Agenda packet — Glendora City Council, June 16, 2026 (part 1 of 11)

David Fredendall, Mayor, District 2
Karen Davis, Mayor Pro Tem, District 4
Michael Allawos, Councilmember, District 1
Shaunna Elias, Councilmember, District 3
Mendell Thompson, Councilmember, District 5

CITY COUNCIL
6:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, June 16, 2026
Glendora Public Library Bidwell Forum
140 Glendora Avenue, Glendora
AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

NEW BUSINESS

1. Workshop 1: Foundation and Funding
Recommended Action for the City Council:
— 1. Provide direction on how one-time funds should be allocated among major categories, specific projects or priorities, or a combination of both.

ADJOURNMENT
Date Posted: June 10, 2026 03:46 pm

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Council Members DATE: June 16, 2026
FROM: Public Works DISTRICT(S): Citywide
SUBJECT: Workshop 1: Foundation and Funding

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1. Provide direction on how one-time funds should be allocated among major categories, specific projects or priorities, or a combination of both.

STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS
Goal 3 - New + Revitalized Facilities
Goal 4 - Sustainable Infrastructure

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past several years, the City has restored financial stability through organizational modernization reforms, voter-approved Measures E and Z, pension restructuring, and strengthened reserve / capital funding policies.

These actions helped the City address a prior structural deficit of $3.5-$4 million, earn a AAA bond rating, and make targeted generational investments in infrastructure, public safety, homelessness response, technology, and capital projects. Despite these efforts, significant facility, street/road, and infrastructure needs remain. The City's fiscal prudence will allow the City Council to make decisions on the use of one-time funding opportunities to partially address these infrastructure challenges. The one-time funds must be evaluated carefully because the use at significant levels may reduce future fiscal flexibility, limit the City’s ability to respond to economic downturns, or affect future borrowing costs.

Community survey results have also shaped this discussion. The 2024 True North Research survey showed 53% initial support for a Citywide facility bond measure and 45% support for a Library-specific bond measure. The same survey identified infrastructure/roads and homelessness as the top two quality-of-life improvement priorities.

However, the 53% support level was below the two-thirds threshold required for a City-initiated general obligation bond. A citizen-led effort would have required only a simple majority if it qualified for the ballot; however, the citizenled effort that had begun to explore a potential facilities measure has since ceased. As a result, the City’s near-term discussion is focused on how to responsibly use available one-time resources, while continuing to evaluate longerterm funding options.

At the April 28, 2026 City Council meeting, the City Council approved the format of a three-workshop series intended to assist the City Council in evaluating the use of one-time funds, address current facility, street/road needs, identify major projects (e.g. Library), discuss funding opportunities, and discuss the establishment of a citizen advisory committee. The workshop series is intended to break a multi-year, complex discussion into three focused meetings.

Workshop 1: Foundation & Funding will focus on how the City arrived at this point, including prior strategic planning efforts, community surveys, facility assessments, infrastructure studies, pavement management data, capital improvement planning, and City Council direction. Workshop 1 will also include review of onetime funding and a preliminary list of project options and estimated costs for City Council consideration.

Workshop 2: Library & Public Works Yard will focus primarily on the Library and Corporate Yard/Public Works Yard, two of the City’s most significant facility needs. This discussion is expected to include structural assessments, updated facility condition information, estimated costs, potential phasing opportunities, service continuity considerations, and any remaining follow-up items from Workshop 1.

Workshop 3: Funding Options & Next Steps will focus on grants, land sales, debt issuance, other potential funding strategies, implementation of next steps, and the potential structure of a future citizen-led advisory committee, if desired. Workshop 3 would also provide an opportunity to address any follow-up items from Workshops 1 and 2.

The City Council has previously discussed an $8 million to $12 million range for use of one-time funds, aimed at facility and street/road issues; specific direction was provided to not utilize one-time funds for the Library and Public Works Yard. Those facilities will be discussed separately during Workshop 2 due to their larger scope, structural considerations, phasing needs, and long-term funding implications. Therefore, the primary policy question for Workshop 1 is how those funds should be prioritized on facilities and streets/roads.

To support the discussion on street/roads and facilities, staff will provide preliminary project options and estimated costs to help the City Council determine whether the one-time funding should be weighted toward streets/roads, existing facilities, or other City Council priorities. These materials are intended to help the City Council provide policy direction on the specific projects or project areas that should be prioritized for one-time funding.

Staff is seeking direction on which projects or project areas the City Council would like included in the one-time funding package, such as specific street segments, facility maintenance priorities, or categories of work identified in the Facility Condition Assessment. Following City Council direction, staff will refine project scopes, cost estimates, sequencing, funding sources, and delivery timelines for future budget, CIP, or project-specific actions.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
Over the past several years, the City Council has received multiple reports and presentations related to facility conditions, infrastructure needs, community priorities, funding options, pavement needs, and the use of one-time resources. Attachments A to N, included detailed information about much of the information previously presented to the City Council and Glendora Community, through council meetings and workshops. Rather than restating each prior report in full, staff has summarized the key actions below:

Date Action/Topic Summary
01/10/2023
Library Structural
Analysis
City Council awarded a contract to Myers Houghton and Partners, Inc. to perform an in-depth structural analysis and evaluation of the Library’s suitability for major renovations and initial visioning activities. (Attachment A)
09/12/2023 Water System
Assessment
City Council received an update on the comprehensive Water System Assessment, which identified more than $350 million in projects needed over the next 30 years, with approximately $30 million programmed over the first five years. (Attachment B)
01/09/2024
Library
Assessment/Facility
Needs
City Council discussed the MHP Library assessment and directed staff to complete an overall condition analysis of major City facilities and undertake a community survey regarding a possible revenue measure. (Attachment C)
01/30/2024 GUSD Master Joint
Use Agreement
City Council approved a Master Joint Use Agreement with Glendora Unified School District, including a partnership methodology for joint capital upgrades such as the Glendora High School Aquatics Center. (Attachment D)
08/27/2024 True North
Community Survey
City Council received community survey results regarding potential Citywide and/or Library-specific revenue measure options and broader quality-of-life priorities. (Attachment E)
11/05/2024 ACA 5 Statewide
Ballot Measure
Statewide ballot measure ACA 5 failed. The measure would have lowered the voter threshold for certain local facility bond measures from two-thirds to 55%
11/12/2024 Corporate Yard
Design Contract
City Council approved an agreement with IDS Group, Inc. for architectural, engineering, and consultant services for the design and construction plans of the City Corporate Yard Improvement Project. (Attachment F) 02/25/2025 FY 24/25 Mid Year
Budget Update
City Council received information documenting approximately $50 million in current facility needs and more than $250 million in estimated modernization needs. (Attachment G)
03/11/2025
City Facilities capital
Needs and Funding
Options
City Council received a comprehensive report regarding facility capital needs, deferred maintenance, cost increases, capital projects, and funding options. (Attachment H)
04/22/2025
FY 2025-2027
Strategic Plan
City Council approved the Strategic Plan, including goals related to New + Revitalized Facilities and Sustainable Infrastructure. (Attachment I) 12/09/2025
2025 Pavement
Management
Program
City Council received the 2025 Pavement Management Program Update prepared by Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc; City Council direction for staff to identify additional funding opportunities of $3 to 3.5 million annually to increase the City's PCI score from a 63 to a 70 over the next 7 years. (Attachment J)
01/13/2026
Civic Center
Revitalization and
Funding Methodology
City Council received updated Civic Center renderings, rough order of magnitude cost estimates, and funding scenarios. The City Council unanimously adopted the Civic Center renderings as starting point for future public engagement ad directed staff to seek grant opportunities for the project. (Attachment K)
02/24/2026 Use of One-Time
Funds
City Council received a report on one-time funding opportunities and voted 5–0 to receive and file the report. (Attachment L)
03/24/2026
Advisory Group
Options and OneTime Funds
City Council discussed citizen ad hoc committees, City Council subcommittees, and the use of one-time funds. Council unanimously directed staff to conduct a series of three workshops. (Attachment M) 04/28/2026
Workshop Framework
and One-Time
Funding Direction
Staff presented the proposed workshop framework and available one-time funding information. The City Council approved the use of one-time funding in the amount of $8-12 million. (Attachment N)

DISCUSSION
The City’s facility, street, and infrastructure needs have been discussed through multiple staff reports, public meetings, strategic planning sessions, community surveys, facility assessments, pavement management updates, and capital planning efforts. As the needs are significant and involve multiple funding sources, policy trade-offs, and timing considerations, the City Council directed staff to structure the discussion into three workshops rather than one single City Council meeting. Below is a summary of each workshop:

Workshop 1: Foundation & One-Time Funding (June 16): This kickoff session reviews how five years of strategic planning, public engagement, and facility assessments have shaped the conversation around onetime spending priorities. The City Council will provide staff direction on how to spend approximately $8-$12 million on street/road and facility projects.

Workshop 2: Library & Public Works Yard (July 21): Building on the first workshop, this meeting digs into the specifics of the Library and Public Works Yard building, covering past and current structural assessments, estimated costs for repair/replacement, and possible phasing approaches.

Workshop 3: Funding Options & Next Steps (September 15): The final workshop explores how to pay for the infrastructure and facility work needed in Glendora — including grants, land sales, and debt issuance. This workshop will also explore the possibility of establishing a citizen’s advisory committee, and the role they may play.

Purpose of Workshop 1
Workshop 1 is intended to answer two primary questions.

1. How did the City get here?
The first part of the workshop will summarize the City’s prior work, including strategic planning, community surveys, facility assessments, infrastructure studies, pavement management data, prior capital improvement planning, and City Council direction.

This background is important because the current discussion is not the beginning of a policy discussion. For the last several years, in conjunction with strategic planning efforts, the City has completed multiple studies and assessments that have identified significant needs across City facilities, streets, water infrastructure, parks, trails, trees, technology, and other capital assets. The City has also increased its investment in capital improvements and maintenance over time, including increased appropriations to preventative street maintenance, the Capital Improvement Program and the creation of a dedicated Facilities Division.

The Bureau Veritas Facility Condition Assessment is one of the primary tools used to understand and prioritize City facility maintenance needs. The assessment identified deferred maintenance and capital repair needs across City facilities and is available on the City website at https://www.cityofglendora.gov/CityHall/Facility-Documents. Attachments O, P, Q, R, and S show the priority items identified for each facility over the next five years, work that has already been completed, dollar amounts by category and task, and remaining needs.

As noted in the presentation and attachments, not every facility repair completed in recent years was specifically identified in the assessment. Some projects arose unexpectedly or became necessary due to safety, operational, code, or service delivery needs. Those completed projects will be identified separately so the City Council and public can see both the planned assessment-driven work and the additional work that has been completed as needs arose.

2. How should the $8 million to $12 million one-time funding package be allocated? The second part of the workshop will focus on allocation strategy. The City Council has already discussed a general one-time funding range of approximately $8 million to $12 million. Workshop 1 is intended to help determine how that funding should be divided among competing capital needs.

The City Council has options on how to allocate the $8 million to $12 million. The City Council could direct that a certain amount be allocated toward facilities, a certain amount toward streets, and a certain amount toward other capital priorities. The City Council could also identify specific projects it wants included, such as a particular street segment, facility repair, or capital project. Or, it could be a combination of both.

Once that direction is provided, staff would prepare or refine the project list, confirm cost estimates, evaluate sequencing, coordinate with operational needs, and return with any required budget amendments, CIP updates, or project approvals.

Community Survey and Public Funding Context
The City periodically commissions independent, scientifically representative community surveys from True North Research to understand resident priorities and satisfaction across the community as a whole, rather than relying on the views of those most motivated to speak at any given moment. Because these surveys have been conducted consistently since 2011, they provide a reliable multi-year record for guiding capital and budget decisions. The two most recent studies, the 2025 Community Opinion Survey and the 2024 Facility and Bond Feasibility Survey, show that residents continue to rate Glendora's quality of life highly (84% excellent or good).

In all surveys undertaken since 2011, improving streets, roads, and infrastructure stands out as the community's most durable priority, ranking among residents' top five unprompted quality of life concerns in six of the seven surveys. Predictably, satisfaction with street and road maintenance has fallen, down eight points since 2022 to 55%; this measure is one of the strongest drivers in the recent weakening of the overall quality of life score in the City. The 2024 public survey work also found the City's facilities to be well beyond their service life, with residents most strongly favoring basic repairs, safety, and code compliance over expansion.

Infrastructure priorities exist alongside clear cost sensitivity. Despite high confidence that the City manages its finances well (70% excellent or good), "taxes are already too high" was the leading reason residents hesitated to support a bond measure (53% overall support for citywide facilities). This is precisely why one-time funding, available through the City’s fiscal prudence and efficiency measures, is well suited to the decision before the City Council at the first workshop. Directing funds to streets/roads, and aging facilities would respond to the community's most consistent and enduring priorities, target the area most closely tied to overall satisfaction, and do so without the new tax burden residents have signaled reluctance to accept. The survey evidence does not dictate how to split the funding between facilities and streets, but it strongly affirms that both rank among the community's highest priorities for investment.

Available One-Time Funding
On February 24, 2026, staff presented a comprehensive overview of anticipated one-time discretionary funding opportunities. The funding categories included available fund balance/reserves, potential reallocation of CIP funding, property sales, pension set-aside funds, and OPEB set-aside funds. That analysis documented cumulative one-time funds of $41.2 million would be available by the end of FY 2030-31.

With the completion of the FY 2024-25 audited financial statements recently presented to the City Council, the Finance and Public Works Departments are presenting an updated listing of available one-time funding:

Funding Source (FY27 Mid-Cycle
Budget, with FY25 Audit
Completion)
FY 2025 - 2027 FY 2027 - 2029 FY 2029 - 2031
Available Fund Balance/Reserve $7,020,000 $376,030 $470,000 Reallocation of CIP / Re-prioritization $5,900,000 - -
Property Sales $5,120,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Pension Set-Aside $14,500,000 $215,000 $210,000
OPEB Set-Aside $4,360,000 $78,000 $90,000
Totals $36,900,000 $4,669,030 $4,770,000
If no action is taken, estimated one-time available funds at the end of FY 2031 would be approximately $46.3 million ($36.90M+4.67M+$4.77M). This represents an increase of approximately $5.1 million over the February 2026 figures.

The largest change is a reallocation of $4.13 million of existing capital projects. Specifically, given the workshop is focused on facility and street/road projects, staff wanted the to provide the City Council with a chance to re-allocate facility projects that are not currently underway. As this funding is available now, it was important to present this opportunity to the City Council for consideration. The projects and amounts are as follows:

HVAC Replacements ($556,000)
Future Parks Projects ($750,000)
Library Plaza/HVAC ($1,000,000)
Citywide Roof Replacement ($1,265,000)
Rock House ($555,500)
With the close of FY 2024-25, the City's financial policies dictate unspent funding in the General Fund is allocated to reserves, future pension obligations, and capital projects. Following this process, the City's set aside for future pension obligations and reserves increased by approximately $1 million.

Although these amounts identify potential one-time funding capacity, not all sources carry the same level of flexibility, timing, or risk. Some funds may be more readily available, while others may be tied to future property sales, future development activity, pension-related liabilities, OPEB obligations, reserve policy considerations, or replacement funding strategies. As specific projects are identified, staff will further evaluate the appropriate funding source or combination of sources.

Facility Assessment and Facility Investment
The Bureau Veritas Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) was prepared to help the City understand the condition of its facilities, identify deferred maintenance, and prioritize repair and replacement needs over time. The assessment reviewed major facility components to assess the current condition and project future maintenance costs related to various building systems including roofing, exterior conditions, accessibility, safety, electrical systems, HVAC, plumbing, site improvements, and other facility components. The work program outlined in the FCA is to maintain the facilities in their current configuration and for their current uses. Upgrades required for new or expanded programs or services is not included in the FCA. The FCA assumed 3% annual inflation for construction costs and identified maintenance needs totaling approximately $50 Million over twenty years (Attachment O).

The FCA Recommended Maintenance Summary (Attachment P) identifies approximately $10.5 million in recommended maintenance needs for the 2026–2030 period across multiple City facilities. Since the FCA was prepared, staff has completed approximately $4 million of work across multiple facilities (Attachment Q). Based on actual costs from recently completed projects, staff has found that the original FCA estimates, which used a 3% annual escalation factor, were too low when compared to actual current project pricing. For planning purposes, the five-year recommended maintenance summary has been adjusted using a higher escalation factor (8%) to better reflect recent construction cost experience and current market conditions.

The current FCA summary includes recommended maintenance needs for facilities such as City Hall, the Library/Police Station, La Fetra Center, Finkbiner Park facilities, Crowther Teen and Family Center, Big Dalton facilities, and other City-owned sites. These recommendations are not intended to represent every future facility need, but they provide a structured starting point for prioritizing near-term maintenance and repair work over the next five years.

Moving forward, staff intends to use the FCA as a more formal work planning tool. The Facilities Division will be directed to spend approximately 75% of its time addressing items identified in the assessment, while maintaining flexibility to respond to urgent, safety-related, operational, or unforeseen facility needs. At full staffing, the Facilities Division consists of a five-person team: one Supervisor, who manages projects, work planning, and field assignments; one Lead Maintenance Worker; and three Maintenance Workers. The City is currently recruiting for one Maintenance Worker position; otherwise, the team is substantially in place. It should be noted that the Facilities Division was created and staffed through reinvestment of efficiency savings experienced through city modernization efforts completed in 2019 through 2021.

This approach is intended to move the City from a largely reactive facility maintenance model toward a more planned, prioritized, and assessment-driven model over time.

Streets and Pavement Management
The 2025 Pavement Management Program (PMP) provides the City with updated pavement condition data and helps guide the selection of future street improvement projects. The PMP evaluates the pavement condition of the City’s street network, identifies the Citywide Pavement Condition Index, and provides a data-driven basis for selecting streets for rehabilitation, preservation, and reconstruction.

The City’s pavement network has an estimated replacement value of approximately $439 million and includes approximately 163.4 centerline miles of streets and alleys. The 2025 PMP identified a Citywide weighted PCI of

63.2, compared to 62.5 in 2015, 59 in 2018, and 65.4 in 2020, keeping the network in the “Fair” range. Earlier assessments in 2015 and 2018 did not include alleys, which would have slightly lowered those PCI scores. The report also notes that 32% of streets are in Good to Very Good condition, 22% are Fair, and 46% are Poor to Very Poor, reinforcing the need for continued reinvestment.

Maintaining an annual investment near $8.4M would allow the City to improve PCI, slow deterioration, and reduce long-term costs. Current pavement funding averages $5.4 million per year, creating an annual $3 to $3.5 million shortfall compared to what is needed to reach PCI 70 over the next seven years. In addition to the annual funding of $5.4 million, an additional $1 million was allocated for annual preventative maintenance was added to the budget since 2018; it was previously $15,000. Similar to the facilities investments, these additional funding amounts are a direct result of City Council approved reinvestment of savings achieved through organizational modernization efforts undertaken in 2019-2021.

Pavement conditions continue to deteriorate over time, making it essential for staff to take a strategic approach to project selection. The City cannot rely solely on a "worst-first" approach. Instead, staff must balance streets with low PCI scores, streets that are good candidates for cost-effective preservation, major corridors that provide broader community-wide benefits, and opportunities to coordinate street work with other infrastructure needs.

Proposed Street Improvement Segments
The preliminary proposed street segments included for Workshop 1 (Attachment S) were selected using a coordinated infrastructure approach that considers pavement condition, community-wide benefit, project readiness, available funding, and the timing of future underground utility work. Staff reviewed the 2025 PMP data, including PCI scores and recommended treatment types, together with known water infrastructure priorities and planned capital projects.

A key consideration in selecting the street segments presented is whether a street is expected to require near-term water main replacement or other underground utility work. When feasible, the City combines street and water projects so that water infrastructure can be replaced before pavement improvements are completed. This approach avoids the inefficient practice of paving a street only to later cut into the new pavement for utility work. Coordinating these projects allows the City to stretch limited ratepayer, transportation, and capital funds further by reducing duplicate construction costs, minimizing repeated disruption to residents and businesses, and extending the useful life of the completed street improvement.

The proposed street segments generally fall into one or more of the following categories: streets with low PCI scores that should be addressed before they deteriorate further; major corridors and community connectors that provide broader citywide benefit; and street segments where no near-term water project is currently anticipated, making them more appropriate candidates for standalone pavement investment. In contrast, some streets with poor pavement conditions may not be recommended for immediate standalone paving if water infrastructure work is anticipated in the near future.

Several of the proposed segments, including Route 66 and Grand Avenue, serve a broad cross-section of residents, businesses, commuters, and visitors. Improvements to these corridors would provide a community-wide benefit beyond a localized residential street improvement. The list also includes segments with very low PCI scores, including portions of Route 66 and Valley Center Avenue, where timely investment can help address deteriorated pavement conditions before costs increase further.

The preliminary street project list is not intended to represent a final recommendation or a commitment to fund all listed segments. Rather, the list provides the City Council with a menu of street options, estimated costs, current segment PCI values, treatment types, pavement areas, and estimated Citywide PCI impacts to support discussion regarding how much of the $8 million to $12 million one-time funding package should be allocated toward streets.

The estimated citywide PCI impact shown in the table may appear modest when compared to the level of investment. This is because the proposed street segments represent only a portion of the City’s overall pavement network, which includes approximately 163.4 centerline miles and more than 30.6 million square feet of pavement.

While improved segments may be restored to a higher PCI, the much larger portion of the network not included in the project continues to age and deteriorate by approximately [1% / year]. As a result, even meaningful investments in major corridors may have only a modest visible impact on the citywide PCI average unless the City continues making sustained annual investments in pavement maintenance and rehabilitation.

The estimated PCI impacts shown in Attachment S are based on the 2025 PMP Citywide PCI baseline, adjusted to account for street projects completed after the PMP field assessment, projects currently in design and programmed to be completed before the end of 2027, the proposed segment improvements and continued deterioration of the overall street network. The estimated PCI shown, however, does not include the future positive impact of the FY 2026-2027 annual slurry seal project funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funds because the specific street segments for that project have not yet been identified. Once those streets are selected, the Citywide PCI would be expected to be further positively impacted by approximately 0.6 to 0.9 PCI points.

In addition to the annual RMRA-funded slurry seal program, the City Council may also choose to allocate a portion of the one-time funding toward expanded preventive maintenance. An additional allocation of approximately $500,000 toward slurry seal could treat an additional estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of pavement and could further improve the Citywide PCI by approximately another 0.6 to 0.9 PCI points, depending on the final street segments selected, existing pavement conditions, bid pricing, and total square footage treated. This additional slurry seal option is not included in the Citywide PCI After Segment Improvement estimates shown in Attachment S.

The full list of proposed street options totals approximately $18.175 million, which exceeds the currently discussed one-time funding range. This is intentional, as it provides the City Council with a broader set of options to consider rather than limiting discussion to a single staff-selected package.

Based on City Council direction, staff will further refine the proposed street package, confirm utility coordination, evaluate project sequencing, and return with any necessary budget, CIP, or project-specific actions.

Preliminary Project Options for One-Time Funding Consideration As part of this report and Workshop 1 discussion, staff has prepared preliminary project options for City Council consideration. The options are intended to support discussion regarding how the previously discussed $8 million to $12 million in one-time funds should be prioritized among streets, facilities, and other capital needs.

The project options include estimated costs and general project descriptions. They are not intended to represent a final staff recommendation at this stage. Rather, they provide the City Council with a practical framework to compare potential investments and provide policy-level direction on the preferred allocation of funds.

Following City Council discussion and direction, staff will prepare and refine the project list, confirm cost estimates where needed, identify potential funding sources, and return with implementation options as part of the remaining workshop series or future City Council actions.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with receiving this report or participating in Workshop 1. However, future City Council direction regarding the use of one-time funds will require fiscal analysis based on the amount, source, timing, and purpose of the funding.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This workshop and staff report are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because the action consists of receiving information, discussing priorities, and providing direction to staff. Any future project approvals will be evaluated for environmental review as required.

Prepared By: Valerie Velasquez-Santoya, Assistant Public Works Director Concurs With: Not Applicable
Reviewed By: Moises Lopez, Assistant City Manager/Interim Public Works Director Certified to Availability of Funds: Kyle Johnson, Finance Director/City Treasurer Approved By: Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review: Danny Aleshire, City Attorney
CEQA Review: Not Applicable
Attachments
A_City_Council_Staff_Report_January_10_2023_Approve_a_Contract_with_Myers_Houghton_Partners_for_Libr.pdf B_City_Council_Staff_Report_September_12_2023_Update_on_the_Water_Infrastructure_Assessment_and_Rate.pdf C_City_Council_Staff_Report_January_9_2024_Discussion_of_Library_Structural_Assessment_Visioning_and.pdf D_City_Council_Staff_Report_January_30_2024_Consideration_of_a_Master_Joint_Use_Agreement_between_th.pdf E_City_Council_Special_Item-Presentation_August_27_2024_Bond_Feasibility_Survey_Presentation.pdf F_City_Council_Staff_Report_November_12_2024_Approve_an_Agreement_with_IDS_Group_Inc_for_Architectur.pdf G_City_Council_Staff_Report_February_25_2025_Conduct_a_Mid- Year_Budget_Review_and_Adopt_a_Joint_Reso.pdf H_City_Council_Staff_Report_March_11_2025_City_Facilities_Capital_Needs_and_Funding_Options.pdf I_City_Council_Staff_Report_April_22_2025_Consideration_of_Approval_of_the_2025-2027_Strategic_Plan.pdf J_City_Council_Staff_Report_December_9_2025_Update_on_Citywide_Pavement_and_Sign_Study_and_Review_of.pdf K_City_Council_Staff_Report_January_13_2026_Update_on_Civic_Center_Revitalization_and_City_Council_D.pdf L_City_Council_Staff_Report_February_24_2026_Use_of_One-Time_Funds.pdf M_City_Council_Staff_Report_March_24_2026_Information_on_Citizen_Ad-Hoc_Committees_City_Council_Sub-.pdf N_City_Council_Staff_Report_April_28_2026_Workshop_Framework_and_One-Time_Funding_Direction.pdf O_Facility_Condition_Assessment_Expenditure_Forecast_by_Facility_2026_2030.pdf P_Facility_Condition_Assessment_Recommended_Maintenance_by_Facility_with_Detail_2026_2030.pdf Q_Completed_Facility_Projects_Fiscal_Year_2023-24_through_FY_2025-26.pdf R_Active_Facilities_Streets_and_Water_Projects.pdf
S_Proposed_Street_Segments_and_Estimated_PCI_Impact.pdf T_Workshop1_Presentation_Final.pdf

STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DATE: JANUARY 10, 2023
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DISTRICT(S): CITYWIDE
SUBJECT: APPROVE A CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH MYERS HOUGHTON & PARTNERS, INC.

FOR THE LIBRARY STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS FOR VERTICAL EXPANSION PROJECT (STRATEGIC PLAN ITEM 46-IMCIF)

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1. Approve an Agreement with Myers Houghton & Partners, Inc. for the Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion project in the amount of $215,941 and a 10% contingency in the amount of $21,595, for a total contract not to exceed $237,536;

2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the Agreement with Myers Houghton & Partners, Inc., including minimal and/or non-substantive changes; and

3. Approve a supplemental appropriation from the Capital Projects Fund 321 to the project in the amount of $88,651.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendora Public Library (Library) was built in 1972, and various studies have been conducted to address structural deficiencies and recommend repairs. Most recently, a preliminary assessment was conducted on the roof framing system and slab that form the base of the Bidwell Plaza (Plaza). Based on the issues identified, and long-term planning discussions, it was decided that more in-depth assessment was necessary to better inform decisions around the Library building’s future.

A Request for Proposals (RFP) process was conducted for in-depth structural analysis and evaluation of the Library’s suitability for major renovations, including a potential second-story addition. Five proposals were received, and based on evaluations and interviews, staff determined Myers Houghton and Partners, Inc.’s (MHP) proposal best meets the City’s needs.

Staff recommends that City Council award MHP an agreement in the amount of $215,941.00, authorize staff to execute the agreement and any change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% of the original contract sum, for a potential total of $237,535.10, and authorize staff to appropriate an additional $88,650.81 towards the project budget from Capital Projects Fund 321.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The Library is a two-story reinforced concrete and concrete masonry structure with 27,000ft2 of covered area next to Glendora City Hall. The Bidwell Plaza serves as the majority of the lower floor’s roof.

Construction was completed in 1972, and since then various studies have been conducted to address structural deficiencies and recommend repairs. Issues with water infiltrating the main Library floor after rain events have existed essentially since the Library’s initial construction, with notes from as early as 1978 referencing ongoing repairs to the Plaza and water leaks being less than in previous years. The most recent major exterior renovations were completed in 2004, reinforcing the north-side load-bearing wall and supporting columns, and resurfacing the Plaza.

Item #17. Page 1
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 790
Staff Report Page 2 of 11
2004 Rear Wall Reinforcement
Item #17. Page 2
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 791
Staff Report Page 3 of 11
2004 Column Reinforcement
Item #17. Page 3
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 792
Staff Report Page 4 of 11
2004 Plaza Resurfacing
Item #17. Page 4
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 793
Staff Report Page 5 of 11
2004 Plaza Resurfacing
Item #17. Page 5
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 794
Staff Report Page 6 of 11
2004 Plaza Resurfacing
Item #17. Page 6
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 795
Staff Report Page 7 of 11
2004 Plaza Resurfacing
Item #17. Page 7
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 796
Staff Report Page 8 of 11
2004 Plaza Resurfacing
Item #17. Page 8
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 797
Staff Report Page 9 of 11
2004 Plaza Resurfacing
Item #17. Page 9
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 798
Staff Report Page 10 of 11

DISCUSSION
As an initial design step for the planned Bidwell Plaza Renovation and Library Building Exterior Weather Proofing capital improvement project, City staff contracted with JMDiaz, Inc. in 2021 to assess the feasibility of adding a shade structure to the Plaza. While conducting the first site visit, visible cracking was noted in the beam system of the Library ceiling. Based on discussions, a decision was made to modify the scope of the existing assessment to perform a preliminary evaluation of the entire structure.

This was completed in June 2022, and based upon its findings, a more comprehensive evaluation of the Library is recommended, including more in-depth structural analysis with material testing. Beyond potential structural issues, other infrastructure improvements, remodeling, and modernization needs have also already been identified, and should be considered when evaluating the building’s overall suitability for major renovations from a functional and financial standpoint. They include but are not limited to an anticipated overhaul of the entire heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, significantly reconfiguring the interior, at minimum effectively repairing the Plaza area, or more ideally either adding a second floor where the current Plaza is, or enriching it with shade and other amenities that would bring additional loading and anchoring requirements.

On September 22, 2022, a Request For Proposals (RFP) was issued via QuestCDN with a due date of October 20,2022. Along with the typical public advertising, staff directly contacted all on-call consultant companies to make them aware of the RFP, as well as other qualified firms with whom the City had past positive experiences.

On October 5, 2022, staff conducted a pre-submittal job walk with 15 representatives from 12 different consultant firms. During this walk, City staff and prospective consultants physically visited the Library, visually inspected the building, and clarified any inquiries regarding the project scope of work raised at that time. Subsequently, five qualified firms submitted proposals. Interviews with the submitting firms’ representatives were conducted by Public Works and Library staff during the first week of November, and the overall proposals were then independently evaluated based on experience, project understanding, and deliverability of the project, as well as responses to any follow up questions.

Based on the evaluation, MHP’s proposal was selected as best meeting the needs of the City. MHP will work with the City to develop the scope and estimated costs for:
(1) Repair, seismic strengthening, and renovation of the existing Library and Plaza, (2) Repair, seismic strengthening, and renovation of the existing Library structure, including added support for the addition of a second floor and/or other potential structurally significant Plaza improvements, and
(3) Demolition and construction of a new Library.

MHP will collaborate with the City to understand the existing conditions, and the needs and goals of the City for the Library. Existing space utilization mapping, shelving footprint mapping, and Building Code assessment will be completed as part of project. A final report, including cost estimates is anticipated by the end of April 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funding is available in the Capital Projects Fund Reserve to fund the additional appropriation in the amount of $88,651.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act provisions pursuant to Section 15302(c). The Notice of Categorical Exemption is attached for City Council as Attachment A.

Item #17. Page 10
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 799
Staff Report Page 11 of 11
Prepared By Michael Mai, Associate Civil Engineer
Concurs With Not Applicable
Reviewed By Michael Sledd, Assistant Public Works Director Certified to Availability of Funds Marie Ricci, Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer Approved By Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CEQA Review Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:

A. MHP Proposal
B. Glendora-MHP Agreement
C. Preliminary Assessment
D. Presentation
Item #17. Page 11
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 800

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
QuestCDN#: 8299133
FOR

LIBRARY STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND

OPTIONS FOR VERTICAL EXPANSION

THE CITY OF GLENDORA
ATTN: MICHAEL MAI, ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER
116. E. Foothill Boulevard
Glendora, CA 91741
Item #17. Page 12
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 801

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Cover Letter……………………………………………………………………………………….....…………….…......1 - 2

2. Work Experience.…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……..3 - 5

3. Project Understanding & Approach……………………………………………………………………………..….......6 - 7

4. Scope & Services…………………………………………………………….……………………………………..….…8 - 9

5. Schedule……………………………………………………………………………….………………………...........10 – 11

6. Subconsultant Qualifications...........................................................................................................................12 - 16 Fee Proposal……………………………………………………………………………………………………....See Exhibit A Item #17. Page 13
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 802
October 20, 2022

CITY OF GLENDORA
ATTN: Desiree Hernandez
116 E Foothill Blvd, Glendora, CA 91741
Primary MHP Contact & Project Manager for Solicitation:

Lance Kenyon, S.E., President & Principal, [email protected] Kyle White, S.E., Project Manager, [email protected]
Phone: (562) 985-3200 | 3900 Cover Street, Long Beach, CA 90808 Re: Request for Proposal – Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion MHP, Inc. Structural Engineers (MHP) is pleased to submit our response to RFP Quest No. 8299133 for professional services to conduct an in-depth structural analysis of the existing library structure including material testing, geotechnical investigation, and assessment of the feasibility of a second-floor addition. We are confident the enclosed Statement of Qualifications with our team of sub-consultants will thoroughly highlight our ability to support The City of Glendora in fulfilling the outlined scope of services.

MHP, Inc. Structural Engineers is a Long Beach based structural engineering consulting firm that provides a broad range of services, including structural design, seismic risk assessment, and seismic strengthening for commercial, institutional, education, and civic buildings. MHP has an experienced staff of 43 professionals including 24 licensed Civil & Structural Engineers. We have a high-level of structural engineering expertise in areas such as seismic evaluation and strengthening, structural condition assessment, computer modeling, non-linear analysis, code development, peer review, and performancebased engineering (such as ASCE/SEI 41).

MHP has extensive experience working with institutional and government clients and is aware of the responsibilities our civic clients have to their constituents and the necessary oversight and demands on the City’s consultants. As with our on-call contract for Glendora, MHP holds several other on-call contracts for public agencies and institutions such as NASA-JPL, County of Los Angeles, and several California State Universities, providing valuable experience for our service to cities like Glendora. The proposed library feasibility assessment is perfectly aligned with our particular experience in seismic evaluation and strengthening projects for various cities throughout Southern California.

MHP’s Lead Project Manager, Kyle White will be responsible for overseeing the project team and will maintain primary knowledge and control of all tasks associated with the project. He will participate in all meetings and discussions and will be very well-versed in the details and specifics of the project. Kyle will interact directly with City staff and our team of subconsultants to ensure conformance with the project guidelines, schedules, and applicable code requirements. Kyle has extensive experience in evaluation and retrofit of all building types, including many complex projects, from the conceptual design stage involving extensive material testing and geotechnical investigation, selection of a strengthening approach, and through construction completion. Kyle is an excellent communicator and facilitator, and has experience presenting seismic evaluation, retrofit, and feasibility study findings and recommendations to City Councils.

In order to fulfill the outlined scope of services for the City of Glendora Library project, MHP has assembled a team of subconsultants that will assist us in meeting the project needs. Our consultant team is as follows:
Pfeiffer Architects will serve as Project Architect. Pfeiffer's planners and designers are among the most experienced professionals focused on academic libraries in practice in the U.S. today. Led by Gili Meerovitch and Stephanie Kingsnorth, this practice has experience in strategic facilities planning for a broad spectrum of libraries for public and private institutions across North America.
1 Item #17. Page 14
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 803
City of Glendora
Re: Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion (RFP Quest No. 8299133) October 20, 2022
P2S, Inc. will provide Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing consultation. Their expertise in providing sustainable engineering solutions throughout California and beyond for over 31 years make them an asset to the team. They have specific project experience with library renovations and seismic strengthening. ENGEO will provide Geotechnical and Site Seismic Hazard analysis. The engineers and semiologists at ENGEO have developed precise methodologies for performing seismic hazard and site-response analyses for new structures and existing buildings. Their approach allows structural engineers to provide optimized earthquake engineering, typically resulting in significantly more efficient superstructure designs in seismically active urban environments. Accu-Test Structural Laboratories of Calabasas will provide materials testing and laboratory services. For the last 30 years, day or night, Accu-Test have been actively involved in structural testing, investigations, inspections, and building construction related operations for Commercial, Industrial, and Historical buildings. Cumming will serve as Cost Estimator for the project. Cumming has completed more than 2,100 projects for city- and county-operated facilities. These projects have involved parks, public spaces, city halls, civic centers, libraries, offices, community centers, public works, among many others.

The Project Team is available to commence the project immediately upon approval by the City Council and Notice to Proceed.

MHP looks forward to utilizing our past 49 years of experience, and our commitment to safe buildings, to provide Structural Engineering and Project Management Services for the City of Glendora. All information included in this SOQ is accurate and current.

Sincerely,
Lance Kenyon, M.S., S.E, CA S3399
President and Principal
2 Item #17. Page 15
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 804
City of Glendora
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion Quest CDN #829913 – October 20, 2022

2. Work Experience

1. Project Name: Beverly Hills City Hall – Seismic Evaluation & Strengthening Description: Starting in 2018, MHP has supported the City of Beverly Hills through the development of a phased seismic strengthening program for the historic City Hall. MHP conducted an initial ASCE/SEI 41-13 seismic evaluation and developed a conceptual phased strengthening design which was presented to and accepted by City Council. The first phase of strengthening, which addresses the stability of the central tower and included materials testing scope, was completed in 2022. City Hall remained operational throughout the strengthening work. Included in the project were substantial nonstructural upgrades and the addition of a new rooftop event space. The second phase of strengthening will incorporate base isolation to enhance resiliency and protect the historic structure. References: RAW Intl, Roland Wiley, [email protected], (213) 622-4993 City of Beverly Hills, Mandana Motahari, AIA, [email protected], (310) 288-2866 Final Contract Amount: $11M
Duration: 2018-present

2. Project Name: CSULB Center for Student Success – Seismic Evaluation & Strengthening Description: The project consisted of the evaluation, renovation, and addition to a two-story classroom/science building over basement, constructed in the 1950s and enclosing approximately 80,000 sq. ft. The structure is split into seismically separated West and East wings. MHP provided detailed ASCE/SEI 41-13 seismic evaluation, feasibility study and retrofit concept development, support for major renovation, and overall seismic strengthening. Detailed structural analysis and strategic strengthening through shotcrete and fiber-reinforced polymer overlay permitted the addition of a new second story classroom and gathering space.
References: AECOM, Mark McVay, Design Principal, [email protected], (714) 567-2400 CSU Long Beach, Mark Zakhour, Associate Vice President, Beach Building Services, [email protected], (562) 985-7592
Final Contract Amount: $29M
Duration: 2 years

3. Project Name: 100 Wilshire – Seismic Evaluation Using Non-Linear Methods Description: The project consisted of the ASCE/SEI 41-17 seismic evaluation of a 255,000-sq. ft., 21- story office tower over three levels of subterranean parking. The project objective was to demonstrate compliance with the City of Santa Monica mandatory seismic retrofit ordinance for non-ductile concrete (NDC) buildings. Initial linear analysis indicated substantial strengthening needs. Ultimately, an ASCE/SEI 41-17 Tier 3 comprehensive non-linear dynamic analysis was completed to evaluate the structure and establish compliance. Materials testing was conducted within the occupied building to determine existing construction details and material properties. References: Douglas Emmett, Robert Lutes, Senior Vice President, [email protected], (310) 985-0726
Final Contract Amount: $230,000 (SE Fee)
Duration: 1 year
3 Item #17. Page 16
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 805
City of Glendora
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion Quest CDN #829913 – October 20, 2022
3900 Cover Street, Long Beach, CA 90808 562.985.3200 P 562.985.1011 F www.mhpse.com

4. Project Name: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Bldg. 183 Seismic Evaluation & Strengthening Description: Bldg. 183 is a nine-story building constructed in the late 1960’s. Starting in 2016, MHP has provided evaluation and feasibility study services for the project to establish an efficient strengthening design which could be implemented for the building to achieve Immediate Occupancy structural performance without impacting operations within this Mission Critical structure. The seismic strengthening approach consists of the addition of external buckling-restrained braced frames, shotcrete overlay on the existing masonry walls, and the addition of a 60-foot-tall concrete buttress shear wall. The project is currently permitted and awaiting the start of construction. References: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Daniel Novak, Facilities Engineering & Construction [email protected], (818) 354-2396
Final Contract Amount: $466,000 (SE Fee)
Duration: 2 years

5. Project Name: 1202 3rd Street Promenade – Seismic Evaluation & Strengthening Description: MHP supported the Client, Federal Realty, in evaluating code seismic retrofit requirements for repositioning an existing retail/office building in Santa Monica. The scope included code review, feasibility studies for various proposed occupancies, meetings with the head of building and safety, and ultimately resulted in a major seismic upgrade and replacement of the first and second floors of the building to accommodate a heavier live load for the fitness tenant and to facilitate the seismic retrofit design.
References: Adam Van Dale, Federal Realty [email protected] , (310) 414-5287 Final Contract Amount: $14M
Duration: 18-months

6. Project Name: Long Beach Police Department East Division Police Department Substation Description: The project consists of a comprehensive seismic evaluation and complete renovation of a 1960’s brick and masonry L-shaped building with one and two-story portions, including a high roof assembly space. The structure was converted from an Army Reserve office/classroom building to the new Long Beach Police Department East Division Sub-Station. References: Environ Architecture, Alan Burks, [email protected], (562) 495-7110 x2 Final Contract Amount: $4.5M
Duration: 3 years

7. Project Name: Armory Arts Collective – Seismic Evaluation & Strengthening Description: MHP has completed code research, discussions with the City of Long Beach building department and preliminary design for a major renovation to the National Guard Armory at 854 E. 7th Street. The proposed mixed residential/education project does not increase the code Risk Category for the building, therefore per the Existing Building Code only a wall anchorage seismic upgrade is required. A preliminary design for the renovation and strengthening has been completed. References: Studio One Eleven, Michael Bohn, Senior Principal, [email protected] (562) 901-1500
Final Contract Amount: Pending
Duration: Construction pending
4 Item #17. Page 17
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 806
City of Glendora
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion Quest CDN #829913 – October 20, 2022
3900 Cover Street, Long Beach, CA 90808 562.985.3200 P 562.985.1011 F www.mhpse.com

8. Project Name: 9665 Wilshire – Seismic Evaluation & Strengthening Description: MHP conducted an ASCE/SEI 41 Tier 3 comprehensive evaluation of the building during acquisition and subsequently completed a performance-based, non-linear analysis for the building using time-history records for the specific site conditions. In addition, MHP designed a fluid viscous damper retrofit, exterior modernizations of the lobby, and exterior plaza and ground floor elevations of the building. The retrofit approach was strategically selected to allow the building to remain occupied and operational during construction.
References: Douglas Emmett, Robert Lutes, Senior Vice President, [email protected], (310) 985-0726
Final Contract Amount: $2.6M
Duration: 2 years

9. Project Name: The Pacifican – Seismic Strengthening
Description: The project consists of a six-story non-ductile concrete condominium building encompassing a total of 32-units constructed circa 1977 in Santa Monica, California. The building has two parking levels below street level, and an outdoor, in-ground pool. Total lot square footage is approximately 22,484 square feet. Initial linear analysis indicated substantial strengthening needs to attain compliance with the Santa Monica Seismic Retrofit Ordinance. MHP has undertaken non-linear dynamic analysis including the effects of soil-structure interaction to assist in reducing the extent and impacts of strengthening.
References: Pacifican Homeowner's Association, Bruce Weyne, [email protected] (310) 999-5134
Final Contract Amount: TBD
Duration: 2019-present

10. Project Name: 16633 Ventura Blvd, Encino, CA – Seismic Strengthening Description: The project consists of a 14-story office building constructed circa 1970. 14 elevated floors are comprised of ten office levels stacked over three parking levels and one at-grade parking level. The project is subject to the requirements of the Los Angeles Non-Ductile Concrete Ordinance.

Initial linear analysis methods indicated substantial strengthening needs which would have impacted tenant operations. To mitigate this, MHP is employing non-linear analysis methods to assist in reducing strengthening needs and facilitate the use of fluid viscous dampers. This approach allows nearly the entirety of the strengthening work to be completed outside of tenant and office spaces. The adjacent parking structure is being retrofit to allow the addition of a new parking level while attaining compliance with the Ordinance.
References: Michael John Klein, [email protected], (818) 707-0433 Final Contract Amount: TBD
Duration: 2019-present
5 Item #17. Page 18
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 807
City of Glendora
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion Quest CDN #829913 – October 20, 2022
3900 Cover Street, Long Beach,CA 90808 562.985.3200 P 562.985.1011 F www.mhpse.com

3. Project Understanding & Approach
Overall
This important project consists of two distinct phases, each with unique needs. The City will benefit greatly by selecting a team of design professionals with both significant seismic retrofit experience and experience with library design and programming.

The team will work with the City to develop the scope and estimated cost for each of the following three options: repair and seismic strengthening of the existing library structure, repair and strengthening of the library structure including support for the addition of a second floor, and construction of a new standalone library. Based on the study outcomes and in further consultation with the design professionals, the City will be able to objectively weigh the options and determine the optimal path forward for their needs.

Phase 1 - Evaluation of Existing Structure
The first phase of the project primarily includes structural evaluation of the existing library structure. The goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive structural evaluation per ASCE/SEI 41-17 methodology and a technical report that describes to the City the current condition of the library building and any repair or strengthening work required to meet the City’s continued use and seismic resiliency goals. This phase will include development and implementation of a Materials Testing and Condition Assessment Program and completion of an appropriate Geological Investigation and report. The Structural Engineer must have significant experience conducting building assessments, performing comprehensive seismic evaluations, coordinating development of geotechnical/site seismic hazard analysis scope and materials testing programs to facilitate an efficient strengthening design. Clear and accessible communication is a must to ensure that the City understands the range of options for seismic performance goals, where the existing building stands with respect to those goals, and the potential options for enhancing the seismic performance of their building. MHP has extensive and demonstrated experience facilitating similar successful projects with public and private entities.

In addition to the structural scope, other infrastructure, remodeling and modernization considerations will be addressed by the consultant team. Architectural and MEP systems affected by strengthening or repair scope will be evaluated, as will potential upgrades to HVAC systems and desired reconfiguring of the main floor spaces, upstairs meeting room and kitchen area, and enriching the existing roof plaza area with shade and other amenities.

Conceptual plans for the seismic and structural work, a technical report and a professional cost estimate for the work will be deliverables to the city, along with all supporting materials (geotechnical report, testing results, photos).

Phase 2 – Feasibility of Second Story Addition
The second phase or task (which is anticipated to overlap the first phase) includes determining the feasibility and cost of expanding the second floor with an addition. The scope of the second phase is currently broadly defined, as numerous options exist to configure the new and existing spaces, and the implications to structural and seismic systems, MEP systems, accessibility, exiting and sustainability are unknown. While this scope includes detailed and complex structural and seismic evaluation per ASCE/SEI 41-17 methodology, successful completion will require significant expertise, leadership, and experience of the Project Architect and MEP Engineers as well. The project team will work with the City to refine and develop the City’s vision for the future of the library and addition, including infrastructure, remodeling and modernization needs.

Architectural scope will include visioning workshops, information gathering, program analysis and concept development to identify an expanded facility and program in line with current library standards and the City’s needs. MEP scope will consider system capacities for both the second floor addition and existing floor areas as a new system may be sized to serve the entire building.

Deliverables to the City will include:
6 Item #17. Page 19
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 808
City of Glendora
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion Quest CDN #829913 – October 20, 2022
3900 Cover Street, Long Beach, CA 90808 562.985.3200 P 562.985.1011 F www.mhpse.com Conceptual plans for the addition and for repairs/modifications to the existing building. Plans shall include conceptual level architectural, structural and seismic systems, and MEP systems for the expanded building (AutoCAD and pdf). Technical report with structural analysis of the building per ASCE/SEI 41 methodology (Draft and Final, word and pdf). Geotechnical report.
Materials Testing report and results.
Additional supporting materials as requested (photos, meeting notes, inspection reports). Professional cost estimates for the work including:
o Mitigation of Existing Building Structure items
o Second Story Addition
o Construction of a brand new library of similar size
Recommended Deviations from RFP General Scope of Work
It is recommended that the Geotechnical and Material Testing scopes of work be considered as estimated budgets, pending the development of formal scope of work documents for these team members (fixed fee quotes have been received for Material Testing and Cost Estimating).
It is recommended that the fee structure for Phase 2 include an Optional Scope for Concept Development of the Addition Exterior Aesthetic (see Pfeiffer Proposed Optional Services III F). Development of Exterior Aesthetics for the addition could be extended to a future phase.
The proposed Scopes of Service are comprehensive and may be appropriate for this complex project. However, adjustments in proposed scopes and fees to fit within the City’s anticipated budget can be accommodated. 7 Item #17. Page 20
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 809
City of Glendora
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion Quest CDN #829913 – October 20, 2022
3900 Cover Street, Long Beach,CA 90808 562.985.3200 P 562.985.1011 F www.mhpse.com

4. Scope and Services
The scope and services to be provided during the course of the project are described below. The project is divided into two phases or tasks: Evaluation of the Existing Structure and Feasibility of Second Story Addition. Timing and duration of some tasks will overlap as depicted in the Project Schedule.

Phase 1: Evaluation of Existing Structure
Prior to starting Phase 1, an ASCE/SEI 41 Structural Performance Objective will be established for the existing library building in consultation with the City. The Performance Objective consists of a pairing of one or more Seismic Hazard Levels with Structural and Non-Structural Performance Levels. This will be discussed in detail at the initiation of the project. a. Preparation of Condition Assessment and Material Testing Program In-situ material properties often vary from those specified on original design drawings. For example, concrete continues to cure well after the 28-day strength has been confirmed and may have considerable additional compressive strength.

Additionally, it is common to discover that conditions in the field do not perfectly match the conditions depicted on the available design drawings. Due to these facts, a Material Testing and Condition Assessment Program (“MTCAP”) in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41 will be developed in order to confirm in-situ material properties and existing construction detailing. The extent of the MTCAP is defined by ASCE/SEI 41 based on the Performance Objective for the project and is typically subject to Plan Review to attain concurrence on the extent of testing. Deliverable: Structural Testing Plan
b. Site Visit
Site visits will be conducted along with City representatives and Accu-Test to facilitate preparation of a detailed bid for the testing and laboratory work. Sampling locations will be confirmed along with testing schedule (confirm if offhours/overnight work will be required). Deliverable: Fee Proposal from Accu-Test
c. Execute Material Testing Program
Upon NTP for testing contract, Accu-Test will complete core extraction and compressive strength laboratory testing. d. Geotechnical Investigation & Seismic Hazard Analysis Based on the project Performance Objective and preliminary seismic evaluation findings, a geotechnical scope of work will be developed in consultation with the City. At this time, it is anticipated that Geotechnical work will consist of limited confirmatory borings, shear wave velocity profiling for site classification, and site-specific ground motion hazard assessment. Further scope may be added at a later date, pending the findings of the evaluation and feasibility study. Deliverables: Geotechnical Scope of Work (by MHP), Fee Proposal from ENGEO, Geotechnical Investigation Report from ENGEO
e. Complete Structural Analysis and Evaluation, Prepare Conceptual Repair and Retrofit Drawings, Prepare Evaluation Report & Cost Estimate
A Tier 3 comprehensive seismic evaluation will be completed using the linear analysis provisions of ASCE/SEI 41-17 to establish current anticipated seismic performance of the existing building. Where required to meet the selected project Performance Objective, conceptual plans for strengthening will be provided. A cost estimate will be prepared based on the conceptual strengthening plans. The findings and basis for the recommended strengthening approach will be documented in an engineering report. Draft documents will be provided to the City for review and comment.

Final documents will be issued once City comments have been incorporated. Deliverables: Conceptual Strengthening Plans, Cost Estimate, and Engineering Report 8 Item #17. Page 21
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 810
City of Glendora
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion Quest CDN #829913 – October 20, 2022
3900 Cover Street, Long Beach, CA 90808 562.985.3200 P 562.985.1011 F www.mhpse.com Phase 2: Feasibility of Second Story Addition
The project team will work with the City to refine and develop the City’s vision for the future of the library and addition, including infrastructure, remodeling and modernization needs. Conceptual plans will be developed and cost estimates will be completed.

