include both short and long-term activities. Each action item includes an 982 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
4-5
estimate of the timeline for implementation. Short-term action items are activities that City agencies may implement 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 to monitor and evaluate how well the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is achieving its goals once implementation begins.

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 because of adverse impacts on private property.

Multi-Hazard Action Items
Multi-hazard action items are those activities that pertain to two or more of the hazards identified in the Mitigation Plan. Based on this, the stakeholders have developed six short- term and six long term mitigation activities.

Short-Term Activity – Multi-Hazard #l: Integrate the goals and action items from the City of Glendale Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into existing regulatory documents and programs, where appropriate.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Use the Mitigation Plan to help institutionalize the guidelines in the City's General Plan to encourage sustainable development in all new construction and development projects, with emphasis on mitigation or hazard reduction. x Partner with other organizations and agencies with similar goals to promote Building & Safety Codes that are more disaster resistant at the State level.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
4-6

Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group, City of Glendale Department of Community Development
Timeline: Ongoing
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property, Partnerships, Implementation Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel
Short-Term Activity – Multi-Hazard #2: Identify and pursue funding opportunities to develop and implement local and City mitigation activities.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Develop incentives for local governments, citizens, and businesses to pursue hazard mitigation projects.

Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group Timeline: Ongoing
Plan Goals Addressed: Partnerships and Implementation, Public Awareness Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel

Short-Term Activity - Multi-Hazard #3: Identify activities for private sector and citizen involvement such as nonstructural seismic daycare retrofits.

Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group Timeline: Ongoing
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property, Public Awareness, Partnerships and Implementation
Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel

Short Term Activity – Multi-Hazard #4: Develop public and private partnerships to foster hazard mitigation program coordination and collaboration in the City of Glendale.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Work with city governments to develop Local Hazard Mitigation Plans that are consistent with the goals and framework of the City Plan. x Identify all organizations within the City of Glendale that have programs or interests in natural hazard mitigation.
x Involve private businesses throughout the City in mitigation planning. x Improve communication between California Department of Transportation and the City’s Public Works Department, and work together to prioritize and identify strategies to deal with road problems.
x Establish protocol for communication between electric providers and transportation departments to assure rapid restoration of public transportation capabilities. 983 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
4-7
Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group, City of Glendale Public Works Department, Glendale Water and Power
Timeline: Ongoing
Plan Goals Addressed: Partnerships and Implementation
Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel

Short Term Activity – Multi-Hazard #6: Develop inventories of at-risk buildings and infrastructure and prioritize mitigation projects.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Identify critical facilities at risk from natural hazard events. x Develop strategies to mitigate risk to these facilities, or to utilize alternative facilities should natural hazard events cause damage to the facilities in question. x Identify bridges at risk from flood or earthquake hazards, identify enhancements, and implement projects needed to reduce the risks.

Coordinating Organization: City of Glendale Departments of Community Development, Public Works, Fire
Timeline: 1-2 Years
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property, Partnerships and Implementation
Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel
Short Term Activity – Multi-Hazard #7: Strengthen emergency preparedness and response by linking emergency services with hazard mitigation programs and enhancing public education on a regional scale.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Educate private property owners on limitations of bridges and dangers associated with them.
x Develop a process to encourage private property owners to upgrade their bridges to support weight of fire trucks and emergency vehicles.
x Encourage individual and family preparedness through public education projects such as safety fairs.
x Coordinate the maintenance of emergency transportation routes through communication among the City’s Department of Public Works, neighboring jurisdictions, and the California Department of Transportation. x Identify opportunities for partnering with citizens, private contractors, and other jurisdictions to increase availability of equipment and manpower for efficiency of response efforts.
x Work with Community Planning Organizations and other neighborhood groups to establish community response teams.
x Familiarize public officials with requirements regarding public assistance for disaster Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
4-8
response.

Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group, City of Glendale Departments of Management Services, Public Works, and
Fire
Timeline: Ongoing
Plan Goals Addressed: Emergency Services, Protect Life and Property, Public Awareness
Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel
Long-Term Activity – Multi-Hazard #1: Develop, enhance, and implement education programs aimed at mitigating natural hazards, and reducing the risk to citizens, public agencies, private property owners, businesses, and schools.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Make the City of Glendale Hazard Mitigation Plan available to the public by publishing the Plan electronically on the City’s websites.
x Provide electronic map capabilities by creating a website that includes information specific to City of Glendale residents, including site-specific hazards information, Building & Safety Codes information, and educational information on damage prevention.
x Enhance the City’s web page to facilitate and information sharing. x Conduct a baseline survey to gather perceptions of private citizens and the business community regarding natural hazard risks and identify mitigation needs. Repeat the survey in five years to monitor successes and failures of hazard mitigation programs. x Continue to promote outreach programs aimed at businesses, residents, and organizations that are most likely to be impacted by flooding events. x Develop adult and child educational programs to be used by local cable access stations.
x Use local cable access stations as a conduit for advertising public forums. x Develop an educational curriculum for school programs and adult education on reducing risk and preventing loss from natural hazards. x Conduct natural hazard awareness programs in schools and community centers. x Conduct workshops for public and private sector organizations to raise awareness of mitigation activities and programs.
x Enhance outreach materials for mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.

Coordinating Organization: C i t y o f G l e n d a l e D e p artments of Information Services, Management Services, and Fire, Glendale’s
Unified School District
Timeline: Ongoing
Plan Goals Addressed: Public Awareness, Protect Life and Property Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel
984 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
4-9
Long-Term Activity – Multi-Hazard #2: Use technical knowledge of natural ecosystems and events to link natural resource management and land use organizations to mitigation activities and technical assistance.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Review ordinances that protect natural systems and resources to mitigate for natural hazards for possible enhancements.
x Pursue vegetation and restoration practices that assist in enhancing and restoring the natural and beneficial functions of the watershed.
x Develop education and outreach programs that focus on protecting natural systems as a mitigation activity.

Coordinating Organization: C i t y o f G l e n d a l e D e p a r t m e n t s o f P u b l i c W o r k s , Community Development, and Management Services
Timeline: Ongoing
Plan Goals Addressed: Natural Systems
Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel
Long-Term Activity – Multi-Hazard #3: Implement a platform dedicated to providing residents with disaster preparedness information.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Review current mass notification systems
x Explore opportunities to notify residents using IPAWS and WEA x Explore best practices for driving residents to official sources of information (Glendale website, official broadcasts, and emergency notifications systems) during an emergency.

Coordinating Organization: City of Glendale Departments of Management Services, Information Services, and Fire
Timeline: 3-5 years
Plan Goals Addressed: Public Awareness, Protect Life and Property Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel
Long-Term Activity – Multi-Hazard #4: Ensure that 100% of Fire, Police, and EMS stations are covered by emergency power.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Review current status of emergency power at all locations to determine sufficiency to continue operations given a failure of City power.
x Seek grant funding if available to bridge capability gap

Coordinating Organization: City of Glendale Police and Fire Departments Timeline: 3-5 years
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
4-10
Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel
Long-Term Activity – Multi-Hazard #5: Ensure that 100% of Fire, Police, and EMS stations are covered by back up radio communications.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Review communications plans between the City and Fire, Police, and EMS to ensure interoperability at all levels
x Determine requirements to ensure continued communication in the event of failure of both cellular and VHF radio systems.
x Seek grant funding if available for purchase of back-up system x Determine and fund requirements for maintenance of back-up system.

Coordinating Organization: City of Glendale Fire, Police, and Information Services Departments
Timeline: 3-5 years
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property
Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel
Long-Term Activity – Multi-Hazard #6: Provide 4,000 shelter beds within 12 hours of a disaster.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Determine suitable locations for shelters following earthquake or flooding incidents. x Partner with American Red Cross to provide pre-positioned stocks for shelter locations
x Determine need for personnel assignments for shelter operations.

Coordinating Organization: City of Glendale Department of Community Services & Parks, Glendale Unified School District, American Red
Cross
Timeline: 3-5 years (?)
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property
Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel

985 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
5-11
SECTION 5: PLAN MAINTENANCE

Table of Contents

Monitoring and Implementing t h e P l a n 5 - 1 2 P l a n A d o p t i o n 5 - 1 2
C o o r d i n a t i n g B o d y 5 - 1 2
C o n v e n e r 5 - 1 3
Implementation through Existing Programs 5-13
Economic Analysis of Mitigation Projects 5-14
E v a l u a t i n g a n d U p d a t i n g t h e P l a n 5 - 1 5 F o r m a l R e v i e w P r o c e s s 5 - 1 5 Continued Public Involvement 5-16

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
5-12

The plan maintenance section of this document details the formal process that will ensure that Glendale’s Hazard 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 of Glendale will integrate public participation throughout the plan maintenance process.

Finally, this section includes an explanation of how the City of Glendale government intends to incorporate the mitigation strategies outlined in this Plan into existing planning mechanisms such as the City’s General Plan, Capital Improvement Plans, and Building and Safety Codes.

Monitoring and Implementing the Plan
Plan Adoption
City Council will be responsible for adopting Glendale's Hazard Mitigation Plan. This governing body has the authority to promote sound public policy regarding natural hazard mitigation. Once the plan has been approved, the City’s Emergency Services Coordinator will be responsible for submitting it to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer at the Governor's Office of Emergency Services. The Governor's Office of Emergency Services will then submit the plan to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review and approval. This review will address the federal criteria outlined in FEMA Interim Final Rule 44 CFR Part 201.

Upon acceptance by FEMA, Glendale will gain eligibility for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds.

Coordinating Body
The City of Glendale Hazard Mitigation Steering Group will be responsible for coordinating implementation of the Plan’s action items and undertaking the formal review process. The City Mayor, or designee, will assign representatives from City agencies, including, but not limited to, the current Hazard Mitigation Steering Group members. The City has formed a Steering Group and Stakeholder Group that consists of members from local agencies, organizations, and citizens, and includes the following:
986 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
5-13
x City of Glendale Fire Department
x City of Glendale Planning Division – Community Development Department x City of Glendale Building and Safety Division – Community Development Department
x City of Glendale Management Services Department
x City of Glendale Police Department
x City of Glendale Engineering Division - Public Works Department x Glendale Water and Power
x City of Glendale Community Services and Parks Department x City of Glendale Information Services Department
x Glendale Unified School District
x Dignity Health Glendale Memorial Hospital and Health Center x USC Verdugo Hills Hospital
x Neighborhood Associations
x California Geological Survey
x Federal Emergency Management Agency
x California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
The Hazard Mitigation Steering Group will conduct public community meetings on a regular basis to discuss and continuously update Glendale’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Dates will be scheduled and publicized through the City’s multiple social media and outreach platforms to encourage public participation. These meetings will provide an opportunity to discuss the progress of the action items and maintain the partnerships that are essential for the sustainability of the Mitigation Plan.

Convener
City Council will consider adopting Glendale's Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the Hazard Mitigation Steering Group will take responsibility for Plan implementation. The City’s Emergency Services Coordinator will serve as a convener to facilitate the Hazard Mitigation community meetings and will assign tasks such as updating and presenting the Plan to the members of the group. Plan implementation and evaluation will be a shared responsibility among all the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee members.

Implementation through Existing Programs
The City of Glendale addresses statewide planning goals and legislative requirements through its General Plan, Capital Improvement Plans, and City Building and Safety Codes.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
5-14
The Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a series of recommendations, many of which are strictly related to the goals and objectives of existing planning programs. The City of Glendale will have the opportunity to implement recommended mitigation action items through existing programs and procedures.

The City of Glendale Community Development and Fire Departments are responsible for administering the Building and Fire Codes, and other regulations designed to improve the safety of the community, such as the policies in the Safety Element of the General Plan. Also, the Steering Group will work with other agencies at the state level to review, develop, and implement Building and Safety Codes that are adequate to mitigate or reduce the damage posed by natural hazards. These mitigation measures are to ensure that life-safety criteria are met for new construction.

The goals and action items in the Mitigation Plan may be achieved through activities recommended in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Upon yearly review of the CIPs, the Steering Group will work with the City departments to identify areas that the Hazard Mitigation Plan action items are consistent with CIP planning goals and integrate them where appropriate.

Following the formal adoption of the Mitigation Plan, the recommendations listed above will be incorporated into the process of existing planning mechanisms at the City level. The community meetings held by the Steering Group will provide an opportunity for members to report back on the progress made on the integration of mitigation planning elements into City planning documents and procedures.

Economic Analysis of Mitigation Projects
FEMA's approach to identify the costs and benefits associated with natural hazard mitigation strategies fall into two general categories: benefit/cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Conducting a benefit/cost analysis for a mitigation activity can assist communities in determining whether a project is worth undertaking now 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 987 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
5-15
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 Hazard Mitigation Steering Group will use a FEMA-approved benefit/cost analysis approach to identify and prioritize mitigation action items. For other projects and funding sources, the Group will use different strategies to understand the costs and benefits of each action item and develop a prioritized list. More information regarding economic analysis of mitigation action items can be found in Appendix C of the Plan.

Evaluating and Updating the Plan
Formal Review Process
The City of Glendale Hazard Mitigation Plan will be assessed 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 schedule and timeline, and identifies the local agencies and organizations participating in Plan evaluation. The convener, or designee, will be responsible for contacting the Hazard Mitigation Steering Group members and organizing the annual meeting.

Group members will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the progress of the mitigation strategies in the Plan.

The Group 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 newly available data. The coordinating organizations responsible for the various action items will report on the status of their projects, the success of different implementation processes, difficulties encountered, the success of coordination efforts, and which strategies should be revised.

The convener will assign the duty of updating the Plan to one or more of the Group members.

The designated members will have three months to make appropriate changes to the Plan Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Plan Maintenance City of Glendale, California
2018
5-16
before submitting it to the Hazard Mitigation Steering Group members and presenting it to the City Council. The Group will also notify all holders of the City Plan when changes have been made. Every five years, the updated Plan will be submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for review.

Continued Public Involvement
The City of Glendale is dedicated to involving the public directly in review and updates of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Hazard Mitigation Steering Group is responsible for the annual review and update of the plan.

The public will also have the opportunity to provide feedback about the Plan. Copies of the Plan will be cataloged and kept at all of the appropriate agencies in the City, as well as at the Central Library and branches. The existence and location of these copies will be made available on the City's website and electronic platforms. The Plan also includes the address and the phone number for a City staff person responsible for keeping track of public comments on the Plan.

Also, information on how to obtain copies of the plan and all proposed changes will be on the City's website. This site will list an email address and phone number to which people can direct their comments and concerns.

A public meeting will be held after each annual review or when deemed necessary by the Hazard Mitigation Steering Group. Public meetings will provide the public with a forum for which they can express concerns, opinions, or ideas about the plan. The City's Communications & Community Relations Division will be responsible for using City resources to publicize the public meetings and maintain public involvement through the City's public access channel (GTV6), web page, social media platforms, and newsletters.

988 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-1
SECTION 6: EARTHQUAKES

Table of Contents

Why Are Earthquakes a Threat to the City of Glendale? 6-2 E a r t h q u a k e B a s i c s - D e f i n i t i o n s 6 - 5 C a u s e s o f E a r t h q u a k e D a m a g e 6 - 1 0 History of Earthquake Events in Southern California 6-14 H o w I s T h i s P l a n D e v e l o p e d ? 6 - 1 9 E a r t h q u a k e H a z a r d A s s e s s m e n t 6 - 2 0 C h o o s i n g E a r t h q u a k e s f o r P l a n n i n g a n d D e s i g n 6 - 2 0 H a z a r d I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 6 - 2 2 P r i m a r y F a u l t R u p t u r e 6 - 3 8 Liquefaction and Related Ground Failure 6-45
Seismically Induced Slope Failure 6-48
R i d g e t o p F i s s u r i n g a n d S h a t t e r i n g 6 - 4 9 V u l n e r a b i l i t y A s s e s s m e n t 6 - 4 9 R i s k A n a l y s i s 6 - 5 4
Existing Mitigation Activities 6-81
Earthquake Mitigation Action Items 6-85
E a r t h q u a k e R e s o u r c e D i r e c t o r y 6 - 9 0

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-2
Why Are Earthquakes a Threat to the City of Glendale?
While Glendale is at risk for many natural and man-made hazards, an earthquake is the event with the greatest potential for far-reaching loss of life or property, and economic damage.

This is true for most of southern California, since damaging earthquakes are frequent, affect widespread areas, trigger many secondary effects, and can overwhelm the ability of local jurisdictions to respond. Earthquake-triggered geologic effects include ground shaking, surface fault rupture, landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, and seiches. Earthquakes can also cause human-made hazards such as urban fires, dam failures, and toxic chemical releases.

In California, recent earthquakes in or near urban environments have caused relatively few casualties. This is due more to luck than design. For example, when a portion of the Nimitz Freeway in Oakland collapsed at rush hour during the 1989, MW 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake, it was uncommonly empty because so many were watching the World Series. (MW stands for moment magnitude, a measure of earthquake energy release, discussed below.) The 1994, MW 6.7 Northridge earthquake occurred before dawn, when most people were home safely in bed. Despite such good luck, California’s urban earthquakes have resulted in significant losses. The moderate-sized Northridge earthquake caused 54 deaths, more than 1,500 injuries and nearly $30 billion in damage. 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. Several collapsed bridges and overpasses created commuter havoc on the freeway system. Extensive damage was caused by ground shaking, with shaking-induced liquefaction and dozens of fires after the earthquake causing additional severe damage. This moderately sized earthquake resulted in record economic losses. Glendale is at risk for earthquakes that could release more than ten times the seismic energy of the Northridge earthquake.

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 750-mile long fault running from the Mexican border to a point offshore west of San Francisco. Geologic studies show that over the past 1,400 to 1,500 years, large earthquakes have occurred on the 989 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-3
southern San Andreas Fault at about 130-year intervals. 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. The San Andreas Fault, however, is only one of dozens of known faults that crisscross southern California. Some of the better- known faults include the Sierra Madre, Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, Elsinore, Hollywood, and Palos Verdes faults. Of these, the Sierra Madre and Hollywood faults extend through the northern and southwestern portions, respectively, of Glendale, whereas the lesser-known, but active Verdugo and Raymond faults extend through the central and southeastern portions of Glendale (see Map 6.1). Beyond these known faults, there are several “blind” faults that underlie southern California. [“Blind” faults do not break the surface, but rather occur thousands of feet below the ground. They are not less of a seismic hazard, though].

One such blind fault ruptured causing the Whittier Narrows earthquake in October 1987.

Each of these faults can produce, at a minimum, a moderate-sized earthquake that has the potential to inflict great damage on the urban core of the Los Angeles basin. For example, seismologists believe that a 6.0 to 6.5 earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood fault would result in far more death and destruction than a “great” quake on the San Andreas Fault, because the San Andreas is relatively remote from the urban centers of southern California.

Although great advances in earthquake engineering have been made in the last decade, in great part as a result of the 1994 Northridge, California, 1995 Kobe, Japan, 1999 Izmit, Turkey, and 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Chile, Haiti, Turkey, and Jakarta, Indonesia, and Christchurch, New Zealand earthquakes, the majority of California communities remain unprepared because there is a general lack of understanding regarding earthquake hazards among Californians. It is not possible to prevent earthquakes, but their destructive effects can be minimized. Comprehensive hazard mitigation programs that include the identification and mapping of hazards, prudent planning, public education, emergency exercises, enforcement of building codes, and expedient retrofitting and rehabilitation of weak structures can significantly reduce the scope of an earthquake’s effects and avoid disaster. Local government, emergency relief organizations, and residents must act to develop and implement policies and programs to reduce the effects of earthquakes.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-4
Map 6.1: Faults in and Near Glendale

990 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-5
Earthquake Basics - Definitions
The outer 10 - 70 kilometers of the Earth consist of enormous blocks of moving rock, called plates. There are about a dozen major plates, which slowly collide, separate, and grind past each other. In the uppermost plates, friction locks the plate edges together, while movement continues at depth. Consequently, the near-surface rocks bend and deform near plate boundaries, storing strain energy. Eventually, the frictional forces are overcome, and the locked portions of the plates move. The stored strain energy is released in waves.

The break or fracture between moving blocks of rock is called a fault, and such differential movement produces a fault rupture. The place where the fault first ruptures is called the focus (or hypocenter). The released energy waves radiate out in all directions from the rupture surface, making the earth vibrate and shake as the waves travel through. This shaking is what we feel in an earthquake.

Although faults exist everywhere, most earthquakes occur on or near plate boundaries.

Thus, southern California has many earthquakes, because it straddles the boundary between the North American and Pacific plates, and fault rupture accommodates their motion. The Pacific Plate is moving north west relative to the North American Plate, at about 50 mm/yr.

This is about the rate at which fingernails grow and seems unimpressive. However, it is e n o u g h t o a c c u m u l a t e e n o r m o u s a m o u n t s o f s t r a i n e n e r g y o v e r d o z e n s t o t h o u s a n d s o f years. Despite being locked in place most of the time, in another 15 million years (a short time in the context of the Earth’s history), due to plate movements, Glendale will be hundreds of kilometers north of San Francisco.

Although the San Andreas Fault marks the actual separation between the Pacific and North American plates, only about 70 percent of the plate motion occurs on the San Andreas Fault itself. The rest is distributed among other faults of the San Andreas system, including the San Jacinto, Whittier-Elsinore, Newport-Inglewood, Palos Verdes, plus several offshore faults; and among faults of the Eastern Mojave Shear Zone, a series of faults east of the San Andreas, responsible for the 1992 Landers and 1999 Hector Mine earthquakes. Thus, the zone of plate-boundary earthquakes and ground deformation covers an area that stretches from the Pacific Ocean to Nevada.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes
City of Glendale, California
20186-6
Because the Pacific and North American plates are sliding past each other, with relative motions to the northwest and southeast, respectively, all the faults mentioned above are aligned northwest-southeast and are strike-slip faults. On average, strike-slip faults are nearly vertical breaks in the rock, and when a strike-slip fault ruptures, the rocks on either side of the fault slide horizontally past each other.

