HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a - Att. No. 6_Initial Study_Pt 1 of 3Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
INITIAL STUDY
1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. 14-12, Tentative Tract Map No. 72894, and Multiple Family
Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 14-12.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006
3. Contact Persons and Phone Number: Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner – (626) 574-5444
4. Project Location: 132, 136, and 142 Las Tunas Drive
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Arcadia 17 Development – Matthew Waken
1278 Glenneyre, Suite 439
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
6. General Plan Designation: Residential-Flex Overlay and Commercial
7. Zoning: Residential-Flex Overlay and General Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the
project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional
sheet(s) if necessary).
Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and Architectural Design Review to demolish the existing
buildings and construct a 17, three-story, townhouse style units (see architectural plans, Exhibit 1). The site
will be arranged with a five-unit building that will front Las Tunas Drive, an 11 unit building along the west
side of the lot with the southerly two units fronting W. Live Oak Avenue, and one detached unit that will be
behind the five unit building on the east side of the lot. A driveway will provide vehicular access to all 17
units from W. Live Oak Avenue. Each unit will have an attached two car garage and nine guest parking
spaces. The proposal includes 1,766 cubic yards of grading for the import or fill soil. The amount of debris
material hauled away is a total of 450 cubic yards.
The Modifications requested from the City’s Zoning Code for this project are to allow tandem parking for
four units (AMC Sec. 9280.6) and a wall height of 10’-0” in lieu of an 8’-0” permitted for walls adjacent to
commercial properties for a 75-foot portion of the wall along the easterly property line (AMC Sec.9280.19).
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
The project site is approximately 35,719 square feet and is currently developed with a restaurant, auto
repair shop, and a tattoo parlor and a large parking area. The property is zoned Residential-Flex Overlay
(RF) and General Commercial (C-2).
As shown in the attached photos (Exhibit 2), the project site is bound by Las Tunas Drive to the north, E.
Live Oak Avenue to the south and a Los Angeles County Flood Control channel to the west. The adjacent
40,075 square-foot property to the east at 123 W. Live Oak Avenue is developed a single-story, 4,800
square-foot building with office space, a car-rental office, and an auto body shop. The nearest property to
the west, which is across the flood control channel from the project site, is developed with a three-story,
18,298 square-foot senor apartment building with 54 units. The uses across the Las Tunas Drive to the
north of the project site are a Montessori school and single-family residences. The uses across E. Live Oak
Avenue to the south include a nursing home and single-family residences.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement):
None. There are no easements on the project site and no facilities that are owned or maintained by another
agency will need to be relocated due to the proposed development.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation /Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner
Printed Name
City of Arcadia
For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).
A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or
less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII,
"Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 4 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Mitigation Monitoring
Prior to mitigation, Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources,
hazards/hazardous materials, air quality, and noise. However, Mitigation Measures (MM)s have been
developed to avoid or reduce these impacts to levels considered less than significant.
Where Mitigation Measures are required, CEQA law requires the preparation of a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program (MMRP) to monitor the implementation of mitigation measures. The mitigation measures
identified in the attached table has been developed in sufficient detail to provide the necessary information to
identify the party or parties responsible for carrying out the mitigation measure, when the mitigation will be
implemented, and who will verify that the mitigation has been implemented.
Regulatory Requirements
Regulatory Requirements (RR) articulate how compliance with existing laws and regulations, which are
mandatory obligations for Project implementation, would avoid or reduce potential impacts. MMs are applied
for those impacts that would be significant and RRs are implemented. Implementation of the RRs would result
in the Project have no impact or less than significant impacts on biological resources, hazards/hazardous
materials, air quality, and noise.
The City will confirm that the RRs are included in the Contractor Specifications and bid documents, as
appropriate, and verified as part of the Mitigation Monitory and Reporting Program (MMRP). The features and
requirements shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City (refer to Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program).
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 5 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a
scenic vista. Scenic resources such as undisturbed or unique
vistas, natural or undisturbed areas, or officially recognized areas
are not located on the existing City right-of-way or surrounding
area. The San Gabriel Mountains to the distant north are the most
prominent scenic resource that can be viewed from the subject
site and view of these mountains will not be significantly altered
at grade level. Additionally, no designated scenic highways are
located adjacent to or within the view of the subject right-of-way.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact to
scenic resources and views.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
There are no designated scenic highways within the City of
Arcadia. The nearest designated State scenic highway is the
Angeles Crest Highway approximately 15 miles away. Therefore,
there will be no impacts to state scenic resources.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings?
During the construction period, persons traveling on area
roadways (e.g. W. Live Oak Avenue and Las Tunas Drive) as well
as persons at nearby land uses would have views of the proposed
project site in various stages of site preparation and construction.
At times, the disturbed soils and vegetation, equipment and
building materials would be clearly seen. There is no practical
way of screening the entire site from view during this period.
However, the City will require standard screened construction
fencing at the project site (chain-link fencing with green material
coverings). As such, a temporary degradation of the project sites
visual character would result. However, because of the screened
construction fencing and temporary nature of this effect, it is
considered a temporary adverse, but a less than significant
impact. Additionally, the proposed project will be compatible in
terms of uses, scale, and design with the other existing multiple-
family residential buildings within the immediate area. It would
not detract from the visual quality of the neighborhood. Based
upon the project plans provided by the applicant, the proposed
project would not substantially degrade the visual character of
the site and surroundings. Therefore, the long term impact is
considered less than significant.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
132, 136, 142 Las Tunas Drive, Subject
Property, View from Las Tunas Drive of
Auto Repair Shop and Tattoo Parlor
Subject Property, View from W. Live Oak
Avenue
Exhibit 2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 7 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
124 Las Tunas Drive, Adjacent Offices and
Auto Body Shop to the East, View from Las
Tunas Drive
Arcadia Wash Flood Control Channel,
Adjacent to the Subject Property on the
West, View from Las Tunas Drive
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 8 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
150 Las Tunas Drive, Nearest Property to
the West of the Subject Property, View from
Las Tunas Drive
135 Las Tunas Drive, Medical Spa across
the street to the North of the Subject
Property
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 9 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
141 Las Tunas Drive, Montessori School
across the street to the North of the Subject
Property
125 W. Live Oak Avenue, Adjacent Auto
Body Shop to the West, View from W. Live
Oak Avenue
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 10 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
150 Las Tunas Drive, Nearest Property to the
West of the Subject Property, View from W.
Live Oak Avenue
10786 W. Live Oak Avenue, Within Temple
City, Nursing Home across the street to the
South of the Subject Property
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 11 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The existing site includes several business with some lighting
consistent for their use and customer parking.
The proposed project would introduce light sources into the
project site suitable for residential development, including
lighting within the individual residential balconies. The light
sources would be consistent with other light generated by
surrounding land uses and roadways, and in compliance with the
City’s restrictions on exterior lighting (refer to RR AES-1). Due to
the urban nature of the project site and other residential uses
nearby, the impacts associated by the project would be less than
significant.
RR AES-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall prepare a Lighting Plan that provides the type
and location of the proposed exterior lighting, subject
to review and approval of the City’s Development
Services Department.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project
and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted
by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
The City of Arcadia is a developed urban area and contains no
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to
non-agricultural use.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
There is no agricultural use zoning or a Williamson Act contract
in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the proposed project would not
have the above impacts.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 12 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The City of Arcadia has no timberland or Timberland Production
land, and has no land zoned for forest land. There is no farmland
in the City of Arcadia, and the project will not convert farmland to
non-agricultural use.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
The proposed development will not result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project
would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use.
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin and is
governed by South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). According to the guidelines and the Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP), the AQMP control measures and
related emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions
projections for a future development scenario derived from land
use, population, and employment characteristics defined in
consultation with local governments. Accordingly, conformance
with the AQMP for development projects is determined by
demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or
population projections. As a result, the project must conform to
the local General Plan and must not result or exceed the City’s
projected population growth forecast. The proposed project is
consistent with planned development in the City of Arcadia in that
it would not generate additional population growth. Therefore, the
project would have no impact on attainment of air quality or
congestion management plans.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 13 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Short-Term Impacts
Grading and other construction activities would result in combustion
emissions from heavy-duty construction vehicles, haul trucks, and
vehicles transporting construction crews. Exhaust emissions during
these construction activities will vary daily as construction activity
levels change. The grading and demolition phases of construction
represent the most intense construction period during which daily
emissions would be at their greatest level, based on the potential
amount of equipment and duration of use. The other construction
phases would not result in any greater construction emissions due to
less equipment being used and shorter construction duration.
The site preparation phase would involve the greatest amount of
heavy equipment and the most substantial generation of fugitive
dust. A CalEEMod was prepared based on 0.82 acres and
disturbed surface area of 0.5 acres. It is expected that the project
will comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 403, which identifies measures to reduce fugitive
dust and is required to be implemented at all construction sites
located within the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, the following
regulatory requirements, which would be required to reduce
fugitive dust in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, were
included in CalEEMod for the site preparation and grading phases
of construction.
RR AQ-1: Minimization of Disturbance. Construction contractors
shall minimize the area disturbed by clearing, grading,
earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent
excessive amount of dust.
RR AQ-2: Soil Treatment. Construction contractors shall treat all
graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas,
and active portions of the construction site, including
unpaved on-site roadways to minimize fugitive dust.
Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited
to, periodic watering, application of environmentally
safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll compaction
as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as
necessary, and at least three times daily, preferably in
the later morning and after work is done for the day.
RR AQ-3: Soil Stabilization. Construction contractors shall monitor
all graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the
construction site at least weekly for dust stabilization.
Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll
compaction, and environmentally safe dust control
materials, shall be applied to portions of the
construction site that are inactive for over four days. If
no further grading or excavation operations are
planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and
watered until landscape growth is evident, or
periodically treated with environmentally safe dust
suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 14 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RR AQ-4: No Grading During High Winds. Construction
contractors shall stop all clearing, grading, earth
moving, and excavation operations during periods of
high winds (25 miles per hour or greater, as measured
continuously over a one-hour period) and shall apply
appropriate dust stabilization. All haul vehicles shall
be covered or shall comply with the vehicle freeboard
requirements of Section 23114 of the California
Vehicle Code for both public and private roads.
RR AQ-5: Street Sweeping. Construction contractors shall sweep
all on-site driveways and adjacent streets and roads at
least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if
visible soil material is carried over onto the adjacent
streets and roads.
RR AQ-6: Phasing of Grading: The import and export of soils from
the project site shall not occur on the same day.
These activities shall be separated by at least one day
to minimize fugitive dust.
As depicted in Table A, construction emission would not exceed
regional thresholds, so impacts are less than significant.
Additionally, the following regulatory requirements are
recommended to help assure that air quality impact during
construction remain at less than significant levels:
RR AQ-7: The project developer shall require by contract
specifications that contractors shall utilize
equipment registered under DOORS, the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) In-Use Off-Road Diesel
Vehicle Regulation registration program. This
applies to all off-road vehicles that are 25 hp or
greater. Contract specifications shall be included in
the proposed project construction documents,
which shall be reviewed by the City.
MM AQ-8: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each
phase, the project developer shall require by
contract specifications that contractors shall utilize
power poles or clean-fuel generators for electrical
construction equipment. Contract specifications
shall be included in the proposed project
construction documents, which shall be reviewed by
the City.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 15 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The limiting of the total area to which architectural coatings that
could be applied on a daily basis (RR Air-9) is proposed to ensure
that temporary reactive organic (ROG) emissions will not exceed
the threshold listed in rule or Table of Standards 1 in SCAQMD
Rule 1113 or established by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) and thus, reduce the project’s
temporary regional air quality impacts to a less than significant
level. The proposed project would not result in any other
emissions that would exceed the recommended SCAQMD
operational or construction thresholds. As such, impacts related
to air quality as a result of the proposed project would be less
than significant through the implementation of the following
mitigation measures:
RR AQ-9: Low-VOC Architectural Coatings. The applicant shall
use low-VOC architectural coatings for all buildings.
At a minimum, all architectural coatings shall comply
with the most recent standards in SCAQMD Rule 1113
– Architectural Coatings.
RR AQ-10: On-site equipment shall not be left idling when not in
use.
RR AQ-11: Staging areas for heavy-duty construction equipment
shall be located as far as possible from sensitive
receptors (i.e. nearby residential uses). A staging
plan showing where the construction trucks will line-
up and a truck route map shall be provided to the
Development Services Director or designee for
review and approval prior to construction.
Long Term Impacts
The long-term operational emission associated with the proposed
project, calculated using CalEEMod model are shown in Table B (Copy
Provided under Appendix B). The long-term operation emissions would
come from use of consumer products, landscape equipment, general
energy, solid waste, and transportation. The air quality study show
that the criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project would be
less than the applicable SCAQMD daily emission thresholds.
Therefore, project-related long-term air quality impacts would be less
than significant, and not mitigation is required.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 16 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Short‐Term Construction Impacts Table A
Construction
Activity/Phase
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOx CO SOx Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Demolition 1.50 12.65 10.01 0.02 0.55 0.89 0.10 0.85
Site Preparation 2.60 33.06 21.26 0.04 1.56 1.18 0.34 1.06
Grading 3.76 48.90 36.21 0.09 2.75 1.45 0.96 1.37
Building Construction 1.53 14.67 9.44 0.01 0.14 1.00 0.04 0.92
Architectural Coating 67.01 2.59 2.05 0.00 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.22
Paving 1.30 11.69 8.68 0.02 0.20 0.73 0.05 0.67
Peak Daily Emissions 67.01 48.90 36.21 0.09 4.20 2.33
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant
Emissions? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Long‐Term Operational Emissions Table B
Source
Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project
Area Sources 1.00 0.02 1.26 0.001 0.05 0.05
Energy Sources 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.000 0.005 0.005
Mobile Sources 0.48 1.50 5.73 0.01 0.82 0.23
Total Proposed
Project 1.48 1.57 7.02 0.01 0.87 0.29
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant
Emissions? NO NO NO NO NO NO
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 17 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The majority of the project-related operational emissions would
be due to vehicle trips to and from the site. The Traffic Study
included 19 truck trips for demolition activities and utilized
Puente Hills Recovery Facility in Whittier as a final destination for
construction debris. The Estimated Operational Emissions per
the CalEEMod analysis conducted by City staff indicates that with
the proposed mitigation to reduce ROG emissions described in
section III(b) of this Initial Study (RR-7), the project-generated
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, CO
SOx, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, the project’s regional air quality
impacts, including impacts related to criteria pollutants, sensitive
receptors, and violations of air quality standards would be less
than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
The Project site is located in an area with a Montessori school,
pre-school, single-family homes, a nursing home, and a senior
apartment building within ¼ mile of the site. The closest sensitive
receptors are the Montessori school directly north of the site and
the nursing home directly south of the site, which are within 25
meters of the Project site. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s memorandum, "Final Localized Threshold
Methodology" (June 2003) adopted thresholds for various
pollutant concentrations for use by local governments at the
discretion of the local agencies. According to this memorandum,
the use of the localized significance thresholds (LST) by a local
government is stated to be voluntary. The proposed project will
comply with the majority of the LST’s recommended as voluntary
thresholds for a sensitive receptor within 25 meters of the site,
and with the proposed mitigation to reduce ROG emissions
described in section III(b) of this Initial Study (RR AQ-9) would
comply with all of the required SCAQMD air quality significant
thresholds. Based on the foregoing, the project would have a
less than significant impact.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
Project construction will generate limited odors over the short-term, will
include mainly fumes from gasoline- and diesel-powered construction
equipment painting of buildings and asphalt surfaces. The project is
subject to SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) and will be required to
conduct operations such that the construction phase of the project
does not create a nuisance. Odors and dust from these activities
would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the project
limits.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 18 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Additionally, the painting of buildings and paving of asphalt surfaces
are also subject to SCAQMD Rule 1113 which outlines standards for
paint applications, while Rule 1108 identifies standards regarding the
application of asphalt. Adherence to the standards identified in these
SCAQMD Rules would reduce temporary odor impacts to a less than
significant level, and no mitigation is required. Land uses generally
associated with long-term objectionable odors include agricultural
uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical
plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and
fiberglass molding facilities. The proposed project does not include
uses that would generate long-term objectionable odors. Because the
project would not involve any substantial short-term or long-term
sources of odors, impacts are considered less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
The project is located adjacent to an auto body shop which is subject
to both AQMD’s Rule 402 and City Public Nuisance requirements.
Residence of the property will be provide with a disclosure regarding
the adjacent and the potential for odors (See Exhibit 3)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
The subject lot is an urbanized lot that is primarily developed with
buildings and pavement. There is a strip of landscaping of
approximately three feet in width along the southern portion of
the westerly property line that has approximately three trees and
several tall bushes. There is also a landscaped strip along the
southerly property line of approximately three feet in width and
has a hedge of five feet in height. These trees and bushes could
serve as habitat for sensitive animal species. The proposed
project will involve minor vegetation clearing, ground
disturbance, and tree removal that could result in the direct loss
of active bird nests or the abandonment of active nests by adult
birds. With the following mitigation measure, it would reduce any
adverse impacts to less than significant level.
MM BIO-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird
surveys in areas with suitable habitat prior to all
construction or site preparation activities that would
occur during the nesting and breeding season of
native bird species (typically March 1 through
August 15). The survey area shall include all
potential bird nesting areas within 200 feet of any
disturbance. The survey shall be conducted at least
two weeks prior to commencement of activities (e.g.
grading).
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 19 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA
and/or California Fish and Game Code (which, together,
apply to all native nesting bird species) are present in the
impact area or within 200 feet of the impact area, a
temporary buffer fence shall be erected a minimum of
200 feet around the nest site. This temporary buffer may
be greater or lesser depending on the bird species and
type of disturbance, as determined by the biologist
and/or applicable regulatory agency permits.
Clearing and/or construction within temporarily fenced
areas shall be postponed or halted until juveniles have
fledged and there is no evidence of a second nesting
attempt. The Biologist shall serve as a construction
monitor during those periods when disturbance activities
will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no
inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur.
Therefore the demolition of the existing structures and the
construction of new structures, hardscape and landscape will not
result in habitat modification.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
There are no designated riparian habitats or other sensitive
natural communities within the City of Arcadia. The project site is
located within an area that is not proximate to sensitive biological
resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of
Arcadia. The project site is not proximate to sensitive biological
resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 20 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project will not
have the above impacts.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
The proposed site does not contain any protected oak trees and
will not encroach into the protected zone of any oak trees on
adjoining properties. Therefore it will not conflict with the City’s
Oak Tree Preservation ordinance. No other tree preservation
policies or ordinances exist.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural
Conservation Community Plans, or other approved habitat
conservation plan within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the
project will not have the above impacts.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
The proposed development would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5 since there are no cultural resources on the
subject site. A Building, Structure, and Object Record (DPR 523A
form) for the site was completed by an architectural historian on
July 26, 2014 to determine if the structures on the Project Site are
of historical significance. It was concluded that the buildings
were of simple construction typical of the 1950s and 1960s and
the Architectural Historian determined that the building does not
have any historical significance; therefore no additional research
was required since it is not a protected resource per the criteria
set forth in the California Register of Historic Resources.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
The proposed development will not cause a substantial adverse
change since there are no historical or archaeological resources
on the subject.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 21 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(c-d) The subject site is not known to contain any paleontological
or unique geological resources. Therefore, the project will in no
way destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique
geologic feature. The right-of-way is surrounded by developed
properties and located in an urbanized area. Also, the proposed
site does not contain any known human remains. As such, there
will be no disturbance to any human remains.
RR CUL-1: Should archaeological resources be found during
ground-disturbing activities for the Project, an
Archaeologist shall be hired to first determine whether it
is a "unique archaeological resource" pursuant to Section
21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC)
or a "historical resource," pursuant to Section 15064.5(a)
of the State CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological
resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological
resource" or a "historical resource" the Archaeologist
shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the
City of Arcadia that satisfies the requirements of the
above-referenced sections. If the Archaeologist
determines that the archaeological resource is not a
"unique archaeological resource" or "historical resource"
the Archaeologist may record the site and submit the
recordation form to the California Historic Resources
Information System at the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University,
Fullerton.
RR CUL-2: If human remains are encountered during excavation
activities, all work shall halt in the immediate vicinity of
the discovery and the County Coroner shall be notified
(California Public Resources Code §5097.98). The Coroner
shall determine whether the remains are of forensic
interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of an Archaeologist
approved by the City of Arcadia, determines that the
remains are prehistoric, the Archaeologist will contact the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC
shall be responsible for designating the most likely
descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the
ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section
7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD
shall make a recommendation within 48 hours of being
granted access to the site. The MLD’s recommendation
shall be followed if feasible, and may include scientific
removal and non-destructive analysis of the human
remains and any items associated with Native American
burials (California Health and Safety Code §7050.5). If the
landowner rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the
landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate
dignity on the property in a location that will not be
subject to further subsurface disturbance (California
Public Resources Code §5097.98).
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 22 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
(a, i-iv) The two active and potentially active faults that pass
through Arcadia and are evident at the ground surface (or just
below it) are the Raymond Hill and the Sierra Madre Faults. The
extremely thick alluvial deposits which underlie the seismic study
area are subject to differential settlement during any intense
shaking associated with seismic events. This type of seismic
hazard results in damage to property when an area settles to
different degrees over a relatively short distance, and almost this
entire region is subject to this hazard, but building design
standards do significantly reduce the potential for harm.
The project site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone
area, or any other designated earthquake hazard zone; nor is it
located on a hillside where landslides may occur. Therefore, no
significant impacts are expected as a result of the proposed
development.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The Project would demolish the existing commercial buildings
and surface parking lot on the 0.82 acre site. and would develop
the site with new impervious surfaces and new pervious
landscaped areas. The new site construction would require
minimal amounts of imported or exported soils due to site
grading. The Project will not include any subterranean parking.
There are existing landscaped strips along the southerly and
westerly property lines and these will be replaced with new
landscaping. New landscaping will be added along the perimeter
of the easterly and northerly property lines.
The Project conditions, with the addition of the new landscaping
areas along the easterly and northerly perimeter of the site would
result in a minor increase to the amount of pervious area,
resulting in less than significant change to surface runoff from
the Project site.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 23 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
The City of Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively
flat and expected to be stable. The project site is a flat site and
will not result in an on- or off-site landslide.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
The subject site consists of alluvial soil that is in the low to
moderate range for expansion potential. Therefore, there will be
no substantial risks to life or property.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
The project site will connect with the sewer system, and would
not require septic tanks or other alternative wastewater systems.