Phase 2 scope of services is subject to further evaluation in consultation with the City prior to finalizing. It is anticipated that the City and project team will have consistent communication via virtual and in-person meetings during this phase, eliminating the need for numerous intermediate deliverables.
a. Discovery – Visioning, Information Gathering, Programming The Project Architect will collaborate with the City to understand the existing conditions, and the needs and goals of the City for the existing library and second story addition. Existing space utilization mapping, shelving footprint mapping, and Building Code Assessment will be completed. Review library findings, reports, and recommendations made to date. Establish programming needs.
b. Structural Evaluation of Existing Structure and Second Story Addition A Tier 3 comprehensive seismic evaluation will be completed using the linear analysis provisions of ASCE/SEI 41-17 for the retrofit structure with second story addition. Material properties and geotechnical and seismic hazard findings from Phase 1 will be utilized.
c. Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing systems Assessment and Scoping Infrastructure and systems upgrade needs for both existing library and addition will be defined. d. Prepare Conceptual Repair, Strengthening, and Addition Drawings, Final Report & Cost Estimate Based on the results of items “a” through “c”, conceptual Architectural, Structural, and MEP drawings will be developed as appropriate. A cost estimate will be prepared based on the conceptual plans. The findings and basis for the recommended approach will be documented in a project report. Draft documents will be provided to the City for review and comment. Final documents will be issued once City comments have been incorporated. Deliverables: Conceptual Strengthening Plans, Cost Estimate, and Engineering Report 9 Item #17. Page 22
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 811
City of Glendora
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion Quest CDN #829913 – October 20, 2022
3900 Cover Street, Long Beach,CA 90808 562.985.3200 P 562.985.1011 F www.mhpse.com

5. Schedule
The Project Team is available to commence the project immediately upon approval by the City Council and notice to proceed (NTP). A detailed draft project workplan and schedule is provided below for both the Evaluation of Existing Structure scope and the Feasibility of Second Story Addition Scope. The overall schedule proposes completion of both Scopes in April of 2023, assuming a December 13, 2022 NTP date. This proposed schedule is provided as a draft, subject to review and acceptance by the City. Some portions of the schedule can be shortened or modified as desired to fit the City’s needs. Project dates are listed on a weekly basis, with Monday’s date listed.

The draft schedule proposes 14 weeks for the Evaluation of the Existing Structure Scope, including site visit, Material Testing and Condition Assessment Program (“MTCAP”, completed after hours), structural evaluation, reporting, retrofit concept drawings, cost estimation, and City review periods at designated milestones. This phase will predominantly involve Structural, Testing, Geotechnical, and Cost Estimation consultants.

The draft schedule proposes 13 weeks for the Feasibility of Second Story Addition Scope. This scope requires the full services of an Architect to understand and develop the City’s goals, assess current building conditions, desired improvements, programming, accessibility, and space planning needs. The schedule also considers assessment and consultation to be provided by Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing consultant to assess the City’s needs for new systems within the existing Library in support of a potential added story.

The Feasibility of Second Story Addition Scope overlaps somewhat with the Evaluation of Existing Structure Scope. This is based on the expectation that the structural needs for the strengthening of the existing library will be well-understood toward the end of the Evaluation phase, allowing for knowledgeable discussion of the potential options for the Second Story Addition. 10 Item #17. Page 23
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 812
City of Glendora
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion Quest CDN #829913 – October 20, 2022
3900 Cover Street, Long Beach, CA 90808 562.985.3200 P 562.985.1011 F www.mhpse.com 11 Item #17. Page 24
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 813
Our Services
Our proven design process is characterized
by a collaborative approach with our clients
and consultants, based on experience and
driven by exploration.

We offer a comprehensive set of services to
take a project from a client’s need to a built
reality:
• Visioning
• Programming
• Feasibility Studies & Cost Analysis
• Strategic Master Planning
• Implementation Planning
• 6GUVƂVU
• Architectural & Interior design
• Space Planning
• Historic Renovation & Preservation
• Adaptive Reuse
• Construction Administration
• Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment
(FF&E)
• Art & Signage Selection & Installation
Support
Pfeiffer's planners and designers are among
the most experienced of those focused
on academic libraries in practice in the
U.S. today. Led by Gili Meerovitch, this
practice has experience in strategic facilities
planning for a broad spectrum of libraries
for public and private institutions across
North America.

Our experience with an array of higher
education institutions such as the University
at Buffalo, UCLA, Yale, University of
Washington, University of Oklahoma,
Illinois State University and Georgia State
University, informs our understanding
of advanced research, learning support,
academic integration, and collection
management initiatives that universities are
undertaking, along with their associated
service and space implications.

Our active involvement with ALA/Core
and ACRL, including facilities committee
leadership, and continual participation in
industry conferences, keeps us in touch
with library colleagues, abreast of the
challenges libraries are facing and solutions
that may have broader applicability.

Pfeiffer, a Perkins Eastman Studio, is an architectural studio offering architecture, interior design, planning and programming services to create buildings and environments that strengthen community of learners through inclusive and equitable learning experiences.

Library Planners & Designers
Item #17. Page 25
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 814

FIRM PROFILE
Ǟ
Ę
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing Construction Management & Technology Design
Commissioning Services
One-Stop Resource
Long Beach (HQ) // Ir vine // San Diego // San Jose // Los Angeles // Seattle • Building systems design
• Central utility plants
• Utility master plans
• Infrastructure design
• Feasibility studies
• Energy audits

• Library Energy Upgrade

• Civic Center Library IBE
Design Review & Cx

• Central Library MEP Critical
Needs Assessment

• Mission Branch Library LEED Cx

• Live Oak Library Renovation
• Iacoboni Library
• San Dimas Library

• Costa Mesa Library Restroom
ADA Upgrades

• Nuview Library

• LEED Silver Bailey Library

• Library Learning Resource
Center

• LEED Gold Library & Learning
Resource Center

• Building P Modernization

• Library Learning Resource
Center

• LEED Gold University William
H. Hannon Library

• Art Collections and Botanical
Garden Boone Gallery HVAC
Evaluation
• Art Collections and Botanical
Garden Red Car Café

• Library Renovation & Seismic
Upgrades

• Oviatt Library Special
Collections Room Expansion

• University Library Seismic
Ů

• Powell Library Energy Audit &
Upgrades
Ů

• Sutter Elementary School Library
• Porter Ranch Community School
Library
• Stanley Mosk Elementary School
Library

• Aeolian Elementary School
Library
ENG Services
Sample Projects
Our Locations
P2S Inc. has brought forward-thinking, sustainable engineering solutions to California and beyond for over 31 years. We take client dreams and make them reality with inventive, sustainable solutions fueled by the desire to make the future a better place. We believe innovative,
ű

ĕĠ
promise of a brighter, greener future that begins today.

Designing a
better future,
every day.

Item #17. Page 26
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 815
Founded in 1971, ENGEO has helped companies and public agencies manage their project development risk, drive down construction costs, and improve schedules. ENGEO is an employee-owned firm of approximately 350 geotechnical and civil engineers, geologists, hydrologists, water resources engineers and other specialists. The company serves a diverse range of public and private clients on very complex projects across the world.

Design and retrofit of buildings in the urban cores of seismically vulnerable regions present a number of unique seismic, geotechnical, geologic, and constructability challenges. The engineers and semiologists at ENGEO developed precise methodologies for performing seismic hazard and site-response analyses for new structures and existing buildings. These approaches allow us to provide optimized earthquake engineering, typically resulting in much more efficient superstructure designs in seismically active urban environments.

ENGEO provides earthquake engineering services, including ergodic and nonergodic seismic-hazard analysis, site-response analysis, ground-motion studies, and soil-structure interaction evaluation to support performance-based design of high-rise buildings.
50+

YEARS IN BUSINESS
400+

GLOBAL STAFF
14 US OFFICE

LOCATIONS
7 ACCREDITED INHOUSE

LABORATORIES
15+

YEARS VOTED BEST

PLACE TO WORK
• Atlas Block, San Francisco, CA
• Kaiser Center, Oakland, CA
• The Shores, Santa Monica, CA
• Multiple Google Campuses, Mountain View,
Sunnyvale and San Jose, CA
• Multiple YouTube Campuses, San Bruno, CA
• Facebook Campus, Menlo Park, CA
• UC Berkeley Hesse-O‘Brien Seismic Replacement
Building, Berkeley, CA
• Elk Grove Hospital, Elk Grove, CA
• Taranaki Base Hospital, New Plymouth, New
Zealand

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
USA | New Zealand | Australia | Guam www.engeo.com
• Santa Rosa College Student Housing, Santa Rosa,
CA
• Sutter Santa Rosa Medical Center Expansion,
Santa Rosa, CA
• Mahany Library and Education Utility Center,
Roseville, CA
• Public Safety Academy, Fairfield, CA
• Martha Riley Community Library and Education
Center, Roseville, CA
• Pleasant Hill Library, Pleasant Hill, CA
• City of San Jose Library, San Jose, CA
• Dougherty Valley Community Center and Library,
San Ramon, CA

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Item #17. Page 27
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 816
"""#!
!
!
,
''1@411//A(1?@'! /;9

%>5:/5<-8(1?@5:3
:35:11>
"!

%4 '@>A/@A>-8
:35:11>5:3):5B1>?5@E;2(;>;:@;

" ' '@>A/@A>-8
:35:11>5:3):5B1>?5@E;2(;>;:@;

"19.1>'<1/5-8;995@@11'("

#;:01?@>A/@5B1'@>A/@A>-8

B-8A-@5;:;2"-?;:>E(-?7
>;A<
'@>A/@A>-8
:35:11>???;/5-@5;:;2';A@41>:-852;>:5-
91>5/-:'@-:0->0?(1?@5:3-:0"-@1>5-8?'("
91>5/-:';/51@E;25B58
:35:11>?'

91>5/-:;:/>1@1 :?@5@A@1
??;/5-@5;:;2%>;21??5;:-8
:35:11>?;2 -:-0-

??;/5-@5;:;2%>;21??5;:-8
:35:11>?;2$:@->5;-:-0-

"19.1>;2(1/4:5/-8%-<1>'181/@5;:;995@@112;>;:21>1:/1;2 #;:01?@>A/@5B1
B-8A-@5;:;25B58'@>A/@A>1?-:0"-@1>5-8?"-E

"

E1->?H 1D<1>51:/1 5: @41 25180 ;2 5B58
'@>A/@A>-8
:35:11>5:3 -:0 ;:?@>A/@5;:
;> @41 8-?@
E1->?
-/@5B18E5:B;8B105:?@>A/@A>-8@1?@5:35:B1?@53-@5;:?5:?<1/@5;:?-:0.A5805:3/;:?@>A/@5;:>18-@10;<1>-@5;:? 2;>;991>/5-8 :0A?@>5-8-:05?@;>5/-8.A5805:3? %>5;> E1->?01B;@10@;?@>A/@A>-801?53:/;:?@>A/@5;:
<>;61/@1:35:11>-<<85/-@5;:;2/;9<A@1><>;3>-9?2;>?@>A/@A>-8-:-8E?5?@1-/45:3-:0>1?1->/4

4-1'-3%/!)56-1+1+-1))4''7:!)56 647'674%/%&24%624-)51'

: 34)5)16
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

;>9A8-@10 -:0 ?A<1>B5?10 ?<1/5-85F10 @1?@5:3 <>;3>-9? 2;> ;B1> 45?@;>5/-8 .A5805:3? 05>1/@10
5:B1?@53-@5B1@1?@5:32;>;B1>

?53:525/-:@.A5805:3??A<1>B5?105:?<1/@5;:-:0@1?@5:3?1>B5/1?2;>;B1>
/;:?@>A/@5;: <>;61/@? : /;::1/@5;: C5@4 @41 ?15?95/ >1@>;25@ <>;61/@? 4-B1 05>1/@10 @1?@5:3 ;2 :A91>;A? 9-?;:>E/;:/>1@1-:0?@118?@>A/@A>1? A@4;>10;B1> 59<;>@-:@@1/4:5/-8>1<;>@?
5>1/@ 2-58A>1 -:-8E?1? ?@A051? -:0 2;>1:?5/ 1D-95:-@5;:? %>;B501 >1?1->/4 -:0 /;:?A8@5:3 ?1>B5/1? @; 5:B1?@53-@11D/1??5B105?@>1???5@A-@5;:?5:.A5805:3??@>A/@A>-818191:@?-:091/4-:5/-8<->@? &1:01>1D<1>@ @1?@59;:E2;>813-8/-?1?
TESTING • INSPECTION • ENGINEERS • RESEARCH Tel: 818.591.3555 23915 Ventura Boulevard • Calabasas, California 91302 Admin Fax: 818.591.3557 ACCU-TEST STRUCTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.

Item #17. Page 28
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 817
Offices Nationwide
www.cumming-group.com

COMPANY QUALIFICATIONS
Firm Profile
Cumming Management Group, Inc. (Cumming) is a privately held corporation founded in California in 1996.

Cumming is a leader in providing project consulting services to the A/E/C industry, including cost and project management, planning and scheduling, and construction dispute resolution. Now in its 26th year of business, Cumming has more than 1,400 team members within 52 office locations, which provide services to clients around the world. Throughout its history, the company has remained focused on one goal: to assist its clients in managing the critical issues of time and cost from conception through closeout. With an understanding of program goals and expectations, a suite of solution-oriented services is provided to meet the project needs.

For this project, Cumming will serve as cost consultant. Cumming’s cost group is one of the largest providers of cost estimating and management services in the U.S., including a skilled team of in-house MEP cost specialists.

Cumming works on more than 400 estimates each month, delivering unparalleled experience in this discipline.

Core cost management services include budgeting, milestone cost estimating, value analysis, cost validation, peer review, and change order evaluation.

Project Experience – Municipal
Cumming’s project experience includes the completion of assignments in support of architects, engineers, owners, and others. Specifically, Cumming has completed more than 2,100 projects for city- and county-operated facilities. These projects have involved parks, public spaces, city halls, civic centers, police/fire facilities, libraries, offices, community centers, animal shelters, transit centers, operations and maintenance facilities, and public works, among others.

Representative Experience List
Chaffey College, New Library/Learning Resource Center, Rancho Cucamonga, CA City of El Centro, Former Shopping Center Repurposing Master Development Plan & New City Library, El Centro, CA City of Long Beach, Bayshore Library/Blair Field/Silverado Park Facilities Condition Assessments & Master Plan Review, Long Beach, CA
City of National City, New Multi-Use Community Center with e-Library & Fire Station 33 at El Toyon Park, National City, CA
City of Roseville, Martha Riley Community Library & Utility Education Center Office Space/Workroom TI, Roseville, CA
City of South San Francisco, Convert City Library into New Licensed Pre-School Feasibility Study, So. San Francisco, CA
County of San Bernardino, Various Projects incl. Fire Stations-Airport-Library-Offices, San Bernardino, CA County of San Diego, El Cajon Library HVAC Equipment Replacement, El Cajon, CA County of San Diego, South Bay Regional Center - Law Library Renovation, Chula Vista, CA Gavilan College, New Library & Student Resource Center/Student Services Building, Gilroy, CA Gavilan Community College, New Library & Student Resource Center, Gilroy, CA Holy Names University, Cushing Library Renovation, Oakland, CA Irvine Valley College, Library Improvements, Irvine, CA LA County DPW, Paramount Library Full Renovation, Paramount, CA Mission College, Library Building Renovation, Santa Clara, CA Pleasanton USD, Harvest Park Library Renovation, Pleasanton, CA Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum, Food Venue Renovation, Simi Valley, CA Santa Rosa Junior College, Doyle Library 1st & 3rd Floors Renovation, Santa Rosa, CA Santa Rosa Junior College, Doyle Library 2nd Floor Renovation for Computer Lab, Santa Rosa, CA SBCUSD Bonnie Oehl Elementary School, Library-Media Space Remodel & Campus Security Fencing, Highland, CA SDUSD Barnard Elementary School, Whole Site Modernization incl. Auditorium/Cafeteria/Library/Parking/Fields Improvements & New 2-Story Classroom Bldg., San Diego, CA Solano County, Fairfield Library Literacy Program Renovation Project, Fairfield, CA South Sutter Charter School, New Learning Center/Library, East Nicolaus, CA Stanislaus County, New Empire Branch Library, Empire, CA Item #17. Page 29
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 818

SUMMARY

GLENDORA LIBRARY FEASIBILITY STUDY - TEAM FEES
MHP Hours FEE
I PROJECT LAUNCH 8 1,720
II DISCOVERY 44 8,760
III ANALYSIS 344 60,460
IV DOCUMENTATION 32 6,480
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES - Allowance 0
SUBTOTAL MHP FEE 428 77,420
PFEIFFER Hours FEE
I PROJECT LAUNCH 8 2,400
II DISCOVERY 166 38,920
III ANALYSIS 126 22,440
IV DOCUMENTATION 48 8,000
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES - Allowance 2,153
SUBTOTAL PFEIFFER FEE 348 73,913
P2S Hours FEE
I PROJECT LAUNCH 4 795
II EVALUATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES & STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS 65 12,581 III FEASIBILITY OF SECOND STORY ADDITION 62 11,232
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES - Allowance 0
SUBTOTAL P2S FEE 131 24,608
OTHER SERVICES Allowance
COST ESTIMATING (Cumming) – Quote 16,000
MATERIAL TESTING (Accu-Test) – Quote 12,000
GEOTECHNICAL (ENGEO) – Allowance 12,000
SUBTOTAL OTHER SERVICES (ALLOWANCE / FIXED QUOTE) 40,000 TOTAL PROPOSED FEE 215,941
General Exclusions
* Detailed Project Program and Room Data Sheets
* Library Collection Analysis
* Tours/Site visits to other libraries
* Extensive Code Analysis
* Hazardous Materials Evaluation & Testing
* Sustainability Checklist
* Technical specifications
* Fundraising Materials
Exclusions (MEP)
* Electrical, plumbing, technology, & fire protection upgrade scope/costs (other than work required to accommodate structural work) will be covered by cost estimator with allowance. * Electrical service for library and site water, sewer, and storm drain utilities are assumed adequate to serve the proposed expansion. In the event existing service(s) is(are) near capacity, an allowance(s) can be made by cost estimator for service upgrade(s).
* Schematic design & study for exterior site elements beyond the second floor expansion scope are excluded.

NOTE
The Fee Proposal is "not-to-exceed" and includes all direct and indirect costs including labor, employee benefits, mileage, equipment, materials, insurance, and reproduction costs
Item #17. Page 30
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 819
Exhibit A

GLENDORA LIBRARY FEASIBILITY STUDY - MHP TEAM
Part Task

LK KW SA
Task
Hours
Subtotal
Task Fee
Subtotal
I PROJECT LAUNCH 4 4 0 8 $1,720
Kick-off Meeting w/Library 4 4 0
II DISCOVERY 8 36 0 44 $8,760
A. Documentation of Existing Structure 8 36 0 44 8760
Site Visits to Observe Existing Conditions 4 12 0
Review of Existing Construction Documents 2 12 0
Participation in Visioning & Programming Meetings 2 12 0 III ANALYSIS 32 212 100 344 $60,460
A. Evaluation of Existing Structure 16 124 60 200 34900 Coordinate Material Testing Program (MCTAP) 2 16 0
Coordinate Geotechnical Scope & Criteria 280
Complete ASCE/SEI 41-17 Tier 3 Evaluation 8 80 0
Prepare Conceptual Strengthening Plans 4 20 60
B. FEASIBILITY OF SECOND STORY ADDITION 16 88 40 144 25560 Develop Framing & Seismic Options & Coordinate with Team 8 64 0 Prepare Conceptual Strengthening Plans 4 20 40
Participation in Workshops & Meetings 440
IV DOCUMENTATION 8 24 0 32 $6,480
A. FINAL REPORT 8 24 0 32 6480
SUB-TOTAL HOURS 52 276 100 428
BILLING RATES 240 190 125
SUBTOTAL FEES 12,480 52,440 12,500 $77,420
PROPOSED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $0
TOTAL PROPOSED FEE & EXPENSES $77,420
MHP Team
Item #17. Page 31
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 820

GLENDORA LIBRARY FEASIBILITY STUDY - PFEIFFER TEAM
Part Task

GM SK RR
Task
Hours
Subtotal
Task Fee
Subtotal
I PROJECT LAUNCH 4 4 0 8 $2,400
Kick-off Meeting w/Library 4 4 0
II DISCOVERY 68 30 68 166 $38,920
A. VISIONING 16 8 0 24 7200
Workshop 1: Strategic Thinking 840
Workshop 2: Vision Verification / Setting Goals 840
Library Visioning Statement (By Library) 000
B. INFO GATHERING: EXISTING FACILITY 20 16 16 52 13040
Detailed Building Walkthrough / On-site Investigation 480 Existing Space Utilization Mapping (Per Floor Plans) 4 0 16 Shelving Footprint Mapping (Diagrams) 800
Building Code Assessment 040
Prepare Summary (What Do We Have to Work With) 440
C. PROGRAMING 4 2 0 6 1800
Review Library Findings, Reports, Recommendations Made to Date 420 D. PROGRAM DOCUMENT (SPREADSHEET MATRIX) 28 4 52 84 16880 Program Matrix Development (Existing vs Proposed) 8 2 36 Update Per Library Review & Comments 808
Program Analysis - Refine 610
Program Synthesis - Finalize 410
Library Final Review & Approval 000
Program Final Document 208
III ANALYSIS 20 10 96 126 $22,440
E. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT (INTERIOR LAYOUT & SPACE PLANNING) 20 10 96 126 22440 Workshop 5: Explore the Options 8 4 40
Workshop 6: Refine / Preferred Option 8 4 40
Workshop 7: Final Concept Diagram 4 2 16
IV DOCUMENTATION 4 4 40 48 $8,000
G. Final Report 4 4 40
SUB-TOTAL HOURS 96 48 204 348
BILLING RATES 300 300 140
SUBTOTAL FEES 28,800 14,400 28,560 $71,760
PROPOSED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $2,153
TOTAL PROPOSED FEE & EXPENSES $73,913

PROPOSED OPTIONAL SERVICES
III F. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT (3RD FLOOR ADDITION EXTERIOR) 6 20 96 122 21240 Workshop 5: Explore the Options 2 8 40
Workshop 6: Refine / Preferred Option 2 8 40
Workshop 7: Final Concept 2 4 16
SUB-TOTAL OPTIONAL HOURS 6 20 96 122
BILLING RATES 300 300 140
SUBTOTAL FEES 1,800 6,000 13,440 $21,240
PROPOSED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $0
TOTAL PROPOSED FEE & EXPENSES $21,240
Pfeiffer Team
Item #17. Page 32
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 821
GLENDORA LIBRARY FEASIBILITY STUDY - P2S TEAM
Part Task
EN5 DE3 DE2 BIM
Task
Hours
Subtotal
Task Fee
Subtotal
I PROJECT LAUNCH 1 1 2 0 4 $795
Kick-off Meeting w/Library 1 1 2 0
II EVALUATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES & STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS 13 21 29 2 65 $12,581 Review of Available As-built Documentation & Maps 1220
Perform Site Visit to Identify Existing Conditions & Evaluate Proposed Locations 5 5 10 0 Review Proposed Structural Upgrades from Architectural & Structural Plans 1120 Provide PDF Sketches and Narrative of MEP Adjustments 5 8 13 2 Develop Condition Assessment of HVAC System Only 0400
Review & Respond to Owner Comments 1120
III FEASIBILITY OF SECOND STORY ADDITION 5 30 21 6 62 $11,232 Develop Preliminary Load Estmates for HVAC System 1600
Propose HVAC System Types & Coordinate Major Equipment Locations with A/E Team 1800 Develop Schematic Design Level Drawings (HVAC Replacement, Tie to Building Replacement) 1 14 0 2 Develop Schematic Design Level Drawings (Electrical/Plumbing Systems for 2nd Fl Expansion) 1 0 18 4 Review & Respond to Owner Comments 123
SUB-TOTAL HOURS 19 52 52 8 131
BILLING RATES 276 187 166 126
SUBTOTAL FEES 5,244 9,724 8,632 1,008 $24,608
PROPOSED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $0
TOTAL PROPOSED FEE & EXPENSES $24,608
P2S Team
Item #17. Page 33
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 822

GLENDORA LIBRARY FEASIBILITY STUDY - OTHER SERVICES
Part Task
Task Fee
Allowance
I COST ESTIMATING (Cumming) – Quote $16,000
II MATERIAL TESTING (Accu-Test) – Quote $12,000
III GEOTECHNICAL (ENGEO) – Allowance $12,000
TOTAL PROPOSED FEE (ALLOWANCE OR FIXED QUOTE) $40,000
Item #17. Page 34
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 823

CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between

CITY OF GLENDORA
and
MYERS HOUGHTON & PARTNERS, INC.

Item #17. Page 35
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 824
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 1 AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENDORA AND
MYERS HOUGHTON & PARTNERS, INC.

THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of ____________________ by and between the CITY OF GLENDORA, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and MYERS HOUGHTON & PARTNERS, INC., a California Corporation (“Consultant”).

City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or collectively, as “Party” or “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids, the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.

B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal or bid for the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the City to perform those services.

C. Pursuant to the City of Glendora’s Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into and execute this Agreement.

D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.

OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT

1.1 Scope of Services.

In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide those services specified in the “Scope of Services” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the “services” or “work” hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “professional standards” shall mean those standards of practice customarily exercised by reputable engineers performing similar work under similar circumstances.

Item #17. Page 36
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 825
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 2 1.2 Consultant’s Proposal.

The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant’s scope of work or bid which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.

1.3 Compliance with Law.

Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered.

1.4 California Labor Law.

If the Scope of Services includes any “public work” or “maintenance work,” as those terms are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws, including the following requirements:
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be performed under this Agreement is a “public work” as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall pay prevailing wages to the extent required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post a copy of the same at each job site where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor. (d) Payroll Records. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subconsultant to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform the City of the location of the records. (e) Apprentices. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with

Item #17. Page 37
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 826
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 3 these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within sixty (60) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of its subconsultants shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Consultant acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. (g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one and one-half (1½) times the basic rate of pay. (h) Workers’ Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Consultant certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.”
Consultant’s Authorized Initials ___________________
Lance Kenyon, President

(i) Consultant’s Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor who will perform work under this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for such subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance, including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.

1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.

Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Consultant’s performance of the services required by this Agreement, and

Item #17. Page 38
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 827
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 4 shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder.

1.6 Familiarity with Work.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant’s risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer.

1.7 Care of Work.

The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.

1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties.

Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible for the service of the other.

1.9 Additional Services.

City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of the Contract Sum or $50,000, whichever is less; or, in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty (180) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed.

1.10 Special Requirements.

Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event

Item #17. Page 39
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 828
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 5 of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.

ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.

2.1 Contract Sum.

Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed $215,941.00 (Two-Hundred Fifteen Thousand, Nine-Hundred Forty-One Dollars) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.9.

2.2 Method of Compensation.

The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant’s rates as specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.

2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.

Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5, and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City. Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.

2.4 Invoices.

Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall contain all information specified in Exhibit “C”, and shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and subcontractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.

City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for

Item #17. Page 40
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 829
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 6 correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law.

2.5 Waiver.

Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.

ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE

3.1 Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

3.2 Schedule of Performance.

Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.

3.3 Force Majeure.

The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, Consultant’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.

3.4 Term.

Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one (1) year from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”).

Item #17. Page 41
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 830
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 7 ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK

4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.

The following principals of Consultant (“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:

Lance Kenyon, President
Ken O’Dell, Secretary
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance.

4.2 Status of Consultant.

Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.

4.3 Contract Officer.

The Contract Officer shall be Associate Civil Engineer or such person as may be designated by the City Manager. It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement.

4.4 Independent Consultant.

Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein.

Item #17. Page 42
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 831
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 8 City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant.

4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.

The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.

ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION

5.1 Insurance Coverages.

Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. (a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted. (b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).

Item #17. Page 43
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 832
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 9 (e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein. (f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.

5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or selfinsurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. (d) City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.

Item #17. Page 44
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 833
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 10 (h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. (j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies. (k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
(l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. (n) Agency’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate Consultant’s compensation. (o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by City. (p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies. (q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.

Item #17. Page 45
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 834
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 11 5.3 Indemnification.

To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims or liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless therefrom; (c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work, operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers, agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City’s negligence, except that design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION

6.1 Records.

Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times during

Item #17. Page 46
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 835
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 12 normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business, custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant’s successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records Act.

6.2 Reports.

Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.

6.3 Ownership of Documents.

All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”) prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment.

Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as “works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed “works made for hire” for the City.

6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer. (b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.

Item #17. Page 47
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 836
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 13 (c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION

7.1 California Law.

This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S.

District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

7.2 Disputes; Default.

In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.

7.3 Retention of Funds.

Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant (whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct

Item #17. Page 48
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 837
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 14 or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.

7.4 Waiver.

Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.

Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.

Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.

7.6 Legal Action.

In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.

7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.

This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to Consultant, except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.

Item #17. Page 49
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 838
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 15 7.8 Termination for Default of Consultant.

If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.

7.9 Attorneys’ Fees.

If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.

Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment.

ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION

8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.

No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

8.2 Conflict of Interest.

Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.

No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.

8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.

Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure

Item #17. Page 50
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 839
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 16 that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class.

8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.

Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by City.

ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

9.1 Notices.

Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Glendora, 116 E. Foothill Blvd., Glendora, California 91741-3380, and in the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement.

Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.

9.2 Interpretation.

The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.

9.3 Counterparts.

This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.

9.4 Integration; Amendment.

This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement.

No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.

9.5 Severability.

Item #17. Page 51
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 840
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 17 In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.

9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.

No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of “financial interest” shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be “remote” or “noninterests” pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of no force or effect.

Consultant’s Authorized Initials ___________________
Lance Kenyon, President
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

Item #17. Page 52
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 841
Library Structural Analysis and Options for Vertical Expansion, Plan No. 1358 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written.

CITY:

City of Glendora, a municipal corporation
Adam Raymond
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CERTIFY AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder
City Attorney
Marie Ricci
Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer
ATTEST:

Kathleen R. Sessman
City Clerk/Communications Director
CONTRACTOR:

MYERS HOUGHTON & PARTNERS, INC.

Name: Lance Kenyon
Title: President
Email Address: [email protected]
Name: Ken O’Dell
Title: Secretary
Email Address: [email protected]
Address: 3900 Cover Street, Long Beach, California 90808 Two corporate officer signatures required when Contractor is a corporation, with one signature required from each of the following groups:
1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer.

CONTRACTOR’S SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED UNLESS EXECUTED UTILIZING DOCUSIGN. IN ADDITION, THE APPROPRIATE

ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTOR’S BUSINESS ENTITY.

Item #17. Page 53
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 842
01240.0001/535308.1 A-1
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following Services:

A. Phase 1: Evaluation of Existing Structure
Prior to starting Phase 1, an ASCE/SEI 41 Structural Performance Objective will be established for the existing library building in consultation with the City. The Performance Objective consists of a pairing of one or more Seismic Hazard Levels with Structural and Non-Structural Performance Levels. This will be discussed in detail at the initiation of the project.
a. Preparation of Condition Assessment and Material Testing Program A Material Testing and Condition Assessment Program (“MTCAP”) in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41 will be developed in order to confirm in-situ material properties and existing construction detailing. The extent of the MTCAP is defined by ASCE/SEI 41 based on the Performance Objective for the project and is typically subject to Plan Review to attain concurrence on the extent of testing.
b. Site Visit
Site visits will be conducted along with City representatives and Accu-Test to facilitate preparation of a detailed bid for the testing and laboratory work. Sampling locations will be confirmed along with testing schedule (confirm if off-hours/overnight work will be required).
c. Execute Material Testing Program
Upon NTP for testing contract, Accu-Test will complete core extraction and compressive strength laboratory testing.
d. Geotechnical Investigation & Seismic Hazard Analysis Based on the project Performance Objective and preliminary seismic evaluation findings, a geotechnical scope of work will be developed in consultation with the City.

At this time, it is anticipated that Geotechnical work will consist of limited confirmatory borings, shear wave velocity profiling for site classification, and sitespecific ground motion hazard assessment. Further scope may be added at a later date, pending the findings of the evaluation and feasibility study. e. Complete Structural Analysis and Evaluation, Prepare Conceptual Repair and Retrofit Drawings, Prepare Evaluation Report & Cost Estimate

Item #17. Page 54
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 843
01240.0001/535308.1 A-2
A Tier 3 comprehensive seismic evaluation will be completed using the linear analysis provisions of ASCE/SEI 41-17 to establish current anticipated seismic performance of the existing building. Where required to meet the selected project Performance Objective, conceptual plans for strengthening will be provided. A cost estimate will be prepared based on the conceptual strengthening plans. The findings and basis for the recommended strengthening approach will be documented in an engineering report.

Draft documents will be provided to the City for review and comment. Final documents will be issued once City comments have been incorporated.

B. Phase 2: Feasibility of Second Story Addition
The project team will work with the City to refine and develop the City’s vision for the future of the library and addition, including infrastructure, remodeling and modernization needs. Conceptual plans will be developed and cost estimates will be completed. Phase 2 scope of services is subject to further evaluation in consultation with the City prior to finalizing. It is anticipated that the City and project team will have consistent communication via virtual and in-person meetings during this phase, eliminating the need for numerous intermediate deliverables. a. Discovery – Visioning, Information Gathering, Programming The Project Architect will collaborate with the City to understand the existing conditions, and the needs and goals of the City for the existing library and second story addition. Existing space utilization mapping, shelving footprint mapping, and Building Code Assessment will be completed. Review library findings, reports, and recommendations made to date. Establish programming needs. b. Structural Evaluation of Existing Structure and Second Story Addition A Tier 3 comprehensive seismic evaluation will be completed using the linear analysis provisions of ASCE/SEI 41-17 for the retrofit structure with second story addition.

Material properties and geotechnical and seismic hazard findings from Phase 1 will be utilized.
c. Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing systems Assessment and Scoping Infrastructure and systems upgrade needs for both existing library and addition will be defined.
d. Prepare Conceptual Repair, Strengthening, and Addition Drawings, Final Report & Cost Estimate
Based on the results of items “a” through “c”, conceptual Architectural, Structural, and MEP drawings will be developed as appropriate. A cost estimate will be prepared based on the conceptual plans. The findings and basis for the recommended approach will be documented in a project report. Draft documents will be provided to the City for review and comment. Final documents will be issued once City comments have been incorporated.

Item #17. Page 55
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 844
01240.0001/535308.1 A-3
e. New Standalone Library Building Comparative Cost Estimate Scoping narrative and conceptual cost estimate will be prepared for a new standalone library building. The cost estimate will be used for comparison to the cost of the retrofit/addition to the existing library building.

II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work products to the City:
- Develop and execute the Structural Testing Plan.
- Geotechnical Investigation Report.
- Conceptual Strengthening Plans, Cost Estimate, and Engineering Report for Existing Library Building.
- Conceptual Strengthening Plans, Cost Estimate, and Engineering Report in consideration of second- story addition.
- Cost Estimate for a new standalone building.

Detailed deliverables are included in the proposal.

III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services, Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering the following status reports:

A. N/A
IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by City.

V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:

A. N/A

Item #17. Page 56
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 845
01240.0001/535308.1 B-1
EXHIBIT “B”

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
Added text is indicated in bold italics, deleted text is indicated in strikethrough. [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Item #17. Page 57
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 846
01240.0001/535308.1 C-1
EXHIBIT “C”

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:

III. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task subbudget to another so long as the Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are approved per Section 1.9.

IV. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:

Item #17. Page 58
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 847
01240.0001/535308.1 C-2
A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours worked, and the hourly rate.

B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.

C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting documentation.

D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials, and travel properly charged to the Services.

V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.

VI. The Consultant’s billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.

Item #17. Page 59
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 848
01240.0001/535308.1 D-1
EXHIBIT “D”

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following schedule:

Description Days to Perform Deadline Date
A. All Tasks 100 Working Days TBD
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the following dates.

A. TBD upon award of the project.

III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in accordance with Section 3.2.

Item #17. Page 60
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 849
Line
City of Glendora
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment
April 11, 2022
Cho Design Associates, Inc.
3601 W. MacArthur Boulevard, #903
Santa Ana, California 92704
Item #17. Page 61
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 850
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment
Page i
City of Glendora
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................... 1 Description ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Data Collection and Review ........................................................................................................... 1 Review of As-Built Plans and Reports ........................................................................................... 1 Preliminary Condition Assessment ................................................................................................. 2 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 9

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Typical Cracking in Slab (minor) .................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 – Typical Concrete Cracks at Beam and Slab (minor) ..................................................... 3 Figure 3 – Large Girder Crack, > 0.016" ........................................................................................ 4 Figure 4 - Close-up of Girder Crack, > 0.016" ............................................................................... 4 Figure 5 – Epoxy Injection Repaired Area ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 6 – Leakage at Epoxy Repair............................................................................................... 5 Figure 7 – Leakage at Slab Crack (unrepaired) .............................................................................. 6 Figure 8 – Leakage and Staining at Beam (unrepaired) ................................................................. 6

APPENDICES
Appendix A Photo Location Record and Photo Log
Appendix B As-Builts
Item #17. Page 62
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 851
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment

Page 1 ends

Introduction
The City of Glendora (City) has requested that JMD and Cho Design Associates, Inc. (CDA), review and provide a preliminary assessment of the structural elements of the City's Public Library roof slab and framing system that forms the base of the Bidwell Plaza. It is our understanding that the City desires to add a permanent shade structure to the existing Bidwell Plaza that is on top of the roof of the Glendora Public Library. During the initial investigation to add a shade structure to the existing roof, it was noted that there were some cracks in the existing concrete roof system and some water intrusion into the library. A preliminary assessment of the concrete roof system was requested by the City. This assessment includes the plaza deck and library roof system.

Purpose and Scope
The goal of the project is to provide the City with a preliminary structural engineering assessment/investigation of the City's existing Public Library roof slab and framing system that forms the base of the Bidwell Plaza in terms of its utility and possible hazards. CDA conducted a site visit to assess the overall structural condition of the library's roof framing system and slab. A summary of our findings and recommendations is included in this Preliminary Condition Assessment Report.

Description
Based on as-built plans provided by the City, the existing library facility and Bidwell Plaza was completed in 1972. The library is a two-story reinforced concrete and concrete masonry (CMU) structure located next to the City of Glendora City Hall at the southeast corner of Glendora Boulevard and W. Foothill Avenue.

Data Collection and Review
The following documents and information have been received from the City and reviewed in association with this project:
x As-built plans for Glendora Public Library, prepared by Anthony & Langford Architects, dated September 5, 1970, consisting of 30 sheets.
x As-built plans for Glendora Public Library – Voluntary Upgrade, dated June 2003 prepared by Jeff Coronado, S.E.
x As-built plans for Glendora Public Library – Plaza Demo and Resurfacing, undated, prepared by Jeff Coronado, S.E.

No other plans or reports are available for our review.

Review of As-Built Plans and Reports
Cho Design Associates conducted a review of the as-built plans provided by City. According to the as-built plans for the facility, the main floor and structure was designed utilizing concrete with a required minimum compressive strength of 3,000 psi at 28 days and Grade 40 reinforcing steel. The building envelope consists of cast-in-place concrete and CMU walls with a wood roof framing system.

No structural calculations or geotechnical reports were available for our review as a part of this project.

In 2003 and 2004 the library went through extensive structural modifications to reinforce the structure and its foundation to bring the building into compliance with the current codes and standards at the Item #17. Page 63
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 852
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment

Page 2 ends

time. The 2003 project reinforced the north wall and the supporting columns. The 2004 project addressed the plaza’s deteriorating concrete surface and water infiltration by replacing its water-proof membrane and adding a lightweight concrete topping on the existing deck. It appears that the 2004 project may have also repaired some roof slab cracks with epoxy injection. We did not find any plans or specifications to document that this was to be done as a part of the project, only what we observed in some project construction photos provided by the City.

Based on information from the City, the concrete deterioration at the library has been an ongoing for some time and generally consist of cracks in the concrete beams and roof slab surfaces. There appears to be some water infiltration into the main library after rain events, located primarily in the north-east section of the library ceiling. This study only includes a representative visual assessment of the surface defects, a review of the as-built plans and evaluation of the City's historical observations.

Preliminary Condition Assessment
A visual condition assessment of the surface defects was conducted at the library on March 29, 2022 and was limited to a representative sampling of the beams and slabs above the drop ceiling.

Our preliminary investigation consisted of physically accessing each area by removing the drop ceiling panels and visually inspecting the surfaces for deterioration. Most of the concrete deterioration consisted of minimally to moderately cracked concrete surfaces. We did not observe anything that would indicate an immediate underlying structural problem in the areas with the deteriorated concrete surface areas. We also employed the use of a rotary percussion hammer to check for areas of delamination or other structural defects that were not noticeably visible. Generally, the underlying surface of the concrete was found to be sound, with no visual evidence of delamination or spalling.

The main area of obvious deterioration are the numerous superficial cracks throughout the roof beams and roof slabs of the library (Figures 1 and 2). The majority of these are not thought to be a serious issue since they were small and there was no evidence of major seepage, leakage or corrosions stains that were noted on the concrete. There are however several locations where the epoxy repaired cracks are exhibiting some sort of leakage and staining (Figures 5 and 6). There also appears to be some new cracks that may have occurred after the 2004 repairs. Some of these new cracks in the slab are showing signs of water infiltration and staining, but there was no indication of corrosion of the beam or slab reinforcing from the water infiltration (Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10). These cracks are thought to be new because they are large enough so they should have been repaired during the epoxy injection process of the other cracks, or they were smaller back then and have developed into larger cracks since the 2004 project.

There are also several areas where there are large cracks in the main girders. These cracks exceed

0.06" (1.5mm) in width which is the accepted threshold for a reasonable crack width of 0.016” (0.41mm) (Figures 3 and 4). No other significant structural issues were noted during our representative assessment of the library beams and slab system.

The following are some representative photos of the typical cracks and other defects that were found during our preliminary visual assessment. A complete set of photos taken during our visual assessment is included in Appendix "A" of this report.

Item #17. Page 64
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 853
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment

Page 3 ends

Figure 1 - Typical Cracking in Slab (minor)
Figure 2 – Typical Concrete Cracks at Beam and Slab (minor) Item #17. Page 65
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 854
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment

Page 4 ends

Figure 3 – Large Girder Crack, > 0.016"
Figure 4 - Close-up of Girder Crack, > 0.016"
Item #17. Page 66
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 855
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment

Page 5 ends

Figure 5 – Epoxy Injection Repaired Area
Figure 6 – Leakage at Epoxy Repair
Item #17. Page 67
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 856
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment

Page 6 ends

Figure 7 – Leakage at Slab Crack (unrepaired)
Figure 8 – Leakage and Staining at Beam (unrepaired)
Item #17. Page 68
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 857
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment

Page 7 ends

Figure 9 – Crack at Waffle Slab (Main Reading Area)
Figure 10 – Close-up of Waffle Slab Crack (Main Reading Area) Item #17. Page 69
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 858
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment

Page 8 ends

Conclusions
In summary, the concrete beams, roof slab and overall structural systems of the library and plaza base are generally in sound structural condition, but there are some issues that needs to be addressed to maintain the structural integrity of the facility. Based on our initial visual inspection and evaluation, the library roof and slab and plaza base needs to have the crack issues addressed. These repairs should not require the library to be shut down.

The American Concrete Institute (ACI) publishes document ACI 224R-01 "Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures". Table 4.1 from that document provides a general guideline for reasonable crack widths for reinforced concrete elements under service loads. Acceptable crack widths range from

0.004 in. (0.1 mm) to 0.016 in. (0.41 mm), with smaller widths for concrete in wet or aggressive environments and larger crack widths for drier exposures. For the City's library, the 0.016" (0.41 mm) is considered an acceptable crack width.

There are numerous cases where the crack width exceeds the reasonable limit of 0.016" as presented in the table above and needs to be addressed. Many of the cracks are less than that and do not pose any real issues.

The condition of the unexposed reinforcing steel could not be assessed, because the level of inspection for this project did not include destructive testing, no conclusion was drawn for the condition of the unexposed reinforcing steel.

No visual evidence of carbonation or alkali-silica reactivity or other issues were apparent. Laboratory testing for these issues is beyond the scope for this project.

A plot showing the approximate locations of the representative photos and cracks is included in Appendix "A" along with a complete photo log.

Item #17. Page 70
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 859
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment

Page 9 ends

Recommendations
We recommend that City initiate a full extensive survey of the roof and slab of the library to fully document the repair needs for this facility as soon as possible to minimize any further damage.

At this time, the following items are recommended:
x Comprehensive Field Survey: Perform a comprehensive field survey, assessment and evaluation of the entire library roof slab and beam system. This survey should fully document the size and location of all cracks. Any additional defects such as spalling, delamination or pop-outs should also be noted.
x Final Repair Plans: Prepare comprehensive plans, details and specifications for the repair and rehabilitation of all defects noted in the Comprehensive Field Survey above.

Item #17. Page 71
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 860
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment
Page A-1
Appendix A
Photo Location Record
and
Photo Log

Item #17. Page 72
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 861
Item #17. Page 73
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 862
No Access. Area in use.

No issues noted in theseareas.

Area with minor slabcracks, < 0.016"
Area with epoxy injection repairs
Area with epoxy injection repairs
Area with epoxy injection repairs
No issues noted in this area.

Area with minor slabcracks, < 0.016"
Beam crack >0.05"Photo #37 & #38Typical in this area.Area was is use bylibrary patrons Beam crack ~0.05"Photo #36
Beam crack ~0.02"Photo #35
Beam crack ~0.04"Photo #34 Beam crack ~0.04"
Photo #33
Area with slab cracks, ~ 0.020"Photo #32
Area with new cracks and active leakingPhoto #30 & #31
Area with new cracks and active leakingPhoto #28 & #29
Area with epoxy injection repairs.Photo #26 & #27
Slab and beam crack.Photo # 25
Area with slab cracks, ~ 0.020"Photo #20
Beam crack ~0.020"Photo #21
Area with epoxy injection repairsand water stains.Photo #22, #23 & #24 Beam and slab crack,~0.02"Photo #19
Minor cracking at top of beam, ~12"off of end. Typical at numerouslocations, see Photo #12 Beam crack, > 0.06"Photo #18
Beam crack, > 0.06"Photo #17
Beam crack, > 0.03"Photo #16
Repaired beamPhoto #15
Beam and slab crack,~0.02"Photo #13 & #14
Minor cracking at top of beam, ~12"off of end. Typical at numerouslocations, Photo #12 Beam crack, > 0.06"Photo #9, #10 & #11
Area with slab cracks, ~0.025"Photo #8
Area with slab cracks, ~0.025"Photo #7
Area with slab cracks, ~0.025"Photo #6
Area with slab cracks, ~0.03"Photo #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5
No Access. Area in use.

No Access. Area in use.

Annotation from Visual Survey performed on 03/29/2022
add a legend?
Area with water stains.Photo #22, #23 & #24
LEGEND
No Access.Area in use.

No issues notedin these areas.Beam CrackAreaBeam/SlabCrack AreaSlab CrackArea Area withepoxy injectionrepairs
Area with new/oldcracks and activeleaking/water stains
Photo Location Record
Page A-2
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment
Page A-3
Photo Log
Photo # Description
1 Slab cracks, < 0.03"
2 Slab cracks, < 0.03"
3 Slab cracks, < 0.03"
4 Slab cracks, < 0.03"
5 Slab cracks, < 0.03"
6 Slab cracks, ~0.025"
7 Slab cracks, ~0.025"
8 Slab cracks, ~0.025"
9 Beam cracks, >0.06"
10 Beam cracks, >0.06"
11 Beam cracks, >0.06"
12 Minor beam crack approximately 12" from end, typical at numerous beams 13 Beam and slab cracks, ~0.02"
14 Beam and slab cracks, ~0.02"
15 Repaired beam
16 Beam cracks, >0.03"
17 Beam cracks, >0.06"
18 Beam cracks, >0.06"
19 Beam and slab cracks, ~0.02"
20 Slab cracks, ~0.02"
21 Beam cracks, ~0.02"
22 Epoxy injection repaired area with water stains
23 Epoxy injection repaired area with water stains
24 Epoxy injection repaired area with water stains
25 Beam and slab crack
26 Epoxy injection repaired area
27 Epoxy injection repaired area
28 Area with new cracks and active water infiltration
29 Area with new cracks and active water infiltration
30 Area with new cracks and active water infiltration
31 Area with new cracks and active water infiltration
32 Slab cracks, ~0.02"
33 Beam crack, ~0.04"
34 Beam crack, ~0.04"
35 Beam crack, ~0.02"
36 Beam crack. ~0.05"
37 Beam crack @ waffle slab, >0.05" (typical)
38 Beam crack @ waffle slab, >0.05" (typical)

Item #17. Page 74
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 863
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment
Page A-4
Photos

Item #17. Page 75
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 864
Glendora Public Library/Bidwell Plaza
Preliminary Condition Assessment
Page B-1
Appendix B
As-Built Plans
x As-built plans for Glendora Public Library, prepared by Anthony & Langford Architects, dated September 5, 1970, consisting of 30 sheets.
x As-built plans for Glendora Public Library – Voluntary Upgrade, dated June 2003 prepared by Jeff Coronado, S.E.
x As-built plans for Glendora Public Library – Plaza Demo and Resurfacing, undated, prepared by Jeff Coronado, S.E.

Item #17. Page 76
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 865

!"
#$
#%%
#$

&'#

&%()*+#+ ',-.-./

0+%

%11""
"&+#&

!"
%
&
&'2

%#1 + $
Item #17. Page 77
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 866
.
+
!$ #1

&
#,34.
15%

+6+"% 7%"+"(+8
&'2

5% 9(+
#2
:" 2

"&

+#1#$
#$5+&%
#2

& +&
#

""%"#(+
#

+ '2

Item #17. Page 78
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 867
/
.--;%#7+&
#" Item #17. Page 79
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 868
;
.--;%#7+&
#" Item #17. Page 80
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 869
<
.--;%#7+&
#" Item #17. Page 81
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 870
=
.--;%#7+&
#" Item #17. Page 82
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 871
4 .--;%#7+&
#" Item #17. Page 83
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 872
>
.--;%#7+&
#" Item #17. Page 84
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 873
3 .--;%#7+&
#" Item #17. Page 85
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 874
,-
.--;%#7+&
#" Item #17. Page 86
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 875
,,
%

(
#+ '""%""(%#& Item #17. Page 87
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 876
,.
%

(
#+ '""%""(%#& Item #17. Page 88
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 877
,/
%?%"& @"+
"AB
%@&%(% ...-.. %
%+"%1#C%"&
&% <.-..@ %"(
&&+
85+
!
#1
&%159,.1
22% %#&
#"
&+#&2
("
&% .-.-..@ @"+
1%1+&% <@ @"+
"5% %"(
&&%1 +"%1#@ @"+
%7+
+&
#+#1
#&% 7
%5"'
+ '+#1

!""&+22
'% "
$0&#+ &#% "#
A
B5+" %
((%#1%1+"%"&(%%&
#$
&':"#%%1"
Item #17. Page 89
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 878
,;
@"+
"&((+ ' +2& !@
+#Item #17. Page 90
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 879
,<

AD;,,,<4,B

AD.,<3;,--B

!
"
AD.,<3;,-B
#

AD.4>=<->,B
$

!
%

'$

(

D,3------

)

D>>=<->,
Item #17. Page 91
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 880
,=

, 5+ 1+#+$ %%(%#&5
&0
'% "$0&#+ &#% "#
2 &0%
+ '&
& +
#+
'"
"+#1@&
#"2 E% &

F@+#"
#@ 8%
&
#&0%+(#&2D.,<3;,--G
. &0
6%&0%
&'
+#+$% 0
"1%"
$#%%&%F%
&%&0%+$ %%(%#&5
&0
'% "$0&#+ &#% "#

#

1
#$
(
#
(+
+#19 ##""&+#&
7%
0+#$%"G
/ &0
6%&0%

!"
%
& &%F%
&%+#'#%
%""+ '
0+#$% 1% "
#+#+(#&#&&%F
%%1,-HAD.,<3;,-B
2&0%
$
#+

#& +
&+(#&2 +@&%#&
+
&&+
+$ %%(%#&+(#&2D./4</<,-G+#1
; &0
6%&0%1(
#
"& +&
7%% 7

%"
%
& &+@@ @
+&%D>>=<->,"
#$+@
&+
8%
&"#1/.,&5+ 1"@ 8%
&
1$%&
0+&&0%
&'#

I
Item #17. Page 92
Meeting Date: 1/10/2023 / Packet Page #: 881

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Council Members DATE: September 12, 2023
FROM: City Clerk DISTRICT(S): CITYWIDE
SUBJECT: Update on the City of Glendora Water Infrastructure Assessment and Rate Study

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1. Adopt the Water Master Plan; and

2. Provide direction for the consideration of water rates.

STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS
 Goal 5: Improve and Maintain the City’s Infrastructure and Facilities (IMCIF)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past year, the City has been conducting a water utility infrastructure assessment to identify and prioritize the maintenance and repairs of water utility pipelines and facilities. Based on the information gathered, it has been determined that the City’s water system needs nearly $350 million in repairs and replacements. In order to fund these projects and ongoing operations, a rate study was completed to establish a fair and equitable distribution of costs to the consumers. The findings of these studies are outlined in the report for the City Council and Water Commission to consider and provide staff with direction to move forward.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
Resolution CC2016-32
On September 12, 2016, the City mailed customer notices regarding Resolution No. CC2016-32, which included water rate adjustments to occur between 2017 and 2021.