However, about 75 miles northeast of Glendale, there is a kink in the San Andreas Fault, commonly referred to as the “Big Bend.” Near the Big Bend, the two plates do not slide past e a c h o t h e r . I n s t e a d , t h e y collide, causing localized compression, resulting in folding and thrust faulting. Thrust faults meet the surface of the Earth at a low angle, dipping 25 – 45 degrees from the horizontal. Thrusts are a type of dip-slip fault, where rocks on opposite sides of the fault move up or down relative to each other. When a thrust fault ruptures, the top block of rock moves up and over the rock on the other side of the fault.

Few faults are simple, planar breaks in the Earth. They more often consist of smaller strands with a similar orientation and sense of movement. Sometimes geologists group strands into Strike-slip faultsare vertical or almost
vertical rifts where the earth’s plates move
mostly horizontally. From the observer’s
perspective, if the opposite block looking
across the fault moves to the right, the slip
style is called a right- lateral fault; if the
block moves left, the shift is called a left-
lateral fault.

Dip-slip faults are slanted fractures where the blocks mostly shift vertically. If the earth above an inclined fault moves down, the fault is called a normal fault, but when the rock above the fault moves up, the fault is called a reverse fault. Thrust faults are reverse faults with a dip of 45°or less.

Normal fault
Reverse fault Normal fault
991 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-7
segments, which are believed to be capable of rupturing together during a single earthquake. The more extensive the fault, the bigger the earthquake it can produce.

Therefore, multi-strand fault ruptures produce larger earthquakes.

The bigger and closer the earthquake, the greater the likelihood of damage. Thus, fault dimensions and proximity to urban centers are key parameters in any hazard assessment.

In addition, it is important to know a fault’s style of movement (i.e. dip-slip or strike-slip), the age of its most recent activity, its total displacement, and its slip rate (all discussed below). These values indicate how often a fault produces damaging earthquakes, and how big an earthquake should be expected the next time the fault ruptures.

Total displacement is the length, measured in kilometers (km), of the total movement that has occurred along the fault over as long a time as the geologic record reveals. It is usually estimated by measuring distances between geologic features that have been split apart and separated (offset) by the cumulative movement of the fault over many earthquakes. Slip rate is a speed, expressed in millimeters per yea r ( m m / y r ) . S l i p r a t e i s e s t i m a t e d b y measuring an amount of offset accrued during a known amount of time, obtained by dating the ages of geologic features. Slip rate data are also used to estimate a fault’s earthquake recurrence interval. Sometimes referred to as “repeat time” or “return interval”, the recurrence interval represents the average amount of time that elapses between major earthquakes on a fault. The most specific way to derive recurrence interval is to excavate a trench across a fault to obtain paleoseismic evidence of earthquakes that have occurred during prehistoric time.

In southern California, ruptures along thrust faults have built the Transverse Ranges geologic province, a region with an east-west trend to its landforms and underlying geologic structures. This orientation is anomalous, virtually unique in the western United States, and a direct consequence of the plates colliding at the Big Bend. Many of southern California’s most recent damaging earthquakes have occurred on thrust faults that are uplifting the Transverse Ranges, including the 1971 San Fernando, the 1987 Whittier Narrows, the 1991 Sierra Madre, and the 1994 Northridge earthquakes. Thrust faults can be particularly hazardous because many are blind thrust faults, that is, they do not extend to the surface Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-8
of the Earth. These faults are extremely difficult to detect before they rupture. Some of the most recent earthquakes, like the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake, and the 1994 Northridge earthquake, occurred on blind thrust faults.

When comparing the sizes of earthquakes, the most meaningful feature is the amount of energy released. Thus, scientists most often consider seismic moment, a measure of the energy released when a fault ruptures. We are more familiar, however, with scales of magnitude, which measure amplitude of ground motion. Magnitude scales are logarithmic.

Each one-point increase in magnitude represents a ten-fold increase in amplitude of the waves as measured at a specific location, and a 32-fold increase in energy. That is, a magnitude 7 earthquake produces 100 times (10 x 10) the ground motion amplitude of a magnitude 5 earthquake. Similarly, a magnitude 7 earthquake releases approximately 1,000 times more energy (32 x 32) than a magnitude 5 earthquake. Most people are most familiar with the Richter magnitude scale which is a subjective assessment of the intensity of shaking observed near the epicenter of an earthquake. Although this scale is no longer used by scientists, it is still commonly used in popular reporting. Recently, scientists have developed the moment magnitude (M
w) scale to relate energy release to magnitude. An example of the difference is the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, which had a moment magnitude of 6.9.

This is an energy equivalent slightly less than 4 billion pounds of TNT.

An early measure of earthquake size still used today is the seismic intensity scale, which is a qualitative assessment of an earthquake’s effects at a given location. Although it has limited scientific application, intensity is still widely used because it is intuitively clear and quick to determine. The most commonly used measure of seismic intensity is called the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale, which has 12 damage levels (Table 6-1).

A given earthquake will have one moment and, in principle, one magnitude, although there are several methods of calculating magnitude, which give slightly different results. However, one earthquake will produce much intensity because intensity effects vary with the location and perceptions of the observer. Again, as an example, the Loma Prieta earthquake had an MMI of VIII (Severe) across much of the area near the epicenter, but portions of San Francisco experienced an MMI of IX (Violent).
992 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-9

Table 6-1: Abridged Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

Intensity Value and Description
Average
Peak
Velocity
(cm/sec)
Average
Peak
Acceleration
(g = gravity)
I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances (I Rossi-Forel scale). Damage potential:

None.
<0.1 <0.0017
II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of high-rise buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing.
(I to II Rossi-Forel scale). Damage potential: None.

0.1 – 1.1

0.0017 –

0.014
III. Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an
earthquake. Standing automobiles may rock slightly.

Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated. (III Rossi-Forel scale). Damage potential: None.

IV. During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make creaking sound. Sensation like a heavy truck striking building. Standing automobiles rocked noticeably. (IV to V Rossi-Forel scale). Damage potential: None.

Perceived shaking: Light.

1.1 – 3.4

0.014 - 0.039
V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows, and so on broken; cracked plaster in a few
places; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop. (V to VI Rossi-Forel scale). Damage
potential: Very light. Perceived shaking: Moderate.

3.4 – 8.1

0.039-0.092
VI. Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved, few instances of fallen plaster and damaged chimneys. Damage slight. (VI to VII Rossi-Forel scale). Damage potential: Light. Perceived shaking:

Strong.

8.1 - 16

0.092 -0.18
VII. Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in
well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.

Noticed by persons driving cars. (VIII Rossi-Forel scale).

Damage potential: Moderate. Perceived shaking: Very
strong.

16 - 31

0.18 - 0.34
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-10

Modified from Bolt (1999); Wald et al. (1999).

Causes of Earthquake Damage
Causes of earthquake damage can be categorized into three general areas: strong shaking, various types of ground failure that are a result of shaking, and ground displacement along the rupturing fault.

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 and is typically reported as the peak horizontal ground acceleration estimated as a percentage of g, the acceleration of gravity. Full characterization of shaking potential, though, requires estimates of peak VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures;
considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts.

Changes in well water. Persons driving cars disturbed. (VIII+ to IX Rossi-Forel scale). Damage potential:

Moderate to heavy. Perceived shaking: Severe.

31 - 60

0.34 - 0.65
IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb;
great in substantial buildings with partial collapse.

Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked
conspicuously. Underground pipes broken. (IX+ Rossi-
Forel scale). Damage potential: Heavy. Perceived shaking:

Violent.

60 - 116

0.65 – 1.24
X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most
masonry and frame structures destroyed; ground badly
cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water
splashed, slopped over banks. (X Rossi-Forel scale).

Damage potential: Very heavy. Perceived shaking:

Extreme.

> 116

> 1.24
XI. Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing.

Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground.

Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly.

XII. Damage total. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into air.

993 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-11
(maximum) ground displacement and velocity, the duration of strong shaking, and the periods (lengths) of waves that will control each of these factors at a given location. The strength of ground shaking also depends on the source, path, and site effects. Estimates of the ground shaking possible at different locations in California have been mapped, as shown on Map 6.2 (please refer to next page).
x Source effects include earthquake size, location, and distance, plus directivity of the seismic waves (for example, the 1995, MW 6.9, Kobe, Japan earthquake was not much bigger than the 1994, MW 6.7 Northridge, California earthquake, but Kobe caused much worse damage. During the Kobe earthquake, the fault’s orientation and movement directed seismic waves into the City. During the Northridge earthquake, the fault’s motion directed waves away from populous areas). x Path effects refers to how the seismic waves change direction as they travel through the Earth’s contrasting layers, just as light bounces (reflects) and bends (refracts) as it moves from air to water. Sometimes seismic energy gets focused into one location and causes damage in unexpected areas (focusing of 1989’s MW 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake waves caused damage in San Francisco’s Marina district, some 100 km distant from the rupturing fault).
x Site effects refer to how seismic waves interact with the ground surface; seismic waves slow down in the loose sediments and weathered rock at the Earth’s surface.

As they slow, their energy converts from speed to amplitude, which heightens shaking (amplification). Therefore, buildings on poorly consolidated and thick soils will typically see more damage than buildings on consolidated soils and bedrock.

Amplification can also occur in areas on deep, sediment-filled basins and on ridge tops. Seismic waves can also get trapped at the surface and reverberate (resonate).

Whether resonance will occur depends on the period (the length) of the incoming waves. Long-period seismic waves, which are created by large earthquakes, are most likely to reverberate and cause damage in long-period structures, like bridges and high-rises. (“Long-period structures” are those that respond to long-period waves.) Shorter-period seismic waves, which tend to die out quickly, will most often cause d a m a g e f a i r l y n e a r t h e f a u l t , a n d t h e y w i l l c a u s e m o s t d a m a g e i n s h o r t e r - p e r i o d structures such as one- to three-story buildings. Very short-period waves are most likely to cause near-fault, interior damage, such as to equipment.

Earthquake damage also depends on the characteristics of human-made structures. The interaction of ground motion with the built environment is complex. Governing factors include a structure’s height, construction, and stiffness, architectural design, condition, and age of the structure.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-12
Map 6.2: Ground Shaking Zones in California

994 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-13
Liquefaction typically occurs within the upper 50 feet of the surface, when saturated, loose, fine- to medium-grained soils (sand and silt) are present. Earthquake shaking suddenly increases pressure in the water that fills the pores between soil grains, causing the soil to lose strength and behave as a liquid. This process can be observed at the beach by standing on the wet sand near the surf zone. Standing still, the sand will support your weight.

However, when you tap the sand with your feet, water comes to the surface, the sand liquefies, and your feet sink.

Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures or slumping. The excess water pressure is relieved by the ejection of material upward through fissures and cracks. When soils liquefy, the structures built on them can sink, tilt, and suffer significant structural damage. Buildings and their occupants are at risk when the ground can no longer support the buildings.

Earthquake-induced landslides and rockfalls are secondary earthquake hazards that occur from ground shaking. Gravity inexorably pulls hillsides down, and earthquake shaking enhances this on-going process. Landslides and rockfalls can destroy the roads, buildings, utilities, and other critical facilities necessary to respond and recover from an earthquake.

Many communities in southern California with steep slopes have a high likelihood of being impacted by landslides.

Primary Ground Rupture Due to Fault Movement typically results in a relatively small percentage of the total damage in an earthquake, yet being too close to a rupturing fault can result in extensive damage. It is difficult to safely reduce the effects of this hazard through building and foundation design. Therefore, the primary mitigation measure is to avoid active faults by setting structures back from the fault zone. Application of this measure is subject to requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and guidelines prepared by the California Geological Survey – previously known as the California Division of Mines and Geology.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-14
History of Earthquake Events in Southern California
To better understand earthquake hazards, scientists study past earthquakes by looking at their records, or by studying the effects that past earthquakes had on the ground surface and the built environment. Historical earthquake records are either from the instrumental period (since about 1932, when the first seismographs were deployed), or pre-instrumental.

In the absence of instrumentation, the detection and record of earthquakes are based on observations and felt reports and are dependent upon population density and distribution.

Since California was sparsely populated in the 1800s, our record of pre-instrumental earthquakes is relatively incomplete. However, two very large earthquakes, the Fort Tejon in 1857 (M7.9) and the Owens Valley in 1872 (M7.6) are evidence of the tremendously damaging potential of earthquakes in southern California. More recently, two M7.3 earthquakes struck southern California, in Kern County (1952) and Landers (1992), and a M7.1 earthquake struck the Mojave Desert (Hector Mine, in 1999). The damage from these five large earthquakes was limited because they occurred in sparsely populated areas. A similarly sized earthquake closer to southern California’s population centers has the potential to place millions of people at risk.

Since seismologists started recording and measuring earthquakes, there have been tens of thousands of recorded earthquakes in southern California, most with a magnitude below 3.0.

Plate H-3 (in Appendix H) shows the historical seismicity in the immediate vicinity of Glendale. The map shows that small earthquakes, of magnitude between 1 and 3, have occurred historically in the area, but that no moderate to large earthquakes have occurred beneath Glendale in historical times. Nevertheless, these recordings show that only the easternmost portion of southern California may be beyond the reach of a damaging earthquake. Table 6-2 lists the moderate to large historical earthquake events that have affected southern California. The most significant of these events based on their felt effects in Glendale are summarized in the next pages.

995 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-15

Table 6-2: Historical Earthquakes in the Southern California Region with Magnitude > 5

1769 Los Angeles Basin 1918 San Jacinto
1800 San Diego Region 1923 San Bernardino Region
1812 Wrightwood 1925 Santa Barbara
1812 Santa Barbara Channel 1933 Long Beach
1827 Los Angeles Region 1941 Carpinteria
1855 Los Angeles Region 1952 Kern County
1857 Great Fort Tejon Earthquake 1954 West of Wheeler Ridge 1858 San Bernardino Region 1971 San Fernando
1862 San Diego Region 1973 Point Mugu
1892 San Jacinto or Elsinore Fault 1986 North Palm Springs 1893 Pico Canyon 1987 Whittier Narrows
1894 Lytle Creek Region 1992 Landers
1894 San Diego Region 1992 Big Bear
1899 Lytle Creek region 1994 Northridge
1899 San Jacinto and Hemet 1999 Hector Mine
1907 San Bernardino region 2001 West Hollywood
1910 Glen Ivy Hot Springs 2010 Borrego Springs
1916 Tejon Pass Region 2014 South Napa

Long Beach Earthquake of 1933
This Mw 6.4 earthquake occurred on March 10, 1933, at 5:54 in the afternoon. The location of the earthquake’s epicenter has been re-evaluated and determined to have occurred approximately 3 miles south of present-day Huntington Beach. However, it caused extensive damage in Long Beach, hence its name. The earthquake occurred on the Newport-Inglewood fault, a right-lateral strike slip fault that extends across the western portion of the Los Angeles basin. The Newport-Inglewood fault did not rupture the surface during this earthquake, but substantial liquefaction-induced damage was reported. The earthquake caused 120 deaths, and over $50 million in property damage (Wood, 1933).

Most of the damaged buildings were of unreinforced masonry, and many school buildings were destroyed. Fortunately, children were not present in the classrooms at that time, otherwise, the death toll would have been much higher. This earthquake led to the passage of the Field Act, which gave the Division of the State Architect authority and responsibility Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-16
for approving design and supervising construction of public schools. Building codes were also improved.

San Fernando (Sylmar) Earthquake of 1971
This Mw 6.6 earthquake occurred on the San Fernando fault zone, the western-most segment of the Sierra Madre fault, on February 9, 1971, at 6:00 in the morning. The surface rupture caused by this earthquake was nearly 12 miles long, and occurred in the Sylmar-San Fernando area, just a few miles northwest of Glendale. The maximum slip measured at the surface was nearly 6 feet.

The earthquake caused over $500 million in property damage and 65 deaths. Most of the deaths occurred when the Veteran's Administration Hospital collapsed. Several other hospitals, including the Olive View Community Hospital in Sylmar suffered severe damage.

Newly constructed freeway overpasses also collapsed, in damage scenes similar to those that occurred 23 years later in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Loss of life could have been much greater had the earthquake struck at a busier time of day. Thirty-one buildings in Glendale were so severely damaged that they had to be demolished, and approximately 3,250 masonry chimneys in the City collapsed. The total building loss in Glendale because of this earthquake was estimated at more than $2 million (Oakeshott, 1975). As with the Long Beach earthquake, legislation was passed in response to the damage caused by the 1971 earthquake. In this case, the building codes were strengthened and the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies (now Earthquake Fault Zone) Act was passed in 1972.

Whittier Narrows Earthquake of 1987
The Whittier Narrows earthquake occurred on October 1, 1987, at 7:42 in the morning, with its epicenter located approximately 12 miles southwest of Glendale (Hauksson and Jones, 1989). The M
L 5.9 earthquake occurred on a previously unknown, north-dipping concealed thrust fault (blind thrust) now called the Puente Hills fault (Shaw, and Shearer, 1999). The earthquake caused eight fatalities, over 900 injuries, and $358 million in property damage.

Severe damage was confined mainly to communities east of Los Angeles and near the epicenter. Areas with high concentrations of URMs, such as the "Uptown" district of 996 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-17
Whittier, the old downtown section of Alhambra, and the "Old Town" section of Pasadena, were severely impacted. Several tilt-up buildings partially collapsed, including tilt-up buildings built after 1971 that were built to improved building standards but were of irregular configuration, revealing seismic vulnerabilities not previously recognized.

Residences that sustained damage were mostly constructed of masonry, were not fully anchored to foundations, or were houses built over garages with large door openings. Many chimneys collapsed and, in some cases, fell through roofs. Wood-frame residences, in contrast, sustained relatively lit t l e d a m a g e , a n d n o s e v e r e s t r u c t u r a l d a m a g e t o h i g h - r i s e structures in downtown Los Angeles was reported.

Pasadena Earthquake of 1988
The Pasadena earthquake occurred at 3:38 in the morning on December 3, 1988, directly underneath the City of Pasadena. The ML5.0 earthquake occurred on the Raymond fault (Hauksson and Jones, 1991), and helped determine that the Raymond fault is a left-lateral strike-slip fault (prior to this earthquake, the geological community was divided on this issue – the fault forms a well-defined scarp that many attributed to reverse faulting). This earthquake was also notable because it was followed by an unusually small number of aftershocks, and these were of small size (the largest was only a magnitude 2.4).

Sierra Madre Earthquake of 1991
The Sierra Madre earthquake occurred on June 28, 1991 at 7:43 in the morning approximately 18 miles northeast of Glendale. The Mw 5.8 earthquake probably occurred on the Clamshell-Sawpit Canyon fault, an offshoot of the Sierra Madre fault zone in the San Gabriel Mountains (Haukson, 1994). Because 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; URM buildings were hit the hardest, and many brick chimneys collapsed. Two deaths resulted from this earthquake -- one person was killed in Arcadia, and one person in Pasadena died from a heart attack. In all, at least 100 others were injured, though the injuries were mostly minor.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-18
Landers and Big Bear Earthquakes of 1992
On the morning of June 28, 1992, most people in southern California were awakened at 4:57 by the largest earthquake to strike California in 40 years. Named “Landers” after a small desert community near its epicenter, the earthquake had a magnitude of 7.3. More than 50 miles of surface rupture associa t e d w i t h f i v e o r m o r e f a u l t s o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e o f t h i s earthquake. The average right-lateral strike-slip displacement was about 10 to 15 feet, but a maximum of 18 feet of slip was observed. Centered in the Mojave Desert, approximately 120 miles from Los Angeles, the earthquake caused relatively little damage for its size (Brewer, 1992). It released about four times as much energy as the very destructive Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, but fortunately, it did not claim as many lives (one child died when a chimney collapsed). The power of the earthquake was illustrated by the length of the ground rupture it left behind. The earthquake ruptured 5 separate faults: Johnson Valley, Landers, Homestead Valley, Emerson, and Camp Rock faults (Sieh et al., 1993). Nearby faults also experienced triggered slip and minor surface rupture. There are no Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) reports for this earthquake in the Glendale area, but in Pasadena three individuals reported MMIs of IV, and in Burbank, MMIs of IV to V were reported (http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/shake/ca/).

The magnitude 6.4 Big Bear earthquake struck little more than 3 hours after the Landers earthquake on the morning of June 28, 1992. This earthquake is technically considered an aftershock of the Landers earthquake (indeed, the largest aftershock), although the Big Bear earthquake occurred over 20 miles west of the Landers rupture, on a fault with a different orientation and sense of slip than those involved in the main shock. From its aftershock, the causative fault was determined to be a northeast-trending left-lateral fault. This orientation and slip are considered “conjugate” to the faults that slipped in the Landers rupture. The Big Bear earthquake did not break the ground surface, and, in fact, no surface trace of a fault with the proper orientation has been found in the area. The Big Bear earthquake caused a substantial amount of damage in the Big Bear area, but fortunately, it claimed no lives.