Therefore, there would be no impacts.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse
gases?
Less than Significant Impact a-b: The City of Arcadia has adopted
policies under the City’s General Plan to reduce Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) emissions in compliance with SB 375 and AB 32, to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below
1990 levels by 2050. According to the CalEEMod analysis
conducted by the lead agency, determined the carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) for the a 17 unit Condo Townhouse land use on
a .82 acre lot with a 42,573 sq. ft. of surface area. The increase of
GHG emissions associated with the Unmitigated Construction
phase of the project was approximately 84.6 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year. The Unmitigated Operational
phase of the project was approximately 225.8 CO2e per year.
Neither the unmitigated construction phase or the unmitigated
operational phase of the project exceed SCAQMD’s
recommended 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold.
The project impact will further be reduced because it will meet
California’s Green Building Code requirements. Based on the
analysis and the Green Building Code requirements, the project’s
contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 24 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
(a-b) All new development within the City shall comply with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) on the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste. The proposed project must also comply with
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) to
prevent the accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable
substances, and South Coast Air Quality Management District’s
(SCAQMD’s) Rules X and XIV, which include regulations for toxic
and hazardous air pollutant emissions. Because this project
would involve new construction, excavations, and new utility
lines, the following standard of conditions has been proposed to
ensure there will be no potential impacts. Additionally, the Phase
I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the
project site (PIC Environmental-2014) indicates that the site does
not contain any hazardous materials or facilities. In addition,
there are 13 sites (see Appendix A) in the surrounding area that
store or handle hazardous materials. Based on the lack of a
documented release from any of these sites, none of them are
expected to have any effect or impact on the site or the proposed
project.
RR HAZ-1: In accordance with the California Code of Regulations
(Title 8, Section 1541), if any construction, excavations,
and new utility lines are proposed near or crossing
existing high pressure pipelines, natural gas/petroleum
pipelines, electrical lines greater than 60,000 volts, and
other high priority lines are required to notify the
owner/operator of the line and must identify the locations
of subsurface lines prior to any ground disturbance for
excavation. Coordination, approval, and monitoring by
the owner/operator of the line would avoid damage to high
priority lines and prevent the creation of hazards to the
surrounding area.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
Within one-quarter mile of the project site is Wonder Years
Montessori School and Wonder World Preschool. However, there
are no underground or aboveground pipelines that would carry
hazardous substances or hazardous wastes. Therefore, there
would be no impact.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 25 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
The subject site is currently occupied by an auto repair shop,
tattoo shop, and a restaurant. Former uses on the site include a
dry cleaning business. Also, the buildings on the project site were
constructed prior to 1980, which makes the presence of asbestos
a possibility. A Phase I environmental assessment was prepared
by PIC Environmental Services on January 2, 2014 to assess if
any environmental impairments exist on the Project Site or in the
vicinity of the project site. This assessment included a site
inspection and review of records from the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Health
Services, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United
States Geological Society, California Department of Natural
Resources Division of Oil and Gas, Los Angeles County Waste
Discharge Systems, City of Arcadia, Los Angeles County UST and
Hazardous Materials permits, Los Angeles County. Based upon a
review of these resources, it was determined that neither the
project site or the surrounding properties within one-quarter mile
of the site have documented, significant, historic occurrences of
petroleum or hazardous materials contamination on site. It was
also determined that potential onsite sources of petroleum or
hazardous materials contamination were identified including a dry
cleaners and an existing auto repair business. In response to the
potential existence of contamination on the project site, a Phase II
assessment was performed by PIC Environmental Services on
January 27, 2014 to determine if elevated concentrations of
petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, or volatile organic compounds
were present. The environmental consultant drilled beneath the
surface of the of the project site in five locations in proximity to
the former dry cleaner and auto repair facility. The borings were
analyzed and it was determined that no significant petroleum,
metals, or volatile organic contaminants were present. Therefore,
there would be no significant impact.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 26 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
To address the possibility of significant hazards from asbestos
during demolition, the following mitigation is being proposed:
Mitigation Measures
RR HAZ-2: Prior to demolition of any existing buildings or
associated structures, a qualified contractor shall be
retained to survey structures proposed for demolition to
determine if asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or
lead based paint (LBP) are present. If ACMs and/or LBP
are present, prior to commencement of general
demolition, these materials shall be removed and
transported to an appropriate landfill by a licensed
contractor. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Building Division including written
documentation of the disposal of any ACMs or LBP in
conformance with all applicable regulations.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, the proposed
project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 27 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
The subject site is located approximately 1.4 miles from the El
Monte airport, which has no known land use plan. The area
between the airport and the project site is developed with
predominately residential uses. Given the distance from the
airport, aircraft landing and taking off from the airport would not
create an impact or a hazard for persons at the subject site.
There would not be any airport related safety hazards for people
working at the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impacts.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
There is no private airstrip near the project site. As such, the
proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people in
the project area. Therefore, there would be no impacts.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
The project will not impair implementation or interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Therefore, there would be no impacts.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
California’s Public Resource Code and Government Code 51175-
89 directed the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL Fire) to map areas of significant fire hazards
based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. CAL
Fire created a mapping system that identifies Fire Hazard Zones,
and has created a map showing areas that are considered to be
Very High Fire Hazards Zones in Arcadia. The map has been
officially adopted by the City, and the City has targeted these
areas to implement stringent wild land fire mitigation strategies.
The subject site does not fall within any fire hazard zones, and is
not within close proximity to any wild lands and will not have the
above impact. Therefore, there would be no wildfire hazard
impacts.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 28 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
In 1972, the Clean Water Act (CWA) was amended to require
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
for the discharge of pollutants into "Waters of the U.S." from any
point source. In 1987, the CWA was amended to require that the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency establish regulations for
permitting under the NPDES permit program, that at the local
level, cities must ensure provision of vegetated swales, buffers,
and infiltration areas in new development projects. For Arcadia,
the NPDES permit is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Los Angeles Region. The NPDES program coordinates the
actions of all incorporated cities within this region (except Long
Beach) and Los Angeles County to regulate and control storm
water and urban runoff into Los Angeles County waterways and
the ocean.
In support of the NPDES permit and the obligation to keep
waterways clean by reducing or eliminating contaminants from
storm water and dry weather runoff, the City is required to
implement the most effective combination of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for storm water/urban runoff pollution control.
The City has a storm water education program, an aggressive
inspection team that issues notices of violation for water quality
violations, and requires the use of best management practices in
residential, commercial, and development-related activities to
reduce runoff. The project is subject to NPDES requirements to
ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste
discharge requirements, and therefore the impacts will be less
than significant. Although this is a standard regulatory
requirement, it is incorporated into the project mitigation to allow
for better tracking through the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) that will be prepared for this project.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 29 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Short-Term Impacts. It is possible that runoff during demolition,
grading and construction activities could result in sediment and other
urban pollutants into local drainage facilities. To protect water quality
over the short-term (i.e. during construction), the project will be
required to prepare a Construction Waste Management Plan and
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (CWMP & ESCP) which is a
written document that describes the construction operator’s activities to
comply with the requirements in the NPDES permit. Required
elements of an CWMP & ESCP include (1) site description addressing
the elements and characteristics specific to the project site; (2)
description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and
sediment controls; (3) BMPs for construction waste handling and
disposal; (4) implementation of approved local plans; and (5) proposed
and post construction controls, including a description of local post-
construction erosion and sediment control requirements. The CWMP
& ESCP is intended to facilitate a process whereby the operator
evaluates potential pollutant sources at the site and selects and
implements BMPs designed to prevent or control the discharging of
pollutants in stormwater runoff.
During the construction period, the proposed project would use a
series of BMPs to reduce erosion and sedimentation. These measures
may include the use of gravel bags, silt fences, hay bales, check dams,
hydro-seed, and soil binders. The construction contractor would be
required to operate and maintain these controls throughout the
duration of on-site construction activities.
Long-Term Impacts. Once the proposed project is completed, it is
possible that operation or ongoing activities of project uses may
contribute to long-term water quality impacts. To prevent such
impacts, the project must implement a Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) is required of the proposed project. Onsite
runoff will be either infiltrated into the ground in landscaped areas or be
directed to several catch basins and down drains which will then direct
runoff into the City’s storm drain system. New development is required
to meet or exceed pre-project condition for stormwater discharge, and
the proposed project would be required to retain any additional runoff
onsite and discharge it to the storm drain system at rates that do not
exceed pre-project conditions.
Adherence to NPDES requirements is required of all development
within the City, the incorporation of these requirements in the following
measures is designed to track both standard requirements and specific
mitigation measures as identified below:
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 30 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RR HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer
shall file an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
(ESCP) and a Construction Waste Management Plan
(CWMP with the City for review and approval. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
RR HYD-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer
shall submit to the City and receive approval for a
project-specific ESPC. The ESCP shall include a
surface water control plan and erosion control plan
citing specific measures to control on-site and off-
site erosion during the entire grading and
construction period. In addition, the ESPC shall
emphasize structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMPs) to control sediment
from the site. BMPs to be implemented may include
(but shall not be limited to) the following:
• Potential sediment discharges from the site may
be controlled by the following: sandbags, silt
fences, straw wattles, fiber rolls, a temporary
debris basin (if deemed necessary), and other
discharge control devices. The construction and
condition of the BMPs are to be periodically
inspected by the RWQCB during construction, and
repairs would be made as required.
• Area drains within the construction area must be
provided with inlet protection. Minimum standards
are sand bag barriers, or two layers of sandbags
with filter fabric over the grate, properly designed
standpipes, or other measures as appropriate.
• All loose soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, and other
earthen material shall be controlled to eliminate
discharge from the site. Temporary soil
stabilization measures to be considered include:
covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary
seeding, soil stabilizing binders, fiber rolls or
blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent
seeding. Stockpiles shall be surrounded by silt
fences and covered with plastic tarps.
• Implement good housekeeping practices such as
creating a waste collection area, putting lids on
waste and material containers, and cleaning up
spills immediately.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 31 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The developer and/or construction contractor shall be
responsible for performing and documenting the application of
BMPs identified. Regular inspections shall be performed on
sediment control measures.
RR HYD-3: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a site-specific
Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan
(SUSMP) shall be submitted to the City Planning
Division for review and approval. The SUSMP shall
specifically identify the long-term site design,
source control, and treatment control BMPs that
shall be used on site to control pollutant runoff and
to reduce impacts to water quality to the maximum
extent practicable. At a minimum, the SUSMP shall
identify and the site developer shall implement the
following site design, source control, and treatment
control BMPs as appropriate:
Site Design BMPs
• Minimize urban runoff by maximizing permeable areas
and minimizing impermeable areas (recommended
minimum 25 percent of site to be permeable).
• Incorporate landscaped buffer areas between sidewalks
and streets.
• Maximize canopy interception and water conservation by
planting native or drought-tolerant trees and large shrubs
wherever possible.
• Where soil conditions are suitable, use perforated pipe or
gravel filtration pits for low flow infiltration.
• Construct onsite ponding areas or retention facilities to
increase opportunities for infiltration consistent with vector
control objectives.
• Construct streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to the
minimum widths necessary, provided that public safety
and a walkable environment for pedestrians are not
compromised.
• Direct runoff from impervious areas to treatment control
BMPs such as landscaping/bioretention areas.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 32 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source Control BMPs
Source control BMPs are implemented to eliminate the presence of
pollutants through prevention. Such measures can be both non-
structural and structural:
Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
• Education for property owners, tenants, occupants, and
employees.
• Activity restrictions.
• Irrigation system and landscape maintenance to minimize
water runoff.
• Common area litter control.
• Regular mechanical sweeping of private streets and
parking lots.
• Regular drainage facility inspection and maintenance.
Structural Source Control BMPs
• MS4 stenciling and signage at storm down drains.
• Properly design trash storage areas and any outdoor
material storage areas.
Treatment Control BMPs
Treatment control BMPs supplement the pollution prevention and
source control measures by treating the water to remove pollutants
before it is released from the project site. The treatment control BMP
strategy for the project is to select Low Impact Development (LID)
BMPs that promote infiltration and evapotranspiration, including the
construction of infiltration basins, bioretention facilities, and extended
detention basins. Where infiltration BMPs are not appropriate,
bioretention and/or biotreatment BMPs (including extended detention
basins, bioswales, and constructed wetlands) that provide opportunity
for evapotranspiration and incidental infiltration may be utilized.
Harvest and use BMPs (i.e., storage pods) may be used as a
treatment control BMP to store runoff for later non-potable uses.
With implementation of these measures, potential short- and long-term
impacts of the proposed project on local and regional water quality will
be reduced to less than significant levels.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 33 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
The project is subject to NPDES requirements and will be
designed and constructed to ensure compliance with the water
quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and
therefore no significant impact will result from this project.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
The existing site is developed with impervious commercial
buildings and impervious paving that cover the entire site with
the exception of landscape planters along the westerly and
southerly property lines. There are no streams onsite. The
natural drainage pattern for this property runs from north to
south.
The rate of storm water runoff will be altered a very small amount
with Project implementation because the impervious cover on the
Project site would result in a minor change. The impervious areas
that are associated with storm water runoff will decrease with the
proposed project because of the addition of new landscaping
areas to the north and east perimeters of the property. Therefore,
no net increase in storm flows is anticipated as a result of the
Project, and no additional incremental flows would be contributed
to the City’s storm drain system; as such, the runoff from the site
would not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system, and no
infrastructure improvements would be required. In fact the
amount of runoff is expected to decrease with the implementation
of this project.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
The discussion provided in c) above adequately discusses
surface water pollution impacts from the project. The project
would result in less than significant impacts.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 34 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The discussion provided in a) and c) above adequately discuss
runoff from the project. The state and federal requirements for
the preparation of the aforementioned plans would reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level assuming
implementation of these plans. No mitigation measures are
necessary beyond the regulatory requirements.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The additional volumes of storm water runoff created by the
project would be negligible and would not significantly impact
water quality.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
The project proposal is for multiple-family housing, and the
subject site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone as defined
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact
regarding the placement of housing within a designated flood
hazard area.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
The subject site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone.
Project implementation would have no impact on the course of
flood flows within such a zone. No significant flood hazard
impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
The project site and surrounding area are located within the
inundation hazard area of the Santa Anita Dam (Arcadia General
Plan 2010). However, the potential for inundation as a result of
significant structural damage to the Santa Anita Dam as a result
of an earthquake, erosion, a design flaw, or water overflow during
storms is an existing hazard that affect the Project site; as such,
implementation of the Project would not exacerbate these
hazards, and impacts would be less than significant.
j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow?
The City of Arcadia is not located near any large inland bodies of
water or the Pacific Ocean and the site is not within a seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow hazard area.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 35 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
The proposed multiple-family housing is consistent and/or
compatible with the existing neighboring land uses and
development along W. Live Oak Avenue and Las Tunas Drive in
terms of land use, scale, massing, and design of the structures in
the area. In The Residential Flex Overlay on the underlying zone
(General Commercial) allows for stand-alone multiple-family
housing on the subject property.
The surrounding area consists of commercial uses to the east
and south, multiple-family housing to the west, and single-family
residential to the north. This project will not disrupt the
commercial community located to the east of the project site and
will extend the multiple-family residential character of the block
by being situated next to the senior apartment building that is the
nearest use to the west. The project involves redevelopment of
the Project site and would not disrupt the physical arrangement
of an established community. As such, the project would result in
no impact.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The City’s General Plan land use designation and zoning
designation of the project site is General Commercial with
Residential-Flex Overlay. The use is allowed, however it is subject
to a Conditional Use Permit to allow residential uses in this zone
and a Modification to allow tandem parking and a wall that
exceeds the maximum height. The project would not conflict with
any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
The current General Plan land use designation for the Project site
is Commercial with a Residential Flex Overlay. The designation
allows for either a commercial use or multi-family developments;
however the combined uses are not permitted. The current
zoning of the property is General Commercial with a Residential
Flex Overlay. In addition to guiding the uses, designs, and
improvements of development projects, the Zoning Ordinance
provides detailed guidance for development based on and
consistent with the land use policies established in the General
Plan.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 36 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The Zoning Code requires that each unit in this zone have two
clear parking spaces with dimensions of 9 feet wide and 18 feet
deep. The proposed design includes parking for four units that
utilize a tandem parking arrangement, which does not meet the
requirement to provide parking spaces with clear back-out areas.
In regards to walls, the Residential-Flex Overlay Zoning
regulations limit wall heights for residential properties that share
a property line with commercial properties to a maximum of 8’-0”.
The proposal is to allow as a condition of approval a 75-foot
portion of the wall along the property line shared with the auto
body shop to the east to have a height of 10’-0” to reduce noise
impacts from the adjacent use.
Therefore, with compliance of RR LU-1, impacts related to
applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations would be less
than significant.
RR LU-1: Prior to commencement of any construction activities,
the Developer shall obtain approval from the City of
Arcadia for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), as well as
any required modifications from development
standards, as required by the Arcadia Zoning
Ordinance for new multi-family projects in the C-2
zone with Residential Flex Overlay.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan on the subject site. Therefore, the project
could not conflict with such plans.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
There are no known mineral resources on the subject site that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
The subject site is not designated in the General Plan as a
mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposal would
not have the above impact.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 37 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Existing Conditions
Several rating scales (or noise "metrics") exist to analyze effects
of noise on a community. These scales include the equivalent
noise level (Leq) and the community noise equivalent level
(CNEL). Average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours
are usually expressed as A-weighted decibels (dBA) Leq, which is
the equivalent noise level for that period of time. The period of
time averaging may be specified; Leq (3) would be a 3-hour
average. When no period is specified, A-1-hour average is
assumed. Noise of short duration (i.e., substantially less than the
averaging period) is averaged into ambient noise during the
period of interest. Thus, a loud noise lasting many seconds or a
few minutes may have minimal effect on the measured sound
level averaged over a one-hour period.
To evaluate community noise impacts, CNEL was developed to
account for human sensitivity to evening and nighttime noise.
CNEL separates a 24-hour day into 2 periods: daytime (7:00 AM to
10:00 PM) and nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). The nighttime
sound levels are assigned A-10 dBA adjustment prior to
averaging with daytime hourly sound levels.
Several statistical descriptors are also often used to describe
noise, including Lmax and Lmin. Lmax and Lmin are,
respectively, the highest and lowest A-weighted sound levels that
occur during a noise event.
The existing noise environment in the Project area is influenced
by traffic noise on nearby roads and continued operation of the
body shop east of the project site. The roadways contributing the
most noise to the Project site are Las Tunas Drive along the
northern Project site boundary and W. Live Oak Avenue along the
southern project site boundary. For the purpose of this noise
analysis, the study area includes the Project site; the areas
immediately adjacent to the Project site; and the land uses
adjacent to the roadway segments where the Project adds
vehicular trips to the roadway system.
Las Tunas Drive and W. Live Oak Avenue are 4-lane roads with
posted speed limits of 35 miles per hour (mph). Monitoring
experience shows that 24-hour weighted CNEL’s are
approximately equal to mid-afternoon Leq plus 2-3 dB (CalTrans
Technical Noise Supplement, 2009). This would equate to an
existing CNEL at 50 feet from the center line of Las Tunas Drive of
68 dB at the northern property line, and an existing CNEL at 50
feet from the center line of W. Live Oak Avenue of 64 dB at the
southern property line.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 38 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Uses in the Vicinity Sensitive to Noise
Noise-sensitive land uses include residential land uses, schools,
hospitals, libraries, and open space/recreational areas where
quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health,
and safety. Sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and
at night. Noise can interfere with sleep, speech, and
television/radio and cause annoyance. The Project site is located
in an area with a “Residential-Flex Overlay” land use designation;
it is surrounded by a Montessori school, pre-school, single-family
homes, a nursing home, and a senior apartment building. The
site is currently occupied by a restaurant, tattoo shop and an auto
body shop. The nearest sensitive receptors are the Montessori
school and the nursing home, which are both located
approximately 100 feet from the Project site across Las Tunas
Drive and W. Live Oak Avenue, respectively.
Their distances from the project site are listed in Table C below.
Arcadia General Plan Noise Element (2010) Policy N-3-3 also
requires that all exterior noise sources (construction operations,
pumps, fans, leaf blowers) to use noise suppression devices and
techniques to lower exterior noise to levels that are compatible
with adjacent land uses.
Table C: Surrounding Uses
Distance from Project Site
Montessori School 100 feet to the North
Single-Family Homes 100 feet to the North, 340
feet to the South, and 630
feet to the West
Senior Apartments 165 feet to the West
Nursing Home 100 feet to the South
These uses are likely to experience a temporary noise annoyance
during construction, and noise levels that are anticipated to be in
excess of the maximum 55 dB allowed. However, the City limits
construction and maintenance from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sunday and major
holidays (Arcadia Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 2, Part 6).
As a result, complying with the City’s time restrictions would limit
construction noise to times when people are generally less
sensitive to noise.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 39 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Onsite Use Sensitivity to Noise
The proposal is to develop residential units on the project site
which is currently developed as commercial. The adjacent uses
to the east of the project site include an office, a car rental
business, and an auto repair shop. The auto repair shop is the
business that is associated with higher noise levels. For this
reason, a Noise Impact Analysis was performed by Giroux &
Associates on August 13, 2014 to determine the extent of the
noise impacts at the site.
The Noise Impact Analysis reviewed the noise impacts for the
outdoor and indoor uses. The data for the impact to outside uses
show that the traffic noise measured at the northern property line
was 68 dB CNEL. Three of the five units that face Las Tunas
Drive have balconies at the backs of the units and those
balconies will be shielded from traffic noise by the building. The
other two units that have a Plan 3 design will use private patios
facing Las Tunas Drive to satisfy the private open space
requirement, but given that this is an urbanized environment
where street traffic noise is an existing condition and private
outdoor spaces are not required to meet the City’s noise
requirements, no mitigation measures are required for these two
units. Therefore, impacts to the project regarding traffic noise will
be less than significant.
Indoor residential space must be sound protected to achieve the
45 dB CNEL as required by the California Building Code (CBC).
The structural noise reduction of modern wood frame
construction with closed windows for window sizes allowed by
Title 24 is typically equal to the sound transmission class (STC)
of the windows or sliding glass doors. Use of dual-paned
windows in new residential construction is required by the most
recent CBC requirements. The STC rating of dual paned windows
is 29. With an exterior traffic noise at 68dB CNEL, the noise
would be reduced to a 39 dB CNEL interior level if windows facing
the traffic source are closed. With an exterior traffic noise
measurement of 68 db CNEL, the following mitigation measures
must be followed to reduce the noise impact to less than
significant.