Proposition 218
Proposition 218, (California Constitution Article XIII D), was enacted in 1996 for the purpose of setting rates and fees which are reasonable and proportional to the cost of providing service. The requirements for fairness are:
a. Revenues derived from fees and charges (such as water and sewer rates) shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service. b. Fees and charges shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which they were imposed. c. Fees and charges shall not exceed the proportional cost of service attributable to the parcel upon which it is imposed.
d. Service for which a fee is being imposed must actually be used by, or immediately available to the owner of the property in question.
e. A written notice of the proposed fees and charges shall be mailed to the record owner of each parcel at least 45 days prior to the public hearing, when the agency considers all written protests the charge.
 A public agency cannot adopt increases in fees and charges above those included in Item #1. Page 1
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 4
Staff Report Page 2 of 6
Proposition 218 notice
California Assembly Bill 1668
Assembly Bill 1668 (AB1668) requires reduction in indoor residential water use:
 Until January 1, 2025: 55 gallons per capita per day
 Beginning January 1, 2025: 52.5 gallons per capita per day  Beginning January 1, 2030: 50.0 gallons per capita per day

DISCUSSION
The City of Glendora (City) owns and operates a potable water system serving an area of approximately 11 square miles and provides water service to a population of about 45,550. The primary source of supply is local groundwater from the Upper San Gabriel Canyon Sub-basin and the Glendora Sub-basin of the Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin). The supply is supplemented with imported water from Three Valleys Municipal Water District. The City’s existing potable water system consists of the following:
 Seventeen (17) hydraulic pressure zones (12 open, 3 on hydropneumatic systems, and two closed)
 Approximately 210 miles of pipeline, 1-inch to 30-inch  Eight (8) Active Groundwater Wells
 29 Storage Reservoirs
 20 Pump Stations (45 pumps)
 Three (3) Hydropneumatic Systems
 Three (3) Pressure Regulating Stations
 1,760 Fire Hydrants
 13,500 customer meters
Water Master Plan
In April 2023, the Water Master Plan was finalized by AKM Consulting Engineers. The document is a comprehensive planning guide for improving and upgrading the City’s existing water system. In doing so, it identifies and prioritizes $350 Million in Capital Improvement Projects.

Vertical Facility Assessments were conducted as part of the master plan effort to evaluate the condition and to develop recommendations for each well, pump station, and storage reservoir. As-built plans, maintenance records, pump curves and efficiency tests, reservoir dive reports, and other available historical information were reviewed as part of the assessments. City staff members were interviewed by and accompanied AKM staff on tours of each facility. The Vertical Facility Assessments resulted in the recommendation of improvement projects with a total estimated cost of $158M.

The Water Master Plan effort also included the development of a Pipe Replacement Program. Pipe improvement projects were developed based on a comprehensive risk assessment, discussion with operation and maintenance staff, review of main break data, and review of pipes that provide service to facilities where water service is essential (hospitals, fire facilities, dialysis centers etc). The risk assessment included the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI-ML) technology to develop the Likelihood of Failure (LoF) and the evaluation of the Consequence of Failure (CoF). The Pipe Replacement Program included recommendations for pipe replacement projects with a total estimated cost of $183M.

Hydraulic Analyses were conducted to assess the water system’s ability to meet average day, maximum day, peak hour, and maximum day plus fire flow demands. A hydraulic model was developed and calibrated to field conditions. The model was utilized to identify system hydraulic deficiencies.

Recommended improvements based on the hydraulic analyses included projects with a total estimated cost of $9M.

Item #1. Page 2
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 5
Staff Report Page 3 of 6
Water Rate Study
The proposed water rate was developed to ensure the City is able to deliver clean, safe, and reliable water on demand. The proposed rate structure is designed to be fair and equitable while also encouraging water conservation. The water rates are an investment back into the system to make critical upgrades and repairs to the water infrastructure as identified in the Water Master Plan.

Fund Analysis
Although the City has made many efforts to improve operations by leveraging technology to make certain operations more efficient, the cost of doing business has increased significantly. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 5.9% in January 2021 and 7.2% for January 2022, for a combined inflation rate of approximately 13% just in the last two years. The last rate study was conducted in 2016 and was implemented between January 2017 through January 2022. However, rates have not increased since January 2021. Bids for capital improvement projects are coming in over budget by 5%-10%. The shortage of materials and the demand for labor has had a major impact on the cost of infrastructure improvements. On top of the cost of doing business, scarce supplies and the cost of water over the last two years from Metropolitan Water District has increased 11% for Tier 1 treated water and 24% for Tier 2 treated water. The following table is the adopted FY 2024 Operating Budget for the Water Fund:

Adopted FY 2024 Budget

REVENUES
Water Charges $ 19,115,500
Purchased Water 2,030,000
Energy 1,700,000
Misc Revenue Interest 332,375
Total Revenues $ 23,177,875

EXPENDITURES
Production $ 4,102,519
Transmission & Distribution 2,911,479
Customer Service 1,307,261
Administration 2,327,399
Support 3,505,197
Conservation 1,120,432
Replenishment/Import Water 3,648,950
Energy 1,700,000
Debt Service 2,584,222
Transfers Out CIP 3,000,000
Total Expenditures $ 26,207,459
Gain (Loss) $ (3,029,584)
Additionally, historical data from Fiscal Year 2020-2021 was reviewed when developing the expenditures for this study. Projections were made with the best available planning data. The future expenditures were developed from the utility agencies (Three Valleys Municipal Water District, Main San Gabriel Valley Watermaster, Southern California Edison, Azusa Light and Water) projections and the consumer price index (CPI). The expenditures include the following:
a. Groundwater: The City’s eight (8) wells extract groundwater from the Main Basin. The Main San Gabriel Valley Watermaster manages the Operating Safe Yield (OSY) that regulates the allowable groundwater extractions. The City’s groundwater supply was based on 6,408 AFY (4.75% of OSY).
b. Imported Water: The City can supplement the groundwater supply with imported water from Three Valleys Municipal Water District (TVMWD) and/or Covina Irrigating Company. The imported water supply was based on 1,916 AFY from TVMWD.

Item #1. Page 3
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 6
Staff Report Page 4 of 6
c. Energy Supply: Southern California Edison (SCE) and Azusa Light and Water provide power to the booster pump stations and wells.
d. Debt Service: The City’s existing water fund debt service includes the 2012 Series A CSCDA Revenue Bonds, 2016 Series A Water Revenue Bond, and 2019 Pension Obligation Series A Bond. The proposed rate structure also includes the issuance of a new bond totaling $15M, which will fund part of the future CIP.
e. Historical Water Fund Expenditures: The remaining water expenditures were based on historical Water Fund expenditures and include: Water Administration, Water Customer Service, Support, Transmission and Distribution, Production, and Water Conservation. f. Capital Improvement Program: The rate structure is based on $30M of improvement projects being implemented over the next five years. The improvement project cost estimates are based on 2023 projections and were increased by the CPI for the next five years. $15M of the projects are planned to be funded through future bond issuance, and $15M are planned to be funded through revenue generated from the consumption charges.

Proposed Rate Structure
The updated revenue model was used to project revenues using various rate structures. The scenarios evaluated included: various consumption tiers, various CIP project implementation schedules, elevation charges for operation and maintenance expenses for customers in hydraulic zones at higher elevations; and different rates for customers with very high-water consumption. The proposed bi-monthly rate structure was developed to be fair and equitable and to encourage water conservation. The proposed rate structure includes the following:
a. Meter Connection Charge is a fixed charge based on the equivalent residential units (ERUs).

ERUs represent the average water usage by a single-family residential dwelling unit (customers with 5/8-inch and 3/4-inch meters). Customers with larger meter sizes were assigned ERUs reflecting the ratio of the average water usage by meter size to that of average usage for customers with 5/8-inch and 3/4-inch meters. The revenue generated for the meter connection charge was developed to fund the fixed expenditures, existing and future debt service, and 50% of the operation and maintenance related expenditures. The proposed bi-monthly Meter Connection Charges are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Bi-Monthly Meter Connection Charge
Meter Size Current Rate
Proposed
2024
Proposed
2025
Proposed
2026
Proposed
2027
Proposed
2027
5/8 & 3/4 inch $88.57 $85.38 $87.94 $90.58 $93.30 $96.10 1 inch $115.14 $134.23 $138.26 $142.40 $146.68 $151.08

1.5 inch $191.20 $257.07 $264.78 $272.73 $280.91 $289.33 2 inch $274.57 $413.67 $426.08 $438.86 $452.03 $465.09
3 inch $407.43 $984.31 $1,013.84 $1,044.25 $1,075.58 $1,107.85 4 inch $620.04 $984.31 $1,013.84 $1,044.25 $1,075.58 $1,107.85 6 inch $1,080.63 $2,160.61 $2,225.43 $2,292.19 $2,360.96 $2,431.79 8 inch $1,523.49 $2,160.61 $2,225.43 $2,292.19 $2,360.96 $2,431.79 b. Consumption Rates are based on the amount of water used and the cost of energy to pump water to higher elevations.

The proposed rate structure includes four (4) consumption tiers to promote water conservation. The estimated revenue will fund the expenditures for groundwater, purchased water, production, water conservation, and 50% of the capital improvement projects. The consumption thresholds between each tier were based on the SB1668 indoor water use goal, minimum month consumption by meter size, and the existing rate structure’s Baseline Allocation Threshold Units. The proposed consumption thresholds are summarized in Table 2.

Item #1. Page 4
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 7
Staff Report Page 5 of 6
Elevation Rates are broken up by four (4) zone classes, which were established as part of this study to assign the costs fairly and equitably. Each Zone consists of the following hydraulic zones:

Zone A: 1, 1RB, 1RA
Zone B: 2, 1A, 1B
Zone C: 3, 1BH1, 2H1, 2H2
The energy expenditures that are required to pump water to the higher zone classes and 50% of the operation and maintenance expenditures are expected to be funded through the elevation rates. The development of the elevation rates included the evaluation of historical energy expenditures by zone class, operation and maintenance expenditures, and consumption data by zone class.

The cost per CCF for water and energy is summarized in Table 3.

Table 2: Bi-Monthly Consumption Tiers (CCF)

CURRENT PROPOSED
Meter Size Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
5/8 & 3/4 inch 1 - 38 39+ 1 - 12 13 - 38 39 - 76 77+
1 inch 1 - 67 68+ 1 - 18 19 - 67 68 - 134 135+

1.5 inch 1 - 134 135+ 1 - 42 43 - 134 135 - 268 269+
2 inch 1 - 220 221+ 1 - 64 65 - 220 221 - 440 441+
3 inch 1 - 838 839+ 1 - 181 182 - 419 420 - 838 839+
4 inch 1 - 1,316 1,317+ 1 - 181 182 - 658 659 - 1,316 1,317+ 6 & 8 inch 1 - 4,682 4,683+ 1 - 328 329 - 2,341 2,342 - 4, 682 4,683+ Table 3: Consumption Rates for Water & Elevation (CCF)

CURRENT PROPOSED
Zone Tier 1 Tier 2 Elevation Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Elevation A $2.98 $4.90 $0.24 $1.75 $2.68 $3.61 $4.54 0.22
B - - $0.36 - - - - $1.02
C - - $0.58 - - - - $2.06
D - - $1.41 - - - - $3.41
Table 4 below provides for the total cost per unit of water used in each zone. The amount per unit of water used is calculated by adding the water cost and the elevation cost as provided in the tables above.

Table 4: Total Consumption Rates for 5/8 & 3/4 inch meter (Tier + Elevation)

CURRENT PROPOSED
Zone Tier 1 (0-38) Tier 2 (39+) Tier 1 (0-12) Tier 2 (13-38) Tier 3 (39-76) Tier 4 (77+) A 3.22 5.14 $1.97 $2.90 $3.83 $4.76
B 3.34 5.26 $2.77 $3.70 $4.63 $5.56
C 3.56 5.48 $3.81 $4.74 $5.67 $6.60
D 4.39 6.31 $5.16 $6.09 $7.02 $7.95
Water bills are calculated by adding the Meter Charge and calculating the amount of water used based on the cost per unit. For example, the bill for a single-family residence located in Zone A with a 3/4 inch meter who used 45 units of water over two months, would be calculated at the proposed rate as follows:

Meter Charge Zone A
Tier 1 (0-12)
Zone A
Tier 2 (13-38)
Zone A
Tier 3 (39-45)
Total
Bi-Monthly
$85.38 + (12*$1.97) + (26*$2.90) + (7*$3.83) + $211.23
Item #1. Page 5
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 8
Staff Report Page 6 of 6
Master Fee Schedule
In June 2021, the City last updated the Master Fee Schedule, per City Resolution CC-2021-33. The City currently has 29 master fees to recover the cost of the services provided. The proposed master fee schedule is based on the estimated cost of service and includes 46 fees from 11 fee categories. The recommended fees were developed from the projected time to provide the services and the City’s staff hourly rates. Meters, meter boxes, locks, and other material fees were based on actual costs. All fees are projected to be increased by the CPI, for each fiscal year. The proposed master fee schedule is included in Attachment B.

Next Steps and Timeline
If the City Council and the Water Commission are in agreement with the proposed adjustments to the water rate, the next steps would be to direct staff to begin the process of implementing the water rate plan.

The tentative timeline would be:

End of September - Mail out Proposition 218 Notices
October 2023 - Conduct Community Workshops as necessary November 2023 - Conduct Public Hearing to adopt proposed water rates January 1, 2024 - New water rates to go into effect.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed rate structure included $30M in CIP projects that are to be implemented over the next five years. The updated revenue model was used to calculate the average bills for each customer using the existing and proposed rate structures.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This activity is not a “project” as defined by Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code or Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Prepared By Chisom Gregory Obegolu, Assistant PW Director - Water Concurs With Not Applicable
Reviewed By Moises Alvarez Lopez, Deputy City Manager
Certified to Availability of Funds Marie Ricci, Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer Approved By Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review Not Applicable
CEQA Review Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Presentation - Water Rate Study Update
B. Water Master Plan – 2023
Item #1. Page 6
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 9
Water Infrastructure Assessment and
Rate Study
Public Works
City Council
September 12, 2023
Chisom Obegolu, Assistant Public Works Director
Marie Ricci, Administrative Services Director
CityOfGlendora.org
Item #1. Page 7
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 10
2 Discussion Agenda
- Existing System Assessment
- Proposed Water Rate Adjustments
- Customer Impact
- Next Steps
Item #1. Page 8
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 11
3 Rate Study Goals and Objectives
- Fair and equitable
- Fund CIP and O&M
- Defensible
- Revenue stability and predictability
- Affordability
- Promote Water Conservation
Item #1. Page 9
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 12
4 Legislative History and Previous Actions
- November 1996: State adoption of Prop 218
- July 2016: Last rate study and adoption by Glendora
- May 2018: State adoption of AB 1668 / SB 606 – Water Conservation - January 2021: Last water rate adjustment
- April 2023: Completion of Water Infrastructure Assessment Item #1. Page 10
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 13
5 Glendora’s Water System
Ø Service Area: 11 Sq. Miles
Ø Population of 45,551
Ø 13,500 Customer Meters
Water System
Ø 210 miles of water mains
Ø 8 Active wells
Ø 29 Reservoirs
Ø 20 Booster Stations
Ø 2 Disinfection Plants
Item #1. Page 11
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 14
6 Glendora’s Water Supply
• 90-95% local groundwater from the Main San Gabriel Basin Ø Pumping rights
Ø Basin El: 227.4 ft as of September 1, 2023
Ø 43 ft increase from last year or 344,000 Acre-feet of water (1 AF = 326,000 gals)
• 5-10% imported from Metropolitan Water District (“MWD”) • Western states water supplies challenged by prolonged drought Item #1. Page 12
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 15
7 Existing Pressure Zones – 17 Zone Classes Item #1. Page 13 Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 16
8 Proposed Pressure Zones – 4 Primary Zone Classes Item #1. Page 14 Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 17
9 Item #1. Page 15
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 18
10 Total Facilities by Zone Class Item #1. Page 16
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 19
11 Water Master Plan- CIP Components
Total Proposed CIP: $350M
Item #1. Page 17
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 20
12 Pipeline Replacement Program ($183M)
As of June 30, 2023
National avg for pipe break per 100 miles of pipe per year = 18 - 27 (AWWA) Glendora avg: 42-54 Pipe breaks
Item #1. Page 18
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 21
13 Proposed Pipeline Replacement Projects (Years 1 - 5)Item #1. Page 19 Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 22
14 Vertical Facility Condition Assessment ($158M)
North Glendora Reservoir
North Grand Pump Station
Well 12
Item #1. Page 20
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 23
15 Hydraulic Improvement ($9M)
- 17 Hydrant Installations
- 2.31 miles of pipeline improvements
- Recommended 11 independent assessments
Ø Need for increases reservoir storage
Ø Need for additional pump capacities
Upper Gordon Reservoir A
Detailed hydraulic Study recommended
Item #1. Page 21
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 24
16 Water Rate Adjustments
Item #1. Page 22
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 25
•Water Charges
• Purchased Water
• Energy
•Operations & Maintenance
• Replenish/Import Water
• Energy
• Debt Service
• Capital Improvement
17 Water Fund Budget FY 2024
Revenues Expenditures Loss
$23,177,875 $26,207,459 ($3,029,584)
• Reserves are used to balance
the budget
Item #1. Page 23
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 26
18 Water Fund Budget Detail
Expenditures Amount
Operations & Maintenance $15,274,287
Replenish/Import Water $3,648,950
Energy $1,700,000
Debt Service $2,584,222
Capital Projects $3,000,000
Total Expenditures $26,207,459
Revenues Amount
Water Charges $15,274,287
Replenish/Import Water $3,648,950
Energy $1,700,000
Total Revenues $23,177,875
Item #1. Page 24
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 27
How a dollar is spent
19 Item #1. Page 25
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 28
20 Water Fund Balance (Reserves) Item #1. Page 26
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 29
21 Elements of the Water Rate
Consumption Charge
($/ccf)
Volumetric charge that covers
water delivered and portions of the
CIP and O&M
Elevation Charge
($/ccf)
Volumetric charge that covers
energy
Meter Connection Charge
($/Bi-Month)
Fixed charge that covers meter
maintenance and customer
service, portions of debt service,
salaries, and benefits
Item #1. Page 27
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 30
22 Consumption Tiers Item #1. Page 28
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 31
23 Consumption Rates Item #1. Page 29
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 32
24 Elevation Charges
All Meter Sizes
Item #1. Page 30
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 33
25 Proposed Water Rates
5/8” & 3/4” Customer in Zone Class A
Item #1. Page 31
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 34
26 What is a “Billing Unit”
- 748 Gallons
Item #1. Page 32
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 35
27 Meter Connection Rates
All Zone Classes
Item #1. Page 33
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 36
28 Next Steps
Council
Workshop NO.1
Sept 2023
Proposition 218
Notice mailed
Oct 2023
Community
Workshop
(Oct 2023)
Public Hearing
(Nov 2024)
Implementation
(Jan 2024)
Item #1. Page 34
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 37
29 Recommendations
1) Adopt the Water Master Plan,
2) Provide direction for the consideration of water rates and fees Item #1. Page 35
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 38
Item #1. Page 36
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 39

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Submitted to:

City of Glendora
116 E. Foothill Boulevard
Glendora, California 91741
Submitted by:

AKM Consulting Engineers
553 Wald
Irvine, California 92618
(949) 753-7333
April 2023
Date of Signing: 04/18/23 Date of Signing: 04/18/23

Date of Signing: 04/18/23 Date of Signing: 04/18/23
Item #1. Page 37
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 40
CITY OF GLENDORA A-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan

ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Explanation
Ac, ac Acre
ADD Average Day Demand
ADU Accessory Dwelling Units
AF Acre-Foot or Acre Feet
AFY Acre Feet per Year
AI-ML Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning
AMI Advanced Metering Instrumentation
amsl Above Mean Sea Level
AWWA American Water Works Association
BPS Booster Pump Station
CC&R Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions
ccf Hundred Cubic Feet
cfs Cubic Feet per Second
CIC Covina Irrigating Company
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Glendora
CoF Consequence of Failure
Const. Construction
County Los Angeles County
CRA Colorado River Aqueduct
CVP Central Valley Project
DDW Department of Drinking Water
Dia Diameter
DU, du Dwelling Unit
DWR State of California, Department of Water Resources
ENR Engineering News Record
ENRLA Index for the Los Angeles area
ft Feet
ft/s; fps Feet per Second
ft3 Cubic Feet
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information System
gpcd, GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day
gpd, GPD Gallons per Day
gpm Gallons per Minute
GWGP Groundwater Grant Program
HGL Hydraulic Grade Line
HOA Home Owners Associations
HP Horsepower
Item #1. Page 38
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 41

ABBREVIATIONS
CITY OF GLENDORA A-2 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan

ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Explanation
HWL High Water Level
HWU High Water User
ID Identification
in Inch
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
JADU Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
Key Well Baldwin Park Key Well
KWB Kern Water Bank
LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District
LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District
LoF Likelihood of Failure
LRP Local Resources Program
Main Basin Main San Gabriel Basin
Max Maximum
MBR Membrane Bioreactors
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MDD Maximum Day Demand
Mfg Manufacturer
MG Million Gallons
mg/l Milligrams per Liter
mgd, MGD Million Gallons per Day
Min Minimum
mm Millimeter
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NA Not Applicable
OSY Operating Safe Yield
PDR Preliminary Design Report
PHD Peak Hour Demand
PoF Probability of Failure
PRS Pressure Regulating Station
Pure Water Pure Water Southern California
psi Pounds per Square Inch
RTS Readiness-to-Serve
Saas Software as a Service
SB Senate Bill
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCWC Southern California Water Coalition
SCWP Safe Clean Water Program
SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority
Item #1. Page 39
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 42

ABBREVIATIONS
CITY OF GLENDORA A-3 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan

ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Explanation
SGVMWD San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water Districct
SJV Basin San Joaquin Valley's Groundwater Basin
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWSD Semitropic Water Storage District
TBL Triple Bottom Line
TDH Total Dynamic Head
TIGER Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing TVMWD Three Valley's Municipal Water District
USGVMWD Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District UNK, unk Unknown
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
Water Master Main San Gabriel Basin Water Master
WMP Water Master Plan
WSAP Water Supply Allocation Plan
WSCP Water Shortage Contigency Plan
Item #1. Page 40
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 43
CITY OF GLENDORA TOC-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary
ES-1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................ES-1 ES-2 Water Service Area ...................................................................................................ES-1 ES-3 Water Supply Analysis ..............................................................................................ES-1 ES-4 Water Use .................................................................................................................ES-5 ES-5 Existing System.........................................................................................................ES-7 ES-6 Performance Evaluation Criteria..............................................................................ES-10 ES-7 Hydraulic Model ......................................................................................................ES-12 ES-8 Model Calibration ....................................................................................................ES-13 ES-9 System Hydraulic Analysis ......................................................................................ES-13 ES-10 Pipe Replacement Program ....................................................................................ES-16 ES-11 Facility Assessments...............................................................................................ES-19 ES-12 Capital Improvement Program.................................................................................ES-19 Section 1 - Introduction
1-1 Purpose........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1-2 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................. 1-1 1-3 Scope of Work................................................................................................................. 1-1 1-4 Organization of Report .................................................................................................... 1-2 1-5 Hydraulic Zoning Nomenclature Modifications................................................................. 1-2 1-6 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 1-3 Section 2 – Water Service Area
2-1 Location .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2-2 Topography and Geology................................................................................................ 2-1 2-3 Climate............................................................................................................................ 2-4 2-4 Land Use......................................................................................................................... 2-4 2-5 Population....................................................................................................................... 2-8 Section 3 – Water Supply Analysis
3-1 Water Supply Sources..................................................................................................... 3-1 3-1.1 Groundwater........................................................................................................ 3-1 3-1.2 Imported Water.................................................................................................... 3-1 3-1.3 Covina Irrigating Company .................................................................................. 3-2 Item #1. Page 41
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 44

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF GLENDORA TOC-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
3-2 Existing Groundwater Rights........................................................................................... 3-2 3-2.1 Judgements......................................................................................................... 3-2 3-2.2 Operating Safe Yields and Water Rights.............................................................. 3-3 3-2.3 Assessments ....................................................................................................... 3-4 3-3 San Gabriel Basin Hydrogeologic Conditions .................................................................. 3-5 3-3.1 Basin Characteristics........................................................................................... 3-5 3-3.2 Sub-Basins .......................................................................................................... 3-5 3-3.3 Flow Characteristics ............................................................................................ 3-6 3-3.4 Storage................................................................................................................ 3-6 3-3.5 Main Basin Replenishment .................................................................................. 3-6 3-4 Potential Local Groundwater Supply Development.......................................................... 3-8 3-4.1 Irwindale Facility – Well 3 and Well 4 Groundwater Development........................ 3-9 3-4.2 New Groundwater Wells .................................................................................... 3-13 3-4.2.1 Maximize Groundwater Pumping Rights ................................................ 3-14 3-4.2.2 Pump 100% of Demands with Groundwater .......................................... 3-14 3-5 Future Groundwater and Imported Water Availability .................................................... 3-15 3-5.1 Groundwater...................................................................................................... 3-15 3-5.1.1 Main Basin Conditions ........................................................................... 3-15 3-5.1.2 Cyclic Storage and Conjunctive Use Agreements.................................. 3-16 3-5.1.3 MWD Untreated Water Availability ........................................................ 3-17 3-6 Potential for Recharge Using Recycled Water and Stormwater Capture ....................... 3-21 3-6.1 Recycled Water ................................................................................................. 3-21 3-6.1.1 Direct Water Recycling ......................................................................... 3-21 3-6.1.2 Regional Recycled Water Recharge ..................................................... 3-22 3-6.2 Stormwater........................................................................................................ 3-22 3-7 Water Banking............................................................................................................... 3-26 3-8 Water Conservation and Rationing................................................................................ 3-27 3-8.1 Water Conservation........................................................................................... 3-27 3-8.2 Water Rationing................................................................................................. 3-30 3-9 Main Basin Water Rights Purchases ............................................................................. 3-30 3-10 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 3-32 3-10.1 Construct Groundwater Wells ............................................................................ 3-32 3-10.2 Support Groundwater Projects that Increase Main Basin Operating Safe Yield.......................................................................................... 3-32 3-10.3 Maximize Cyclic Storage to Offset Imported Water Costs.................................. 3-32 Item #1. Page 42
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 45

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF GLENDORA TOC-2 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
3-10.4 Conduct Updated Study of Well 3, Well 4, and Well 7 ........................................ 3-32 3-10.5 Continue Implementing Water Conservation Measures to Reduce Water Demands................................................................................ 3-32 3-10.6 Pursue the Purchase of Additional Main Basin Groundwater Rights .................. 3-33 3-10.7 Actively Participate in TVMWD and Main Basin Water Policy Decisions ............ 3-33 Section 4 – Water Use
4-1 Historical Annual Water Use............................................................................................ 4-1 4-2 Non-Revenue Water ....................................................................................................... 4-3 4-3 Water Demand Variations ............................................................................................... 4-3 4-3.1 Monthly Demand Variations................................................................................. 4-3 4-3.2 Daily Demand Variations ..................................................................................... 4-5 4-3.3 Hourly Demand Variations................................................................................... 4-5 4-4 Existing System Demands and Peaking Factors ............................................................. 4-6 4-5 Water Unit Demand Factors............................................................................................ 4-8 4-6 Future Demands ............................................................................................................. 4-9 4-6.1 Future Development Demands ............................................................................ 4-9 4-6.2 Reduction in Indoor Water Use.......................................................................... 4-11 4-6.3 Accessory Dwelling Units................................................................................... 4-12 4-7 Water Conservation ...................................................................................................... 4-13 Section 5 – Existing System
5-1 General ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 5-2 Pressure Zones ............................................................................................................... 5-1 5-3 Transmission and Distribution System ............................................................................ 5-1 5-4 Wells ............................................................................................................................ 5-5 5-5 Storage Reservoirs and Hydropneumatic Tanks ............................................................. 5-5 5-6 Booster Pump Stations.................................................................................................... 5-5 5-7 Pressure Regulating Stations ........................................................................................ 5-13 5-8 Imported Water Connections......................................................................................... 5-13 5-9 Emergency Connections ............................................................................................... 5-13 Section 6 – Performance Evaluation Criteria
6-1 General ........................................................................................................................... 6-1 6-2 Source of Supply............................................................................................................. 6-3 6-3 Storage
6-3.1 Operational Storage............................................................................................. 6-3 6-3.2 Emergency Storage............................................................................................. 6-5 6-3.3 Fire Suppression Storage .................................................................................... 6-5 Item #1. Page 43
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 46

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF GLENDORA TOC-3 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
6-4 Wells ............................................................................................................................ 6-5 6-5 Booster Pump Stations.................................................................................................... 6-6 6-6 System Pressures ........................................................................................................... 6-6 6-7 Transmission and Distribution System Pipelines ............................................................. 6-7 6-8 Fire Suppression............................................................................................................. 6-7 6-9 Service Life of Facilities................................................................................................... 6-9 Section 7 – Hydraulic Model
7-1 General ........................................................................................................................... 7-1 7-2 Demand Distribution........................................................................................................ 7-1 7-2.1 Existing Demands................................................................................................ 7-1 7-2.2 Future Demands.................................................................................................. 7-2 7-3 Diurnal Curves ................................................................................................................ 7-2 7-4 Model Scenarios ............................................................................................................. 7-2 7-5 Facility Model Characteristics and Control Settings......................................................... 7-4 7-5.1 Storage Reservoirs.............................................................................................. 7-4 7-5.2 Wells ................................................................................................................... 7-4 7-5.3 Booster Pump Stations ........................................................................................ 7-4 7-5.4 Imported Water Connections ............................................................................... 7-9 7-6 Friction Factors ............................................................................................................... 7-9 Section 8 – Model Calibration
8-1 General ........................................................................................................................... 8-1 8-2 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Data ............................................... 8-1 8-3 Field Collected Data........................................................................................................ 8-1 8-4 Calibration Period............................................................................................................ 8-3 8-5 Demand Allocation .......................................................................................................... 8-3 8-6 Zonal Diurnal Curves....................................................................................................... 8-3 8-7 Wells ............................................................................................................................ 8-5 8-8 Imported Water Connections........................................................................................... 8-6 8-9 Booster Pump Stations.................................................................................................... 8-6 8-10 Reservoirs....................................................................................................................... 8-7 8-10.1 Country Club Reservoir Levels ............................................................................ 8-7 8-10.2 Glencoe Reservoir Levels.................................................................................. 8-11 8-10.3 Reservoir Levels of Small Upper Zones............................................................. 8-11 8-10.4 San Gabriel Reservoir Levels ........................................................................... 8-11 8-11 System Pressures ......................................................................................................... 8-12 8-12 Fire Hydrant Testing...................................................................................................... 8-14 Item #1. Page 44
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 47

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF GLENDORA TOC-4 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Section 9 – System Hydraulic Analysis
9-1 General ........................................................................................................................... 9-1 9-2 Source of Supply ............................................................................................................. 9-1 9-3 Storage ........................................................................................................................... 9-2 9-3.1 Operational Storage Criteria ................................................................................ 9-2 9-3.2 Emergency Storage Criteria................................................................................. 9-2 9-3.3 Fire Suppression Storage .................................................................................... 9-2 9-3.4 Storage Analysis.................................................................................................. 9-2 9-4 Pumping and Supply Analysis by Hydraulic Zone ............................................................ 9-4 9-5 System Pressures and Velocities .................................................................................... 9-6 9-5.1 System Pressures ............................................................................................... 9-6 9-5.2 System Velocities ................................................................................................ 9-6 9-6 Fire Flow Analysis ........................................................................................................... 9-9 9-7 Additional Hydraulic Improvement Recommendations..................................................... 9-9 9-8 Water Age Analysis....................................................................................................... 9-16 Section 10 – Pipe Replacement Program
10-1 General ........................................................................................................................10-1 10-2 Risk Assessment...........................................................................................................10-1 10-3 Likelihood of Failure ......................................................................................................10-2 10-3.1 Pipe Asset Data................................................................................................. 10-2 10-3.2 Global Data .......................................................................................................10-2 10-3.3 Pipe Break Data ................................................................................................10-2 10-3.4 LoF Module Training..........................................................................................10-2 10-3.5 Likelihood of Failure Results..............................................................................10-5 10-4 Consequence of Failure ................................................................................................10-7 10-4.1 Economic CoF Factors ......................................................................................10-7 10-4.2 Social CoF Factors ............................................................................................10-8 10-4.3 Environmental CoF Factors ...............................................................................10-8 10-5 Risk ..........................................................................................................................10-8 10-6 City Pipe Concerns .......................................................................................................10-9 10-7 Critical Facilities ............................................................................................................10-9 10-8 Pipe Priorities................................................................................................................10-9 10-9 Project Recommendations ..........................................................................................10-13 10-9.1 Recommended Improvement Costs................................................................. 10-13 10-9.2 Project Development .......................................................................................10-13 Item #1. Page 45
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 48

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF GLENDORA TOC-5 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Section 11 – Facility Assessments
11-1 General .........................................................................................................................11-1 11-2 Wells ..........................................................................................................................11-1 11-3 Storage Reservoirs and Hydropneumatic Tanks ...........................................................11-2 11-4 Booster Pump Stations..................................................................................................11-3 11-4.1 Hydraulic Studies...............................................................................................11-3 11-5 Water Yard Facilities .....................................................................................................11-5 11-6 San Gabriel Yard...........................................................................................................11-6 11-7 General Water System Improvement Recommendations ..............................................11-6 11-8 Project Priorities............................................................................................................11-6 Section 12 – Capital Improvement Program
12-1 General .........................................................................................................................12-1 12-2 Project Cost Estimates..................................................................................................12-1 12-2.1 Pipeline Replacement Cost Estimates ...............................................................12-1 12-2.2 Facility Improvement Costs................................................................................12-2 12-3 Project Priorities............................................................................................................12-2 12-4 Capital Improvement Program Summary.......................................................................12-3 12-5 Irwindale Facility............................................................................................................12-3 12-6 Short Term Capital Improvement Projects.....................................................................12-3 APPENDIX – Located on flash drive attached to report
Appendix 8-1 – Well Flows during Calibration Period
Appendix 8-2 – Booster Pump Station Data during Calibration Period Appendix 8-3 – Reservoir Data during Calibration Period Appendix 8-4 – Pressure Data during Calibration Period
Appendix 10-1 – Pipeline Replacement Project Summary Table (Excel file) Appendix 11-1 – Facility Assessments (Multiple files)
Appendix 11-2 – Facility Improvements by Priority Table (Excel file)

FIGURE PAGE
Figure ES-1 Water Utilities Service Area Map ............................................................................ES-2 Figure ES-2 Annual Water Production and Purchase................................................................. ES-3 Figure ES-3 Diurnal Demand Curves .........................................................................................ES-6 Figure ES-4 Existing System ......................................................................................................ES-8 Figure ES-5 Existing Hydraulic Schematic New Zone IDs ..........................................................ES-9 Figure ES-6 Pipe Break History................................................................................................ES-17 Item #1. Page 46
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 49

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF GLENDORA TOC-6 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 1-1 Existing Hydraulic Schematic Old Zone IDs ............................................................... 1-6 Figure 1-2 Existing Hydraulic Schematic New Zone Ds .............................................................. 1-6 Figure 1-3 Future Hydraulic Schematic New Zone IDs ............................................................... 1-7 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map.............................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Water Utilities Service Area Map ............................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Rainfall Data – Glendora City Hall Station 287B........................................................ 2-4 Figure 2-4 Existing Landuse ....................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-5 Future Known Development Areas............................................................................ 2-7 Figure 3-1 Annual Water Production and Purchase.................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2 San Gabriel Main Basin............................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-3 Main Basin Groundwater Flow................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-4 Baldwin Park Key Well Elevations ............................................................................. 3-8 Figure 3-5 MWD Pure Water Program...................................................................................... 3-12 Figure 3-6 Main Basin Historical Runoff.................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-7 Historical Water Demand Trends............................................................................. 3-16 Figure 3-8 Example Recycled Scalping System and Customers............................................... 3-23 Figure 3-9 SCWP Unit Cost by Amount of Stormwater Captured.............................................. 3-24 Figure 4-1 Annual Water Production and Purchase.................................................................... 4-1 Figure 4-2 Monthly Demand Factors (2012-2021) ...................................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-3 Diurnal Demand Curves ............................................................................................ 4-6 Figure 5-1 Existing System......................................................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2 Existing Hydraulic Schematic with New Zone IDs...................................................... 5-3 Figure 5-3 Length of Pipe by Size............................................................................................... 5-4 Figure 5-4 Length of Pipe by Material......................................................................................... 5-4 Figure 5-5 Length of Pipe by Date of Construction ..................................................................... 5-5 Figure 6-1 Maximum Day Supply and Demands ......................................................................... 6-4 Figure 8-1 Pressure Data Logger Locations ............................................................................... 8-2 Figure 8-2 Diurnal Demand Curves ............................................................................................ 8-4 Figure 8-3 Country Club Reservoir A .......................................................................................... 8-7 Figure 8-4 Country Club Reservoir B .......................................................................................... 8-8 Figure 8-5 Country Club B23 ...................................................................................................... 8-8 Figure 8-6 County Club B36 ....................................................................................................... 8-9 Figure 8-7 Hidden Springs Reservoir A .................................................................................... 8-10 Figure 8-8 Hidden Springs Reservoir B ................................................................................... 8-10 Figure 8-9 San Gabriel Reservoir ............................................................................................. 8-12 Figure 8-10 Fire Flow Test Locations ......................................................................................... 8-15 Item #1. Page 47
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 50

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF GLENDORA TOC-7 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 9-1 Existing Minimum Demand, Maximum Pressures...................................................... 9-7 Figure 9-2 Existing Maximum Demand, Maximum Velocities...................................................... 9-8 Figure 9-3 Initial Fire Flow Analysis, Residual Pressures.......................................................... 9-10 Figure 9-4 Water Age ............................................................................................................... 9-18 Figure 10-1 Pipe Break Locations ...............................................................................................10-3 Figure 10-2 Pipe Break History...................................................................................................10-4 Figure 10-3 Likelihood of Failure Scores ....................................................................................10-6 Figure 10-4 Consequence of Failure Analysis Factors................................................................10-7 Figure 10-5 Total Risk Results ................................................................................................. 10-10 Figure 10-6 City Pipe Concern Locations .................................................................................10-11 Figure 10-7 Critical Facility Locations .......................................................................................10-12 PLATE – 36”x24” Figures located in back of report
Plate 9-1 Existing Hydraulic Improvement Locations
Plate 10-1 Pipe Replacement Program Priorities
Plate 10-2 Pipe Replacement Project Locations

TABLE PAGE
Table ES-1 Water System Demands and Peaking Factors .......................................................ES-7 Table ES-2 Performance Evaluation Criteria...........................................................................ES-11 Table ES-3 Groundwater Supply.............................................................................................ES-14 Table ES-4 Imported Water Connection Capacities ................................................................ES-14 Table 1-1 Zone Identification Modifications................................................................................ 1-4 Table 2-1 Future Developments ................................................................................................ 2-5 Table 2-2 City of Glendora Population....................................................................................... 2-8 Table 3-1 Historical Operating Safe Yield.................................................................................. 3-4 Table 3-2 Main Basin Assessments .......................................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-3 Irwindale Facility Cost Estimate without Well 7........................................................ 3-10 Table 3-4 Irwindale Facility Cost Estimate with Well 7............................................................. 3-11 Table 3-5 Pumping Costs above Adjudicated Water Right ...................................................... 3-14 Table 3-6 State Water Project Historical Table A Allocations Water Years 1996-2023 .......................................................................................... 3-18 Table 3-7 MWD IRP Forecasted Demands.............................................................................. 3-21 Table 3-8 10-Year Main Basin Replenishment Supplies.......................................................... 3-21 Table 3-9 Proposed City Stormwater Capture Projects ........................................................... 3-25 Table 3-10 SBX7-7 Target and Performance............................................................................. 3-27 Item #1. Page 48
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 51

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF GLENDORA TOC-8 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 3-11 Cost of Alternative Water Supply and Efficiency Options in California (Residential)............................................................................................................ 3-28 Table 3-12 Cost of Alternative water Supply and Efficiency Options in California (Non-Residential) .................................................................................................... 3-29 Table 3-13 Largest Main Basin Groundwater Rights Users ....................................................... 3-31 Table 4-1 Annual Water Production and Purchase.................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2 Non-Revenue Water.................................................................................................. 4-3 Table 4-3 Monthly Water Production and Demand Factors (2012-2021) ................................... 4-4 Table 4-4 Water System Demands and Peaking Factors .......................................................... 4-7 Table 4-5 Existing Water Demands by Zone ............................................................................. 4-8 Table 4-6 Water Unit Demand Factors ...................................................................................... 4-9 Table 4-7 Future Development Demands................................................................................ 4-10 Table 4-8 Future Water Demands by Zone.............................................................................. 4-11 Table 5-1 Water Meter Type...................................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2 Pressure Zones......................................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-3 Wells ......................................................................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-4 Storage Reservoirs.................................................................................................... 5-7 Table 5-5 Booster Pump Stations............................................................................................ 5-10 Table 5-6 Pressure Regulating Stations .................................................................................. 5-13 Table 5-7 Imported Water Connections ................................................................................... 5-13 Table 5-8 Emergency Connections ......................................................................................... 5-13 Table 6-1 Performance Evaluation Criteria................................................................................ 6-1 Table 6-2 Fire Flow and Fire Hydrant Location Criteria ............................................................. 6-7 Table 6-3 Minimum Required Fire Flow and Flow Duration for Buildings................................... 6-8 Table 6-4 Planning Criteria for Facility Useful Life ..................................................................... 6-9 Table 7-1 Existing Model Scenarios and Data Sets................................................................... 7-3 Table 7-2 Future Model Scenarios and Data Sets ..................................................................... 7-3 Table 7-3 Storage Reservoir Characteristics ............................................................................. 7-5 Table 7-4 Well Pump Control Settings....................................................................................... 7-6 Table 7-5 Booster Pump Station Sequencing Controls.............................................................. 7-7 Table 7-6 Imported Water Connection Controls......................................................................... 7-9 Table 7-7 Pipe Roughness Coefficients..................................................................................... 7-9 Table 8-1 High Water Users ...................................................................................................... 8-5 Table 8-2 Pressure Data Comparison ..................................................................................... 8-12 Table 8-3 Fire Hydrant Test Results........................................................................................ 8-16 Table 9-1 Groundwater Supply.................................................................................................. 9-1 Item #1. Page 49
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 52

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF GLENDORA TOC-9 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 9-2 Imported Water Connection Capacities ..................................................................... 9-1 Table 9-3 Storage Analysis ....................................................................................................... 9-3 Table 9-4 Pumping and Supply Analysis by Zone ..................................................................... 9-5 Table 9-5 System Pressures ..................................................................................................... 9-6 Table 9-6 Fire Flow Improvement Recommendations ............................................................. 9-11 Table 9-7 Additional Hydraulic Improvement Recommendations............................................. 9-15 Table 9-8 Water Age Scenario Model Results ......................................................................... 9-16 Table 10-1 Likelihood of Failure Score Summary .....................................................................10-5 Table 10-2 Pipe Sleeve Repair Clamp Cost by Diameter ..........................................................10-8 Table 10-3 Traffic Disruption Costs ...........................................................................................10-8 Table 10-4 Dechlorination Chemical Costs................................................................................10-8 Table 10-5 Total Risk Summary Table ......................................................................................10-9 Table 10-6 Pipe Replacement Project Summary Table ...........................................................10-14 Table 11-1 Well Improvement Recommendations ..................................................................... 11-7 Table 11-2 Reservoir Improvement Recommendations.............................................................11-9 Table 11-3 Booster Pump Station Improvement Recommendations........................................11-13 Table 11-4 Miscellaneous Water Facility Improvement Recommendations .............................11-17 Item #1. Page 50
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 53
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan

SECTION ES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1 Introduction
The City of Glendora (City) provides potable water service to residential, commercial, industrial, public parks and schools. The City recognizes its responsibility to efficiently meet the customers’ needs with long range planning efforts. By reviewing its existing water system and future needs, the City can continue to maintain a high service level and reliability in its water system in a cost effective and fiscally responsible manner. This report is intended to update the domestic water analysis and to provide a comprehensive planning guide for improving and upgrading the City’s domestic water system through the year 2040.

ES-2 Water Service Area
The City’s water service area, shown on Figure ES-1, covers approximately 11 square miles, predominantly within the City of Glendora corporate boundaries. The southwesterly portion of the City, generally south of Foothill Boulevard and west of Grand Avenue is served water by the City of Azusa or Suburban Water Systems.

The service area is comprised of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses with most of the available flat land developed. The majority of the developed area consists of residential single-family homes. Currently, there are about 26 future developments/re-developments planned. Most are multifamily residential, mixed use developments, or medical/commercial building expansions (see Table 2-1).

ES-3 Water Supply Analysis
The City maintains a diverse water supply portfolio to be able to meet its regular and peak demands while ensuring all water quality requirements and regulations are met. The City’s water supply portfolio consists primarily of groundwater and is supplemented with imported water. The City’s annual water production and purchase for the past ten years is shown on Figure ES-2.

Groundwater
The City has 8 active wells with a total capacity of 9,254 gpm (14,927 AFY). The groundwater is extracted from the Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin) and associated sub-basins. The City currently has 6,178 acre-feet per year (4.75261 percent of the annual safe yield of the basin as determined by the Water Master) of prescribed groundwater rights as part of the 1973 Main Basin Adjudication. In 2021, the City pumped 8,447 acre-feet, which represents approximately 81% of its demands.

Details of the City’s groundwater rights are provided in Section 3-2, San Gabriel Basin hydrogeologic conditions in Section 3-3;
Item #1. Page 51
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 54
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
!(39
!(39
City of Glendora
Service Area City of Azusa
Service Area
Golden State
Water Company
Service Area
an Gabriel River
City of Covina
Service Area
Suburban
Water Systems
Service AreaCitrus Ave
Grand Ave
Glendora Ave
Loraine Ave
Live Oak Ave
Valley Center Ave
Lone Hill Ave
Amelia Ave
State Rte 66
Foothill Blvd
Sierra Madre Ave
Gladstone St
Glendora AveSunflower Ave
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Water Utilities Service Area Map
Figure ES-1
³
0 2,000 4,000 8,000
Feet
Legend
City of Glendora Boundary
Water Utility Service Area
City of Azusa
City of Covina
Golden State Water Company
Suburban Water Systems
City of Glendora
Item #1. Page 52
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 55

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-3 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure ES-2
Annual Water Production and Purchase
Imported Water
The City is a member agency of the Three Valley’s Municipal Water District (TVMWD). TVMWD is one of twenty-six-member agency wholesalers of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) that provides imported water to the Southern California region via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and the State Water Project (SWP) systems.

The City has three active turnout connections (PM-6, PM-18, and PM-23) that is fed from MWD’s Upper Feeder. PM-6, PM-18, and PM-23 have maximum capacities of 15 cfs, 10 cfs, and 15 cfs, respectively, for a total maximum capacity of 40 cfs (28,979 AFY). In 2021, the City used 1,975 acrefeet, which represents approximately 19% of its demands.

Covina Irrigating Company
The City owns a connection with the Covina Irrigating Company (CIC) with a maximum capacity of

Potential Local Groundwater Supply Development
The City’s existing average day water demands of 10,390 AFY closely approximate the current well field system production capacity (14,927 AFY per efficiency tests). With the increasing cost of imported water and increasing demands, it is advantageous for the City to maximize its groundwater pumping to meet the average day and peak season demands through enhanced groundwater pumping and evaluate other groundwater supply development options. 11,682 11,821 8,449 9,285 9,515 10,698 10,135 9,513
10,675
8,447
789
1,166
4,708
2 154
0 497
0 11
1,975
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
2012201320142015201620172018201920202021
Production and Purchase (AFY)
Fiscal Year
Imported Water
Groundwater
Item #1. Page 53
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 56

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-4 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
The City should consider Well 3, Well 4, and Well 7 (Vosburg) as potential future supply sources to provide redundancy and offset the cost of using treated imported water. The City is currently working with TVMWD on an updated study with the most current information. The updated study should be based on:
 Constructing two (2) new wells to replace the existing Well 3 and Well 4, which are over 100 years old.
 Abandonment of the existing Wells 3 and 4
 Constructing a new nitrate and perchlorate treatment plant based on the most current water quality data
 Constructing a new forebay reservoir
 Constructing a new booster pump station to pump the effluent to the San Gabriel Plant  Constructing a new discharge pipe to the San Gabriel Plant, utilizing rehabilitated portions of the existing Vosburg Well discharge pipe at the 210 Freeway crossing, as well as channel and railroad crossings. The existing 18-inch discharge line is abandoned due to its deteriorated condition and the Gladstone Reservoir has been demolished  Constructing a standby generator with an automatic transfer switch to operate the facility during commercial power outages
 Constructing a new well to replace Well 7 (Vosburg Well)  Abandonment of Well 7
 Constructing a new discharge pipe from the new Well 7 to the Irwindale Treatment Plant Cost estimates for the possible future well development and associated facilities are estimated at $85 Million without Well 7 (see Table 3-3) and $125 Million with Well 7 (see Table 3-4). Grant and loan options for the project are discussed in detail in Section 3-4.1.

Water Supply Reliability
Over the past several years, the Main Basin has experienced a reduction in groundwater levels due to decreased stormwater replenishment and longer lasting droughts. The Water Master estimates that local runoff used for groundwater replenishment has decreased over the last 10 years on average to about 55,000 acre-feet per year when compared to the historical 40-year average (years 1970 to 2010) of 111,000 acre-feet per year. In consideration of water supply reliability, cyclic storage and conjunctive use agreements are discussed Section 3-5.1.2; MWD untreated water availability is discussed in Section 3-5.1.3; recharge using recycled water and stormwater capture is discussed in Section 3-6; water banking is discussed in Section 3-7; water conservation and rationing is discussed in Section 3-8; and Main Basin water rights purchases is discussed in Section 3-9.

Recommendations
Water supply reliability is a critical component to the City’s future water portfolio. Managing all the integrated parts of this portfolio will establish the most cost-effective approach to ensuring reliable service to the customers. The following are recommendations for the City to consider in implementing the City’s future water supply portfolio:

1. Construction of additional groundwater wells
Item #1. Page 54
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 57

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-5 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan

2. Support of projects that increase the Main Basin OSY

3. Maximize the City’s cyclic storage account

4. Continue to consider replacing Well 3, Well 4, and Well 7 (Vosburg) as potential future supply source

5. Continue to work with its customers to ensure mandatory conservation restrictions are implemented and conservation rebates are readily available

6. Reach out to the non-municipal Main Basin Groundwater right holders to gage their interest in selling their groundwater rights.

7. Actively participate in TVMWD and Main Basin Water Policy decisions ES-5 Water Use
The City of Glendora’s total annual water production and purchase from 2012 to 2021, shown on Figure ES-1, ranged from 9,288 AFY to 13,156 AFY. The Governor declared a State of Emergency in January 2014 due to severe drought conditions in California. As a result, water conservation measures were implemented and the City’s water demand began to decline due to its customers conscientious water conservation efforts. The drought emergency declaration was lifted in April 2017.

However, California soon fell back into drought conditions in 2018 and 2020-2021. In the last five years, the demands have rebounded slightly, but not to the same level as it had once been in the early 2010’s. Over the past five years, the total production and purchase has stayed relatively steady and averaged about 10,390 AFY (9.28 mgd).

The City’s annual non-revenue water has been declining over the base five years. Since 2018-2019, the non-revenue water percentage has been within industry standard (10 percent or less). It is assumed that as the City completes more and more replacement of pipe, this will reduce the number of water line breaks each year and possible undetected leaks, which in turn will reduce the nonrevenue water volume.

Water Demand Variation
Demand variations through a year are influenced by seasonal effects such as temperature, humidity, and precipitation. System demand variations throughout a day are influenced by the customer base and the daily lifestyles of the customers.

Typical of most Southern California communities, the City’s water consumption exhibits a distinct seasonal pattern. Peak and low monthly consumption occur during the dry summer months and wet winter months, respectively. The maximum month and minimum month factors are estimated to be

1.40 and 0.44 times the average day demand, respectively.

Within any given month, demand can vary based on usage patterns (i.e., weekend usage is typically different than weekdays) and other factors such as irrigation schedules. The maximum demand day occurring over the course of the year is an important parameter for planning purposes as required source of supply is based on this demand. The maximum day demand factor is estimated to be 1.50 times the average day demand. The maximum day demand is therefore estimated to be about 15,585 AFY (9,664 gpm or 13.92 MGD).

Knowledge of accurate demand variations over a 24-hour period is essential for proper analysis of water systems. For this study, hourly demand variations were represented by the development of Item #1. Page 55
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 58

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-6 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
diurnal demand curves for various hydraulic zones. The diurnal demand curves were employed in determining the adequacy of the sources of supply, pumping facilities, reservoirs, and the transmission/distribution facilities. The average weekday diurnal demand curves developed for this study are shown on Figure ES-3.

Figure ES-3
Diurnal Demand Curves
Future Demands
A total of 223,840 gpd of average water use is estimated to be added throughout the service area in the future. This is based on future known developments (see Table 4-7) and developed water unit demand factors (see Table 4-6).

A summary of the existing and future water system demands is shown in Table ES-1.

Item #1. Page 56
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 59

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-7 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table ES-1
Water System Demands and Peaking Factors
ES-6 Existing System
The existing water system is shown on Figure ES-4. The hydraulic schematic of the existing system is shown on Figure ES-5. The City operates and maintains the following potable water facilities:
 Four (4) primary pressure zones; Thirteen (13) secondary zones  210 miles of water mains (including hydrant laterals), 1-inch through 30-inches in diameter  About 1,800 Fire hydrants
 13,483 water meters (Table 5-1)
 Eight (8) active wells
 Twenty-nine (29) storage reservoirs with a total volume of 34.6 MG  Twenty (20) booster pump station (3 of them serve hydropneumatic systems)  Three (3) hydropneumatic tanks
 Three (3) pressure regulating stations
 Four (4) imported water connections
 Four (4) inter-agency connections
Transmission and Distribution System
The existing water system includes approximately 210 miles of transmission and distribution pipe that ranges in size from 1-inch through 30-inches. The majority of the pipe is 6-inches (36.9%) or 8-inches (29.4%) in diameter. Most of the pipe is made of ductile iron (39.6%). The pipes date back to the early 1900’s with most of it constructed in the 1950’s and 1960’s (41.8%).