However, landslides triggered by the quake blocked roads in the mountainous areas, aggravating the clean-up and rebuilding process (SCEC-DC, 2001). 997 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-19
Northridge Earthquake of 1994
The Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 woke up most of southern California at 4:30 in the morning. The earthquake’s epicenter was located 20 miles to the west-northwest of downtown Los Angeles, on a previously unknown blind thrust fault now called the Northridge (or Pico) Thrust. Although moderate in size, this earthquake produced the strongest ground motions ever instrumentally recorded in North America. The Mw 6.7 earthquake is one of the most expensive natural disasters to have impacted the United States.

Damage was widespread, sections of major freeways collapsed, parking structures and office buildings collapsed, and numerous apartment buildings suffered irreparable damage.

Damage to wood-frame apartment houses was very widespread in the San Fernando Valley and Santa Monica areas, especially to structures with "soft" first floor or lower-level parking garages. The high accelerations, both vertical and horizontal, lifted structures from their foundations and/or shifted walls laterally. The death toll was 57, and more than 1,500 people were seriously injured.

In the Glendale area, this earthquake caused predominantly Modified Mercalli intensities of VII (http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/shake/ca/). High-profile damage in Glendale includes the following cases: A section of the third level above-grade parking structure in the Glendale City Center collapsed, sections of the Glendale Galleria parking structure settled 4 to 8 inches due to damage to pedestals, and the Glendale Fashion Center had damage to exterior columns.

Despite the losses, gains made through earthquake hazard mitigation efforts of the last two decades were obvious. Retrofits of masonry building helped reduce the loss of life, hospitals suffered less structural damage than in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, and emergency response was exemplary.

How Is This Plan Developed?
Based on the risk analysis on this particular hazard, the City of Glendale is very committed to implement earthquake mitigation policies. The City’s Community Development and Fire enforce building and fire codes pertaining to earthquake hazards. The City has adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-20
provisions of the most current version of the California Building Code (CBC), with more restrictive amendments based upon local geographic, topographic, or climatic conditions.

The Community Development Department enforces the zoning and land use regulations relating to earthquake hazards; these regulations seek to discourage development in areas that could be prone to flooding, landslide, wildfire, and seismic hazards. The City’s Public Works and Information Services Departments have created hazard maps using GIS technology to identify risk sites and emergency transportation evacuation routes.

Overall, the City has made a tremendous effort to educate the community by providing emergency preparedness information to property owners, small businesses, and organizations.

Developing a hazard mitigation plan will assist the community in reducing their risk from natural hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction, while helping to guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout the City.

Earthquake Hazard Assessment
Choosing Earthquakes for Planning and Design
It is often useful to create a deterministic or design earthquake scenario to study the effects of a particular earthquake on a building or a community. Often, such scenarios consider the largest earthquake that is believed possible to occur on a fault or fault segment, referred to as the maximum magnitude earthquake (Mmax). Other scenarios consider the maximum probable earthquake (MPE) or design basis earthquake (DBE) (1997 Uniform Building Code - UBC), the earthquake with a statistical return period of 475 years (with ground motion that has a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years). For public schools, hospitals, and other critical facilities, the California Building Code (1998) defines the Upper Bound Earthquake (UBE), which has a statistical return period of 949 years and a ground motion with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 100 years. As the descriptions above suggest, which earthquake scenario is most appropriate depends on the application, such as the planned use, lifetime or importance of a facility. The more critical the structure, the longer the time period used between earthquakes and the larger the design 998 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-21
earthquake should be.

Geologists, seismologists, engineers, emergency response personnel, and urban planners typically use maximum magnitude and maximum probable earthquakes to evaluate seismic hazard. The assumption is that if we plan for the worst-case scenario, we establish safety margins. Then smaller earthquakes, that are more likely to occur, can be dealt with effectively.

Seismic design parameters define what kinds of earthquake effects a structure must be able to withstand. These include peak ground acceleration, duration of strong shaking, and the periods of incoming strong motion waves.

As is true for most earthquake-prone regions, many potential earthquake sources pose a threat to Glendale. Thus, it is also important to consider the overall likelihood of damage from a plausible suite of earthquakes. This approach is called probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), and typically considers the likelihood of exceeding a certain level of damaging ground motion that could be produced by any or all faults within a 100-km radius of the project site, or in this case, the City. PSHA is utilized by the U.S. Geological Survey to produce national seismic hazard maps that are used by the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 2018).

Regardless of which fault causes a damaging earthquake, there will always be aftershocks.

These are smaller earthquakes that happen close to the main shock (the biggest earthquake of the sequence) in time and space. These smaller earthquakes occur as the Earth adjusts to the regional stress changes created by the main shock. The bigger the main shock, the greater the number of aftershocks, the larger the aftershocks will be, and the wider the area in which they might occur. On average, the largest aftershock will be 1.2 magnitude units less than the main shock. This is an average, and there are many cases where the biggest aftershock is larger than the average predicts. The key point is this: any major earthquake will produce aftershocks large enough to cause additional damage, especially to already- weakened structures. Consequently, post-disaster response planning must take damaging aftershocks into account.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-22
Hazard Identification
In California, many agencies are focused on seismic safety issues: The State’s Seismic Safety Commission, the Applied Technology Council, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, United States Geological Survey, Cal Tech, the California Geological Survey, as well as several universities and private foundations. These 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, ground shaking, ground motion amplification, liquefaction, earthquake induced landslides, and for coastal areas, tsunami inundation zones. Seismic hazard maps have been published and are available for many communities in California through the California Geological Survey. Some of the most significant earthquake-induced hazards with the potential to impact the city of Glendale are described below.

Seismic Shaking
Seismic shaking is the seismic hazard that has the greatest potential to severely impact Glendale given the city’s proximity to several active seismic sources (faults). To give the City a better understanding of the hazard posed by these faults, we performed a deterministic seismic hazard analysis to estimate the Peak Horizontal Ground Accelerations (PHGA) that can be expected at Glendale’s City Center due to earthquakes occurring on any of the known active or potentially active faults within 100 km (62 miles) from the city. We also conducted probabilistic seismic hazard analyses to estimate the median PHGA at twelve different sites throughout the City. Those faults that, based on the ground shaking analyses described above, can cause peak horizontal ground accelerations of about 0.1g or greater (Modified Mercalli Intensities greater than VII) in the Glendale area are listed in Table 6-3. For a map showing most of these faults, refer to Map 6-1. Those faults included in Table 6-3 that pose the greatest impact on the Glendale area, or that are thought to have a higher probability of causing an earthquake, are described in more detail in the following pages.

Table 6-3 shows:
x The closest approximate distance, in miles and kilometers, between Glendale’s City Hall and each of the main faults considered in the deterministic and probabilistic analyses;
999 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-23
x the maximum magnitude earthquake (Mmax) each fault is estimated capable of generating;
x the intensity of ground motion, expressed as a fraction of the acceleration of gravity (g), that could be experienced in the Glendale area if the Mmax occurs on one of these faults; and
x the Modified Mercalli seismic Intensity (MMI) values estimated to be felt in the City because of the Mmax on each one of these faults.

Table 6-3: Estimated Horizontal Peak Ground Accelerations and Seismic Intensities in the Glendale Area

Fault Name

Distance
to
Glendale
(mi)
Distance to
Glendale
(km)
Magnitude
of Mmax *
PGA (g)
from Mmax
MMI
from
Mmax
Verdugo <1 <1 6.7 0.61 X
Hollywood <2 ~1 6.4 0.55 X
Raymond <2 ~1 6.5 0.55 X
Sierra Madre 5 9 7.0 0.46+ X
Elysian Park Thrust 6 10 6.7 0.38 IX
Sierra Madre (San
Fernando) 9 15 6.7 0.28 IX
Santa Monica 10 16 6.6 0.25 IX
Newport-Inglewood 11 17 6.9 0.24 IX
Compton Thrust 12 19 6.8 0.25 IX
San Gabriel 12 19 7.0 0.23 IX
East Oak Ridge
(Northridge) 12 20 6.9 0.26 IX
Clamshell-Sawpit 13 21 6.5 0.20 VIII
Malibu Coast 17 28 6.7 0.18 VIII
Whittier 17 28 6.8 0.16 VIII
Santa Susana 19 30 6.5 0.16 VIII
San Jose 21 33 6.5 0.14 VIII
Palos Verdes 21 34 7.1 0.16 VIII
Holser 24 39 6.5 0.13 VIII
Cucamonga 27 43 7.0 0.15 VIII
Chino-Central Avenue 27 44 6.7 0.13 VIII
Anacapa Dume 28 45 7.3 0.17 VIII
San Andreas (1857
Rupture) 29 46 7.8 0.18 VIII
San Andreas - Mojave 29 46 7.1 0.12 VII
Oakridge (Onshore) 31 49 6.9 0.13 VIII
Simi-Santa Rosa 33 53 6.7 0.11 VII
San Cayetano 36 57 6.8 0.11 VII

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-24

* The Mmax reported are based on the fault parameters published by the CGS (CDMG, 1996).

However, as described further below, in the text, recent paleoseismic studies suggest that some of these faults, like the Sierra Madre fault, can generate even larger earthquakes than those listed above. These PGAs were calculated using Blake’s (2000a) deterministic analysis software. In general, areas closer to a given fault will generally experience higher accelerations than areas farther away, therefore the northern portion of the City, next to the Sierra Madre fault, would experience higher accelerations than those reported here.

Abbreviations used in Table 6-3:
mi – miles; km – kilometers; Mmax – maximum magnitude earthquake; PGA – peak ground acceleration as a percentage of g, the acceleration of gravity; MMI – Modified Mercalli Intensity.

In general, peak ground accelerations and seismic intensity values decrease with increasing distance away from the causative fault. However, local site conditions, such as the top of ridges, can amplify the seismic waves generated by an earthquake, resulting in localized higher accelerations than those listed here. The strong ground motion values presented here should therefore be considered as average values; higher values may occur locally in response to site-specific conditions.

1000 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-25
Map 6.3: Active Faults in the Los Angeles Basin

San Andreas Fault Zone: As discussed previously, the San Andreas Fault is the principal boundary between the Pacific and North American plates, and as such, it is considered the “Master Fault” because it has frequent (geologically speaking), large, earthquakes, and it controls the seismic hazard in southern California. The fault extends over 750 miles (1,200 kilometers), from near Cape Mendocino in northern California to the Salton Sea region in southern California. At its closest approach, the San Andreas Fault is approximately 24 miles (38 km) north of Glendale.

Large faults, such as the San Andreas Fault, are generally divided into segments to evaluate their future earthquake potential. The segments are generally defined at discontinuities along the fault that may affect the rupture length. In central and southern California, the San Andreas Fault zone is divided into five segments named, from north to south, the Cholame, Carrizo, Mojave, San Bernardino Mountains, and Coachella Valley segments (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities - WGCEP, 1995). Each segment is assumed to have a characteristic slip rate (rate of movement averaged over time), recurrence interval (time between moderate to large earthquakes), and displacement (amount of offset during an earthquake). While this methodology has some value in predicting earthquakes, historical Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-26
records and studies of prehistoric earthquakes show that it is possible for more than one segment to rupture during a large quake or for ruptures to overlap into adjacent segments.

The last major earthquake on the southern portion of the San Andreas Fault was the 1857 Fort Tejon (Mw 7.8) event. This is the largest earthquake reported in California. The 1857 surface rupture broke the Cholame, Carrizo, and Mojave segments, resulting in displacements of as much as 27 feet (9 meters) along the rupture zone. Peak ground accelerations in the Glendale area because of the 1857 earthquake are estimated to have been as high as 0.18g. Rupture of these fault segments as a group, during a single earthquake, is thought to occur with a recurrence interval of between 104 and 296 years. Map 6.4 shows the seismic intensities that would be expected in the southern California areas if a repeat of the 1857 earthquake occurred.

The closest segment of the San Andreas Fault to Glendale is the Mojave segment, located approximately 29 miles to the northeast of the City Center area. This segment is 83 miles (133 km) long, extending from approximately Three Points southward to just northwest of Cajon Creek, at the southern limit of the 1857 rupture (WGCEP, 1995). Using a slip rate of 30r8 millimeters per year (mm/yr) and a characteristic displacement of 4.5r1.5 meters (m), the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 1995) derived a recurrence interval of 150 years for this segment. The Mojave segment is estimated to be capable of producing a magnitude 7.1 earthquake, which could result in peak ground accelerations in the Glendale area of about 0.13g. The WGCEP (1995) calculated that this segment has a 26 percent probability of rupturing sometime between 1994 and 2024.

The next closest segment of the San Andreas Fault to the City of Glendale is the Carrizo segment, located approximately 41 miles from downtown. This fault segment, which is about 75 miles (121 km) long, also ruptured during the 1857 earthquake. Slip on this segment of the San Andreas Fault was greater than on either of the two other segments, averaging 6 to 7 m, and locally displaying offse t s o f a s m u c h a s 8 t o 1 0 m . S e v e r a l p a l e seismological studies have been conducted on this segment of the San Andreas Fault. This would suggest that this segment is well understood, but the data are often conflicting or inconclusive. Past earthquakes have been resolved in some trench exposures but not in 1001 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-27
others only a few miles away, and the slip estimates for past earthquakes as determined from these exposures also vary. To account for and resolve these discrepancies, the 1995 WGCEP used a slip rate of 34r3 mm/yr, and a slip per event of 7r4 m. The error bars on the slip-per- event data reflect the varying measurements that have been made along the fault length for the 1857 event. These values resolve into a recurrence interval of 206 (+149, -125 years).

This segment is thought capable of producing a magnitude 7.2 earthquake, which could result in peak ground accelerations in the Glendale area of about 0.10g. The WGCEP (1995) also calculated an 18 percent probability that this fault segment will generate an earthquake sometime between 1994 and 2024.

The San Bernardino Mountains segment, located about 43 miles from downtown Glendale, is approximately 49 miles (78 km) long, and extends from Cajon Creek to the San Gorgonio Pass. This segment is a structurally complex zone that is poorly understood, and for which there are scant data on fault behavior. Using a slip rate of 24r5 mm/yr and a characteristic displacement of 3.5r1.0 m, the WGCEP (1995) derived a recurrence interval on this fault of 146 years. This fault segment is estimated capable of producing a magnitude

7.3 earthquake, which could result in peak ground accelerations in Glendale of about 0.1g. If this fault segment ruptures together with the Mojave and Coachella Valley segments, higher ground motions would be expected. In 1994, the WGCEP (1995) calculated that this fault segment had a 28 percent probability of rupturing sometime in the next 30 years. Since the fault has not ruptured yet, the probability that it will before the year 2024 has increased.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes
City of Glendale, California
20186-28
Map 6.4: Earthquake Scenario for 7.8 San Andreas Rupture Showing Estimated Intensity Values in the Region Resulting from this Event Sierra Madre Fault: The Sierra Madre Fault zone is often divided into five main segments, labeled with the letters A through E, to more easily characterize this fairly complex system.

Map 6.5 below shows these segments.
1002 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes
City of Glendale, California
20186-29
Map 6.5: Segments of the Sierra Madre Fault
These five divisions, while simpler than the entire fault zone, should not be thought of as individual faults, however -- some of these segments are themselves complex systems of parallel and branching faults. It has been suggested that differing fault geometries in this zone keep each lettered segment separate during rupture events -- thus, neighboring segments should not rupture simultaneously. Others, however, suggest that the fault zone may rupture both in single-segment and multiple-segment breaks.

The most recent surface ruptures are seen on the B and D segments. The least active segment, at least in surficial appearance, is the A segment, also known as the Vasquez Creek Fault, which runs between the San Gabriel Fault and the intersection of the B and C segments of the Sierra Madre Fault zone. At the junction of the C and D segments, theClamshell - Sawpit Canyon Faultsplays off from the fault zone, toward the northeast (shown in sea green on the map above). It was this fault, not the Sierra Madre Fault zone itself, that ruptured to produce the Sierra Madre earthquake of 1991 (named for the nearby community of Sierra Madre).

One of the strands that make up segment D is known as the Duarte Fault, because of its location near that community. Segment E represents the easternmost part of this fault zone, and at its eastern end, it meets up with several other faults in a complex zone northwest of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-30
the town of Upland, near the epicenter of the 1990 Upland earthquake. The general trend of the Sierra Madre Fault zone continues eastward from this point along the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, but this eastern continuation is known as the Cucamonga Fault zone.

The Cucamonga Fault zone seems to be more active (has a higher slip rate) than the Sierra Madre Fault zone.

While rupture on the Sierra Madre Fault zone (theoretically) could be limited to one segment at a time, it has recently been suggested that a large event on the San Andreas Fault to the north (like that of 1857) could cause simultaneous rupture on reverse faults south of the San Gabriel Mountains -- the Sierra Madre Fault zone being a prime example of such. Whether this could rupture multiple Sierra Madre Fault zone segments simultaneously is unknown.

A larger earthquake on this fault, of magnitude between 7.2 and 7.6, could generate significantly stronger peak ground accelerations, especially in the northern portion of the City. Specific losses in Glendale because of an earthquake on the Sierra Madre Fault are discussed in detail in Section 1.9, below. If the San Fernando segment of the Sierra Madre Fault ruptured, causing a magnitude 6.7 earthquake, peak ground accelerations of about

0.28g are anticipated in the southern portion of Glendale, near City Hall. As before, stronger ground accelerations would be expected in the northern reaches of the City, closer to the fault.

Elysian Park Fault: The Whittier Narrows earthquake of October 1, 1987 occurred on a previously unknown blind thrust fault underneath the eastern part of the Los Angeles basin.

Davis et al. (1989) used oil field data to construct cross-sections showing the subsurface geology of the basin and concluded that the Whittier Narrows earthquake occurred on a thrust ramp they called the Elysian Park Thrust Fault. They modeled the Elysian Park as a shallow-angle, reverse-motion fault 6 to 10 miles below the ground surface generally located between the Whittier Fault to the southeast, and the Hollywood Fault to the west-northwest.

Although blind thrusts do not extend to the Earth’s surface, they are typically expressed at the surface by a series of hills or mountains. Davis et al. (1989) indicated that the Elysian Park thrust ramp is expressed at the surface by the Santa Monica Mountains, and the Elysian, Repetto, Montebello and Puente Hills.
1003 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-31
Davis et al. (1989) estimated a long-term slip rate on the Elysian Park of between 2.5 and 5.2 mm/yr. Dolan et al. (1995) used a different approach to estimate a slip rate on the Elysian Park Fault of about 1.7 mm/yr with a recurrence interval of about 1,475 years. Then, in 1996, Shaw and Suppe re-interpreted the subsurface geology of the Los Angeles basin, proposed a new model for what they call the Elysian Park trend, and estimated a slip rate on the thrust ramp beneath the Elysian Park trend of 1.7±0.4 mm/yr. More recently, Shaw and Shearer (1999) relocated the main shock and aftershocks of the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake, and showed that the earthquake sequence occurred on an east-west trending buried thrust they called the Puente Hills thrust (rather than the northwest-trending Elysian Park thrust).

Given the enormous amount of research currently underway to better characterize the blind thrust faults that underlie the Los Angeles basin, the Elysian Park Thrust Fault will most likely undergo additional significant re-interpretations. In fact, Shaw and Shearer (1999) suggest that the Elysian Park Thrust Fault is no longer active. However, since this statement is under consideration, and the Elysian Park Thrust is still part of the active fault database for southern California (CGS, previously CDMG, 1996), we have considered this fault as a potential seismic source in Glendale. If this fault caused a magnitude 6.7 earthquake, it is estimated that Glendale would experience peak ground accelerations of about 0.38g.

Verdugo Fault: The Verdugo Fault is a 13 to 19-mile (21 to 30 km) long, southeast-striking fault that that extends along the northeastern edge of the San Fernando Valley, and at or near the southern flank of the Verdugo Mountains, through the cities of Glendale and Burbank.

Weber et al. (1980) first reported southwest-facing scarps 2 to 3 meters high in the alluvial fan deposits in the Burbank and west Glendale areas, and other subsurface features indicative of faulting. Weber et al. (1980) relied on these scarps, on offset alluvial deposits at two localities, and on a subsurface groundwater cascade beneath Verdugo Wash to suggest that movement on this fault is youthful, but no age estimates were provided. Weber et al. (1980) further suggested that this fault is a shallow, north-dipping reverse fault responsible for uplift of the Verdugo Mountains, and proposed that the fault zone is approximately 1 km wide. For nearly 20 years since Weber et al.’s (1980) report, the Verdugo Fault was not Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-32
studied, but in the last few years, recognizing the potential threat that this fault poses to the Los Angeles metropolitan region, several researchers have started to investigate this fault.

Some researchers have relied on deep subsurface data, primarily oil well records and geophysical data to review the subsurface geology of the San Fernando Valley area, including the characteristics of the Verdugo Fault (Tsutsumi and Yeats, 1999; Langenheim et al., 2000; Pujol et al., 2001). Results of these studies suggest that the Verdugo Fault changes in character from a reverse fault adjacent to the Pacoima Hills, near its northwestern terminus, to a normal fault at the southwest edge of the Verdugo Mountains. To the north, the Verdugo Fault appears to merge with both the Mission Hills and Northridge Hills Faults. To the south, the fault is on trend with the Eagle Rock Fault, but it is still unclear whether these faults are connected. Vertical separation on the Verdugo Fault is at least 1,000 meters (3,300 feet), based on the structural relief between the valley floor and the crest of the Verdugo Mountains and other indicators (Tsutsumi and Yeats, 1999). Even though some of the data suggest that the Verdugo Fault is a reverse fault, there are several researchers who now propose that the Verdugo Fault is a left-lateral strike-slip fault (Walls et al., 1998.