MM NOI-1: All units shall be provided with means of mechanical
ventilation, as required by the California Building
Code, for occupancy when the windows are closed.
Noise levels from the mechanical equipment shall not
exceed 55 dba at the property lines or beyond
MM NOI-2: For units that share a common wall, the common wall
shall be sound rated. A minimum STC of 50 is
required. For units stacked upon another unit, the
floor/ceiling shall be sound rated of Sound
Transmission Class of 50 or higher and impact
protected with an impact isolation class rating of 50
or higher. All of these rating requirements shall be
documented on the building plans submitted for Plan
Check.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 40 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In regards to noise impacts created by commercial activity, it
would be incumbent upon the residential developer to
incorporate noise protection measures to protect residents from
noise impacts since the use of the property is being changed
from commercial to residential. The noise limit for commercial
properties is 65 dba and the limit for mechanical equipment at the
property line of a commercial property that is shared with a
residential property is 55 dba. It is the responsibility of the
developer to design the project to meet this threshold since the
existing commercial uses adjacent to the Project Site, like the
auto repair shop, are grandfathered in and would not have to bear
the burden of incorporating measures to reduce sound impacts.
The unit that is nearest the auto body shop is the single-unit
building located next to the guest parking spaces. Since sound
measurements for the adjacent auto body shop were not
available, sound measurements were taken at a similar use. The
sound measurement at 100 feet, which is approximately the
distance between the auto body shop and the nearest unit, was
measured at 58 dba. The noise study concluded that a 6’-0” wall
along the property line that will be located between the auto body
shop and the nearest residential unit would reduce the noise level
at ground level three decibels to 55 dba. However, since the
adjacent auto body shop is permitted to have noise levels as high
as 65 dba, the height of the section of wall between the auto body
shop and the nearest residential unit would need to be 10’-0” to
reduce noise levels to an acceptable level if the adjacent use was
creating noise at the maximum allowable level. Therefore, with
the following mitigation measure the noise impact from the auto
repair shop will be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
MM NOI-3: A portion of the wall along the eastern side of the
property shall be 10 feet high to reduce the noise
impact of the commercial activities of the adjacent
property by 10 dB, which will ensure that the noise
level at the shared property line does not exceed the
maximum allowable noise level. This portion of the
wall will begin at guest parking space number 4 that
is shown on the Site Plan and extend 75 feet
northward.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 41 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Project construction would generally involve the temporary
movement of trucks, materials and equipment at the site and the
use of heavy equipment. The equipment used will include one
loader, one concrete saw, one track dozer, and one 235 excavator.
Trucks will haul away 450 cubic yards of demolition materials
and import 1,766 cubic yards of soil. As required by RR AQ-11,
the coordination of truck transport will be organized so that they
create as little impact as possible on the surrounding uses. The
anticipated construction activities will result in vibration and
noise; however, it is not anticipated to be substantially greater in
magnitude than that associated with the passing of other heavy
vehicles such as garbage trucks. The proposed project does not
involve rock blasting or pile driving. Therefore, the project’s
cumulative impact would be less than significant.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
The proposed project would not result in any long-term noise
levels exceeding the noise standards policies in the City of
Arcadia’s General Plan Noise Element or Municipal Code. As
such, impacts related to noise as a result of the proposed project
would be less than significant.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
Adjacent land uses may experience a temporary noise annoyance
during construction. Based on the current site plans for the
project, construction activities may occur within approximately
100 feet of the single-family residences across Las Tunas Drive
northeast of the project site. The City of Arcadia has not adopted
specific noise standards for construction activity. However, the
City limits construction and maintenance from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday.
Construction is prohibited on Sunday and major holidays
(Arcadia Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 2, Part 6). As a result,
complying with the City’s time restrictions would limit
construction noise to times when people are generally less
sensitive to noise, and the following mitigation measures would
result in a less than significant impact to the surrounding
properties.
MM NOI-4: Construction Timing – Construction activities shall be
limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m.
on Saturday. Construction equipment maintenance
shall be limited to the same hours.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 42 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MM NOI-5: Construction Equipment – If electrical service is
available within 150 feet, electrical power shall be
used to run air compressors and similar power
tools. Internal combustion engines should be
equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by
the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine
shall be operated on the project site without the
manufacturer-recommended muffler. All diesel
equipment should be operated with closed engine
doors and should be equipped with factory-
recommended mufflers. Construction equipment
that continues to generate noise that exceeds 70
dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with
a barrier that meets a sound transmission class
(STC) rating of 25.
MM NOI-6: The construction contractor shall place all stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is
directed away from the noise-sensitive receptors.
When feasible, the construction contractor shall
locate equipment staging in areas that will create
the greatest distance between construction-related
noise sources and noise sensitive receptors during
all project construction.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
The Project site is located approximately 1.4 miles from the El
Monte airport. The project site is an urban area that is situated
between two major streets and the existing conditions are already
impacted by noise. The proposal is to demolish the existing
buildings that were built in 1955 and construct new residential
buildings that will use sound-reducing materials such as double-
paned windows as required by Building regulations that will
reduce the interior noise level for the residents. Therefore, noise
from the airport would be less than significant.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
There is no private airstrip near the project site. The project
would not change the uses of the surrounding site and would not
impact the noise levels for people residing or working in the
project area.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 43 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
road or other infrastructure)?
The project site is located within an existing urban area and the
proposal is to replace commercial uses with 17 units of multiple-
family housing. Based on a standard household size of 2.83
persons, the proposed project would result in adding
approximately 48 new residents to the City of Arcadia.
In March of 2014 an environmental review was performed in
support of the General Plan Amendment for the properties within
the Residential-Flex Overlay. In consideration of the approval of
this new zoning designation, the study considered the impact of
new residents to the area if all of the twelve properties converted
to residential at the maximum density level. If that were to occur,
that analysis found that approximately 750 residents would be
added to the City. With the addition of 750 residents, the
projected net increase in population for the City of Arcadia, not
including the Sphere of Influence (SOI), with implementation of
buildout of the General Plan Update is increased from 9,917
residents to 10,667 residents; and the total projected population
increased from approximately 61,995 to 62,745 residents. This is
less than the SCAG projections of 65,704 persons.
The projected net increase in residential units for the City (not
including the Sphere Of Influence with implementation of buildout
of the General Plan Update and the proposed Residential-Flex
Overlay is 3,890 units, resulting in a total City housing unit count
of 22,800 units. This does not exceed SCAG’s 2035 projections
for the City of 23,045 households.
Based on the estimated population, housing and employment
with buildout of the General Plan Update and the proposed
Residential-Flex Overlay compared to SCAG’s projections, the
change from the previous commercial zone to commercial with
the Residential-Flex Overlay would not result in substantial
growth in the City of Arcadia or its SOI through 2035 beyond what
has already been anticipated. Although SCAG’s projections are
for specific 5-year increments, it should be noted that the amount
of time it takes for the City to reach its buildout capacity depends
on the local rate of growth and development. This does not
necessarily mean that substantial growth would occur in the City
at one time. Development would continue to be largely influenced
by property owner decisions and market demand. In sum, the
impacts related to growth projections would be less than
significant.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 44 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The proposal for the development of the project site would be for
development at nearly the minimum density permitted, rather
than the maximum density that was assumed in the analysis to
determine the impact of the zone change. Since it was concluded
that the zone change would have no significant impact and the
proposal is for a smaller population than was accounted for in the
zone change analysis, the impacts related to population growth
for the project would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Development of the proposed project is limited to the boundaries
of the site and would not result in demolition of any housing. No
impacts to existing house would occur.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Development of the proposed project is limited to the boundaries
of the subject site and would not result in demolition of any
housing. No displacement impact would occur.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
The Project Site is in an area that is fully served by all necessary
utilities and services. Public services by the City of Arcadia in
the project area include domestic water, wastewater treatment,
storm water drainage, solid waste disposal, library, park and
recreation services, police, fire, and administrative services.
Private utilities include electric, gas, telephone, and cable
television/internet data services.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 45 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impacts to public services were analyzed for the Project Site and
the other properties with the Residential-Flex Overlay. The
analysis considered the impact to public services that would
occur if all of the properties with the Residential-Flex Overlay
were redeveloped from commercial properties to multiple-family
residential properties. The analysis included the following
specific findings:
Both Police and Fire reported that development at the
maximum density would not increase response times or
affect service ratios or other performance objectives and
that there would be no need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities to maintain current performance
objectives. The demand for police protection services
would not require the construction or new or alteration of
the existing police department facilities to maintain an
adequate level of the service to the project. Therefore, no
mitigation is required. As for Fire, no physical impacts
would occur and no mitigation is required. However,
compliance with fire protection standards (as described in
RR PUB 1) would ensure that the project would not inhibit
the ability of fire protection or paramedic crews to
respond at optimum level.
RR PUB 1: The Developer shall comply with all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations, including the most
current edition of the California Fire Code and the City of
Arcadia Municipal Code, regarding fire prevention and
suppression measures fire hydrants; fire access; water
availability; and other, similar requirements. Prior to
issuance of building permits, the City of Arcadia
Development Services Department and the Arcadia Fire
Department shall verify compliance with applicable codes
and that appropriate fire safety measures are included in
the project design. All such codes and measures shall be
implemented prior to occupancy.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 46 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RR PUB 2: Prior to issuance of the building permit, the
Developer shall pay new development fees to the Arcadia
Unified School District (AUSD) pursuant to Section 65995
of the California Government Code. As an option to the
payment of developer fees, the AUSD and the Developer
can enter into a facility and funding agreement, if
approved by both parties. Evidence that agreements have
been executed shall be submitted to the Development
Services Department, or fees shall be paid with each
building permit.
As of 2009, the City had approximately 785 acres of City
and County parks and recreational open space within its
corporate limits. The entire project location is within a 2-
mile park facilities service area as mapped in the City of
Arcadia 2010 General Plan. Residential developments
within the project location would be adequately served by
the existing park facilities. The City of Arcadia is served
by two community centers, four cultural facilities, and two
libraries within its corporate limits, which will adequately
serve any new residential developments. The increase in
the residents may increase the demand on public parks
and recreational facilities. However, because the project
results in a relatively small number of new residents to
the City’s population, the increased use of existing public
park facilities would not be a level that would result in a
need for a new facility, the Developer would be required to
pay City park fees applicable at the time building permits
are issued.
The above analysis indicates that even if the project site
was developed at the maximum density, there would be
no significant impacts to public services. The project
proposal, however, is for less than what was accounted
for since the proposal is for one unit above the minimum
density requirement. Therefore, the proposal would have
a less than significant impact on public services.
XV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 47 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impacts to parks and recreational facilities were analyzed for the
Project Site and the other properties that with the Residential-Flex
Overlay. The analysis considered the impact to parks and
recreational facilities that would occur if all of the properties with
the Residential-Flex Overlay were redeveloped from commercial
properties to multiple-family residential properties at the
maximum density and concluded that there would be no
significant impact.
The proposed project will add approximately 48 people to the
Project Site, which is less than the 69 people that were projected
for this site in the analysis performed for the adoption of the
Residential-Flex Overlay. Approval of this project would not lead
to immediate development of the planned parks, trails, and
bikeways. The increase in the residences may increase the
demand on public parks and recreational facilities. The Developer
would be required to pay City park fees applicable at the time
building permits are issued. Although the Project’s impacts to
the City park facilities would be less than significant, payment of
required parking fees would reduce any potential impacts on City
parks and recreational facilities associated with the increased
demand and use of the facilities (RR PUB-2).
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have
an adverse physical effect on the environment?
As discussed above, the proposed development does not include
or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
The Project Site is currently developed with commercial uses that
include an auto repair shop, a restaurant, and a tattoo parlor. The
Site currently has a driveway that runs the length of the project
site and has an entrance and exit on W. Live Oak Avenue and Las
Tunas Drive. The proposal is to remove these uses and replace
them with 17 residential townhouses. Ingress and egress to the
Project Site will be limited to W. Live Oak Avenue.
The City Engineer (Wray) determined that since the use is
changing from commercial to residential and the commercial
uses are associated with a higher impact on street traffic, no
further traffic impact analysis was warranted and that no
significant traffic impact would result from the project.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 48 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to, level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
According to the 2010 Congestion Management Program (CMP)
for Los Angeles County, there is no CMP intersection monitoring
locations within the City of Arcadia. The nearest CMP
intersection monitoring location is the Rosemead
Boulevard/Huntington Drive intersection, located approximately
four miles northwest of the project site in an unincorporated area
of Los Angeles County. The CMP Traffic Impact Assessment
guidelines require that intersection monitoring locations must be
examined if the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during
either the weekday AM or PM peak hours.
As stated in the discussion for a), the project proposal will reduce
trips to the project site since residential uses have lower traffic
impacts than commercial uses and therefore, this project will
have no impact.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
The nearest airport is El Monte Airport, which is located
approximately 1.4 miles south of the project site. The proximity
of the project to the airport would not result in a change in air
traffic patterns or safety risks related to the airport. The project
would have no impacts and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The existing conditions on the Project Site include a driveway
that runs the length of the property and has driveway approaches
that allow for entering and exiting on both W. Live Oak Avenue
and Las Tunas Drive. The proposal is to eliminate access to the
Project Site from Las Tunas Drive and make the only access point
on W. Live Oak Avenue. The existing driveway is straight and is
located on the west side of the lot, but the proposed driveway will
have a gentle curve as it approaches the public right-of-way and
will be located toward the east side of the lot.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 49 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
City Staff reviewed the driveway sight distances from the single
proposed driveway and found that it meets the driveway visibility
standards of the Municipal Code. The curve in the driveway has
the effect of moving the driveway approach toward the center of
the lot. The placement of the driveway approach toward the
center of the lot is preferable from a visibility perspective since
there is an existing 10-foot tall free-standing sign on the adjacent
property to the east that would otherwise encroach into the
required visibility area. There will be no design features
associated with the project or incompatible uses that would
substantially increase hazards and therefore there is no impact.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The proposed development will comply with all of the City’s
requirements for emergency access.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
The proposed project would be consistent with policies
supporting public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The
nearest bus stops that would serve the proposed project are
located at the intersection of El Monte Avenue and W. Las Tunas
Drive and at the intersection of Las Tunas Drive and W. Live Oak
Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with
the policies, plans, or programs and no mitigation measures
would be necessary.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
(a-b) The City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department
provides water service to the local area. The department obtains
water from two sources: groundwater and imported water. The
City also provides sewer service to the local area, and the
wastewater from the area is carried by sewers to the San Jose
Creek Water Reclamation Plant, located at 1965 Workman Mill
Road in Whittier and operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County. This plant treats 100 million gallons per day of
waste water (Sanitation Districts 2008).
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 50 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The proposed project will be served by an 8 inch cast iron water
main located on the south side of Las Tunas Drive with 61 psi
static pressure that is capable of providing the anticipated
domestic and fire water demand according to the results of the
three most recent hydraulic flow tests performed on the block by
the City of Arcadia Public Works Department in 2003, 2008, and
2012. A sewer main of 8 inches in size is available on Las Tunas
Drive according to the City’s Public Works Services Department
and this sewer is capable of meeting the anticipated demand from
this project.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
The City’s Public Works Department and Engineering Services
have reviewed the plans for the proposed development and
determined that the impacts will be less than significant, provided
the developer complies with the required Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). No expansion of existing
stormwater facilities or creation of new ones is required to serve
this development.
RR UTL-1 The project will have a Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan SUSMP prepared for the project and
submitted to the City for review and verification of compliance.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall file a
Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board to be covered under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction
Permit for discharge of storm water associated with construction
activities. The project developer shall submit to the City the
Waste Discharge Identification Number issued by the State Water
Quality Control Board (SWQCB) as proof that the project’s NOI is
to be covered by the General Construction Permit that has been
filed with the SWQCB. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? In making this
determination, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the
project is subject to the water supply assessment
requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. seq. (SB
610), and the requirements of Government Code Section
664737 (SB 221).
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 51 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
The City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department provides
water service to the local area. The Department obtains water
from two sources: groundwater and imported water.
Groundwater is obtained from the Main San Gabriel and Raymond
Groundwater Basins. The City obtains imported water from by
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD),
from the State Water Project and the Colorado River. MWD
forecasts that it will be able to meet the region’s water needs
through 2030.
According to Arcadia Public Works Department, there will be no
significant impact to the water system. Therefore, the impacts
are less than significant.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 52 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
The City’s Public Works Department reviewed the project
proposal and determined that the 8” Vitrified Clay Pipe sewer
main that will service wastewater from the proposed development
is capable of serving the demand typical to the proposed
development.
The Los Angeles County Sanitation District stated that
wastewater originating from the Project Site will discharge to a
local sewer line and will be served the Sanitation District’s Double
Avenue Trunk Sewer, located beneath Santa Anita Avenue at Live
Oak Avenue. This 10’-inch trunk sewer has a design capacity of
1.4 million gallons per day and conveyed a peak flow of 0.5
million gallons per day when last measured in 2013.
The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated
as the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, which has a
design capacity of 100 million gallons per day and can currently
process an average flow of 73.6 million gallons per day.
Wastewater flows that exceed the capacity of the San Jose Creek
facility, and all biosolids, are diverted to and treated at the Joint
Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson.
The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the
proposed project is 3,068 gallons per day, after the demolition of
the existing structures. The existing facilities are capable of
serving the project.
Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant
wastewater impact.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
The City of Arcadia does not contract with a particular landfill.
However, the trash generated from a project is often taken to the
Puente Hills Recovery Facility in Whittier since the closure of the
Puente Hills Landfill in 2013. The Puente Hills Recovery Facility
can accept 4,400 tons of waste per day. Waste delivered to this
facility that cannot be recycled will be transferred by truck to
permitted landfills and therefore there is sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs. As a result, the project-related impacts to landfill capacity
would be less than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
The proposed development will not violate any federal, state or
local statues and regulations relating to solid waste.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 53 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, and does
not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment.
It will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species since it is
located in a fully-developed area.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects).
Approval of the proposed Multiple-Family Architectural Design
Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Tract Map, would
not generate a significant increase in population. The project is
not part of any larger project and would not result in any future
development or infrastructure. The issues relevant to this
property are very localized and largely confined to the immediate
vicinity of the construction site. Because the project would not
increase environmental impacts the incremental contribution to
cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
As discussed in the relevant sections of this Initial Study, the
project would not result in any significant permanent impacts.
Additionally, the project would not have environmental effects
that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly. No significant unmitigated adverse
impacts have been identified for the project.
Exhibits
1. Photos of the Project Site and Vicinity
2. Architectural Plans
3. Disclosure Letter
Table
1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 54 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Appendices
A. Sites in the Surrounding Area that Store Hazardous Materials
B. CalEEMod Models (Annual, Summer, and Winter)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 55 of 55 File No: CUP 14-12, MFADR 14-12, & TTM 72894
Sources
1. City of Arcadia General Plan, adopted November 2010
2. City of Arcadia Zoning Map, adopted December 7, 2010
3. City of Arcadia Zoning Map with Flex Overlay, adopted March 11 2014
4. City of Arcadia Land Use Map, adopted December 7, 2010
5. Memorandum from Arcadia Public Works Department – Sewer Capacity, dated June 18, 2014
6. City of Arcadia Urban Water Management Plan, 2011
7. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search.
accessed September 10, 2014
8. City of Arcadia, Noise Regulations, Chapter 6, Article IV, of City of Arcadia Municipal Code
9. Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by Giroux and Associates, dated August 13, 2014
10. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Appendix B – PM 2.5 Localized Significance Tables
Thresholds.
11. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2013.2.2, Annual
12. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2.2, Summer
13. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2.2, Winter
14. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Localized Significance Tables Thresholds 2006-2008
15. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Mass Daily Air Quality Significance Thresholds
16. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2005. California Environmental Quality Act Air Handbook,
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook, accessed September 10, 2014
17. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Rules and Regulations, 2005,
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/rules/scaqmd-rule-book/table-of-contents, accessed September 10, 2014
18. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, prepared by PIC Environmental Services, dated January 2, 2014
19. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Appendix, prepared by PIC Environmental Services, dated January
2, 2014
20. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, prepared by PIC Environmental Services, dated January 27, 2014
21. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report Analytic Results, prepared by PIC Environmental Services, dated
January 27, 2014
22. Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, dated March 11, 2014
23. Hydraulic Flow Test Summaries for 59 Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia Public Works Department, June 11, 2008 for 150
Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia Public Works Department, August 21, 2003, and for 168 Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia Public
Works Department, March 22, 2012
24. Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Factsheet.
http://www.lacsd.org/solidwaste/swfacilities/mrts/phmrf/phmrffactsheet.asp. Accessed September 23, 2014
25. El Monte Airport Vicinity Map, Two Mile Radius, Undated
26. Building, Structure, and Object Record dated July 26, 2014. Jeanette A. McKenna, Architectural Historian, report in
association with a City of Arcadia Certificate of Demolition Application No. 14-132, approved August 20, 2014
27. Los Angeles County Sanitation District Letter dated October 15, 2014
- - -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 14-12, Multiple-Family Architectural Design
Review No. MFADR 14-12, and Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 72894 for the
Arcadia 17 Development at 132, 136, and 142 Las Tunas Drive
This Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for a new Conditional Use
Permit, Multiple-Family Architectural Design Review Application, and Tentative Tract Map for
the demolition of the existing auto repair shop, restaurant, and tattoo parlor to accommodate a
residential-condominium development comprised of 17, three-story, townhouse-style units has
been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA – Public Resources
Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Chapter 3,
Sections 15074 and 15097) and the City of Arcadia CEQA Guidelines. A copy of the Initial
Study and MMRP are available at the Planning Services office in Arcadia City Hall at 240 W.
Huntington Drive and at the Arcadia Public Library.
Where mitigation measures are required, CEQA law requires the preparation of a MMRP to
monitor the implementation of mitigation measures. The mitigation measures identified in the
MMRP have been developed in sufficient detail to provide the necessary information to identify
the party or parties responsible for carrying out the mitigation measure, when the mitigation will
be implemented, and who will verify that the mitigation has been implemented.
This program also includes Regulatory Requirements (RR). These Regulatory Requirements
are requirements that are imposed by the City, County, State, federal agencies or special
districts to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations, and compliance with these
regulations is largely the responsibility of the project applicant/developer. The RRs are not
considered mitigation measures under CEQA. Rather, they are expected to be implemented as
a matter of course by the City and other regulatory agencies, but are included in this MMRP to
facilitate compliance.