Wells
The total well capacity is currently about 11,800 gpm or 17.0 mgd. Well information and characteristics are provided in Table 5-3.
(gpm) (mgd) (AFY) (gpm) (mgd) (AFY)
Minimum Month2 2,835 4.08 4,572 2,903 4.18 4,682 0.44
Average Day3 6,442 9.28 10,390 6,598 9.50 10,641 1.00
Maximum Month4 9,019 12.99 14,546 9,237 13.30 14,897 1.40 Maximum Day5 9,663 13.92 15,585 9,897 14.25 15,961 1.50 Maximum Day, Peak Hour6 16,828 24.23 27,140 17,234 24.82 27,795 2.61 4 Maximum Month Factor is the highest factor from 2012-2021 5 Maximum Day Factor in 2021 was 1.43 based on water meter data. A slightly conservative factor of 1.5 was selected for planning purposes.
6 Maximum Day, Peak Hour Demand is calculated in hydraulic model utilizing developed diurnal patterns for each zone
Future Demand
Demand Description
Existing Demand Peaking
Factor1
1Specific Demand = Average Day Demand x Peaking Factor
2 Minimum Month Factor is the lowest factor from 2012-2021 3Average Day Demand is the average from 2017-2021
Item #1. Page 57
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 60
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")")
")")
&- &-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&- &-
&-
&-&- &-
&-
&- &-&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-&-
&-
&-
&-
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* !(
!( !(
Arrow Hwy
Valley Center Ave
Arrow Hwy
Lone Hill Ave
Amelia Ave
Cataract Ave
Foothill Blvd
I-210
I-210
Alosta Ave
Grand Ave
Barranca Ave
Mauna Loa Ave
Baseline Rd
I-210
Foothill Blvd
Sierra Madre Ave
Sierra Madre Ave
Foothill Blvd
State Rte 66
Grand Ave
Loraine Ave
Gladstone St
Gladstone St
Glendora Ave
SR-57
Palm Dr
San Gabriel Ave
Foothill Blvd Citrus Ave
I-210
1st St
Vernon Ave
Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Cerritos Ave
Bonnie Cove AveSunflower Ave
Live Oak Ave
Big Dalton Cyn Rd
Dalton
Bluebird
Oak Knoll
(inactive)
Greencroft
Amelia
Eagle Ridge
Boy Scouts
Glencoe
Englewild Cyn
North Grand
Hook Cyn
Hicrest
Silent Ranch
Valley Center
(inactive)
Hidden Springs
Country Club
Englewild
San Gabriel
Irwindale
(Inactive)
Gladstone
Reservoir and
Pump Station
(demolished)
Dawson
(inactive)
Rainbow
Morgan Ranch
Lower
Gordon
Morgan
Ranch
Bluebird
Hill
Hidden
Springs
Country
Club
South
Hills
East
Glencoe Englewild North
Glendora
Hook
Canyon
Hicrest
South
Hills
West
Big Dalton Boy Scouts
Sierra
Madre
Upper
Gordon
Gordon
Well 10
Well 11
Well
2 Well
1 Goddard
Englewild
Cyn
San Gabriel
Well 5
Well 8, 9, 12
Vosburg
Well
(Inactive)
Well 3 & 4
(Inactive)
Irwindale
(Inactive)
City of Azusa
Service Area
Suburban Water
Service Area
Suburban Water
Service Area
Citrus Ave
Transmission Main from Irwindale
(Inactive)
Transmission Main from Vosburg Well
(Inactive)
Suburban Water
Service Area
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Existing System
Figure ES-4
³
0 1,100 2,200 4,400
Feet
Legend
City Boundary
Water Pipes
") Wells
#* Pump Stations
&- Storage Reservoirs
!( Pressure Regulating Station
Zone 1RA
Zone 1RB
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1BH1
Zone 2
Zone 2H1
Zone 2H2
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 3B
Zone 3C
Zone 3C1
Zone 3D
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Item #1. Page 58
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 61
! !
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú!³ Ú³ Ú
!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú
!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!³ Ú
!
³ Ú! !
³ Ú!
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!(
!( !(
!(
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
3 3
3 3
3 %,%,
%, %,
%,%,%,%,
%,
%, %,
K
K
K
K
TU
TU
TU TU
TU TU
TU TU

TU TU TU
TU
TU TU
TU TU
TU
TU

TU TU TU

TUTU TU TUTU
TU TU
TU
Elevation (ft)
TU TU
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
Zone 3
South Hills
East
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone
1RA
Zone 1RB
Gordon
Glendora/Suburban
Emergency Connection
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
Hidden
Springs
Englewild
Canyon
Englewild
Bluebird Big
Dalton
Boy Scout
Lower
Gordon
Upper
Gordon
Morgan
Ranch
Country Club
Glencoe
North
Glendora
Hicrest
Hook
Canyon
Silent
Ranch
Eagle
Ridge
Goddard Sierra Madre
Rainbow
South Hills West
Irwindale
(Removed)
San Gabriel
Vosburg
(Inactive)
(Inactive)

0.15 1.0

7.0 3.0

0.33 0.33

0.274 0.116

0.318 0.125 0.012

0.01 0.01

2.5 3.5 1.25 2.5

3.5 4.0

0.125 0.012

0.045

0.01 2.5

0.16 0.16

0.2 0.2
B A 1704 1704
1505 1505 B A
A 1473
A
1364 B 1364 A
1340
1265 A
1088 B A 1088

0.688 0.688
1088 1092 A B 1092 A
A A 969 969
1347 A B 1347
A 1265
B A 976 969
B 1408 B 1408 A 1408
B A 1197 1197
1132 1132 B A
697
485

1.5 776 Gladstone
(Demolished)
Boy Scout
Bluebird
Morgan
Ranch
Amelia
Valley
Center
(Inactive)
Dalton
Englewild
Canyon
Greencroft
Country
Club
Hidden
Springs Englewild
Oaknoll
(Inactive)
Gladstone
Dawson (Demolished)
(Inactive)
Irwindale
(Inactive)
San Gabriel
Hicrest
North
Grand
Hook
Canyon
Glencoe
Suburban / Glendora
Bonita Connection
Glendora / Azusa
Connection
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 3A
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone
3B
Zone
3C1
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 3C
Zone
3D
A
A
A
Zone
2H2 Zone
2H1
Zone
1BH1
(Inactive)
(Inactive)
W3 W4
W7
W8W5 W9
W2
W12
W11 W10
W13
PRS 1
PRS 2
PRS 3
CIC
PM 23 PM 6
PM 18
B43
B42
B57
B20
B51
B50
B49
B46
B45
B44
B6
B27
B24 B53
B29
B28
B33
B56
B59
B9
B5
B52
B34
B26
B32
B58
Los Cerritos (Pvt)
B1
B2
B3
B22 B23 B36
B47 B48
B39
B40
B11
B12
B13
B14 B10
SG-1
SG-2
SG-3 SG-4 SG-5
B60B61
B62
B21
B30
B25
B41
B31
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Existing Hydraulic Schematic
New Zone IDs
Figure ES-5
Legend
TU Existing Storage Reservoir
TU Removed Storage Reservoir
K Hydropneumatic Tank
%, Groundwater Well
%, Groundwater Well (Inactive)
Pipes
with ID, Volume (MG), and HWL (ft)
Vol
HWL ID
Booster Pump (Inactive) ³
¬Ú
Zone
3 Altitude Valve
3 Gate Valve
`
`
ë
Pressure Reducing Valve
!( Imported Water Connection
!
³ Ú Booster Pump
Item #1. Page 59
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 62

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-10 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Storage Tanks
The City’s water system includes twenty-nine (29) active storage reservoirs ranging in capacity from 10,000 gallons to 7.00 million gallons (MG). There are three (3) hydropneumatic tanks ranging in size from 3,000 gallons to 10,000 gallons. The total reservoir capacity is about 34.6 MG. The characteristics of each existing storage reservoirs and hydropneumatic tanks are shown in Table 5-

4. Booster Pump Stations
There are twenty (20) booster pump stations in existing water system. Three of the stations serve water to hydropneumatic systems. Details of each booster pump station are summarized in Table 5-

5. Pressure Regulating Stations
The City’s water system consists of three (3) pressure regulating stations as listed in Table 5-6. PRS2 is regularly operating to feed lower pressure Zone 1RA from pressure Zone 1. The other two facilities normally remain closed.

Imported Water Connections
The City has access to imported water through the four (4) connections listed in Table 5-7. The City’s goal is to maximize the use of groundwater to the extent possible and limit the amount of imported water that is drawn from these connections.

Emergency Connections
The City’s water system has four (4) emergency connections with neighboring cities or water utilities.

These inter-agency connections allow the City to obtain water from or provide water to adjacent water systems. The inter-agency connections and their locations are listed in Table 5-8. Each connection has to be manually activated.

ES-6 Performance Evaluation Criteria
Performance criteria are established to evaluate the adequacy of various water system components through a systematic analysis, and to identify necessary improvements to the system for inclusion in a Capital Improvement Program (CIP). For the City’s water system, these criteria are generally in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This includes service pressures, storage capacity, and sources of supply. Other criteria are based on federal, state and local jurisdictional requirements. The performance evaluation criteria is summarized in Table ES-2.

Details of the criteria can be found in Section 6.

Item #1. Page 60
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 63

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-11 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table ES-2
Performance Evaluation Criteria
Item Description Criteria
Existing
Requirement
Future
Requirement
1 Source of Supply Maximum Day Demand from
Groundwater Sources 13.27 mgd 13.57 mgd
a. Operational Storage 30% of Maximum Day Demand 3.98 MG 4.07 MG b. Emergency Storage 100% Average Day Demand 9.28 MG 9.49 MG c. Fire Suppression Storage Highest Fire Flow Requirement Single Family Residential 1,250 gpm for 2 hours 0.15 MG 0.15 MG Single Family Residential
with Hillside Exposure 2,500 gpm for 2 hours 0.30 MG 0.30 MG Multi-Family Residential 2,500 gpm for 2 hours 0.30 MG 0.30 MG Commercial 3,500 gpm for 3 hours 0.63 MG 0.63 MG
Industrial 4,000 gpm for 4 hours 0.96 MG 0.96 MG
6 Dynamic Pressures Minimum 40 psi during Maximum Day and Peak Hour Demand Stand-by pump equal in size to the largest duty pump
Flow meters, suction and discharge pressure gauges, and telemetry Provisions for emergency power at all stations
5 Static Pressures
Minimum 40 psi
Desired 50-70 psi
Maximum 80 psi
2 3 Wells
Casing and screen sizing should meet maximum velocity
requirements
Flow meters, discharge pressure gauges, and telemetry equipment for alarm and status notification at each site.
4 Booster Pump Stations
For open zones with sufficient fire demand storage, the pump capacity into the zone must meet maximum day demands for the zone itself as well as any zones it provides water to. Well supply and imported water directly supplying the zone can be included in the pump capacity.

For open zones that do not have sufficient fire demand storage, the pump capacity into the zone must meet maximum day plus fire demands for the zone itself as well as any zones it provides water to. Well supply and imported water directly supplying the zone can be included in the pump capacity.

Item #1. Page 61
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 64

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-12 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table ES-2 (Continued)
Performance Evaluation Criteria
ES-7 Hydraulic Model
A computer model of the City’s water system was developed in the Innovyze InfowaterPro software platform. It was utilized to aid in the evaluation of the adequacy of the existing facilities under the current and future supply and demand conditions.

Generally, the model development steps included the following:

1. Utilize the City’s existing hydraulic model which was updated in 2017 as the basis for the model geometry

2. Update pipeline geometry through review of as-built plans, atlas sheets and discussions with engineering and operations staff

3. Verify and complete pipe information (pressure zone, diameter, length, roughness)

4. Verify and complete junction information (pressure zone, elevations)

5. Add detailed facility data (wells, pump stations, reservoirs, and imported water connections)

6. Add facility information (dimensions and water level for tanks, pump curves for booster pumps and wells, and aquifer levels for well pump suction levels)

7. Determine and assign demands to model junctions

8. Develop and assign diurnal demand curves to model junctions

9. Assign controls to facilities (pump start and stop conditions, imported water connection settings)
Details regarding the model development are included in Section 7.

Item Description Criteria
Existing
Requirement
Future
Requirement
7 Minimum Pipe Size (New Mains
and Replacement Mains)
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential with
Hillside Exposure (located
within LA County Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone)
Multi-Family Residential
Commercial
School
Industrial/Manufacturing
1 Fire flow demand must be maintained with 20 psi minimum pressure at the fire hydrant outlet. 9 Fire Flow Demand and
Pressures1
1,500 gpm for 2 hours
2,500 gpm for 2 hours
2,500 gpm for 2 hours
3,500 gpm for 3 hours
3,500 gpm for 3 hours
4,000 gpm for 4 hours
8-inch to the last hydrant
8 Maximum Velocities 7 fps at Maximum Day and Peak Hour Demand 10 fps at Maximum Day plus Fire Flow Demand
Item #1. Page 62
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 65

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-13 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
ES-8 Model Calibration
The existing water system model was calibrated to verify the accuracy of the model, system configuration, and the hydraulic parameters utilized. The general calibration methodology was to gather as much system information as possible from available SCADA system data and pressure and reservoir level measuring equipment temporarily installed in the field. This information was then used for input into the model as well as comparison of model and field results. Typical indicators of an accurate model include the following:
 Pressure differences of five (5) percent or less
 Well and booster pump station flow differences of five (5) percent or less  Reservoir level differences of 1 foot or less
The calibration period, the time period in which SCADA data and pressure data was collected in the field, was from May 25, 2022 to June 15, 2022. A 24-hour period was selected to represent normal demand and operating conditions during the calibration period. “Normal conditions” means that there were no noticeable anomalies and/or significant variation in the flows and pressures that could indicate an unusual event such as a fire or a main break. The calibration day was selected to be June 7, 2022.

All of the typical indicators of an accurate model were met after performing the calibration of City’s existing water system model. Details regarding the model development are included in Section 8.

ES-9 System Hydraulic Analysis
The established performance evaluation criteria detailed in Section 6 and the calibrated hydraulic model were utilized in analyzing the system and evaluating its adequacy under average day, maximum day, peak hour, and maximum day plus fire flow conditions. Analysis of the City’s source of supply, storage, and pumping facilities were also conducted. Existing and future system deficiencies were identified and mitigation projects were formulated based upon the results of the model runs, the facility analysis, and input from City staff. Proposed projects were added in the hydraulic model to test the operation of the system after implementation. The results of the analyses were used in formulating the capital improvement program.

Source of Supply
The criterion established requires the City’s source of supply to be equal to one maximum day demand. For the City of Glendora, this means that under current demand conditions, the City should have an existing source of supply capacity of 9,215 gpm (13.27 mgd). In the future, with increased demands, the City should have a source supply capacity of 9,361 gpm (13.48 mgd).

The City’s groundwater supply is shown in Table ES-3. Using design capacities, the total supply is 11,800 gpm which exceeds the existing and future source of supply requirement. Using the current capacities based off of recent efficiency tests, the total supply is 9,254 gpm which just meets the existing requirement. The City currently does often meet the maximum day demands by utilizing one of the imported water connections (PM-18/Amelia BPS).

Item #1. Page 63
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 66

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-14 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
The imported water connections have a total capacity of 19,434 gpm as shown in Table ES-4, which exceeds the existing and future source of supply requirement. These connections are primarily planned to be utilized during peak demand periods and emergencies.

Storage
The system overall has a surplus of 1.447 million gallons of storage (See Table 9-3). The storage for each zone was also analyed and the following observations were made:

1. Zone 1, 1RA, & 1RB has sufficient storage with a calculated storage surplus of 3.37 MG.

2. Zone 1A has a storage deficit of 0.062 MG.

3. Zone 1B & 1BH1 has sufficient storage with a calculated storage surplus of 0.055 MG.

4. Zone 2, 2H1, & 2H2 has sufficient storage with a calculated storage surplus of 1.628 MG.

5. Zone 3 has sufficient storage with a calculated storage surplus of 2.117 MG.

6. Zone 3A has a storage deficit of 0.100 MG.

7. Zone 3B has a storage deficit of 0.302 MG.

8. Zone 3C & 3C1 has a storage deficit of 0.285 MG.

9. Zone 3D has a storage deficit of 0.281 MG.

10. Zone 4 has a storage deficit of 0.087 MG.

11. Zone 4A has a storage deficit of 0.133 MG.

The zones with storage deficits are primarily zones in the higher elevations of the service area with small demands. The fire suppression storage criteria is the dominant portion of the total required storage. It is often infeasible to construct larger storage tanks in these zones. It is therefore recommended that hydraulic studies and preliminary design studies be conducted to determine if fire flow pumps and/or larger capacity pumps can be installed at the pump stations that provide water to these zones.

Source of
Supply
Design
Capacity
(gpm)
Current
Capacity
(gpm)
Efficiency
Test Date
Well 2 500 525 2/15/22
Well 5 2,200 1,709 6/9/21
Well 8 1,500 1,090 2/15/22
Well 9 1,300 1,410 2/15/22
Well 10 600 530 2/15/22
Well 11 1,200 940 2/15/22
Well 12 3,100 2,100 4/11/22
Well 13 1,400 950 3/26/21
Total 11,800 9,254
Table ES-3
Groundwater Supply
Maximum
Capacity
(cfs)
Maximum
Capacity
(gpm)
PM-6 15.0 6,732
PM-18 10.0 4,488
PM-23 15.0 6,732
CIC 3.3 1,481
Total 43.3 19,434
Source of Supply
Table ES-4
Imported Water Connection Capacities
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Covina Irrigating Company
Item #1. Page 64
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 67

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-15 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
The existing available storage system wide is estimated at 24.428 MG. The future average day and maximum day demands are estimated at 9.385 MG and 14.078 MG, respectively. In the event of an extreme emergency, without any well supply or imported water supply, the water system would be able to provide water to customers for about 2.6 average demand days or 1.7 maximum demand days. If an emergency is expected to last any longer, the customers would have to cut back on water use until supply sources can be implemented again.

Pumping and Supply Analysis by Hydraulic Zone
The pumping and supply analysis by hydraulic zone is shown in Table 9-4.

For open zones with sufficient fire demand storage, the pump capacity into the zone must meet the maximum day demands for the zone itself and any other zones it provides water to. Well supply and imported water directly supplying the zone can be included in the pump capacity. This criteria applies to the pump capacity into Zone 1, 2, and 3 because there is plenty of storage in the reservoirs in these zones. The pump capacity meets the criteria of one maximum day demand for Zone 1, 2, and

3. For open zones that do not have sufficient fire demand storage, the pump capacity into the zone must meet maximum day plus fire demands for the zone itself as well as any zones it provides water to.

Well supply and imported water directly supplying the zone can be included in the pump capacity.

This criteria applies to the pump capacity into Zone 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4, and 4A. The pump capacity does not meet the criteria of maximum day plus fire demand for any of these zones.

For closed zones, the pump capacity into the zone must meet maximum day plus fire demands or peak hour demands, whichever is greater. A separate fire pump can be installed to meet the fire flow requirements. This criteria applies to the pump capacity into Zone 1BH1, 2H1, and 2H2. The pump capacity does not meet the criteria of maximum day plus fire demand for any of these zones.

The zones that do not meet the pumping capacity criteria are the zones with low daily demands.

These zones generally do not have large reservoirs because the demands are low. It would be difficult to turn over the water in a large reservoir on a daily basis with such low demands. Water would become stagnant and water quality would degrade.

In all of the zones that do not meet the pumping capacity criteria, the pumping capacity into the zone exceeds the maximum day demands of the service zone. The fire flow demand is the dominant portion of the required pumping capacity. In lieu of constructing more and/or larger storage reservoirs in these zones, it is recommended that hydraulic studies and preliminary design studies be conducted to determine if fire flow pumps and/or larger capacity pumps can be installed at the pump station that provide water to these zones. These studies go hand in hand with the studies recommended for zones with storage deficits.

System Pressures and Velocities
The hydraulic model was utilized to analyze the existing and future system under various demand conditions.

Service pressures exceed 80 psi (maximum pressure allowed per the plumbing code without a pressure regulator) throughout the system. City staff reports that all services in these areas of high pressures have pressure regulators installed.

Item #1. Page 65
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 68

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-16 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
There is just one location in the system that experiences a maximum velocity between 7 and 8 feet.

This is within the 24-inch pipe downstream of the San Gabriel Booster Pump Station. Although the velocity is predicted by the model to exceed the criteria, the exceedance is very minimal and therefore it is not believed to be a major issue. No action is recommended.

Fire Flow Analysis
The fire flow analysis was conducted utilizing the existing maximum day demand scenario. Fire flow demands were applied at all fire hydrant locations in the model. If the fire node was located near multiple land use types, the highest fire flow demand was utilized. The fire flow criterion requires a residual pressure of 20 psi at the fire hydrant outlet. Since the City’s hydraulic model only includes the location of the hydrant connection with the mainline and not the hydrant itself, a residual pressure of 26 psi is utilized for analysis purposes. It is estimated that there will be about 6 psi loss from the water main, through a typical 6-inch hydrant lateral to the fire hydrant outlet.

If the residual pressure criteria was still not met utilizing multiple hydrants in a certain area, improvement recommendations were developed, which either include a pipe size increase, pipe looping, and/or addition or relocation of fire hydrants. There are areas where fire flows can be increased if the hydrant is connected to a larger pipe or a pipe in an upper zone, located nearby. The fire flow improvement locations are shown on Plate 9-1.

Additional Hydraulic Improvements
Additional hydraulic improvements are recommended based on staff interviews:

1. Looping of pipes in Zone 3D (Bluebird Reservoirs and BPS) to improve hydraulics and fire flow availability.

2. Extension of pipes in North Glendora Avenue in Zone 3A for future customers.

3. A connection at Bennet Avenue and Parkview Terrace to improve hydraulics and fire flow availability.

The additional improvement locations are shown on Plate 9-1.

Water Age Analysis
The water age analysis was conducted utilizing the existing average day demand scenario for a 90 day period. Generally, Zone 1 was found to have the lowest water age (1 to 5 days) in the system because the source of supply is constantly providing water directly into Zone 1. The area of Zone 1 south of the 210 Freeway has higher water age than the rest of the zone, ranging from 5 to 10 days.

Water age in the higher zones generally range up to 15 days. Water age in Zone 3C and 3C1 exceeds 15 days due to minimal demands.

Generally, a water age of 7 days or less is desired. Mixers can help in reducing water age and improving water quality and have been recommended for several reservoirs. Newly constructed reservoirs should include mixers in the future.

ES-10 Pipe Replacement Program
According to the 2021 Drinking Water Report Card, developed by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the national average break rate ranged between 10 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year to 37 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year.

Item #1. Page 66
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 69

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-17 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
The break records show that the City’s water system has experienced about 225 breaks per year between 2017 and 2021, summarized in Figure ES-6. This equates to 107 breaks per year per 100 miles of pipe (225 breaks / 2.1 hundred miles of pipe), which is much greater than the national average.

Figure ES-6
Pipe Break History
Based on a review of the City’s as-built plans from the last 10 years, the City has been replacing an average of 10,300 feet of pipe annually (1% of the total system). It is recommended that the City continue implementing an annual pipe replacement program to reduce the number of water breaks each year.

For this Master Plan study, the recommended pipe replacement program was developed based on historical breaks and leak records, a risk assessment, problematic areas identified by City staff, and critical facility (hospitals, police stations, fire stations, etc) locations. These project recommendations were developed independently of the hydraulic analyses.

Risk Assessment
Risk assessments have become more important as the average age of infrastructure in Southern California has increased and more breaks have occurred. The Water Research Foundation describes the main objectives of an effective risk assessment as one that includes:

1. Reduction in the number and cost of failures, by identifying high-risk assets and enabling costeffective, targeted, proactive remedies Item #1. Page 67
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 70

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-18 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan

2. Extension of the useful life of assets, by distinguishing those that are merely old from those that are truly impaired

3. Reduction in uncertainties, enabling confident answers to question from the public and others Risk relates to the probability of something bad happening, or the likelihood of a negative impact occurring, and over time, a water distribution system will experience water breaks or leaks. These failures in a water system can be caused by multiple factors such as pipe age, pipe material, pipe bedding, water characteristics, external loads (from traffic or soils), soil characteristics, and/or weather. Some of the primary goals of a water utility are to prevent catastrophic failures from occurring, address breaks and leaks as quickly as possible, and continue to provide reliable and safe water to its customers while minimizing disruptions to service.

Risk is the combination of both Likelihood of Failure (LoF) and Consequence of Failure (CoF). It takes into account the asset’s physical condition, as well as the impact that its failure would have on system performance. LoF refers to the probability of failure based on the pipe features, surrounding area attributes, and historical pipe break data. CoF is the combination of direct and indirect impacts on the vicinity and community due to a potential asset failure.

The pipeline risk assessment includes an evaluation of various elements that affect the LoF and CoF.

Artificial intelligence, machine learning (AI-ML) technology was used to calculate the LoF for the pipeline risk assessment. Contracted by AKM, Fracta provided the software as a service (SaaS) solution to develop the LoF scores.

The CoF elements were modeled in the Fracta online platform, using the widely accepted triple bottom line (TBL) framework, which is a method that categorizes the consequence of failure as social, economic, and environmental factors.

Details of the risk assessment can be found in Section 10.

Pipe Priorities
Pipe priorities were developed by looking at the total risk score, historical pipe break data, LoF scores, City pipe concerns, and pipes near critical facilities (businesses or operations where water service is essential, such as hospitals, police facilities, fire facilities, dialysis centers, and care facilities). Pipe priorities are categorized as follow:
 Pipe Priority 1 projects include pipes with the following:
o Total Risk scores in the top 1% of the total system length o History of pipe breaks (9 or more breaks between 2012 and 2021) o LoF scores greater than 75% probability of breaking in the first year.  Pipe Priority 2 projects include pipes with the following:
o Total Risk scores between 1.1% and 5% of the total system length o History of pipe breaks (Between 3 and 8 breaks between 2012 and 2021) o LoF scores greater than 75% probability of breaking in the second year.  Pipe Priority 3 projects include pipes with the following:
o Total Risk scores between 5.1% and 20% of the total system length o History of pipe breaks (2 breaks between 2012 and 2021) Item #1. Page 68
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 71

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-19 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
o LoF scores greater than 75% probability of breaking in the fifth year. o Pipes of concern
o Pipes near critical facilities
Project Recommendations
Project recommendations were generally developed to include groups of pipes in the same general vicinity. The project priority was based on the highest individual pipe priority within each group of pipes and are categorized as Project Priority 1, Project Priority 2, and Project Priority 3.

The individual projects within each priority group were prioritized based on discussions with the City regarding historical condition concerns, the total pipe CoF values within each project, and the results from the hydraulic analyses.

As the Priority 1 projects in the pipe replacement program are implemented, it is recommended that the City reevaluate the lower Priority 2 and 3 projects with newer current leak and break data. The pipe priority and project recommendations should be updated at that time.

The pipe replacement projects are shown on Plate 10-2 and summarized in Table 10-6. The detailed project summary data is included in Appendix 10-1.

The total Pipe Replacement Program costs are as follows:

Priority 1 Projects 101,400 feet $64.8M
Priority 2 Projects 67,900 feet $43.4M
Priority 3 Projects 100,100 feet $75.0M
Total 269,300 feet $183.1M
ES-11 Facility Assessments
As a part of the Master Plan work, each well, pump station, and storage reservoirs was evaluated to assess its condition and develop improvement recommendations. As-built plans, sanitary survey reports, maintenance records, pump curves and efficiency tests, dive reports, and other available historical information were reviewed as a part of the evaluation. City staff was interviewed by and accompanied AKM staff on tours of each facility as well.

Details of all assessments and recommendations can be found in Section 11, Appendix 11-1 and Appendix 11-2.

ES-12 Capital Improvement Program
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consists of projects that will enhance the distribution system to meet the established criteria, properly maintain the system’s assets, and replace the facilities that have reached the end of their useful lives. The goal of the CIP is to provide the City of Glendora with a long-range planning tool for implementing its water system improvements in an orderly manner and a basis for financing of these improvements. In order to accomplish this goal, it is necessary to estimate project costs of the recommended system improvements, establish a basis, and prioritize the projects.

It should be noted that some of the improvements recommended herein are conceptual in nature based on existing available information. Therefore, they should not be considered as absolute for Item #1. Page 69
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 72

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-20 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
final design. Further analysis and refinement will be necessary prior to commencing work on the final plans, specifications and estimates package for each project. Detailed preliminary design studies should be prepared to select the final design projects.

Pipeline Replacement Cost Estimates
Proposed pipe replacement project costs are planning level estimates based upon recent information provided by the City for similar projects and include contingencies for this planning level study.

Specific alignments and refined cost estimates should be developed as part of the preliminary design phase for each recommended project.

The following construction costs were utilized for the Fire Flow Improvements (Table 9-6), Additional Hydraulic Improvements (Table 9-7) and the Pipe Replacement Program Projects (Table 10-6).

1. Pipeline replacement cost = $50 per diameter inch per foot of pipe. The replacement costs are based on pipeline replacement projects between Fiscal Year 2018-2019 and Fiscal Year 2020-2021.

2. Addition of a fire hydrant to an existing water main or reconnection of a fire hydrant lateral to an existing water main = $15,000

3. Valve replacement = $10,000
The total project costs include construction, contingency, design and administrative, and construction management and inspection costs. The individual cost components are calculated as follows:

1. Construction Cost = Unit Cost x Recommended Units

2. Design and Administrative Cost = 15% of the Construction Cost

3. Construction Management Cost = 15% of the Construction Cost

4. Contingency Cost = 20% of the Construction Cost

5. Total Project Cost = Construction Cost + Design and Administrative Cost + Construction Management Cost + Contingency Cost
Total Project Cost = 1.5 x Construction Cost
Facility Improvement Costs
The recommended facility improvement cost estimates (Table 11-3) are based upon recent project experience and include contingencies for this planning level study.

The total project costs include construction, contingency, design and administrative, and construction management and inspection costs. The individual cost components are calculated as follows:

1. Construction Cost = Unit Cost x Recommended Units

2. Design and Administrative Cost = 20% of the Construction Cost

3. Construction Management Cost = 15% of the Construction Cost

4. Contingency Cost = 20% of the Construction Cost

5. Total Project Cost = Construction Cost + Design and Administrative Cost + Construction Management Cost + Contingency Cost
Item #1. Page 70
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 73

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-21 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Total Project Cost = 1.55 x Construction Cost
The design cost is set at a higher percentage for facility improvements than it is for pipeline improvements. It is expected that facility improvements will require preliminary design studies and hydraulic analysis that will result in a higher design cost than the pipeline improvements.

Construction costs are expected to fluctuate as changes occur in the economy. These costs should therefore be reevaluated and updated annually based upon Engineering News Record (ENR) Index for the Los Angeles area (ENRLA), with the base ENRLA Index of 14,033.31 for February 2023.

Project Priorities
The primary consideration in establishing project priorities for the capital improvement program list must always be given to the health, safety and welfare of the public and the customers.

The fire flow improvement projects provided in Table 9-6 are listed in order of priority based on the degree of the fire deficiency identified in the hydraulic model analysis described in Section 9.

The pipe replacement program projects provided in Table 10-6 are listed in order of priority based on the risk assessment described in Section 10.

The facility improvements are provided in Tables 11-1 through 11-4 by facility site. The improvements are sorted by priority in Appendix 11-2.

Although recommended projects are assigned a priority based on the analysis conducted for this Master Plan study, the City should review the prioritization and adjust it annually to respond to changed conditions and to take advantage of concurrent construction, such as street paving projects or adjacent infrastructure work.

The recommendations and cost estimates are guidelines for the City to plan future projects and financing. Preliminary design and more detailed hydraulic studies may lead to changes in project definitions and costs as well as priorities.

Capital Improvement Program Summary
The total Capital Improvement Program costs are as follows:

Fire Flow Pipe Improvement Projects (Table 9-6) $ 8,638,800 Additional Hydraulic Improvement Projects (Table 9-7) $ 762,000 Pipe Replacement Program Costs – Priority 1 (Table 10-6) $64,772,867 Pipe Replacement Program Costs – Priority 2 (Table 10-6) $43,393,241 Pipe Replacement Program Costs – Priority 3 (Table 10-6) $74,960,553 Well Improvement Costs (Table 11-1) $35,003,650
Reservoir Improvement Costs (Table 11-2) $52,757,349
Booster Pump Station Improvement Costs (Table 11-3) $55,468,300 Miscellaneous Water Facility Improvement Costs (Table 11-4) $14,169,624 Total CIP Cost $349,926,085
Item #1. Page 71
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 74

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-22 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Irwindale Facility
Possible redevelopment of Wells 3, 4, and 7 and upgrades to the Irwindale Facility are discussed in Section 3-4.1. Potential costs are provided in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. It is estimated that upgrades to the Irwindale Water Treatment Facility, including Well 3 and 4 would cost about $84 Million. If redevelopment and construction of Well 7 is included in the project, the cost would increase to about $127 Million. These costs were not included in the CIP as a study was underway at the time of the Master Plan and funding options were being considered.

Short Term Capital Improvement Projects
Many high priority projects have been identified through this Water Master Plan Update. It is going to take time for the City to address all the recommended projects. In the short term (next five years), the following projects are considered to be the highest priority and should be addressed by the City as soon as possible:

1. Tank Mixers

2. Reservoir Roof Railings

3. SAFT Climb Ladders for Reservoirs

4. Hatch Replacements or Additional Hatches for Reservoirs

5. Ventilation Improvements for Reservoirs

6. Overflow Outlet Structure at Hidden Springs B

7. Replace Security Fence at Morgan Ranch A

8. Comprehensive SCADA Upgrade Assessment

9. North Glendora Reservoir Replacement

10. Comprehensive Valve Assessment

11. Evaluation of Infiltration at Valley Center B21

12. Valve Replacement Program

13. Reconstruct Suction Line at Sierra Madre B

14. Site Improvements at Big Dalton A

15. Access Road Improvements at South Hills West A

16. Access Road Improvements at Glencoe B

17. Add Retaining Wall at Glencoe B

18. Remove Existing Boy Scout Pump Station and Reservoir

19. Construct Above Ground Tank with Mixer to Replace Boy Scout Reservoir

20. Add Chlorine Analyzer at Sierra Madre B

21. Remove/relocate IT Equipment from Roof at South Hills East A

22. Comprehensive Standby Power Assessment

23. Interior and Exterior Coating at Upper Gordon B
Item #1. Page 72
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 75

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA ES-23 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan

24. Interior and Exterior Coating at Upper Gordon A

25. Fire Flow Improvement Pipeline Projects, listed in order of priority in Table 9-6

26. Additional Hydraulic Improvements, listed in Table 9-7

27. Priority 1 Pipe Replacement Projects, listed in Table 10-6 and Appendix 10-1 Item #1. Page 73
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 76
CITY OF GLENDORA 1-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION
1-1 Purpose
The City of Glendora (City) provides potable water service to residential, commercial, industrial, public parks and schools. The City recognizes its responsibility to efficiently meet the customers’ needs with long range planning efforts. By reviewing its existing water system and future needs, the City can continue to maintain a high service level and reliability in its water system in a cost effective and fiscally responsible manner. This report is intended to update the domestic water analysis and to provide a comprehensive planning guide for improving and upgrading the City’s domestic water system through the year 2040.
1-2 Previous Studies
Previous studies completed and utilized in the development of this Water Master Plan include the following:
 2021 LWS Sanitary Survey, February 2022
 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021
 2017 Water System Master Plan, July 2017
 City of Glendora, 2013-2021 Housing Element
 Glendora Community Plan 2025, Land Use Element
1-3 Scope of Work
The scope of work for this study consists of the following:

Task 1 – Project Management
Task 2 – Data Collection and Review
Task 3 – Water Demand Analysis
Task 4 – Water Supply analysis
Task 5 – Planning Criteria
Task 6 – Water System Condition Assessment
Task 7 – Water Quality Analysis
Task 8 -- Hydraulic Model of Water System
Task 9 – Existing System Hydraulic Analysis
Task 10 – Future Water System Hydraulic Analysis
Task 11 – Capital Improvement Program
Task 12 – Pipeline Replacement Program
Task 13 – Water Master Plan Development
Task 14 – Water Master Plan Final Report
Item #1. Page 74
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 77

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA 1-2 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
1-4 Organization of Report
The Glendora Water Master Plan describes and documents the totality of the project effort, including the methodology for developing the hydraulic model and system analysis and recommendations for system improvements. A brief outline of the report is as follows:

Section ES: Executive Summary
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Water Service Area
Section 3: Water Supply Analysis
Section 4: Water Use
Section 5: Existing System
Section 6: Performance Evaluation Criteria
Section 7: Hydraulic Model
Section 8: Model Calibration
Section 9: System Hydraulic Analysis
Section 10: Pipeline Replacement Program
Section 11: Facility Assessments
Section 12: Capital Improvement Program
1-5 Hydraulic Zoning Nomenclature Modifications
As part of the Water Master Plan, the hydraulic Zone IDs have been renamed to simplify the zone naming, reducing it to four primary zones, and create terminology that describes the zones in relation to each other. The old Zone IDs and the new Zone IDs are provided in Table 1-1. The four primary zones are generally the zones with the greatest demand. The smaller zones that are provided water from the primary zones were assigned an associated name (i.e. Zone 1A is provided water from Zone 1). The old ID system is shown on Figure 1-1. The new ID system is shown on Figure 1-2. The remainder of the Water Master Plan report utilizes the new ID system.

The old Reservoir IDs were related to the old Zone IDs. Therefore, the Reservoir IDs were also modified. The reservoirs are now named with their common name (i.e. Hidden Springs, Hicrest, Country Club, etc.) and a letter identifier. Pump IDs were maintained, as they are not associated with zones.

The future hydraulic schematic is shown on Figure 1-3. The only difference is the North Glendora Reservoir site. In the future, there will be two North Glendora Reservoirs that will replace the current one. See Section 11-3 for more details.

Item #1. Page 75
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 78

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA 1-3 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
1-6 Acknowledgements
AKM Consulting Engineers would like to express their sincere appreciation to the following individuals for their valuable assistance and support throughout the preparation of this study:
• Chisom Obegolu, Assistant Director of Public Works
• Ron Nichka, Water Production Supervisor
• Dale Wert, Water Division Manager
• Alexis Escobar, Civil Engineering Assistant
• Myla Decastro, Finance Management Analyst
• Doug Leumann, Water Production Lead Operator
• Marcelle Sams, George E. Booth Company Inc. (SCADA)
Item #1. Page 76
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 79

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF GLENDORA 1-4 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 1-1
Zone Identification Modifications
Old
Pressure
Zone ID
New
Pressure
Zone ID
Old
Reservoir
ID New Reservoir ID Pumps
Area
(Ac)
Pipe
Length
(ft)
Ground
Elevation
Range (ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line (ft)
Static
Pressure
Range
(psi)a
Existing
Average
Demand
(gpm)
1 1
1A
1C
1B
1D
South Hills West A
South Hills West B
Sierra Madre A
Goddard A
SG B-1
SG B-2
SG B-3
SG B-4
SG B-5
3,337 593,705 623-882 976 41 -153 3,467
9 1RA - - 3 973 642-656 775 52-58 1
8b 1RB - - 21 24,944 620 - - 24
4 1A 4A
4 Hicrest A
Hicrest B
B-24
B-25 40 6,434 888-1,011 1,132 52-106 30
5 1B 5C
5B
Hook Canyon A
Hook Canyon B
B-29
B-41
B-52
B-53
127 18,213 883-1,122 1,197 32-136 50
11 1BH1 11 Silent Ranch A B-20
B-57 6 472 1,076-1,125 1,354 99-120 16
2 2
2A
2B
2C
2D
2 South Hills East A
Country Club A (north)
Country Club B (south)
Hidden Springs A
Hidden Springs B
B-11
B-12
B-22
B-23
B-36
2,081 323,051 808-1,046 1,092 20-123 2,025
18 2H1 18 Rainbow A B-42
B-43 38 2,288 946-1,167 1,190 10-106 9
12 2H2 12 Eagle Ridge A
B-49
B-50
B-51
11 970 969-1,057 1,257 87-125 7
3 3 3
3C
Morgan Ranch A
Englewild A
B-10
B-13
B-14
B-60
B-61
B-62
663 96,585 927-1,196 1,265 30-146 607
19 3A
19A
19 19B
Glencoe A
Glencoe B
North Glendora Ac
North Glendora Bc
B-26
B-27 156 9,980 1,070-1,389 1,408 8-146 71
21 3B 21A
21 Englewild Cyn A
Englewild Cyn B
B-47
B-48 22 1,017 1,162-1,334 1,347 6-80 7
6 3C 6 Big Dalton A B-31 180 9,083 1,109-1,294 1,340 20-100 6 7 3C1 7 Boy Scout A B-56 79 713 1,328 1,473 63 -
28 3D 28A
28 Bluebird A
Bluebird B
B-32
B-33 102 10,956 1,007-1,306 1,364 25-155 42
13 4 13A
13 Lower Gordon A
Lower Gordon B
B-44
B-45
B-46
21 3,377 1,252-1,334 1,505 74-110 7
14 4A 14A
14 Upper Gordon A
Upper Gordon B
B-58
B-59 129 6,817 1,351-1,585 1,704 52-153 73
7,016 1,109,577 6,442
c Future tanks expected to be operational FY 25-26 will be named North Glendora A and North Glendora B. a Calculated based on HGL and ground elevation range
b Modeled as a demand off of Zone 1. Zone 1RB pipes not modeled. HGL/Pressure to Zone 1RB not known.

Total
Item #1. Page 77
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 80
! !
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú!³ Ú³ Ú
!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú
!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!³ Ú
!
³ Ú! !
³ Ú!
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!(
!( !(
!(
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
3 3
3 3
3 %, %,
%, %,
%,%,%,%,
%,
%, %,
K
K
K
K
TU
TU
TU TU
TU TU
TU TU

TU TU TU
TU
TU TU
TU TU
TU
TU

TU TU TU

TU TU TU TUTU
TU TU
TU
Elevation (ft)
TU TU
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
Zone 3
South Hills
East
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 9
Zone 8
Gordon
Glendora/Suburban
Emergency Connection
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
Hidden
Springs
Englewild
Canyon
Englewild
Bluebird Big
Dalton
Boy Scout
Lower
Gordon
Upper
Gordon
Morgan
Ranch
Country Club
Glencoe
North
Glendora
Hicrest
Hook
Canyon
Silent
Ranch
Eagle
Ridge
Goddard Sierra Madre
Rainbow
South Hills West
Irwindale
(Removed)
San Gabriel
Vosburg
(Inactive)
(Inactive)

0.15 1.0

7.0 3.0

0.33 0.33

0.274 0.116

0.318 0.125 0.012

0.01 0.01

2.5 3.5 1.25 2.5

3.5 4.0

0.125 0.012

0.045

0.01 2.5

0.16 0.16

0.2 0.2 14 14A 1704 1704
1505 1505 13 13A
7 1473
6 1364 28 1364 28A
1340
1265 3
1088 2B 2C 1088

0.688 0.688
1088 1092 2D 2 1092 2A
1D 1B 969 969
1347 21A 1347 21B
3C 1265
1C 976 1A 969
19B 1408 19 1408 19A 1408
5B 5C
1197 1197
1132 1132 4 4A
697
485

1.5 8 776 Gladstone
(Demolished)
Boy Scout
Bluebird
Morgan
Ranch
Amelia
Valley
Center
(Inactive)
Dalton
Englewild
Canyon
Greencroft
Country
Club
Hidden
Springs Englewild
Oaknoll
(Inactive)
Gladstone
Dawson (Demolished)
(Inactive)
Irwindale
(Inactive)
San Gabriel
Hicrest
North
Grand
Hook
Canyon
Glencoe
Suburban / Glendora
Bonita Connection
Glendora / Azusa
Connection
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 19
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone
21 Zone 7
Zone 13
Zone 14
Zone 6
Zone
28 11
18 12
Zone
12 Zone
18 Zone
11 (Inactive)
(Inactive)
W3 W4
W7
W8W5 W9
W2
W12
W11 W10
W13
PRS 1
PRS 2
PRS 3
CIC
PM 23 PM 6
PM 18
B43
B42
B57
B20
B51
B50
B49
B46
B45
B44
B6
B27
B24 B53
B29
B28
B33
B56
B59
B9
B5
B52
B34
B26
B32
B58
Los Cerritos (Pvt)
B1
B2
B3
B22 B23 B36
B47 B48
B39
B40
B11
B12
B13
B14 B10
SG-1
SG-2
SG-3 SG-4 SG-5
B60B61
B62
B21
B30
B25
B41
B31
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Existing Hydraulic Schematic
Old Zone IDs
Figure 1-1
Legend
TU Existing Storage Reservoir
TU Removed Storage Reservoir
K Hydropneumatic Tank
%, Groundwater Well
%, Groundwater Well (Inactive)
Pipes
with ID, Volume (MG), and HWL (ft)
Vol
HWL ID
Booster Pump (Inactive) ³
¬Ú
Zone
3 Altitude Valve
3 Gate Valve
`
`
ë
Pressure Reducing Valve
!( Imported Water Connection
!
³ Ú Booster Pump
Item #1. Page 78
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 81
! !
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú!³ Ú³ Ú
!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú
!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!³ Ú
!
³ Ú! !
³ Ú!
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!(
!( !(
!(
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
3 3
3 3
3 %,%,
%, %,
%,%,%,%,
%,
%, %,
K
K
K
K
TU
TU
TU TU
TU TU
TU TU

TU TU TU
TU
TU TU
TU TU
TU
TU

TU TU TU

0.15 1.0

7.0 3.0

0.33 0.33

0.274 0.116

0.318 0.125 0.012

0.01 0.01

2.5 3.5 1.25 2.5

3.5 4.0

0.125 0.012

0.045

0.01 2.5

0.16 0.16

0.2 0.2
B A 1704 1704
1505 1505 B A
A 1473
A
1364 B 1364 A
1340
1265 A
1088 B A 1088

0.688 0.688
1088 1092 A B 1092 A
A A 969 969
1347 A B 1347
A 1265
B A 976 969
B 1408 B 1408 A 1408
B A 1197 1197
1132 1132 B A
697
485

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Existing Hydraulic Schematic
New Zone IDs
Figure 1-2
Legend
TU Existing Storage Reservoir
TU Removed Storage Reservoir
K Hydropneumatic Tank
%, Groundwater Well
%, Groundwater Well (Inactive)
Pipes
with ID, Volume (MG), and HWL (ft)
Vol
HWL ID
Booster Pump (Inactive) ³
¬Ú
Zone
3 Altitude Valve
3 Gate Valve
`
`
ë
Pressure Reducing Valve
!( Imported Water Connection
!
³ Ú Booster Pump
Item #1. Page 79
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 82
! !
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú!³ Ú³ Ú
!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú
!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!³ Ú
!
³ Ú! !
³ Ú!
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!(
!( !(
!(
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
3 3
3 3
3 %,%,
%, %,
%,%,%,%,
%,
%, %,
K
K
K
K
TU
TU
TU TU
TU TU
TU TU

TU TU TU
TU
TU TU
TU TU
TU
TU

TU TU TU

TUTU TU TUTU
TU TU
TU
TU TU
TU
Elevation (ft)
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
Zone 3
South Hills
East
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone
1RA
Zone 1RB
Gordon
Glendora/Suburban
Emergency Connection
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
Hidden
Springs
Englewild
Canyon
Englewild
Bluebird Big
Dalton
Boy Scout
Lower
Gordon
Upper
Gordon
Morgan
Ranch
Country Club
Glencoe
North
Glendora
(expected to be
operational FY 2025)
Hicrest
Hook
Canyon
Silent
Ranch
Eagle
Ridge
Goddard Sierra Madre
Rainbow
South Hills West
Irwindale
(Removed)
San Gabriel
Vosburg
(Inactive)
(Inactive)

0.15 1.0

7.0 3.0

0.33 0.33

0.274 0.116

0.300 0.125 0.012

0.01 0.01

2.5 3.5 1.25 2.5

3.5 4.0

0.125 0.012

0.045

0.01 2.5

0.16 0.16

0.2 0.2
B A 1704 1704
1505 1505 B A
A 1473
A
1364 B 1364 A
1340
1265 A
1088 B A 1088

0.688 0.688
1088 1092 A B 1092 A
A A 969 969
1347 A B 1347
A 1265
B A 976 969
B 1408 B 1408 A 1408
B A 1197 1197
1132 1132 B A
697
485

0.300
W3 W4
W7
W8W5 W9
W2
W12
W11 W10
W13
PRS 1
PRS 2
PRS 3
CIC
PM 23 PM 6
PM 18
B43
B42
B57
B20
B51
B50
B49
B46
B45
B44
B6
B27
B24 B53
B29
B28
B33
B56
B59
B9
B5
B52
B34
B26
B32
B58
Los Cerritos (Pvt)
B1
B2
B3
B22 B23 B36
B47 B48
B39
B40
B11
B12
B13
B14 B10
SG-1
SG-2
SG-3 SG-4 SG-5
B60B61
B62
B21
B30
B25
B41
B31
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Future Hydraulic Schematic
New Zone IDs
Figure 1-3
Legend
TU Existing Storage Reservoir
TU Removed Storage Reservoir
K Hydropneumatic Tank
%, Groundwater Well
%, Groundwater Well (Inactive)
Pipes
with ID, Volume (MG), and HWL (ft)
Vol
HWL ID
Booster Pump (Inactive) ³
¬Ú
Zone
3 Altitude Valve
3 Gate Valve
`
`
ë
Pressure Reducing Valve
!( Imported Water Connection
!
³ Ú Booster Pump
Item #1. Page 80
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 83
CITY OF GLENDORA 2-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
SECTION 2

WATER SERVICE AREA
2-1 Location
The City of Glendora’s (City) water service area is located in northeasterly Los Angeles County (County), approximately 21 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles, and predominantly within the City of Glendora. The City lies within the San Gabriel Valley with the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains along the northern portion of the City, which includes the Angeles National Forest. The City is bounded by the Cities of Azusa to the west, Covina to the south, and San Dimas to the east as well unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County. Interstate 210 is the primary regional freeway providing access into and out of the City. The primary east-west circulation routes within the City are Sierra Madre Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, Route 66 (Alosta Avenue) and Gladstone Street. The primary north-south routes are Grand Avenue and Glendora Avenue.

The water service area, shown on Figure 2-1, covers approximately 11 square miles within the City of Glendora. The City of Glendora, including unincorporated County areas within its sphere of influence encompasses about 20 square miles. The southwesterly portion of the City, generally south of Foothill Boulevard and west of Grand Avenue is served water by the City of Azusa or Suburban Water Systems. The local water utility service areas are shown on Figure 2-2. 2-2 Topography and Geology
The City has varying terrain with elevations ranging between 620 and 1400 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The northern one-sixth of the City contains the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and includes part of the Angeles National Forest. The natural terrain in this area is in slope which exceeds 25 percent. Most of the remainder of the City has a moderate slope, generally 2 to 5 percent in a southwesterly direction. The exception is South Hills Park in the south-central portion of the City, where elevations range from about 750 feet to above 1200 feet with natural slopes for the most part exceeding 25 percent.

Glendora is located at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains on an upper alluvial fan of the San Gabriel Valley. This setting produces two major terrain types within the City: alluvial fan and foothill.

The valley consists of a roughly bowl-shaped depression in the bedrock, filled over millions of years with alluvial deposits. Most of the alluvium deposited within this depression is debris from the San Gabriel Mountains, washed and blown from the sides of the mountains over time The valley soils are predominantly members of the Hanford Series. The soils in this series are welldrained or somewhat excessively drained soils that have formed in granitic alluvium. The Hanford soils in the Glendora area are chiefly fine sandy loam or gravelly sandy loam. Runoff is slow to medium for this soil, and the hazard of erosion is slight to moderate. The amount of gravel in the gravelly variety ranges from 20 to 35 percent, by volume.

Bedrock units are exposed in the San Gabriel Foothills and the South Hills. Three types of bedrock are prevalent: 1) sedimentary units of sandstone and siltstone; 2) volcanic lavas, tuffs, and mixtures of both; and 3) an igneous-metamorphic complex of resistant crystalline rocks.

Item #1. Page 81
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 84
!(30 §¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
!(39
!(39
§¨¦10
!(39
§¨¦10
Water Service
Area
City of Glendora
City of
Azusa
City of
Covina
City of
San Dimas
City of
La Verne
City of
Pomona
City of
West Covina
City of
Duarte
City of
Irwindale
City of Glendora
Angeles National
Forest
City of
San Dimas
San Gabriel River
Angeles National
Forest
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Regional Location Map
Figure 2-1
³
0 4,000 8,000 16,000
Feet
Item #1. Page 82
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 85
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
!(39
!(39
City of Glendora
Service Area City of Azusa
Service Area
Golden State
Water Company
Service Area
an Gabriel River
City of Covina
Service Area
Suburban
Water Systems
Service AreaCitrus Ave
Grand Ave
Glendora Ave
Loraine Ave
Live Oak Ave
Valley Center Ave
Lone Hill Ave
Amelia Ave
State Rte 66
Foothill Blvd
Sierra Madre Ave
Gladstone St
Glendora AveSunflower Ave
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Water Utilities Service Area Map
Figure 2-2
³
0 2,000 4,000 8,000
Feet
Legend
City of Glendora Boundary
Water Utility Service Area
City of Azusa
City of Covina
Golden State Water Company
Suburban Water Systems
City of Glendora
Item #1. Page 83
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 86

SERVICE AREA
CITY OF GLENDORA 2-4 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
2-3 Climate
The climate in the area is typical of Southern California with generally mild temperatures, virtually no days below freezing, and plenty of sunshine throughout the year. The warmest months are typically experienced in August with an average maximum temperature of 91° F. The coolest months are typically experienced in December and January with an average minimum temperature of 38.5° F.

Rainfall at the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Glendora City Hall Station 287B between rain year 2000-2001 and 2020-2021 is shown in Figure 2-3. The average annual rainfall of about 18.7 inches occurred primarily during the winter months, between December and March.

The state of California declared a Drought State of Emergency on January 17, 2014 as rainfall and snowfall in the state had been well below average for the prior five to seven years. Even though the drought was officially declared at an end on April 7, 2017, rainfall and snowfall levels continued to remain low until rain year 2018-2019 when California experienced an unusually wet year.