Other investigators have taken a more direct, hands-on approach to study this fault, but finding locations suitable for trenching has been difficult in the extensively developed San Fernando Valley. Dolan and Tucker (1999) tried to better define the location and recency of activity of the Verdugo Fault by conducting geological and geophysical studies across the inferred trace of the fault in Brand Park. They used closely spaced boreholes drilled in a line perpendicular to the trend of the fault, and ground penetrating radar to look for stratigraphic anomalies that could be suggestive of faulting. They identified one possible anomaly that could be the Verdugo Fault and excavated a trench across the suspect area. However, the sediments exposed in the trench were too friable to maintain the trench open long enough to conduct their study. Dolan and Tucker believe that they did locate a fault, but they are uncertain about whether the fault is a recent strand of the Verdugo Fault. Realizing that the Brand Park site may not yield any additional, useful information, Dolan and Tucker (1999) shifted their attention to another potential trenching site, at Palm Park in Burbank. 1004 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-33
Unfortunately, their studies at Palm Park were equally unsuccessfu l a t l o c a t i n g a n d characterizing this fault.

Slip rate on the Verdugo Fault is poorly constrained, and currently estimated at about 0.5 mm/yr (CDMG, 1996). The fault’s recurrence interval is unknown; however, the fault’s southern segment is thought to have ruptured during the Holocene, and the fault is therefore considered active (Jennings, 1994). Based on its length, the Verdugo Fault is thought capable of generating magnitude 6.0 to 6.8 earthquakes. A magnitude 6.7 earthquake on this fault would generate peak ground accelerations in the Glendale area of about 0.6g to 0.7g, with intensities as high as X (see Map 6.6). Higher accelerations can be expected locally. Given the high accelerations that this fault is estimated capable of generating in Glendale, an earthquake scenario on this fault was modeled for loss estimation purposes.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-34

Map 6.6: Earthquake Scenario for 6.7 Verdugo Rupture Showing Estimated Intensity Values in the Region Resulting from this Event

Hollywood Fault: The Hollywood Fault is the eastern 9-mile (14 km) long segment of the Santa Monica – Hollywood Fault system that forms the southern margin of the Santa Monica Mountains (locally known as the Hollywood Hills). It has also been considered the westward extension of the Raymond Fault. From east to west, the fault traverses the Hollywood section of Los Angeles, and the cities of West Hollywood and Beverly Hills. Its eastern end is mapped immediately south of Glendale’s southern boundary (see Map 6-1 and Plate H-4). Movement 1005 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-35
on the Hollywood Fault over geologic time is thought responsible for the growth of the Hollywood Hills, which is why earlier researchers characterized this fault as a northward- dipping reverse fault. However, recent studies by Dolan et al. (1997, 2000a) and Tsutsumi et al. (2001) show that the Hollywood Fault is primarily a left-lateral strike-slip fault. A lateral component of movement on this fault is consistent with its linear trace and steep, 80- to 90-degree dips (reverse faults typically have irregular, arcuate traces and shallow dips).

The Santa Monica – Hollywood Fault system has not produced any damaging historical earthquakes, and it has had only relatively minor microseismic activity. Subsurface studies by Dolan et al. (2000a) suggest that the Hollywood Fault moves infrequently. The most recent surface-rupturing earthquake on this fault appears to have occurred 7,000 to 9,500 years ago, and another earthquake appears to have occurred in the last 10,000 to 22,000 years (Dolan et al., 2000a). These data suggest that the fault either has a slow rate of slip (of between 0.33 and 0.75 mm/yr), or that it breaks in large-magnitude events. Interestingly, the recent history of earthquakes on the Hollywood Fault is remarkably similar to that of the Sierra Madre Fault. Paleoseismologists are currently researching the possibility that earthquakes on the Sierra Madre Fault trigger rupture of the Santa Monica – Hollywood Fault system. If this is the case, then large earthquakes in the Los Angeles region may cluster in time, releasing a significant amount of strain over a geologically short time period, followed by lengthy periods of seismic quiescence.

Based on its length, the Hollywood Fault is thought capable of generating an Mw ~6.4 to 6.6 earthquake. A conservative magnitude 6.4 earthquake on the Hollywood Fault is thought capable of generating peak ground accelerations of about 0.55g in Glendale, near City Hall.

E v e n h i g h e r a c c e l e r a t i o n s , o f a s m u c h a s 0.7g can be expected along the southernmost portion of the City, near the eastern end of the fault.

Raymond Fault: The Raymond (or Raymond Hills) Fault is a left-lateral, strike-slip fault about 13 miles (20 km) long that extends across the San Gabriel Valley, along the eastern and southern margins of Pasadena, and through the northern reaches of Arcadia, San Marino and South Pasadena. The westernmost portion of the Raymond Fault is mapped just south of the City of Glendale (see Map 6.1 and Plate H-4). The fault produces an obvious south-facing Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-36
scarp along much of its length, which led many geologists to favor reverse-slip as the predominant sense of fault motion. However, left-deflected channels, shutter-ridges, sag ponds, and pressure ridges indicate that the Raymond Fault is predominantly a left-lateral strike-slip fault. This sense of motion is confirmed by the seismological record, especially by the main shock and aftershock sequence to t h e 1 9 8 8 P a s a d e n a e a r t h q u a k e o f l o c a l magnitude (M
L) 5.0 that probably occurred on this fault (Jones et al., 1990; Hauksson and Jones, 1991). Investigators have suggested that the Raymond Fault transfers slip southward from the Sierra Madre Fault zone to other fault systems (Walls et al., 1998).

The Raymond Fault was most recently trenched in San Marino, at the Los Angeles Arboretum in Arcadia (Weaver and Dolan, 2000), and in eastern Pasadena (Dolan et al., 2000b) where significant data on the recent history of this fault were collected. These studies indicate that the most recent surface-rupturing earthquake on this fault occurred 1,000 to 2,000 years ago, and that between three and five earthquakes occurred on this fault between 41,500 and 31,500 years ago. This suggests that the fault either breaks in cluster earthquakes, or that several more surface-rupturing earthquakes have occurred on this fault that was not detected in the trenches. Proposed slip rates on the fault vary from a minimum of 1.5 mm/yr (Weaver and Dolan, 2000) to 4 (+1, -0.5) mm/yr (Marin et al., 2000; Dolan et al., in review).

Weaver and Dolan (2000) also suggest an average recurrence interval for this fault of about 3,000 years.

1006 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes
City of Glendale, California
20186-37
Map 6.7: Earthquake Scenario for a M6.5 Earthquake on the Raymond Fault Showing Estimated Intensity Values in the Region Resulting from this Event A conservative magnitude 6.5 earthquake on the Raymond Fault would generate peak ground accelerations in the Glendale area of about 0.55g and seismic intensities in the VII to X range (see Table 6-3 and Map 6.7). However, the paleoseismic data suggest that this fault can generate larger earthquakes, in the 7.0 magnitude range (Dolan et al., 2000b). If this is the case, stronger ground shaking as a result o f a n e a r t h q u a k e o n t h i s f a u l t c o u l d b e experienced in Glendale.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-38
Primary Fault Rupture
Primary fault rupture refers to fissuring and offset of the ground surface along a rupturing fault during an earthquake. Primary ground rupture typically results in a relatively small percentage of the total damage in an earthquake but being too close to a rupturing fault can cause severe damage to structures. Development constraints within active fault zones were implemented in 1972 with passage of the California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. This law prohibits the construction of new habitable structures astride an active fault and requires special geologic studies to locate and evaluate whether a fault has ruptured the ground surface in the last about 11,000 years. If an active fault is encountered, structural setbacks from the fault are defined.

In the Glendale vicinity, the CGS has identified the Rowley Fault (a section of the Sierra Madre Fault) and the Raymond Fault as sufficiently active and well defined to require zoning under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The Alquist-Priolo zones designated by the CGS for these faults are shown on Plate H-4 in Appendix H. Only the Rowley fault zone extends into the City of Glendale proper, so the Raymond Fault is not discussed further below. Other faults that have been mapped in Glendale but have not been zoned by the California Geological Survey are discussed in more detail below.

The Rowley Fault is the first segment of the Sierra Madre Fault to the east of the fault traces that ruptured the ground surface during the 1971 Sylmar earthquake (see Plate H-4; the Lakeview Fault is the easternmost fault that ruptured the surface in 1971. The Sunland Fault to the north did not break, but extensive land sliding occurred in the Sunland Fault area in response to movement on the Lakeview Fault). Where the Rowley Fault has been mapped in the town of Tujunga, it consists of at least three fault planes in a zone of brecciated granodiorite that is thrust over very coarse conglomerate and basalt flows. In Glendale, the Rowley Fault has been mapped as a single strand that bifurcates at its eastern end, near Ward Canyon (see Plate H-4). The fault has been well located as evidenced by a single solid line on the map. Farther to the east, the fault is not as well defined and is therefore not currently zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act criteria.
1007 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-39
Geologic studies conducted soon after the 1971 earthquake suggested that the last rupture on the San Fernando segment of the Sierra Madre Fault prior to 1971 had occurred less than 200 years before (Bonilla, 1973). However, a more recent trenching study in the immediate vicinity of Bonilla’s trench suggests that this fault has only broken twice in the last 3,500 to 4,000 years, including the 1971 rupture (Fugal et al., 1995), which suggests this fault has a recurrence interval of about 2,000 years rather than 200 years. Nevertheless, the San Fernando segment appears to be more active than other segments of the Sierra Madre Fault, as first suggested by Crook et al. (1987), who proposed that the rest of the fault zone has not moved in many thousands of years, possibly since before the Holocene. Relatively recent trenching studies by Rubin et al. (1998) in Altadena, approximately 6 miles to the southeast of Glendale, have shown that the segment of the Sierra Madre Fault through Altadena, and possibly through Glendale, has a long recurrence interval, but that it has moved in the Holocene and is therefore active. The segment of fault that Rubin et al. (1998) trenched has ruptured the ground surface twice in the last about 15,000 years, with the most recent earthquake having occurred probably 8,000 to 9,000 years ago. Other studies farther to the southeast, at Horse thief Canyon in the San Dimas area, also showed that this section of the Sierra Madre Fault has not broken in the last 8,000 years, but that the fault has slipped as much as 46 feet (14 m) between 8,000 and 24,000 years ago (Tucker and Dolan, 2001).

These two studies suggest that the central segments of the Sierra Madre Fault, between the San Fernando segment on the north and the Cucamonga Fault on the south, ruptures at the same time in infrequent but large magnitude (M>7) events.

Based on the data presented above, the section of the Rowley Fault not currently zoned by the State should nevertheless be considered active. A fault hazard management zone that includes and extends beyond the inferred traces of the fault is proposed in the City’s Safety Element of the General Plan. Geologic studies similar in scope to those required by the CGS in Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones should be conducted if new development or redevelopment is proposed in the fault hazard management zone. As detailed geological investigations are conducted, the location and activity status (some of the splays may be proven to have not moved within the last 11,000 years) of the faults shown on Plate H-4 may Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-40
be refined or modified. The map should be amended as new data become available and are validated.

The Mt. Lukens Fault is a west- to northwest-trending thrust fault that extends across the south flank of the San Gabriel Mountains, between Haynes Canyon on the northwest, and the Los Angeles Crest Highway on the southeast. In the Glendale area, the fault is mapped about 1,500 feet to the north of the Sierra Madre Fault. Because of its closeness to the Sierra Madre Fault, Smith (1978) previously mapped this fault as part of the Sierra Madre Fault system.

The fault was mapped more recently by Crook et al. (1987), and Dibblee (1991a, 1991b, 2002). Although the Mt. Lukens Thrust Fault appears to be a separate fault system, in the Glendale area this fault is so close to the Sierra Madre Fault that if the Sierra Madre Fault ruptured, it could trigger co-seismic movement on the Mt. Lukens Thrust Fault. Therefore, a fault hazard management zone for critical facilities is appropriate for the Mt. Lukens Fault.

The Verdugo Canyon – La Tuna Canyon Fault is oriented in a northwesterly direction through Glendale, where it inferred at the base of the northeast flank of the Verdugo Mountains, but changes to a more westerly orientation in the La Tuna Canyon, where the fault reportedly controls the location of the drainage. This fault was proposed by geologists from the Metropolitan Water District (as mentioned in Envicom, 1975), who indicated that the fault is north-dipping in the La Tuna Canyon, and south-dipping farther east. The fault was also inferred under the Verdugo Wash, where a deep, northwest-trending depression in the basement rocks has been reported (California State Water Rights Board, 1962 as discussed in Envicom, 1975). The sections of the fault described above are not recognized by Dibblee (1991a, 1991b) in his geologic maps of the area, but farther to the east, in the San Rafael Hills, Dibblee maps a fault that is consistent with Byer’s (1968) mapping. Farther to the east, the fault appears to swing to the east, where it may join the Sycamore Canyon Fault (see Plate H-4). There are no data available to suggest that this fault is active; Envicom (1975) indicate that the fault is not a barrier to groundwater flow in the Verdugo Wash area and should therefore be considered inactive.

The Sycamore Canyon Fault z o n e c o n s i s t s o f a s e r i e s o f discontinuous faults that trend northeasterly in the vicinity of Sycamore Canyon, in the western part of the San Rafael Hills. 1008 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-41
Byer (1968) extended this fault zone westward across and along the north side of Sycamore Canyon, but more recent geologic maps of the area (Dibblee, 1989b) do not show this trace (see Plate 1-2). Although the presence of sheared clays along a portion of the fault, in the eastern San Rafael Hills, has contributed to some slope instability problems, Weber (1980) reported that no evidence that the fault zone is active has been found. Weber (1980) also suggested that topographic lineaments observed in the northeastern San Rafael Hills (within Pasadena) might be an extension of the Sycamore Canyon Fault. This connection has not been proven out by field evidence. However, Weber’s (1980) lineaments coincide with lineaments in the younger alluv i a l f a n d e p o s i t s i n t h e P a s a d e n a a r e a m a p p e d b y R u b i n (1992) that may be the surface expression of the most recently active traces of the Sierra Madre Fault. Therefore, in the Pasadena area, the Sycamore Canyon Fault has been zoned, with geological studies required in this zone if the proposed development is a critical facility.

A similar approach is recommended for the southwest-trending section of the Sycamore Canyon Fault that extends through the San Rafael Hills in the Glendale area. Even if the fault is not active, the sheared clays that have been reported along the fault zone may be highly expansive. If a structure is built across the surface trace of these clays, and these clays swell when wetted, the structure could experience some structural damage. Engineered mitigation measures such as deep removals along the clay zone and replacement with non- expansive materials may be warranted.

The Verdugo Fault strikes southeasterly across the southern edge of the Verdugo Mountains, through the central portion of Glendale, and across the foot of the San Rafael Hills, where it seems to merge with the Eagle Rock Fault. The Verdugo Fault separates the plutonic and metamorphic rocks that crop out in the Verdugo Mountains from the alluvial fan deposits to the southwest. The fault is probably coincident with the sharp break in slope along the southwestern edge of the Verdugo Mountains, where many of the alluvial fans that emanate from the mountains merge together to form the gently southwest-facing alluvial surface between the mountains and the Los Angeles River. In older aerial photographs of the area, Dolan and Tucker (1999) interpreted several small scarps that could represent the last surface rupturing event on this fault, but these scarps have all been obliterated by development. In fact, the inferred trace of the Verdugo Fault is covered with buildings and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-42
roads along almost its entire length, which makes it difficult to find suitable field study areas where the fault can be exposed and studied.

To date, there has been only one study in Glendale that attempted to locate and date the most recent surface rupturing events on this fault. This study, conducted in Brand Park (Dolan and Tucker, 1999) may have constrained the location of the fault zone in the area, but the actual fault trace could not be identified due to the discontinuous nature of the alluvial fan deposits that they encountered, and because the trench excavated was too unstable to be entered safely. Dolan and Tucker (1999) proposed that the trace of the Verdugo Fault in this area is approximately 300 feet (90 m) farther to the north of where it is inferred by Dibblee (1991), extending in a southeasterly direction through the area between the Tea House and the Dr.’s House at Brand Park. Unfortunately, Dolan and Tucker (1999) could not confirm the fault location elsewhere due to landscaping and previous ground surface modifications at the park (for parking lots and playing fields) that precluded the possibility of excavating another trench.

Although the most recently active traces of the Verdugo Fault are not well located, most investigators agree that the Verdugo Fault is active and therefore has the potential to generate future surface-rupturing earthquakes. Earlier investigators suggested that this fault is primarily a thrust fault, responsible for uplift of the Verdugo Mountains (R.T.

Frankian & Associates, 1968; Weber et al., 1980; Weber, 1980), but more recently, it is thought that the fault displays primarily left-lateral strike-slip movement (Walls et al., 1998; Dolan, personal communication, 2002). A fault hazard management zone that includes the inferred trace of the fault as mapped by Dibblee (1991), but is wider to the north, to include the break in slope and the zone of faulting mapped by Byer (1968) is appropriate. As with the fault hazard management zone for the Rowley Fault, geological studies should be conducted for sites within the Verdugo Fault hazard management zone if new development or significant redevelopment is proposed.

The Eagle Rock Fault crosses the southwestern part of Pasadena and the northernmost portion of Los Angeles, including along a 2-mile stretch of the Ventura (134) Freeway, where it separates crystalline bedrock on the north from sedimentary rock on the south (see Plates 1009 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-43
H-2 and H-4). The portion of the Eagle Rock Fault east of the San Rafael Hills was originally termed the “San Rafael Fault” by Weber (1980), who suggested the fault was active in late Quaternary time. This conclusion was based on the presence of linear topographic features across the Pleistocene alluvial fan surface east of the San Rafael Hills. Farther to the southeast, the fault appears to join the Raymond Fault, however the exact location of the eastern terminus of the Eagle Rock Fault is not well defined, and its geomorphology in this a r e a i s m u c h m o r e s u b d u e d t h a n t h a t o f t h e R a y m o n d F a u l t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , W e a v e r a n d Dolan (2000) concluded that a connection with the Raymond Fault could not be established with certainty. To the west, the Eagle Rock Fault lies on trend with the Verdugo Fault, although in the subsurface, based on gravity data, Weber (1980) suggests that there may be a step or bend between the two fault zones. Although very little is known about the Eagle Rock Fault, given that it appears to be related to active faults in the area, such as the Verdugo Fault, it should be considered potentially active, subject to further study. For example, although the Eagle Rock Fault may not be capable of generating an earthquake, it may break co-seismically with movement on the Verdugo Fault. A fault hazard management zone for this fault has been recommended in the Pasadena area, similar to that for the Sierra Madre and Verdugo faults. Extension of this zone between Pasadena and Glendale is appropriate, but the limits of this zone are predominantly outside the City of Glendale.

The Scholl Canyon Faults were mapped by Byer (1968), and Envicom (1975) suggested that this fault zone connects the Verdugo fault in the west to the Eagle Rock Fault in the east.

However, more recent mapping by Dibblee (1989b) does not even show these faults, and there are no data available to indicate that these fault traces, if even present, are active.

The York Boulevard Fault is a short, northeast trending fault first mapped by Lamar (1970), and more recently by Dibblee (1989a, 1989b) in the Adams Hill area of southern Glendale.

According to Lamar (1970) the fault does not offset older, Pleistocene-age deposits, and is therefore not active. However, the York Boulevard Fault does appear to separate the Raymond Fault from the Hollywood Fault, in an area where according to Weber (1980) there is step or bend in the fault zones at depth. Alternatively, the York Boulevard Fault may be the eastern extension of the Hollywood Fault. Based on these relationships and active status Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-44
of the Raymond and Hollywood Faults, Envicom (1975) suggested that the York Boulevard Fault may also be active. Given its short length, the York Boulevard Fault is not likely to generate an earthquake, but it may co-seismically move with an earthquake on the Hollywood Fault. Therefore, a hazard management zone for this fault is appropriate. A hazard mitigation zone would require geological studies to locate and characterize the fault would be performed prior to development of a critical facility.

The eastern terminus of the Hollywood Fault has been mapped along the southwestern most corner of the City of Glendale (see Map 6.1 and Plate H-4). This fault has been shown to be active in the Los Angeles and West Hollywood areas, where recently obtained data indicate that this fault breaks in infrequent but large-magnitude earthquakes. In the West Hollywood area, the inferred location of the fault along Sunset Boulevard has been proven to be incorrect; the fault is farther south, in the valley. However, in the Los Angeles area, the fault does appear to be at the mountain front. The fault has been well located in the Hollywood Hills, just to the west of Glendale, by Yerkes (1967) and Dibblee (1991b), but as it extends across the Los Angeles River and into the Glendale area its location is less well defined. Given that this fault is considered active, the inferred location of the fault in Glendale is included in a fault hazard management zone. The fault is located in the Los Angeles River floodplain, which experiences shallow ground water and deep Holocene sediments. Consequently, geologic studies to locate this fault may prove to be difficult and expensive, requiring the use of deep boreholes rather than trenching.

A few other minor, unnamed faults have been mapped both in the San Rafael Hills and in the Verdugo Mountains (see Plate H-4). These faults are not considered active since they appear to be confined to the older bedrock units, with no impact on the younger terrace and alluvial deposits. Fault hazard management zones for these faults are not considered warranted; however, geologists studying these areas should continue to look for evidence of Holocene movement on these faults. As new data are developed and verified by third-party reviewers, Plate H-4 should be amended to reflect any changes in the location, recency of activity, and need for future studies on these faults.
1010 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-45
Liquefaction and Related Ground Failure
Liquefaction is a geologic process that causes various types of ground failure. Liquefaction typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments primarily of sandy composition, in the presence of ground accelerations over 0.2g (Borchardt and Kennedy, 1979; Tinsley and Fumal, 1985). When liquefaction occurs, the sediments involved have a total or substantial loss of shear strength and behave like a liquid or semi-viscous substance. Liquefaction can cause structural distress or failure due to ground settlement, a loss of bearing capacity in the foundation soils, and the buoyant rise of buried structures. The excess hydrostatic pressure generated by ground shaking can result in the formation of sand boils or mud spouts, and/or seepage of water through ground cracks.