The Applicant is requesting approval of the following:
A Conditional Use Permit to allow 17, three-story, townhouse style units. The site will be
arranged with a five-unit building that will front Las Tunas Drive, an 11 unit building along the
west side of the lot with the southerly two units fronting W. Live Oak Avenue, and one
detached unit that will be behind the five unit building on the east side of the lot. A driveway
will provide vehicular access to all 17 units from W. Live Oak Avenue. Each unit till have an
attached two car garage and nine guest parking spaces. The proposal includes 2,216 cubic
yards of grading: 1,766 cubic yards of fill and 450 cubic yards of excavation.
A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 0.82 acre lot for residential condominium purposes.
Multiple-Family Architectural Design Review approval of the proposed designs.
This MMRP includes mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix on
the following pages that correspond to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project.
The matrix lists each mitigation measure by environmental topic and indicates the frequency of
monitoring and the responsible monitoring entity. Mitigation measures may be shown in
submittals and may be checked only once, or they may require monitoring periodically during
and/or after construction and grading. Once a mitigation measure is complete, the responsible
monitoring entity shall date and initial the corresponding cell and comment on the effectiveness
of the mitigation measure. Wherever the term “project applicant” is used in the MMRP, it shall
be deemed to include each and all successors in interest of the project applicant. The MMRP
matrix shall be incorporated into the construction plans.
2
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements
Monitoring and Action Notes
Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
1. Aesthetics
RR AES-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a Lighting Plan that provides the type and location of the proposed exterior lighting, subject to review and approval of the City’s Development Services Department. .
Prepare and submit lighting plan for review and approval.
The developer and/or construction contractor.
During plan-check in Building Services
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services.
2. Air Quality
RR AQ-1: Minimization of Disturbance. Construction contractors shall minimize the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent excessive amount of dust.
Issue instructions to each construction project for contractors to incorporate these standard conditions. The contractor will prepare a construction air pollution control strategy report.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services. City Building Inspectors shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at project site during construction period and document results in the project file.
3
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
RR AQ-2: Soil Treatment. Construction contractors shall treat all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways to minimize fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe
soil stabilization
materials, and/or roll compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary, and at least three times daily, preferably in the later morning and after work is done for the day.
Issue instructions to each construction project for contractors to incorporate these standard conditions. The contractor will prepare a construction air pollution control strategy report.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services. City Building Inspectors shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at project site during construction period and document results in the project file.
RR AQ-3: Soil Stabilization. Construction contractors shall monitor all graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered until landscape growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust
suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
Issue instructions to each construction project for contractors to incorporate these standard conditions. The contractor will prepare a construction air pollution control strategy report.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services. City Building Inspectors shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at project site during construction period and document results in the project file.
4
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
RR AQ-4: No Grading During High Winds. Construction contractors shall stop all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations during periods of high winds (25 miles per hour or greater, as measured continuously over a one-hour period) and shall apply appropriate dust stabilization. All haul vehicles shall be covered or shall comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code for both public and private roads.
Issue instructions to each construction project for contractors to incorporate these standard conditions. The contractor will prepare a construction air pollution control strategy report. All grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 20 miles per hour. Periodic grading activity inspections shall be made.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services. City Building Inspectors shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at project site during construction period and document results in the project file.
RR AQ-5: Street Sweeping. Construction contractors shall sweep all on-site driveways and adjacent streets and
roads at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over onto the adjacent streets and roads.
Issue instructions to each construction project for contractors to incorporate these standard conditions. The contractor will prepare a construction air pollution control strategy report.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services. City Building Inspectors shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at project site during construction period and document results in the project file.
5
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
RR AQ-6: Phasing of Grading: The import and export of soils from the project site shall not occur on the same day. These activities shall be separated by at least one day to minimize fugitive dust.
Issue instructions to each construction project for contractors to incorporate these standard conditions. The contractor will prepare a construction air pollution control strategy report.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
During plan-check in Building Services
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services. City Building Inspectors shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at project site during construction period and document results in the project file.
RR AQ-7: The project developer shall require by contract spec
ifications that contractors shall utilize equipment registered under DOORS, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation registration program. This applies to all off-road vehicles that are 25 hp or greater. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City.
Issue instructions to each construction project for contractors to incorporate these standard conditions. The contractor will prepare a construction air pollution control strategy report.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
During plan-check in Building Services
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services. City Building Inspectors shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at project site during construction period and document results in the project file.
6
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
MM AQ-8:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase, the project developer shall require by contract specifications that contractors shall utilize power poles
or clean-fuel generators for electrical construction equipment. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents,
which shall be reviewed by the City.
Issue instructions to each construction project for contractors to incorporate these standard conditions. The contractor will prepare a construction air pollution control strategy report.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
During plan-check in Building Services
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services. City Building Inspectors shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at project site during construction period and document results in the project file.
RR AQ-9:
Low-VOC Architectural Coatings. The applicant shall use low-VOC architectural coatings for all buildings. At a minimum, all architectural coatings shall comply with the most recent standards in SCAQMD Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings.
Issue instructions to each construction project for contractors to incorporate these standard conditions. The contractor will prepare a construction air pollution control strategy report. The Project Manager shall be aware of SCAQMD Rule 113 and issue instructions to the contractors that the architectural coatings should not be applied to more than 10,500 square feet of construction per day, for both interior and exterior surfaces.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
During plan-check in Building Services
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services. City Building Inspectors shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at project site during construction period and document results in the project file.
7
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
RR AQ-10: On-site equipment shall not be left idling when not in use.
Issue instructions to each construction project for contractors to incorporate these standard conditions. The contractor will prepare a construction air pollution control strategy report.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
During construction by Building Services
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services. City Building Inspectors shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at project site during construction period and document results in the project file.
RR AQ-11: Staging areas for heavy-duty construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors (i.e. nearby residential uses). A staging plan showing where the construction trucks will line-up
and a truck route
map shall be provided to the Development Services Director or designee for review and approval prior to construction.
Issue instructions to each construction project for contractors to incorporate these standard conditions. The contractor will prepare a construction air pollution control strategy report. A staging plan showing where the construction trucks will line-up and a truck route map shall be provided to the Development Services Director or designee for review and approval prior to construction.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
During plan-check in Building Services
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services. City Building Inspectors shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at project site during construction period and document results in the project file.
8
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
3. Biological Resources MM BIO-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys in areas with suitable habitat prior to all construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting and breeding season of native bird species (typically March 1 through August 15). The survey area shall include all potential bird nesting areas within 200 feet of any disturbance. The survey shall be conducted at least two weeks prior to commencement of activities (e.g. grading).
If active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA and/or California Fish and Game Code (which, together, apply to all native nesting bird species) are present in the impact area or within 200 feet of the impact area, a temporary buffer fence shall be erected a minimum of 200 feet around the nest site. This temporary buffer may be greater or lesser depending on the bird species and type of disturbance, as determined by the biologist and/or applicable regulatory agency permits.
Clearing and/or construction within temporarily fenced areas shall be postponed or halted until juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second nesting attempt. The Biologist shall serve as
Where construction is scheduled during breeding season (March 1 through August 15), the property owner shall engage a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct pre-construction survey and identify appropriate treatment. The wildlife biologist shall prepare a report upon the completion of surveys (if no nests of special-status birds are present or nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied) or upon completion of construction activity that could disturb special-status birds that are present. The biologist shall have the authority to initiate protection action in accordance with the procedures described herein.
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
Prior to issuance of a demolition and grading permit
City of Arcadia – Building and Planning Services. Considered complete upon biologist’s final report. If construction is not scheduled during breeding season, then no report is necessary and the schedule shall be included in the project file.
9
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near acti
ve nest areas to
ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur.
10
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
4. Cultural Resources
RR CUL-1:
Should archaeological resources be found during ground-disturbing activities for the Project, an Archaeologist shall be hired to first determine whether it is a "unique archaeological resource" pursuant to Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) or a "historical resource," pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource" or a "historical resource" the Archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the City of Arcadia that satisfies the requirements of the above-referenced sections. If the Archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a "unique archaeological resource" or "historical resource" the Archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System at the South
Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton.
City verifies grading plans require City to be notified if any cultural materials are found during grading. City shall verify developer has retained a cultural monitor if needed
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-site Superintendents.
Discovery of archaeological artifacts
City of Arcadia – Building and Planning Services. Work shall stop at the discovery of cultural artifacts and a Stop Work Order will be issued by the Building Department.
RR CUL-2: If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work
City verifies grading plans require City to be notified
The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On-
Discovery of recognition of any human remains
City of Arcadia – Building and
11
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
shall halt in the immediate vicinity of the discovery and the County Coroner shall be notified (California Public Resources Code §5097.98). The Coroner shall determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of an Archaeologist approved by the City of Arcadia, determines that the remains are prehistoric, the Archaeologist will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make a recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD’s recommendation shall be followed if feasible, and may include scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials (California Health and Safety Code §7050.5). If the landowner rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance (California Public Resources Code §5097.98).
if any cultural materials are found during grading. City shall verify developer has retained a cultural monitor if needed
site Superintendents. Planning Services. Work shall stop at the discovery of cultural artifacts and a Stop Work Order will be issued by the Building Department.
12
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials RR HAZ-1: In accordance with the California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1541), if any construction, excavations, and new utility lines are proposed near or crossing existing high pressure pipelines, natural gas/petroleum pipelines, electrical lines greater than 60,000 volts, and other high priority lines are required to notify the owner/operator of the line and must identify the locations of subsurface lines prior to any ground disturbance for excavation. Coordination, approval, and monitoring by the owner/operator of the line would avoid damage to high priority lines and prevent the creation of hazards to the surrounding area.
The Architect and Engineer shall locate all the underground pipelines and electrical lines that are greater than 60,000 volts, and coordinate, and coordinate with such owner/operator and obtain any necessary approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit from the City.
The Property Owner and Project Manager
Prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
City of Arcadia – Public Works Department, Building and Planning Services. The City Building and Public Works Inspectors shall periodically monitor the catch basins during construction period and document results in the project file.
RR HAZ-2:
Prior to demolition of any existing buildings or associated structures, a qualified contractor shall be retained to survey structures proposed for demolition to determine if asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead based paint (LBP) are present. If ACMs and/or LBP are present, prior to commencement of general demolition, these materials shall be removed and transported to an appropriate landfill by a licensed contractor. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Division including
Prepare an ACM and LBP for the property and implement the recommended mitigation.
The developer and/or construction contractor.
Prior to demolition of existing building.
City of Arcadia – Public Works Department, Building and Planning Services.
13
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
written documentation of the disposal of any ACMs or LBP in conformance with all applicable requirements. 6. Hydrology and Water Quality
RR HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall file an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and a Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP) with the City for review and approval. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prepare an ESCP and CWMP, submit to City for approval.
The developer and/or construction contractor shall be responsible for performing and documenting the application of BMPs identified. Regular inspections shall be performed on sediment control measures.
Prior to issuance of demolition permit
City of Arcadia – Engineering and Building Services
RR HYD-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit to the City and receive approval for a project-specific ESPC. The ESCP shall include a surface water control plan and erosion control plan citing specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion during the entire grading and construction period. In addition, the ESPC shall emphasize
structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) to control sediment from the site. BMPs to be implemented may include (but shall not be limited to) the following:
• Potential sediment discharges from the site may be controlled by the following: sandbags, silt
Prepare a ESCP and CWMP, submit to City for approval.
The developer and/or construction contractor shall be responsible for performing and documenting the application of BMPs identified. Regular inspections shall be performed on sediment control measures.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit
City of Arcadia – Engineering, Building and Planning
14
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
fences, straw wattles, fiber rolls, a temporary debris basin (if deemed necessary), and other discharge control devices. The construction and condition of the BMPs are to be periodically inspected by the RWQCB during construction, and repairs would be made as required.
• Area drains within the construction area must be provided with inlet protection. Minimum standards are sand bag barriers, or two layers of sandbags with filter fabric over the grate, properly designed standpipes, or other measures as appropriate.
• All loose soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, and other earthen material shall be controlled to eliminate discharge from the site. Temporary soil stabilization measures to be considered include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizing binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Stockpiles shall be surrounded by silt fences and covered with plastic tarps.
• Implement good housekeeping
15
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
practices such as creating a waste collection area, putting lids on waste and material containers, and cleaning up spills
immediately.
RR HYD-3: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a site-specific Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division for review and approval. The SUSMP shall specifically identify
the long-term site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs that shall be used on site to control pollutant runoff and to reduce impacts to water quality to the maximum extent practicable. At a minimum, the SUSMP shall identify and the site developer shall implement the following site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs as appropriate:
Prepare a SUSMP and submit to City Planning Division for review.
The developer and/or construction contractor shall be responsible for performing and documenting the application of BMPs identified.
Prior to issuance of building permit
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services.
16
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
7. Noise MM NOI-1: All units shall be provided with means of mechanical ventilation, as required by the California Building Code, for occupancy when the windows are closed. Noise levels from the mechanical equipment shall not exceed 55 dba at the property lines or beyond
The structural plans provided for Plan Check shall include calculations on the plans that verify that the buildings will meet these sound reduction performance standards.
The Property Owner City verifies that construction documents comply with code requirements prior to issuance of a building permit.
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services.
MM NOI-2: For units that share a common wall, the common wall shall be sound rated. A minimum sound transmission class of 50 is required. For units stacked upon another unit, the floor/ceiling shall be sound rated of Sound Transmission Class of 50 or higher and impact protected with an impact isolation class rating of 50 or higher. All of these rating requirements shall be documented on the building plans submitted for Plan Check.
The structural plans provided for Plan Check shall include calculations on the plans that verify that the buildings will meet these sound reduction performance standards.
The Property Owner City verifies that construction documents comply with code requirements prior to issuance of a building permit.
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services.
MM NOI-3: A portion of the wall along the eastern side of the property shall be 10 feet high to reduce the noise impact of the commercial activities of the adjacent property by 10 dB, which will ensure that the noise level at the shared property line does not exceed the maximum allowable noise level. This portion of the wall will begin at guest parking space number 4 that is shown on the Site Plan and extend 75 feet northward.
The structural plans provided for Plan Check shall include calculations on the plans that verify that the buildings will meet these sound reduction performance standards.
The Property Owner Prior to issuance of occupancy permit.
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services.
17
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
MM NOI-4: Construction Timing – Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Construction equipment maintenance shall be limited to the same hours.
The structural plans provided for Plan Check shall include calculations on the plans that verify that the buildings will meet these sound reduction performance standards.
The Property Owner City verifies that construction documents include required language prior to issuance of a grading permit.
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services.
MM NOI-5: Construction Equipment – If electrical service is available within 150 feet, electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools. Internal combustion engines should be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project site without the manufacturer-recommended muffler. All diesel equipment should be operated with closed engine doors and should be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers. Construction equipment that continues to generate noise that exceeds 70 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (STC) rating of 25.
The structural plans provided for Plan Check shall include calculations on the plans that verify that the buildings will meet these sound reduction performance standards.
The Property Owner City verifies that construction documents comply with code requirements.
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services.
MM NOI-6: The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise-sensitive receptors. When feasible, the construction contractor shall Construction Contractor During plan-check in Building Services
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services.
18
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors during all project construction. 8. Public Service
RR PUB-1: The Developer shall comply with all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, including the most current edition of the California Fire Code and the City of Arcadia Municipal Code, regarding fire prevention and suppression measures fire hydrants; fire access;
water availability; and other, similar requirements. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Arcadia Development Services Department and the Arcadia Fire Department shall verify compliance with applicable codes and that appropriate fire safety measures are included in the project design. All such codes and measures shall be implemented prior to occupancy.
Developer or Construction Contractor
During plan-check in Building Services
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services.
RR PUB-2: Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall pay new development fees to the Arcadia Unified School District (AUSD) pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code. As an option to the payment of developer
Pay development fees or submit executed agreement to Development Services Department.
Developer Prior to issuance of a building permit.
City of Arcadia – Development Services Department.
19
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
fees, the AUSD and the Developer can enter into a facility and funding agreement, if approved by both parties. Evidence that agreements have been executed shall be submitted to the Development Services Department, or fees shall be paid with each building permit.
9. Utilities and Service Systems
RR UTL-1: The project will have a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan SUSMP prepared for the project and submitted to the City for review and verification of compliance. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board to be covered under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for discharge of storm water associated with construction activities. The project developer shall submit to the City the Waste Discharge Identification Number issued by the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) as proof that the project’s NOI is to be covered by the General Construction Permit that has been filed with the SWQCB. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prepare a SUSMP and submit to City Planning Division for review.
The developer and/or construction contractor shall be responsible for performing and documenting the application of BMPs identified.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit.
City of Arcadia – Building, Engineering, and Planning Services.
20
Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions
Monitoring and Action Notes
Party Responsible for Mitigation
Timing of Verification
Responsible for Monitoring
10. Land Use and Planning
RR LU-1: Prior to commencement of any construction activities, the Developer shall obtain approval from the City of Arcadia for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), as well as any required modifications from development standards, as required by the Arcadia Zoning Ordinance for new multi-family projects
in the C-2 zone with Residential Flex Overlay.
Planning Commission approves the CUP and modifications.
City Planning Services
Prior to issuance of any permits.