Climate change is expected to result in more variable weather patterns throughout California in the future. This variability may lead to longer and more severe droughts and floods, which will present significant challenges to California water supply conditions.

Figure 2-3
Rainfall Data - Glendora City Hall Station 287B
2-4 Land Use
The City is comprised of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses with most of the available flat land developed. The majority of the developed area consists of residential single-family homes. 0 4
8 12
16 20
24 28
32 36
40 44
48 52
56 1999-20002000-20012001-2002
2002-2003
2003-20042004-20052005-2006
2006-20072007-2008
2008-20092009-2010
2010-20112011-20122012-2013
2013-20142014-2015
2015-20162016-20172017-2018
2018-2019
2019-20202020-2021
Rainfall (in)
Rain Year
Start of Drought Declared 1/17/14
End of Drought Declared 4/7/17
Average
Ref: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Glendora City Hall Station 287B Item #1. Page 84
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 87

SERVICE AREA
CITY OF GLENDORA 2-5 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Per the City’s 2025 Land Use Element, “The City is almost completely developed with only 0.3 percent of developable land remaining vacant. The fully developed state of the City means that most services are sufficiently available to new growth occurring or expected to occur on underutilized parcels and in redevelopment areas within the City”. New high end housing development is occurring in the hillside areas where it is typically more difficult to develop. Higher density infill is planned along Route

66. The existing land uses in the study area are shown on Figure 2-4. Future known development areas are shown in Table 2-1 and on Figure 2-5.

Table 2-1
Future Developments
No. Project Name / Location Zone Future Land Use
Future
Dwelling
Units (du)
Future
Building
Area (sf) Project Status
1 1121 E Arrow Hwy 1 Multi-Family Residential 19 Proposed 2 531 E Arrow Hwy 1 Multi-Family Residential 33 Proposed 3 905 E Arrow Hwy 1 Multi-Family Residential 16 Proposed 4 1950 Auto Center Dr (Walmart
Expansion) 2 Commercial Retail Building 7,460 Proposed
5 630 W Foothill Blvd 1 Medical Office Building 9,745 Proposed 6 937 W Gladstone St 1 Single-Family Residential 4 Proposed 7 400 N Glendora / 101 E
Whitcomb Ave 1 Church Expansion 9,287 Proposed
8 422 S Glendora Ave 1 Commercial Office Building 4,500 Proposed 9 300 Gordon Ranch Rd 3 Single-Family Residential 19 Proposed 10 1717 S Grand Ave 1 Car Wash 5,000 Proposed
11 950 Silent Ranch Rd 1BH1 Single-Family Residential 12 Proposed 12 220 E Bennett 1 Multi-Family Residential 5 Proposed
13 131 E Foothill Blvd 1 Mixed Use - Residential +
Commercial Office 2 2,616 Proposed
14 1706 E Route 66 (Olsen Project) 2 Single and Multi-Family Residential 43 Proposed
15 1237 Bonnie Cove Ave 1 Single-Family Residential 30 Planning Approved 16 1620 S Glendora Ave 1 Multi-Family Residential 8 Planning Approved 17 210 S Grand Ave 1 Medical Office Building 20,292 Planning Approved 18 334 E Lemon Ave 1 Multi-Family Residential 4 Planning Approved 19 501 W Route 66 1 Mixed Use - Residential +
Commercial Office 8 1,004 Planning Approved
20 117 N Vista Bonita Ave 1 Multi-Family Residential 5 Planning Approved 21 La Colina Estates (Sierra Madre
Ave & Yucca Ridge Rd) 1 Single-Family Residential 121 Under Construction 22 Foothill Gold Line Phase 2B
Extension (btw Vermont Ave &
Vista Bonita Ave)
1 Regional Light Rail Under Construction
23 333 W Dawson Ave 1 Care Facility Under Construction
24 919 S Lone Hill Ave 2 Personal Self-Storage
Facility 113,868 Under Construction
25 706 W Route 66 1 Fast Food with Drive-Thru 3,068 Under Construction 26 1308 S Lone Hill* 2 Car Wash Redevelopment 5,988 Proposed Total 329 182,828
*The future building square footage for this development is less than the existing 25,063 square foot office building.

Item #1. Page 85
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 88
Arrow Hwy
Valley Center Ave
Arrow Hwy
Lone Hill Ave
Amelia Ave
Cataract Ave
Foothill Blvd
I-210
I-210
Alosta Ave
Grand Ave
Barranca Ave
Mauna Loa Ave
Baseline Rd
I-210
Foothill Blvd
Sierra Madre Ave
State Rte 66
Grand Ave
Loraine Ave
Gladstone St
Gladstone St
Glendora Ave
SR-57
Palm Dr
Foothill BlvdCitrus Ave
I-210
Cerritos Ave
Bonnie Cove AveSunflower Ave
Live Oak Ave
Big Dalton Cyn Rd
Citrus Ave
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Existing Landuse
Figure 2-4
³
0 1,300 2,600 5,200
Feet
Legend
R-1 Singe Family Residential
RHR Rural Hillside Residential
E-3 Single Family Estate
E-4 Single Family Estate
E-5 Single Family Estate
E-6 Single Family Estate
E-7 Single Family Estate
R-2 Restricted Multiple Family Residential
R-3 Multiple Family Residential
LGA Limited Garden Apartment
GA Garden Apartment
C-1 Professional
C-2 Limited Retail Business
C-3 Retail and Commercial
CM Commercial Manufacturing
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-1A Limited Manufacturing
MS Medical Services
PR Planned Redevelopment
CCAP T-4 Village Edge
CCAP T-5 Village Core
CCAP T-5A Village Transition
U Utilities
B Cemetery
OSN Open Space - Natural
Golf Course
Community Park
School
RT66 BG Barranca Gateway
RT66 CRR Central Route 66 Residential
RT66 GRG Grand/Route 66 Gateway
RT66 GCG Grand Avenue Commercial Gateway
RT66 LHG Lone Hill Gateway
RT66 RSC Route 66 Service Commercial
RT66 TCMU Town Center Mixed Use
RT66 GLG Glendora Avenue Gateway
RT66 TCO Technology, Commerce, Office
AHSP C-C3 Corridor Commercial
AHSP MU-CC Commercial Core Mixed Use
AHSP MU-NC Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use
AHSP C-HR Corridor High Density Residential
AHSP CR-3 Corridor Medium High Density Residential
AHSP C-BR Corridor Buffer Residential
AHSP MU-T Transition Mixed Use
AHSP C-R2 Corridor Medium High Density
AHSP C-I Corridor Industrial
AHSP MU-I Office/Light Industrial Mixed Use
SP Specific Plan
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Item #1. Page 86
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 89
Arrow Hwy
Valley Center Ave
Arrow Hwy
Lone Hill Ave
Amelia Ave
Cataract Ave
I-210
Grand Ave
Barranca Ave
Mauna Loa Ave
I-210
Foothill Blvd
Sierra Madre Ave
State Rte 66
Loraine Ave
Grand Ave
Gladstone St
Gladstone St
Glendora Ave
SR-57
Palm Dr
Bonnie Cove AveSunflower Ave
Live Oak Ave
Big Dalton Cyn Rd
Citrus Ave
Foothill Blvd
Valley Center Ave
Glendora Ave
Sierra Madre Ave
Bennett Ave
Foothill Blvd
State Rte 66
10 6
2 3 1
16 15
23 24
4 14
8 18
25 19 22
20 13
17 5
12 7
21 11
9 26
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Future Known Development Areas
Figure 2-5
³
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
Legend
Planning Approved for Future Development
Proposed Development
Development Under Construction
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
# Development Number shown in Table 2-1
Item #1. Page 87
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 90

SERVICE AREA
CITY OF GLENDORA 2-8 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
2-5 Population
The historical population growth for the City of Glendora is shown in Table 2-2. This population data is based upon information developed by the California Department of Finance and based on U.S.

Census Bureau data.

Table 2-2
City of Glendora Population
The population in the City of Glendora exploded in the 1950’s and grew steadily up to 1990. In the past three decades, the growth has slowed significantly. This is supported by the fact that the City of Glendora has become nearly built-out.

The 2021 population within the City was 51,569 persons. The total number of housing units was 18,504 dwelling units (Ref: California Department of Finance, Table E-5). This is equivalent to 2.79 persons per dwelling unit with a 4.4% vacancy rate.

Per the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP, 2020), the water service area population was 45,551 in 2020 and is projected to have a growth of 5.6% from 2020 to 2045. The 2045 service area population is expected to be about 48,093. The difference in population between the City of Glendora and its water service area can be attributed to the fact that there are small portions of the City that are provided water service by an adjacent agency.

Year Population1
10-year %
Growth
1920a 2,028 -
1930a 2,761 26.5
1940a 2,822 2.2
1950a 3,988 29.2
1960a 20,752 80.8
1970a 31,349 33.8
1980a 38,654 18.9
1990a 47,828 19.2
2000a 49,415 3.2
2010b 50,073 1.3
2020b 52,558 4.7
2021b 51,569 -1.9
a Ref: California Department of Finance, Table E-5
which is based on U.S. Census Bureau data
b Ref: U.S. Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov)
Item #1. Page 88
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 91
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
SECTION 3

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
3-1 Water Supply Sources
The City of Glendora (City) maintains a diverse water supply portfolio to be able to meet its regular and peak demands while ensuring all water quality requirements and regulations are met. The City’s water supply portfolio consists primarily of groundwater and is supplemented with imported water.

The City’s annual water production and purchase for the past ten years is shown on Figure 3-1. The following is an overview of the City’s water supplies and associated capacities.

Figure 3-1
Annual Water Production and Purchase
3-1.1 Groundwater
The City has 8 active wells with a total capacity of 9,254 gpm (14,927 AFY). The groundwater is extracted from the Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin) and associated sub-basins. The City currently has 6,178 acre-feet per year (4.75261 percent of the annual safe yield of the basin as determined by the Water Master) of prescribed groundwater rights as part of the 1973 Main Basin Adjudication. In 2021, the City pumped 8,447 acre-feet, which represents approximately 81% of its demands.
3-1.2 Imported Water
The City is a member agency of the Three Valley’s Municipal Water District (TVMWD). TVMWD is one of twenty-six-member agency wholesalers of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) that provides imported water to the Southern California region via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and the State Water Project (SWP) systems. 11,682 11,821 8,449 9,285 9,515 10,698 10,135
9,513
10,675
8,447
789
1,166
4,708
2 154
0 497
0 11
1,975
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
20122013
2014
201520162017
20182019
20202021
Production and Purchase (AFY)
Fiscal Year
Imported Water
Groundwater
Item #1. Page 89
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 92

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-2 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
The City has three active turnout connections (PM-6, PM-18, and PM-23) that is fed from MWD’s Upper Feeder. PM-6, PM-18, and PM-23 have maximum capacities of 15 cfs, 10 cfs, and 15 cfs, respectively, for a total maximum capacity of 40 cfs (28,979 AFY). In 2021, the City used 1,975 acrefeet, which represents approximately 19% of its demands. 3-1.3 Covina Irrigating Company
The City owns a connection with the Covina Irrigating Company (CIC) with a maximum capacity of

3.3 cfs (2,390 AFY). CIC can provide supplemental water to the City via treated surface water and pumped groundwater from the Main Basin. In 2021, the City did not use any water from CIC, but has a historical average use of 22 AFY.
3-2 Existing Groundwater Rights
The Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin) lies in eastern Los Angeles County, California. The watershed coincides with a portion of the upper San Gabriel River watershed, and the groundwater basin underlies most of the San Gabriel Valley. The surface area of the Main Basin is approximately 167 square miles. The Main Basin is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, San Jose Hills to the east, Puente Hills to the south, and by a series of hills and the Raymond Fault to the west.

The watershed is drained by the San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo, a tributary of the Los Angeles River. Figure 3-2 provides an overview of the Main Basin.

The City has rights to pump groundwater from the Main Basin, which involves extensive governance and monitoring overseen by the Main San Gabriel Basin Water Master (Water Master), legal compliance, and ultimately usage by the Pumpers. The following is a summary of the Main Basin water rights and the associated tools that allow navigation for the extraction of groundwater from the Main Basin.
3-2.1 Judgements
Two main judgements dictate pumping from the Main Basin. These judgements are summarized as follows:
 Long Beach Judgement: The Long Beach Judgement was established in September 1965. This judgement requires that the area downstream from Whittier Narrows (Lower Area) receive an annual usable quantity of water from the San Gabriel River system made up of surface flow, subsurface flow and any water exported to the Lower Area. Any deficiency of usable water to the lower area is guaranteed by the Upper Area through the form of imported water purchased by the Water Master. The Long Beach Judgement also mandated oversight management through the formation of the San Gabriel River Water Master which is a separate entity from the Main Basin Water Master. The two Water Masters work collaboratively to ensure compliance with the Long Bach Judgement.
 Main Basin Judgement: The Main Basin Judgement was entered into in January 1973. This Judgement resulted in the adjudication of the Main Basin. The Main Basin Judgement provides for the replacement of water extracted from the Main Basin beyond a Party’s annual right established as part of the adjudication. The Main Basin Judgement is overseen by the Water Master. The Water Master establishes an annual Operating Safe Yield (OSY) which defines the maximum quantity of water each pumper is allocated to pump free of a replacement water Item #1. Page 90
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 93

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-3 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
assessment. If a Pumper pumps beyond its allocation, it must provide Supplemental Water that is spread into the Main Basin and pay the associated replacement water assessment.

Figure 3-2
San Gabriel Main Basin
3-2.2 Operating Safe Yields and Water Rights
The OSY defines the amount of groundwater each Pumper within the Main Basin can pump free of being charged the replacement water assessment. The Main Basin is estimated to have approximately 8.7 million acre-feet of usable storage based on a 1916 groundwater elevation of 329 feet at the Baldwin Park Key Well (Key Well). While this is an extraordinary amount of storage, and like all groundwater basins, it must be monitored, managed, and pumping limitations must be enforced to ensure the overall health of the basin and associated groundwater levels.

There are several critical factors in the OSY calculation that determine the annual amount of water that can be extracted by the Pumpers from the Main Basin. These factors include the current and projected groundwater elevation at the Key Well, which represents the water stored in the Main Basin.

A one-foot change in elevation at the Key Well represents approximately 8,000 acre-feet of stored water (refer to Section 3-3 for more details on Main Basin Storage). Other factors included in the OSY calculation include consideration of Main Basin hydrologic conditions (e.g., rainfall, storage of Key
Well
Item #1. Page 91
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 94

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-4 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
local run-off in surface reservoirs, conservation, stormwater runoff, etc.), availability of Supplemental Water, Cyclic Storage quantities, and Carry-over Rights. Since 1973 the OSY has ranged from a maximum of 240,000 acre-feet per year (years 2005-2006) to a low of 130,000 acre-feet per year, recently adopted by the Main Basin Water Master for fiscal years 2023 through 2027.

The City’s groundwater right of the established OSY is 4.75261 percent which yields a pumping right of 6,178 acre-feet per year through fiscal year 2027. The higher the OSY, the greater the City’s groundwater pumping right. The City’s pumping rights since 2012 in association with the established OSY and the future OSY for fiscal years 2023 to 2027 is shown in Table 3-1.

Over the past 10 years, the City’s pumping allocation has been reduced by approximately 3,800 acre-feet per year or 38%. The Water Master is collaboratively managing the Main Basin health to ensure longevity of future water supplies with several competing challenges (e.g., increased demands, drought, etc.).

This decrease will result in the pumping of additional groundwater at an increased cost due to the replacement water assessment and/or use of more imported water. 3-2.3 Assessments
As a Pumper within the Main Basin, the City is required per the Main Basin Judgement to pay assessments to fund basin management, administrative, and replenishment activities. The following is a summary of the various Main Basin assessments:
 Replacement Water Assessment: This assessment is applied when a Pumper exceeds pumping beyond its allocated water right from the Main Basin.  Resource Development Assessment: This assessment is applied unilaterally across all Pumpers for every acre-feet of pumping from the Main Basin to support the purchase of supplemental imported water to augment natural recharge for the benefit of the basin.  In-Lieu Assessment: This assessment is applied to Pumpers who take imported water in-lieu of pumping their groundwater rights to assist in promoting health of basin management to maintain groundwater levels in specific parts of the basin.
 Administration Assessment: This assessment is applied unilaterally across all Pumpers for every acre-feet of pumping from the Main Basin to support the administrative functions of the Water Master.
 Make-up Water Assessment: This assessment is applied to all Pumpers when the required amount of water cannot be naturally delivered to the Lower Area as determined by the San Gabriel River Water Master.

Table 3-2 provides an overview of the fiscal years 2022 and 2023 Main Basin assessments.

The City pays each of the respective assessments based on the conditions in which they pump groundwater. As long as the City stays within its pumping right allocation, the City pays the Resource 2012 210,000 9,980
2013 200,000 9,505
2014 180,000 8,555
2015 150,000 7,129
2016 150,000 7,129
2017 150,000 7,129
2018 150,000 7,129
2019 150,000 7,129
2020 150,000 7,129
2021 150,000 7,129
2022 150,000 7,129
2023-2027 130,000 6,178
Fiscal Year
OSY
(AFY)
City Water
Right
(AFY)
Table 3-1
Historical Operating Safe Yield
Item #1. Page 92
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 95

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-5 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Development Assessment and the Administration Assessment for a total of $192 per acre-foot for fiscal year 2022. Pumping beyond
the City’s groundwater right cost
$1,091 per acre-feet in 2022.
3-3 San Gabriel Basin
Hydrogeologic
Conditions
In addition to the regional vastness
of the Main Basin demonstrated on
Figure 3-2, the Main Basin supports
a robust hydrogeologic aquifer that
allows tremendous storage of groundwater.
3-3.1 Basin Characteristics
The Main Basin is divided into two main parts, the Main Basin and the Puente Subbasin. While the Puente Subbasin is hydraulicly connected to the Main Basin, it is not considered to be part of the Main Basin management and thus not under the purview of the Water Master. The Main Basin principal water-bearing formations are unconsolidated and semi-consolidated sediments which range in size from coarse gravel to fine-grained sands. While there are clay lenses throughout the Main Basin, there is not a uniform clay layer to form an impenetrable barrier. Thus, the Main Basin operates as an unconfined aquifer. The Main Basin ranges in depth from 800 feet (San Dimas area) above sea level to 2,200 feet below sea level (South El Monte area). Wells located in the deeper regions of the Main Basin have water bearing formations of approximately 4,000 feet and wells in the shallower regions have water bearing formations of approximately 200-300 feet. Wells located in the deeper formations provide greater yields then wells located in the shallower regions. 3-3.2 Sub-Basins
There are several sub-basins within the Main Basin. The two main sub-basins within the Main Basin that most affect the City are the Glendora Sub-basin and the Canyon Sub-basin.

The Glendora Sub-basin is located in the northeastern region of the Main Basin. It is primarily defined by the faults of the Sierra Madre Fault system, which is an east-west fault system spanning from northeast of San Dimas and westerly to the Sawpit Canyon near Monrovia. These faults dictate the groundwater movement between the Glendora Basin and the Main Basin. The City pumps part of its water supply from this location of the Main Basin. These wells typically yield less water due to the shallow nature of the basin in this area.

The Canyon Basin is located in the northern region of the Main Basin. Its boundaries are also defined by the Sierra Madre Fault system, which is generally located along the southerly base of the San Gabriel Mountains. Like the Glendora Sub-basin, these faults dictate the movement of water into the Main Basin. The City, along with other Pumpers, produce groundwater from this region of the basin.

Groundwater elevations in this part of the basin can be sensitive to drought conditions which have varied by more than 90 feet during extensive drought seasons.

A detailed discussion of the Main Basin hydrogeology can be found in the “Planned Utilization of Ground Water Basins, San Gabriel Valley, Appendix A: Geo-hydrology” (DWR, 1966).

FY 2022 FY 2023
($/AF) ($/AF)
Resource Development $175 $175
In-Lieu $8 Not Determined
Administration $17 Not Determined
Make-up Water $0 Not Determined
Replacement Water $899 $955
Assessment
Description
Main Basin Assessments
Table 3-2
Item #1. Page 93
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 96

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-6 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
3-3.3 Flow Characteristics
Water flow within the Main Basin is generally from a northeasterly to southwesterly direction. The various faults influence how water moves throughout the basin. The general direction of flow through the Basin is shown on Figure 3-3.

Groundwater does not flow between the Raymond Basin and the Main Basin due to the impervious nature of the Raymond Fault. Water flows into the Whittier Narrows is governed by the Long Beach Judgement as discussed in Section 3-2. The natural flow tendency, permeability, and optimum soil conditions (e.g., sands and gravels) of the Main Basin allows its Pumpers to produce cost effective water and allow the required amount of water to flow into the Lower Area. 3-3.4 Storage
Storage within the Main Basin is estimated to be approximately 8.7 million acre-feet per the 1916 groundwater elevation of 329.1 feet as measured at the Key Well, and as low as 7.4 million acre-feet per the 2018 groundwater elevation of 169.4 feet as measured at the Key Well. An overview of the Key Well groundwater elevations from 1997 to present is shown on Figure 3-4.

A key metric used by the Water Master in managing the basin is to maintain a 200-foot groundwater elevation at the Key Well. There is a distinct correlation between the Key Well elevation and sufficient water supplies for Pumpers to maintain a high OSY to maximize their pumping right allocations each year (refer to Table 3-1). As seen on Figure 3-4, groundwater levels in the Key Well clearly diminish in drought years such as 2015. The OSY was reduced from 180,000 acre-feet in 2014 to 150,000 acre-feet in 2015 and 130,000 acre-feet in 2023. Reduced groundwater levels and associated OSY has a direct effect on the City’s ability to pump cost-effective groundwater. 3-3.5 Main Basin Replenishment
The Main Basin has four major sources of replenishment. These sources include incidental rainfall recharge throughout the San Gabriel Valley, stormwater recharge through percolation, imported water recharge through percolation via spreading grounds, and natural river recharge along the various rivers and tributaries. Stormwater capture and recharge and imported water recharge are performed via spreading basins across the Main Basin and are operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Some spreading basin are multi-purpose and can spread both imported water and captured stormwater, while others are used purely for imported water.

The ability to measure groundwater recharge quantities is difficult, thus requiring estimates for many of the recharge activities. Imported water recharge is performed with somewhat of a quantifiable amount due to the metering of imported water. Stormwater capture is performed with a rough estimate as stormwater is captured and released in measured quantities. The Main Basin Water Master provides an overall recharge amount to the Main Basin each year knowing that it is a rough estimate and relies heavily on the Key Well elevation to determine the overall health of the Main Basin. Since 1973, it is estimated that approximately 7.5 million acre-feet has been recharged into the Main Basin through natural recharge, treated groundwater clean-up, cyclic storage, and resource development water recharge. The Water Master estimates that historical stormwater recharge has declined over the past decade on average from 111,000 acre-feet per year to approximately 55,000 acre-feet per year making it essential to find other water sources to make-up this shortfall.

Item #1. Page 94
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 97

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-7 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 3-3
Main Basin Groundwater Flow
Item #1. Page 95
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 98

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-8 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 3-4
Baldwin Park Key Well Elevations
Each of the Main Basin imported water wholesalers (Three Valleys Municipal Water District (TVMWD), San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (SGVMWD), and the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (USGVMWD)) have cyclic storage agreements with the Water Master to purchase and store untreated imported water when it becomes available to help offset the cost impacts of having to purchase replacement water. Many of the Pumpers also have individual cyclic storage agreements. Cyclic storage results in an overall benefit to the Main Basin with increasing groundwater levels and lower operating costs to Pumpers. The City has a Cyclic Storage Agreement to store 5,500 acre-feet of water.
3-4 Potential Local Groundwater Supply Development
The City’s existing average day water demands of 10,390 AFY closely approximate the current well field system production capacity (14,927 AFY per efficiency tests). With the increasing cost of imported water and increasing demands, it is advantageous for the City to maximize its groundwater pumping to meet the average day and peak season demands through enhanced groundwater pumping and evaluate other groundwater supply development options. Groundwater Supply Development Options are discussed below.

Item #1. Page 96
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 99

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-9 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
3-4.1 Irwindale Facility - Well 3 and Well 4 Groundwater Development The Irwindale Facility, which includes Wells 3 and 4, as well as the Irwindale Reservoir and Irwindale Booster Pump Station, has been inactive for over 20 years. Historically, when Well 3 and Well 4 were in operation, groundwater was pumped into the Irwindale Reservoir and then pumped up to the Gladstone Reservoir, which was a forebay for the Gladstone Booster Pump Station that pumped water into the Zone 1 system (see hydraulic schematic shown on Figure 5-2). The Gladstone Reservoir and Booster Pump Station have since been demolished.

Well 3 was constructed in 1923 and last operated in FY 1999-2000. Well 4 was constructed in 1920 and last operated in FY 1991-1992. Both wells ceased operation due to nitrate concentrations above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/l). Perchlorate levels are also elevated in the groundwater.

In 2017, TVMWD evaluated the opportunity to increase groundwater supply for its member agencies and reduce the use of imported water. This evaluation focused on repurposing the City’s now inactive Wells 3 and 4 and considering other agencies that could be served water from these two wells. At the time, it was estimated that Wells 3 and 4 could pump approximately 4,250 gpm or 6,200 acre-feet per year based on historical pumping data. The study made several specific assumptions, some of which are no longer valid. These include the use of the Irwindale Pump Station, the 18” pipeline between the Irwindale Pump Station and Gladstone Reservoir, and Gladstone Booster Pump Station.

These facilities are no longer in use or have been demolished.

The City should consider Well 3, Well 4, and Well 7 (Vosburg) as potential future supply sources to provide redundancy and offset the cost of using treated imported water. The City is currently working with TVMWD on an updated study with the most current information. The updated study should be based on:
 Constructing two (2) new wells to replace the existing Well 3 and Well 4, which are over 100 years old.
 Abandonment of the existing Wells 3 and 4
 Constructing a new nitrate and perchlorate treatment plant based on the most current water quality data
 Constructing a new forebay reservoir
 Constructing a new booster pump station to pump the effluent to the San Gabriel Plant  Constructing a new discharge pipe to the San Gabriel Plant, utilizing rehabilitated portions of the existing Vosburg Well discharge pipe at the 210 Freeway crossing, as well as channel and railroad crossings. The existing 18-inch discharge line is abandoned due to its deteriorated condition and the Gladstone Reservoir has been demolished  Constructing a standby generator with an automatic transfer switch to operate the facility during commercial power outages
 Constructing a new well to replace Well 7 (Vosburg Well)  Abandonment of Well 7
 Constructing a new discharge pipe from the new Well 7 to the Irwindale Treatment Plant Cost estimates for the possible future well development and associated facilities are provided in Table 3-3 and 3-4. Table 3-4 includes a new well to replace Well 7 (Vosburg Well).

Item #1. Page 97
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 100

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-10 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 3-3
Irwindale Facility Cost Estimate without Well 7
Facility
Name Recommendations
Recommendation
Notes
Construction
Cost Estimate
for
Improvements
Design &
Administration
Cost ($)
Construction
Management
Cost ($)
Contingency
Cost ($)
Total Project
Cost ($)
Drill new Well 3 $ 2,000,000 $ 400,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 3,100,000 Equip new Well 3 $ 3,000,000 $ 600,000 $ 450,000 $ 600,000 $ 4,650,000 Drill new Well 4 $ 2,000,000 $ 400,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 3,100,000 Equip new Well 4 $ 3,000,000 $ 600,000 $ 450,000 $ 600,000 $ 4,650,000 Existing Wells
3 and 4 Abandon existing Wells 3 and 4 $ 500,000 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 775,000 Nitrate and perchlorate vessels
(28, 12 ft diameter)
Need 8 vessels for
nitrates and 8 vessels
for perchlorate
$ 8,000,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 12,400,000 Nitrate and perchlorate Resin $ 4,000,000 $ 800,000 $ 600,000 $ 800,000 $ 6,200,000 Cartridge filters $ 600,000 $ 120,000 $ 90,000 $ 120,000 $ 930,000 Treatment Foundation $ 1,500,000 $ 300,000 $ 225,000 $ 300,000 $ 2,325,000 Above and below ground piping $ 2,000,000 $ 400,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 3,100,000 Reservoir Forebay reservoir (1MG) $ 3,000,000 $ 600,000 $ 450,000 $ 600,000 $ 4,650,000 Pump Station Booster pump station - three 250
hp pumps, with VFDs $ 5,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 750,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 7,750,000 20-inch pipe 3.5 miles of 20 inch
pipe, 50 feet of loss $ 18,480,000 $ 3,696,000 $ 2,772,000 $ 3,696,000 $ 28,644,000 4-inch brine line (10,000 LF) $ 1,200,000 $ 240,000 $ 180,000 $ 240,000 $ 1,860,000 Waste Discharge Connection
Fee $ 600,000 $ 120,000 $ 90,000 $ 120,000 $ 930,000
$ 54,880,000 $ 10,976,000 $ 8,232,000 $ 10,976,000 $ 85,064,000 Well 3 and
Well 4 (2,500
gpm each)
Treatment
Plant
Pipeline
Total
Item #1. Page 98
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 101

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-11 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 3-4
Irwindale Facility Cost Estimate with Well 7
Facility
Name Recommendations
Recommendation
Notes
Construction
Cost Estimate
for
Improvements
Design &
Administration
Cost ($)
Construction
Management
Cost ($)
Contingency
Cost ($)
Total Project
Cost ($)
Drill new Well 3 $ 2,000,000 $ 400,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 3,100,000 Equip new Well 3 $ 3,000,000 $ 600,000 $ 450,000 $ 600,000 $ 4,650,000 Drill new Well 4 $ 2,000,000 $ 400,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 3,100,000 Equip new Well 4 $ 3,000,000 $ 600,000 $ 450,000 $ 600,000 $ 4,650,000 Drill new Well 7 Assume 2500 gpm
capacity $ 2,000,000 $ 400,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 3,100,000 Equip new Well 7 $ 4,000,000 $ 800,000 $ 600,000 $ 800,000 $ 6,200,000 Pipeline from Well 7 to Irwindale 16-inch pipe 6,000 feet $ 4,800,000 $ 960,000 $ 720,000 $ 960,000 $ 7,440,000 Existing Wells
3, 4, and 7 Abandon Wells 3, 4, and 7 $ 750,000 $ 150,000 $ 112,500 $ 150,000 $ 1,162,500 Nitrate and perchlorate vessels
(32, 12 ft diameter)
12 vessels for nitrates
and 12 vessels for
perchlorate
$ 12,000,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 18,600,000 Nitrate and perchlorate Resin $ 6,000,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 900,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 9,300,000 Cartridge filters $ 900,000 $ 180,000 $ 135,000 $ 180,000 $ 1,395,000 Treatment Foundation $ 2,000,000 $ 400,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 3,100,000 Above and below ground piping $ 2,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 375,000 $ 500,000 $ 3,875,000 Reservoir Forebay reservoir (1.25 MG) $ 4,500,000 $ 900,000 $ 675,000 $ 900,000 $ 6,975,000 Pump Station Booster pump station - four 250
hp pumps, with VFDs $ 7,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,125,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 11,625,000 24-inch pipe 3.5 miles of 24-inch
pipe $ 22,176,000 $ 4,435,200 $ 3,326,400 $ 4,435,200 $ 34,372,800 4-inch brine line (10,000 LF) $ 1,200,000 $ 240,000 $ 180,000 $ 240,000 $ 1,860,000 Waste Discharge Connection
Fee $ 600,000 $ 120,000 $ 90,000 $ 120,000 $ 930,000
Total $ 80,926,000 $ 16,185,200 $ 12,138,900 $ 16,185,200 $ 125,435,300 Well 7
Treatment
Plant
Pipeline
Well 3 and
Well 4 (2,500
gpm each)
Item #1. Page 99
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 102

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-12 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
This project will allow utilization of the City’s full adjudicated water rights when the Pure Water Southern California Project (Pure Water Project) extension to the area is completed. The Pure Water Project is a regional recycled water program led by MWD that will provide up to 150 million gallons per day of treated Title 22 recycled water to the MWD service area from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District’s Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) located in Carson California. Figure 3-5 identifies the tentative alignment and quantities of recycled water that will be distributed throughout the MWD service area to select locations and basins.

Figure 3-5
MWD Pure Water Program
The Main Basin Water Master has indicated that up to 80,000 AFY of additional recharge into the Main Basin could be accepted. An additional benefit of this project is that it will increase the reliability of groundwater supplies and reduce the emergency storage needs for the system. Section 3-6.1.2 provides an overview of the Pure Water Project.

Current Grant/Loan Options for the City of Glendora:

1. County of Los Angeles Flood Control District’s (LACFCD) Safe Clean Water Program (SCWP): The LACFCD’s SCWP invests approximately $280 million annually into multibenefit stormwater capture projects and programs. The SCWP is designed to conserve billions of gallons of stormwater that would otherwise be lost to the ocean when it rains, and to do so in a manner that improves the livability and resilience of LA County’s communities through development of green space, recreational opportunities, and other enhancements. The SCWP strongly promotes regional collaboration, prioritizes investment in disadvantaged communities, and favors projects that employ nature-based elements.

As of January 2023, $670 million in Regional Program funding has been allocated to 101 projects, 14 scientific studies, 41 feasibility studies, and 12 watershed coordinators across the 9 watershed areas. This includes $530 million towards projects that benefit disadvantaged communities, and also leverages an additional $542 million from other funding sources.

Information about the planned and funded projects by watershed area and fiscal year is Item #1. Page 100
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 103

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-13 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
available on the LACFCD’s online Stormwater Investment Plan tool (https://portal.safecleanwaterla.org/sip-tool/).

For the Regional Program, an annual Call for Projects is conducted to solicit project proposals, the fourth of which closed on July 31, 2022. The Municipal Program 40% local return is distributed annually to the 86 municipalities within the LACSD boundaries. This funding is utilized by the municipalities for development of their own local multi-benefit stormwater capture projects and programs and may be used to contribute to regional-scale projects.

2. State Water Resources Control Board Division of Financial Assistance, Proposition 1, Groundwater Grant Program (GWGP): Proposition 1 was passed by voters in November 2014 and provided $900 million for a Groundwater Sustainability Program (Assembly Bill 1471, Chapter 10). The SWRCB will administer $670 million to prevent and cleanup contamination of groundwater that serves (or has served) as a source of drinking water. The funds are available as grants.

The SWRCB adopted the Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Guidelines (Guidelines) on May 18, 2016, and adopted amendments to the Guidelines on December 19, 2017 and February 2, 2021. Rounds 1 and 2 money for planning and implementation projects have been distributed. Round 3 project solicitations were due in late 2021 and preliminary awards were to be provided in Fall 2022 and grant agreement executions were to be in early 2023.

Round 4 is currently potential, but is based on the State of California budget which currently is in a deficit. If Round 4 is funded, then City of Glendora could apply for Planning or Implementation of the Irwindale Project depending on how SWRCB arranges Round 4 grants to be distributed.

3. Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Local Resource Program (LRP): MWD provides financial incentives for the development of water recycling, groundwater recovery, and seawater desalination projects. Projects can include water recycling, groundwater recovery, and seawater desalination.

There are three incentive payment options which includes:
1) Sliding scale incentives up to $340/AF over 25 years; 2) Sliding scale incentives up to $475/AF over 15 years, or 3) fixed incentive up to $305/AF over 25 years.

The City of Glendora can apply for MWD LRP funding for the Irwindale Project, but the application would be required to be submitted to MWD via TVMWD as the MWD member agency.
3-4.2 New Groundwater Wells
With the rising cost of MWD Tier 1 volumetric water, there is an increasing need to develop alternative water supplies and groundwater pumping capacity options. One such option is for the City to consider construction of additional groundwater wells to achieve the following objectives:

Item #1. Page 101
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 104

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-14 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
3-4.2.1 Maximize Groundwater Pumping Rights
Maximizing groundwater pumping rights is key to minimizing water supply costs. Groundwater pumping is traditionally the most cost-effective part of the City’s water supply portfolio. Currently, the City has the ability to pump their entire share of the adjudicated pumping rights (6,178 AFY at an OSY of 130,000 acre-feet) with an overall well capacity of 9,254 gpm or 14,927 AFY (see Table 5-3).

However, in future years when the Main Basin OSY rebounds to a higher level (e.g., 250,000 AFY), the City could be challenged to pump their entire adjudicated pumping right of 11,881 AFY.

When comparing adjudicated pumping cost of $192 per AF (2022/2023) in assessments plus operational costs (assumes $70 per AF for chemicals and energy) totaling $262 per AF to that of using imported water at a cost of $1,209 per AF (2023) there is a cost savings of approximately $947 per AF. For every 1,000 AF of adjudicated groundwater pumping recognized, there is a cost savings of approximately $947,000. The City’s ability to pump adjudicated groundwater during peak demand seasons is a critical component to maximizing its adjudicated pumping rights and minimizing water supply costs when considering unplanned outages due to mechanical failures, routine maintenance, water quality challenges and other unplanned events.
3-4.2.2 Pump 100% of Demands with Groundwater
With the stress on all water supplies throughout the Southern California region, it becomes critical for the City to be able to meet 100% of its demands to provide local water reliability to its customers.

The cost to pump beyond the City’s adjudicated water right is more expensive due to the Main Basin Replacement Water Assessment. The cost of pumping more than the adjudicated groundwater right is shown in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5
Pumping Costs above Adjudicated Water Right
While the cost of pumping above the adjudicated pumping water cost of $1,200 per AF is similar to that of imported water at a cost of $1,209 per AF, the City would have 100% water reliability being able to meet all of its water demands through a groundwater supply portfolio. Coupling this with a Cyclic Storage Program would assist in reducing water supply costs and provide the City with the ability to meet its customers’ demands when regional water supply constraint conditions occur. The City’s ability to use cyclic storage would assist in offsetting future imported water costs. Every 1,000 AF of cyclic storage used for the Replacement Water Assessment would result in approximately $60,000 in savings for the first year, assuming a 5% MWD rate increase. Subsequent years of cyclic storage use would save even greater amounts with additional MWD rate increases.

Development of a new groundwater well is a significant capital investment. The following planning guidelines are recommended for consideration in development of any future groundwater wells:
 Properly locate in Main Basin to achieve high yield
Cost Description $/AF

1.Replacement Water Assessment (2023) $955

2.Resource Development Assessment (2023) $175

3.Pumping Costs (Chemicals & Energy)1 $70
Total Costs $1,200
1Estimated cost
Item #1. Page 102
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 105

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-15 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
 Integration to appropriate distribution system pressure zone  Property acquisition (0.5 acre minimum)
 Ensure acceptable groundwater quality to minimize additional treatment  Equip well with automated controls for remote operation and monitoring to minimize labor and ensure high water quality performance
 Allow two to three years for planning, design, construction, and project start-up.

Cost of new wells in the Southern California area vary depending on several factors (e.g., well depth, property costs, proximity to distribution system, on-site facilities, water quality, required treatment, automation complexity, etc.). An order of magnitude planning estimate is $6 million to $9 million excluding distribution system pipelines and storage. A new well that produces 2,000 gpm (3,226 AFY) with an amortization of 4% at 30 years would cost $108 to $161 per AF for a $6M to $9M well project, respectively.
3-5 Future Groundwater and Imported Water Availability
3-5.1 Groundwater
3-5.1.1 Main Basin Conditions
The Main Basin continues to be the region’s main water supply source for numerous retail agencies making up a majority of their supply source. Over the past several years, the Main Basin has experienced a reduction in groundwater levels due to decreased stormwater replenishment and longer lasting droughts. The Water Master estimates that local runoff used for groundwater replenishment has decreased over the last 10 years on average to about 55,000 acre-feet per year when compared to the historical 40-year average (years 1970 to 2010) of 111,000 acre-feet per year as illustrated on Figure 3-6.

This condition is further evidenced by the Key Well elevation being approximately 180 feet below mean sea level (see Figure 3-4). Even with the extensive conservation efforts put forth by retail agencies and resulting water demands trending downward since 2006 (see Figure 3-7), the Main Basin continues to struggle to maintain a Key Well elevation above 200 feet, which is the minimum goal of the Water Mater to allow higher OSYs.

As such, the Main Basin Water Master has taken proactive basin management actions in collaboration with Pumpers to address the replenishment shortfall and increase the overall health of the Main Basin as follows:
 Implemented Resource Development Assessment to purchase additional untreated imported water when available;
 Kept OSY low for eight consecutive years to increase replacement water demand;  Increased cyclic storage with MWD for pre-delivery of 180,000 acre-feet over last 5 years;  Encouraged Pumpers to purchase Cyclic Storage water to use for replacement water when overpumping occurs; and  Participated in the development of the Pure Water Program to bring up to 80,000 acre-feet per year to the Main Basin
Item #1. Page 103
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 106

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-16 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 3-6
Main Basin Historical Runoff
Figure 3-7
Historical Water Demand Trends
3-5.1.2 Cyclic Storage and Conjunctive Use Agreements
Cyclic Storage and Conjunctive Use Agreements allow the storage of untreated imported water in a groundwater basin to be used at a later time. The main difference between the two types of agreements is that the ownership of the water stored under a Conjunctive Use structure is by the imported water wholesaler (e.g., MWD) for use at such a time as they deem necessary and can be extracted and used for distribution, whereas, the water stored under a Cyclic Storage Agreement is pre-purchased by the Water Master or water wholesaler for storage in the basin with deliveries taken over a varying time period for long-term use to stay within the storage basin . The Water Master has implemented both types of storage programs within the Main Basin to support increased groundwater elevations and to assist Pumpers in offsetting cost for Replacement Water.

In 2017, the Water Master entered into a Cyclic Storage agreement with MWD and Upper District for the delivery of 80,000 acre-feet with payment to occur over the succeeding five year period. In 2019, the Water Master, along with area water wholesalers, extended the 2017 agreement for an additional 110,000 acre-feet of untreated imported water for storage into the basin. This cyclic storage water has been used by the Water Master for replacement water, resource development water, and overall Item #1. Page 104
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 107

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-17 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
basin replenishment. The Water Master is being proactive in procuring imported untreated replenishment water when it becomes available.

In 2019, the City entered into a Cyclic Storage agreement with the Water Master for 5,500 acre-feet.

As of December 2022, there was a balance of 39.42 acre-feet of water stored in the City’s cyclic storage account. The City has used this cyclic storage water to offset the cost for over-pumping of their adjudicated groundwater rights in various years. It is recommended that the City not only continue with this practice but increase its cyclic storage quantity to allow for over-pumping of their adjudicated groundwater rights for a minimum of a 3-year period to help offset MWD rate increases that will be imposed on water wholesalers and retailers over the next several years and provide 100% local reliability. While over-pumping adjudicated groundwater rights is a cost-effective strategy, the City does have physical limitations of over-pumping during peak demand periods (e.g., Summer and fall) and when groundwater basin levels drop resulting in less production yield from its various wells.

Thus, it is recommended that the City develop additional wells that would allow for maximum production during peak demand seasons and in hydro-geologically beneficial areas of the Basin where lower groundwater elevations would yield sufficient well production as recommended in Section 3-10.1
3-5.1.3 MWD Untreated Water Availability
MWD untreated water availability varies each year depending on several factors including availability of SWP Table A allocation levels, rainfall conditions, levels in MWD reservoirs and the drought conditions in Southern California. In times of challenging water supply and drought conditions, MWD has the ability to enact its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), which has multiple tools to manage decreased water supplies. One of the primary tools is to enact its Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) which has ten levels and can reduce water deliveries across its wholesalers’ base from 5 percent up to 50 percent. During the 2015 drought, MWD enacted the WSAP to manage its water supply deliveries across its wholesalers to provide equitable distribution to meet demands.

The SWP Table A allocation differs each year and also may change over the course of the year.

Beginning with an initial allocation that is based primarily on a conservative dry hydrology, current storage and releases to be made through the year to meet SWP contractual and regulatory obligations, the allocation may change over winter and through spring to reflect the actual and forecast water supply. Table 3-6 illustrates SWP Historical Table A, showing allocations from 1996 to the present.

Item #1. Page 105
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 108

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-18 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 3-6
State Water Project
Historical Table A Allocations
Water Years 1996-2023 1
Year Date Allocation
12/1/1995 75%
3/4/1996 90%
3/8/1996 100%
12/2/1996 70%
2/11/1997 100%
12/1/1997 40%
1/26/1998 60%
2/11/1998 80%
3/11/1998 100%
11/24/1998 55%
2/10/1999 60%
3/10/1999 100%
11/30/1999 50%
2/25/2000 70%
3/10/2000 100%
4/20/2000 90%
12/1/2000 40%
1/31/2001 20%
3/6/2001 25%
3/15/2001 30%
5/4/2001 33%
5/17/2001 35%
8/16/2001 39%
11/30/2001 20%
1/11/2002 45%
3/22/2002 55%
3/28/2002 60%
5/14/2002 65%
8/23/2002 70%
12/3/2002 20%
1/16/2003 45%
3/26/2003 50%
4/24/2003 70%
5/16/2003 90%
12/1/2003 35%
1/15/2004 50%
3/1/2004 65%
12/1/2004 40%
1/14/2005 60%
4/1/2005 70%
4/21/2005 80%
5/27/2005 90%
2004
2005
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Item #1. Page 106
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 109

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-19 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 3-6 (Continued)
State Water Project
Historical Table A Allocations
Water Years 1996-2023 1
Year Date Allocation
11/22/2005 55%
12/14/2005 65%
1/17/2006 70%
3/23/2006 80%
4/18/2006 100%
2007 11/30/2006 60%2
11/21/2007 25%
2/1/2008 35%
10/29/2008 15%
3/18/2009 20%
4/15/2009 30%
5/20/2009 40%
11/30/2009 5%
2/23/2010 15%
3/30/2010 20%
4/22/2010 30%
5/3/2010 40%
5/20/2010 45%
6/22/2010 50%
11/22/2010 25%
12/16/2010 50%
1/20/2011 60%
3/15/2011 70%
4/20/2011 80%
11/18/2011 60%
2/21/2012 50%
4/16/2012 60%
5/23/2012 65%
11/29/2012 30%
12/21/2012 40%
3/22/2013 35%
11/19/2013 5%
1/31/2014 0%
4/18/2014 5%
12/1/2014 10%
1/15/2015 15%
3/2/2015 20%
12/1/2015 10%
1/26/2016 15%
2/24/2016 30%
3/17/2016 45%
4/21/2016 60%
2006
2008
2014
2015
2016
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Item #1. Page 107
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 110

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-20 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 3-6 (Continued)
State Water Project
Historical Table A Allocations
Water Years 1996-2023 1
Untreated water availability is planned for in MWD’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). MWD’s forecasted groundwater replenishment demands per the 2015 MWD IRP is shown in Table 3-7. The 2020 MWD IRP is currently in development.

MWD’s 2015 IRP plans for diminishing groundwater replenishment supplies starting in 2020 and holding constant for a 20-year period is shown in Table 3-7. It should be noted that groundwater replenishment supplies will decrease during times of drought as water supplies are moved around MWD’s service area based on the WSAP needs for equitable distribution. The WSAP assumes that groundwater replenishment can be deferred or minimized during drought years to accommodate Year Date Allocation
11/28/2016 20%
12/21/2016 45%
1/18/2017 60%
4/14/2017 85%
11/29/2017 15%
1/29/2018 20%
4/24/2018 30%
5/21/2018 35%
11/30/2018 10%
1/25/2019 15%
2/20/2019 35%
3/20/2019 70%
6/19/2019 75%
12/2/2019 10%
1/24/2020 15%
5/22/2020 20%
12/1/2020 10%
3/23/2021 5%
12/1/2021 0% 3
1/20/2022 15%
3/18/2022 5% 4
12/1/2022 5%5
1/26/2023 30%
1 Presents all allocation announcements for water years 1996 to the present. Data for earlier years can be found in Bulletin 132 or the 1967-1995 summary. 2 The 11/29/06 initial allocation of 60% for 2007 remained unchanged for that year, as documented in Notice to Contractors (NTC) 07--06.
2021
2022
2023
2017
2018
2019
2020
4 The 2022 final allocation is 5% of Table A, and supplying contractors unmet human health and safety needs, per NTC 22-03.
5 The 2023 initial allocation is 5% plus health and safety, per NTC 22-04. 3 The 2022 initial allocation is 0% of Table A; however, DWR is committed to supply contractor's unmet minimum health and safety needs, per NTC 21-07.

Item #1. Page 108
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 111

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-21 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
more immediate treated imported water demands. The last ten year historical groundwater replenishment in the Main Basin is shown in Table 3-8.

Table 3-7
MWD IRP Forecasted Demands (AFY)
MWD untreated imported groundwater
replenishments have varied from a low of 13,371
acre-feet per year to a maximum of 99,265 acrefeet per year with an average of approximately 52,000 acre-feet per year.

The City is a sub-member agency of MWD through
their regional water wholesaler TVMWD. In fiscal
year 2020, approximately 10,849 acre-feet of
untreated imported water was delivered into the
Main Basin by TVMWD. This replenishment water
was a combination of cyclic storage and resource
development water.

The volatility of available MWD untreated imported
water will continue to be a challenge for MWD and
its member agencies. Other sources of
replenishment water are necessary, as such,
recycled water will need to become a significant
contributor to Main Basin replenishment to ensure
continued use of the City’s full adjudicated
groundwater pumping rights.
3-6 Potential for Recharge Using Recycled Water and Stormwater Capture The City does not currently have a recycled water program. The City has the potential to participate in recycled water development in multiple ways as follows:
3-6.1 Recycled Water
3-6.1.1 Direct Water Recycling
The City can participate in developing its own recycled water program via a) the scalping of wastewater flows from its sanitary sewer system; or 2) receiving water from LACSD’s San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant. Direct Water Recycling primarily focuses on providing recycled water for customer uses for irrigation or industrial manufacturing uses.

Demand on Metropolitan
2016
Demands
(AFY)
2020
Demands
(AFY)
2025
Demands
(AFY)
2030
Demands
(AFY)
2035
Demands
(AFY)
2040
Demands
(AFY)
Consumptive Use 1,423,000 1,689,000 1,750,000 1,791,000 1,840,000 1,879,000 Seawater Barrier 16,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Replenishment 214,000 166,000 166,000 166,000 166,000 166,000 Total Demand on Metropolitan 1,653,000 1,860,000 1,918,000 1,959,000 2,008,000 2,047,000 Fiscal
Year
Local
Runoff
(AFY)
Replenishme
nt Water
(AFY)
Total
Replenishme
nt (AFY)
2012 39,100 57,846 96,946
2013 24,600 44,678 69,278
2014 21,900 36,717 58,617
2015 14,500 41,519 56,019
2016 35,200 60,092 95,292
2017 92,200 91,316 183,516
2018 29,400 55,115 84,515
2019 173,500 99,265 272,765
2020 79,700 54,736 134,436
2021 32,700 18,287 50,987
2022 29,300 13,371 42,671
Total 572,100 572,942 1,145,042
Table 3-8
10-Year Main Basin Replenishment Supplies
Item #1. Page 109
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 112

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-22 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
 Wastewater Scalping: This approach would require the construction of a Title 22 treatment system and “Purple Pipe” distribution system to specific customers throughout its service area.

Typical customers would include irrigation for parks, schools and medians, industrial process water for commercial customers, and potentially groundwater recharge. Treatment technology would include either membrane bioreactors (MBR) or conventional treatment systems. An example of a recycled water scalping system, associated distribution purple pipeline and potential customers is shown on Figure 3-8.
 Regional Distribution: This approach would receive water from LACSD’s San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, which is located approximately 10 miles away. This would require the construction of a regional transmission main and local purple pipe distribution infrastructure as shown on Figure 3-8. The focus of this water recycling approach would be to primarily serve City customers with retail needs to offset imported water usage.

The City evaluated recycled water opportunities and determined that direct water recycling was not cost-effective to serve local customers due to the required dedicated infrastructure and the minimal effect on offsetting imported water demands.
3-6.1.2 Regional Recycled Water Recharge
MWD is developing a regional recycled water project titled Pure Water Southern California (Pure Water) in partnership with Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD). This program will produce up to 150 mgd and provide groundwater recharge to several groundwater basins throughout Southern California. The Water Master indicates that up to 80,000 acre-feet per year of highly purified treated recycled water will be used to recharge the Main Basin. This recharge will significantly assist in restoring Main Basin water levels to allow Pumpers to more fully use their adjudicated water rights.

The project is currently in the environmental scoping and permitting process and is expected to be producing water as early as 2028.
3-6.2 Stormwater
Water supply availability continues to heighten the awareness and use of existing water supplies and the focus on developing new source water alternatives. Stormwater capture projects are being considered by agencies at a local level and regional basis as an additional water supply alternative.

Stormwater capture projects use local stormwater discharges that would normally be discharged to a river or ocean via city or county-maintained storm drain systems and instead use this water for groundwater replenishment in local groundwater basins, irrigation water at municipal/commercial sites, and other similar uses.

Various agencies have ventured into the stormwater capture arena with the development of local and regional projects. The Southern California Water Coalition (SCWC) published a 2018 whitepaper that assessed stormwater capture projects of varying magnitude across the Southern California region.

The goal of the SCWC whitepaper (Whitepaper) was to identify stormwater capture volumes, costs, benefits, and project performance across the region to better make future project decisions. The Whitepaper assessed 32 of the 54 identified stormwater capture projects of varying sizes from 6 agencies.

Item #1. Page 110
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 113

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-23 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 3-8
Example Recycled Scalping System and Customers
Item #1. Page 111
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 114

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-24 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
The Whitepaper categorizes stormwater projects into three main definitions as follows:
 Centralized for Recharge: Projects which capture rainfall and stormwater runoff from natural and engineered drainage systems and stored in centralized facilities such as spreading basins and recharge basins for the managed replenishment of local groundwater basins.  Distributed for Recharge: Projects which retain rainfall and stormwater runoff on site (at end user locations) to infiltrate into and replenish local groundwater basins. Examples of distributed recharge projects include green streets, park retrofits, permeable pavement and bio-swales.