There are three general conditions that need to be met for liquefaction to occur. The first of these – strong ground shaking of relatively long duration – can be expected to occur in the Glendale area by an earthquake on any of several active faults in the region. The second condition – loose, or unconsolidated, recently deposited sediments consisting primarily of silty sand and sand – occurs along the Verdugo Wash and the lower reaches of its tributaries, and in the alluvial plain south of the Verdugo Mountains and the San Rafael Hills. Young alluvial sediments have also been mapped in the area between the San Gabriel and Verdugo Mountains, in the northern portion of the city. Close to the San Gabriel Mountains these sediments are coarser grained and may therefore not be susceptible to liquefaction. Alluvial sediments have also been mapped in the canyons emanating from the San Rafael Hills, such as Scholl and Sycamore canyons. The third condition – water-saturated sediments within about 50 feet of the surface – has been known to occur historically only in the Verdugo Wash north of surface projection of the Verdugo Fault, and in the floodplain of the Los Angeles River. Therefore, these areas have the potential to experience future liquefaction-induced ground displacements. The areas are shown on Plate H-5 and are discussed further below.

The Verdugo Fault appears to cause a step or series of steps in the ground water surface, with groundwater levels consistently lower on the south side of the fault zone. Brown (1975) indicated that these steps in the groundwater surface are due to offsets in the bedrock surface at depth along the fault zone; however, no surface evidence of a fault- forming groundwater barrier has been found in the area. Nevertheless, a barrier to Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-46
groundwater must be present in this area to cause the water on the north side of the fault zone to rise to within 50 feet of the ground surface. Although not mapped, shallow groundwater conditions may occur locally in those sections of the south-flowing canyons emanating from the Verdugo Mountains that are located north of the Verdugo Fault zone.

Ground water may be perched on top of the bedrock surface and ponded behind the fault zone. Since the bedrock that forms these mountains weathers to sand-sized particles, some of the canyons may contain sediments susceptible to liquefaction. The potential for these areas to liquefy should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The San Fernando Valley narrows to essentially a point in the area of Glendale between the Verdugo Mountains to the north, and the Hollywood Hills to the south, in the area where the Los Angeles River veers to the south. Due to this constriction, or reduction in the cross- sectional area of the water-bearing section of the valley, the ground water rises. Historically the ground water in this area has risen to within less than 50 feet of the ground surface. As a result, this portion of the basin, which is underlain by unconsolidated, young sediments, is susceptible to liquefaction. Plate H-5 shows those areas of Glendale that the California Geological Survey (CDMG, 1999) has identified as susceptible to liquefaction based on an extensive database of boreholes and groundwater levels measured in wells. Areas near existing stream channels, such as the Verdugo Wash and the Los Angeles River, are thought to be especially vulnerable to liquefaction as indicated by previous events: much of the liquefaction-related ground failure in the City of Simi Valley during the Northridge earthquake was concentrated near the Arroyo Simi. A study by the CGS found that most of the property damage occurred in poorly engineered fills placed over the natural, pre- development channels of the Arroyo Simi, where ground water is very shallow (Barrows et al., 1994).

The types of ground failure typically associated with liquefaction are explained below.

Lateral Spreading - Lateral displacement of surficial blocks of soil as the result of liquefaction in a subsurface layer is called lateral spreading. Even a very thin liquefied layer can act as a hazardous slip plane if it is continuous over a large enough area. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid-like mass, gravity plus inertial 1011 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-47
forces caused by the earthquake may move the mass downslope towards a cut slope or free face (such as a river channel or a canal). Lateral spreading most commonly occurs on gentle slopes that range between 0.3° and 3° and can displace the ground surface by several meters to tens of meters. Such movement damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, roads, and other structures. During the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, lateral spreads with displacements of only a few feet damaged every major pipeline. Thus, liquefaction compromised San Francisco’s ability to fight the fires that caused about 85 percent of the damage (Tinsley et al., 1985).

Flow Failure - The most catastrophic mode of ground failure caused by liquefaction is flow failure. Flow failure usually occurs on slopes greater than 3°. Flows are principally liquefied soil or blocks of intact material riding on a liquefied subsurface. Displacements are often in the tens of meters, but in favorable circumstances, soils can be displaced for tens of miles, at velocities of tens of miles per hour. For example, the extensive damage to Seward and Valdez, Alaska, during the 1964 Great Alaskan earthquake was caused by submarine flow failures (Tinsley et al., 1985).

Ground Oscillation - When liquefaction occurs at depth, but the slope is too gentle to permit lateral displacement, the soil blocks that are not liquefied may separate from one another and oscillate on the liquefied zone. The resulting ground oscillation may be accompanied by the opening and closing of fissures (cracks) and sand boils, potentially damaging structures and underground utilities (Tinsley et al., 1985).

Loss of Bearing Strength - When a soil liquefies, loss of bearing strength may occur beneath a structure, possibly causing the building to settle and tip. If the structure is buoyant, it may float upward. During the 1964 Niigata, Japan earthquake, buried septic tanks rose as much as 3 feet, and structures in the Kwangishicho apartment complex tilted as much as 60° (Tinsley et al., 1985).

Ground Lurching - Soft, saturated soils have been observed to move in a wave-like manner in response to intense seismic ground shaking, forming ridges or cracks on the ground surface. At present, the potential for ground lurching to occur at a given site can be predicted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-48
only generally. Areas underlain by thick accumulation of colluviums and alluvium appear to be the most susceptible to ground lurching. Under strong ground motion conditions, lurching can be expected in loose, cohesionless soils, or in clay-rich soils with high moisture content. In some cases, the deformation remains after the shaking stops (Barrows et al., 1994).

Seismically Induced Slope Failure
Strong ground motions can worsen existing unstable slope conditions, particularly if coupled with saturated ground conditions. Seismically-induced landslides can overrun structures, people or property, sever utility lines, and block roads, thereby hindering rescue operations after an earthquake. Over 11,000 landslides were mapped shortly after the Northridge earthquake, all within a 45-mile radius of the epicenter (Harp and Jibson, 1996). Although numerous types of earthquake-induced landslides have been identified, the most widespread type generally consists of shallow failures involving surficial soils and the uppermost weathered bedrock in moderate to steep hillside terrain (also called disrupted soil slides). Rock falls and rockslides on very steep slopes are also common. The 1989 Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes showed that reactivation of existing deep-seated landslides also occurs (Spittler et al., 1990; Barrows et al., 1995).

A combination of geologic conditions leads to landslide vulnerability. These include high seismic potential; rapid uplift and erosion resulting in steep slopes and deeply incised canyons; highly fractured and folded rock; and rock with inherently weak components, such as silt or clay layers. The orientation of the slope with respect to the direction of the seismic waves, which can affect the shaking intensity, can also control the occurrence of landslides.

Several areas in Glendale have been identified as vulnerable to seismically-induced slope failure (see Plate H-5). The San Gabriel Mountains, the mountainous region along the northern reaches of the city, is susceptible to slope failure due to the steep terrain. The crystalline bedrock that crops out in the northern and central portions of the San Rafael Hills is locally highly fractured and weathered. In steep areas, strong ground shaking can cause slides or rock falls in this material. Slope failures can also occur in the western and central portions of the city, in the Verdugo Mountains, where locally steep terrain is combined with 1012 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-49
fractured igneous and metamorphic rock units. Numerous small landslides can be expected to occur in these areas in response to an earthquake on the Sierra Madre, the Verdugo, or other nearby faults. For a more detailed assessment of potential slope instability in the Glendale area, refer to Section 9 of this report.

Ridgetop Fissuring and Shattering
Linear, fault-like fissures occurred on ridge crests in a relatively concentrated area of rugged terrain in the Santa Cruz Mountains during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Shattering of the surface soils on the crests of steep, narrow ridgelines occurred locally in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, but was widespread in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Ridgetop shattering, which leaves the surface looking as if it was plowed, by the Northridge earthquake was observed as far as 22 miles away from the epicenter. In the Sherman Oaks area, severe damage occurred locally to structures located at the tops of relatively high (greater than 100 feet), narrow (typically less than 300 feet wide) ridges flanked by slopes steeper than about 2.5:1 (horizontal: vertical). It is generally accepted that ridgetop fissuring and shattering is a result of intense amplification or focusing of seismic energy due to local topographic effects (Barrows et al., 1995).

Ridgetop shattering can be expected to occur in the topographically steep portions of the San Gabriel Mountains north of Glendale, in the Verdugo Mountains, and locally in the San Rafael Hills. These areas are, for the most part, undeveloped, so the hazard associated with ridgetop shattering is relatively low. However, above ground storage tanks, reservoirs and utility towers are often located on top of ridges, and during strong ground shaking, these can fail or topple over, with the potential to cause widespread damage to development downslope, such as storage tanks and reservoirs, or disruptions to the lifeline systems like utility towers.

Vulnerability Assessment
The effects of earthquakes span a large area, and large earthquakes occurring in the southern California area would be felt throughout the region. However, the degree to which earthquakes are felt and the damages associated with them may vary. At risk from earthquake damage are large stocks of old buildings and bridges; many hazardous materials Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-50
facilities; extensive sewer, water, and natural gas pipelines; earthen dams; petroleum pipelines; and other critical facilities, not to mention private property and businesses.

Secondary earthquake hazards, such as liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides, can be just as devastating as the ground shaking.

Damage to the extensive building stock in the area is expected to vary. Older, pre-1945 steel frame structures may have unreinforced masonry such as bricks, clay tiles, and terra cotta tiles as cladding or infilling. Cladding in newer buildings may be glass, infill panels, or pre- cast panels that may fail and generate a band of debris around the building exterior causing considerable threat to pedestrians in the streets below. Structural damage may occur if the structural members are subject to plastic deformation, which can cause permanent displacements. If some walls fail while others remain intact, torsion or soft-story problems may result. In the 1994 Northridge earthquake many welds broke in modern steel frame buildings, which was a previously unanticipated problem. Overall, modern steel frame buildings have been expected to perform well in earthquakes.

Buildings are often a combination of steel, concrete, reinforced masonry, and wood, with different structural systems on different floors or different sections of the building.

Combination types that are potentially hazardous include: concrete frame buildings without special reinforcing; precast concrete and precast-composite buildings; steel frame or concrete frame buildings with unreinforced masonry walls; reinforced concrete wall buildings with no special detailing or reinforcement; large capacity buildings with long-span roof structures such as theaters and auditoriums; large un-engineered wood-frame buildings; buildings with inadequately anchored exterior cladding and glazing; and buildings with poorly anchored parapets and appendages (FEMA, 1985). Additional types of potentially hazardous buildings may be recognized after future earthquakes.

Mobile homes are prefabricated housing units that are placed on isolated piers, jack stands, or masonry block foundations usually without any positive anchorage. Floors and roofs of mobile homes are usually plywood, and outside surfaces are covered with sheet metal.

Mobile homes typically do not perform well in earthquakes. Severe damage occurs when they fall off their supports, severing utility lines, and piercing the floor with jack stands. 1013 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-51
In addition to building types, there are other factors associated with the design and construction of the buildings that also have an impact on the structures’ vulnerability to strong ground shaking. Some of these conditions are discussed below:
x Building Shape - A building’s vertical and/or horizontal shape can be important.

Simple, symmetric buildings generally perform better than non-symmetric buildings.

During an earthquake, non-symmetric buildings tend to twist as well as shake. Wings on a building tend to act independently during an earthquake, resulting in differential movements and cracking. The geometry of the lateral load-resisting systems also matters. For example, buildings with one or two walls made mostly of glass, while the remaining walls are made of concrete or brick, are at risk. Asymmetry in the placement of bracing systems that provide a building with earthquake resistance can result in twisting or differential motions.
x Pounding - Site-related seismic hazards may include the potential for neighboring buildings to "pound," or for one building to collapse onto a neighbor. Pounding occurs when there is little clearance between adjacent buildings, and the buildings "pound" against each other as they deflect during an earthquake. The effects of pounding can be especially damaging if the floors of the buildings are at different elevations, so that, for example, the floor of one building hits a supporting column of the other. Damage to a supporting column can result in partial or total building collapse.

The City should have a plan to respond to physical damage to the region’s critical facilities and infrastructure. Critical facilities are those parts of a community's infrastructure that must remain operational after an earthquake. Critical facilities include schools, hospitals, fire and police stations, emergency operation centers, and communication centers. Plate H- 12 shows the locations of the City’s fire stations, police stations, schools, and other critical facilities. A vulnerability assessment for these facilities involves comparing the locations of these facilities to the hazardous areas identified in the City, including active and potentially active faults (Plate H-4), liquefaction-susceptible areas (Plate H-5), unstable slope areas (Plates H-5 and H-11), potential dam failure inundation areas (Plate H-10), fire hazard zones (Plate H-7), and sites that generate hazardous materials.

High-risk facilities, if severely damaged, may result in a disaster far beyond the facilities themselves. Examples include power plants, dams and flood control structures, freeway interchanges, bridges, and industrial plants that use or store explosives, toxic materials or petroleum products.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-52
High-occupancy facilities have the potential of resulting in a large number of casualties or crowd-control problems. This category includes high-rise buildings, large assembly facilities, and large multifamily residential complexes.

Dependent-care facilities, such as preschools and schools, rehabilitation centers, prisons, group care homes, and nursing homes, house populations with special evacuation considerations.

Economic facilities, such as banks, archiving and vital record-keeping facilities, airports, and large industrial or commercial centers, are those facilities that should remain operational to avoid severe economic impacts.

It is crucial that critical facilities have no structural weaknesses that can lead to collapse. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2014) has suggested the following seismic performance goals for health care facilities:
x The damage to the facilities should be limited to what might be reasonably expected after a destructive earthquake and should be repairable and not be life-threatening. x Patients, visitors, and medical, nursing, technical and support staff within and immediately outside the facility should be protected during an earthquake. x Emergency utility systems in the facility should remain operational after an earthquake.
x Occupants should be able to evacuate the facility safely after an earthquake. x Rescue and emergency workers should be able to enter the facility immediately after an earthquake and should encounter only minimum interference and danger. x The facility should be available for its planned disaster response role after an earthquake.

Lifelines are those services that are critical to the health, safety, and functioning of the community. They are particularly essential for emergency response and recovery after an earthquake. Furthermore, certain critical facilities designed to remain functional during and immediately after an earthquake may be able to provide only limited services if the lifelines they depend on are disrupted. Lifeline systems include water, sewage, electrical power, communication, transportation (highways, bridges, railroads, and airports), natural gas, and liquid fuel systems. The improved performance of lifelines in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, relative to the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, shows that the seismic codes upgraded and implemented after 1971 have been effective. Nevertheless, the impact of the 1014 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-53
Northridge quake on lifeline systems was widespread and illustrates the continued need to study earthquake impacts, to upgrade substandard elements in the systems, to provide redundancy in systems, to improve emergency response plans, and to provide adequate planning, budgeting, and financing for seismic safety.

Some of the observations and lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake are summarized below (from Savage, 1995; Lund, 1996).
x Several electrical transmission towers were damaged or totally collapsed. Collapse was generally due to foundation distress in towers that were located near ridge tops where amplification of ground motion may have occurred. One collapse was the result of a seismically induced slope failure at the base of the tower. x Damage to above ground water tanks typically occurred where piping and joints were rigidly connected to the tank, due to differential movement between the tank and the piping. Older steel tanks not seismically designed under current standards buckled at the bottom (called “elephant’s foot”), in the shell, and on the roof. Modern steel and concrete tanks generally performed well.
x The most vulnerable components of pipeline distribution systems were older threaded joints, cast iron valves, cast iron pipes with rigid joints, and older steel pipes weakened by corrosion. In the case of broken water lines, the loss of fire suppression water forced fire departments to utilize water from swimming pools and tanker trucks.
x Significant damage occurred in water treatment plants due to sloshing in large water basins.
x A number of facilities did not have an emergency power supply or did not have enough power supply capacity to provide their essential services. x Lifelines within critical structures, such as hospitals and fire stations, may be vulnerable. For instance, rooftop mechanical and electrical equipment is not generally designed for seismic forces. During the Northridge quake, rooftop equipment failed causing malfunctions in other systems. x A 70-year old crude oil pipeline leaked from a cracked weld, spreading oil for 12 miles down the Santa Clara River.
x A freight train carrying sulfuric acid was derailed causing an 8,000-gallon acid spill and a 2,000-gallon diesel spill from the locomotive.

The above list is by no means a complete summary of the earthquake damage, but it does highlight some of the issues pertinent to the Glendale area. All lifeline providers should prioritize the evaluation of the seismic vulnerability within their systems. The evaluation should include a plan to fund and schedule the needed seismic mitigation.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-54
Risk Analysis
Risk analysis is the third phase of a hazard assessment. Risk analysis involves estimating the damage and costs likely to be experienced in a geographic area over a period. Factors included in assessing earthquake risk include population and property distribution in the hazard area, the frequency of earthquake events, landslide 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.

F E M A ' s s o f t w a r e p r o g r a m , H A Z U S , u s e s m athematical formulas and information about building stock, local geology and the location and size of potential earthquakes, economic data, and other information to estimate losses from a potential earthquake. A HAZUS loss estimation was conducted for the City of Glendale as part of its General Plan Safety Element.

That section of the Safety Element is reproduced in the following pages. As a part of the 2018 update to this plan, a HAZUS-MH loss estimation was conducted using the newest version of the tool and the most updated geographic information system (GIS) data.

HAZUS-MH is a standardized methodology for earthquake loss estimation based on a GIS. A project of the National Institute of Building Sciences, funded by the FEMA, it is a powerful advance in mitigation strategies. The HAZUS project developed guidelines and procedures to make standardized earthquake loss estimates at a regional scale. With standardization, estimates can be compared from region to region. HAZUS is designed for use by state, regional, and local governments in planning for earthquake loss mitigation, emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. HAZUS addresses nearly all aspects of the built environment, and many different types of losses. The methodology has been tested against the experience of several past earthquakes, and against the judgment of experts. Subject to several limitations noted below, HAZUS can produce results that are valid for the intended purposes.

Loss estimation is an invaluable tool but must be used with discretion. Loss estimation analyzes casualties, damage and economic loss in great detail. It produces seemingly precise numbers that can be easily misinterpreted. Loss estimation's results, for example, may cite 4,054 left homeless by a scenario earthquake. This is best interpreted by its magnitude. That 1015 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-55
is, an event that leaves 4,000 people homeless is clearly more manageable than an event causing 40,000 homeless people; and an event that leaves 400,000 homeless would overwhelm a community's resources. However, another loss estimation that predicts 7,000 people homeless should probably be considered equivalent to the 4,054 result. Because HAZUS results make use of a great number of parameters and data of varying accuracy and completeness, it is not possible to assign quantitative error bars. Although the numbers should not be taken at face value, they are not rounded or edited because detailed evaluation of individual components of the disaster can help mitigation agencies ensure that they have considered all the important options.

The more community-specific the data inputs to HAZUS, the more reliable the loss estimation. HAZUS provides defaults for all required information. These are based on best- available scientific, engineering, census, and economic knowledge. The loss estimations in this report have been tailored to Glendale by using a map of soil types for the City. HAZUS relies on 2010 Census data.

As useful as HAZUS seems to be, the loss estimation methodology has some inherent uncertainties. These arise in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning earthquakes and their effect upon buildings and facilities, and i n p a r t f r o m t h e approximations and simplifications necessary for comprehensive analyses.

Users should be aware of the following specific limitations:
x HAZUS is driven by statistics, and thus is most accurate when applied to a region, or a class of buildings or facilities. It is least accurate when considering a particular site, building, or facility.
x Losses estimated for lifelines may be less than losses estimated for the general building stock.
x Losses from damaging earthquakes less than magnitude 6.0 may be overestimated. x Pilot and calibration studies have not yet provided an adequate test concerning the possible extent and effects of landsliding.
x The databases that HAZUS draws from to make its estimates are often incomplete or outdated. As discussed above, efforts were made to improve some of the datasets used for the analysis, but for some estimates the software still relies on 2010 Census tract data and 2008 DNB economic reports. This is another reason the loss estimates should not be taken at face value.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-56
Essential facilities and lifeline inventory are located by latitude and longitude. However, the HAZUS inventory data for lifelines and utilities were developed at a national level and where specific data are lacking, statistical estimations are utilized. Site-specific inventory data used in the models are discussed further in the paragraphs below. Other site-specific data used include soil types and liquefaction susceptible zones. The user then defines the earthquake scenario to be modeled, including the magnitude of the earthquake and the location of the epicenter. Once all these data are input, the software calculates the loss estimates for each scenario.

The loss estimates include physical damage to buildings of different construction and occupancy types, damage to essential facilities and lifelines, number of after-earthquake fires and damage due to fire, and the amount of debris expected. The model also estimates the direct economic and social losses, including casualties and fatalities for three different times of the day, the number of people left homeless, the number of people that will require shelter, the number of hospital beds available, and the economic losses due to damage to the places of businesses, including loss of inventory, and, to some degree, loss of jobs. The indirect economic losses component is still experimental; the calculations in the software are checked against actual past earthquakes, such as the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquake, but indirect losses are hard to measure, and it typically takes years before these monetary losses can be quantified with any degree of accuracy. Therefore, this component of HAZUS is still considered experimental.