City Planning Services
A P P E N D I X B
PM2.5 Localized Significance Threshold Look-up Tables
Appendix B – PM2.5 Localized Significance Threshold Look-up Tables
B-1
Table B-1. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Construction
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 3 5 10 24 102 5 7 12 28 110
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 3 4 8 18 77 4 5 10 21 82
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 3 5 9 21 75 5 7 12 25 81
4 South Coastal LA County 3 5 10 26 93 5 7 13 30 101
5 Southeast LA County 3 4 8 19 86 4 6 10 22 92
6 West San Fernando Valley 3 4 7 18 79 4 5 9 21 84
7 East San Fernando Valley 3 4 8 18 68 4 6 10 21 73
8 West San Gabriel Valley 3 4 7 18 77 4 5 9 21 82
9 East San Gabriel Valley 3 5 9 22 94 5 7 12 26 100
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 3 4 7 18 75 4 6 10 21 80
11 South San Gabriel Valley 4 5 9 20 83 5 8 12 24 89
12 South Central LA County 3 4 7 17 70 4 6 9 19 74
13 Santa Clarita Valley 3 4 7 18 74 4 5 9 20 80
15 San Gabriel Mountains 3 4 7 18 74 4 5 9 20 80
16 North Orange County 3 4 9 20 74 4 6 11 24 79
17 Central Orange County 3 4 9 22 85 4 6 11 25 92
18 North Coastal Orange County 3 5 9 22 76 5 7 12 26 83
19 Saddleback Valley 3 4 8 19 68 4 6 10 22 74
20 Central Orange County Coastal 3 5 9 22 76 5 7 12 26 83
21 Capistrano Valley 3 4 8 19 68 4 6 10 22 74
22 Norco/Corona 3 5 9 22 92 5 7 12 25 98
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
24 Perris Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
25 Lake Elsinore 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
26 Temecula Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
27 Anza Area 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
29 Banning Airport 4 7 14 36 156 6 9 17 41 166
30 Coachella Valley 3 5 10 24 105 5 7 12 28 112
31 East Riverside County 3 5 10 24 105 5 7 12 28 112
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 3 5 9 23 98 4 6 12 26 104
35 East San Bernardino Valley 4 5 10 26 112 5 7 13 30 120
36 Central San Bernardino Mountains 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
37 West San Bernardino Valley 3 5 9 23 98 4 6 12 26 104
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 4 5 10 26 112 5 7 13 30 120
Appendix B – PM2.5 Localized Significance Threshold Look-up Tables
B-2
Table B-1. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Construction (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 8 11 18 36 126
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 6 8 14 29 95
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 8 11 19 35 96
4 South Coastal LA County 8 10 18 39 120
5 Southeast LA County 7 10 15 30 103
6 West San Fernando Valley 6 8 13 26 96
7 East San Fernando Valley 8 10 15 28 86
8 West San Gabriel Valley 7 9 14 27 93
9 East San Gabriel Valley 8 11 17 35 116
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 7 9 15 28 93
11 South San Gabriel Valley 9 12 19 34 104
12 South Central LA County 7 10 15 27 86
13 Santa Clarita Valley 6 8 13 26 95
15 San Gabriel Mountains 6 8 13 26 95
16 North Orange County 6 9 15 34 95
17 Central Orange County 7 9 15 32 109
18 North Coastal Orange County 9 11 18 35 101
19 Saddleback Valley 8 11 16 30 90
20 Central Orange County Coastal 9 11 18 35 101
21 Capistrano Valley 8 11 16 30 90
22 Norco/Corona 8 11 18 34 113
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 8 10 16 31 105
24 Perris Valley 8 10 16 31 105
25 Lake Elsinore 8 10 16 31 105
26 Temecula Valley 8 10 16 31 105
27 Anza Area 8 10 16 31 105
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 8 10 16 31 105
29 Banning Airport 11 14 25 55 189
30 Coachella Valley 8 11 19 37 128
31 East Riverside County 8 11 19 37 128
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 9 12 21 45 170
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 9 12 21 45 170
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 8 10 17 35 120
35 East San Bernardino Valley 9 12 20 40 140
36 Central San Bernardino Mountains 9 12 21 45 170
37 West San Bernardino Valley 8 10 17 35 120
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 9 12 20 40 140
Appendix B – PM2.5 Localized Significance Threshold Look-up Tables
B-3
Table B-2. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Operation
SRA No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 1 2 3 6 25 2 2 3 7 27
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 3 6 20
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 1 2 3 5 18 1 2 3 6 20
4 South Coastal LA County 1 2 3 7 23 1 2 4 8 25
5 Southeast LA County 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
6 West San Fernando Valley 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 2 5 21
7 East San Fernando Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 5 18
8 West San Gabriel Valley 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 3 5 20
9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 2 3 6 23 2 2 3 7 25
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 3 5 20
11 South San Gabriel Valley 1 2 3 5 20 2 2 3 6 22
12 South Central LA County 1 1 2 4 17 1 2 3 5 18
13 Santa Clarita Valley 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 2 5 20
15 San Gabriel Mountains 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 2 5 20
16 North Orange County 1 1 3 5 18 1 2 3 6 19
17 Central Orange County 1 1 2 6 21 1 2 3 6 22
18 North Coastal Orange County 1 2 3 6 19 2 2 3 7 20
19 Saddleback Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 6 18
20 Central Orange County Coastal 1 2 3 6 19 2 2 3 7 20
21 Capistrano Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 6 18
22 Norco/Corona 1 2 3 6 23 2 2 3 6 24
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
24 Perris Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
25 Lake Elsinore 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
26 Temecula Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
27 Anza Area 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
29 Banning Airport 1 2 4 9 38 2 3 5 10 40
30 Coachella Valley 1 2 3 6 26 2 2 3 7 27
31 East Riverside County 1 2 3 6 26 2 2 3 7 27
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 6 24 1 2 3 7 25
35 East San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 7 27 2 2 4 8 29
36 Central San Bernardino Mountains 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
37 West San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 6 24 1 2 3 7 25
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 1 2 3 7 27 2 2 4 8 29
Appendix B – PM2.5 Localized Significance Threshold Look-up Tables
B-4
Table B-2. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Operation (Continued)
SRA No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 2 3 5 9 31
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 2 2 4 7 23
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 2 3 5 9 24
4 South Coastal LA County 2 3 5 10 29
5 Southeast LA County 2 3 4 8 25
6 West San Fernando Valley 2 2 3 7 23
7 East San Fernando Valley 2 3 4 7 21
8 West San Gabriel Valley 2 3 4 7 23
9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 3 5 9 28
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 2 3 4 7 23
11 South San Gabriel Valley 2 3 5 9 25
12 South Central LA County 2 3 4 7 21
13 Santa Clarita Valley 2 2 3 7 23
15 San Gabriel Mountains 2 2 3 7 23
16 North Orange County 2 3 4 8 23
17 Central Orange County 2 3 4 8 27
18 North Coastal Orange County 2 3 5 9 25
19 Saddleback Valley 2 3 4 8 22
20 Central Orange County Coastal 2 3 5 9 25
21 Capistrano Valley 2 3 4 8 22
22 Norco/Corona 2 3 5 9 28
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 3 4 8 26
24 Perris Valley 2 3 4 8 26
25 Lake Elsinore 2 3 4 8 26
26 Temecula Valley 2 3 4 8 26
27 Anza Area 2 3 4 8 26
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 2 3 4 8 26
29 Banning Airport 3 4 6 14 46
30 Coachella Valley 2 3 5 9 31
31 East Riverside County 2 3 5 9 31
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 11 41
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 11 41
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 9 29
35 East San Bernardino Valley 3 3 5 10 34
36 Central San Bernardino Mountains 2 3 5 11 41
37 West San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 9 29
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 3 3 5 10 34
C-1 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-1. 2006 – 2008 Thresholds for Construction and Operation with
Gradual Conversion of NOx to NO2
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function of
receptor distance (meters) from site boundary
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 74 74 82 106 168 108 106 110 126 179
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 103 104 121 156 245 147 143 156 186 262
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 91 93 107 139 218 131 128 139 165 233
4 South Coastal LA County 57 58 68 90 142 82 80 87 106 151
5 Southeast LA County 80 81 94 123 192 114 111 121 145 205
6 West San Fernando Valley 103 104 121 157 245 147 143 156 187 263
7 East San Fernando Valley 80 81 94 122 191 114 111 121 144 204
8 West San Gabriel Valley 69 69 81 104 164 98 95 104 124 175
9 East San Gabriel Valley 89 112 159 251 489 128 151 200 284 513
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 103 129 185 292 570 149 175 230 330 598
11 South San Gabriel Valley 83 84 96 123 193 121 118 126 147 206
12 South Central LA County 46 46 54 70 109 65 64 69 82 117
13 Santa Clarita Valley 114 115 133 173 273 163 159 172 204 291
15 San Gabriel Mountains 114 115 133 173 273 163 159 172 204 291
16 North Orange County 103 104 121 159 252 147 143 156 186 269
17 Central Orange County 81 83 98 123 192 115 114 125 148 205
18 North Coastal Orange County 92 93 108 140 219 131 128 139 165 235
19 Saddleback Valley 91 93 108 140 218 131 127 139 165 233
20 Central Orange County Coastal 92 93 108 140 219 131 128 139 165 235
21 Capistrano Valley 91 93 108 140 218 131 127 139 165 233
22 Norco/Corona 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 118 148 212 335 652 170 200 264 379 684
24 Perris Valley 118 148 212 335 652 170 200 264 379 684
25 Lake Elsinore 162 203 292 460 896 234 275 363 521 941
26 Temecula Valley 162 203 292 460 896 234 275 363 521 941
27 Anza Area 162 203 292 460 896 234 275 363 521 941
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 162 203 292 460 896 234 275 363 521 941
29 Banning Airport 103 131 189 299 585 149 176 234 340 614
30 Coachella Valley 132 166 238 376 733 191 225 296 425 769
31 East Riverside County 132 166 238 376 733 191 225 296 425 769
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
35 East San Bernardino Valley 118 148 211 334 651 170 200 263 377 683
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 118 148 211 334 651 170 200 263 377 683
C-2 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-1. 2006 – 2008 Thresholds for Construction and Operation with
Gradual Conversion of NOx to NO2 (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function of
receptor distance (meters) from site boundary
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 161 157 165 173 212
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 221 212 226 250 312
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 197 189 202 222 277
4 South Coastal LA County 123 118 126 141 179
5 Southeast LA County 172 165 176 194 244
6 West San Fernando Valley 221 212 226 250 313
7 East San Fernando Valley 172 165 176 194 242
8 West San Gabriel Valley 148 141 151 166 208
9 East San Gabriel Valley 203 227 286 368 584
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 236 265 330 426 681
11 South San Gabriel Valley 183 176 184 202 245
12 South Central LA County 98 94 101 111 139
13 Santa Clarita Valley 246 236 251 275 345
15 San Gabriel Mountains 246 236 251 275 345
16 North Orange County 221 212 226 249 317
17 Central Orange County 183 167 180 202 245
18 North Coastal Orange County 197 190 202 223 278
19 Saddleback Valley 197 189 201 222 278
20 Central Orange County Coastal 197 190 202 223 278
21 Capistrano Valley 197 189 201 222 278
22 Norco/Corona 270 302 378 486 778
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 270 302 378 488 780
24 Perris Valley 270 302 378 488 780
25 Lake Elsinore 371 416 520 672 1,072
26 Temecula Valley 371 416 520 672 1,072
27 Anza Area 371 416 520 672 1,072
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 371 416 520 672 1,072
29 Banning Airport 236 265 333 434 698
30 Coachella Valley 304 340 425 547 875
31 East Riverside County 304 340 425 547 875
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 270 303 378 486 778
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 270 303 378 486 778
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 270 302 378 486 778
35 East San Bernardino Valley 270 302 378 486 778
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 270 303 378 486 778
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 270 302 378 486 778
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 270 302 378 486 778
C-3 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-2. 2006 – 2008 CO Emission Thresholds for Construction and Operation
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function of
receptor distance (meters) from site boundary
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 680 882 1,259 2,406 7,911 1,048 1,368 1,799 3,016 8,637
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 562 833 1,233 2,367 7,724 827 1,213 1,695 2,961 8,446
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 664 785 1,156 2,228 7,269 967 1,158 1,597 2,783 7,950
4 South Coastal LA County 585 789 1,180 2,296 7,558 842 1,158 1,611 2,869 8,253
5 Southeast LA County 571 735 1,088 2,104 6,854 861 1,082 1,496 2,625 7,500
6 West San Fernando Valley 426 652 1,089 2,096 6,815 644 903 1,497 2,629 7,460
7 East San Fernando Valley 498 732 1,158 2,227 7,267 786 1,068 1,594 2,786 7,947
8 West San Gabriel Valley 535 783 1,158 2,229 7,270 812 1,125 1,594 2,785 7,957
9 East San Gabriel Valley 623 945 1,914 4,803 20,721 953 1,344 2,445 5,658 22,093
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 612 911 1,741 4,345 18,991 885 1,358 2,298 5,097 20,256
11 South San Gabriel Valley 673 760 1,113 2,110 6,884 1,031 1,143 1,554 2,660 7,530
12 South Central LA County 231 342 632 1,545 5,452 346 515 841 1,817 5,962
13 Santa Clarita Valley 590 879 1,294 2,500 8,174 877 1,256 1,787 3,108 8,933
15 San Gabriel Mountains 590 879 1,294 2,500 8,174 877 1,256 1,787 3,108 8,933
16 North Orange County 522 685 1,014 1,975 6,531 762 1,010 1,395 2,444 7,121
17 Central Orange County 485 753 1,128 2,109 6,841 715 1,041 1,547 2,685 7,493
18 North Coastal Orange County 647 738 1,090 2,096 6,841 962 1,089 1,506 2,615 7,493
19 Saddleback Valley 696 833 1,234 2,376 7,724 993 1,227 1,696 2,965 8,454
20 Central Orange County Coastal 647 738 1,090 2,096 6,841 962 1,089 1,506 2,615 7,493
21 Capistrano Valley 696 833 1,234 2,376 7,724 993 1,227 1,696 2,965 8,454
22 Norco/Corona 674 999 1,853 4,352 17,637 1,007 1,474 2,461 5,183 18,934
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 602 887 1,746 4,359 17,640 883 1,262 2,232 5,136 18,947
24 Perris Valley 602 887 1,746 4,359 17,640 883 1,262 2,232 5,136 18,947
25 Lake Elsinore 750 1,105 2,176 5,501 23,866 1,100 1,572 2,781 6,399 25,412
26 Temecula Valley 750 1,105 2,176 5,501 23,866 1,100 1,572 2,781 6,399 25,412
27 Anza Area 750 1,105 2,176 5,501 23,866 1,100 1,572 2,781 6,399 25,412
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 750 1,105 2,176 5,501 23,866 1,100 1,572 2,781 6,399 25,412
29 Banning Airport 1,000 1,420 2,623 6,154 25,057 1,541 2,049 3,458 7,395 26,890
30 Coachella Valley 878 1,387 2,565 6,021 24,417 1,299 1,931 3,409 7,174 26,212
31 East Riverside County 878 1,387 2,565 6,021 24,417 1,299 1,931 3,409 7,174 26,212
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 863 1,328 2,423 5,691 23,065 1,232 1,877 3,218 6,778 24,768
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 863 1,328 2,423 5,691 23,065 1,232 1,877 3,218 6,778 24,768
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 667 1,059 2,141 5,356 21,708 972 1,463 2,738 6,346 23,304
35 East San Bernardino Valley 775 1,205 2,279 5,351 21,703 1,174 1,712 3,029 6,375 23,294
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 863 1,328 2,423 5,691 23,065 1,232 1,877 3,218 6,778 24,768
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 667 1,059 2,141 5,356 21,708 972 1,463 2,738 6,346 23,304
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 775 1,205 2,279 5,351 21,703 1,174 1,712 3,029 6,375 23,294
C-4 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-2. 2006 – 2008 CO Emission Thresholds for Construction and Operation (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function of
receptor distance (meters) from site boundary
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 1,861 2,331 3,030 4,547 10,666
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 1,531 1,985 2,762 4,383 10,467
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 1,796 1,984 2,608 4,119 9,852
4 South Coastal LA County 1,530 1,982 2,613 4,184 10,198
5 Southeast LA County 1,480 1,855 2,437 3,867 9,312
6 West San Fernando Valley 1,158 1,537 2,438 3,871 9,271
7 East San Fernando Valley 1,434 1,872 2,599 4,119 9,848
8 West San Gabriel Valley 1,540 1,921 2,599 4,119 9,857
9 East San Gabriel Valley 1,733 2,299 3,680 7,600 25,558
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 1,566 2,158 3,691 7,011 23,450
11 South San Gabriel Valley 1,814 1,984 2,549 4,024 9,342
12 South Central LA County 630 879 1,368 2,514 7,389
13 Santa Clarita Valley 1,644 2,095 2,922 4,608 11,049
15 San Gabriel Mountains 1,644 2,095 2,922 4,608 11,049
16 North Orange County 1,311 1,731 2,274 3,605 8,754
17 Central Orange County 1,253 1,734 2,498 4,018 9,336
18 North Coastal Orange County 1,711 1,864 2,455 3,888 9,272
19 Saddleback Valley 1,804 2,102 2,763 4,387 10,507
20 Central Orange County Coastal 1,711 1,864 2,455 3,888 9,272
21 Capistrano Valley 1,804 2,102 2,763 4,387 10,507
22 Norco/Corona 1,700 2,470 3,964 7,350 22,490
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1,577 2,178 3,437 6,860 22,530
24 Perris Valley 1,577 2,178 3,437 6,860 22,530
25 Lake Elsinore 1,965 2,714 4,282 8,547 29,256
26 Temecula Valley 1,965 2,714 4,282 8,547 29,256
27 Anza Area 1,965 2,714 4,282 8,547 29,256
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 1,965 2,714 4,282 8,547 29,256
29 Banning Airport 2,817 3,575 5,534 10,383 31,903
30 Coachella Valley 2,292 3,237 5,331 10,178 31,115
31 East Riverside County 2,292 3,237 5,331 10,178 31,115
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 2,193 2,978 5,188 9,611 29,410
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 2,193 2,978 5,188 9,611 29,410
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1,746 2,396 4,142 8,532 27,680
35 East San Bernardino Valley 2,075 2,890 4,765 9,044 27,650
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 2,193 2,978 5,188 9,611 29,410
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 1,746 2,396 4,142 8,532 27,680
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 2,075 2,890 4,765 9,044 27,650
C-5 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-3. PM10 Emission Thresholds for Operation
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 mg/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 2 4 8 17 43 2 6 11 20 46
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 1 3 7 14 36 2 5 9 16 37
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 1 4 7 14 34 2 6 9 16 36
4 South Coastal LA County 1 3 7 15 38 2 5 9 17 40
5 Southeast LA County 1 3 8 16 42 2 5 10 18 44
6 West San Fernando Valley 1 3 7 15 38 2 5 8 16 39
7 East San Fernando Valley 1 3 7 13 33 2 5 9 15 35
8 West San Gabriel Valley 1 3 7 14 37 2 5 9 16 39
9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 4 9 19 48 2 6 11 20 50
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 1 3 7 14 36 2 5 8 16 38
11 South San Gabriel Valley 1 4 7 15 37 2 6 9 17 39
12 South Central LA County 1 3 7 13 34 2 5 9 15 36
13 Santa Clarita Valley 1 3 6 13 32 2 5 8 15 34
15 San Gabriel Mountains 1 3 6 13 32 2 5 8 15 34
16 North Orange County 1 3 6 13 33 2 4 8 15 35
17 Central Orange County 1 3 7 15 38 2 5 9 17 40
18 North Coastal Orange County 1 4 7 13 33 2 6 9 15 35
19 Saddleback Valley 1 3 6 12 29 2 5 8 14 31
20 Central Orange County Coastal 1 4 7 13 33 2 6 9 15 35
21 Capistrano Valley 1 3 6 12 29 2 5 8 14 31
22 Norco/Corona 1 3 8 18 48 2 5 10 20 50
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
24 Perris Valley 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
25 Lake Elsinore 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
26 Temecula Valley 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
27 Anza Area 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
29 Banning Airport 2 5 14 31 84 3 8 18 38 98
30 Coachella Valley 1 3 9 20 52 2 6 16 36 97
31 East Riverside County 1 3 9 20 52 2 6 16 36 97
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 2 4 11 25 68 2 5 9 16 39
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 2 4 11 25 68 2 5 9 16 39
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 3 8 18 47 2 6 10 20 50
35 East San Bernardino Valley 1 3 9 20 53 2 5 11 22 56
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 2 4 11 25 68 2 5 9 16 39
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 1 3 8 18 47 2 6 10 20 50
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 1 3 9 20 53 2 5 11 22 56
C-6 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-3. PM10 Emission Thresholds for Operation (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 mg/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 acres
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 4 12 17 26 53
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 3 10 13 21 42
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 4 12 15 21 41
4 South Coastal LA County 4 10 14 22 46
5 Southeast LA County 4 10 15 23 49
6 West San Fernando Valley 3 9 13 21 44
7 East San Fernando Valley 4 11 14 21 41
8 West San Gabriel Valley 3 9 13 21 44
9 East San Gabriel Valley 4 11 16 26 55
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 3 9 13 20 42
11 South San Gabriel Valley 4 11 15 22 45
12 South Central LA County 4 10 14 20 40
13 Santa Clarita Valley 3 10 13 19 39
15 San Gabriel Mountains 3 10 13 19 39
16 North Orange County 3 9 12 19 40
17 Central Orange County 3 10 14 22 45
18 North Coastal Orange County 4 11 14 21 41
19 Saddleback Valley 3 9 12 18 36
20 Central Orange County Coastal 4 11 14 21 41
21 Capistrano Valley 3 9 12 18 36
22 Norco/Corona 3 9 14 25 55
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 4 10 14 23 50
24 Perris Valley 4 10 14 23 50
25 Lake Elsinore 4 10 14 23 50
26 Temecula Valley 4 10 14 23 50
27 Anza Area 4 10 14 23 50
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 4 10 14 23 50
29 Banning Airport 6 16 25 44 98
30 Coachella Valley 4 11 16 27 60
31 East Riverside County 4 11 16 27 60
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 4 12 20 34 78
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 4 12 20 34 78
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 4 11 16 26 55
35 East San Bernardino Valley 4 11 16 28 62
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 4 12 20 34 78
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 4 11 16 26 55
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 4 11 16 28 62
C-7 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-4. PM10 Emission Thresholds for Construction
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 mg/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 5 15 33 70 179 8 25 43 80 190
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 4 12 27 57 146 6 19 34 64 154
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 5 14 28 56 140 8 23 37 65 148
4 South Coastal LA County 4 13 29 61 158 7 21 37 70 167
5 Southeast LA County 4 13 30 66 173 7 21 39 74 182
6 West San Fernando Valley 4 11 27 59 155 6 17 33 66 162
7 East San Fernando Valley 4 13 26 54 136 7 21 34 62 144
8 West San Gabriel Valley 4 11 27 58 152 6 19 34 66 160
9 East San Gabriel Valley 5 14 34 75 199 7 22 42 84 207
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 4 11 26 57 148 6 18 33 64 156
11 South San Gabriel Valley 5 13 29 60 153 7 22 37 68 162
12 South Central LA County 4 12 26 54 139 7 20 34 62 146
13 Santa Clarita Valley 4 12 25 51 131 6 19 32 59 139
15 San Gabriel Mountains 4 12 25 51 131 6 19 32 59 139
16 North Orange County 4 10 24 53 137 6 17 31 60 145
17 Central Orange County 4 12 28 60 158 6 19 35 68 166
18 North Coastal Orange County 4 13 27 54 135 7 21 35 62 144
19 Saddleback Valley 4 11 24 48 121 6 18 30 55 129
20 Central Orange County Coastal 4 13 27 54 135 7 21 35 62 144
21 Capistrano Valley 4 11 24 48 121 6 18 30 55 129
22 Norco/Corona 4 11 32 73 198 6 18 39 81 206
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
24 Perris Valley 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
25 Lake Elsinore 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
26 Temecula Valley 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
27 Anza Area 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
29 Banning Airport 6 19 55 129 348 10 32 73 157 407
30 Coachella Valley 4 13 35 80 214 7 22 44 89 223
31 East Riverside County 4 13 35 80 214 7 22 44 89 223
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5 14 44 103 280 6 19 34 66 160
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 5 14 44 103 280 6 19 34 66 160
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 4 13 33 74 196 7 22 42 83 205
35 East San Bernardino Valley 4 12 36 82 220 7 21 44 90 230
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 5 14 44 103 280 6 19 34 66 160
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 4 13 33 74 196 7 22 42 83 205
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 4 12 36 82 220 7 21 44 90 230
C-8 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-4. PM10 Emission Thresholds for Construction (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 mg/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 acres
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 16 50 69 107 219
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 13 40 55 84 174
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 15 46 60 88 171
4 South Coastal LA County 14 42 58 92 191
5 Southeast LA County 14 42 60 95 203
6 West San Fernando Valley 11 35 51 84 181
7 East San Fernando Valley 14 42 56 84 167
8 West San Gabriel Valley 12 37 53 85 180
9 East San Gabriel Valley 14 43 63 105 229
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 12 36 51 82 175
11 South San Gabriel Valley 14 43 59 91 186
12 South Central LA County 13 41 55 83 166
13 Santa Clarita Valley 12 38 52 79 161
15 San Gabriel Mountains 12 38 52 79 161
16 North Orange County 11 34 49 78 165
17 Central Orange County 13 39 55 88 188
18 North Coastal Orange County 14 44 57 85 167
19 Saddleback Valley 12 37 49 74 148
20 Central Orange County Coastal 14 44 57 85 167
21 Capistrano Valley 12 37 49 74 148
22 Norco/Corona 12 37 58 101 228
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 13 40 59 96 207
24 Perris Valley 13 40 59 96 207
25 Lake Elsinore 13 40 59 96 207
26 Temecula Valley 13 40 59 96 207
27 Anza Area 13 40 59 96 207
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 13 40 59 96 207
29 Banning Airport 21 67 104 180 405
30 Coachella Valley 14 44 67 112 248
31 East Riverside County 14 44 67 112 248
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 16 50 80 140 322
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 16 50 80 140 322
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 14 44 65 106 229
35 East San Bernardino Valley 14 42 66 113 255
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 16 50 80 140 322
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 14 44 65 106 229
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 14 42 66 113 255
C-9 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-5. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Operation
SRA No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 1 2 3 6 25 2 2 3 7 27
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 3 6 20
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 1 2 3 5 18 1 2 3 6 20
4 South Coastal LA County 1 2 3 7 23 1 2 4 8 25
5 Southeast LA County 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
6 West San Fernando Valley 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 2 5 21
7 East San Fernando Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 5 18
8 West San Gabriel Valley 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 3 5 20
9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 2 3 6 23 2 2 3 7 25
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 3 5 20
11 South San Gabriel Valley 1 2 3 5 20 2 2 3 6 22
12 South Central LA County 1 1 2 4 17 1 2 3 5 18
13 Santa Clarita Valley 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 2 5 20
15 San Gabriel Mountains 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 2 5 20
16 North Orange County 1 1 3 5 18 1 2 3 6 19
17 Central Orange County 1 1 2 6 21 1 2 3 6 22
18 North Coastal Orange County 1 2 3 6 19 2 2 3 7 20
19 Saddleback Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 6 18
20 Central Orange County Coastal 1 2 3 6 19 2 2 3 7 20
21 Capistrano Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 6 18
22 Norco/Corona 1 2 3 6 23 2 2 3 6 24
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
24 Perris Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
25 Lake Elsinore 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
26 Temecula Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
27 Anza Area 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
29 Banning Airport 1 2 4 9 38 2 3 5 10 40
30 Coachella Valley 1 2 3 6 26 2 2 3 7 27
31 East Riverside County 1 2 3 6 26 2 2 3 7 27
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 6 24 1 2 3 7 25
35 East San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 7 27 2 2 4 8 29
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 1 2 3 6 24 1 2 3 7 25
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 1 2 3 7 27 2 2 4 8 29
C-10 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-5. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Operation (Continued)
SRA No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 2 3 5 9 31
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 2 2 4 7 23
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 2 3 5 9 24
4 South Coastal LA County 2 3 5 10 29
5 Southeast LA County 2 3 4 8 25
6 West San Fernando Valley 2 2 3 7 23
7 East San Fernando Valley 2 3 4 7 21
8 West San Gabriel Valley 2 3 4 7 23
9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 3 5 9 28
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 2 3 4 7 23
11 South San Gabriel Valley 2 3 5 9 25
12 South Central LA County 2 3 4 7 21
13 Santa Clarita Valley 2 2 3 7 23
15 San Gabriel Mountains 2 2 3 7 23
16 North Orange County 2 3 4 8 23
17 Central Orange County 2 3 4 8 27
18 North Coastal Orange County 2 3 5 9 25
19 Saddleback Valley 2 3 4 8 22
20 Central Orange County Coastal 2 3 5 9 25
21 Capistrano Valley 2 3 4 8 22
22 Norco/Corona 2 3 5 9 28
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 3 4 8 26
24 Perris Valley 2 3 4 8 26
25 Lake Elsinore 2 3 4 8 26
26 Temecula Valley 2 3 4 8 26
27 Anza Area 2 3 4 8 26
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 2 3 4 8 26
29 Banning Airport 3 4 6 14 46
30 Coachella Valley 2 3 5 9 31
31 East Riverside County 2 3 5 9 31
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 11 41
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 11 41
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 9 29
35 East San Bernardino Valley 3 3 5 10 34
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 2 3 5 11 41
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 2 3 5 9 29
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 3 3 5 10 34
C-11 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-6. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Construction
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 3 5 10 24 102 5 7 12 28 110
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 3 4 8 18 77 4 5 10 21 82
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 3 5 9 21 75 5 7 12 25 81
4 South Coastal LA County 3 5 10 26 93 5 7 13 30 101
5 Southeast LA County 3 4 8 19 86 4 6 10 22 92
6 West San Fernando Valley 3 4 7 18 79 4 5 9 21 84
7 East San Fernando Valley 3 4 8 18 68 4 6 10 21 73
8 West San Gabriel Valley 3 4 7 18 77 4 5 9 21 82
9 East San Gabriel Valley 3 5 9 22 94 5 7 12 26 100
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 3 4 7 18 75 4 6 10 21 80
11 South San Gabriel Valley 4 5 9 20 83 5 8 12 24 89
12 South Central LA County 3 4 7 17 70 4 6 9 19 74
13 Santa Clarita Valley 3 4 7 18 74 4 5 9 20 80
15 San Gabriel Mountains 3 4 7 18 74 4 5 9 20 80
16 North Orange County 3 4 9 20 74 4 6 11 24 79
17 Central Orange County 3 4 9 22 85 4 6 11 25 92
18 North Coastal Orange County 3 5 9 22 76 5 7 12 26 83
19 Saddleback Valley 3 4 8 19 68 4 6 10 22 74
20 Central Orange County Coastal 3 5 9 22 76 5 7 12 26 83
21 Capistrano Valley 3 4 8 19 68 4 6 10 22 74
22 Norco/Corona 3 5 9 22 92 5 7 12 25 98
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
24 Perris Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
25 Lake Elsinore 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
26 Temecula Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
27 Anza Area 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
29 Banning Airport 4 7 14 36 156 6 9 17 41 166
30 Coachella Valley 3 5 10 24 105 5 7 12 28 112
31 East Riverside County 3 5 10 24 105 5 7 12 28 112
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 3 5 9 23 98 4 6 12 26 104
35 East San Bernardino Valley 4 5 10 26 112 5 7 13 30 120
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 3 5 9 23 98 4 6 12 26 104
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 4 5 10 26 112 5 7 13 30 120
C-12 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-6. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Construction (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 8 11 18 36 126