Distributed for Direct Use: Projects which capture and store rainfall and stormwater runoff on site (at end user locations) which is then used to meet non-potable demands. Examples include stormwater capture using rain grading, tanks and cisterns, permeable pavement, and parkway basins. In some instances, stormwater capture for direct use may be used to meet potable demands as well.

The Whitepaper analysis determined that the cost and size of stormwater capture projects were core attributes in developing cost impactful projects. The cost of constructing and operating stormwater projects versus the stormwater yield captured is shown on Figure 3-9.

Figure 3-9
SCWP Unit Cost by Amount of Stormwater Captured
There are tremendous financial and institutional benefits to the larger Centralized for Recharge types of projects that produce an overall lower cost water supply. The overall findings of the Whitepaper analysis are as follows:
 Capital costs totaled $132 million for the 32 projects Item #1. Page 112
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 115

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-25 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
 Costs of the projects range from $59 per acre-foot to more than $250,000 per acre-foot  Median costs for distributed projects are $25,000 per acre-foot and new centralized projects are $6,900 per acre-foot
 The average stormwater captured for all 32 projects during the 11-year period was 13,400 AFY
The whitepaper analysis supports the findings of several local stormwater capture projects that have been completed or in process by local Los Angeles County municipalities.

In 2018, Los Angeles County voters passed Measure W to fund the Safe Clean Water Program (SCWP). The SCWP’s purpose is to provide regional direction to capturing stormwater to reduce reliance on imported water, provide enhanced water quality in stormwater discharges, and improve flood control management. The SCWP management is divided into nine watershed area steering committees that drive direction over regional projects. The City is part of the Upper San Gabriel Valley River Region. The SCWP is funded by a private parcel tax for properties within the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) service area. Fifty percent of funds are distributed proportionally to tax revenues collected for regional projects within that watershed region and forty percent are distributed directly to local municipalities proportional to tax revenues collected within their boundary.

Each year, participants of the SCWP file an annual report detailing the proposed projects they plan to implement. The City’s stormwater capture projects and proposed budget is summarized in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9
Proposed City Stormwater Capture Projects
The aforementioned projects primarily consist of distributed for recharge or direct use types of projects which will yield minimal recharge volume to the basin.

In consideration of the most cost-effective type of groundwater recharge project with maximum benefits to the City, the Pure Water Program will provide the greatest value to the City’s long-term water supply portfolio. Furthermore, this program is being developed at a rapid pace considering the size and span of the program, environmental processes, and stakeholders. It is recommended that the City support the Water Master’s efforts in developing this project to fruition.

Expenditure Type Name Budget
Program 1 NPDES Programs Administration $408,000
Program 2 Stormwater Master Plan $172,000
Project 1 Green Street Feasibility Study $15,000
Project 2 Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project $50,000 Project 3 Street Yard Roof Addition Project $95,000
Project 4 Storm Drain Inlet Trash Capture Device Installation $115,000 O&M Activity Drywell, and Pervious Pavement Cleaning $25,000 Community Outreach/Engagement Activity Community Outreach $9,200 Total $889,600
Item #1. Page 113
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 116

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-26 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
3-7 Water Banking
Water Banking has become an additional water portfolio management tool for many western US states to address declining water supplies and increased costs of imported water. Water banking allows for the storage of surplus surface water in a groundwater basin for use at a later time. In concept, water banking appears to be a practical approach to enhancing and diversifying a water agency’s water supply portfolio. However, due to the Southern California geography, complicated water rights issues, groundwater basin management requirements, and the ability to physically take delivery of banked water, there are numerous complex and costly hurdles to overcome to be involved in water banking.

Water banking opportunities for Southern California occur mostly in the Kern County area at the southern tip of the central valley near Bakersfield California in the San Joaquin Valley’s Groundwater Basin (SJV Basin). It is estimated that the SJV Basin can store up to 10 million acre-feet with approximately 1.5 million acre-feet available to the Kern Water Bank.

Various agencies have formed water banking projects within the SJV Basin. The largest being the Kern Water Bank. The Kern Water Bank (KWB) consists of six core agencies operating under a Joint Powers Authority to store water from the Central Valley Project (CVP) and SWP. The water is primarily used to serve local agricultural and residential demands. However, several large California water agencies have also contracted with various members of the KWB to bank water for later recovery and use during dry years. For example, the Semitropic Water Storage District (SWSD), a KWB JPA member, stores up to one million acre-feet for several water agencies such as MWD. Being the largest storage partner, MWD has storage rights within the SJV Basin up to 350,000 acre-feet compared to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) which has storage rights up to 30,000 acre-feet. SWSD indicates that they are expanding their water banking capacity and are seeking additional partners.

Other Southern California water agencies have developed their own water banking storage facilities within the SJV Basin through land purchases, construction of spreading basins, and groundwater recovery facilities. SWP and CVP water is purchased from water right holders for water banking during available wet years. The capital investment in these facilities has been several million dollars over the past twenty years. Taking physical delivery of the banked water remains one of the most challenging hurdles to water banking.

Most Southern California agencies involved in water banking take delivery of the physical water through exchanges with MWD or a SWP Contractor. The other option is to wheel the physical water through the MWD transmission infrastructure and take physical delivery of the actual water. There are numerous MWD requirements in addition to wheeling costs involved in transferring physical banked water through MWD’s transmission system. The wheeling costs per MWD are based on a negotiated amount and at the discretion of the General Manager to determine if sufficient capacity exists within the MWD transmission system to wheel water during the desired time frame. Wheeling costs are also potentially subject to MWD Capacity and Readiness-to-Serve (RTS) charges.

Water banking can be a proactive way to ensure water supply reliability to the City. However, there is no guarantee that the banked water can be delivered in the time frame it is needed or at a reasonable cost. Water banking is a more robust long-term water supply portfolio management tool than a short-term tool. For example, in December 2021, MWD agreed to purchase 4,200 acre-feet Item #1. Page 114
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 117

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-27 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
of SDCWA banked water in the SWSD system for $983 per acre-feet. SDCWA purchased the banked water in 2008 for approximately $285 per acre-feet.

Water banking is not recommended as a short-term viable approach for the City given the numerous challenges associated with taking delivery of the banked water and the high costs. More immediate and local water supply reliability approaches are available (e.g., Pure Water Program groundwater recharge, cyclic storage purchases, etc.) to balancing the City’s long-term water supply portfolio than water banking. Should the City desire to proceed with water banking supply enhancements, it is recommended that the City engage a qualified consultant knowledgeable in water banking specifics to guide the City through the process of establishing a storage water bank. 3-8 Water Conservation and Rationing
3-8.1 Water Conservation
Water conservation has been at the forefront as an alternative water supply for several decades, helping communities meet increasing water demands while populations grow and businesses develop. The City, like many agencies across the country, have partnered with customers and regulatory agencies to find innovative ways to reduce water use while ensuring sufficient supplies and minimizing increasing costs.

In 1996, the City started its compliance roadmap of the State of California’s SB X7-7 law to achieve a reduction of 20% of its demands by 2020 or to achieve 95% of the
applicable state hydrologic region target as set forth in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. To
achieve 95% of the South Coast Hydrologic Region
target, the City’s 2020 target was established as shown in Table 3-10.

The City has not only achieved their 2015 interim SB X7-7 target goals, it has also achieved its 2020 ultimate target goals. The City’s extensive conservation efforts have been a core part in obtaining this performance.

The City’s exceptional water conservation performance achievements have been a result of its offering of a wide array of varying conservation programs. The residential conservation programs have included low flow fixture replacements, low-flow toilet retrofits, turf replacement, smart irrigation controller replacements, high efficiency clothes washer replacements, and rain barrel/cistern programs. Additionally, the City has instituted conservation rates that encourage customers to use less water based on a two-tiered volumetric system.

The commercial conservation programs have included low-flow toilet retrofits, commercial turf replacement, and replacement of traditional urinals with waterless urinals. The aforementioned programs have been essential in achieving each of the City’s SB X7-7 target compliance.

Like all new water supply development, these conservation efforts have come with a significant capital investment. Unlike traditional water supply projects that construct and operate tangible assets (e.g., treatment plants, wells, pipelines, reservoirs, etc.), water conservation typically has minimal to no tangible conventional assets, and as such, can be difficult to quantify its costs and impacts. A 2015 Pacific Institute study titled “The Cost of Alternative Water Supply and Efficiency Options in California” attempted to examine several years of conversation program costs across California and translate 2020 Target 2020 Actual
(GPCD) (GPCD)
218 194
Table 3-10
SBX7-7 Target and Performance
Item #1. Page 115
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 118

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-28 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
them into dollars per acre-feet savings. The following are costs associated with Residential Water Efficiency Measures:

Several of the traditional water conservation measures have a remarkable return on capital investment as shown in Table 3-11. For example, the cost of retrofitting residential toilets (3.5 gpf to

1.27 gpf) provides an overall relative cost savings in the long-term when considering the amount of water that is saved over the lifecycle of the toilet. However, when evaluating retrofitting toilets with more efficient flows (e.g., 1.6 gpf to 1.27 gpf) there is a large capital cost associated with this effort ranging from $1,200 to $4,600 per acre-feet. Similarly, the cost to perform landscape conversion at $5 per square foot has a larger per acre-feet cost than landscape conversion at $2 per square foot.

The difference between these two costs is a result of converting a fully healthy lawn with a low usage landscape versus a conversion of a lawn that had already perished and needed replacement.

Table 3-11
Cost of Alternative Water Supply and Efficiency Options in California (Residential)
Several of the same types of water conservation efforts used on the residential sector also have tremendous success in the commercial non-residential sector as shown in Table 3-12. Showerhead retrofits, clothes washer replacements, and landscape conversions (at $2 per square foot) have all yielded long-term cost savings and several thousands of potable acre-feet per year in increased water supply.

Water conservation has made significant contributions to increasing water supply for a growing population. However, there are continuing challenges associated with water conservation efforts as follows:

A. Market Penetration: Water conservation efforts have been ongoing for several decades. While water conservation has had significant impacts in freeing up additional water supply for growth, much of the traditional water conservation efforts have been implemented across the City as a result of excellent outreach and regulatory changes in the plumbing codes. As such, it is increasingly more difficult to achieve that next level of water conservation savings without tremendous impacts to costs and customers’ standards of living.

Item #1. Page 116
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 119

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-29 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 3-12
Cost of Alternative Water Supply and Efficiency Options in California (Non-Residential)
B. Wastewater Impacts: While there have been extensive efforts put into water conservation efforts on the potable water use arena, there has been minimal effort put into the impacts water conservation has had on wastewater management. While water conservation has achieved significant water savings, this has resulted in increased operational challenges in wastewater treatment, conveyance costs and recycled water costs. Older wastewater treatment and conveyance systems were designed for a minimum of 100 to 125 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). When compared to the proposed State of California indoor wastewater discharge goals of 55 gpcd by 2025 and 52.5 gpcd by 2030, this presents operational challenges in additional treatment costs (e.g., more energy, chemicals, and labor). In some instances, entire infrastructure has had to be replaced to accommodate lower wastewater flows. Much of the older sewer infrastructure was originally designed for 2 feet per second velocities and now must be designed for 3 to 4 feet per second to achieve the same cleansing velocity with lower sewer flows, thus, requiring more lift stations and associated pumping and energy costs.

C. Cost: The development of additional water supplies is traditionally more costly than existing sources. Similarly, the same is true for water conservation efforts. The City has achieved remarkable success in implementing water conservation. However, the next level of water conservation will require innovation and will be more costly than the traditional water conservation efforts recognized to date as the existing market reaches maturity and full market penetration with traditional devices.

Item #1. Page 117
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 120

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-30 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Water conservation continues to play a core part of the City’s water supply portfolio. Moving forward, water conservation programs will continue to be offered. However, as these traditional water conservation efforts are reaching implementation maturity, there will be less additional water savings recognized from this part of the water supply portfolio. Additionally, increased water conservation results in an impact to future recycled water production. 3-8.2 Water Rationing
On June 1, 2022, the City implemented Stage 3 of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP).

The primary objective of Stage 3 is to reduce water use by 20 percent. Glendora’s average use is 150 gpcpd. Therefore, Stage 3 requires each resident to reduce water usage by about 30 gpcpd to comply.

The WSCP Stage 3 mandatory restrictions include the following:
 Outdoor watering is restricted between 8 am- 5 pm
• Watering limited to 3 days per week
• Watering limited to 5 minutes per station.
• Irrigation systems with drip irrigation are given an exception for an additional 15 minutes as long as there is no runoff.
 No washing down sidewalks or driveways.
 No excessive runoff from landscape irrigation that causes water flow onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, or gutter.
 No outdoor watering during and 48 hours following measurable rainfall.  No washing motor vehicles with a hose, unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle.

ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS: FOR BUSINESSES
 Restaurants, cafes, and bars can only serve water to customers upon request.  Hotels and motels must display a notice providing guests with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily.

While MWD implemented a water shortage emergency in April 2022 for all SWP dependent member agencies, it has yet to enact its Water Supply Allocation Plan. SWP dependent member agencies have been mandated to restrict watering to one day per week. TVMWD is part of the MWD water shortage emergency, restricting water usage to one day per week. Thus, the MWD conservation mandates override the City’s WSCP limiting water to 3 days per week.

Implementation of the WSCP and associated water rationing will continue until such time that the State declares the drought is over and sufficient rainfall and stormwater capture has occurred to replenish local water supplies. Additional WSCP levels and mandatory restrictions could also be implemented should the drought persist and available water supplies become even more restricted. 3-9 Main Basin Water Rights Purchases
The City’s most cost-effective water supply is its groundwater pumping from the Main Basin. As discussed in Section 3-2, maximizing the City’s Main Basin groundwater pumping rights is critical to Item #1. Page 118
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 121

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-31 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
ensuring local water reliability. With a prescriptive right of 4.75261 percent, acquiring additional Main Basin groundwater rights would help ensure continued water reliability at a more cost-effective rate then using imported water supplies.

There are a total of 78 entities with pumping rights within the Main Basin. Sixty-eight (68) Pumpers have a total groundwater right of 76.46119 percent and 10 Integrated Pumpers have a total groundwater right of 23.53881 percent. The largest users (e.g., > 1%) of each category are shown in Table 3-13.

Table 3-13
Largest Main Basin Groundwater Rights Users
Sixteen (16) of the sixty-eight (68) Pumpers make up 67.22364 percent and eight (8) of the ten (10) Integrated Pumpers make up 23.45507 percent of the Main Basin groundwater pumping rights for a total of twenty-six (26) Pumpers holding 90.67871 percent of total Main Basin groundwater pumping rights. Thus, 9.32129 percent of groundwater pumping rights are held by fifty-two (52) smaller and mostly non-municipal entities. In 2016, the City was successful in securing additional groundwater rights from Monrovia Nursery Company and CV Santa Rosa Investments for a total addition of 194 acre-feet.

With an OSY of 130,000 acre-feet, there is approximately 12,118 acre-feet available from nonmunicipal Pumpers that could have an interest in selling these groundwater rights as they become available, or these entities decide they no longer have a need for them. A one percent acquisition of additional groundwater pumping rights would yield an additional 1,300 to 2,500 acre-feet per year with an OSY of 130,000 to 250,000 acre-feet OSY, respectively.

Main Basin Pumper
Percent
Groundwater
Right Main Basin Pumper
Percent
Groundwater
Right
Suburban Water Systems 12.59998 Azusa Valley Water Co. 5.06299 San Gabriel Valley Water Co. 10.49247 City of Glendora 4.75261 California Domestic 6.26154 Covina Irrigating Co. 3.22577 Cal American-San Marino 4.74431 City of Monrovia 3.09472 City of Alhambra 4.45876 County of Los Angeles 1.88292
City of Arcadia 4.23099 City of Azusa 1.84988
City of Whittier 4.18519 Cal American (Durate) 1.84634
City of Monterey Park 3.39216
Golden State Water Co. -
San Dimas District 1.73984
Pellissier Irrevocable QTIP Trust 3.28384 Subtotal 23.45507 Valley County Water District 3.01517 Total 90.67871
Golden State Water_S.G.V. District 2.92105
San Gabriel County Water District 2.73019
City of El Monte 1.40888
IBY Property Owner, LLC 1.20047
Hanson Aggregates West, Inc. 1.17094
Sunny Slope Water Co. 1.1277
Subtotal 67.22364
Item #1. Page 119
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 122

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-32 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
It is recommended that the City actively engage these smaller groundwater right entities to gauge their interest in selling their Main Basin rights.
3-10 Recommendations
Water supply reliability is a critical component to the City’s future water portfolio. Managing all the integrated parts of this portfolio will establish the most cost-effective approach to ensuring reliable service to the customers. The following are recommendations for the City to consider in implementing the City’s future water supply portfolio combined with the other sections of this Master Plan. 3-10.1 Construct Groundwater Wells
Construction of additional groundwater wells will allow the City to meet current and future demands that take into account future development projects, accessory dwelling units, unforeseen outages, maintenance issues, and increased water reliability. Construction of new wells will also allow the City to pump 100% of their demands during regionally challenged water supply restrictions. Construction of new wells should follow the general criteria outlined in Section 3-4. 3-10.2 Support Groundwater Projects that Increase Main Basin Operating Safe Yield Support of projects that increase the Main Basin OSY will result in greater pumping rights availability to the City. Projects the City should consider include the MWD Pure Water Program that will provide significant recharge of the Main Basin of up to 80,000 acre-feet per year using purified recycled water.

Other projects for consideration include local stormwater capture projects that result in recharge of the Main Basin in significant quantities.
3-10.3 Maximize Cyclic Storage to Offset Imported Water Cost Maximizing the City’s cyclic storage account will assist in offsetting increased imported water costs.

It is recommended that the City purchase a minimum of 3-years of supplemental untreated imported water to store in their cyclic storage account to offset future MWD imported water rate increases.

This approach will allow the City to over pump groundwater and replace it with cyclic storage water purchased in prior years, thus, minimizing the need to take more expensive imported water that experiences a rate increase of approximately 5% per year on average. It should be noted that while using cyclic storage is a cost-effective strategy, the City does have physical pumping limitations during peak demand periods (e.g., Summer and fall) and when groundwater basin levels drop resulting in less production yield from its various wells. Thus, it is critical for the City to develop additional well pumping capacity to recognize the benefits of cyclic storage and full groundwater pumping rights during high demand seasons.
3-10.4 Conduct Updated Study of Well 3, Well 4, and Well 7 It is recommended that the City continue to consider replacing Well 3, Well 4, and Well 7 (Vosburg) as potential future supply sources to provide redundancy and offset the cost of using treated imported water. The City is currently working with TVMWD on an updated study with the most current information.
3-10.5 Continue Implementing Water Conservation Measures to Reduce Water Demands It is recommended the City continue to work with its customers to ensure mandatory conservation restrictions are implemented and conservation rebates are readily available.

Item #1. Page 120
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 123

WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 3-33 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
3-10.6 Pursue the Purchase of Additional Main Basin Groundwater Rights It is recommended that the City reach out to the non-municipal Main Basin Groundwater right holders to gage their interest in selling their groundwater rights. A one percent increase in groundwater rights will result in an additional 1,300 AFY to 2,500 AFY. This effort could result in a significant cost savings to the City each year in regards to the water budget.
3-10.7 Actively Participate in TVMWD and Main Basin Water Policy Decisions The City’s active involvement in regional policy decisions will help minimize future water rate increases. The Water Master determines each year how much replenishment water will be purchased and spread and the associated assessment costs. The City’s input into this process will allow collaboration on future rate increases, setting of OSY levels, and assessment policies that are implemented that result in lower costs to Basin Pumpers.

Item #1. Page 121
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 124
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
SECTION 4

WATER USE
4-1 Historical Annual Water Use
The City of Glendora’s total annual water production and purchase from 2012 to 2021, shown in Figure 4-1 and Table 4-1, ranged from 9,288 AFY to 13,156 AFY. The Governor declared a State of Emergency in January 2014 due to severe drought conditions in California. As a result, water conservation measures were implemented and the City’s water demand began to decline due to its customers conscientious water conservation efforts. The drought emergency declaration was lifted in April 2017. However, California soon fell back into drought conditions in 2018 and 2020-2021. In the last five years, the demands have rebounded slightly, but not to the same level as it had once been in the early 2010’s. Over the past five years, the total production and purchase has stayed relatively steady and averaged about 10,390 AFY (9.28 mgd).

Figure 4-1
Annual Water Production and Purchase
11,682
11,821
8,449
9,285
9,515
10,698
10,135
9,513
10,675
8,447
789
1,166
4,708
2 154
0 497
0 11
1,975
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
20122013
20142015201620172018201920202021
Production and Purchase (AFY)
Fiscal Year
Imported Water
Groundwater
Item #1. Page 122
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 125

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-2 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 4-1
Annual Water Production and Purchase
PM-6
(AFY)
PM-18
(AFY)
PM-23
(AFY)
CIC
(AFY)
Total
(AFY)
% of
Total
Well
2E
Well
5E
Well
8E
Well
9E
Well
10E
Well
11E
Well
12E
Well
13E
Total
(AFY)
% of
Total
2012 52 161 478 98 789 6% 615 2,570 1,810 2,025 212 415 2,827 1,208 11,682 94% 12,470 2013 3 485 678 0 1,166 9% 648 2,666 1,722 2,218 533 575 2,328 1,131 11,821 91% 12,987 2014 1,028 900 2,705 75 4,708 36% 298 1,935 879 1,999 250 760 1,196 1,131 8,449 64% 13,156 2015 2 0 0 0 2 0% 412 2,109 1,675 1,653 2 37 2,670 728 9,285 100% 9,288 2016 0 89 65 0 154 2% 332 2,326 1,595 1,683 75 89 2,902 513 9,515 98% 9,669 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0% 169 2,196 1,860 1,873 17 13 4,020 549 10,698 100% 10,698 2018 0 233 230 34 497 5% 365 1,808 1,694 1,836 237 363 3,161 671 10,135 95% 10,633 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0% 259 1,441 1,865 1,491 57 37 3,661 701 9,513 100% 9,513 2020 0 0 0 11 11 0% 437 2,395 1,561 1,884 107 110 3,670 512 10,675 100% 10,686 2021 735 432 809 0 1,975 19% 741 1,986 665 1,708 284 138 2,077 847 8,447 81% 10,422 Average 182 230 496 22 930 8% 428 2,143 1,533 1,837 178 254 2,851 799 10,022 92% 10,952 Calendar
Year
Imported Water Purchased Groundwater Production Total
Production
and
Purchase
(AFY)
Item #1. Page 123
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 126

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-3 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
4-2 Non-Revenue Water
As with most water providers, the City typically produces/purchases more water than the total quantity measured by the customer meters. The difference between production/purchase and water billing data is considered non-revenue water. The City calculates and reports non-revenue water to the Department of Water Resources each year. The non-revenue water ranged from 853 AFY in FY 2020-2021 to 1604 AFY in FY 2016-2017 as shown in Table 4-2. The discrepancy is typically due to the differences in the accuracies of the few large meters which measure purchases and production, and the
thousands of small customer meters which measure sales.

Non-revenue water can also be due to unmeasured uses
such as fire flows, water main flushing and other
maintenance related tasks. The remainder may be due to
leaks from the system. The City’s annual non-revenue water has been declining over the base five years. Since 2018- 2019, the non-revenue water percentage has been within
industry standard (10 percent or less). It is assumed that as the City completes more and more replacement of pipe, this will reduce the number of water line breaks each year and possible undetected leaks, which in turn will reduce the nonrevenue water volume. 4-3 Water Demand Variations
Demand variations through a year are influenced by seasonal effects such as temperature, humidity, and precipitation. System demand variations throughout a day are influenced by the customer base and the daily lifestyles of the customers. In primarily residential areas, the peak demands within a day typically occur in the morning hours between 6:00 am and 9:00 am, when customers wake to begin their daily routine, with a secondary peak occurring in the evening. In largely commercial and industrial areas, the peaks may occur mid-day or the demand may even remain relatively constant throughout the workday. For this study, the variations are expressed as a ratio to the average demand, with the average demand being equal to one.
4-3.1 Monthly Demand Variations
Typical of most Southern California communities, the City’s water consumption exhibits a distinct seasonal pattern. Peak and low monthly consumption occur during the dry summer months and wet winter months, respectively. Historic monthly production data was used to analyze monthly demand variations. The monthly demand factors are shown in Table 4-3. The highest water use typically occurs in July or August. The lowest water use typically occurs in December thru March. The highest and lowest monthly demand factors were found to be 1.82 and 0.44, respectively. A graph of the historic monthly demand factors (monthly demand/average monthly demand) is illustrated on Figure 4-2.

AFY %
2016-2017 1,603.6 16.3
2017-2018 1,479.3 13.9
2018-2019 726.5 7.6
2019-2020 195.4 2.2
2020-2021 853.3 8.0
Average 971.6 9.6
Fiscal Year
Table 4-2
Non-Revenue Water
Non-Revenue
Water
Item #1. Page 124
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 127

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-4 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 4-3
Monthly Water Production and Demand Factors (2012-2021)

Month
2012
(AF)
Monthly
Demand
Factor
2013
(AF)
Monthly
Demand
Factor
2014
(AF)
Monthly
Demand
Factor
2015
(AF)
Monthly
Demand
Factor
2016
(AF)
Monthly
Demand
Factor
2017
(AF)
Monthly
Demand
Factor
January 757 0.73 648 0.60 1,013 0.92 753 0.97 490 0.61 608 0.68 February 684 0.66 715 0.66 719 0.66 653 0.84 589 0.73 390 0.44 March 758 0.73 881 0.81 806 0.73 802 1.04 578 0.72 669 0.75 April 715 0.69 990 0.91 1,043 0.95 801 1.03 687 0.85 887 0.99 May 1,059 1.02 1,300 1.20 1,378 1.26 678 0.88 780 0.97 935 1.05 June 1,337 1.29 1,248 1.15 1,699 1.55 811 1.05 940 1.17 1,058 1.19 July 1,437 1.38 1,407 1.30 1,280 1.17 864 1.12 1,131 1.40 1,200 1.35 August 1,891 1.82 1,542 1.42 1,414 1.29 961 1.24 1,155 1.43 1,169 1.31 September 1,227 1.18 1,247 1.15 1,195 1.09 851 1.10 1,023 1.27 1,046 1.17 October 1,153 1.11 1,188 1.10 1,191 1.09 791 1.02 906 1.12 1,033 1.16 November 874 0.84 982 0.91 857 0.78 712 0.92 782 0.97 846 0.95 December 579 0.56 838 0.77 561 0.51 610 0.79 608 0.75 859 0.96 Average 1,039 1.00 1,082 1.00 1,096 1.00 774 1.00 806 1.00 892 1.00 Month
2018
(AF)
Monthly
Demand
Factor
2019
(AF)
Monthly
Demand
Factor
2020
(AF)
Monthly
Demand
Factor
2021
(AF)
Monthly
Demand
Factor
Minimum
Monthly
Factor
Average
Monthly
Factor
Maximum
Monthly
Factor
January 676 0.76 527 0.66 596 0.67 662 0.76 0.60 0.74 0.97 February 707 0.80 387 0.49 660 0.74 534 0.62 0.44 0.66 0.84 March 556 0.63 526 0.66 551 0.62 753 0.87 0.62 0.76 1.04 April 844 0.95 832 1.05 598 0.67 833 0.96 0.67 0.91 1.05 May 873 0.98 706 0.89 996 1.12 1,019 1.17 0.88 1.05 1.26 June 1,025 1.16 915 1.15 1,049 1.18 1,088 1.25 1.05 1.21 1.55 July 1,248 1.41 1,120 1.41 1,177 1.32 1,138 1.31 1.12 1.32 1.41 August 1,230 1.39 1,172 1.48 1,203 1.35 1,133 1.30 1.24 1.40 1.82 September 1,097 1.24 1,061 1.34 1,154 1.30 1,016 1.17 1.09 1.20 1.34 October 931 1.05 1,007 1.27 1,067 1.20 857 0.99 0.99 1.11 1.27 November 854 0.96 778 0.98 838 0.94 813 0.94 0.78 0.92 0.98 December 592 0.67 482 0.61 795 0.89 577 0.66 0.51 0.72 0.96 Average 886 1.00 793 1.00 890 1.00 869 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.82 Note: Peak month factors are highlighted in red. Minimum month factors are highlighted in green.

Item #1. Page 125
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 128

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-5 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 4-2
Monthly Demand Factors (2012-2021)
4-3.2 Daily Demand Variations
Within any given month, demand can vary based on usage patterns (i.e., weekend usage is typically different than weekdays) and other factors such as irrigation schedules. The maximum demand day occurring over the course of the year is an important parameter for planning purposes as required source of supply is based on this demand. The maximum daily demand for 2021 was determined to be about 12.19 mgd when the data was extracted from the City’s Advanced Metering Instrumentation (AMI) system data. Adjusted up to production values (production was about 9.3% higher than billing data in August 2021), the maximum daily demand is estimated to be 13.27 mgd. 4-3.3 Hourly Demand Variations
Knowledge of accurate demand variations over a 24-hour period is essential for proper analysis of water systems. For this study, hourly demand variations were represented by the development of diurnal demand curves for various hydraulic zones. The diurnal demand curves were employed in determining the adequacy of the sources of supply, pumping facilities, reservoirs, and the transmission/distribution facilities.

The hourly water usage for various zones was determined based upon data collected from the City’s SCADA system from May 26, 2022 through June 16, 2022. The facility flow meters, pump flows, and water levels in the reservoirs were utilized in calculating the demands and demand factors in 5-minute

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9

1.0 1.1

1.2 1.3

1.4 1.5

1.6 1.7

1.8 1.9

2.0 Monthly Demand Factor
Month
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

AVERAGE
January
February
March
AprilMayJune
July
August
September
October
November
December
Item #1. Page 126
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 129

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-6 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
increments over a typical 24-hour period. The average weekday diurnal demand curves developed are shown on Figure 4-3.

Figure 4-3
Diurnal Demand Curves
4-4 Existing System Demands and Peaking Factors
It is important to evaluate a water system during various incremental peak demands. Typically, a water system is designed to meet the maximum demands placed on it. The system components must be designed to provide these demands as they occur. Maximum month and maximum day demands are important factors in determining a system’s supply capability. Maximum day demands usually dictate the design criteria for both system transmission, storage needs, and pump capacity requirements. Peak hour criterion is a measure of the system’s overall adequacy with respect to its transmission and distribution elements, as well as its operational storage capacity. The City of Glendora’s water system demands utilized in this study are shown in Table 4-4.

The City’s existing water demands must be established in order to evaluate the current status of the water system infrastructure with respect to pump capacities, storage requirements, pipe velocities and system pressure. The demand estimates used in this study are shown in Table 4-5 by zone.

Item #1. Page 127
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 130

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-7 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 4-4
Water System Demands and Peaking Factors
Minimum Month Demand - The minimum month peaking factor was determined from the City’s annual production and purchase records from 2012 through 2021 and is estimated as 0.44 times the average month demand. This demand typically occurs in winter months and is estimated at 2,835 gpm (4.08 mgd).

Average Day Demand - The existing system average day demand (ADD) is based on the City’s average daily production and purchase data for the last five years (2017 through 2021). The average day demand is 6,442 gpm (9.28 mgd).

Maximum Month Demand - The maximum month peaking factor was determined from the City’s annual production and purchase records from 2012 through 2021 and is estimated as 1.40 times the average month demand. This demand typically occurs in winter months and is estimated at 9,019 gpm (12.99 mgd).

Maximum Day Demand - Daily AMI data was provided for August 2021. The highest demand seen was 12.19 mgd occurred on August 2, 2021. This number was increased to 13.32 mgd account for system losses. The percentage increase was calculated by comparing the total production data to the total billing data for the month of August 2021. The maximum day demand factor for 2021 was calculated to be 1.43.

The maximum day demand (MDD) factor for this Master Plan Study was conservatively set at 1.50 for planning purposes. Therefore, the MDD is estimated at 9,664 gpm (13.92 mgd).

Peak Hour Demand – Modeled peak hour demands were based upon the diurnal demand curves illustrated on Figure 4-3. The overall peak hour system demand is estimated to be 2.61 times the average day demand or 16,828 gpm (24.23 mgd). This factor varies by zone depending on the diurnal curve.
(gpm) (mgd) (AFY)
Minimum Month2 2,835 4.08 4,572 0.44
Average Day3 6,442 9.28 10,390 1.00
Maximum Month4 9,019 12.99 14,546 1.40
Maximum Day5 9,664 13.92 15,585 1.50
Maximum Day, Peak Hour6 16,828 24.23 27,140 2.61
3Average Day Demand is the average from 2017-2021
4Maximum Month Factor is the highest factor from 2012-2021 5Maximum Day Factor in 2021 was 1.43 based on water meter data. A slightly conservative factor of 1.5 was selected for planning purposes. 6Maximum Day, Peak Hour Demand is calculated in hydraulic model utilizing developed diurnal patterns for each zone
Demand Description
Existing Demand Peaking
Factor1
1Specific Demand = Average Day Demand x Peaking Factor
2Minimum Month Factor is the lowest factor from 2012-2021 Item #1. Page 128
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 131

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-8 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 4-5
Existing Water Demands by Zone
4-5 Water Unit Demand Factors
Water unit demand factors were developed from billing data (January 2020 – December 2021) and associated land use information. It is assumed that this water use represents some bounce-back from the end of the drought and thus it is believed to be representative of post-drought or more “normal” conditions.

The proposed potable water unit demand factors are shown in Table 4-6. These demand factors can be used to estimate future development water use if more detailed information is not available. gpm mgd gpm mgd gpm mgd gpm mgd gpm mgd
1 1,525 2.1965 3,467 4.9920 4,853 6.9888 5,200 7.4880 7,904 11.3817 1RA 1 0.0008 1 0.0018 2 0.0025 2 0.0026 3 0.0077
1RB 11 0.0155 24 0.0351 34 0.0492 37 0.0527 56 0.1528
1A 13 0.0193 30 0.0438 43 0.0613 46 0.0657 69 0.0998
1B 22 0.0314 50 0.0713 69 0.0998 74 0.1070 113 0.1626
1BH1 7 0.0103 16 0.0233 23 0.0326 24 0.0350 37 0.0531
2 891 1.2831 2,025 2.9161 2,835 4.0826 3,038 4.3742 6,197 8.9233 2H1 4 0.0057 9 0.0129 13 0.0180 13 0.0193 27 0.0394
2H2 3 0.0043 7 0.0097 9 0.0136 10 0.0146 21 0.0297
3 267 0.3843 607 0.8734 849 1.2228 910 1.3101 2,638 3.7994 3A 31 0.0453 71 0.1029 100 0.1441 107 0.1544 311 0.4477 3B 3 0.0043 7 0.0099 10 0.0138 10 0.0148 30 0.0430
3C 3 0.0040 6 0.0092 9 0.0129 10 0.0138 28 0.0399
3C1
3D 18 0.0264 42 0.0600 58 0.0840 63 0.0900 181 0.2611
4 3 0.0045 7 0.0102 10 0.0143 11 0.0154 31 0.0445
4A 32 0.0464 73 0.1054 102 0.1475 110 0.1581 318 0.4584 Total 2,835 4.0819 6,442 9.2770 9,019 12.9878 9,664 13.9155 16,828 24.2323 4 Maximum Day Demand shown is calculated using maximum day factor of 1.50. 5 Peak Hour Demand shown was calculated in the hydraulic model utilizing the diurnal curves for each zone.

The peak does not happen at the same time in each zone, therefore the total system peak was determined utilizing the hydraulic model.

Zone
Average Day2 Maximum Day4 Minimum Month1
1 Minimum Month Demand shown is calculated using maximum month factor of 0.44. 2Average Day Demand based on 2017 through 2021 production and purchase records Peak Hour5
Minimal demand for boy scout camp restrooms only.

Maximum Month3
3 Maximum Month Demand shown is calculated using maximum month factor of 1.40.

Item #1. Page 129
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 132

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-9 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 4-6
Water Unit Demand Factors
4-6 Future Demands
4-6.1 Future Development Demands
The future demands were developed by adding the estimated demands of future known development projects (provided by City staff) to the existing demands. Future development demands are shown in Table 4-7. A total of 223,840 gpd of future average water use is estimated to be added throughout the service area. The projected future water system demands by zone are shown in Table 4-8. 1 Min
gpd/du
2 Min
gpd/ac
3 Min
gpd/tsf
RHR 0-1 43,560 1,500 850 -
E-7 Single family
Residential 1-3 Varies 1,000 1,600 -
E-6 Single family
Residential 1-3 12,500-15,000 850 2,000 -
E-5 Single family
Residential 1-4 10,500 650 2,100 -
E-4 Single family
Residential 8,500 550 2,100 -
E-3 Single family
Residential 8,000 450 2,100 -
R-1 Single family
Residential 7,500 400 2,000 -
R-2 Restricted Multiple
Family Residential 6-10 - 300 1,800 -
R-3 Multiple-Family
Residential 10-30 - 150 900 -
Commercial - - - 2,000 200
MS- Medical Services - - - 3,400 350
1The gpd/du should be used if the number of dwelling units is known Landuse
Density
(du/ac)
1-5
Demand Factor
2The residential gpd/ac will vary based on the density. Use minimum gpd/ac if number of dwelling units is not known.
3 The commercial gpd/tsf is based on typical planning values seen in the Southern California
Max Lot
Size (sq ft)
Item #1. Page 130
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 133

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-10 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 4-7
Future Development Demands
No. Project Name / Location Zone Future Land Use
Area
(ac)
Future
Dwelling
Units
(du)
Average
Density
(du/ac)
Future
Building
Area (sf)
Future
Average
Demand
(gpd) Project Status
1 1121 E Arrow Hwy 1 Multi-Family Residential 0.34 19 55.9 150 gpd/du 2,850 Proposed 2 531 E Arrow Hwy 1 Multi-Family Residential 0.65 33 50.8 150 gpd/du 4,950 Proposed 3 905 E Arrow Hwy 1 Multi-Family Residential 2.70 16 5.9 300 gpd/du 4,800 Proposed 4 1950 Auto Center Dr (Walmart Expansion) 2 Commercial Retail Building 13.89 7,460 200 gpd/tsf 1,492 Proposed 5 630 W Foothill Blvd 1 Medical Office Building 0.63 9,745 200 gpd/tsf 1,949 Proposed 6 937 W Gladstone St 1 Single-Family Residential 0.93 4 4.3 400 gpd/du 1,600 Proposed 7 400 N Glendora / 101 E Whitcomb Ave 1 Church Expansion 0.65 9,287 200 gpd/tsf 1,857 Proposed 8 422 S Glendora Ave 1 Commercial Office Building 0.13 4,500 200 gpd/tsf 900 Proposed 9 300 Gordon Ranch Rd 3 Single-Family Residential 1.24 19 15.3 150 gpd/du 2,850 Proposed 10 1717 S Grand Ave 1 Car Wash 0.79 5,000 7,200 gpd/car wash 7,200 Proposed 11 950 Silent Ranch Rd 1BH1 Single-Family Residential 26.90 12 0.4 1,000 gpd/du 12,000 Proposed 12 220 E Bennett 1 Multi-Family Residential 0.32 5 15.6 150 gpd/du 750 Proposed 13 131 E Foothill Blvd 1 Mixed Use - Residential +
Commercial Office 0.34 2 5.9 2,616 150 gpd/du 300 Proposed 14 1706 E Route 66 (Olsen Project) 2 Single and Multi-Family Residential 2.11 43 20.4 150 gpd/du 6,450 Proposed
15 1237 Bonnie Cove Ave 1 Single-Family Residential 2.52 30 11.9 150 gpd/du 4,500 Planning Approved 16 1620 S Glendora Ave 1 Multi-Family Residential 0.58 8 13.8 150 gpd/du 1,200 Planning Approved 17 210 S Grand Ave 1 Medical Office Building 2.16 20,292 200 gpd/tsf 4,058 Planning Approved 18 334 E Lemon Ave 1 Multi-Family Residential 0.25 4 16.0 150 gpd/du 600 Planning Approved 19 501 W Route 66 1 Mixed Use - Residential +
Commercial Office 0.27 8 29.6 1,004 150 gpd/du 1,200 Planning Approved 20 117 N Vista Bonita Ave 1 Multi-Family Residential 0.12 5 41.7 150 gpd/du 750 Planning Approved 21 La Colina Estates (Sierra Madre Ave & Yucca Ridge Rd) 1 Single-Family Residential 28.44 121 4.3 1,000 gpd/du 121,000 Under Construction 22 Foothill Gold Line Phase 2B Extension (btw Vermont Ave & Vista Bonita Ave) 1 Regional Light Rail 4.10 - - Under Construction 23 333 W Dawson Ave 1 Care Facility 2.94 3,400 gpd/ac 9,996 Under Construction 24 919 S Lone Hill Ave 2 Personal Self-Storage Facility 1.31 113,868 200 gpd/tsf 22,774 Under Construction 25 706 W Route 66 1 Fast Food with Drive-Thru 0.66 3,068 200 gpd/tsf 614 Under Construction 26 1308 S Lone Hill* 2 Car Wash Redevelopment 1.64 5,988 7,200 gpd/car wash 7,200 Proposed Total 96.61 329 182,828 223,840
*The future building square footage for this development is less than the existing 25,063 square foot office building.

Unit Demand
Factor
Item #1. Page 131
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 134

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-11 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 4-8
Future Water Demands by Zone
4-6.2 Reduction in Indoor Water Use
Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill1668 require reduction in indoor residential water use to 55 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by January 1, 2025, and 52.5 gpcd by January 1, 2030.

In 2021, the total residential water use was about 328,097,679 CF and the service area population was 45,551. This equates to an average demand of approximately 148 gpcd. This includes outdoor irrigation.
gpm mgd gpm mgd gpm mgd gpm mgd gpm mgd
1 1,578 2.2717 3,585 5.1631 5,020 7.2283 5,378 7.7446 8,175 11.7718 1RA 1 0.0008 1 0.0018 2 0.0025 2 0.0026 3 0.0077
1RB 11 0.0155 24 0.0351 34 0.0492 37 0.0527 56 0.1528
1A 13 0.0193 30 0.0438 43 0.0613 46 0.0657 69 0.0998
1B 22 0.0314 50 0.0713 69 0.0998 74 0.1070 113 0.1626
1BH1 11 0.0155 25 0.0353 34 0.0494 37 0.0530 56 0.0805
2 903 1.2998 2,051 2.9540 2,872 4.1356 3,077 4.4310 6,277 9.0393 2H1 4 0.0057 9 0.0129 13 0.0180 13 0.0193 27 0.0394
2H2 3 0.0043 7 0.0097 9 0.0136 10 0.0146 21 0.0297
3 268 0.3856 609 0.8763 852 1.2268 913 1.3144 2,647 3.8118 3A 31 0.0453 71 0.1029 100 0.1441 107 0.1544 311 0.4477 3B 3 0.0043 7 0.0099 10 0.0138 10 0.0148 30 0.0430
3C 3 0.0040 6 0.0092 9 0.0129 10 0.0138 28 0.0399
3C1
3D 18 0.0264 42 0.0600 58 0.0840 63 0.0900 181 0.2611
4 3 0.0045 7 0.0102 10 0.0143 11 0.0154 31 0.0445
4A 32 0.0464 73 0.1054 102 0.1475 110 0.1581 318 0.4584 Total 2,903 4.1804 6,598 9.5009 9,237 13.3012 9,897 14.2513 17,220 24.7972 5 Peak Hour Demand shown was calculated in the hydraulic model utilizing the diurnal curves for each zone. The peak does not happen at the same time in each zone, therefore the total system peak was determined utilizing the hydraulic model.

Zone
Minimum Month1 Average Day2 Maximum Month3 Maximum Day4 1Minimum Month Demand shown is calculated using maximum month factor of 0.44. 2Average Day Demand based on 2017 through 2021 production and purchase records 4Maximum Day Demand shown is calculated using maximum day factor of 1.50.

Peak Hour5
Minimal demand for boy scout camp restrooms only.
3Maximum Month Demand shown is calculated using maximum month factor of 1.40.

Item #1. Page 132
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 135

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-12 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Typically, indoor water use is about 70 gpcd. In order to meet the SB606 and AB1668 requirements, the City’s residents need to reduce their water use by about 17.5 gpcd (70 gpcd – 52.5 gpcd) by 2030. The total reduction citywide would therefore be about 797,140 gpd. 4-6.3 Accessory Dwelling Units
In California, the housing production has not kept pace with the population growth for the last decade.

The lack of housing has impacted affordability and caused the average housing cost to rise significantly. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) provide an alternative to the traditional housing type.

ADUs are significantly less expensive to build and offer benefits that address common development barriers such as affordability and environmental quality. ADUs are constructed on parcels with existing or proposed housing so they don’t require new land, dedicated parking, or other costly infrastructure.

New policies that went into effect January 1, 2020 are making ADUs even more affordable to build, in part by limiting the development impact fees and relaxing zoning requirements are as follows:

1. AB 68: A long and detailed bill covering multiple ADU rule changes including permitting adding ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) to single family properties

2. SB 13: Includes a provision to prohibit a local agency from imposing an owner-occupant requirement for an ADU or main residence until 7/25/22.

3. AB 670: Mandates that neither Home Owners Associations (HOAs) nor property Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) can reasonably prohibit development of an ADU or JADU.

4. AB 881: Includes provisions to permit ADUs in multi-family dwelling structures.

5. AB 587: Permits ADUs to be sold separately from primary residence if the property was developed by a qualified non-profit corporation and certain affordable housing requirements are met for the ADU sale.

6. AB 671: Requires local agencies to include a plan that incentives and promotes the creation of ADUs that can be offered at affordable rent in its housing element.

California Senate Bill 9 (SB9) became law January 1, 2022. It amended Section 66452.6 and added Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 of the California Government Code relating to land use and subdivisions. SB 9 provides two new pathways for homeowners to create additional dwelling units:
subdivide a single family lot and build up to two residential units on each or add residential units on lots that are not split. Under SB 9, local agencies must ministerially approve applications without discretionary review.

There are currently 11,312 single family residential water meters in the system. The City approved 33 ADUs (0.29% of total single family units) in 2021 and 31 ADUs (0.27% of total single family units) in 2022, respectively. Although, currently the number of ADUs are a small percentage of the total, it is expected that the number of ADUs will continue to trend upwards and increase in subsequent years.

The City is anticipating that between now and 2030, a maximum of 1,000 new residential dwelling units will be built, including ADUs. This means that the City is expecting a maximum of about 8.8 percent of the total 11,213 single family parcels to construct an ADU.

Item #1. Page 133
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 136

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-13 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
For planning purposes, the future demand increase due to ADUs can be estimated depending on the percentage of single family parcels that are assumed to add an ADU in the future. If an average ADU has an occupancy of two people, the total ADU demand would be estimated at about 105 gpd (2 x 52.5 gpcd). Possible demand increases are calculated as follows:

1. If 10% of the total 11,312 single family parcels add an ADU = 1,131 ADUs Additional demand = 1,131 ADU x 105 gpd/ADU = 118,755 gpd =133 AFY

2. If 20% of the total 11,312 single family parcels add an ADU = 2,262 ADUs Additional demand = 2,262 ADU x 105 gpd/ADU = 237,510 gpd = 266 AFY

3. If 30% of the total 11,312 single family parcels add an ADU = 3,394 ADUs Additional demand = 3,394 ADU x 105 gpd/ADU = 356,370 gpd = 399 AFY The City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) estimated an increase in population from 45,551 in 2020 to 48,093 in 2045 per SCAG data. The residential demands are expected to increase from 7,864 AFY in 2020 to 8,301 AFY in 2045. This is an increase of 437 AFY or 390,000 gpd.

Based on the aforementioned ADU demand estimates and 2020 UWMP demand projections, it is reasonable to assume that the indoor water reduction (797,140 gpd +/-) will exceed the demand increase expected due to future ADUs (118,755 gpd to 356,370 gpd) or the projected increase in population (390,000 gpd).
4-7 Water Conservation
At the time of this report writing, California was in its third consecutive year of severe drought and the state continued its emergency regulations to safeguard the remaining water supplies. The City of Glendora therefore implemented Stage 3 of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Stage 3 went into effect June 1, 2022 with the primary objective of reducing water consumption by 20% from 2020. To meet the 20% goal, water customers are asked to reduce water usage by 30 gallons per person, per day. The following restriction apply to all water customers:

1. No watering between 8 AM and 5 PM (Monday – Sunday)
a. Watering limited to 3 days per week
b. Watering limited to 5 minutes per station. Irrigation systems with drip irrigation are given an exception for an additional 15 minutes as long as there is no runoff

2. No washing down sidewalks or driveways

3. No excessive runoff from landscape irrigation that causes water to flow onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, or gutter.

4. No excessive runoff from landscape irrigation that causes water to flow onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, or gutter.

5. No outdoor watering during and 48 hours following measurable fainfall

6. No washing motor vehicles with a hose, unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle.

7. 20% water reduction (30 gallons per person, per day_

8. Restaurants, cafes, and bars can only serve water to customers upon request Item #1. Page 134
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 137

WATER USE
CITY OF GLENDORA 4-14 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan

9. Hotels and motels must display a notice providing guest with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily
The City maintains water conservation information on their website for viewing by the public (https://www.cityofglendora.org/departments-services/public-works/water/water-conservation).

A Water Conservation Guidebook can be downloaded from the website. It provides a list of the Stage 3 water restrictions, non-functional turf guidelines, rebate program information, instructions on how to use the water meter customer portal to track water consumption, instructions on how to save trees during a drought, water use efficiency and conservation tips, and coloring pages for kids.

Item #1. Page 135
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 138
CITY OF GLENDORA 5-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
SECTION 5

EXISTING SYSTEM
5-1 General
The City of Glendora (City) operates and maintains the following potable water facilities:
 Four (4) primary pressure zones; Thirteen (13)
secondary zones
 210 miles of water mains (including hydrant laterals), 1- inch through 30-inches in diameter
 About 1,800 Fire hydrants
 13,483 water meters (Table 5-1)
 Eight (8) active wells
 Twenty-nine (29) storage reservoirs with a total volume of 34.6 MG
 Twenty (20) booster pump station (3 of them serve
hydropneumatic systems)
 Three (3) hydropneumatic tanks
 Three (3) pressure regulating stations
 Four (4) imported water connections
 Four (4) inter-agency connections
The existing water system is shown on
Figure 5-1. The hydraulic schematic of the
existing system is shown on Figure 5-2.
5-2 Pressure Zones
The existing system consists of four (4)
primary pressure zones and thirteen (13)
secondary zones. A summary of the
pressure zone features is shown in Table
5-2.
5-3 Transmission and Distribution
System
The existing water system includes
approximately 210 miles of transmission
and distribution pipe that ranges in size
from 1-inch through 30-inches. A
summary of the system pipes by diameter,
material, and date of construction is shown
on Figures 5-3 through Figure 5-5,
respectively.

Meter Type
Number of
Meters
Residential Single Family 11,312
Residential Multi-Family 1,105
Irrigation 44
Institution 53
Government 34
Golf Course 5
Commercial 684
Unknown 246
Total 13,483
Water Meter Type
Table 5-1
Pressure
Zone
Area
(Ac)
Pipe
Length
(ft)
Ground
Elevation
Range (ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line (ft)
Static
Pressure
Range
(psi)a
1 3,337 593,705 623-882 976 41 - 153
1RA 3 973 642-656 775 52-58
1RBb 21 24,944 620 - -
1A 40 6,434 888-1,011 1,132 52 - 106
1B 127 18,213 883-1,122 1,197 32 - 136
1BH1 6 472 1,076-1,125 1,354 99-120
2 2,081 323,051 808-1,046 1,092 20 - 123
2H1 38 2,288 946-1,167 1,190 10-106
2H2 11 970 969-1,057 1,257 87-125
3 663 96,585 927-1,196 1,265 30 - 146
3A 156 9,980 1,070-1,389 1,408 8-146
3B 22 1,017 1,162-1,334 1,347 6-80
3C 180 9,083 1,109-1,294 1,340 20 - 100
3C1 79 713 1,328 1,473 63
3D 102 10,956 1,007-1,306 1,364 25 - 155
4 21 3,377 1,252-1,334 1,505 74-110
4A 129 6,817 1,351-1,585 1,704 52-153
Total 7,016 1,109,577
a Calculated based on HGL and ground elevation range
b Modeled as a demand off of Zone 1. Zone 1RB pipes not modeled. HGL/Pressure to Zone 1RB not known.