HAZUS divides critical facilities into two groups: essential facilities and high potential loss (HPL) facilities. Essential facilities provide services to the community and should be functional after an earthquake. Essential facilities include hospitals, medical clinics, schools, fire stations, police stations and emergency operations facilities. The essential facility module in HAZUS determines these facilities’ expected loss of functionality. The damage probabilities for essential facilities are determined on a site-specific basis (i.e., at each facility). Economic losses associated with these facilities are computed as part of the analysis of the general building stock. Data required for the analysis include occupancy class (current building use) and building structural type, or a combination of essential facilities’ building 1016 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-57
type, design level, and construction quality factor. High potential loss facilities include dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants, and hazardous material sites.

HAZUS divides the lifeline inventory into two systems: transportation and utility lifelines.

The transportation system includes seven components: highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry, and airports. The utility lifelines include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude and refined oil, electric power, and communications. If site-specific lifeline utility data are not provided for these damage analyses, HAZUS performs a statistical calculation based on the population served.

General Building Stock Type and Classification: HAZUS provides damage data for buildings based on these structural types:
x Concrete
x Mobile Home
x Precast Concrete
x Reinforced Masonry Bearing Walls
x Steel
x Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Walls
x Wood Frame

And based on these types of occupancy (usage) classifications:
x Residential
x Commercial
x Industrial
x Agriculture
x Religion
x Government
x Education

Loss estimation for the general building stock is averaged for each census tract. Building damage classifications range from slight to complete. As an example, the building damage classification for wood frame buildings is provided below. Wood-frame structures comprise the city’s most common building type.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-58

Table 6-4. HAZSUS ®MH Model Building Types (after DHS/FEMA, 2014)

HAZUS®MH Model
Building Type

Description
W1 Wood, light frame (< 5,000 square feet)
W2 Wood, commercial and industrial (>5,000 square feet) S1L, S1M, S1H Steel moment frame, low-, mid- and high-rise S2L, S2M, S2H Steel braced frame, low-, and mid- and high-rise S3 Steel light frame
S4L, S5M, S4H Steel frame with cast-in-place concrete shear walls, low-, mid- and high-rise
S5L, S5M, S5H Steel frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls, low-, mid- and high-rise
C1L, C1M, C1H Concrete moment frame, low-, mid- and high-rise C2L, C2M, C2H Concrete shear walls, low-, mid- and high-rise C3L, C3M, C3H Concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls, low-, and mid- and high-rise
PC1 Pre-cast concrete tilt-up walls
PC2L, PC2M, PC2H Pre-cast concrete frames with concrete shear walls, low-, mid- and high-rise
RM1L, RM1M Reinforced masonry bearing walls with wood or metal deck diaphragms, low- and mid-rise
RM2L, RM2M, RM2H Reinforced masonry bearing walls with pre-cast concrete diaphragms, low-, and mid-rise
URML, URMM Unreinforced masonry bearing walls, low- and mid-rise MH Mobile Homes
Loss Estimation - HAZUS®MH-1, 2006

Building damage estimates are provided for "High", "Moderate" and "Low" seismic design criteria. Buildings of newer construction (e.g., post-1973) are best designated by "High." Buildings built after 1940, but before 1973, are best represented by "Moderate." If built before about 1940 (i.e., before significant seismic codes were implemented), "Low" is most appropriate. Most City of Glendale building meet “Moderate” and “High” seismic design criteria.

HAZUS estimates two types of debris. The first is debris that falls in large pieces, such as steel members or reinforced concrete elements. These require special treatment to break 1017 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-59
into smaller pieces before they are hauled away. The second type of debris is smaller and more easily moved with bulldozers and other machinery and tools. This type includes brick, wood, glass, building contents and other materials.

HAZUS assumes that there is a strong correlation between building damage (both structural and non-structural) and the number and severity of casualties. In smaller earthquakes, non- structural damage will most likely be the major contributor to the casualty estimates. In severe earthquakes where there will be a large number of collapses and partial collapses, there will be a proportionately larger number of fatalities. Earthquake-related injuries data are not of the best quality, nor are they available for all building types. Available data often have insufficient information about the type of structure in which the casualties occurred and the casualty-generating mechanism. HAZUS casualty estimates are based on the injury classification scale described in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5: Injury Classification Scale

Injury Severity Level Injury Description
Severity 1 Injuries requiring basic medical aid without requiring hospitalization.

Severity 2 Injuries requiring a greater degree of medical care and hospitalization, but not expected to progress to a life-threatening status.

Severity 3 Injuries which pose an immediate life-threatening condition if not treated adequately and expeditiously. The majority of these injuries are the result of structural collapse and subsequent entrapment or impairment of the occupants.

Severity 4 Instantaneously killed or mortally injured.

In addition, HAZUS produces casualty estimates for three times of day:
x Earthquake striking at 2:00 a.m. (population at home) x Earthquake striking at 2:00 p.m. (population at work/school) ƒ Earthquake striking at 5:00 p.m. (commute time).

Displaced Households/Shelter Requirements - Earthquakes can cause loss of function or habitability of buildings that contain housing. Displaced households may need alternative short-term shelter, provided by family, friends, temporary rentals, or public shelters established by the City, County, or relief organizations, such as the Red Cross or Salvation Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-60
Army. Long-term alternative housing may require import of mobile homes, occupancy of vacant units, net emigration from the impacted area, or, eventually, the repair or reconstruction of new public and private housing. The number of people seeking short-term public shelter is of most concern to emergency response organizations. The longer-term impacts on the housing stock are of great concern to local governments, such as cities and counties.

Economic Losses – HAZUS estimates structural and nonstructural repair costs caused by building damage and the associated loss of building contents and business inventory.

Building damage can cause additional losses by restricting the building's ability to function properly. Thus, business interruption and rental income losses are estimated. HAZUS divides building losses into two categories: (1) direct building losses and (2) business interruption losses. Direct building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. Business interruption losses are associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the earthquake.

Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the earthquake.

Earthquakes may produce indirect economic losses in sectors that do not sustain direct damage. All businesses are forward-linked (if they rely on regional customers to purchase their output) or backward-linked (if they rely on regional suppliers to provide their inputs) and are thus potentially vulnerable to interruptions in their operation. Note that indirect losses are not confined to immediate customers or suppliers of damaged enterprises. All the successive rounds of customers of customers and suppliers of suppliers are affected. In this way, even limited physical earthquake damage causes a chain reaction, or ripple effect, that is transmitted throughout the regional economy.

HAZUS Scenario Earthquakes for the Glendale Area
Five specific scenario earthquakes were modeled using the HAZUS loss estimation software available from FEMA: earthquakes on the San Andreas, Sierra Madre, Verdugo, Raymond and Hollywood Faults (see Table 6-6).
1018 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-61
Table 6-6: HAZUS Scenario Earthquakes for the City of Glendale

Fault Source Magnitude Description
San Andreas -
Mojave Segment 7.1
A large earthquake that ruptures the Mojave segment of the San Andreas fault is modeled because of its high probability of occurrence, even though the epicenter would not be too close to the City.

Sierra Madre 7.2
Likely worst-case scenario for the Glendale area. The 7.2 magnitude earthquake modeled is at the lower range of the size of earthquakes that researchers now believe this fault is capable of generating.

Verdugo 6.7
Possible worst-case scenario for Glendale. Although this earthquake is not as large as the one estimated on the Sierra Madre Fault, this fault extends through an extensively developed area, and therefore has the potential to cause significant damage to buildings and infrastructure.

Raymond 6.5
Maximum magnitude earthquake on the Raymond Fault. This fault near the southern portion of the City could cause significant damage in the southern and eastern portions of Glendale, and in the San Rafael Hills.

Hollywood 6.4
Maximum magnitude earthquake on the Hollywood Fault would cause extensive damage in Hollywood, West Hollywood, and in the southwestern portion of Glendale. This fault could break together with the Santa Monica Faults, generating a stronger, more damaging earthquake than the one presented here.

Four of the five earthquake scenarios modeled for this study are discussed in the following sections. An earthquake on the San Andreas Fault is discussed because it has the highest probability of occurring in the not too distant future, even though the expected loses from this earthquake are not the worst possible for Glendale. An earthquake on the San Andreas Fault has traditionally been considered the “Big One,” the implication being that an earthquake on this fault would be devastating to southern California. However, there are several other seismic sources closer to the Los Angeles metropolitan area that have the potential to be more devastating to the region, even if the causative earthquake is smaller in magnitude than an earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. The 7.1 magnitude San Andreas earthquake modeled for this study would result from the rupture of the Mojave segment of the fault. This segment is thought to have more than a 40 percent probability of rupturing in the next 30 years. A larger-magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault would occur if more than one segment of the fault ruptures at the same time. If all three southern Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-62
segments of the San Andreas Fault break together, an earthquake of at least magnitude 7.8 would result.

The Sierra Madre and Verdugo Faults have the potential to cause significant damage in the City. As discussed in Section 1.5.5, the Sierra Madre Fault appears to have last ruptured more than 8,000 years ago and may be near the end of its strain accumulation cycle. Recent studies suggest that the Sierra Madre Fault can generate earthquakes of magnitude 7.2 to 7.5 (instead of the 7.0 used by the California Geological Survey). These studies justify a lower- bound 7.2 magnitude earthquake for the scenario and loss estimation analysis. The earthquake history and recurrence interval of the Verdugo Fault are unknown, and as a result, the probability of future earthquakes on this fault cannot be quantified with any degree of certainty. What is certain is that if and when this fault breaks, the City of Glendale will be impacted. HAZUS helps to quantify the expected damage.

The Raymond and Hollywood Faults would both cause about the same amount of damage in Glendale. The Raymond Fault appears to break more often than the Hollywood Fault, and as a result, one could argue that it has a higher probability of rupturing again in the future.

However, since the Hollywood Fault appears to have last ruptured several thousand years ago, it may actually be closer to rupture. Since both faults are located immediately south of Glendale, the damage patterns can be expected to be very similar. Although directivity of fault breakage can have a substantial impact on the damage potential, the damage analyses conducted for this study are not designed to be sensitive to this issue.

As mentioned previously, the population data used for the Glendale analyses were from the 2010 Census. The general building stock and population inventory data conform to census tract boundaries, and the census tract boundaries generally conform to the City limits, with minor exceptions. The region studied has an area of 30 square miles and contains 28 census tracts. There are over 72,000 households in the city, with a total population of 191,719 (based on 2010 Census Bureau data). There are an estimated 33,000 buildings in the city with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of $15.85 billion.

Approximately 96 percent of the buildings and 76 percent of the building value are associated with residential housing (see Figure 6-1). The wood-frame building construction 1019 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-63
types makes up 94 percent of the building inventory. The remaining percentage is distributed between the other general building types. The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems in the City of Glendale is estimated to be nearly $5.24 billion and $394.45 million, respectively.

The HAZUS inventory of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings includes more URMs than those now present in the City, since many URMs have been demolished since 1994.

Therefore, the URM numbers in the HAZUS output are somewhat overstated. However, far more URMs in Glendale have been retrofitted than demolished, and the database used for the HAZUS analyses accounts for this: the seismic design criteria for most URMs in the City w e r e u p g r a d e d f r o m l o w t o m o d e r a t e t o r e f lect the retrofitting efforts that have been accomplished in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It is important to note that retrofitting is typically designed to keep buildings from collapsing, but that structural damage to the building is still possible and expected.

Changes were made to the HAZUS hospital inventory for Glendale, specifically, to the number of beds available. In all cases, the number of beds at all hospitals has increased since 1990, based on recent bed counts published by each of the three main hospitals in the City:

Adventist Health Glendale has 450 beds; Dignity Health, Glendale Memorial Hospital and Health Center has 334 beds, and USC Verdugo Hills Hospital has 158 beds, for a total hospital capacity of 942 beds. Dignity Health, Glendale Memorial Hospital is currently enlarging its facilities to serve an even larger number of patients. The new hospital wing is being built to the seismic standards of the Office of the State Architect in accordance with State law.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes
City of Glendale, California
20186-64
Figure 6-1: Building Inventory, by Occupancy Type, in the Glendale Area (Values shown are in millions of dollars)
Regarding critical facilities, the HAZUS database for Glendale includes 70 schools or school facilities, including school district offices, private schools, and community colleges. The City’s emergency operations center in the basement of City Hall is also included. The database was modified to include the two police stations and nine fire stations that serve the City. The locations of these facilities are shown on Plate H-12.

HAZUS loss estimations for the City of Glendale based on four of the earthquake scenarios modeled are presented concurrently below. These scenarios include earthquakes on the San Andreas, Sierra Madre, Verdugo, and Raymond Faults. Of the five earthquake scenarios modeled for the City, the results indicate that the San Andreas Fault earthquake will pose the least damage to the Glendale, although this fault may have the highest probability of rupturing in the near-future.

The Sierra Madre and Verdugo earthquake scenarios are the worst-case scenarios for the City. The losses are similar, but the damaged areas will be different, as the faults transect Residential
15,866,394
Commercial
3,749,486
Industrial
621,989
Others
577,266
Residential 75.9%
Commercial 18.6%
Industrial 3.6%
Others 1.9%
1020 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-65
different sections of the City. Since the Sierra Madre Fault is a reverse fault, it has the potential to generate stronger ground accelerations than the predominantly left-lateral strike slip Verdugo Fault. This is because reverse faults typically generate stronger ground accelerations, distributed over a broader geographic area than strike-slip faults. However, the stronger seismic shaking will be experienced north of the Sierra Madre Fault, in the sparsely populated San Gabriel Mountains. Landsliding and rock collapse can be expected to result in road closures in the mountains, and some damage to the dams north of the area can be anticipated. The areas adjacent to and immediately south of the Sierra Madre Fault will also experience damage.

The losses anticipated because of either the Raymond or Hollywood Fault causing an earthquake are also similar. These events would pose the next worst-case scenario for Glendale. Directivity of the seismic waves, as discussed earlier in this chapter, will determine, at least to some extent, where and how much damage will be experienced in the area as a result of earthquakes on either the Hollywood or Raymond Faults. However, seismologists still do not have the tools to predict where, when, and how a fault will break, and HAZUS does not consider these issues in the loss estimation analysis.

Building Damage – HAZUS estimates that between approximately 350 and 11,500 buildings will be at least moderately damaged in response to the earthquake scenarios presented here.

The lower bound represents damage from an earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, and the upper bound represents damage from an earthquake on either the Verdugo or Sierra Madre Fault. These figures represent about one to 15 percent of the total number of buildings in the study area. An estimated 0 to 1,200 buildings will be completely destroyed. Table 6-7 summarizes the expected damage to buildings by general occupancy type, while Table 6-8 summarizes the expected damage to buildings in Glendale, classified by construction type.

The data presented in Tables 6-7 and 6-8 show that most of the buildings damaged will be residential, with wood-frame structures experiencing mostly slight to moderate damage.

The Verdugo and Sierra Madre Fault earthquake scenarios both have the potential to cause at least slight damage to more than 50 percent of the residential structures in Glendale, and m o d e r a t e t o c o m p l e t e d a m a g e t o a s m u c h as 16 percent of the residential stock. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-66
distribution and severity of the damage caused by these earthquakes to the residential buildings in the city is illustrated in Map 6.8. As mentioned before, an earthquake on the Sierra Madre Fault would cause more damage in the northern section of the city than an earthquake on either the Verdugo or Raymond Faults. The Raymond (and Hollywood) Faults have the potential to cause significant damage to Glendale’s residential stock, but the damage would not be as severe as that caused by either the Sierra Madre or Verdugo Faults. The San Andreas Fault scenario is anticipated to cause slight to moderate damage to about 10 percent of the residential buildings in the City.

Although the numbers presented in Table 6-7 only hint at it, commercial and industrial structures will also be impacted. The Sierra Madre and Verdugo earthquakes have the potential to damage about 10 percent and 14 percent of the commercial and industrial buildings, respectively, in the City. The distribution and severity o f d a m a g e t o t h e commercial structures in the City from earthquakes on the Verdugo, Sierra Madre and Raymond Faults is illustrated in Map 6.8. All three earthquakes shown on Map 6-8 are anticipated to cause damage in the commercial district of the City, but an earthquake on the Verdugo Fault would be the most severe, given the fault’s location through the heart of Glendale.

1021 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-67
Table 6-7: Number of Buildings Damaged, by Occupancy Type

Scenario Occupancy Type Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Total San Andreas
Residential 3,886 424 16 4 4,330
Commercial 393 156 19 1 569
Industrial 94 44 6 0 144
Agriculture 7 3 0 0 10
Religion 30 11 1 0 42
Government 6 2 0 0 8
Education 12 4 0 0 16
Total 4,428 644 42 5 5,119
Sierra Madre
Residential 14,626 5,164 477 119 20,386
Commercial 988 1,004 429 128 2,549
Industrial 206 236 111 37 590
Agriculture 18 15 6 3 42
Religion 80 68 31 10 189
Government 15 14 7 2 38
Education 37 28 10 3 78
Total 15,970 6,529 1,071 302 23,872
Verdugo
Residential 16,478 9,406 919 482 23,285
Commercial 766 1,213 878 541 3,398
Industrial 150 267 205 137 759
Agriculture 17 18 10 7 52
Religion 69 85 59 37 250
Government 12 17 14 10 53
Education 36 38 20 10 104
Total 17,528 11,044 2,105 1,224 27,901
Raymond
Residential 15,248 6,251 710 219 22,428
Commercial 950 1,138 587 229 2,904
Industrial 196 258 140 57 651
Agriculture 19 16 6 2 43
Religion 79 76 39 15 209
Government 14 17 11 5 47
Education 38 31 12 4 85
Total 16,544 7,787 1,505 531 26,367

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes
City of Glendale, California
2018 6-68
Map 6-8: Distribution and Severity of Damaged Residential Buildings in Glendale as a Result of Three Different Earthquake Scenarios
(Damage is defined as more than 50% of the structure has undergone moderate, extensive, and/or complete damage) 1022 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-69

Table 6-8: Number of Buildings Damaged, by Construction Type

Scenario Structure Type Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Total San Andreas
Concrete 124 41 1 0 166
Mobile Homes 12 7 0 0 19
Precast Concrete 109 60 8 0 177
Reinforced Masonry 120 60 80 0 260
Steel 138 71 8 0 217
URM 54 24 4 1 83
Wood 3,871 380 7 3 4,261
Total 4,428 643 108 4 5,108
Sierra Madre
Concrete 321 428 278 109 1,136
Mobile Homes 87 22 27 13 69
Precast Concrete 227 320 160 61 768
Reinforced
Masonry 371 440 230 68 1,109
Steel 234 405 261 106 1,006
URM 88 113 64 45 310
Wood 15,598 6,503 578 170 22,849
Total 16,758 8,118 1,534 527 27,247
Verdugo
Concrete 269 212 267 182 1,060
Mobile Homes 2 14 27 26 69
Precast Concrete 168 347 256 146 917
Reinforced
Masonry 343 543 366 161 1,413
Steel 141 376 397 249 1,163
URM 50 108 94 114 366
Wood 16,557 9,315 1,099 344 27,215
Total 17,480 10,937 2,412 1,108 32,203
Raymond
Concrete 323 322 187 79 911
Mobile Homes 8 24 22 10 64
Precast Concrete 221 334 179 61 795
Reinforced
Masonry 377 461 238 63 1,139
Steel 225 296 172 76 769
URM 79 116 74 57 326
Wood 15,308 6,116 524 147 22,095
Total 16,462 7,553 1,322 436 26,099

The HAZUS output shows that URMs in Glendale will suffer slight to extensive damage, but that relatively fewer are likely to be completely destroyed. This is anticipated to reduce the number of casualties significantly. The numbers show that by retrofitting its URMs, Glendale has already significantly reduced its vulnerability to seismic shaking.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-70
Significantly, reinforced masonry, concrete, and steel structures are not expected to perform well, with hundreds of these buildings in Glendale experiencing at least moderate damage during an earthquake on the Sierra Madre or Verdugo Faults. These types of structures are commonly used for commercial and industrial purposes, and failure of some of these structures explains the casualties anticipated during the middle of the day in the non- residential sector (see Table 6-9). These types of buildings also generate heavy debris that is difficult to cut through to rescue victims.

Casualties - Table 6-9 provides a summary of the casualties estimated for these scenarios.

The analysis indicates that the worst time for an earthquake to occur in the City of Glendale is during maximum non-residential occupancy, which is at 2 p.m., when most people are in their place of business and schools are in session. The Verdugo Fault earthquake scenario is anticipated to cause the largest number of casualties, followed closely by an event on the Sierra Madre Fault.

Essential Facility Damage - The loss estimation model calculates the total number of hospital beds in Glendale that will be available after each earthquake scenario.

A maximum magnitude earthquake on the Verdugo Fault is expected to impact the local hospitals such that only 43 percent of the hospital beds (405 beds) would be available for use by existing patients and injured persons on the day of the earthquake. One week after the earthquake, about 88 percent of the beds are expected to be back in service. After one month, 99 percent of the beds are expected to be operational.

Similarly, on the day of the Sierra Madre earthquake, the model estimates that only 378 hospital beds (40 percent) will be available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the earthquake. After one week, 59 percent of the beds will be back in service. After thirty days, 83 percent of the beds will be available for use.