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 6 8 14 29 95
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 8 11 19 35 96
4 South Coastal LA County 8 10 18 39 120
5 Southeast LA County 7 10 15 30 103
6 West San Fernando Valley 6 8 13 26 96
7 East San Fernando Valley 8 10 15 28 86
8 West San Gabriel Valley 7 9 14 27 93
9 East San Gabriel Valley 8 11 17 35 116
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 7 9 15 28 93
11 South San Gabriel Valley 9 12 19 34 104
12 South Central LA County 7 10 15 27 86
13 Santa Clarita Valley 6 8 13 26 95
15 San Gabriel Mountains 6 8 13 26 95
16 North Orange County 6 9 15 34 95
17 Central Orange County 7 9 15 32 109
18 North Coastal Orange County 9 11 18 35 101
19 Saddleback Valley 8 11 16 30 90
20 Central Orange County Coastal 9 11 18 35 101
21 Capistrano Valley 8 11 16 30 90
22 Norco/Corona 8 11 18 34 113
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 8 10 16 31 105
24 Perris Valley 8 10 16 31 105
25 Lake Elsinore 8 10 16 31 105
26 Temecula Valley 8 10 16 31 105
27 Anza Area 8 10 16 31 105
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 8 10 16 31 105
29 Banning Airport 11 14 25 55 189
30 Coachella Valley 8 11 19 37 128
31 East Riverside County 8 11 19 37 128
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 9 12 21 45 170
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 9 12 21 45 170
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 8 10 17 35 120
35 East San Bernardino Valley 9 12 20 40 140
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 9 12 21 45 170
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 8 10 17 35 120
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 9 12 20 40 140
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
4610. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
4610.1. DEFINITIONS.
4610.2. SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS.
4610.3. NOISE LIMITS.
4610. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit unnecessary, excessive,
and annoying noises from all sources subject to its police power. At certain levels, noises are
detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizenry, and, in the public interests, such noise
levels shall be systematically proscribed.
4610.1. DEFINITIONS.
Unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, the words and phrases used in this
chapter are defined as follows:
(a)
A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level. "A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level" shall
mean the sound pressure level as measured with a sound meter using the A-
weighting network. The standard notation is dBA.
(b)
Cyclically Varying Sound. "Cyclically Varying Sound" shall mean and include
steady or non-steady sound which varies in amplitude such that the same
sound pressure level is obtained repetitively at reasonable uniform intervals
of time.
(c)
Day. "Day" shall mean the time period from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
(d)
Decibel. "Decibel" shall mean a unit for measuring the volume of a sound,
equal to the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure of a standard sound
(.0002 microbars). The standard notation is dB.
(e)
Emergency Work. "Emergency Work" shall mean work made necessary to
restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, or work
required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger
or work by public or private utilities to restore utility service.
(f)
Impulsive Noise. "Impulsive Noise" shall mean and include any noise which is
composed of momentary noises that are repeated at sufficiently slow rates,
such that a sound level meter set at "fast" meter characteristic will show
changes in sound pressure level greater than 10 dBA.
(g)
Night. "Night" shall mean the time period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
(h)
Person. "Person" shall mean a person, firm, association, copartnership, joint
venture, corporation, or any entity, public or private in nature.
(i)
Property Boundary. "Property Boundary" shall mean an imaginary line at the
ground surface, which separates the real property owned by one person from
that owned by another person and its vertical extension. This shall include
condominium units, with the "property boundary" being the wall, floor, or
ceiling separating the adjoining condominium units.
(j)
Pure Tone. "Pure Tone" shall mean a sound wave whose instantaneous
sound pressure varies essentially as a simple sinesoidal function of time.
(k)
Sound. "Sound" shall mean the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing.
For the purpose of this ordinance, the term "sound" and "noise" shall be used
synonymously.
(l)
Sound Amplifying Equipment. "Sound Amplifying Equipment" shall mean any
machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music, or any
other sound, but shall not include:
1.
Warning devices or emergency vehicles.
2.
Horns, burglar and fire alarms, or other warning devices expressly
authorized by law.
(m)
Sound Level. "Sound Level" shall mean the decibel level of a sound
measured by use of the "A" weight scale, and with slow response by a sound
level meter.
(n)
Sound Level Meter. "Sound Level Meter" shall mean a measurement
instrument containing a microphone, or amplifier, an output meter and "A"
frequency weighting networks for the measurement of sound levels, which
satisfies the pertinent requirements in American Specifications for Sound
Level Meters S-4-971, or the most recent revision thereof.
(o)
Steady Sound. "Steady Sound" shall mean sound for which the sound
pressure level remains essentially constant during the period of observation.
It does not vary more than six (6) dBA when measured with the "slow" meter
characteristics of a sound level meter.
4610.2. SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS.
Any sound level measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance
shall be measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighting and response as indicated
in Section 4610.1 (n) of this Article.
4610.3. NOISE LIMITS.
(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person within the City of Arcadia to produce or cause or
allow to be produced sound or noise which is amplified by the use of sound
amplifying equipment and which amplified noise or sound is received on property
occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the following
levels, except as expressly provided otherwise or exempted hereinafter:
Region Day 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Night 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Residential
Zone
55 dBA 50 dBA
Commercial
Zone
65 dBA 60 dBA
Industrial Zone 70 dBA 70 dBA
At the boundary line between two of the above zones the noise level of the quieter
zone shall be used.
(b)
Corrections to Noise Limits. The numerical limits given in Section 4610.3(a) shall be
adjusted by the following corrections, where appropriate:
Noise Condition Correction (in dB)
1. Impulsive sounds, pure tone or
sounds with a cyclically varying
amplitude
-5
(The following corrections apply to
day only)
2. Noise occurring more than 5 but less
than 15 minutes per hour
+ 5
3. Noise occurring more than 1 but less
than 5 minutes per hour
+10
4. Noise occurring less than 1 minute
per hour
+15
(c)
It shall be unlawful for any person to produce or cause or allow to be produced sound
or noise from air-conditioning equipment, pumps, fans or similar machinery which is
received on residentially zoned property occupied by another person in excess of 55
dBA, provided, however, that if such machinery was installed prior to December 1,
1970, the noise level shall not be in excess of 60 dBA.
(d)
Exemption: Noise caused by "Emergency Work" as herein defined and from
mechanical devices, apparatus, or equipment used, related to, or connected with
such Emergency Work is exempt from the limits prescribed by this Chapter.
(Amended by Ord. 1567 adopted 7-20-76; amended by Ord. 2302 adopted 10-2-12)
Urban Water Management Plan
2010 Update
June 2011
City of Arcadia
Public Works Services Department P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
City of Arcadia
CITY OF ARCADIA
URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2010 UPDATE
_____________________________________________________________________
WATER UTILITY INFORMATION
City of Arcadia
Public Works Services Department
P. O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
CONTACT INFORMATION
Ken Herman
City of Arcadia
Deputy Public Works Service Director
(626) 256-6654
(626) 359-7028 (fax)
kherman@ci.arcadia.ca.us
The Water supplier is a: Municipality
Utility services provided by the water supplier include: Water
This Agency is not a Bureau of Reclamation Contractor.
This Agency is not a State Water Project Contractor.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................. 1-1
PLAN PREPARATION ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 COORDINATION .................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.1 COORDINATION WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES ................. 1-3
1.2.2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .................................................. 1-4
1.2.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................ 1-4
1.3 PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION .................. 1-5
1.3.1 SUBMITTAL OF AMENDED PLAN .............................................. 1-5
1.3.2 PLAN ADOPTION ........................................................................ 1-6
1.3.3 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................... 1-6
1.3.4 PLAN SUBMITTAL ....................................................................... 1-6
1.3.5 PUBLIC REVIEW ......................................................................... 1-7
1.3.6 PLAN DISTRIBUTION (RELIABILITY AND SUPPLY AND
DEMAND) .................................................................................... 1-7
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................. 2-1
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 CITY OF ARCADIA FORMATION AND LOCATION .................... 2-1
2.2 SERVICE AREA PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ......................................... 2-2
2.2.1 SERVICE AREA ........................................................................... 2-2
2.2.2 CLIMATE ..................................................................................... 2-3
2.3 SERVICE AREA POPULATION ............................................................. 2-3
2.3.1 POPULATION .............................................................................. 2-3
2.3.2 OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS .......................................... 2-4
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................. 3-1
SYSTEM DEMANDS .................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 WATER DEMANDS ................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 PAST, CURRENT, AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND .......... 3-1
3.1.2 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND FOR LOWER INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS ............................................................................ 3-2
3.2 BASELINES AND TARGETS ................................................................. 3-2
3.2.1 BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE ............................ 3-3
3.2.2 URBAN WATER USE TARGET ................................................... 3-6
3.2.3 COMPLIANCE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE ...................... 3-8
3.2.4 MINIMUM WATER USE REDUCTION REQUIREMENT ............. 3-8
3.3 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS ...................................................... 3-10
3.4 WATER USE REDUCTION PLAN ........................................................ 3-10
3.5 PROGRESS REPORT .......................................................................... 3-11
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................. 4-1
SYSTEM SUPPLIES .................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 WATER SOURCES ................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................... 4-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
ii
4.2.1 RAYMOND BASIN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ............... 4-2
4.2.2 MAIN BASIN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ........................ 4-4
4.2.3 DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER BASIN ........................... 4-12
4.2.4 LOCATION, AMOUNT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
GROUNDWATER PUMPED FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS ..... 4-22
4.2.5 LOCATION, AMOUNT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
GROUNDWATER PROJECTED TO BE PUMPED .................... 4-23
4.3 TRANSFER OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................ 4-25
4.3.1 SHORT-TERM ........................................................................... 4-25
4.3.2 LONG-TERM .............................................................................. 4-26
4.4 DESALINATED WATER OPPORTUNITIES ......................................... 4-26
4.5 RECYCLED WATER OPPORTUNITIES .............................................. 4-27
4.5.1 RECYCLED WATER AND POTENTIAL FOR USE ................... 4-27
4.5.2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND
DISPOSAL ................................................................................. 4-27
4.5.3 CURRENT RECYCLED WATER USE ....................................... 4-29
4.5.4 POTENTIAL USES OF RECYCLED WATER ............................ 4-29
4.5.5 PROJECTED RECYCLED WATER USE ................................... 4-30
4.5.6 ENCOURAGING USE OF RECYCLED WATER ....................... 4-30
4.5.7 PLAN FOR OPTIMIZING USE OF RECYCLED WATER ........... 4-31
4.6 FUTURE WATER PROJECTS ............................................................. 4-32
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................. 5-1
WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY AND WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY
PLANNING ................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY ............................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 WATER MANAGEMENT TOOLS ................................................ 5-1
5.1.2 SUPPLY INCONSISTENCY ........................................................ 5-1
5.2 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING ............................... 5-2
5.2.1 CATASTROPIC INTERRUPTION OF WATER SUPPLIES ......... 5-2
5.2.2 MANDATORY PROHIBITIONS .................................................... 5-5
5.2.3 CONSUMPTION REDUCTION METHODS ................................. 5-5
5.2.4 PENALTIES OR CHARGES FOR EXCESSIVE USE .................. 5-7
5.2.5 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE IMPACTS ................................ 5-8
5.2.6 DRAFT WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY
RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE ................................................. 5-8
5.3 WATER QUALITY .................................................................................. 5-9
5.3.1 GROUNDWATER FROM MAIN BASIN ....................................... 5-9
5.3.2 GROUNDWATER FROM RAYMOND BASIN .............................. 5-9
5.3.3 IMPORTED WATER .................................................................. 5-10
5.4 DROUGHT PLANNING ........................................................................ 5-10
5.4.1 RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY AND VULNERABILITY TO
SEASONAL OR CLIMATIC SHORTAGE ................................... 5-10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
iii
5.4.2 STAGES OF ACTION IN RESPONSE TO WATER SUPPLY
SHORTAGES ............................................................................. 5-11
5.4.3 THREE YEAR MINIMUM WATER SUPPLY .............................. 5-12
5.4.4 WATER USE REDUCTION MEASURING MECHANISM .......... 5-12
5.4.5 ASSESSMENT OF THE RELIABILITY OF WATER
SERVICE ................................................................................... 5-13
CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................. 6-1
DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES ...................................................................... 6-1
6.1 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES BEING IMPLEMENTED .......... 6-1
6.1.1 WATER SURVEY PROGRAMS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS [10631(F)(1)(A)] .................................................... 6-2
6.1.2 RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING RETROFIT [10631(F)(1)(B)] ............ 6-2
6.1.3 SYSTEM WATER AUDITS, LEAK DETECTION, AND
REPAIR [10631(F)(1)(C)] ............................................................. 6-3
6.1.4 METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW
CONNECTIONS AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING
CONNECTIONS [10631(F)(1)(D)] ................................................ 6-4
6.1.5 LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND
INCENTIVES [10631(F)(1)(E)] ..................................................... 6-5
6.1.6 HIGH-EFFICIENCY WASHING MACHINE REBATE
PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(F)] ...................................................... 6-6
6.1.7 PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(G)] ............. 6-7
6.1.8 SCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(H)] ............... 6-8
6.1.9 CONSERVATION PROGRAMS FOR COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTS
[10631(F)(1)(I)] ........................................................................... 6-10
6.1.10 CONSERVATION PRICING [10631(F)(1)(K)] ............................ 6-11
6.1.11 WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR
[10631(F)(1)(L)] .......................................................................... 6-12
6.1.12 WATER WASTE PROHIBITION [10631(F)(1)(M)] ..................... 6-13
6.1.13 RESIDENTIAL ULTRA-LOW FLUSH TOILET
REPLACEMENT PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(N)] ........................ 6-14
6.2 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES NOT IMPLEMENTED ........... 6-14
6.2.1 WHOLESALE AGENCY PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(J)] ............. 6-15
CHAPTER 7 ................................................................................................................. 7-1
COMPLETED URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CHECKLIST .......................... 7-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Historical Baldwin Park Key Well Elevation
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Coordination with Appropriate Agencies
Table 2 Annual Rainfall in the San Gabriel Valley
Table 3 Climate
Table 4 Current and Projected Population
Table 5 Past, Current, and Projected Water Deliveries
Table 6 Historical and Projected Water Demand
Table 7 Calculation of Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use
Table 8 Projected Water Demands Based on Urban Water Use Targets
Table 9 Historical and Projected Water Supply
Table 10 Projected Water Supplies – Single and Multiple Dry Years
Table 11 Supply Reliability – Historical Conditions
Table 12 Supply Reliability – Three-Year Estimated Minimum
Table 13 Projected Normal Water Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Table 14 Projected Single-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison
Table 15 Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1 Location Map
Plate 2 Vicinity Map – Main San Gabriel Basin and Raymond Basin
Plate 3 Municipal Water District Boundaries
Plate 4 Raymond Basin
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
v
Plate 5 Location of Sub-Basins, Spreading Grounds and Water Channels, Main
San Gabriel Basin
Plate 6 Groundwater Contour Map for San Gabriel Basin – July 2010
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act
Appendix B Water Conservation Bill of 2009
Appendix C Notification Memoranda
Appendix D Notice of Public Hearing
Appendix E Resolution Adopting Plan
Appendix F Raymond Basin Judgment
Appendix G Long Beach Judgment
Appendix H Main San Gabriel Basin Judgment
Appendix I Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster Rules and Regulations
Appendix J Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster Five-Year Water Quality and Supply
Plan
Appendix K Historical Raymond Basin Groundwater Levels
Appendix L LACSD Recycled Water Treatment and Discharge Quantities
Appendix M Sections from “Draft City of Arcadia Recycled Water Feasibility Study”,
November 2006
Appendix N Water Shortage Contingency Ordinance
Appendix O Water Shortage Stages and Triggering Mechanisms
Appendix P Completed Plan Checklist
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-1
Chapter 1
PLAN PREPARATION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Section 10617. “Urban Water Supplier” means a supplier, either publicly or privately
owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than
3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. An urban
water supplier includes a supplier or contractor for water, regardless of the basis of right,
which distributes or sells for ultimate resale to customers.
Section 10620.
(a) Every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt an urban water management
plan in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640).
(b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water
management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier.
(c) An urban water supplier indirectly providing water shall not include planning
elements in its water management plan as provided in Article 2 (commencing with
Section 10630) that would be applicable to urban water suppliers or public agencies
directly providing water, or to their customers, without the consent of those suppliers
or public agencies.
(d) (1) An urban water supplier may satisfy the requirements of this part by participation
in areawide, regional, watershed, or basinwide urban water management planning
where those plans will reduce preparation costs and contribute to the achievement
of conservation and efficient water use.
(2) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other
appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a
common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the
extent practicable.
(e) The urban water supplier may prepare the plan with its own staff, by contract, or in
cooperation with other governmental agencies.
The City of Arcadia is a water supplier and is required to prepare an Urban Water
Management Plan (Plan) in accordance with the California Urban Water Management
Planning Act (Act)1
1 Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656
which was established in 1983. The Act requires every “urban water
supplier” to prepare and adopt a Plan, periodically review its Plan at least once every
five years and make any amendments or changes which are indicated by the review.
An “Urban Water Supplier” is defined as a supplier, either publicly or privately owned,
providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-2
customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. The primary
objective of the Act is to direct urban water suppliers to evaluate their existing water
conservation efforts and, to the extent practicable, review and implement alternative and
supplemental water conservation measures. The Act is directed primarily at retail water
purveyors where programs can be immediately affected upon the consumer. The Act,
originally known as Assembly Bill (AB) 797, is included in Appendix A.
In compliance with the Act, the City last updated the City of Arcadia Urban Water
Management Plan in 2005. There have been many new amendments added to the
City’s Plan and some reorganization of the California Water Code sections since the
City’s last update. The following is a list of new requirements which were incorporated
in the Plan:
• Senate Bill (SB) 1087 – Requires the City to report water use projections for
lower income households within the City.
• AB 1376 – Requires the City to provide a 60 day notice, prior to a public
hearing, to any City or County within which the City provides water supplies
notifying that the City is reviewing the Plan and is considering changes.