Table 5-2
Pressure Zones
Item #1. Page 136
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 139
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")")
")")
&- &-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&- &-
&-
&-&- &-
&-
&- &-&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-&-
&-
&-
&-
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* !(
!( !(
Arrow Hwy
Valley Center Ave
Arrow Hwy
Lone Hill Ave
Amelia Ave
Cataract Ave
Foothill Blvd
I-210
I-210
Alosta Ave
Grand Ave
Barranca Ave
Mauna Loa Ave
Baseline Rd
I-210
Foothill Blvd
Sierra Madre Ave
Sierra Madre Ave
Foothill Blvd
State Rte 66
Grand Ave
Loraine Ave
Gladstone St
Gladstone St
Glendora Ave
SR-57
Palm Dr
San Gabriel Ave
Foothill Blvd Citrus Ave
I-210
1st St
Vernon Ave
Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Cerritos Ave
Bonnie Cove AveSunflower Ave
Live Oak Ave
Big Dalton Cyn Rd
Dalton
Bluebird
Oak Knoll
(inactive)
Greencroft
Amelia
Eagle Ridge
Boy Scouts
Glencoe
Englewild Cyn
North Grand
Hook Cyn
Hicrest
Silent Ranch
Valley Center
(inactive)
Hidden Springs
Country Club
Englewild
San Gabriel
Irwindale
(Inactive)
Gladstone
Reservoir and
Pump Station
(demolished)
Dawson
(inactive)
Rainbow
Morgan Ranch
Lower
Gordon
Morgan
Ranch
Bluebird
Hill
Hidden
Springs
Country
Club
South
Hills
East
Glencoe Englewild North
Glendora
Hook
Canyon
Hicrest
South
Hills
West
Big Dalton Boy Scouts
Sierra
Madre
Upper
Gordon
Gordon
Well 10
Well 11
Well
2 Well
1 Goddard
Englewild
Cyn
San Gabriel
Well 5
Well 8, 9, 12
Vosburg
Well
(Inactive)
Well 3 & 4
(Inactive)
Irwindale
(Inactive)
City of Azusa
Service Area
Suburban Water
Service Area
Suburban Water
Service Area
Citrus Ave
Transmission Main from Irwindale
(Inactive)
Transmission Main from Vosburg Well
(Inactive)
Suburban Water
Service Area
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Existing System
Figure 5-1
³
0 1,100 2,200 4,400
Feet
Legend
City Boundary
Water Pipes
") Wells
#* Pump Stations
&- Storage Reservoirs
!( Pressure Regulating Station
Zone 1RA
Zone 1RB
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1BH1
Zone 2
Zone 2H1
Zone 2H2
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 3B
Zone 3C
Zone 3C1
Zone 3D
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Item #1. Page 137
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 140
! !
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú!³ Ú³ Ú
!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú
!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!³ Ú
!
³ Ú! !
³ Ú!
³ Ú
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!
³ Ú!³ Ú!
³ Ú
! !
³ Ú³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!
³ Ú
!(
!( !(
!(
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
`
`
ë
3 3
3 3
3 %,%,
%, %,
%,%,%,%,
%,
%, %,
K
K
K
K
TU
TU
TU TU
TU TU
TU TU

TU TU TU
TU
TU TU
TU TU
TU
TU

TU TU TU

0.15 1.0

7.0 3.0

0.33 0.33

0.274 0.116

0.318 0.125 0.012

0.01 0.01

2.5 3.5 1.25 2.5

3.5 4.0

0.125 0.012

0.045

0.01 2.5

0.16 0.16

0.2 0.2
B A 1704 1704
1505 1505 B A
A 1473
A
1364 B 1364 A
1340
1265 A
1088 B A 1088

0.688 0.688
1088 1092 A B 1092 A
A A 969 969
1347 A B 1347
A 1265
B A 976 969
B 1408 B 1408 A 1408
B A 1197 1197
1132 1132 B A
697
485

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Existing Hydraulic Schematic
New Zone IDs
Figure 5-2
Legend
TU Existing Storage Reservoir
TU Removed Storage Reservoir
K Hydropneumatic Tank
%, Groundwater Well
%, Groundwater Well (Inactive)
Pipes
with ID, Volume (MG), and HWL (ft)
Vol
HWL ID
Booster Pump (Inactive) ³
¬Ú
Zone
3 Altitude Valve
3 Gate Valve
`
`
ë
Pressure Reducing Valve
!( Imported Water Connection
!
³ Ú Booster Pump
Item #1. Page 138
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 141

EXISTING SYSTEM
CITY OF GLENDORA 5-4 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 5-3
Length of Pipe by Size
Figure 5-4
Length of Pipe by Material
20,900
18,099
18,871
24,030
52,106
24,411
127,971
49,300
326,614
409,128
38,146
0 50,000
100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000 30 24-25
20-21
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 <= 4
Length of Pipe (ft)
Pipe Diameter (in)
1,455
13,192
68,730
2,074
20,190
432
763
439,155
221,479
1,313
200,071
127,207
13,515
0 50,000
100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000500,000 Welded Steel
Unknown
Steel
Riveted Steel
Polyvinyl Chloride
Polyethylene
Galvanized
Ductile Iron
Double Dipped & Wrapped Steel
Copper
Cement Mortar Lined Steel
Cast Iron
Asbestos Cement
Length of Pipe (ft)
Material
Item #1. Page 139
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 142

EXISTING SYSTEM
CITY OF GLENDORA 5-5 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 5-5
Length of Pipe by Date of Construction
5-4 Wells
The total well capacity is currently about 11,800 gpm or 17.0 mgd. Well information and characteristics are provided in Table 5-3.
5-5 Storage Reservoirs and Hydropneumatic Tanks
The City’s water system includes twenty-nine (29) active storage reservoirs ranging in capacity from 10,000 gallons to 7.00 million gallons (MG). There are three (3) hydropneumatic tanks ranging in size from 3,000 gallons to 10,000 gallons. The total reservoir capacity is about 34.6 MG. The characteristics of each existing storage reservoirs and hydropneumatic tanks are shown in Table 5-

4. 5-6 Booster Pump Stations
There are twenty (20) booster pump stations in existing water system. Three of the stations serve water to hydropneumatic systems. Details of each booster pump station are summarized in Table 5-

5. 50,378
9,742
105,830
131,673
81,182
105,202
87,295
252,037
212,654
1,627
45,406
25,188
1,362
0 50,000
100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000
Unk
2020-2021
2010-2019
2000-2009
1990-1999
1980-1989
1970-1979
1960-1969
1950-1959
1940-1949
1930-1939
1920-1929
1910-1919
Length of Pipe (ft)
Year of Construction
Item #1. Page 140
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 143

EXISTING SYSTEM
CITY OF GLENDORA 5-6 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 5-3
Wells
No. ID Pumps to Location
Year
Drilled
Generator VFDPressure
Zone Pump Mfg
Pump
Model Stages
Well
Column
Pipe
Diameter
(in)
Well
Diameter
(in)
Well
Depth
(ft)
Pump
Type
Capacity
(gpm)
TDH
(ft)
Motor
Mfgr
Motor
RPM HP
Capacity
(gpm)
TDH
(ft)
Discharge
Pressure
(psi)1
Standing
Water
Level (ft)
Drawdown
(ft)
Pumping
Water
Level (ft)
Test
Date
1 W2E Water Yard 1051 Sierra
Madre Ave 1922 no no 1 Worthington A24200 24 VT 500 USEM 1780 100 525 492.4 4.5 448 34 482 2/15/22 2 W5E
San
Gabriel
Plant
919 Sierra Madre
Ave,
Azusa (Northwest
corner of the
Azusa Greens
Country Club)
1992 no yes SG Hydroflo 14ML 3 12 18 401 VT 2,200 220 USEM 1775 200 1,709 211.4 19 71 96.5 167.5 6/9/21 3 W8E
San
Gabriel
Plant
Behind 1451
Stonebrook St,
Azusa CA
1920 yes no SG Flowserve 14EMM 1 10 26 VT 1,500 103 GE 1770 50 1,090 97.5 2.4 73 19 92 2/15/22 4 W9E
San
Gabriel
Plant
Behind 1451
Stonebrook St,
Azusa CA
1921 yes no SG Goulds 12RH 2 10 26 VT 1,300 125 GE 1800 50 1,410 97.5 2.4 74 18 92 2/15/22 5 W10E Water Yard 1051 Sierra
Madre Ave 1912 no no 1 Hydroflo 12DC 7 8 15.5 508 VT 600 570 GE 1780 125 530 580.1 75 -- -- 404.5 2/15/22 6 W11E Water Yard 1051 Sierra
Madre Ave 1913 no no 1 Goulds 12RJHC 8 10 24 525 VT 1,200 480 USEM 1800 200 940 500.3 43.4 361 39 400 2/15/22 7 W12E
San
Gabriel
Plant
Behind 1451
Stonebrook St,
Azusa CA
1966 yes yes SG Flowserve 16ENL 3 12 24 242 VT 3,100 100 USEM 1180 150 2,100 116.6 5.0 59.0 46 105.00 4/11/22 8 W13E Water Yard 1051 Sierra
Madre Ave 1999 no no 1 Goulds 14RJHC 12 8 20 674 VT 1,400 460 GE 1200 300 950 473.4 1.4 423.0 43 466.00 3/26/21 Total 11,800 Total 9,254
Well Data Motor Specifications Efficiency Test
Item #1. Page 141
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 144

EXISTING SYSTEM
CITY OF GLENDORA 5-7 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 5-4
Storage Reservoirs
No.

Reservoir
Name ID
Pressure
Zone
Served Location Shape1
Volume
(MG)
Bottom
Elevation
(ft)
Maximum
Water
Level (ft)
High Water
Elevation
(ft) Height (ft)
Width x
Length1
(ft) Dia (ft) Material
Year of
Const. Comment
1 San Gabriel SG SG
Behind 1451
Stonebrook St, Azusa
CA
Circular 1.0 675.0 22.0 697.0 24 - 88 Concrete 2014 Partially Buried 2 South Hills West A 1 1020 Glendora Av,
access road Circular 3.0 954.3 15.0 969.3 16 - 179 Welded Steel 1957
3 South Hills West B 1 1020 Glendora Av,
access road Rectangular 7.0 952.8 23.0 975.8 24 180 x 220 - Reinforced Concrete 1975 Partially Buried 4 Sierra Madre A 1 1051 Sierra Madre Ave Circular 4.0 954.6 15.5 970.1 16 - 210 Concrete 1965 5 Goddard A 1 1021 Sierra Madre Ave Circular 3.5 954.6 15.5 970.1 16 - 200 Concrete 2007 Partially Buried 6 Hicrest A 1A Top of Hicrest Rd Circular 0.116 1,109.5 22.0 1,131.5 32 - 30 Welded Steel 2015
7 Hicrest B 1A Top of Hicrest Rd Circular 0.274 1,109.5 22.0 1,131.5 32 - 46 Welded Steel 2015
8 Hook Cyn A 1B North of 701 W. Sierra
Madre Ave Circular 0.325 1,174.5 22.0 1,196.5 24 - 50.5 Welded Steel 2007
9 Hook Cyn B 1B North of 701 W. Sierra
Madre Ave Circular 0.325 1,174.5 22.0 1,196.5 24 - 50.5 Welded Steel 2007
10 Silent Ranch A 1BH1 Southwest of 960 N.

Silent Ranch Dr - 0.01 1964 Hydropneumatic Tank
11 South Hills East A 2 Southwest of 1033 High
Country Dr Circular 2.5 1,065.0 23.0 1,088.0 24 - 136 Concrete 1965 12 Country Club
North A 2 Southeast of 2417 E. Wildwood Canyon Dr Circular 0.688 1,066.0 22.6 1,088.6 32 - 72 Welded Steel 2018
13 Country Club
South B 2 Southeast of 2417 E. Wildwood Canyon Dr Circular 0.688 1,066.0 22.6 1,088.6 24 - 72 Welded Steel 1976
14 Hidden Springs A 2 East of 1239. Saga St Circular 3.5 1,043.8 48.0 1,091.8 48 - 108 Welded Steel 1983
15 Hidden Springs B 2 East of 1239. Saga St Circular 1.25 1,061.0 31.0 1,092.0 32 - 78 Welded Steel 1961
Item #1. Page 142
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 145

EXISTING SYSTEM
CITY OF GLENDORA 5-8 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 5-4 (continued)
Storage Reservoirs
No.

Reservoir
Name ID
Pressure
Zone
Served Location Shape1
Volume
(MG)
Bottom
Elevation
(ft)
Maximum
Water
Level (ft)
High Water
Elevation
(ft) Height (ft)
Width x
Length1
(ft) Dia (ft) Material
Year of
Const. Comment
16 Rainbow A 2H1 North of 940 Rainbow
Dr - 0.0075 Shell Dia. 88" 1953
Hydropneumatic Tank' 75
psi @ 650 max allowable
working pressure
17 Eagle Ridge A 2H2 East of 1534 Eagle
Ridge - 0.003 1988 Hydropneumatic Tank
18 Morgan Ranch A 3 405 Morgan Ranch Rd Rectangular 2.5 1,237.0 28.0 1,265.0 28 109' x 141' - Concrete 1989 Partially Buried 19 Englewild A 3 Northwest of 1155
Englewild Dr Rectangular 2.5 1,237.0 28.0 1,265.0 28 109' x 141' - Concrete 1989 Partially Buried 20 Glencoe A 3A End of Glencoe Heights
Dr Circular 0.0125 1,384.9 23.0 1,407.9 24 - 9.5 Bolted Steel 1985 21 Glencoe B 3A End of Glencoe Heights
Dr Circular 0.125 1,384.9 23.0 1,407.9 24 - 30 Bolted Steel 1986 22 North Glendora B 3A North of 1145 N.

Glendora Ave Circular 0.318 1,385.0 23.0 1,408.0 24 - 48 Bolted Steel 1997 23 Englewild Cyn A 3B End of Englewild Dr Circular 0.01 1,336.0 11.0 1,347.0 12 - 12.8 Welded Steel 1988
24 Englewild Cyn B 3B End of Englewild Dr Circular 0.01 1,336.0 11.0 1,347.0 12 - 12.8 Welded Steel 1988
25 Big Dalton A 3C 2800 Big Dalton
Canyon Rd Circular 0.045 1,324.8 15.0 1,339.8 16 - 22 Bolted Steel 1986 26 Boy Scouts A 3C1 Big Dalton Canyon Rd,
east of Camp Bldg 0.01 1,464.0 9.0 1,473.0 Concrete 1970 Buried 27 Bluebird Hill A 3D West of 1990 Bluebird
Rd Circular 0.0125 1,341.6 23.0 1,364.6 24 - 10 Bolted Steel 1984 28 Bluebird Hill B 3D West of 1990 Bluebird
Rd Circular 0.125 1,341.6 23.0 1,364.6 24 - 30 Welded
Steel 1985
Item #1. Page 143
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 146

EXISTING SYSTEM
CITY OF GLENDORA 5-9 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 5-4 (continued)
Storage Reservoirs
No.

Reservoir
Name ID
Pressure
Zone
Served Location Shape1
Volume
(MG)
Bottom
Elevation
(ft)
Maximum
Water
Level (ft)
High Water
Elevation
(ft) Height (ft)
Width x
Length1
(ft) Dia (ft) Material
Year of
Const. Comment
29 Lower Gordon A 4 Gordon Highlands
Rd/Ferguson Mtwy Circular 0.16 1,490.0 15.0 1,505.0 16 - 44 Welded Steel 2000
30 Lower Gordon B 4 Gordon Highlands
Rd/Ferguson Mtwy Circular 0.16 1,490.0 15.0 1,505.0 16 - 44 Welded Steel 2000
31 Upper Gordon A 4A 627 Gordon Highlands
Rd Circular 0.20 1,681.5 22.0 1,703.5 24 - 40 Welded
Steel 2006
32 Upper Gordon B 4A 627 Gordon Highlands
Rd Circular 0.20 1,681.5 22.0 1,703.5 24 - 40 Welded
Steel 2006
Total Reservoir Capacity 33.85
Item #1. Page 144
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 147

EXISTING SYSTEM
CITY OF GLENDORA 5-10 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 5-5
Booster Pump Stations
No. Name Location
Station
As-built
Plan Date
Suction
Zone
Discharge
Zone
Pump
No.

Year
Installed Pump Mfg Pump Model Stages
Suction
Dia (in)
Pump
Type
Capacity
(gpm)
TDH
(ft)
Motor
Mfgr
Motor
RPM HP
Capacity
(gpm)
TDH
(ft)
Test
Date
SG-1 2012 Flowserve 15EHM 4 VT 3,000 370 US Motors 1785 350 3500 315.8 6/7/21 SG-2 2012 Flowserve 15EHM 4 VT 3,000 370 US Motors 1785 350 3380 313.7 6/7/21 SG-3 2012 Flowserve 15EMM 4 VT 2,000 370 Nidec
Motor 1780 250 2280 322.9 6/7/21
SG-4 2012 Flowserve 15EMM 4 VT 2,000 370 Nidec
Motor 1780 250 2280 322.9 6/7/21
SG-5 2012 Flowserve 15EMM 4 VT 2,000 370 Nidec
Motor 1780 250 2260 320.6 6/7/21
B10 1979 Johnston 12CC 6 8 VT 834 298 US Motors 1800 75 800 294.2 7/31/20 B13 1962 Flowserve 10EHM 8 8 VT 700 305 US Motors 1770 75 745 302.6 7/31/20 B14 1962 American-Marsh J-Line 5 8 VT 750 300 US Motors 1780 75 658 298.3 5/17/13 B11 1960 Goulds 14 RJ 2 10 VT 1,400 120 US Motors 1800 60 1260 120.5 7/31/20 B12 1960 Goulds 14 RJ 2 10 VT 1,400 120 US Motors 1800 60 1240 133.2 7/31/20 B20 1976 9 SUB 185 15 - - -
B57 7T 3 5 SUB 180 115 Hitachi 3450 15 - - -
5 Valley Center
1305 E.

Glandstone
Ave
1 2 B21 1982 HC 800 40 - - - no no
B22 2006 Flowserve 14EMM 2 24 VT 1,800 163 US Motors 1785 100 1630 171.3 7/31/20 B23 2006 Flowserve 14EMM 2 24 VT 1,800 163 US Motors 1785 100 1820 157.5 7/31/20 B36 2008 Flowserve 14EMM 2 24 VT 1,800 163 US Motors 1785 100 1760 157.5 7/31/20 B24 1992 Johnston 10EMC 4 VT 500 US Motors 1775 40 458 203.3 5/29/15 B25 1992 Johnston 10EMC 4 VT 500 US Motors 1775 40 468 194 5/29/15 B26 1990 Flowserve 10EML 5 7.375 VT 525 165 Plueger 1750 30 480 164 4/8/22 B27 1989 Flowserve 10EML 5 7.375 VT 525 165 Plueger 1750 30 470 166.3 4/8/22 B29 1983 Flowserve 10EML 5 6 SUB 400 200 Hitachi 1750 30 B41 12DKM 4 SUB 1,120 200 1735 100 550 251.8 4/8/22
yes
Underground
Vault?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
3 Hidden Springs 2 1051 Sierra
Madre Ave 1
4 Silent Ranch
Southwest of
960 N. Silent
Ranch Dr
9 6 Country Club 1051 Sierra
Madre Ave 1
Glencoe
Across the
street from 653
E. Palm Ave
Pump Data Motor
1 San Gabriel
Behind 1451
Stonebrook St,
Azusa CA
2 Englewild 1 3 1051 Sierra
Madre Ave
7 18610 E.

Hicrest Ave 1990
8 1
3A
1A
2 1BH1
Efficiency Test
Hicrest 1
San
Gabriel
Reservoir
3 1B
no
yes
no
no
no
Portable
Gen Conn
Portable
Gen Conn
701 W. Sierra
Madre Ave
West of 811 N
Grand Ave
1 no
Generator?
North Grand 1B
Item #1. Page 145
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 148

EXISTING SYSTEM
CITY OF GLENDORA 5-11 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 5-5 (continued)
Booster Pump Stations
No. Name Location
Station
As-built
Plan Date
Suction
Zone
Discharge
Zone
Pump
No.

Year
Installed Pump Mfg Pump Model Stages
Suction
Dia (in)
Pump
Type
Capacity
(gpm)
TDH
(ft)
Motor
Mfgr
Motor
RPM HP
Capacity
(gpm)
TDH
(ft)
Test
Date
B30 1977 1 SUB 3,000 Hitachi 1750 75 - - -
B34 HC 1,500 US Motors 40 - - -
11 Dalton
Adjacent 1042
Dalton Springs
Rd
3 3C B31 1965 Flowserve 10E 3 8 SUB 1,100 80 Hitachi 1750 40 - - - no no B32 1980 Byron Jackson 7MQ 7 5 VT 225 160 G.E. 1740 10 110 182.5 7/5/19 B33 1980 7 VT 185 G.E. 1741 10 145 159.4 7/5/19
B42 1987 Byron Jackson 8GH 10 8 VT 375 250 US Motors 1800 30 299 277.2 6/18/15 B43 1987 Byron Jackson 8GH 10 8 VT 375 250 US Motors 1800 30 277 272.6 6/18/15 B44 1989 Peabody Floway JKH 9 6 VT 400
U.S.

Premium
Efficiency
1770 30 290 264.3 7/22/19
B45 1989 Peabody Floway M9MC 7 6 VT 360 262 1770 30 300 264.3 7/22/19 B46 1989 Peabody Floway JKH 9 6 VT 400 1770 30 255 274.7 7/22/19 B47 1988 Layne &
Bowler 8 VT 60 US Motors 1760 3 49 101.2 5/27/14
B48 1988 Layne &
Bowler 8 VT 60 US Motors 1760 3 32 110.9 5/27/14
B49 1989 Byron and
Jackson 8GH 5 6 VT 350 140 US Motors 1770 20 413 149 7/30/14 B50 1989 Byron and
Jackson 8GH 5 6 VT 350 140 General Electric 1770 20 262 145.6 6/16/14 B51 1989 Flowserve 10E 4 6 VT 350 160 US Motors 1770 20 408 144.3 7/30/14 B52 1992 Byron and
Jackson 10MQH 5 6 VT 650 233 US Motors 1780 50 426 251.8 4/12/22 B53 1992 Flowserve 10E 7 6 VT 650 233 US Motors 1780 50 540 263.3 4/11/22 no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Underground
Vault?
10 Amelia MWD/UF 2
Amelia Ave,
south of
Foothill Blvd
14 Morgan Ranch 405 Morgan
Ranch Rd 1987
15 3B Englewild
Canyon
1165 Englewild
Dr
1 1B
2 3
3 4
Rainbow 915 N.

Rainbow Dr 2
Blue Bird
Southwest
corner of
Sierra Madre
Ave and
1980 3 3D
1988
2H1
Pump Data Motor
16 East of 1534
Eagle Ridge 1988
17 Hook Canyon 701 Sierra
Madre Ave
Eagle Ridge 2H2
no
no
Portable
Gen Conn
no
no
Portable
Gen Conn
Generator?
Portable
Gen Conn
12 13
Efficiency Test
Item #1. Page 146
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 149

EXISTING SYSTEM
CITY OF GLENDORA 5-12 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 5-5 (continued)
Booster Pump Stations
No. Name Location
Station
As-built
Plan Date
Suction
Zone
Discharge
Zone
Pump
No.

Year
Installed Pump Mfg Pump Model Stages
Suction
Dia (in)
Pump
Type
Capacity
(gpm)
TDH
(ft)
Motor
Mfgr
Motor
RPM HP
Capacity
(gpm)
TDH
(ft)
Test
Date
18 Boy Scout
2800 Big
Dalton Canyon
Rd
3C 3C1 B56 1977 HC 15 2 - - - no no
B58 2010 Flowserve 10EML 6 6 VT 450 240 US Motors 1800 40 468 238.9 4/24/18 B59 2007 Flowserve 10EML 6 6 VT 450 240 US Motors 1760 40 435 219.5 4/24/18 B60 2009 Flowserve 12EML 3 6 VT 750 189 US Motors 1775 50 687 201 4/12/22 B61 2009 Flowserve 12EML 3 6 VT 750 189 US Motors 1780 50 643 198.7 4/12/22 B62 2009 Flowserve 12EML 3 6 VT 750 189 US Motors 1775 50 700 196.4 4/12/22 HC = Horizontal Centrifugal SUB = Submersible
VT = Vertical Turbine
Pump Data Motor Efficiency Test
Generator?
Underground
Vault?
yes
19 Gordon no
Gordon
Highland
Rd/Ferguson
Mtwy
4 20 Greencroft 3 Adjacent 246
Greencroft Ave 2
4A
no
no
Item #1. Page 147
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 150

EXISTING SYSTEM
CITY OF GLENDORA 5-13 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
5-7 Pressure Regulating Stations
The City’s water system consists of three (3) pressure regulating stations as listed in Table 5-6. PRS2 is regularly operating to feed lower pressure Zone 1RA from pressure Zone 1. The other two facilities normally remain closed.

Table 5-6
Pressure Regulating Stations
5-8 Imported Water Connections
The City has access to imported water through the four (4) connections listed in Table 5-7. The City’s goal is to maximize the use of groundwater to the extent possible and limit the amount of imported water that is drawn from these connections.

Table 5-7
Imported Water Connections
5-9 Emergency Connections
The City’s water system has four (4) emergency connections with neighboring cities or water utilities.

Table 5-8
Emergency Connections
ID Location
Size
(in)
High
Pressure
Zone
Low
Pressure
Zone
PRS1 Gladstone St east of Barranca Ave 1 1RB
PRS2 Grand Ave south of Carson Dr 1 1RA
PRS3 Gladstone St east of Valley Center Dr 2 1
Name Location Status Zone
Minimum
Capacity
(cfs)
Maximum
Capacity
(cfs)
PM-6 Sierra Madre Ave, east of Little Dalton Wash Active 1 1.5 15 PM-18 Amelia Ave, south of Foothill Blvd Active 2 1.0 10 PM-23 Sierra Madre Ave, east of Wabash Ave Active 1 1.5 15 CIC Arrow Hwy, btw Grand Ave and Glendora Ave Active 1 3.3 Three Valleys Municipal Water District (TVMWD) / MWD Upper Feeder Covina Irrigating Company (CIC)
Agency Location Size (in) Direction of Flow
Suburban Water Systems Bonita Dr east of Barranca Ave 8 To the City Suburban Water Systems Foothill Blvd west of Grand Ave 8 To Other Agency Golden State Water Company Amelia Ave north of E Baseline Rd 12 To Other Agency City of Azusa Barranca Ave south of Gladstone St - To Other Agency Item #1. Page 148
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 151
CITY OF GLENDORA 6-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
SECTION 6

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
6-1 General
Performance criteria are established to evaluate the adequacy of various water system components through a systematic analysis, and to identify necessary improvements to the system for inclusion in a Capital Improvement Program (CIP). For the City of Glendora’s (City) water system, these criteria are generally in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This includes service pressures, storage capacity, and sources of supply. Other criteria are based on federal, state and local jurisdictional requirements.

This section details the performance evaluation criteria which will serve as a benchmark for evaluating the City’s water system. The criteria is summarized in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1
Performance Evaluation Criteria
Item Description Criteria
Existing
Requirement
Future
Requirement
1 Source of Supply Maximum Day Demand from
Groundwater Sources 13.27 mgd 13.57 mgd
a. Operational Storage 30% of Maximum Day Demand 3.98 MG 4.07 MG b. Emergency Storage 100% Average Day Demand 9.28 MG 9.49 MG c. Fire Suppression Storage Highest Fire Flow Requirement Single Family Residential 1,250 gpm for 2 hours 0.15 MG 0.15 MG Single Family Residential
with Hillside Exposure 2,500 gpm for 2 hours 0.30 MG 0.30 MG Multi-Family Residential 2,500 gpm for 2 hours 0.30 MG 0.30 MG Commercial 3,500 gpm for 3 hours 0.63 MG 0.63 MG
Industrial 4,000 gpm for 4 hours 0.96 MG 0.96 MG
2 Flow meters, discharge pressure gauges, and telemetry equipment for alarm and status notification at each site.

Wells
Casing and screen sizing should meet maximum velocity
requirements
3 Item #1. Page 149
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 152

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
CITY OF GLENDORA 6-2 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 6-1 (Continued)
Performance Evaluation Criteria
Item Description Criteria
Existing
Requirement
Future
Requirement
6 Dynamic Pressures
7 Minimum Pipe Size (New Mains
and Replacement Mains)
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential with
Hillside Exposure (located
within LA County Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone)
Multi-Family Residential
Commercial
School
Industrial/Manufacturing
1 Fire flow demand must be maintained with 20 psi minimum pressure at the fire hydrant outlet. 7 fps at Maximum Day and Peak Hour Demand
10 fps at Maximum Day plus Fire Flow Demand
Flow meters, suction and discharge pressure gauges, and telemetry Provisions for emergency power at all stations
4,000 gpm for 4 hours
3,500 gpm for 3 hours
1,500 gpm for 2 hours
2,500 gpm for 2 hours
2,500 gpm for 2 hours
3,500 gpm for 3 hours
Stand-by pump equal in size to the largest duty pump
Minimum 40 psi during Maximum Day and Peak Hour Demand
8-inch to the last hydrant
For open zones that do not have sufficient fire demand storage, the pump capacity into the zone must meet maximum day plus fire demands for the zone itself as well as any zones it provides water to. Well supply and imported water directly supplying the zone can be included in the pump capacity.
9 Maximum Velocities
Fire Flow Demand and
Pressures1
For closed zones, the pump capacity into the zone must meet maximum day plus fire demands or peak hour demands, whichever is greater. A separate fire pump can be installed to meet the fire flow requirements.

Maximum 80 psi
8 Minimum 40 psi
5 Static Pressures Desired 50-70 psi
4 Booster Pump Stations
For open zones with sufficient fire demand storage, the pump capacity into the zone must meet maximum day demands for the zone itself as well as any zones it provides water to. Well supply and imported water directly supplying the zone can be included in the pump capacity.

Item #1. Page 150
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 153

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
CITY OF GLENDORA 6-3 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
6-2 Source of Supply
Any potable water system should be capable of meeting all demands imposed upon it. This can be achieved through multiple supply sources, storage, or a combination of both. Generally, the determination is based upon supply availability, existing storage capacity, and cost. It is prudent to secure water supplies from multiple sources so that demands can be met at reasonable levels when one or more water sources are not available.

California Code of Regulations Related to Drinking Water require a minimum source of supply to meet the service area’s maximum day demand. Additionally, since the City serves more than 1,000 meters, the system must be capable of providing four hours of peak hourly demand through a combination of source capacity, storage capacity, and emergency source capacity.

The City’s water supply is a combination of local groundwater and imported water. Whenever possible, the City plans to supply the system with 100 percent groundwater in the future. Therefore, although imported water is available, it would be prudent for the source of supply criterion to be met solely by the City’s groundwater well capacity.

The criterion for source of supply is to provide one maximum day demand (MDD). Water from storage reservoirs will be utilized to regulate hourly fluctuations in demand (operational storage) and to provide fire flow demand (fire suppression storage). This allows the City the ability to operate their system independently in the event that the imported water service is disrupted for an extended period of time.

Imported water will be utilized to supplement the groundwater supply if multiple wells are out of operation for maintenance or in an emergency. It is highly unlikely that all the City’s wells would be out of service at one time, but it is recommended that wells be equipped with permanent generators or portable generator connections. One maximum day demand (MDD) of imported water capacity is more than sufficient.
6-3 Storage
For a water system, three categories of storage are of importance: operational, emergency, and fire suppression. The system is evaluated to determine its ability to meet established storage criteria, anticipated to be met with reservoir capacity and groundwater supplies. 6-3.1 Operational Storage
Operational storage serves to equalize variations in sources of supply and demand over short periods of time (daily or weekly). Utilizing the daily demand hydrograph, the component of operational storage accounts for the difference in supply and demand.

In order to calculate the operational storage need, the total well capacity or supply was plotted against the maximum day demand curve as shown on Figure 6-1. The difference between the two curves is the amount of operational storage expected to be needed on a daily basis.

The well capacity of 7,154 gpm is based on the largest capacity well (Well 12) being out of service.

The maximum day demand (MDD) is 9,213 gpm or 13.27 mgd. The operational storage needed is calculated to be 3.9 million gallons. This is about 28.5 percent of the maximum day demand.

Therefore, for planning purposes, the operational storage criteria is conservatively set at 30 percent of the maximum day demand.

Item #1. Page 151
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 154

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
CITY OF GLENDORA 6-4 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 6-1
Maximum Day Supply and Demand
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
12:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM
10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM
6:00 PM7:00 PM
8:00 PM9:00 PM
10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM
Demand (gpm)
Time
Existing Maximum Day System Demand (gpm)
Supply from Wells without largest Well 12 (7,154 gpm)
Item #1. Page 152
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 155

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
CITY OF GLENDORA 6-5 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
6-3.2 Emergency Storage
Emergency storage is used in the event of an interruption in the primary water supply source. It is assumed that most outages can be mitigated within 7 days. Accordingly, many agencies that depend solely on imported water utilize 7 average days of storage as their emergency storage criterion. It is reasonable to expect that groundwater sources will be available during an outage of the imported water supply. Therefore, the required emergency storage volumes may typically be reduced by an agency’s groundwater supply capacity.

The City of Glendora’s emergency storage volume can be reduced by the actual production capacity of its wells. The only requirement would be that the facilities be capable of pumping the water needed during an emergency from the wells to the higher zones. Since the City’s well capacity of 7,545 gpm exceeds the existing average day demand (6,442 gpm), the emergency storage criteria is set to one average day demand.

Operational and fire storage shall be available for each individual zone while emergency storage shall be available system-wide. Again, the only the requirement is that the facilities are capable of moving the water needed during an emergency, from the location of the storage to all other zones. 6-3.3 Fire Suppression Storage
Fire suppression storage, shown in Table 6-1, is the volume required to supply the service area with the required fire flows, which range from 1,500 gpm to 4,000 gpm for a duration of two (2) to four (4) hours. The greatest volume required for fire suppression storage is 0.96 MG. 6-4 Wells
New wells should be designed in accordance with the Water Well Standards: State of California Bulletin 74-81 and Bulletin 74-90 (supplement to Bulletin 74-81) and their updates, the most-recent American Water Works Association (AWWA) standard A -100, State Water Resources Control Board, Orange County County Health Care Services, and sound engineering judgment.

The pumps should be placed low enough so that subsequent lowering should not be necessary. All well screens should be below the pump intake to preclude cascading of water into the well casing even with the lowest expected pumping water level. The casing diameter shall be at least 4 inches larger than the largest pump bowl/column pipe dimension, and maximum velocity shall not exceed 5 feet per second (fps). Total screen area should be sized to maintain a velocity of less than 0.1 fps at the maximum anticipated flow. Additionally, the casings diameters should be selected to allow lining the wells in the future without losing capacity. The use of higher grade materials, such as stainless steel, should be considered to increase the useful life of all future wells.

The well design should include a 4-inch diameter camera tube extending to below the pump suction elevation, a sounding tube, a separate air line with a depth gauge and an air connection and depth to water transducer. Flow meters, high and low discharge pressure switches, pressure gauges and transducers, and telemetry equipment should be included to continuously monitor the wells.

Permanent emergency generators with automatic transfer switches should be considered at each future well site. At minimum, new sites should include manual transfer switched and portable generator connections. Soft start bypass should be provided for each variable frequency drive so that a pump can be operated when its variable frequency drive (VFD) is out of service.

Item #1. Page 153
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 156

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
CITY OF GLENDORA 6-6 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
6-5 Booster Pump Stations
For open zones with sufficient fire demand storage, the pump capacity into the zone must meet the maximum day demands for the zone itself and any other zones it provides water to. Well supply and imported water directly supplying the zone can be included in the pump capacity.

For open zones that do not have sufficient fire demand storage, the pump capacity into the zone must meet maximum day plus fire demands for the zone itself as well as any zones it provides water to.

Well supply and imported water directly supplying the zone can be included in the pump capacity.

Preliminary design reports (PDR) should be developed prior to the design and construction of a new pump station or an upgrade to a pump station. At a minimum, the PDR should address pump station location, system hydraulics, demands and pressures, pump selections, design criteria, equipment selection, construction issues, cost estimates, and scheduling. The pump station firm capacity, number of pumps, and type of pumps should also be evaluated and determined during the development of the PDR.

All future booster pump stations must incorporate a standby pump of the same size as the largest duty pump. This ensures that there is a replacement for the largest duty pump during maximum day demand conditions, while one of the pumps at the station is being repaired or replaced. It typically takes pump manufacturers 12 to 16 weeks for delivery of a new pump and motor unit once the order is placed and shop drawings are approved.

The pump stations should be equipped with modern pump controllers, flow meters, suction and discharge pressure gauges, high and low discharge pressure switches, low suction pressure switch, proper isolation valves, and telemetry equipment. Flow meters and pressure gauges are essential tools for monitoring pump performance and demand conditions in the service area. Telemetry equipment is used to remotely monitor the status of the facility, and notify personnel in the event of a failure.

Pump stations should be constructed of fireproof materials and provided with peripheral sprinkler systems to prevent fire damage. Furthermore, power to the pump stations should be provided through underground service to minimize possibility of damage during fires. Pump stations with electric motors should be equipped with standby generators and automatic transfer switches to operate them during commercial power outages.
6-6 System Pressures
Most water utilities set 60 to 80 pounds per square inch (psi) as the average static pressure throughout the system. The water system shall also be capable of maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 40 psi during the peak hour demand. A residual pressure of 20 psi must be maintained at the fire hydrant outlet in developed areas during maximum day demand plus fire flow conditions (Re: California Regulations Related to Drinking Water, Chapter 16, Section 64602).

Static pressures should not exceed 80 psi, except where system operating conditions and geographical conditions warrant a higher pressure. In areas where pressures exceed 80 psi, the Uniform Plumbing Code requires customers to install “an approved type pressure regulator preceded by an adequate strainer” on their service connections to protect domestic plumbing and water heaters.

Item #1. Page 154
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 157

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
CITY OF GLENDORA 6-7 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
6-7 Transmission and Distribution System Pipelines
The distribution system shall be sized and designed to provide redundant service at adequate pressures for normal use as well as at fire flow conditions. In most cases, this can be accomplished by looping the system. Looping through easements or other areas which are not easily accessible shall be avoided. Provisions shall be made for supplying a service zone from at least two sources, where feasible.

In order to maintain adequate system pressures and prolong the life of the system pipes, flow velocities shall be limited. The system should operate at velocities of 1 to 3 feet per second (fps) normally, with a maximum velocity of 7 fps during intermittent peak flows. The pipe velocity during maximum day plus fire flow demands should not exceed 10 fps.

All new and replacement mains should be constructed with a minimum diameter of 8-inches, except 6-inch pipe can be used past the last fire hydrant at a dead-end. The existing pipes must be sized to provide adequate fire flows at the required hydrant outlet pressure of 20 psi while the maximum velocity criteria is not exceeded under maximum day plus fire flow demand conditions. These pipe size recommendations should be adhered to for all new design and construction projects, as well as any waterline replacement/upgrade projects.
6-8 Fire Suppression
The City of Glendora has adopted the California Fire Code, 2019 Edition per the Glendora, California Municipal Code Section 18.04.010. The fire flow requirements used for this study are therefore based upon the requirements of the California Fire Code (2019).

Table 6-2 is a summary of the selected fire flow and hydrant location criteria for the various land uses within the service area. These requirements were established as performance evaluation criteria and used in developing system improvement recommendations.

Table 6-2
Fire Flow and Fire Hydrant Location Criteria
For specific future development planning and design, the criteria should be adjusted on a case by case basis per the latest California Fire Code. The requirements in the California Fire Code are specific to each building on a given parcel of land and based on several factors, including land use, building construction methods and materials, and whether or not automatic sprinklers are present.

These specific requirements are shown in Table 6-3.

Land Use
Flow
(gpm)
Duration
(hrs)
Residual
Pressure
at Hydrant
Outlet
(psi)
Minimum
Number of
Hydrants
Required
Average
Spacing
between
Hydrants
(ft)
Maximum
Distance From
Hydrant to any
Point on Lot
Frontage (ft)
Single Family Residential 1,500 2 20 1 500 250
Single Family Residential with Hillside
Exposure (located within LA County
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone)
2,500 2 20 3 450 225
MultiFamily Residential 2,500 2 20 3 450 225
Commercial 3,500 3 20 4 350 210
School 3,500 3 20 4 350 210
Industrial 4,000 4 20 4 350 210
Item #1. Page 155
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 158

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
CITY OF GLENDORA 6-8 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
As this Master Plan is a planning level document, an evaluation of whether California Fire Code requirements are met at each parcel was not performed. Instead, minimum fire flow requirements at each hydrant are selected as a function of land use. The minimum required fire flow at each hydrant was generally based on the adjacent land use having the highest fire flow requirement.

Table 6-3
Minimum Required Fire Flow and Flow Duration for Buildings Type IA and IBb Type IIA and IIIAb Type IV and V-Ab Type IIB and IIIBb Type V-Bb 0-22,700 0-12,700 0-8,200 0-5,900 0-3,600 1,500
22,701-30,200 12,701-17,000 8,201-10,900 5,901-7,900 3,601-4,800 1,750 30,201-38,700 17,001-21,800 10,901-12,900 7,901-9,800 4,801-6,200 2,000 38,701-48,300 21,801-24,200 12,901-17,400 9,801-12,600 6,201-7,700 2,250 48,301-59,000 24,201-33,200 17,401-21,300 12,601-15,400 7,701-9,400 2,500 59,001-70,900 33,201-39,700 21,301-25,500 15,401-18,400 9,401-11,300 2,750 70,901-83,700 39,701-47,100 25,501-30,100 18,401-21,800 11,301-13,400 3,000 83,701-97,700 47,101-54,900 30,101-35,200 21,801-25,900 13,401-15,600 3,250 97,701-112,700 54,901-63,400 35,201-40,600 25,901-29,300 15,601-18,000 3,500 112,701-128,700 63,401-72,400 40,601-46,400 29,301-33,500 18,001-20,600 3,750 128,701-145,900 72,401-82,100 46,401-52,500 33,501-37,900 20,601-23,300 4,000 145,901-164,200 82,101-92,400 52,501-59,100 37,901-42,700 23,301-26,300 4,250 164,201-183,400 92,401-103,100 59,101-66,000 42,701-47,700 26,301-29,300 4,500 183,401-203,700 103,101-114,600 66,001-73,300 47,701-53,000 29,301-32,600 4,750 203,701-225,200 114,601-126,700 73,301-81,100 53,001-58,600 32,601-36,000 5,000 225,201-247,700 126,701-139,400 81,101-89,200 58,601-65,400 36,001-39,600 5,250 247,701-271,200 139,401-152,600 89,201-97,700 65,401-70,600 39,601-43,400 5,500 271,201-295,900 152,601-166,500 97,701-106,500 70,601-77,000 43,401-47,400 5,750 295,901-Greater 166,501-Greater 106,501-115,800 77,001-83,700 47,401-51,500 6,000 - - 115,801-,125,500 83,701-90,600 51,501-55,700 6,250
- - 125,501-135,500 90,601-97,900 55,701-60,200 6,500
- - 135,501-145,800 97,901-16,800 60,201-64,800 6,750
- - 145,801-156,700 106,801-113,200 64,801-69,600 7,000 - - 156,701-167,900 113,201-121,300 69,601-74,600 7,250 - - 167,901-179,400 121,301-129,600 74,601-79,800 7,500 - - 179,401-191,400 129,601-138,300 79,801-85,100 7,750 - - 191,401-Greater 138,301-Greater 85,101-Greater 8,000 For SI: 1 square foot = 0.0929 m2, 1 gallon per minute = 3.785 L/m, 1 pound per square inch = 6.895 kPa. a. The minimum required fire flow shall be allowed to be reduced by 25 percent for Group R b. Types of construction are based on the California Building Code Types I and II = noncombustible materials
Types III = exterior walls are noncombustible materials; interior elements are any material permitted by code Types IV = exterior walls are noncombustible materials; interior elements are solid or laminated wood Types V = any materials permitted by code
c. Measured at 20 psi at hydrant outlet
3 4
Fire Flow Calculation Area (sq. ft.) Fire Flow
(gpm)c
Flow
Duration
(hrs)
2 Item #1. Page 156
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 159

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
CITY OF GLENDORA 6-9 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
6-9 Service Life of Facilities
All facilities have useful lives for which relatively trouble-free service can be expected. Once exceeded, these facilities become less reliable, expensive to maintain and are subject to failure.

Therefore, facility age is considered in the assessment of all water systems and in formulating future replacement projects.

The determination of the useful life is dependent upon multiple considerations. Table 6-4 shows the useful lives that are generally accepted as prudent planning criteria. They shall be one of the considerations in determining the phasing of facility replacement.

Table 6-4
Planning Criteria for Facility Useful Life
Useful Life
(Years)
40 50
50 50
50 35
Structure 50
Piping 40
Valves 20
Mechanical 15
Electrical 15
Well Casing 20 - 60
Pump Stations / Wells / Treatment Facilities
Cast Iron and Steel Pipe (Lining or coating of
non-current practice)
Facility
Steel Reservoirs
Concrete Reservoirs
Lines and Coated Ductile Iron / Steel Pipe
PVC Pipe
Asbestos Cement Pipe
Item #1. Page 157
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 160
CITY OF GLENDORA 7-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
SECTION 7

HYDRAULIC MODEL
7-1 General
A computer model of the City’s water system was developed in the Innovyze InfowaterPro software platform. It was utilized to aid in the evaluation of the adequacy of the existing facilities under the current and future supply and demand conditions.

Generally, the model development steps included the following:

1. Utilize the City’s existing hydraulic model which was updated in 2017 as the basis for the model geometry

2. Update pipeline geometry through review of as-built plans, atlas sheets and discussions with engineering and operations staff

3. Verify and complete pipe information (pressure zone, diameter, length, roughness)

4. Verify and complete junction information (pressure zone, elevations)

5. Add detailed facility data (wells, pump stations, reservoirs, and imported water connections)

6. Add facility information (dimensions and water level for tanks, pump curves for booster pumps and wells, and aquifer levels for well pump suction levels)

7. Determine and assign demands to model junctions

8. Develop and assign diurnal demand curves to model junctions

9. Assign controls to facilities (pump start and stop conditions, imported water connection settings)
The City’s existing hydraulic model was used as the basis of the geometry of the model. As-built plans were used to add the pipes constructed since the model was last updated in 2017. Water system facilities (reservoirs, pump stations, wells, and connections) were added to the model based on as-built construction plans and provided facility information, such as pump curves, efficiency tests, ground water levels, and operational controls.

The model includes the potable water pipelines that are owned by the City. Water service laterals are not included. Modeling information associated with each pipe includes diameter, length, and roughness factor. Other pipe information included in the model database are year of installation, pressure zone, pipe material, as-built plan reference file, and tract name. Modeling information associated with each junction includes ground elevation, water demand, and diurnal pattern of demand. Model junction elevations were obtained from publicly available 2015-2016 LARIAC Lidar DEM data for the Los Angeles Region.
7-2 Demand Distribution
7-2.1 Existing Demands
The City provided water billing data with coordinates for each service meter. The meter locations were plotted in GIS and service laterals were created to connect the meter points to the mainline within the associated pressure zone. This enabled each water meter and its demand to be assigned to the closest model junction ID
Item #1. Page 158
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 161

HYDRAULIC MODEL
CITY OF GLENDORA 7-2 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
The existing demand distribution was based upon water meter data provided for January 2020 through December 2021. After the demands were loaded onto model junctions, they were adjusted so that the total demand matched the existing water production estimates (see Table 4-3) for all analysis scenarios (average day, maximum day, etc.). This method of distributing demands inherently accounted for any high water users within the existing service area as well as non-revenue water.

The water demands are assigned to the following database fields within the model:
 Demand Type 1: Residential – Single Family
 Demand Type 2: Residential - Multi
 Demand Type 3: Future Customers
 Demand Type 4: Commercial
 Demand Type 5: Irrigation
 Demand Type 6: Government
 Demand Type 7: Golf
 Demand Type 8: Undetermined (User Type “#NA” in consumption data)  Demand Type 9: Institution
 Demand Type 10: High Water Users
While these land-use based demand types were not utilized in the current analysis, they were assigned to separate demand categories within the model so that future analyses might be able to make use of the information.
7-2.2 Future Demands
The future demands were calculated individually for known planned future developments, based on land uses and water demand factors shown in Table 4-6. The calculated demands, shown in Table 4-7, were then input manually into the model at appropriate model junctions. 7-3 Diurnal Curves
The developed diurnal demand curves discussed in Section 4-3.3 were specified at each node. 7-4 Model Scenarios
The accuracy of the hydraulic model for the existing system was verified during the calibration process, as described in Section 8 of this report. Within the model software, new data sets and query sets were created to represent different operating conditions.

Data sets change as conditions in each scenario need to be changed. For example, separate demand sets were created to represent the various demand conditions. Separate control sets were created to define the initial status and controls of facilities. The data sets associated with each scenario are shown in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2.

Item #1. Page 159
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 162

HYDRAULIC MODEL
CITY OF GLENDORA 7-3 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 7-1
Existing Model Scenarios and Data Sets
Table 7-2
Future Model Scenarios and Data Sets
Average Day
Demand Scenario
(EXISTING_AVGDAY)
Maximum Day
Demand Scenario
(EXISTING_MAXDAY)
Maximum Day Demand
Plus Fire Flow Scenario
(FF_EX_MAXDAY, global)
Maximum Day Demand
Scenario plus Multi-Fire
Flow Scenario
(FF_MULTI_EX_MAYDAY)
Maximum Day Demand
Scenario with Fire
Improvements
(IMPROVE_FF_EX_MAXDAY)
Demand Set CALIBRATION_DAY EXISTING_AVGDAY EXISTING_MAXDAY EXISTING_AVGDAY EXISTING_MAXDAY EXISTING_AVGDAY Tank Set BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE
Reservoir Set BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE
Pump Set BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE
Pipe Set BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE
Valve Set BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE
Control Set BASE EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING IMPROVE_EXISTING Logical Set BASE EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING Facilty Set CALIBRATION_EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING FF_IMPROVE_EXIST_MAXDAY Data Set
Calibration Day
Scenario
(CALIBRATION)
Existing Scenarios
Minimum Month
(FUTURE_MINDAY)
Maximum Day
Fire Flow Global
(FUTURE_ MAXDAY)
Demand Set FUTURE_ MINDAY FUTURE_ MAXDAY
Tank Set BASE BASE
Reservoir Set BASE BASE
Pump Set BASE BASE
Pipe Set BASE BASE
Valve Set BASE BASE
Control Set FUTURE FUTURE
Fireflow Set BASE GLOBAL_FF
Logical Set FUTURE FUTURE
Facilty Set FUTURE FUTURE
Data Set
Future Scenarios
Item #1. Page 160
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 163

HYDRAULIC MODEL
CITY OF GLENDORA 7-4 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
The following scenarios were created:

1. Model Calibration Day Scenario (CALIBRATION)

2. Existing Average Day Demand Scenario (EXISTING_AVGDAY)

3. Existing Maximum Day Demand Scenario (EXISTING_MAXDAY).

4. Existing Maximum Day Fire flow Global (FF_EX_MAXDAY)

5. Existing Maximum Day Fire flow using multiple hydrants (FF_MUTI_EX_MAXDAY) This scenario was utilized for running fire flow analysis at multiple fire hydrants at the same time in select areas where the analysis didn’t meet the fire criteria using just one hydrant.

6. Existing Maximum Day Fire flow using multiple hydrants including hydraulic improvements (IMPROVE_FF_EX_MAXDAY)

7. Future Maximum Day Demand Scenario (FUT_MAXDAY)

8. Future Minimum Day Demand Scenario (FUT_MINDAY)
The aforementioned scenarios were used to evaluate system performance with respect to pressures, pipe velocities, and fire flow availability. The system analysis and results are described in Section 9 7-5 Facility Model Characteristics and Control Settings 7-5.1 Storage Reservoirs
All active storage reservoirs are included in the hydraulic model. The reservoirs are designated as “tanks” because they have a known finite volume and water surface levels that change with time as water flows into or out of them. (Note the model software defines “reservoirs” as sources of water that remain at a constant water level irrespective of the flow. They have an unlimited volume and are generally used to represent a lake or other inexhaustible supply source.) The storage reservoir characteristics input in the model are shown in Table 7-3. For reference, the previously used reservoir names are included in the model as information in the Description field. 7-5.2 Wells
The City’s water system currently has eight (8) active wells. Four are located at the San Gabriel facility in the City of Azusa. Four are located within the system and pump water to the City’s water yard which is the site of the Sierra Madre and Goddard Reservoirs (Zone 1). The normal operation control settings of the wells are shown in Table 7-4.

Groundwater levels at the wells were represented in the model by constant level, unlimited capacity reservoirs. The groundwater levels were based on the June 2022 groundwater level readings. The groundwater levels were adjusted in the model to reach a more accurate match in terms of discharge pressure, flow, and system pressure.
7-5.3 Booster Pump Stations
The booster pump station control settings are shown in Table 7-5. These controls were developed by reviewing SCADA data, as well as interviews with City operations staff.