An earthquake on the Raymond Fault is only expected to be slightly less impactful on the availability of hospital beds. The model estimates that only 391 hospital beds (42 percent) will be available on the day of the earthquake. After one week, 60 percent of the hospital beds are expected to be available for use. After one month, 84 percent of the beds are expected to be operational.
1023 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-71
An earthquake on the San Andreas Fault is not expected to cause significant disruption to the hospitals in Glendale. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates that 86 percent of the beds will be available for use; after one week, 93 percent of the beds will be available for use; and after 30 days, 98 percent of the beds will be operational.

The models estimate a maximum of about 300 people in the Glendale area will require hospitalization after an earthquake on either the Verdugo or Sierra Madre Faults (see Table 6-9). Even with the reduced number of beds that the model projects will be available, the Glendale’s hospitals are anticipated to handle the local demand. However, nearby cities, such as Pasadena, which have limited medical care resources available, are anticipated to have a higher number of casualties. Glendale’s hospitals will most likely provide a regional service to other nearby communities, taking in patients that other hospitals outside the City cannot handle because of damage to their own facilities, or due to excess demand for medical care.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-72

Table 6-9: Estimated Casualties

Type and Time of Scenario
Level 1: Level 2: Level 3: Level 4:

Medical
treatment
without
hospitalization
Hospitalization
but not life
threatening

Hospitalization
and life
threatening

Fatalities due to
scenario event

San Andreas
2AM (maximum
residential
occupancy)
Residential 19 1 0 0
Non-Residential 0 0 0 0
Commute 0 0 0 0
Total 19 1 0 0
2PM (max
educational,
industrial, and
commercial)
Residential 4 0 0 0
Non-Residential 22 2 0 0
Educational 5 1 0 0
Commute 0 0 0 0
Total 31 3 0 0
5PM (peak
commute time)

Residential 7 0 0 0
Non-Residential 15 2 0 0
Educational 1 0 0 0
Commute 0 0 0 0
Total 23 2 0 0
Sierra Madre (M7.2)
2AM (maximum
residential
occupancy)
Residential 0 0 0 0
Non-Residential 7 2 0 0
Commute 0 0 0 0
Total 7 2 0 0
2PM (max
educational,
industrial, and
commercial)
Residential 0 0 0 0
Non-Residential 391 96 14 28
Commute 0 0 0 0
Total 391 96 14 28
5PM (peak
commute time)
Residential 0 0 0 0
Non-Residential 266 65 10 19
Commute 4 6 9 2
Total 270 71 19 21
Verdugo
2AM (maximum
residential
occupancy)
Residential 747 183 26 49
Non-Residential 24 7 1 2
Educational 0 0 0 0
Total 771 190 27 51
2PM (max
educational,
industrial, and
commercial)
Residential 172 42 6 12
Non-Residential 173 50 8 15
Educational 398 117 20 38
Total 743 209 34 75
5PM (peak
commute time)
Residential 290 71 10 19
Non-Residential 108 31 5 10
Educational 59 18 3 6
Total 457 120 18 35
Raymond
2AM (maximum
residential
occupancy)
Residential 410 88 12 22
Non-Residential 22 6 0 2
Commute 0 0 0 0
Total 432 94 12 24
2PM (max
educational,
industrial, and
commercial)
Residential 94 21 3 5
Non-Residential 717 190 30 58
Educational 176 46 7 14
Total 987 257 40 77
5PM (peak
commute time)
Residential 158 35 4 8
Non-Residential 480 126 21 39
Education 26 7 1 2
Commute 5 8 12 2
Total 669 176 38 51
1024 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-73

HAZUS also estimates the damage to other critical facilities in the City, including schools, fire and police stations, and the emergency operations center (EOC). According to the model, an earthquake on the Mojave segment of the San Andreas Fault is not going to damage any of the schools, fire or police stations, or the City’s EOC. All of these facilities would be fully functional the day after the earthquake.

An earthquake on the Sierra Madre Fault is anticipated to cause at least moderate damage to seven schools in the City, and none of the schools and school district offices in Glendale are expected to be more than 50 percent operational the day after the earthquake. Most of the schools with more than 50 percent moderate damage are located in the northern portion of the City, as illustrated in Map 6-9. The model also indicates that although none of the other critical facilities will experience more than slight damage, none of them would be fully operational the day after the earthquake.

An earthquake on the Verdugo Fault is anticipated to cause at least moderate damage to Glendale High (see Map 6-9), which according to the HAZUS inventory also houses the Glendale Cosmetology School. The model indicates that none of the other critical facilities in the City will experience more than slight damage, but apart from Dignity Health, Glendale Memorial Hospital, none of the critical facilities, including fire stations and the emergency operations center, will be more than 50 percent functional the day after the earthquake. An earthquake on the Raymond Fault is expected to also damage Glendale High. Damage to the other critical facilities in the City is expecte d t o b e l e s s s e v e r e t h a n t h a t c a u s e d b y earthquakes on either the Sierra Madre or Verdugo Faults, but few facilities are expected to be more than 50 percent operational the day after the earthquake.

Economic Losses - The model estimates that total building-related losses in the City of Glendale will range from $83 million for an earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, to $4.5 billion for an earthquake on the Verdugo Fault. Approximately 20 percent of these estimated losses would be related to business interruption in the City. By far, the largest loss would be sustained by the residential occupancies that make up as much as 60 percent of the total loss.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-74
Table 6-9 below provides a summary of the estimated economic losses anticipated as a result of each of the earthquake scenarios considered.

Table 6-10: Estimated Economic Losses

Scenario
Property
Damage
Business
Interruption Total
San Andreas $170.9 Million $24,5 Million $195.4 Million Sierra Madre $572.4 Million $196.5 Million $768.9 Million Verdugo $3.81 Billion $574.1 Million $4.4 Billion
Raymond $2.28 Billion $466.5 Million $2.75 Billion
1025 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes
City of Glendale, California
2018 6-75
Map 6-9: Distribution and Severity of Damaged Schools in Glendale as a Result of Three Different Earthquake Scenarios (Damage is defined as more than 50% of the structure has undergone moderate, extensive, and/or complete damage) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-76
Shelter Requirement – HAZUS estimates that approximately 6,042 households – where there are four people to a household, on average – in Glendale may be displaced due to the Verdugo Fault earthquake modeled for this study. About 3,923 people will seek temporary shelter in public shelters. The rest of the displaced individuals are anticipated to seek shelter with family or friends. An earthquake on the Sierra Madre Fault is anticipated to displace nearly 1,200 households, with approximately 900 people seeking temporary shelter. An earthquake on the San Andreas Fault is not expected to displace any households.

Table 6-11: Estimated Shelter Requirements

Scenario
Displaced
Households
People Needing
Short-Term Shelter
San Andreas - Mojave Segment 68 44
Sierra Madre 1,179 886
Verdugo 6,042 3,923
Raymond 3,479 2.324

Transportation Damage – Damage to transportation systems in the City of Glendale is based on a generalized inventory of the region as described in Table 6-11. Road segments are assumed to be damaged by ground failure only; therefore, the numbers presented may be low given that, based on damage observed from the Northridge and San Fernando earthquakes, strong ground shaking can cause considerable damage to bridges. Economic losses due to bridge damage are estimated at between $0.8 million for an earthquake on the San Andreas Fault to $43.3 million for an earthquake on the Verdugo Fault.

The San Andreas Fault earthquake scenario estimates that only one of the 143 bridges in the study area will experience at least moderate damage, but this bridge is expected to be more than 50 percent functional by the next day. The San Andreas earthquake scenario indicates that the Hollywood Burbank Airport will experience some economic losses, but that its functionality will not be impaired.

Alternatively, HAZUSA predicts an earthquake on the Sierra Madre Fault to damage about 27 bridges in the Glendale area, with five of them considered to be completely damaged.

Temporary repairs are expected to make all but two of the bridge locations more than 50 percent functional one day after the earthquake. Seven days after the earthquake, all bridge 1026 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-77
locations would be more than 50 percent functional. The Hollywood Burbank airport is expected to incur losses of about $1.8 million, but the airport will be functional. The Verdugo Fault earthquake scenario is the worst-case for the transportation system in the city. The damage to bridges as a result of earthquakes on the Sierra Madre, Verdugo and Raymond Faults is illustrated in Map 6-11.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes
City of Glendale, California
2018 6-78
Map 6-11: Distribution and Severity of Damaged Bridges in Glendale as a Result of Three Different Earthquake Scenarios
1027 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-79

A model of a maximum magnitude earthquake on the Verdugo Fault projects damage to about 25 bridges in the City, with four of them completely damaged. However, as before, all but two of the bridge locations are expected to be functional by the next day. The Raymond and Hollywood Fault earthquake scenarios model some damage to the Glendale transportation system, but less than that caused by either the Sierra Madre or Verdugo earthquakes discussed above.

Table 6-12: Expected Damage to Transportation Systems

Scenario

System

Segments in
Inventory

Replacement
Value for All
Segments in
Inventory
With At
Least
Moderate
Damage

With
Complete
Damage

Economic
Loss ($M)

>50 percent
Functional
after 1 Day

San Andreas
Highway

Major Roads 5 $2.8 Billion 0 0 0 5
Bridges 143 $419 Million 1 0 0.8 143
Railways Tracks 2 $19 Million 0 0 0 2
Airport Facilities 4 $8 Million 0 0 0.3 4

Sierra
Madre
Highway

Major Roads 5 $2.8 Billion 0 0 0 5
Bridges 143 $419 Million 27 5 24.4 143
Railways Tracks 2 $19 Million 0 0 0 2
Airport Facilities 4 $8 Million 2 0 1.8 4

Verdugo
Highway

Major Roads 5 $2.8 Billion 0 0 0 5
Bridges 143 $419 Million 25 4 43.3 141
Railways Tracks 2 $19 Million 0 0 0 2
Airport Facilities 4 $8 Million 1 0 1.7 4

Raymond
Highway

Major Roads 5 $2.8 Billion 0 0 0 5
Bridges 143 $419 Million 13 2 12.1 143
Railways Tracks 2 $19 Million 0 0 0 2
Airport Facilities 4 $8 Million 1 0 1.6 4

Utility Systems Damage - The HAZUS inventory for the Glendale area does not include specifics regarding the various lifeline systems in the City. Therefore, the model estimates damage to the potable water and electric power using empirical relationships based on the number of households served in the area. The results of the analyses regarding the functionality of the potable water and electric power systems in the City for the four main Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-80

earthquakes discussed are presented in Table 6-12. According to the models, all of the earthquake scenarios will impact the electric power systems. Thousands of households in the City are expected to not have electric power three days after an earthquake on any of the faults discussed in this report. An earthquake on either the Sierra Madre or Verdugo Fault is anticipated to leave as many as 9,000 households without electricity for more than one week.

The potable water system is anticipated to do better, but at least 34,000 households are expected to be without water for at least three days after an earthquake on any of these faults except the San Andreas. These results suggest that the City will have to truck in water into some of the residential neighborhoods in the northern portion of the City until the damages to the system are repaired. Residents are advised to have drinking water stored in their earthquake emergency kits to last at least 3 days for all members of the household, including pets.

Table 6-13: Expected Performance of Potable Water and Electricity Services

Scenario Utility
Number of Households without Service*
Day 1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 30 Day 90
San Andreas Potable Water 0 0 0 0 0
Electricity 10,215 1,440 69 0 0
Sierra Madre Potable Water 48,340 34,389 0 0 0
Electricity 45,389 26,431 9,695 376 0
Verdugo Potable Water 48,340 34,389 0 0 0
Electricity 58,099 38,049 16,981 3,570 76
Raymond Potable Water 45,389 34,389 0 0 0
Electricity 43,850 24,845 8,868 322 0
*Based on Total Number of Households =
75,773.

Debris Generation - The model estimates that a total of 26 to 1,000,000 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, brick and wood comprise 28 percent of the total, with the remainder consisting of reinforced concrete and steel. If the debris tonnage is converted to 1028 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-81

an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 1,040 to 40,000 truckloads to remove the debris generated by the earthquakes modeled. A truckload carries 25 tons.

Existing Mitigation Activities
Existing mitigation activities include current mitigation programs and activities that are being implemented by county, regional, State, or Federal agencies or organizations.

California Earthquake Mitigation Legislation:

California is painfully aware of the threats it faces from earthquakes. Since the 1800s, Californians have been killed, injured, and lost property as a result of earthquakes. As the State’s population continues to grow, and urban areas become even more densely built, the risk will continue to increase. In response to this concern, the Legislature has passed laws to strengthen the built environment and protect its inhabitants. Table 6-13 provides a sampling of some of the 200 plus laws in the State’s codes.

Table 6-14: Partial List of the Over 200 California Laws on Earthquake Safety

Government Code Section
8870-8870.95
Creates Seismic Safety Commission.

Government Code Section
8876.1-8876.10
Established the California Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.

Public Resources Code
Section 2800-2804.6
Authorized a prototype earthquake prediction system along the central San Andreas Fault near the City of Parkfield.

Public Resources Code
Section 2810-2815
Continued the Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project and the Bay Area Regional Earthquake Preparedness Project.

Health and Safety Code
Section 16100-16110
The Seismic Safety Commission and State Architect will develop a state policy on acceptable levels of earthquake risk for new and existing state-owned buildings.

Government Code Section
8871-8871.5
Established the California Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1986.

Health and Safety Code
Section 130000-130025
Defined earthquake performance standards for hospitals.

Public Resources Code
Section 2805-2808
Established the California Earthquake Education Project.

Government Code Section
8899.10-8899.16
Established the Earthquake Research Evaluation Conference.

Public Resources Code
Section 2621-2630 2621.

Established the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

Government Code Section
8878.50-8878.52 8878.50.

Created the Earthquake Safety and Public Buildings Rehabilitation Bond Act of 1990.

Education Code Section
35295-35297 35295.

Established emergency procedure systems in kindergarten through grade 12 in all the public or private schools.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-82

Health and Safety Code
Section 19160-19169
Established standards for seismic retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings.

Health and Safety Code
Section 1596.80-1596.879
Required all child day care facilities to include an Earthquake Preparedness Checklist as an attachment to their disaster plan.

City of Glendale Codes:

Implementation of earthquake mitigation policy most often takes place at the local government level. The City of Glendale Community Planning, Building and Safety Section enforce building codes pertaining to earthquake hazards. The City has adopted the provisions of the most current version of the California Building Code (CBC), with more restrictive amendments based upon local geographic, topographic or climatic conditions.

The City of Glendale, along with 55 other local jurisdictions, have worked together to make these amendments to the California Building Code consistent with the rest of southern California. Currently, Glendale’s Building and Safety staff are very active in the code development process, all regional activities to improve the technical provisions of the building code, and building public understanding of the purpose of the building codes. They participate in the Los Angeles Regional Uniform Code Program, (LARUCP), and promote the adoption of uniform amendments to the CBC by other local jurisdictions.

The City of Glendale Community Planning Department enforces the zoning and land use regulations relating to earthquake hazards. Generally, these codes and regulations seek to discourage development in areas that could be prone to flooding, landslide, 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.

Coordination Among Building Officials:

The City of Glendale Building Code sets the minimum design and construction standards for new buildings. The City of Glendale has adopted the most recent seismic standards in its building code, which requires that new buildings be built at a higher seismic standard. 1029 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-83

The City of Glendale 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:

Natural hazards have a devastating impact on businesses. In fact, of all businesses which close following a disaster, more than forty-three percent never reopen, and an additional 29 percent close for good within the next two years. The Institute of Business and Home Safety has developed “Open for Business,” a 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.

Hospitals:
“The Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Seismic Safety Act, or “Hospital Act,” was enacted by the State Legislature in 1973 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 47 people. Three others were killed in another hospital that nearly collapsed.

In approving the Hospital Act, the Legislature noted: “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 buildings would be in compliance with the Act’s standards within 25 years. However, hospital buildings were Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-84

not, and are not, being replaced at that anticipated rate. The great majority of the State’s urgent care facilities are now more than 40 years old.

The moderate magnitude 6.7 Northridge Earthquake in 1994 caused $3 billion in hospital- related damage and evacuations. Twelve hospital buildings constructed before the Hospital Act were cited, or red tagged, as unsafe for occupancy after the earthquake. Hospitals that had been built in accordance with the 1973 Hospital Act were very successful in resisting structural damage. However, nonstructural damage, such as plumbing and ceiling systems, was still extensive in those post-Hospital Act buildings.

Senate Bill 1953 (“SB 1953”) enacted in 1994 after the Northridge 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 Hospital Act, and affects approximately 2,500 buildings on 475 campuses.

SB 1953 directed the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), in consultation with the Hospital Building Safety Board, to develop emergency regulations including “…earthquake performance categories with subgradations for risk to life, structural soundness, building contents, and nonstructural systems that are critical to providing basic services to hospital inpatients and the public after a disaster” (Health and Safety Code Section 130005).

More recently, recognizing the continuing need to assess the adequacy of policies and the application of advances in technical knowledge and understanding, the California Seismic Safety Commission created an Ad Hoc Committee to re-examine compliance with the Alquist Hospital Seismic Safety Act. The formation of the Committee was also prompted by the recent evaluations of hospital buildings reported to OSHPD that revealed that a large 1030 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-85

percentage (40 percent) of California’s operating hospitals is in the highest category of collapse risk.

Earthquake Education:

Earthquake research and education activities are conducted at several major universities in the southern California region, including Caltech, USC, UCLA, UCSB, UCI, and UCSD The local clearinghouse for earthquake information is the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) located at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. (http://www.scec.org) The (SCEC) is a community of scientists and specialists who actively coordinate research on earthquake hazards at nine core institutions and communicate earthquake information to the public. SCEC is a National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Technology Center and is co-funded by the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

In addition, Los Angeles County, along with other southern California counties, sponsors the Community Emergency Response Training (CERT), an educational program to prepare people for earthquakes and other disasters. Many school districts have very active emergency preparedness programs that include earthquake drills and periodic disaster response team exercises.

Earthquake Mitigation Action Items
The Earthquake mitigation action items provide guidance on suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in the City of Glendale can undertake to reduce risk and prevent loss from earthquake events. Each action item is followed by ideas for implementation, which can be used by the steering committee and local decision makers in pursuing strategies for implementation.

Short Term -Earthquake # l: Integrate new earthquake hazard mapping data for the city of Glendale and improve technical analysis of earthquake hazards.

Ideas for Implementation:

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-86

x Update the City of Glendale earthquake HAZUS data using more localized data including the building inventory to improve accuracy of the vulnerability assessment for the City of Glendale.
x 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.

Coordinating Organization: The City of Glendale Geographic Information Systems Timeline: 2 y e a r s
Plan Goals Addressed: Partnerships and Implementation, Protect Life and Property
Constraints: Pending Funding and Available Personnel Short Term -Earthquake # 2: Incorporate the Regional Earthquake Transportation Evacuation Routes developed by the Regional Emergency Managers Group into appropriate planning documents.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Update the transportation routes map in the City of Glendale Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan with the evacuation routes data.
x Integrate the evacuation routes data into the City of Glendale Emergency Operations Plan.

Coordinating Organization: The City of Glendale Emergency Management Timeline: 2 y e a r s
Plan Goals Addressed: Emergency Services
Constraints: Pending Funding and Available Personnel Long Term -Earthquake # 1: Identify funding sources for structural and nonstructural retrofitting of structures that are identified as seismically vulnerable.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Provide information for property owners, small businesses, and organizations on sources of funds (loans, grants, etc.).
x Explore options for including seismic retrofitting in existing programs such as low- income housing, insurance reimbursements, and pre- and post-disaster repairs.

Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group Timeline: O n g o i n g
Plan Goals Addressed: Partnerships and Implementation, Public Awareness Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel

1031 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-87

Long Term -Earthquake # 2: Encourage seismic strength evaluations of critical facilities in the city of Glendale to identify vulnerabilities for mitigation of schools, public infrastructure, and critical facilities to meet current seismic standards.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Develop an inventory of schools and critical facilities that do not meet current seismic standards.
x Encourage owners of non-retrofitted structures to upgrade them to meet seismic standards.

Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group, Glendale Unified School District, City of Glendale Departments of Public Works and Community Development
Timeline: 5 y e a r s
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property, Emergency Services Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel Long Term -Earthquake # 3: Encourage reduction of nonstructural and structural earthquake hazards in homes, schools, businesses, and government offices.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Provide information to government building and school facility managers and teachers on securing bookcases, filing cabinets, light fixtures, and other objects that can cause injuries and block exits.
x Encourage facility managers, business owners, and teachers to refer to FEMA's practical guidebook: “Reducing the Risks Nonstructural Earthquake Damage.” x Encourage homeowners and renters to use “Is Your Home Protected from Earthquake Disaster? A Homeowner’s Guide to Earthquake Retrofit” (IBHS) for economic and efficient mitigation techniques.
x Explore partnerships to provide retrofitting classes for homeowners, renters, building professionals, and contractors.
x Target development located in potential fault zones or in unstable soils for intensive education and retrofitting resources.

Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group, City of Glendale Departments of Management Services, Public Works, and
Community Development, Glendale Unified School
District
Timeline: O n g o i n g
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property, Public Awareness Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-88

Long Term -Earthquake #4: Ensure that all schools with a 15 percent or less probability of sustaining moderate or greater damage are covered by emergency power.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Use information contained in Hazard Vulnerability Analysis to identify target schools that will be most able to continue operations after a moderate to severe earthquake. x Seek Hazard Mitigation Grant funds to provide generation capabilities to identified schools
Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group, Glendale Unified School District, Glendale Water and Power, City of
Glendale Departments of Management Services and
Community Development
Timeline: O n g o i n g
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property
Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel Long Term -Earthquake #5: Ensure that 100% of Fire, Police and EMS stations are covered by emergency power.