• AB 1420 – Requires the City to verify compliance of Demand Management
Measures (See Chapter 6) in order to qualify for water management grants or
loans.
• SBX7-7 – Requires the City to reduce the City’s per capita water use by 20
percent by 2020 (see Appendix B)
Section 10621(a) of the California Water Code states, “Each water supplier shall
update its plan at least once every five years on or before December 31, in years
ending in five and zero.” However, due to recent changes in Urban Water Management
Plan requirements, California State law has extended the deadline for the 2010 Plans to
July 1, 2011. The City’s 2010 Plan is an update to the City’s 2005 Plan.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-3
1.2 COORDINATION
1.2.1 COORDINATION WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES
Section 10620.
(d) (2) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other
appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a
common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the
extent practicable.
Section 10621
(b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to this part shall, at
least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642,
notify any
City or County within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water
supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan.
The urban water supplier may consult with, and obtain comments from, any City or
County that receives notices pursuant to this subdivision.
The City of Arcadia is a retail water supplier that serves the majority of the
residents within the City of Arcadia. The City is required to coordinate the preparation
of the Plan with appropriate agencies in the area, including appropriate water suppliers
that share a common source. Therefore, the City coordinated the preparation of the
Urban Water Management Plan with the Raymond Basin Management Board, the
County of Los Angeles, the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (Main Basin
Watermaster), the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (Upper District),
the San Gabriel Valley Water Company, the City of Sierra Madre, the City of Pasadena
Water and Power, Golden State Water Company, East Pasadena Water Company,
Sunny Slope Water Company, the City of Monrovia and Arcadia residents (see Table
1). The City notified these agencies and Arcadia residents at least sixty (60) days prior
to the public hearing of the preparation of the 2010 Plan and invited them to participate
in the development of the Plan. A copy of the notification letters sent to these agencies
is located in Appendix C. Table 1 indicates whether comments were provided to the City
regarding preparation of the 2010 Plan.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-4
1.2.2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Section 10642
Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social,
cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and
during the preparation of the plan. Prior to adopting a plan, the urban water supplier shall
make the plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing thereon.
Prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place of hearing shall be published within the
jurisdiction of the publicly owned water supplier pursuant to Section 6066 of the
Government Code. The urban water supplier shall provide notice of the time and place of
hearing to any City or County within which the supplier provides water supplies. A
privately owned water supplier shall provide an equivalent notice within its service area.
After the hearing, the plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing.
The City of Arcadia encouraged the active involvement of the population within
its service area prior to and during the preparation of the Plan. Pursuant to Section
6066 of the Government Code, the City published a notice of public hearing in the
newspaper during the weeks of June 6, 2011 and June 13, 2011. A notice of public
hearing was also provided to the City Clerk’s office and was posted throughout the City
of Arcadia and on the City’s website. Additionally, a notice of public hearing was sent
the Raymond Basin Management Board, the County of Los Angeles, Main Basin
Watermaster, Upper District, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, the City of Sierra
Madre, the City of Pasadena Water and Power, Golden State Water Company, East
Pasadena Water Company, Sunny Slope Water Company, and the City of Monrovia.
To ensure that the plan was available for review, the City placed a copy of the 2010
draft Plan at the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall and made a copy available for
review on its website. Copies of the notice of the public hearing are provided in
Appendix D.
1.2.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Section 10642
Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social,
cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and
during the preparation of the plan. Prior to adopting a plan, the urban water supplier shall
make the plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing thereon.
Prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place of hearing shall be published within the
jurisdiction of the publicly owned water supplier pursuant to Section 6066 of the
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-5
Government Code. The urban water supplier shall provide notice of the time and place of
hearing to any City or County within which the supplier provides water supplies. A
privately owned water supplier shall provide an equivalent notice within its service area.
After the hearing, the plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing.
Pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code, the City published a notice of public
hearing in the newspaper during the week of June 6, 2011 and June 13, 2011 indicating
that the City would hold a public hearing to hear public comments and consider
adoption of the draft 2010 Plan on June 21, 2011, as shown in Appendix D. In the same
newspaper notice, the City indicated the draft 2010 Plan update was available for public
review at the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall and on the City’s website. The
notice of public hearing was published and distributed to allow involvement of social,
cultural and economic community groups. A copy of the notice of the public hearing is
provided in Appendix D. The City also provided a notice of the public hearing to the
Raymond Basin Management Board, the County of Los Angeles, the Main Basin
Watermaster, the Upper District, the San Gabriel Valley Water Company, the City of
Sierra Madre, the City of Pasadena Water and Power, Golden State Water Company,
East Pasadena Water Company, the Sunny Slope Water Company and the City of
Monrovia, as shown in Appendix D.
1.3 PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION
1.3.1 SUBMITTAL OF AMENDED PLAN
Section 10621
c) The amendments to, or changes in, the plan shall be adopted and filed in the manner set
forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640).
If the Department of Water Resources (DWR) requires significant changes to the
Plan before it determines the Plan to be “complete,” the City will submit an amendment
or a revised Plan. The amendment or revised Plan will undergo adoption by the City’s
governing board prior to submittal to DWR.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-6
1.3.2 PLAN ADOPTION
Section 10642
After the hearing, the plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing.
The City held a public hearing on June 21, 2011. Following the public hearing,
the City adopted the draft Plan as its Plan. A copy of the resolution adopting the Plan is
provided in Appendix E.
1.3.3 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Section 10643
An urban water supplier shall implement its plan adopted pursuant to this chapter in
accordance with the schedule set forth in its plan.
The City of Arcadia is committed to the implementation of it’s 2010 Plan in
accordance with Section 10643 of the Act, including the water demand management
measures (DMMs) (see Chapter 6) and water conservation requirements of SBX7-7
(see Chapter 3). The City continues to be committed to the concept of good water
management practice and intends to expand its water conservation program as budgets
and staffing allow. The City's water conservation program will periodically be re-
evaluated and modified to institute additional methods or techniques as the need arises.
The City reviewed implementation of its 2005 Plan and incorporated changes to create
the 2010 Plan.
1.3.4 PLAN SUBMITTAL
Section 10644(a)
An urban water supplier shall submit to the department, the California State Library, and
any City or County within which the supplier provides water supplies a copy of its plan no
later than 30 days after adoption. Copies of amendments or changes to the plans shall be
submitted to the department, the California State Library, and any City or county within
which the supplier provides water supplies within 30 days after adoption.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-7
Within 30 days of adoption of the Plan by the City Council, a copy of the Plan will
be filed with the DWR, the State of California Library, the County of Los Angeles
Registrar / Recorders office, and the City Clerk’s Office. Copies of the letters to DWR,
State Library, and County of Los Angeles will be maintained in the City’s file.
1.3.5 PUBLIC REVIEW
Section 10645
Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the urban water
supplier and the department shall make the plan available for public review during normal
business hours.
Within 30 days after submittal of the 2010 Plan to DWR, the City will make the 2010
Plan available at City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall during normal business hours
and on the City’s website.
1.3.6 PLAN DISTRIBUTION (RELIABILITY AND SUPPLY AND DEMAND)
Section 10635(b)
The urban water supplier shall provide that portion of its urban water management
plan prepared pursuant to this article to any City or County within which it provides
water supplies no later than 60 days after submission of its urban water management
plan.
Under section 10635 (b), the City of Arcadia is required to provide the reliability section
and the supply and demand section of the City’s Plan to any City or County within which
the City of Arcadia provides water supplies no later than 60 days after submitting the
2010 Urban Water Management Plan to the DWR. As discussed in Section 1.3.4, within
30 days of adoption of the Plan by the City Council, the City will file a copy of the Plan
with the DWR, the State of California Library, and the County of Los Angeles Registrar /
Recorders office. The City will also place a hardcopy of the 2010 Plan at the City
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-8
Clerk’s Office located at City Hall and will notify any City or County within which the City
of Arcadia provides water supplies that a copy is available on its website.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2-1
Chapter 2
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
2.1 BACKGROUND
2.1.1 CITY OF ARCADIA FORMATION AND LOCATION
The City of Arcadia is a mature residential community encompassing
approximately 11.5 square miles, which lies northeast of Los Angeles in the north
central area of the San Gabriel Valley and extends northward into the southerly slopes
of the San Gabriel Mountains.
The City of Arcadia was incorporated in 1903, and in 1914 its citizens decided to
construct a municipal water system. A bond issue was passed and by 1916 the City of
Arcadia had purchased an existing water company, drilled wells, built reservoirs and
installed thousands of feet of water main as well as fire hydrants and water meters.
In 1918, the State of California granted the City of Arcadia a domestic water
supply permit. Since then, the City has improved its water system by drilling additional
wells, building additional reservoirs, constructing booster pumps, and installing many
miles of water mains. These improvements were assisted through two bond issues.
The last bond was redeemed in 1966, and since then, all additional improvements have
been funded by water sales, developers and federal grants.
The City provides water service to a majority of the City of Arcadia and
encompasses an area of approximately 11.0 sq miles, as shown in Plate 1. The City
currently derives its water supply from groundwater wells that produce water from two
groundwater basins, the Main San Gabriel Basin and the Raymond Basin, with the Main
San Gabriel Basin as the City’s primary groundwater source. The locations of the City’s
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2-2
service area and the Main San Gabriel Basin and the Raymond Basin are shown in
Plate 2.
The City is a sub-agency of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water
District (Upper District), a wholesale water agency. The locations of the City’s service
area and Upper District are shown in Plate 3.
2.2 SERVICE AREA PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Section 10631.
A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do the following:
a) Describe the service area of the supplier; including current and projected population,
climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management
planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the
state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area
of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far
as data is available.
2.2.1 SERVICE AREA
The City provides water service to a majority of the City of Arcadia and
encompasses an area of approximately 11.0 sq miles. Based on the ratio of the area of
the City’s water system (11.0 sq miles) to the area of the City of Arcadia (11.5 sq miles),
the City serves approximately 96 percent of the population of the City of Arcadia. The
remaining portions of the City of Arcadia are provided water service by the San Gabriel
Valley Water Company (SGVWC), Golden State Water Company (GSWC), California
American Water Company (CAWC), Sunny Slope Water Company (Sunny Slope) and
East Pasadena Water Company (East Pasadena). Plate 1 shows the locations of the
City’s water system service area, the City of Arcadia and the other water companies
serving the City of Arcadia.
The City of Arcadia currently has a population of approximately 56,800. The City,
which serves approximately 96 percent of the population of the City of Arcadia, is a
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2-3
retail water agency and currently serves a population of approximately 54,500. The
primary service connections are residential with some commercial/institutional, industrial
and landscape irrigation users. It is estimated that the population in 2035 will be
approximately 59,500 (see Chapter 2.3 below). The projected water demand and
number of service connections by user category are discussed in Chapter 3.
2.2.2 CLIMATE
Historical rainfall in the San Gabriel Valley is shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows the
monthly average rainfall, monthly average temperature and monthly evapotranspiration
in the San Gabriel Valley. Average rainfall in the San Gabriel Valley is about 17.8
inches, as shown in Table 3. The annual rainfall in the San Gabriel Valley in water year
2008-09 was 14.0 inches, as shown in Table 2, which was 79 percent of the normal
conditions for the area. The service area and location of the City in the San Gabriel
Valley has a dry climate and summers can reach average daily temperatures in the high
70s. Although changes in climatic conditions will have an impact on water supply, the
projected water supply demands will be based on average year, single dry year and
multiple-dry years.
2.3 SERVICE AREA POPULATION
Section 10631.
A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do the following:
a) Describe the service area of the supplier; including current and projected population,
climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management
planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the
state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area
of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far
as data is available.
2.3.1 POPULATION
The City provides water service to an area of about 11 square miles and serves a
current population of approximately 54,500. Table 4 presents the current and projected
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2-4
population of the area encompassed by the City from 2010 to 2035. Projected
populations within the City were estimated in a May 2010 Draft Water Supply
Assessment, incorporated by reference, for the City of Arcadia’s General Plan Update.
Population projections were based on data obtained from the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG). The SCAG data incorporates demographic
trends, existing land use, general plan land use policies, and input and projections from
the Department of Finance (DOF) and the US Census Bureau.
2.3.2 OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
There are no other demographic factors affecting the City’s water management
planning.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-1
Chapter 3
SYSTEM DEMANDS
3.1 WATER DEMANDS
3.1.1 PAST, CURRENT, AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
Section 10631(e)
(1) Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the
same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use,
identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited
to, all of the following uses:
(A) Single-family residential.
(B) Multifamily.
(C) Commercial.
(D) Industrial.
(E) Institutional and governmental.
(F) Landscape.
(G) Sales to other agencies.
(H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive
use, or any combination thereof.
(I) Agricultural
(2) The water use projections shall be in the same five-year increments described in
subdivision (a).
The City’s water demands are supplied by groundwater pumped from the
Raymond Basin and Main San Gabriel Basin and treated imported surface water. The
City’s water supplies do not include recycled water. The City provides water service to
the following water use sectors:
• Single-Family Residential
• Multi-Family Residential
• Commercial/Institutional
• Industrial
• Landscape Irrigation.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-2
The City does not regularly provide water sales to other agencies and does not
have any additional water uses. Table 5 shows the historical, current, and projected
water use among water use sectors within the City’s service area. Table 6 shows the
historical, current, and projected total water demand and unaccounted water losses.
The projected water use is calculated based on the urban per capita water use target
developed per SBX7-7 (see Chapter 3.2 below) and population projections. Based on
the projected water uses, the City does not anticipate any problem meeting its water
demands.
3.1.2 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND FOR LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Section 10631.1(a)
The water use projections required by Section 10631 shall include projected water
use for single-family and multifamily residential housing needed for lower income
households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as
identified in the housing element of any City, County, or City and County in the
service area of the supplier.
Based on Chapter 5, Tables H-3 and H-5, of the the City’s General Plan dated
November 2010, approximately 27.4 percent of the total housing units in the City are
considered lower income units. Therefore, lower income households meters comprise
approximately 27.4 percent of the total current number of residential meters. Based on a
27.4 percent use factor of total residential water demands, the projected water demand
for lower income households is about 2,970 acre-feet per year by the year 2035, as
shown on Table 6.
3.2 BASELINES AND TARGETS
Section 10608.20 (e)
An urban retail water supplier shall include in its urban water management plan
required pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) due in 2010 the
baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use
target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for
determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-3
Methodologies for calculating baseline and compliance urban per capita water
use for the consistent implementation of the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 have been
published by DWR in its October 2010 guidance document.2
DWR’s guidance
document was used by the City to determine the required water use parameters which
are discussed below. The City developed the baselines and targets individually and not
regionally.
3.2.1 BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE
The Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use is defined as the average water use,
expressed in gallons per capita per day (GPCD), for a continuous, multi-year baseline
period. There are two different baseline periods for calculating Baseline Daily Per
Capita Water Use, as follows (CWC Sections 10608.20 and 10608.22):
• The first baseline period is a continuous 10- to 15-year period, and is used to
calculate Baseline Per Capita Water Use per CWC Section 10608.20. The
first baseline period is determined as follows:
o If recycled water makes up less than 10 percent of 2008 retail water
delivery, use a continuous 10-year period ending no earlier than
December 31, 2004, and no later than December 31, 2010.
o If recycled water makes up 10 percent or more of 2008 retail water
delivery, use a continuous 10- to 15-year period ending no earlier
than December 31, 2004, and no later than December 31, 2010.
2 California Department of Water Resources, Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management, Water
Use and Efficiency Branch. Methodologies for Calculating Baseline and Compliance Urban Per Capita
Water Use. October 1, 2010.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-4
The City does not have any recycled water use. Consequently, the first
baseline period will consist of a continuous 10-year period that can be
selected between 1995-96 and 2009-10.
• The second baseline period is a continuous five-year period, and is used to
determine whether the 2020 per capita water use target meets the minimum
water use reduction per CWC Section 10608.22. The continuous five-year
period shall end no earlier than December 31, 2007, and no later than
December 31, 2010.
The second baseline period consisting of a continuous five-year period can
be selected between 2003-04 and 2009-10.
Unless the urban water retailer’s five-year Baseline Daily Per Capita Water
Use per CWC Section 10608.12(b)(3) is 100 GPCD or less, Baseline Daily Per
Capita Water Use must be calculated for both baseline periods.
The calculation of the Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use entails the following
four steps:
Step 1 Calculate gross water use for each year in the baseline period using
Methodology 1 in DWR’s guidance document. According to Methodology
1, gross water use is a measure of water supplied to the distribution
system over 12 months and adjusted for changes in distribution system
storage and deliveries to other water suppliers that pass through the
distribution system. Recycled water deliveries are to be excluded from the
calculation of gross water use. Water delivered through the distribution
system for agricultural use may be deducted from the calculation of gross
water use. Under certain conditions, industrial process water use also
may be deducted from gross water use.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-5
The calculated gross water use, based on recorded groundwater use
(Raymond Basin and Main Basin) and imported surface water deliveries,
for each year in the baseline period is shown on Table 7.
Step 2 Estimate service area population for each year in the baseline period
using Methodology 2 in DWR’s guidance document. To obtain an
accurate estimate of GPCD, water suppliers must estimate population of
the areas that they actually serve, which may or may not coincide with
either their jurisdictional boundaries or with the boundaries of cities.
According to Methodology 2, data published by the California Department
of Finance (DOF) or the U.S. Census Bureau must serve as the
foundational building block for population estimates. In some instances,
data published by these two sources may be directly applicable. In other
instances, additional refinements may be necessary. For example, to
account for distribution areas that do not match City boundaries,
customers with private sources of supply, or other unique local
circumstances, water suppliers may have to supplement the above
sources of data with additional local data sources such as county
assessor data, building permits data, and traffic analysis zone data.
These refinements are acceptable as long as they are consistently applied
over time, and as long as they build upon population data sources of the
DOF or the U.S Census Bureau.
The City’s service area population for each year in the baseline period is
based on data from SCAG, DOF, and the US Census Bureau (see Table
7).
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-6
Step 3 Calculate daily per capita water use for each year in the baseline period.
Divide gross water use (determined in Step 1) by service area population
(determined in Step 2).
The calculated daily per capita water use for each year in the baseline
period is shown on Table 7.
Step 4 Calculate Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use. Calculate average per
capita water use by summing the values calculated in Step 3 and dividing
by the number of years in the baseline period. The result is Baseline Daily
Per Capita Water Use for the selected baseline period.
The average per capita water use calculated for a continuous 10-year
baseline period (first baseline period) is shown on Table 7, with the
highest value of 294 GPCD.
The Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use for the City was determined to be 294
GPCD, based on the highest value calculated for a continuous 10-year period (first
baseline period) between 1995-96 and 2009-10 (see Table 7).
3.2.2 URBAN WATER USE TARGET
Section 10608.20 (b)
An urban retail water supplier shall adopt one of the following methods for
determining its urban water use target pursuant to subdivision (a):
(1) Eighty percent of the urban retail water supplier’s baseline per capita daily water
use.
(2) The per capita daily water use that is estimated using the sum of the following
performance standards:
(A) For indoor residential water use, 55 gallons per capita daily water use as a
provisional standard. Upon completion of the department’s 2016 report to the
Legislature pursuant to Section 10608.42, this standard may be adjusted by
the Legislature by statute.
(B) For landscape irrigated through dedicated or residential meters or
connections, water efficiency equivalent to the standards of the Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance set forth in Chapter 2.7 (commencing with
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-7
Section 490) of Division 2 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations,
as in effect the later of the year of the landscape’s installation or 1992. An
urban retail water supplier using the approach specified in this subparagraph
shall use satellite imagery, site visits, or other best available technology to
develop an accurate estimate of landscaped areas.
(C) For commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, a 10-percent reduction in
water use from the baseline commercial, industrial, and institutional water
use by 2020.
(3) Ninety-five percent of the applicable state hydrologic region target, as set forth in
the state’s draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (dated April 30, 2009). If the
service area of an urban water supplier includes more than one hydrologic
region, the supplier shall apportion its service area to each region based on
population or area.
(4) A method that shall be identified and developed by the department, through a
public process, and reported to the Legislature no later than December 31, 2010.
The method developed by the department shall identify per capita targets that
cumulatively result in a statewide 20-percent reduction in urban daily per capita
water use by December 31, 2020. In developing urban daily per capita water use
targets, the department shall do all of the following:
(A) Consider climatic differences within the state.
(B) Consider population density differences within the state.
(C) Provide flexibility to communities and regions in meeting the targets.
(D) Consider different levels of per capita water use according to plant water
needs in different regions.
(E) Consider different levels of commercial, industrial, and institutional water use
in different regions of the state.
(F) Avoid placing an undue hardship on communities that have implemented
conservation measures or taken actions to keep per capita water use low.
The Urban Water Use Target is determined using one of the following methods:
Method 1: Eighty percent of the urban retail water supplier’s Baseline Per Capita
Daily Water Use.
Using this method, the Urban Water Use Target for the City was
calculated as 236 GPCD, based on the City’s Baseline Per Capita
Daily Water Use of 294 GPCD.
Method 2: Estimate using the sum of the specified three performance standards.
Although this method was reviewed, this method was not considered
due to insufficient data.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-8
Method 3: Ninety-five percent of the applicable state hydrologic region target, as
set forth in the state’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.3
Based on the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, the City’s service
area lies in DWR Hydrologic Region 4 (South Coast), with an
established Baseline Per Capita Daily Water Use of 180 GPCD and a
Target Per Capita Daily Water Use of 149 GPCD. Using this method,
the Urban Water Use Target for the City was calculated as 142 GPCD.
Method 4: Water Savings (Provisional)
Although this method was reviewed, this method was not considered
due to insufficient data.
The City’s Urban Water Use Target was determined to be 236 GPCD for 2020,
based on Method 1 above.
3.2.3 COMPLIANCE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE
Compliance Daily Per Capita Water Use is defined as the Gross Water Use
during the final year of the reporting period, and reported in GPCD. The Compliance
Daily Per Capita Water Use will be reported in the City’s 2015 Plan (interim compliance)
and 2020 Plan (final compliance).
3.2.4 MINIMUM WATER USE REDUCTION REQUIREMENT
Section10608.22
Notwithstanding the method adopted by an urban retail water supplier pursuant to
Section 10608.20, an urban retail water supplier’s per capita daily water use
reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use as
3 California Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board, California Bay-Delta
Authority, California Energy Commission, California Department of Public Health, California Public Utilities
Commission, and California Air Resources Board. 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. February 2010.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-9
defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 10608.12. This section does not
apply to an urban retail water supplier with a base daily per capita water use at or
below 100 gallons per capita per day.