Item #1. Page 161
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 164

HYDRAULIC MODEL
CITY OF GLENDORA 7-5 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 7-3
Storage Reservoir Characteristics
1 San Gabriel SANGABRIELTANK 675.0 0: Cylindrical 88 1.0 22.0 13.6 1 South Hills West A A_W_SOUTHHILLS 954.3 0: Cylindrical 179 5.0 15.0 9.3 1 b
South Hills West B B_W_SOUTHHILLS 952.8 0: Cylindrical 224.54 5.0 23.0 11.3 1 Sierra Madre A A_SIERRAMADRE 954.6 0: Cylindrical 210 5.0 15.6 11.3 1 Goddard A A_GODDARD 954.6 0: Cylindrical 200 5.0 15.5 10.6 1A c
Hicrest A and B HICREST 1109.5 0: Cylindrical 54.92 5.0 22.0 10.2 1B Hook Canyon A A_HOOKCNYN 1174.5 0: Cylindrical 50.5 5.0 22.0 9.9 1B Hook Canyon B B_HOOKCNYN 1174.5 0: Cylindrical 50.5 5.0 22.0 10.4 1BH1 d
Silent Ranch A A_SILENTRANCH 1123.0 0: Cylindrical 3.37 104.0 254.1 200.0 2 Hidden Springs A A_HIDDENSPRNGS 1047.5a 0: Cylindrical 108 5.0 48.0 31.4 2 Hidden Springs B B_HIDDENSPRNGS 1063.0a 0: Cylindrical 78 5.0 31.0 15.8 2 South Hills East A A_E_SOUTHHILLS 1065.0 0: Cylindrical 136 5.0 23.0 16.1 2 Country Club A (north) A_COUNTRYCLB 1066.0 0: Cylindrical 72 5.0 22.0 16.6 2 Country Club B (south) B_COUNTRYCLB 1066.0 0: Cylindrical 72 5.0 22.0 16.7 2H1 d
Rainbow A A_RAINBOW 1200.0 0: Cylindrical 3.98 34.7 115.5 100.0 2H2 d
Eagle Ridge A A_EAGLERIDGE 1012.0 0: Cylindrical 4.7 184.8 207.9 190.0 3 b
Morgan Ranch A A_MORGNRANCH 1237.0 0: Cylindrical 139.89 5.0 28.0 18.4 3 b
Englewild A A_ENGLEWILD 1237.0 0: Cylindrical 139.89 5.0 28.0 18.0 3A c
Glencoe A and B GLENCOE 1384.9 0: Cylindrical 31.47 5.0 23.0 13.6 3A North Glendora B B_NORTHGLEN 1385.0 0: Cylindrical 48 5.0 23.0 11.6 3A c
Englewild Canyon A and B ENGLEWILDCNYN 1336.5 0: Cylindrical 18.1 5.0 11.0 7.8 3C Big Dalton A A_BIGDALTON 1324.8 0: Cylindrical 22 5.0 20.0 10.9 3D c
Bluebird A and B BLUEBIRD 1341.6 0: Cylindrical 31.62 5.0 23.0 12.6 4 c
Lower Gordon A and B LOWERGORDON 1490.0 0: Cylindrical 61.16 5.0 15.0 10.1 4A c
Upper Gordon A and B UPPERGORDON 1681.5 0: Cylindrical 56.57 5.0 22.0 11.7 a The Hidden Springs Reservoir elevations were slightly adjusted to match SCADA water levels b A circular reservoir with an equivalent diameter was used to represent the existing rectangular reservoir c The existing two small reservoirs were combined into one with an equivalent diameter d This is a hydropneumatic tank
Model
Tank
Minimum
Level (ft)
Model
Tank
Maximum
Level (ft)
Existing and Future
Conditions Initial
Tank Level (ft)
Model
Tank
Diameter
(ft)
Pressure
Zone Reservoir Name
Bottom
Elevation
(ft)
Model Tank
New Model ID Type
Item #1. Page 162
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 165

HYDRAULIC MODEL
CITY OF GLENDORA 7-6 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 7-4
Well Pump Control Settings
Reference
Reservoir Action
If
Reference
Reservoir
is
Level
(ft)
closed above 12.7
open below 9.5
closed above 17.25
open below 14.25
Open above 17
open below 14
closed above 17.25
open below 14.75
closed above 12
open below 9.2
closed above 11
open below 9
closed above 17.25
open below 13.5
closed above 12.5
open below 9.4
A_SIERRAMADRE

SANGABRIELTANK

SANGABRIELTANK
WELL8 WELL8

SANGABRIELTANK
WELL5 WELL5
WELL2 WELL2
WELL12 WELL12
SG 683.62 WELL9 WELL9
A_SIERRAMADRE
A_SIERRAMADRE
964.42 A_SIERRAMADRE
a VFD is simulated using additional controls to vary the pump settings based on different levels in the San Gabriel Reservoir b Well 12 is modeled as a constant speed pump
Well 9
Well 11
Well
Name
Pressure
Zone
Groundwater
Pumping
Elevation (ft)
Well 5a SG 668.27
Well 2 1 968.36
Well 8
WELL13 WELL13
SG 683.63
1 910.65
1 870.84 WELL11
WELL10 WELL10
WELL11
Well 13
Existing and Future Conditions Settings
Model Pump ID
Well 12b SG 683
Model Pump Curve ID
Well 10 1
Item #1. Page 163
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 166

HYDRAULIC MODEL
CITY OF GLENDORA 7-7 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 7-5
Booster Pump Station Sequencing Controls
Reference
Reservoir Action
If
Reference
Reservoir
Level is
Level
(ft)
close above 20.5
open below 14.0
close above 20.5
open below 15.0
close above 20.0
open below 14.5
close above 38.0
open below 27.0
close above 37.0
open below 28.0
close above 18.0
open below 8.5
close above 19.0
open below 9.5
close above 9.5
open below 8.0
close above 18.0
open below 8.0
close above 18.0
open below 9.0
close above 20.0
open below 9.5
close above 20.0
open below 8.5
close above 16.0
open below 8.0
close above 18.0
open below 9.5
close above 13.0
open below 5.5
close above 18.0
open below 9.0
close above 18.0
open below 8.5

GLENCOE

GLENCOE
A_HOOKCNYN
A_HOOKCNYN
A_BIGDALTON

BLUEBIRD

BLUEBIRD
A_RAINBOW
A_HIDDENSPRNGS
A_HIDDENSPRNGS
A_SILENTRANCH
A_SILENTRANCH
A_COUNTRYCLB
A_COUNTRYCLB
A_COUNTRYCLB

HICREST

HICREST
Only one pump used at
Silent Ranch PS at any
time
Only one pump used at
Rainbow PS at any time
Set to maintain system
pressures between 45-87
psi (104-200 ft)
Silent Ranch Pump 1 B20 B20_SILENT_RANCH
North Grand Pump 2 B41 B41_NORTH_GRAND
Silent Ranch Pump 2 B57 B57_SILENT_RANCH
Rainbow Pump 1 B42 B42_RAINBOW
B11
Dalton Pump B31 B31_DALTON
B33 B33_BLUE_BIRD
Blue Bird Pump 1 B32 B32_BLUE_BIRD
Blue Bird Pump 2
Glencoe Pump 2 B27 B27_GLENCOE
Glencoe Pump 1 B26 B26_GLENCOE
North Grand Pump 1 B29 B29_NORTH_GRAND
Englewild Pump 3 B14
Hidden Springs Pump 2 B12 B12_HIDDEN_SPRINGS
B11_HIDDEN_SPRINGS
Booster Pump Name
Model
Pump
ID Model Pump Curve ID
Existing and Future Condition Settings
Englewild Pump 1 B10 B10_ENGLEWILD
Englewild Pump 2 B13 B13_ENGLEWILD
Hidden Springs Pump 1

ENGLEWILDCNYN

ENGLEWILDCNYN
Hicrest Pump 1 B24 B24_HICREST
Country Club Pump 3 B36 B36_SIERRA_MADRE
Hicrest Pump 2 B25
B14_ENGLEWILD
B25_HICREST
Country Club Pump 2 B23 B23_SIERRA_MADRE
Country Club Pump 1 B22 B22_SIERRA_MADRE
Item #1. Page 164
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 167

HYDRAULIC MODEL
CITY OF GLENDORA 7-8 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 7-5 (Continued)
Booster Pump Station Sequencing Controls
Reference
Reservoir Action
If
Reference
Reservoir
Level is
Level
(ft)
close above 13.0
open below 8.0
close above 13.0
open below 8.0
close above 12.0
open below 7.0
close above 9.0
open below 5.0
close above 8.0
open below 4.5
close above 18.0
open below 9.0
close above 18.0
open below 8.5
close above 18.0
open below 8.0
close above 18.0
open below 9.5
close above 21.0
open below 16.0
close above 21.0
open below 16.0
close above 20.0
open below 15.0
close above 13.5
open below 10.0
close above 13.5
open below 8.0
close above 13.5
open below 9.8
close above 13.0
open below 9.9
close above 13.5
open below 7.0

UPPERGORDON
A_MORGNRANCH
A_MORGNRANCH
A_MORGNRANCH
A_SIERRAMADRE
A_SIERRAMADRE
A_SIERRAMADRE
A_SIERRAMADRE
A_SIERRAMADRE
A_RAINBOW
Set to maintain system
pressures between 80-90
psi (head = 185-206 ft)
Englewild Canyon Pump 1 B47 B47_ENGLEWILD_CANYON
Englewild Canyon Pump 2 B48 B48_ENGLEWILD_CANYON
Booster Pump Name
Model
Pump
ID
Only one pump used at
Eagle Ridge PS at any time
Set to maintain system
pressures between 15-50
psi (35-116 ft)
Model Pump Curve ID
Existing and Future Condition Settings

LOWERGORDON

ENGLEWILDCNYN

ENGLEWILDCNYN
A_EAGLERIDGE
A_EAGLERIDGE
A_EAGLERIDGE
A_HOOKCNYN
A_HOOKCNYN

UPPERGORDON
Rainbow Pump 2 B43 B43_RAINBOW
San Gabriel Pump 3a
San Gabriel Pump 5 SG-5 SG_B5
a To simulate the VFD, additoinal controls are used to adjust the pump setting when a third pump is on or off SG-3 SG_B3
San Gabriel Pump 4 SG-4 SG_B4
San Gabriel Pump 1 SG-1 SG_B1
San Gabriel Pump 2 SG-2 SG_B2
Greencroft Pump 2 B61 B61_GREENCROFT
Greencroft Pump 3 B62 B62_GREENCROFT
Gordon Pump 2 B59 B59_GORDON
Greencroft Pump 1 B60 B60_GREENCROFT
Hook Canyon Pump 2 B53 B53_HOOK_CANYON
Gordon Pump 1 B58 B58_GORDON
Eagle Ridge Pump 3 B51 B51_EAGLE_RIDGE
Hook Canyon Pump 1 B52 B52_HOOK_CANYON
Eagle Ridge Pump 1 B49 B49_EAGLE_RIDGE
Eagle Ridge Pump 2 B50 B50_EAGLE_RIDGE
Morgan Ranch Pump 2 B45 B45_MORGAN_RANCH
Morgan Ranch Pump 3 B46 B46_MORGAN_RANCH
Morgan Ranch Pump 1 B44 B44_MORGAN_RANCH
Item #1. Page 165
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 168

HYDRAULIC MODEL
CITY OF GLENDORA 7-9 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
7-5.4 Imported Water Connections
Imported water connections were input in the model, but are generally only used in max day demand periods. The settings shown in Table 7-6.

Table 7-6
Imported Water Connection Controls
7-6 Friction Factors
The pipeline friction factors used in the hydraulic model are shown in Table 7-7. Other factors that affect the pipe roughness coefficient include the number of connections to the pipe, the quality of construction, and the number of bends and tees. A direct correlation between pipe age and material has not clearly been defined at the time of this study. It has often been found that the pipe roughness coefficient depends heavily on the corrosiveness of the water conveyed and pipe velocities.

ID
To
Zone Model ID All Scenarios
PM-6 1 - Not used
PM-18 2 B30 and B34 Pumps about 1500 gpm when the Reservoir 2C level falls below 8 feet, and turns off when Reservoir 2C level rises above 14 feet PM-23 1 - Not used
Pipe
Diameter
Pipe Roughness
Coefficient
4-inch 100
6-inch 120
8-10 inch 130
12-16 inch 140
18-30 inch 145
Table 7-7
Pipe Roughness Coefficients
Item #1. Page 166
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 169
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
SECTION 8

MODEL CALIBRATION
8-1 General
The existing water system model was calibrated to verify the accuracy of the model, system configuration, and the hydraulic parameters utilized. The general calibration methodology was to gather as much system information as possible from available SCADA system data and pressure and reservoir level measuring equipment temporarily installed in the field. This information was then used for input into the model as well as comparison of model and field results. Typical indicators of an accurate model include the following:
 Pressure differences of five (5) percent or less
 Well and booster pump station flow differences of five (5) percent or less  Reservoir level differences of 1 foot or less
8-2 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Data Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) information was collected from May 25, 2022 through June 15, 2022 and used in calibrating the 24-hour extended period simulation. The following data was provided in 1 minute intervals.
 Reservoirs - water levels
 Well Pumps - flows
 Booster Pumps – flows
 Imported Water Connections – flows
 Pressures:
a. Hicrest Booster Pump Station discharge pressure
b. San Gabriel Booster Pump Station discharge pressure
c. Silent Ranch Booster Pump Station suction and discharge pressures d. Eagle Ridge Booster Pump Station suction and discharge pressures e. Englewild Booster Pump B13 discharge pressure
8-3 Field Collected Data
In addition to the data available via the SCADA system, pressure data was collected in the field by installing pressure data loggers on twenty-eight (28) fire hydrants during the calibration period. The selected locations were scattered throughout the service area, as shown on Figure 8-1, in order to obtain representative pressure measurements in each pressure zone. Some locations were specifically selected near pump stations where pressures were not collected through the SCADA system.

The Englewild Canyon Reservoir levels are currently not collected in SCADA. Therefore, a water level data logger was installed in one of the reservoirs to record reservoir levels during the calibration period.

Item #1. Page 167
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 170
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")")
")")
&- &-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&- &-
&-
&-&- &-
&-
&- &-&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-&-
&-
&-
&-
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* !(
!( !( $+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+ $+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
Arrow Hwy
Valley Center Ave
Arrow Hwy
Lone Hill Ave
Amelia Ave
Cataract Ave
Foothill Blvd
I-210
I-210
Alosta Ave
Grand Ave
Barranca Ave
Mauna Loa Ave
Baseline Rd
I-210
Foothill Blvd
Sierra Madre Ave
Sierra Madre Ave
Foothill Blvd
State Rte 66
Grand Ave
Loraine Ave
Gladstone St
Gladstone St
Glendora Ave
SR-57
Palm Dr
San Gabriel Ave
Foothill Blvd Citrus Ave
I-210
1st St
Vernon Ave
Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Cerritos Ave
Bonnie Cove AveSunflower Ave
Live Oak Ave
Big Dalton Cyn Rd
San Gabriel
Irwindale
(Inactive)
San Gabriel
Well 5
Well 8, 9, 12
Vosburg
Well
(Inactive)
Well 3 & 4
(Inactive)
Irwindale
(Inactive)
City of Azusa
Service Area
Suburban Water
Service Area
Suburban Water
Service Area
Citrus Ave
Transmission Main from Irwindale
(Inactive)
Transmission Main from Vosburg Well
(Inactive)
Suburban Water
Service Area
6 5
4 8
9 3
1 2
7 25
26 28
27 11
19 22
17 23
21 16
20 18 15
14 10
13 12
24 PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Pressure Data Logger Locations
Figure 8-1
³
0 1,100 2,200 4,400
Feet
Legend
Water Pipes
$+ Pressure Data Logger Location
") Wells
#* Pump Stations
&- Storage Reservoirs
!( Pressure Regulating Station
Zone 1RA
Zone 1RB
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1BH1
Zone 2
Zone 2H1
Zone 2H2
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 3B
Zone 3C
Zone 3C1
Zone 3D
Zone 4
Zone 4A
City Boundary
Item #1. Page 168
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 171

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-3 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Pump station flows throughout Glendora’s water system are not recorded in the SCADA system. For the calibration period, Meter Master equipment was installed on select flow meters at the following locations:
 Englewild Booster Pump Station, flow meter for Pump B10  Hidden Springs Booster Pump Station, combined meter for Pumps B11 and B12  Glencoe Booster Pump Station, combined meter for Pumps B26 and B27  North Grand Booster Pump Station, flow meter for Pump B41  Hook Canyon Booster Pump Station, flow meter for Pump B52  Hook Canyon Booster Pump Station, flow meter for Pump B53  Englewild Canyon Booster Pump Station, combined meter for Pumps B47 and B48 It was requested that Pump B14 at the Englewild Booster Pump Station not be operated during normal system demands, because there isn’t any power at the site to connect Meter Master equipment and monitor the flows through the pump. It was also requested that City staff log daily flows at pump stations during the calibration period. Flow logs were provided for Hook Canyon, Hidden Springs, Englewild, Eagle Ridge, and North Grand Booster Pump Stations. 8-4 Calibration Period
The calibration period, the time period in which SCADA data and pressure data was collected in the field, was from May 25, 2022 to June 15, 2022. A 24-hour period was selected to represent normal demand and operating conditions during the calibration period. “Normal conditions” means that there were no noticeable anomalies and/or significant variation in the flows and pressures that could indicate an unusual event such as a fire or a main break. The calibration day was selected to be June 7, 2022.
8-5 Demand Allocation
Demand allocation for the calibration scenario was based on the average distribution represented by the water billing data during the period January 2020 through December 2021. The demands were globally adjusted to match the total average daily supply entering the system (well flow + imported water flow +/- water from reservoirs) during the calibration period. 8-6 Zonal Diurnal Curves
Diurnal patterns were created for the major zones (i.e. Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3). The smaller zones that are supplied water by Zones 1, 2, and 3 were included in the calculation of the overall diurnal pattern for that zone.

Water usage within each zone were determined based upon data collected from the City’s SCADA system during the calibration period. The flow from the wells, pump stations, and imported water connections, and water levels in the reservoir were utilized in calculating the total amount of water used in each zone in 15-minute increments.

The three major zonal diurnal demand curves, shown on Figure 8-2, are grouped as follows:

1. The demands in Zone 1, 1A, 1B, and 1BH1 are grouped and assigned the same diurnal demand curve.

Item #1. Page 169
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 172

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-4 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan

2. The demands in Zone 2, 2H1, and 2H2 are grouped and assigned the same diurnal demand curve.

3. The demands in Zone 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3C1, 3D, 4, and 4A are grouped and assigned the same diurnal demand curve.

Figure 8-2
Diurnal Demand Curves
High water users (HWUs), listed in Table 8-1, were identified based on monthly billing data for June 2021. Some customers in smaller zones that account for a large percentage of the water use within the zone were also identified. The water use of these customers were removed from the diurnal pattern calculations and then individual diurnal patterns were developed for each of these customers using the City’s Advanced Metering Instrumentation (AMI) data.

The AMI data for customers in Zone 1RA and Zone 1RB was utilized to develop separate diurnal patterns for those two small zones.

Item #1. Page 170
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 173

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-5 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 8-1
High Water Users
8-7 Wells
The City records static water levels and pumping water levels monthly at each well. The groundwater elevation at each well was calculated by subtracting the pumping water level from the ground surface elevation and input into the hydraulic model. The well flows for the calibration period are shown in Appendix 8-1.

For most wells, an on/off pattern was used to turn the well on and off by time and the adjusted pump curves for each well were utilized to determine the flows. For Well 5 and Well 12, a flow pattern was used to simulate the actual flow produced from these wells during calibration period. This is due to the fact that the model cannot simulate the VFD controls of these wells, hindering the ability to use controls or on/off patterns to calibrate these facilities.

No
Customer ID
(SDP) Customer Name
Average
Demand
June 2022
(gpm)
Average
Demand
June 7, 2022
(gpm) Zone
1 84873265 Glendora Country Club 196.3 226.1 3
2 81664777 Glendora High School 56.7 69.8 2
3 89367861 Goddard Middle School 49.1 40.9 3
4 74922279 Glenn Oaks Golf Course 37.4 27.6 1
5 81664757 Grand Terrace Apartments 22.3 25.0 1
6 74872739 Williams Educational Center 23.2 24.9 1
7 69419814 Mall Complex 13.3 18.7 2
8 74634447 Louie Pompei Memorial Sports
Park 41.9 16.0 2
9 81664832 St. Lucy's Priory High School 18.5 15.5 1B
10 74698820 Church of the Open Door
(auditorium) 10.7 13.9 1B
11 71795379 Sellers Elementary School 35.1 9.9 2
12 81664761 Foothill Presbyterian Hospital
Emergency Room 14.1 9.1 1
13 74872741 Willow Elementary School 11.3 7.2 1
14 73304490 Walmart Supercenter 11.8 6.3 2
15 81664776 Whitcomb Continuation High
School 16.3 5.9 1
16 62019519 Glendora Country Club 5.7 5.7 3
17 81664769 Church of the Open Door 9.8 5.3 1B
18 73100397 Sutherland Elementary School 11.4 3.3 2
19 61949141 Glendora Country Club 2.1 2.1 3
20 73100387 Cullen Elementary School 16.7 1.9 2
21 73149743 Pool (no name) 19.6 1.7 2
22 74983306 San Gabriel River Ranger District 15.1 0.7 1 23 81881985 Near Washington Elemntary
School, but in the neighborhood 14.0 0.4 1
24 81664753 Arrow High School 11.2 0.2 1
Item #1. Page 171
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 174

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-6 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
An additional loss was added to the discharge of Well 10 to match calibration day flow values. 8-8 Imported Water Connections
Imported water connections were not utilized during the calibration period, therefore remained off in the calibration model simulation.
8-9 Booster Pump Stations
Booster Pump Stations were set up similar to the wells for the calibration scenario. Pumps were given specified on/off times in the model and utilized the adjusted pump curves were utilized to determine the flows. Because of model limitations, San Gabriel Pump 3 is controlled with a flow pattern based on discussion with City Staff about how this pump is generally operated with the other San Gabriel pumps. The pump station flows for the calibration period are shown in Appendix 8-2.

City staff reports that the valves downstream of the Country Club Pump Stations are throttled to increase the head so that the pumps run more efficiently. The throttled valves are accounted for in the model as a loss on the pipes just downstream of each pump to obtain the desired flows and discharge pressures.

The Morgan Ranch Booster Pump Station does not have a flow meter so the pumped flows could not be measured in the field. The pump curves were adjusted in the model to pump a flow amount that made the water levels in the Lower Gordon Reservoirs match as closely as possible with SCADA data.

Hydropneumatic system pumps use pressure head controls provided by the City to turn on at the low pressure settings and off at the high pressure settings as follows:
 Silent Ranch Booster Pumps (Zone 1BH1) – high pressure 110 psi, low pressure 45 psi  Rainbow Booster Pumps (Zone 2H1) – high pressure 50 psi, low pressure 15 psi  Eagle Ridge Booster Pumps (Zone 2H2) – high pressure 90 psi, low pressure 80 psi The following pumps were not in use during the calibration period:
 San Gabriel Booster Pump 2 and Pump 5
 Country Club Booster Pump B22
 Englewild Booster Pump B13 and B14
 Valley Center Booster Pump B21
 Hicrest Booster Pump B24
 Hook Canyon Booster Pump B53
 North Grand Booster Pump B29 and B41
 Hidden Springs Booster Pump B11 and B12
 Greencroft Booster Pump B61
 Morgan Ranch Booster Pump B44
 Bluebird Booster Pump B32
 Glencoe Booster Pump B27
Item #1. Page 172
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 175

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-7 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
 Gordon Booster Pump B58
 Dalton Booster Pump B31
 Englewild Canyon Booster Pump B48 (unknown which pump was in use during calibration but only one pump was used)
8-10 Reservoirs
The initial reservoir levels were set to match those of the initial calibration period (June 7, 2022). The reservoir levels for the calibration period are shown in Appendix 8-3. The comparison of SCADA data versus model data is shown on each figure. Most reservoir levels in Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 were within 1 foot throughout the calibration period which is evidence of a well calibrated model. 8-10.1 Country Club Reservoir Levels
The Country Club Reservoirs A (0.688 MG) and Country Club B (0.688 MG) water levels did not always match within 1 foot. The levels matched relatively well for the first six hours of the simulation (See Figure 8-3 and 8-4). At about six in the morning, the Country Club Pump Station turned on (See Figure 8-5 and 8-6) and this is when the reservoir levels start to diverge. In reality, water fills the Country Club Reservoirs six feet over the next 18 hours. In the model, the water is not able to get to the reservoirs due to the pipe sizes and distance from the Country Club Booster Pump Station.

Amelia Pump Station is close to the Country Club Reservoirs but SCADA confirmed that this pump station was not on during the calibration period. It was not providing water to Zone 2.

Figure 8-3
Item #1. Page 173
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 176

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-8 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 8-4
Figure 8-5
Item #1. Page 174
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 177

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-9 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 8-6
The Country Club Reservoir A and B are both 0.688 MG tanks located on the far southeast side of Zone 2. The model is not able to get enough water into the reservoirs. AKM tried to determine the reason for the discrepancy in the reservoir levels recorded in the field versus the model predicted reservoir levels. Typically, a discrepancy like this might be due to incorrect demands, diurnal patterns, reservoir dimensions or elevations, system pipe sizes and connectivity, and/or unknown closed or partially closed valves in the system. All of these possibilities were explored.

Since the Zone 1 and Zone 3 reservoir levels match well and the Zone 2 and Zone 3 booster pump flows match well, it is believed that the demands and diurnal patterns are accurate. The model is predicting higher reservoir levels than the field data showed at the Country Club Reservoirs. One possibility explored was if a major transmission line was missing from the system mapping. City staff reviewed the system pipes and sizes and could not identify any errors. It is still possible that there are some incorrect pipe sizes or connectivity issues within the mapping of the system. The City is currently in the process of developing a detailed Water GIS of the entire system. It is recommended that the hydraulic model be updated after the completion of the Water GIS and the model be recalibrated.

It was also noted that Hidden Springs Reservoirs A (3.5 MG) and B (1.25 MG) have higher water levels in the model than the field collected data (See Figure 8-7 and Figure 8-8). The difference is not extreme because the reservoirs are large in volume. But it is possible that the model is conveying water to the Hidden Springs Reservoirs instead of the Country Club Reservoirs due to incorrect pipe geometry and connectivity.

Item #1. Page 175
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 178

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-10 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 8-7
Figure 8-8
Item #1. Page 176
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 179

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-11 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
8-10.2 Glencoe Reservoir Levels
Additional losses were added near the Glencoe Reservoirs to match levels compared to SCADA.

After interviews with City Operations staff, it was verified that these pipes are old and could be corroded or have partially closed valves, adding to the normal losses through the distribution system pipes.
8-10.3 Reservoir Levels of Small Upper Zones
Zones 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4, and 4A have smaller demands and smaller reservoirs. This makes the development of a diurnal pattern specific to the zone much more difficult because the calculations need to be more precise. The exact time and flow from the pump stations and the exact changes in the reservoir levels are needed to calculate the demands at every desired time step.

For this study, an attempt was made to develop specific diurnal patterns for all the smaller zones.

Many times, the calculations resulted in negative demands which means water entering the zone but not being used. In reality, all demands should be positive when calculating a diurnal pattern. Since specific diurnal patterns could not be developed for each of the small zones, the areas were considered a part of the larger zone that supplies water to it and the same diurnal pattern used in the larger zone was applied to the small zone. The hydraulic zones were grouped as follows for developing the diurnal patterns used in this Master Plan Study:

1. Zone 1, Zone 1A, Zone 1B, and Zone 1BH1

2. Zone 2, Zone 2H1, and Zone 2H2

3. Zone 3, Zone 3A, Zone 3B, Zone 3C, Zone 3C1, Zone 3D, Zone 4, and Zone 4A For the recommended hydraulic studies (see Section 9) in the smaller zones, the following is recommended prior to the studies so that a specific diurnal pattern can be developed for each zone and so the hydraulic model can be refined/calibrated for the study zone:

1. Collect AMI data for the zone in small time intervals (5 minutes or less) for the study period

2. Calibrate flow meters

3. Ensure that flow meters are hooked up to the SCADA system and flows can be recorded in small time intervals (5 minutes or less) for the study period

4. Calibrate water level sensors

5. Ensure that the water levels in reservoirs can be recorded in the SCADA at small changes in water levels and at the exact times that they occur for the study period 8-10.4 San Gabriel Reservoir Levels
The well flows and San Gabriel Booster Pump Station flows were matched in the model as close as possible to the SCADA data provided. When this was done, the San Gabriel Reservoir levels did not match well. The levels in the model are not maintained as shown on Figure 8-9. It seems as if the well supply is insufficient. Well 8 flows ramp up in the model, trying to compensate for the low supply but it is still not enough. It is recommended that the well flow meters and reservoir level sensors be tested and/or calibrated to determine the discrepancy.

Item #1. Page 177
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 180

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-12 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Figure 8-9
8-11 System Pressures
The comparison of field collected data to model data at each of the pressure data logger locations is shown in Table 8-2. All model pressures were within 5 percent of the field collected pressures recorded during the calibration period. The three pressure data loggers that malfunctioned during the field calibration period are noted in the table. The average pressures difference at each location was less than 5 percent.

The pressure data comparison graphs are shown in Appendix 8-4.

Table 8-2
Pressure Data Comparison
Site
Number Zone
Atlas Map
Hydrant ID Source
Average
Pressure
(psi)
Average
Pressure
Difference
(psi)
%
Difference Comments
Field Data 123.7
Model Data 124.0
Field Data 62.6
Model Data 63.3
Field Data NA
Model Data 69.6
H235-19
1 -0.3 0.2%
1 PDL1 H264-01
PDL3 H170-07
PDL2 -0.7 1.1%
1 Pressure Data Logger Malfunction
Item #1. Page 178
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 181

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-13 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 8-2 (continued)
Pressure Data Comparison
Site
Number Zone
Atlas Map
Hydrant ID Source
Average
Pressure
(psi)
Average
Pressure
Difference
(psi)
%
Difference Comments
Field Data 83.0
Model Data 83.4
Field Data 82.6
Model Data 83.3
Field Data 117.6
Model Data 116.8
Field Data NA
Model Data 93.1
Field Data 79.0
Model Data 79.3
Field Data 94.9
Model Data 95.4
Field Data 66.3
Model Data 69.5
Field Data 50.9
Model Data 52.7
Field Data 49.8
Model Data 50.7
Field Data 106.8
Model Data 107.5
Field Data 104.1
Model Data 105.5
Field Data 91.7
Model Data 92.4
Field Data 84.0
Model Data 85.0
Field Data 87.8
Model Data 89.1
Field Data 43.7
Model Data 41.7
Field Data 55.5
Model Data 55.6
Field Data NA
Model Data 86.6
Field Data 98.2
Model Data 98.1
Field Data 53.4
Model Data 53.4
Field Data 40.7
Model Data 39.2
Field Data 85.8
Model Data 85.4
3 3
3 1A
1B
3A
3D
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 PDL6
H236-10
PDL8
PDL4 1 H120-20 -0.4 0.5%
PDL10 H123-08
PDL11
-0.6 0.8%
H167-08
PDL7
H118-02
PDL9 H187-12
PDL5

0.7 -0.3 0.4%
-0.5 0.5%
-0.7 0.7%
H140-20
-0.6%
-0.9 1.8%
H89-02
-3.1 4.5%
-1.9 3.6%
Pressure Data Logger Malfunction
PDL24 H266-27
PDL21 H185-20
PDL22 H86-09
PDL23 1 H279-02
1 PDL16 H124-02
-0.1 0.2%
PDL12 H189-24
PDL15 H74-5
-0.8 0.7%
-1.5 1.4%
PDL13 H190-2
PDL14 H91-12
PDL20 H92-04
PDL17 H86-13
PDL18 H71-06
PDL19 H56-02
-1.3 1.4%

2.1 -4.9%
Pressure Data Logger Malfunction
-0.9 1.1%
-0.1%

0.0 0.0%
-0.4%

1.6 -4.1%

0.3 0.1
Item #1. Page 179
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 182

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-14 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 8-2 (continued)
Pressure Data Comparison
8-12 Fire Hydrant Testing
Fire hydrant flow tests were conducted at six (6) locations on June 9, 2022. The sites were selected to help further calibrate the model. The fire hydrant flow test locations were chosen near five (5) of the twenty-eight (28) portable pressure data loggers, described in Section 8-3, and then one additional site was chosen where new loggers were installed. The loggers recorded the static pressure and residual pressure once the nearby hydrants were opened. The six (6) hydrant test locations are shown on Figure 8-10.

Following the hydrant flow tests, the recorded field flow rates were applied to the model calibration scenario at the time of day in which the hydrant test was performed. A comparison of the recorded flows and pressures and the model results and corresponding recommendations are included in Table 8-3.

The pressure drop (difference between static and residual pressure at the nearby hydrant) was used for comparison purposes to verify the model. The pressure drop comparison is slightly skewed at each location because the model does not include the fire hydrant laterals. Other potential factors that may contribute to the differences in results include: corrosion in fire hydrant laterals, partially closed valves at the hydrants or in the system, inaccurate model node elevations versus actual field elevations, and inaccuracies in the hydrant testing equipment.

Test location 4 data is suspect. The static pressure at the nearby hydrant was recorded as 73.2 psi.

The pressure at the test hydrant and in the model is in the vicinity of 100 psi. The nearby hydrant is actually lower in elevation than the test hydrant, so the pressure should be higher than 100 psi. It is possible that the hydrant valve was not fully opened during the flow test. This test data was therefore not considered in verifying the calibration of the model.

The difference in pressure drop between the field data and model data was less than 4 psi at all hydrant testing locations except for test location 4 which was disregarded. This difference is within acceptable limits for a well calibrated hydraulic model.

Site
Number Zone Location Source
Average
Pressure
(psi)
Average
Pressure
Difference
(psi)
%
Difference Comments
Field Data 63.4
Model Data 62.6
Field Data 156.7
Model Data 149.9
Field Data 87.6
Model Data 88.3
Field Data 110.3
Model Data 107.8

1.2 1.5%
PDL28
Morgan
Ranch PS
Discharge
PDL25
Englewild
Canyon PS
Discharge
PDL26 Rainbow PS
Discharge
PDL27 Lower Gordon
PS Discharge
4 4A
2H1
3B
-0.7 0.8%

2.5 -2.3%
Field data only collected pressures
when pumps were on due to
location of data logger.

Total Average % Difference

0.8 -1.2%

6.8 -4.5%
Item #1. Page 180
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 183
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")")
")")
&- &-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&- &-
&-
&-&- &-
&-
&- &-&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-&-
&-
&-
&-
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* !(
!( !(
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
Arrow Hwy
Valley Center Ave
Arrow Hwy
Lone Hill Ave
Amelia Ave
Cataract Ave
Foothill Blvd
I-210
I-210
Alosta Ave
Grand Ave
Barranca Ave
Mauna Loa Ave
Baseline Rd
I-210
Foothill Blvd
Sierra Madre Ave
Sierra Madre Ave
Foothill Blvd
State Rte 66
Grand Ave
Loraine Ave
Gladstone St
Gladstone St
Glendora Ave
SR-57
Palm Dr
San Gabriel Ave
Foothill Blvd Citrus Ave
I-210
1st St
Vernon Ave
Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Cerritos Ave
Bonnie Cove AveSunflower Ave
Live Oak Ave
Big Dalton Cyn Rd
San Gabriel
Irwindale
(Inactive)
San Gabriel
Well 5
Well 8, 9, 12
Vosburg
Well
(Inactive)
Well 3 & 4
(Inactive)
Irwindale
(Inactive)
City of Azusa
Service Area
Suburban Water
Service Area
Suburban Water
Service Area
Citrus Ave
Transmission Main from Irwindale
(Inactive)
Transmission Main from Vosburg Well
(Inactive)
Suburban Water
Service Area
FF Location 2
H118-01
FF Location 1
H120-21
FF Location 5
H074-04
FF Location 3
H140-18
FF Location 4
H187-14
FF Location 6
H233-10
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

CITY OF GLENDORA

WATER MASTER PLAN
Fire Flow Test Locations
Figure 8-10
³
0 1,100 2,200 4,400
Feet
Legend
$+ Fire Flow Test ID w/ Hydrant ID
Water Pipes
") Wells
#* Pump Stations
&- Storage Reservoirs
!( Pressure Regulating Station
Zone 1RA
Zone 1RB
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1BH1
Zone 2
Zone 2H2
Zone 2H1
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 3B
Zone 3C
Zone 3C1
Zone 3D
Zone 4
Zone 4A
City Boundary
Item #1. Page 181
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 184

MODEL CALIBRATION
CITY OF GLENDORA 8-16 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 8-3
Fire Hydrant Test Results
1Test
Hydrant
Flow
(gpm)
Static
Pressure at
Nearby
Hydrant
(psi)
Residual
Pressure at
Nearby
Hydrant
(psi)
Pressure
Drop
(psi)
Model
Nearby
Hydrant
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Model
Nearby
Hydrant
Residual
Pressure
(psi)
Pressure
Drop
(psi)
1 1 Glendora Ave, North of Bennet Ave H120-21 12031 11883 1,177 73.3 67.1 6.2 78.8 76.8 2.0 4.2 2 1 Leodora Ave and Baldy Vista Ave H118-01 PDL5 11846 1,272 94.1 89.0 5.1 82.0 76.0 6.0 -0.9 3 2 Northeast corner of Whispering Oaks and
Foothill Blvd H140-18 11489 11548 1,167 81.8 80.5 1.3 82.0 81.0 1.0 0.3 4 2 Hunter Trail, north of Buffalo Trail H187-14 11592 11591 1,020 73.2 60.6 12.7 102.0 101.0 1.0 11.7 Static pressure at nearby hydrant significanly lower in field. It is possible the hydrant valve was not fully open during the flow test. City should recheck pressure at
nearby hydrant. This test was not utilized for calibration purposes.
5 3 Intersection of Sheelin Ln and Mullaghboy
Rd H074-04 12331 12332 1,196 75.7 67.9 7.8 73.8 66.0 7.8 0.0 6 1 Glencroft Rd, between Rosalynn Dr and
Gladstone St H233-10 2168 10369 1,359 104.3 100.6 3.8 105.2 102.2 3.0 0.8 1 The Test Hydrant is the hydrant that was flowed in the field Fire
Flow
Test
Location
ID
Field Collected Data Model Data
Difference
in
Pressure
Drop (psi) Comments
Model
Nearby
Hydrant
Junction
ID
1 Model
Test
Hydrant
Junction
Zone ID
1 Atlas Map
Test
Location Hydrant ID
Item #1. Page 182
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 185
CITY OF GLENDORA 9-1 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
SECTION 9

SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
9-1 General
The established performance evaluation criteria (Section 6) and the calibrated hydraulic model were utilized in analyzing the system and evaluating its adequacy. The system model was calibrated by simulating actual system conditions and adjusting the model (Section 8). The model was then utilized to analyze the existing system under average day, maximum day, peak hour, and maximum day plus fire flow conditions. Analysis of the City’s source of supply, storage, and pumping facilities were also conducted (Sections 9-2 to 9-4).

Existing and future system deficiencies were identified and mitigation projects were formulated based upon the results of the model runs, the facility analysis, and input from City staff. Proposed projects were added in the hydraulic model to test the operation of the system after implementation. The results of the analyses were used in formulating the capital improvement program (Section 12). 9-2 Source of Supply
The criterion established requires the City’s source of supply to be equal to one maximum day demand, For the City of Glendora, this means that under current demand conditions, the City should have an existing source of supply capacity of 9,215 gpm (13.27 mgd). In the future, with increased demands, the City should have a source supply capacity of 9,361 gpm (13.48 mgd).

The City’s groundwater supply is shown in Table 9-1. Using design capacities, the total supply is 11,800 gpm which exceeds the existing and future source of supply requirement. Using the current capacities based off of recent efficiency tests, the total supply is 9,254 gpm which just meets the existing requirement. The City currently does often meet the maximum day demands by utilizing one of the imported water connections (PM-18/Amelia BPS).

The imported water connections have a total capacity of 19,434 gpm as shown in Table 9-2, which exceeds the existing and future source of supply requirement. These connections are primarily planned to be utilized during peak demand periods and emergencies.

Source of
Supply
Design
Capacity
(gpm)
Current
Capacity
(gpm)
Efficiency
Test Date
Well 2 500 525 2/15/22
Well 5 2,200 1,709 6/9/21
Well 8 1,500 1,090 2/15/22
Well 9 1,300 1,410 2/15/22
Well 10 600 530 2/15/22
Well 11 1,200 940 2/15/22
Well 12 3,100 2,100 4/11/22
Well 13 1,400 950 3/26/21
Total 11,800 9,254
Table 9-1
Groundwater Supply
Maximum
Capacity
(cfs)
Maximum
Capacity
(gpm)
PM-6 15.0 6,732
PM-18 10.0 4,488
PM-23 15.0 6,732
CIC 3.3 1,481
Total 43.3 19,434
Source of Supply
Table 9-2
Imported Water Connection Capacities
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Covina Irrigating Company
Item #1. Page 183
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 186

SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 9-2 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
9-3 Storage
9-3.1 Operational Storage Criteria
The City’s operational storage criteria is set at 25 percent of the maximum day demand. 9-3.2 Emergency Storage Criteria
The City’s emergency storage criteria is set at one average day demand. For a system that depends mostly on groundwater supplies, this amount of emergency storage is adequate and is primarily for response in operations due to a loss of a major source of supply. 9-3.3 Fire Suppression Storage
Fire suppression storage is the volume required to supply the service area with the required fire flows, which range from 1,500 gpm for a duration of two (2) hours to 4,000 gpm for a duration of four (4) hours. The maximum fire suppression storage required in any of the City’s hydraulic zones is 0.96 million gallons.
9-3.4 Storage Analysis
The storage analysis by hydraulic zone and system wide is illustrated in Table 9-3. The existing available storage for each zone is calculated by adding the effective volume of each reservoir, utilizing the high water level and an assumption of a minimum water level of five feet in each reservoir.

The system overall has a surplus of 1.447 million gallons of storage. The following observations are made about the storage of each zone:

1. Zone 1, 1RA, & 1RB has sufficient storage with a calculated storage surplus of 3.37 MG.

2. Zone 1A has a storage deficit of 0.062 MG.

3. Zone 1B & 1BH1 has sufficient storage with a calculated storage surplus of 0.055 MG.

4. Zone 2, 2H1, & 2H2 has sufficient storage with a calculated storage surplus of 1.628 MG.

5. Zone 3 has sufficient storage with a calculated storage surplus of 2.117 MG.

6. Zone 3A has a storage deficit of 0.100 MG.

7. Zone 3B has a storage deficit of 0.302 MG.

8. Zone 3C & 3C1 has a storage deficit of 0.285 MG.

9. Zone 3D has a storage deficit of 0.281 MG.

10. Zone 4 has a storage deficit of 0.087 MG.

11. Zone 4A has a storage deficit of 0.133 MG.

Item #1. Page 184
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 187

SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 9-3 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 9-3
Storage Analysis
The existing available storage system wide is estimated at 24.428 MG. The future average day and maximum day demands are estimated at 9.385 MG and 14.078 MG, respectively. In the event of an extreme emergency, without any well supply or imported water supply, the water system would be able to provide water to customers for about 2.6 average demand days or 1.7 maximum demand days. If an emergency is expected to last any longer, the customers would have to cut back on water use until supply sources can be implemented again.

Zone 1,
1RA, 1RB
Zone
1A
Zone 1B,
1BH1
Zone 2,
2H1, 2H2
Zone
3 Zone 3A Zone 3B
Zone
3C, 3C1 Zone 3D Zone 4 Zone 4A
Total
System
Future Average Day Demand (mgd) 5.200 0.044 0.107 2.977 0.876 0.103 0.010 0.009 0.060 0.010 0.105 9.385 Future Maximum Day Demand (mgd) 7.800 0.066 0.160 4.465 1.314 0.154 0.015 0.014 0.090 0.015 0.158 14.078 1 Fire Flow Demand (gpm) 4,000 2,500 2,500 4,000 4,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 4,000 Fire Flow Duration (hrs) 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4
2 Fire Suppression Storage (MG) 0.960 0.300 0.300 0.960 0.960 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 4.680 3 Emergency Storage (MG) 5.200 0.044 0.107 2.977 0.876 0.103 0.010 0.009 0.060 0.010 0.105 14.078 4 Operational Storage (MG) 2.340 0.020 0.048 1.339 0.394 0.046 0.004 0.004 0.027 0.005 0.047 4.223 Fire + Emergency + Operational (MG) 8.500 0.363 0.455 5.276 2.231 0.449 0.314 0.313 0.387 0.315 0.453 22.981 5 Existing Available Storage (MG) 11.870 0.301 0.510 6.904 4.348 0.349 0.012 0.028 0.106 0.228 0.320 24.428 Storage Surplus / Deficit (MG) 3.370 -0.062 0.055 1.628 2.117 -0.100 -0.302 -0.285 -0.281 -0.087 -0.133 1.447 5Existing Available Storage = Effective Storage of Reservoirs assuming minimum level of 5 feet in each reservoir 1 Highest fire flow demand required
2 Fire flow demand x Fire flow duration
3Emergency Storage = average day demand
4Operational Storage = 30% of maximum day demand
Item #1. Page 185
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 188

SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 9-4 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
9-4 Pumping and Supply Analysis by Hydraulic Zone
The pumping and supply analysis by hydraulic zone is shown in Table 9-4.

Well supply and imported water directly supplying the zone can be included in the pump capacity.

This criteria applies to the pump capacity into Zone 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4, and 4A. The pump capacity does not meet the criteria of maximum day plus fire demand for any of these zones.

The zones that do not meet the pumping capacity criteria are the zones with low daily demands.

Item #1. Page 186
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 189

SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 9-5 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
Table 9-4
Pumping and Supply Analysis by Zone
Pump Stations
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)1 Wells
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)2 Connections
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)3
1 and
above Open Yes MDD of entire system San Gabriel 10,200 2, 10, 11, 13 1,995 PM6, PM23,
CIC 8,250 20,445 6,598 9,897 - - - Yes Yes - -
1A Open No MDD of Zone 1A + Fire
Demand Hicrest 458 - - - - 458 30 46 2,500 2,546 - Yes Yes No - 1B and
1BH1 Open Yes MDD of Zone 1B, 1BH1 Hook Canyon, North Grand 826 - - - - 826 74 111 2,500 2,611 - Yes Yes No - 1BH1 Closed No
MDD of Zone 1BH1 + Fire
Demand or Peak Hour
Demand
Silent Ranch 180 - - - - 180 25 37 2,500 2,537 56 Yes Yes No Yes 2 and
above Open Yes
MDD of Zone 2, 2H1,
2H2, 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3C1,
3D, 4, 4A,
Country Club,
Hidden Springs,
Valley Center
5,430 - - PM18 1,500 6,930 2,882 4,323 - - - Yes Yes - - 2H1 Closed No
MDD of Zone 2H1 + Fire
Demand or Peak Hour
Demand
Rainbow 227 - - - - 227 9 13 2,500 2,513 27 Yes Yes No Yes 2H2 Closed No
MDD of Zone 2H2 + Fire
Demand or Peak Hour
Demand
Eagle Ridge 670 - - - - 670 7 10 2,500 2,510 21 Yes Yes No Yes 3 and
above Open Yes MDD of Zone 3, 3A, 3B,
3C, 3C1, 3D, 4, 4A
Englewild,
Greencroft 2,733 - - - - 2,733 815 1,223 - - - Yes Yes - - 3A Open No MDD of Zone 3A + Fire
Demand Glencoe 470 - - - - 470 71 107 2,500 2,607 - Yes Yes No - 3B Open No MDD of Zone 3B + Fire
Demand
Englewild
Canyon 32 - - - - 32 7 10 2,500 2,510 - Yes Yes No -
3C and
3C1 Open No MDD of Zone 3C, 3C1 + Fire Demand Dalton 1,100 - - - - 1,100 6 10 2,500 2,510 - Yes Yes No - 3D Open No MDD of Zone 3D + Fire
Demand Bluebird 110 - - - - 110 42 63 2,500 2,563 - Yes Yes No - 4 and 4A Open No MDD of Zone 4, 4A + Fire
Demand Morgan Ranch 545 - - - - 545 80 11 2,500 2,511 - Yes Yes No - 4A Open No MDD of Zone 4A + Fire
Demand Gordon 435 - - - - 435 73 110 2,500 2,610 - Yes Yes No - Total
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)
Does
Total
Firm
Capacity
exceed
MDD?
Zone
Pumped
Into
Pumping and Supply
Criteria
1 Pump Station Firm Capacity = Capacity without the largest duty pump 3 Imported Water Firm Capacity = Capacity without the largest capacity imported water connection, if more than one; For Zone 1, PM6 and PM23 have the largest capacity of 6,750 gpm. One was not added to the firm capacity. 2Groundwater Firm Capacity = Capacity without the largest capacity well, if more than one; For Zone 1, Well 13 Capacity was not added to the firm capacity.

Future
Maximum
Day plus
Fire Flow
Demand
(gpm)
Does Total
Firm
Capacity
exceed
PHD?
Fire
Flow
Demand
(gpm)
Future
Maximum
Day
Demand
(gpm)
Future
Average
Day
Demand
(gpm)
Pump Stations Groundwater
Zone
Type
Sufficient
Fire
Storage?
Does
Total
Firm
Capacity
exceed
ADD?
Peak
Hour
Demand
(gpm)
Does Total
Firm
Capacity
exceed
MDD+Fire?
Imported Water
Item #1. Page 187
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 190

SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF GLENDORA 9-6 Water Master Plan
R:Rpts\\Glendora, City of\2022 Water Master Plan
9-5 System Pressures and Velocities
The hydraulic model was utilized to analyze the existing and future system under various demand conditions.
9-5.1 System Pressures
The minimum and maximum system pressures in each zone are summarized in Table 9-5.

Table 9-5
System Pressures
The maximum pressures throughout the system are shown graphically on Figure 9-1. Service pressures exceed 80 psi (maximum pressure allowed per the plumbing code without a pressure regulator) throughout the system. City staff reports that all services in these areas of high pressures have pressure regulators installed.
9-5.2 System Velocities
The maximum velocities in the distribution pipes are shown on Figure 9-2. There is just one location in the system that experiences a maximum velocity between 7 and 8 feet. This is within the 24-inch pipe downstream of the San Gabriel Booster Pump Station. Although the velocity is predicted by the model to exceed the criteria, the exceedance is very minimal and therefore it is not believed to be a major issue. No action is recommended.

Minimum
Dynamic
Pressure
(psi)
Maximum
Dynamic
Pressure
(psi)
1RA 775 642 656 52 58 46 52
1RBb - 620 620 - - - -
1 976 623 882 41 153 30 148
1A 1132 888 1011 52 106 47 105
1B 1197 883 1122 32 136 43 134
1BH1c 1354 1076 1125 99 120 65 107
2 1092 808 1046 20 123 28 118
2H1c 1190 946 1167 10 106 30 94
2H2c 1257 969 1057 87 125 60 108
3 1265 927 1196 30 146 18 136
3A 1408 1070 1389 8 146 65 118
3B 1347 1162 1334 6 80 4 78
3C 1340 1109 1294 20 100 60 100
3C1a 1473 1328 1328 63 63 - -
3D 1364 1007 1306 25 155 15 150
4 1505 1252 1334 74 110 70 100
4A 1704 1351 1585 52 153 35 148
a Modeled as a demand off Zone 3C. Zone 3C1 pipes not modeled c Hydropneumatic systems - hydraulic grade based on high and low pressure setpoints of the tank b Modeled as a demand off of Zone 1. Zone 1RB pipes not modeled. HGL/Pressure to Zone 1RB not know Hydraulic
Zone Grade (ft)
Existing and Future
Minimum
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Maximum
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Maximum
Service
Elevation
(ft)
Minimum
Service
Elevation
(ft)
Item #1. Page 188
Meeting Date: 9/12/2023 / Packet Page #: 191
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")")
")")
&- &-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&- &-
&-
&-&- &-
&-
&- &-&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-&-
&-
&-
&-
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(!( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!( !(!( !(!(!(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !(!(!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(!(
!(!(!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(!(!(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(!( !(!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !(!( !(
!(
!( !(!(!(
!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!( !(!(!(
!(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(!( !( !(!(
!(!(!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(!(!(!(
!( !( !(!( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(!(!( !(!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!( !(!( !(!(!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(!( !(!(
!(!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !(!( !( !(!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(!(!(!(!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(!(!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(!(!(
!( !( !(!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(!( !(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(!( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(!( !(
!( !(!( !( !(
!( !(!( !(!(
!( !( !(!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(!(!( !(!(
!( !( !(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(!( !( !(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !(!( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(
!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(
!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(
!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(!( !( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(!( !(!(!(!( !(
!( !( !( !(!( !( !(
!(!( !( !( !(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!(!( !(
!(!(
!(!(
!( !( !( !(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(!(
!(!( !( !(!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(!(!( !(!(
!( !(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!( !(!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(!( !(!( !(!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!( !( !(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!( !(!(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!( !(!( !(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!( !(
!(!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(!(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(!( !(!( !(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !(!( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(!(!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(!(
!( !(!(
!( !(
!(!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!( !(
!( !(!(!( !(!(
!( !( !(
!(!( !(!( !(
!(
!( !(!(
!( !(!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(!(!(
!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(
!(
!(!(!( !(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!( !(!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(!( !(!( !(!(
!(!( !( !(!(!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(!( !( !(!( !(
!(!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!( !(
!( !(!(!( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(!(!( !(!(!(
!( !(
!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(!(
!( !(!(!( !(
!(!(
!( !( !( !(!(
!(
!(!( !( !( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(
!( !(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(!(
!( !(!(!(
!( !(
!(!( !(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(!( !(
!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !( !( !(
!(!( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !(!(
!( !(
!(!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(!(!(!(
!(!( !( !(
!( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !( !( !(
!(!( !(!(!( !(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(!( !(
!(!( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(!(!( !(
!( !(!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(!(!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!( !(
!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(
!(!( !(!( !(!(
!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!( !(!(
!(!( !( !(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(
!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !(!( !(
!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(
!(!( !(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!( !(!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!( !(
!(!( !(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!( !(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(!(!(
!(!( !( !(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!( !(!( !(
!( !( !(!( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(!(
!( !( !(
!(!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(!( !( !(
!(!( !( !( !( !(
!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(!(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !( !(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(!( !( !(!(
!( !( !(!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(!(!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(!( !(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(!(!(!(
!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(!(!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(!( !(
!(!(!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(!( !(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!( !(!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(!( !( !(
!(!(
!(!( !(!(!(
!( !(!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(!(!( !( !(
!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !(
!( !(!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
Arrow Hwy
Valley Center Ave
Arrow Hwy
Lone Hill Ave
Amelia Ave
Cataract Ave
Foothill Blvd
I-210
I-210
Alosta Ave
Grand Ave
Barranca Ave
Mauna Loa Ave
Baseline Rd
I-210
Foothill Blvd
Sierra Madre Ave
Sierra Madre Ave
Foothill Blvd
State Rte 66
Grand Ave
Loraine Ave
Gladstone St
Gladstone St
Glendora Ave
SR-57
Palm Dr
San Gabriel Ave
Foothill Blvd Citrus Ave
I-210
1st St
Vernon Ave
Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Cerritos Ave
Bonnie Cove AveSunflower Ave
Live Oak Ave
Big Dalton Cyn Rd
San Gabriel
Irwindale
(Inactive)
San Gabriel
Well 5
Well 8, 9, 12
Vosburg
Well
(Inactive)
Well 3 & 4
(Inactive)
Irwindale
(Inactive)
City of Azusa
Service Area
Suburban Water
Service Area
Suburban Water
Service Area
Citrus Ave
Transmission Main from Irwindale
(Inactive)
Transmission Main from Vosburg Well
(Inactive)
Suburban Water
Service Area
PROJECT NO: 0201782.00
DATE: April 2023

Glendora City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Glendora City Council
June 16, 2026