Ideas for Implementation:

x Seek Hazard Mitigation Grant funds to provide generation capabilities to identified facilities
Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group, Glendale Fire and Police Departments, Glendale Water and Power
Timeline: O n g o i n g
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property
Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel

Long Term -Earthquake #6: Ensure that 100% of Fire, Police, and EMS stations are covered by back up radio communications systems.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Seek Hazard Mitigation Grant funds to provide additional communications capabilities (i.e. HF or Satellite radio).

Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group, Glendale Fire and P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t s , C i t y of Glendale Information Services Department
Timeline: O n g o i n g
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property
Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel 1032 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-89

Long Term -Earthquake #7: Adopt a public-private partnership focusing on the certification of structures prior to a disaster in order to expedite the inspection process and provide post-disaster support.

Ideas for Implementation:
x In conjunction with #3 above, collect information needed to expedite structural inspection of facilities.
x Encourage owners of private commercial buildings to pre-register buildings for structural inspection.

Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group, City of Glendale Department of Community Development
Timeline: 5 y e a r s
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property, Emergency Services Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel Long Term -Earthquake #8: Provide 4,000 shelter beds within 12 hours of a disaster.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Determine locations available as shelters in accordance with most likely earthquake scenarios.
x Determine most advantageous method of shelter delivery (i.e. independent or in conjunction with American Red Cross).
x Pre-position shelter stocks as appropriate.

Coordinating Organization: Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Group, City of Glendale Department of Community Services & Parks, Glendale
Unified School District, American Red Cross
Timeline: 2 y e a r s
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property, Emergency Services Constraints: Pending funding and available personnel Long Term -Earthquake # 9: Ensure ongoing assessment of all five (5) Dams within City of Glendale. Update and identify inundation maps, risk assessments, and action plans.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Update inundation maps for all dams within City of Glendale. x Working with consultants and stakeholders to update risk assessment. x Coordinate action plan in case of dam(s) failure or incident, and coordinate efforts with Glendale Police and Fire Departments.

Coordinating Organization: City of Glendale Departments of Water & Power, Police, and Fire
Timeline: Ongoing
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-90

Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property, Emergency Services Constraints: None
Long Term -Earthquake # 10: Ensure ongoing assessment of water quality to City of Glendale residents, in the event that damage has occurred to Glendale’s or the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s water treatment plants and/or distribution systems, and that possible contamination exists: the Glendale Water & Power Department will issue Boil Water Advisory Notice.

Ideas for Implementation:
x Ongoing inspections and testing of water treatment plants for damages or contamination
x Coordinate Boil Water Advisory Notice efforts to notifying residents, and coordinate efforts with Glendale Police & Fire Departments, and Public Information Office.

Coordinating Organization: City of Glendale Departments of Water & Power, Police, Fire, and Public Information Office
Timeline: Ongoing
Plan Goals Addressed: Protect Life and Property, Emergency Services Constraints: None
Earthquake Resource Directory
Local and Regional Resources
Los Angeles County Public Works Department
Level: County Hazard: Multi http://ladpw.org
900 S. Fremont Ave.

Glendale, CA 91803 Ph: 626-4585100
Notes: The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works protects property and promotes public safety through Flood Control, Water Conservation, Road Maintenance, Bridges, Buses and Bicycle Trails, Building and Safety, Land Development, Waterworks, Sewers, Engineering, Capital Projects and Airports

Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC)
Level:

Regional
Hazard: Earthquake www.scec.org
3651 Trousdale Parkway Suite 169
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0742 Ph: 213-740-5843 Fax: 213/740-0011 1033 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-91

Notes: The Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) gathers new information about earthquakes in Southern California, integrates this information into a comprehensive and predictive understanding of earthquake phenomena, and communicates this understanding to end-users and the general public in order to increase earthquake awareness, reduce economic losses, and save lives.

State Resources
CA Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans)
Level: State Hazard: Multi http://www.dot.ca.gov/
120 S. Spring St.

Los Angeles, CA 90012 Ph: 213-897-3656
CA Resources Agency
Level: State Hazard: Multi http://resources.ca.gov/
1416 Ninth St.

Sacramento, CA 95814 916-653-5656
CA Div. of Mines and Geology (DMG)
Level: State Hazard: Multi www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/index.htm 801 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 916-445-1825

CA Dept. of Conservation: Southern CA www.consrv.ca.gov Level: State Hazard: Multi
655 S. Hope St.

Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-239-0878
CA Planning Information Network
Level: State Hazard: Multi www.calpin.ca.gov
California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES)
Level: State Hazard: Multi www.oes.ca.gov
P.O. Box 419741 916-845-8911
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741
Federal and National Resources
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC)
Level:

National
Hazard: Earthquake www.bssconline.org
1090 Vermont Ave., NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005 Ph: 202-289-7800 Fax: 202-289-109
Notes: The Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) develops and promotes building earthquake risk mitigation regulatory provisions for the nation.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-92

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX
Level:

Federal
Hazard: Multi www.fema.gov
1111 Broadway Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94607 Ph: 510-627-7100 Fax: 510-627-7112
Notes: The Federal Emergency Management Agency is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from and mitigating against disasters.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Division Level:

Federal
Hazard: Multi www.fema.gov/fima/planhowto.shtm
500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20472 Ph: 202-566-1600
Notes: The Mitigation Division manages the National Flood Insurance Program and oversees FEMA's mitigation programs. It has a number of programs and activities which provide citizens Protection, with flood insurance; Prevention, with mitigation measures and Partnerships, with communities throughout the country.

United States Geological Survey
Level:

Federal
Hazard: Multi http://www.usgs.gov/
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph: 650-853-8300
Notes: The USGS provides reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life.

Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC)
Level:

Regional
Hazard: Earthquake www.wsspc.org/home.html
125 California Avenue Suite D201, #1
Palo Alto, CA 94306 Ph: 650-330-1101 Fax: 650-326-1769
Notes: WSSPC is a regional earthquake consortium funded mainly by FEMA. Its website is a great resource, with information clearly categorized - from policy to engineering to education.

Institute for Business & Home Safety
Level:

National
Hazard: Multi http://www.ibhs.org/
4775 E. Fowler Avenue
1034 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-93

Tampa, FL 33617 Ph: 813-286-3400 Fax: 813-286-9960
The Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) is a nonprofit association that engages in communication, education, engineering and research. The Institute works to reduce deaths, injuries, property damage, economic losses and human suffering caused by natural disasters.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Division Level:

Federal
Hazard: Multi www.fema.gov/fima/planhowto.shtm
500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20472 Ph: 202-566-1600
Notes: The Mitigation Division manages the National Flood Insurance Program and oversees FEMA's mitigation programs. It has a number of programs and activities which provide citizens Protection, with flood insurance; Prevention, with mitigation measures and Partnerships, with communities throughout the country.

United States Geological Survey
Level:

Federal
Hazard: Multi http://www.usgs.gov/
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph: 650-853-8300
Notes: The USGS provides reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life.

Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC)
Level:

Regional
Hazard: Earthquake www.wsspc.org/home.html
125 California Avenue Suite D201, #1
Palo Alto, CA 94306 Ph: 650-330-1101 Fax: 650-326-1769
Notes: WSSPC is a regional earthquake consortium funded mainly by FEMA. Its website is a great resource, with information clearly categorized - from policy to engineering to education.

Institute for Business & Home Safety
Level:

National
Hazard: Multi http://www.ibhs.org/
4775 E. Fowler Avenue
Tampa, FL 33617 Ph: 813-286-3400 Fax: 813-286-9960
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-94

The Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) is a nonprofit association that engages in communication, education, engineering and research. The Institute works to reduce deaths, injuries, property damage, economic losses and human suffering caused by natural disasters.

1035 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Earthquakes City of Glendale, California
2018 6-95

Publications:

“Land Use Planning for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation: Handbook for Planners” Wolfe, Myer R. et. al., (1986) University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, National Science Foundation.

This handbook provides techniques that planners and others can utilize to help mitigate for seismic hazards. It provides information on the effects of earthquakes, sources on risk assessment, and effects of earthquakes on the built environment. The handbook also gives examples on application and implementation of planning techniques to be used by local communities.

Contact: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Address: University of Colorado, 482 UCB,
Boulder, CO 80309-0482
Phone: (303) 492-6818
Fax: (303) 492-2151
Website: http://www,colorado.edu/UCB/Research/IBS/hazards

“Public Assistance Debris Management Guide”, FEMA (July 2000).

The Debris Management Guide was developed to assist local officials in planning, mobilizing, organizing, and controlling large-scale debris clearance, removal, and disposal operations, Debris management is generally associated with post-disaster recovery. While it should be compliant with local and county emergency operations plans, developing strategies to ensure strong debris management is a way to integrate debris management within mitigation activities. The “Public Assistance Debris Management Guide” is available in hard copy or on the FEMA website.

Data Standardization Guidelines for Loss Estimation – Databases for HAZUS®MH-1, 2006

Andrews, P. L. 2009. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 5.0: Variables. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-213WWW Revised. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. (2,862 KB; 111 pages)

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Wildfires
City of Glendale, California
2018 7-1

SECTION 7: WILDFIRES

Table of Contents

Historic Fires in Southern California: 7-5
W i l d f i r e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 7 - 9 W i l d f i r e H a z a r d I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 7 - 1 4 V u l n e r a b i l i t y a n d R i s k 7 - 2 0 C o m m u n i t y W i l d f i r e I s s u e s 7 - 2 2 W h a t i s S u s c e p t i b l e t o W i l d f i r e ? 7 - 2 2 Fires After an Earthquake – The Threat of Urban Conflagration: 7-25 W i l d f i r e M i t i g a t i o n A c t i v i t i e s 7 - 2 8 W i l d f i r e M i t i g a t i o n A c t i o n I t e m s 7 - 4 3 Glendale Water & Power Wildfire Mitigation Plan 7-47 W i l d f i r e R e s o u r c e D i r e c t o r y 7 - 4 9 P u b l i c a t i o n s : 7 - 5 5

1036 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Wildfires
City of Glendale, California
2018 7-2
Why are Wildfires a Threat to Glendale?
Fires have always been a natural part of the ecosystem in southern California due to the region's weather, topography, and native vegetation. The typically mild, wet winter that is characteristic of the region’s Mediterranean climate result in the annual growth of grasses and plants that dry out during the hot summer months. This dry vegetation often provides fuel for wildfires in autumn, when the area is intermittently impacted by Santa Ana winds, the hot, dry winds that blow across the region typically in September through May. These winds often fan and help spread the fires. Furthermore, many of our native plants have a high oil content that makes them highly flammable.

Wildland fire is a natural process, and wildfires are a necessary part of the natural ecosystem of southern California. Many of the native plants require periodic burning to germinate and recycle nutrients that enrich the soils. However, wildfires become an issue when they extend out of control into developed areas, with a resultant loss of property, and sometimes, unfortunately, loss of life. The wildfire risk in the United States has increased in the last few decades with the increasing encroachment of residences and other structures into the wildland environment, and the growing number of people living and exploring wildland areas. Today, approximately 10 percent of all wildland fires in the United States are started by lightning strikes, with humans causing the rest. The most common causes of wildfires are arson, sparks from brush-clearing equipment and vehicles, improperly maintained campfires, improperly disposed of cigarettes, and children playing with matches.

Wildfires pose a substantial hazard to life and property in communities built within or adjacent to hillsides and mountainous areas, at the -wildland -urban interface or WUI. Fires in this environment can be particularly dangerous and complex, posing a severe threat to public and firefighter safety, and causing devastating losses of life and property. Because hen a wildland fire encroaches onto the built environment, ignited structures can sustain and transmit the fire from one building to the next. Multiple ignitions develop as a result of “branding,” the term for wind transport of burning cinders over a distance of a mile or more. This is what happened at four of the most devastating fires in California: the Oakland Hills/Berkeley Tunnel fire of October 1991, the Laguna fire of 1970 in northern San Diego Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Wildfires
City of Glendale, California
2018 7-3
County, the Laguna Beach fire of 1993, and the 2003 firestorms in San Diego and San Bernardino Counties. In the Oakland Hills fire, 25 lives were lost, and 2,900 structures were damaged for a total of $1.7 billion in insured losses. The 1970 Laguna fire, which started as a result of downed power lines, burned 175,425 acres, destroyed 382 structures, and killed five people. The Laguna Beach fire of 1993 burned 14,437 acres and destroyed 441 homes, but thankfully no lives were lost. The 2003 fires destroyed more than 4,800 homes and claimed 22 lives.

Several historical fires have impacted the Glendale area over the years. The entire northern two-thirds of the City has burned at some time in the last 125 years. Historical records kept by the City and the County of Los Angeles indicate that significant acreage was impacted by fires in 1878, 1927, 1933, 1964, 1975, and 1980 (see Map 7-1, below). On September 1, 2017, the La Tuna Fire, which started, burned 7,194 acres through the Verdugo Mountains.

It destroyed five homes and caused the evacuation of 300 households. The worst fire in the City’s history, however, is the College Hills fire of June 1990, which burned 100 acres and destroyed 64 homes in the foothills of the San Rafael Hills.

Due to several catastrophic wildfires, the City of Glendale is one of the cities that has developed its own fire hazard map and has adopted rigorous hazard mitigation programs that have often been years ahead of State regulations. The City is considered at risk from w i l d f i r e b y t h e C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f F orestry. The Glendale Fire Department rates almost two-thirds of the city as highly susceptible to wildland fires and has established (4) fire zones which are the standards that require property owners in fire hazard areas to conduct maintenance, removing non-resistive vegetation around their structures to reduce fire danger.

1037 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Wildfires
City of Glendale, California
20187-4
Map 7-1: Historical Wildfires in the Glendale Area
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Wildfires
City of Glendale, California
2018
7-5
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/societal-impacts/wildfires/month/7?params[]=fires&params[]=acres&end_date=2018 Historic Fires in Southern California:

As mentioned above, massive fires have been part of the southern California landscape for millennia. Researchers have determined that Native Americans in California usedfire to reduce fuel load and improve their ability to hunt and forage. It is estimated that as much as 12 percent of the State was burned every year by the various tribes (Coleman, 1994). One of the largest fires in Los Angeles County (60,000 acres) occurred in 1878, and the largest fire in Orange County's history, in 1889, burned over half a million acres. In the early 20thcentury, as development started to encroach onto the foothills, wildfires came to be unacceptable as they posed a hazard with the potential loss of property and even life. As a result, in the early 1920s, the fire service began to aggressively fight even the most minor forest fires. 1038 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Wildfires
City of Glendale, California
2018 7-6
Unfortunately, over time, this led to an increase in fuel loads. Wildfires that impact areas with fuel buildup are more intense and significantly more damaging to the ecosystem than periodic, low-intensity fires. The 20 largest historic fires in California for the time period between 1970 and 2018 are listed below.

Table 7-1: Large Historic Fires in California for the period 1970-2018

FIRE NAME
(CAUSE)
Date County Acres Structures Deaths

MENDOCINO
COMPLEX*(Under
Investigation)
Jul-18 Colusa
County,
Lake
County,
Mendocino
County
378,720 277 1 THOMAS (Under
Investigation)
Dec-17 Ventura &
Santa
Barbara
281,893 1,063 2
CEDAR (Human
Related)
Oct-03 San Diego 273,246 2,820 15
RUSH (Lightning) Aug-12 Lassen 271,911 CA
/ 43,666
NV
0 0
RIM (Human
Related)
Aug-13 Tuolumne 257,314 112 0
ZACA (Human
Related)
Jul-07 Santa
Barbara
240,207 1 0

CARR* (Human
Related)
Jul-18 Shasta
County,
Trinity
County
218,598 1,604 7
WITCH (Power
lines)
Oct-07 San Diego 197,990 1,650 2

KLAMATH

THEATER

COMPLEX
(Lightning)
Jun-08 Siskiyou 192,038 0 2

MARBLE CONE
(Lightning)
Jul-77 Monterey 177,866 0 0
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Wildfires
City of Glendale, California
2018 7-7
LAGUNA
(POWERLINES)
Sep-70 San Diego 175,425 382 5

BASIN COMPLEX
(Lightning)
Jun-08 Monterey 162,818 58 0

DAY FIRE
(Human Related)
Sep-06 Ventura 162,702 11 0
STATION (Human
Related)
Aug-09 Los
Angeles
160,557 209 2
ROUGH
(Lightning)
Jul-15 Fresno 151,623 4 0
McNALLY
(Human Related)
Jul-02 Tulare 150,696 17 0

STANISLAUS

COMPLEX
(Lightning)
Aug-87 Tuolumne 145,980 28 1

BIG BAR

COMPLEX
(Lightning)
Aug-99 Trinity 140,948 0 0

HAPPY CAMP

COMPLEX
(Lightning)
Aug-14 Siskiyou 134,056 6 0
http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Top20_Acres.pdf “Structures" is meant to include all loss - homes and outbuildings, etc.

The 2017 California Fire Season:

California’s 2017 wildfire season will go down as one of the worst in the state’s history, due to unusual late-season activity and multiple record-shattering fires across California.

California's wetter-than-normal winter in 2016-2017 proved to be a double-edged sword.

While frequent storms helped eradicate the state's five-year drought, the wet weather allowed abundant vegetation to grow and subsequently serve as fuel for wildfires in the spring and summer. From Jan. 1, 2017, through Dec. 31, 2017, over 7,117 fires burned more than 505,956 acres, an increase from the previous year which brought 4,785 fires burning around 244,319 acres, according to Cal Fire. In December, Southern California faced multiple simultaneous fires which included: The Creek Fire (over 15,600 acres and 60 residences destroyed), Rye Fire (over 6,000 acres and six structures destroyed) and Lilac Fire (4,100 acres and 157 structures destroyed) (see Table 7-2).

1039 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Wildfires
City of Glendale, California
2018 7-8
Table 7-2: December 2017 fires Southern California Statistics County Fire
Name
Date
Began
Acres
Burned
Homes
Lost
Lives
Lost

Los Angeles Creek 12/5/17 15,600 60 0
Los Angeles Rye 12/5/17 6,000 6 0
San Diego Lilac 12/7/17 4,100 157 0
http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_stats?year=2017 2017 Fire Statistics

The 2017 California fires caused an estimated $180 billion in damages, a significant loss. However, the cost of fire suppression is also substantial. Nationwide, the cost of fire suppression for FY 2017 was $2 billion. That is about $400 million more than the approximately $1.6 billion Congress appropriated to the Forest Service for wildland fire suppression. In the previous fiscal year, the Forest Service spent just over $1.6 billion, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. Services. In California, taxpayers paid more than $700 million to combat fires statewide in 2017. Table 7-3 summarizes the fire suppression costs for state, private and federal lands for the years 2016 through 2017.

Table 7-3: National Fire Suppression Costs (*complete analysis still being conducted)
Year Suppression Costs Acres Burned Structures Burned 2015 $608,000,000 297,647 3,159
2016 $534,000,000 244,319 1,274
2017 $773,000,000 505,956 9,470
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_protection/downloads/SuppressionCostsOnepage.pdf

The FLAME Act of 2009
On October 29, 2009, the House and the Senate passed the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, which included Title V – The Forest Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act of 2009. The FLAME Act was designed to respond to the rapid increase in the costs of responding to wildland fires. The act provides a funding sours and requires an update every five years from the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture explaining the national wildfire prevention strategy. President Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Wildfires
City of Glendale, California
2018 7-9
Obama signed this bill into law on October 30, 2009. Many Congressional champions and organizations are interested in solving the ongoing and increasing, problems with wildfire suppression emergency costs had been pushing for the FLAME Act to be enacted.

Wildfire Characteristics
There are three categories of interface fire: The classic wildland/urban interface occurs where well-defined urban and suburban development presses up against open expanses of wildland areas; the mixed wildland/urban interface characterized by isolated homes, subdivisions and small communities situated predominantly in wildland settings; and the occluded wildland/urban interface where islands of wildland vegetation occur inside a primarily 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, the degree of development, including dwelling density and accessibility, building construction (with emphasis on the use of fire-retardant construction materials and combustible roofs), and the availability of local mitigation measures and resources (such as nearby fire stations, fire hydrants, roads, fuel modification zones, fire sprinklers in structures, etc.). The most significant of these conditions are discussed further below.

The Interface: One challenge southern California faces regarding its wildfire hazard is the result of the increasing number of houses being built at the urban/wildland interface. Every year the growing population has expanded farther and farther into the hills and mountains, including forest lands. 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. Generally, 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 the fire hazards on their own properties. Furthermore, human activities increase the incidence of fire ignition and potential damage.
1040 of 1278

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Wildfires
City of Glendale, California
2018 7-10
Fuel: Fuel is the material that feeds the fire and is a critical 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. Southern California has two distinct areas of risk for wildland fire: 1) The foothills and lower mountain areas most often covered with scrub brush or chaparral, and 2) the forested terrain at higher elevations and the mountains.

Chaparral is a primary fuel of southern California wildfires. In southern California, chaparral habitat ranges in elevation from near sea level to over 5,000 feet. 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.

Chaparral communities have evolved so that they require fire to spawn regeneration. Many species invite fire through the production of plant materials with large surface-to-volume ratios, volatile oils and periodic die-back of vegetation. These species have further adapted to display unique reproductive mechanisms following a fire. For example, several species produce vast quantities of seeds which lie dormant until fire triggers germination. The parent plant which produces these seeds defends itself from the fire with a thick layer of bark that allows enough of the plant to survive so that the plant can crown sprout following the blaze. In general, chaparral community plants have adapted to fire through the following methods: a) fire-induced flowering, b) bud production and sprouting after the fire, c) in-soil seed storage and fire-stimulated germination, and d) on-plant seed storage and fire- stimulated dispersal.