The following calculation was made since the five-year Baseline Per Capita
Water Use per CWC Section 10608.12(b)(3) is greater than 100 GPCD. The calculation
is used to determine whether the City of Arcadia’s 2015 and 2020 per capita water use
targets meet the minimum water use reduction requirement per CWC Section 10608.22.
The calculation entails three steps:
Step 1: Calculate Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use using a continuous five-
year period ending no earlier than December 31, 2007, and no later than
December 31, 2010.
This value was calculated as 289 GPCD (see Table 7).
Step 2: Multiply the result from Step 1 by 0.95. The 2020 per capita water use
target cannot exceed this value (unless the water supplier’s five-year
Baseline Per Capita Water Use is 100 GPCD or less). If the 2020 target is
greater than this value, reduce the target to this value.
This value was calculated as 274 GPCD. The City’s 2020 Urban Water
Use Target was determined using Method 1 above to be 236 GPCD,
which is lower than the value calculated in this step. Therefore, no
adjustment is needed
for the City’s 2020 Urban Water Use Target of 236
GPCD.
Step 3: Set the 2015 target to mid-point between the 10- or 15-year Baseline Per
Capita Water Use and the 2020 target determined in Step 2.
The City’s 2015 Interim Urban Water Use Target is therefore set at 265
GPCD, which is the mid-point between the 10-year Baseline Daily Per
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-10
Capita Water Use of 294 GPCD and the 2020 Urban Water Use Target of
236 GPCD.
Therefore, the City’s 2015 Interim Urban Water Use Target of 265 GPCD and
2020 Urban Water Use Target of 236 GPCD meet the legislation’s minimum water use
reduction requirement per CWC Section 10608.22.
3.3 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Section 10631(k)
Urban water suppliers that rely upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall
provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that
source of water in five-year increments to 20 years as far as data is available. The
wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion
in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent
practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b)
,
available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-
year increments, and during various water-year types in accordance with subdivision
(c). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the
wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b)
and (c).
The City has the ability to purchase and use treated imported surface water from
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California, through Upper District. The
City notified Upper District of the development of its 2010 Plan. The City also provided
notification to Upper District notifying that the draft Plan was available on the City’s
website. In addition, the City has participated in Upper District’s development of its
Urban Water Management Plan by providing data and attending meetings. Upper
District in turn provided the City with a copy of their draft 2010 Plan, which is
incorporated as a reference in this Plan.
3.4 WATER USE REDUCTION PLAN
10608.36.
Urban wholesale water suppliers shall include in the urban water management plans
required pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) an assessment of
their present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help achieve
the water use reductions required by this part.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-11
The City is not an urban wholesale water supplier. Therefore, this requirement is
not applicable to the City.
3.5 PROGRESS REPORT
10608.40.
Urban water retail suppliers shall report to the department on their progress in
meeting their urban water use targets as part of their urban water management plans
submitted pursuant to Section 10631. The data shall be reported using a
standardized form developed pursuant to Section 10608.52.
The City will report to the DWR on its progress in meeting its urban water use
targets, using a standardized form to be developed by the DWR, when the form
becomes available.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-1
Chapter 4
SYSTEM SUPPLIES
4.1 WATER SOURCES
Section 10631
A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do the following:
b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of
water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in
subdivision (a).
The City’s water supply sources include groundwater production from the Main
Basin and Raymond Basin and direct delivery of treated imported water from MWD
through Upper District.
Groundwater
The City currently owns and operates seven active groundwater wells in the Main
Basin. These wells include Camino Real 3, Live Oak 1, Longden 1, Longden 2, Longley
3, Peck 1 and St. Joseph 2. The current capacity of the City’s Main Basin wells is
approximately 18,300 gallons per minute (gpm). The City also has seven active wells
located within the Raymond Basin; Orange Grove 1A, Orange Grove 2A, Orange Grove
5, Orange Grove 6, Chapman 7, Colorado 1 and Anoakia 1. The current capacity of
the City’s Raymond Basin wells is approximately 4,760 gpm.
Treated Imported Water
The City of Arcadia can purchase treated imported water from Upper District, if
necessary. The City can receive direct deliveries of treated imported water through its
MWD connection, USG-6, which has a capacity of 20 cubic feet per second (about
14,500 acre-feet per year if used continuously). The City does not typically use service
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-2
connection USG-6 because the City’s collective groundwater supplies are sufficient to
meet water demands.
A discussion of recycled water opportunities within the City’s service area is
provided in Section 4.5.
Recycled Water
Total Water Supplies
The City’s historical and projected water supplies from groundwater, imported
surface water and recycled water are shown on Table 9. Table 10 provides the City’s
projected water supplies during future single and multiple dry year conditions.
4.2 GROUNDWATER
Section 10631(b)
If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the
supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan:
1) A copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier,
including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or
any other specific authorization for groundwater management.
4.2.1 RAYMOND BASIN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
Management of the water resources of the Raymond Basin is based on the
Raymond Basin Judgment.4
The City is a party to the Raymond Basin Judgment.
RAYMOND BASIN JUDGMENT
4 City of Pasadena vs. City of Alhambra, et al, Los Angeles County Case No. Pasadena C-1323,
Judgment entered December 23, 1944, modified April 29, 1955.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-3
In 1937, the City of Pasadena filed suit to adjudicate water rights of the Raymond
Basin. A copy of the Raymond Basin adjudication is located in Appendix F. The DWR
was retained to prepare a Report of Referee which described the geology and
hydrogeology of the Raymond Basin and identified the Safe Yield of the Raymond Basin
as 21,900 acre-feet. In 1950, the City of Pasadena requested the Safe Yield of the
Raymond Basin to be re-determined. Subsequently, the Court issued a Modification of
Judgment on April 29, 1955 increasing the Safe Yield of the Raymond Basin to 30,622
acre-feet. This is referred to as the “Decreed Right of 1955” and water rights for all
parties are shown in Appendix F. On January 17, 1974, the second modification of the
Raymond Basin Judgment was signed allowing Parties credit for spreading of canyon
diversions in spreading grounds in the vicinity of the Arroyo Seco, Eaton Wash and
Santa Anita Creek Canyon.
The Raymond Basin Judgment adjudicated groundwater rights based on a long-
term average yield of the Raymond Basin. The Decreed Right of 1955 provides the City
of Arcadia with water rights to 2,118.0 AFY from the Pasadena Subarea and with water
rights to 3,526.0 AFY from the Santa Anita Subarea. Due to recent multiple dry year
conditions, the Raymond Basin Management Board has phased in a 30 percent
reduction requirement over five years for all Decreed Rights to the Pasadena Subarea,
beginning fiscal year 2009-10. As a result, the City’s adjusted right to the Pasadena
Subarea will be 1,482.6 AFY (0.7 x 2,118.0 AFY) by fiscal year 2013-14. The City’s total
water right in the Raymond Basin will be 5,008.6 AFY (1,482.6 AFY + 3,526.0 AFY) by
fiscal year 2013-14. The Judgment allows a party to exceed its Decreed Right by no
more than 10 percent, which will be deducted from the following year’s total allowable
extraction. Conversely, a party is not allowed to carryover more than 10 percent of its
Decreed Right to a subsequent year. Over the past twenty years, on average, the City
of Arcadia has been able to extract groundwater in excess of its Decreed Right as a
result of water rights leases.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-4
4.2.2 MAIN BASIN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
The Main Basin has been adjudicated and management of the local water
resources within the Main Basin is based on its adjudication. Management of the water
resources in the San Gabriel Valley is based upon Watermaster services under two
Court Judgments: San Gabriel River Watermaster (River Watermaster)5 and Main San
Gabriel Basin Watermaster (Basin Watermaster)6
. The City is a defendant in the Main
Basin Judgment and as such had participation. The City also participates in the Main
Basin management described in the Main Basin Watermaster document entitled “Five-
Year Water Quality and Supply Plan.” The City is a defendant in the Long Beach
Judgment and as such has significant participation.
The following sections provide a description of the two Judgments and the Five
Year Water Quality and Supply Plan that make up the groundwater management plan
for the Main Basin. In addition, this section describes Upper District’s and Water Quality
Authority’s (WQA) policies to promote groundwater basin clean-up.
LONG BEACH JUDGMENT
On May 12, 1959, the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Long Beach,
Central Basin Municipal Water District (Central Basin) and the City of Compton, as
plaintiffs, filed an action against the San Gabriel Valley Water Company and 24 other
producers of groundwater from the San Gabriel Valley as defendants. This action
sought a determination of the rights of the defendants in and to the waters of the San
Gabriel River system and to restrain the defendants from an alleged interference with
the rights of plaintiffs and persons represented by the Central Basin in such waters.
After six years of study and negotiation a Stipulation for Judgment was filed on February
5 Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, et al., v. San Gabriel Valley Water Company,
et al., Los Angeles County Case No. 722647, Judgment entered September 24, 1965.
6 Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District v. City of Alhambra, et al., Los Angeles County Case
No. 924128, Judgment entered January 4, 1973.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-5
10, 1965, and Judgment (Long Beach Judgment) was entered on September 24, 1965.
Under the terms of the Long Beach Judgment, the water supply of the San Gabriel
River system was divided at Whittier Narrows, the boundary between San Gabriel
Valley upstream and the coastal plain of Los Angeles County downstream. A copy of
the Long Beach Judgment is located in Appendix G.
Under the terms of the Long Beach Judgment, the area downstream from
Whittier Narrows (Lower Area), the plaintiffs and those they represent, are to receive a
quantity of usable water annually from the San Gabriel River system comprised of
usable surface flow, subsurface flow at Whittier Narrows and water exported to the
Lower Area. This annual entitlement is guaranteed by the area upstream of Whittier
Narrows (Upper Area), the defendants, and provision is made for the supply of Make-Up
Water by the Upper Area for years in which the guaranteed entitlement is not received
by the Lower Area.
Make-Up Water is imported water purchased by the Main Basin Watermaster
and delivered to agencies within Central Basin to satisfy obligations under the Long
Beach Judgment. The entitlement of the Lower Area varies annually, dependent upon
the 10-year average annual rainfall in San Gabriel Valley for the 10 years ending with
the year for which entitlement is calculated.
The detailed operations described in the Long Beach Judgment are complex and
require continuous compilation of data so that annual determinations can be made to
assure compliance with the Long Beach Judgment. In order to do this, a three-member
Watermaster was appointed by the Court, one representing the Upper Area parties
nominated by and through Upper District, one representing the Lower Area parties
nominated by and through Central Basin, and one jointly nominated by Upper District
and Central Basin. This three-member board is known as the River Watermaster.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-6
The River Watermaster meets periodically during the year to adopt a budget, to
review activities affecting water supply in the San Gabriel River system area, to compile
and review data, to make its determinations of usable water received by the Lower Area
and to prepare an annual report to the Court and to the Parties. The River Watermaster
has rendered annual reports for the water years 1963-64 through 2008-09 and
operations of the river system under the Long Beach Judgment and through the
administration by the River Watermaster have been very satisfactory since its inception.
One major result of the Long Beach Judgment was to leave the Main Basin free
to manage its water resources so long as it meets its downstream obligation to the
Lower Area under the terms of the Long Beach Judgment.
MAIN BASIN JUDGMENT
The Upper Area then turned to the task of developing a water resources
management plan to optimize the conservation of the natural water supplies of the area.
Studies were made of various methods of management of the Main Basin as an
adjudicated area and a report thereon was prepared for the Upper San Gabriel Valley
Water Association, an association of water producers in the Main Basin, including the
City. After consideration by the Association membership, Upper District was requested
to file as plaintiff, and did file, an action on January 2, 1968, seeking an adjudication of
the water rights of the Main Basin and its Relevant Watershed. In this Judgment, the
City was included as a Party. After several years of study (including verification of
annual water production) and negotiations, a stipulation for entry of Judgment was
approved by a majority of the Parties, by both the number of parties and the quantity of
rights to be adjudicated. Trial was held in late 1972 and Judgment (Main Basin
Judgment) was entered on January 4, 1973. A copy of the Main Basin Judgment is
located in Appendix H.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-7
Under the terms of the Main Basin Judgment, all rights to the diversion of surface
water and production of groundwater within the Main Basin and its Relevant Watershed
were adjudicated. The Main Basin Judgment provides for the administration of the
provisions of the Main Basin Judgment by a nine-member Watermaster. Six of those
members are nominated by water producers (producer members) and three members
(public members) are nominated by the Upper District and San Gabriel Valley Municipal
Water District (SGVMWD), which overlie most of the Main Basin. The nine-member
board employs a staff, an attorney and a consulting engineer. The Main Basin
Watermaster holds public meetings on a regular monthly basis through the year. A
copy of the Main Basin Watermaster’s Rules and Regulations is located in Appendix I.
The Main Basin Judgment does not restrict the quantity of water, which Parties
may extract from the Main Basin. Rather, it provides a means for replacing all annual
extractions in excess of a Party's annual right to extract water with Supplemental Water.
The Main Basin Watermaster annually establishes an Operating Safe Yield for the Main
Basin which is then used to allocate to each Party its portion of the Operating Safe Yield
which can be produced free of a Replacement Water Assessment. If a producer
extracts water in excess of its right under the annual Operating Safe Yield, it must pay
an assessment for Replacement Water, which is sufficient to the purchase of one
acre-foot of Supplemental Water to be spread in the Main Basin for each acre-foot of
excess production. All water production is metered and is reported quarterly to the
Basin Watermaster.
In addition to Replacement Water Assessments, the Main Basin Watermaster
levies an Administration Assessment to fund the administration of the Main Basin
management program under the Main Basin Judgment, and a Make-Up Obligation
Assessment in order to fulfill the requirements for any Make-Up Obligation under the
Long Beach Judgment and to supply 50 percent of the administration costs of the River
Watermaster service. The Main Basin Watermaster also levies an In-Lieu Assessment
and may levy special Administration Assessments.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-8
Water rights under the Main Basin Judgment are transferable by lease or
purchase so long as such transfers meet the requirements of the Main Basin Judgment.
There is also provision for Cyclic Storage Agreements by which Parties and Non-Parties
may store imported Supplemental Water in the Main Basin under such agreements with
the Main Basin Watermaster pursuant to uniform rules and conditions and Court
approval.
The Main Basin Judgment provides that the Main Basin Watermaster will not
allow imported water to be spread in the main part of the Main Basin when the
groundwater elevation at the Baldwin Park Key Well7
(Key Well) exceeds 250 feet; and
that the Main Basin Watermaster will, insofar as practicable, spread imported water in
the Main Basin to maintain the groundwater elevation at the Key Well above 200 feet.
One of the principal reasons for the limitation on spreading imported water when the
Key Well elevation exceeds 250 feet is to reserve ample storage space in the Main
Basin to capture native surface water runoff when it occurs and to optimize the
conservation of such local water. Under the terms of the Long Beach Judgment, any
excess surface flows that pass through the Main Basin at Whittier Narrows to the Lower
Area (which is then conserved in the Lower Area through percolation to groundwater
storage) is credited to the Upper Area as Usable Surface Flow.
OPERATIONS OF THE GROUNDWATER BASIN
Through the Long Beach Judgment and the Main Basin Judgment, operations of
the Main Basin are optimized to conserve local water to meet the needs of the parties of
the Main Basin Judgment.
7 The Baldwin Park Key Well is a water level monitoring well located in the City of Baldwin Park used to
determine when imported water may or may not be spread in the Basin.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-9
Typically, water producers within Upper District rely upon groundwater from Main
Basin for their water supply. The City of Alhambra has agreed to receive treated,
imported water as part of the Cooperative Water Exchange Agreement (CWEA) to
reduce the groundwater extractions from the western portion of the Main Basin and the
associated drawdown concerns.
Imported water for groundwater replenishment is delivered through the flood
control channels and diverted and spread at spreading grounds through Basin
Watermaster’s agreement with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(DPW). Groundwater replenishment utilizes imported water and is considered
Replacement Water under the terms of the Main Basin Judgment. It can be stored in
the Main Basin through Cyclic Storage agreements, authorized by terms of the Main
Basin Judgment, but such stored water may be used only to supply Supplemental
Water to the Basin Watermaster.
The Basin Watermaster has entered into a Cyclic Storage Agreement with each
of the three municipal water districts. One is with MWD and Upper District, which
permits MWD to deliver and store imported water in the Main Basin in an amount not to
exceed 100,000 acre-feet for future Replacement Water use. The second Cyclic
Storage Agreement is with Three Valleys Municipal Water District (TVMWD) and
permits MWD to deliver and store 40,000 acre-feet for future Replacement Water use.
The third is with San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (SGVMWD) and contains
generally the same conditions as the agreement with MWD except that the stored
quantity is not to exceed 40,000 acre-feet. As of the end of fiscal year 2009-10, the City
has a cyclic storage account of 5,000 acre-feet with an ending balance of approximately
570 acre-feet within cyclic storage.
Imported Make-up Water has been delivered to lined stream channels and
conveyed to the Lower Area. Make-up Water is required to be delivered to the Lower
Area by the Upper Area when the Lower Area entitlement under the Long Beach
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-10
Judgment exceeds the usable water received by the Lower Area. Imported water is
used to fulfill the Make-up Water Obligation when the amount of Make-up Water cannot
be fulfilled by reimbursing the Lower Area interests for their purchase of recycled water.
The amount of recycled water for which reimbursement may be made as a delivery of
Make-up Water is limited by the terms of the Long Beach Judgment to the annual
deficiency in Lower Area Entitlement water or to 14,735 acre-feet, whichever is the
lesser quantity.
FIVE-YEAR WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY PLAN
The Main Basin Watermaster was created in 1973 to resolve water issues that
had arisen among water users in the San Gabriel Valley. Main Basin Watermaster’s
mission is to generally manage the water supply of the Main Basin. During the late
1970s and early 1980s, significant groundwater contamination was discovered in the
Main Basin. The contamination was caused in part by past practices of local industries
that had carelessly disposed of industrial solvents referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) as well as by agricultural operations that infiltrated nitrates into the
groundwater. Cleanup efforts were undertaken at the local, state and federal level.
By 1989, local water agencies, including the City, adopted a joint resolution
regarding water quality issues that stated that Main Basin Watermaster should
coordinate local activities aimed at preserving and restoring the quality of groundwater
in the Main Basin. The joint resolution also called for a cleanup plan. In 1991, the
Court granted Main Basin Watermaster the authority to control pumping for water quality
purposes. Accordingly, Main Basin Watermaster added Section 28 to its Rules and
Regulations regarding water quality management. The new responsibilities included
development of a Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan, updating it annually,
submitting it to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles
Region, and making it available for public review by November 1 of each year. A copy
of the “Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan” is located in Appendix J.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-11
The Main Basin Watermaster prepares and annually updates the Five-Year
Water Quality and Supply Plan in accordance with the requirements of Section 28 of its
Rules and Regulations. The objective is to coordinate groundwater-related activities so
that both water supply and water quality in the Main Basin are protected and improved.
Many important issues are detailed in the Five-Year Plan, including how the Main Basin
Watermaster plans to:
1. monitor groundwater supply and quality;
2. develop projections of future groundwater supply and quality;
3. review and cooperate on cleanup projects, and provide technical assistance
to other agencies;
4. assure that pumping does not lead to further degradation of water quality in
the Main Basin;
5. address perchlorate, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), and other emerging
contaminants in the Main Basin;
6. develop a cleanup and water supply program consistent with the EPA plans
for its San Gabriel Valley Superfund sites; and
7. coordinate and manage the design, permitting, construction, and performance
evaluation of the Baldwin Park Operable Unit (BPOU) cleanup and water
supply plan.
The Main Basin Watermaster, in coordination with Upper District, has worked
with state and federal regulators, along with local water companies to clean up water
supplies. Section 28 of the Main Basin Watermaster’s Rules and Regulations require all
producers (including the City) to submit an application to 1) construct a new well, 2)
modify an existing well, 3) destroy a well, or 4) construct a treatment facility. Main Basin
Watermaster prepares a report on the implications of the proposed activity. As a Party
to the Main Basin Judgment, the City of Arcadia reviews a copy of these reports and is
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-12
provided the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed activity before Main
Basin Watermaster Board takes its final action.
4.2.3 DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER BASIN
Section 10631(b)(2)
A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier
pumps groundwater. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated
the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or
the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier
has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been
adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or
basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if
present management conditions continue, in the most current official departmental
bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed
description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to eliminate the
long-term overdraft condition.
4.2.3.1 RAYMOND BASIN
The Raymond Basin is located in Los Angeles County about 10 miles
north-easterly of downtown Los Angeles. Raymond Basin is a wedge in the
northwesterly portion of the San Gabriel Valley and is bounded on the north by the San
Gabriel Mountains, on the west by the San Rafael Hills, and is separated from the Main
Basin on the southeast by the Raymond Fault. The Raymond Basin is divided into the
Eastern Unit, which is the Santa Anita Sub-Area, and the Western Unit which is the
Pasadena Sub-Area and the Monk Hill Sub-Area. The location of the Raymond Basin
and the subareas is shown on Plate 2. The surface area of Raymond Basin is about
40.9 square miles.
The principal streams in the Raymond Basin are the Arroyo Seco, Eaton Wash,
and Santa Anita Wash. The Arroyo Seco drains to the Los Angeles River, while Eaton
Wash and Santa Anita Wash drain to the Rio Hondo, a distributary of the San Gabriel
River.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-13
Adjudication of water rights in the Raymond Basin is discussed in Chapter
4.2.1.1 above, including a description of the amount of groundwater the City has the
legal right to pump.
GEOLOGY
The geology of the Raymond Basin is described in details in the “Report of
Referee” prepared in 1943 by the DWR and is summarized below.
The Raymond Basin is roughly triangular in shape. Its northern boundary, about
12 miles in length, is formed by a portion of the southerly front of the San Gabriel
Mountains. The western boundary of the Raymond Basin is about 8 miles long and is
also composed chiefly of the same Basement Complex rocks which form the mountains
and which are continuous at depth, together with a small area of marine Tertiary
sediment at the southern end. The Raymond Fault, which is the southern boundary of
the triangle, crosses the Valley floor for a distance of about 9 miles, connecting a
granitic spur from the mountains at the eastern end of the Raymond Basin with Tertiary
sediments outcropping in its southwestern corner.
The Raymond Fault separates Raymond Basin from the Main Basin. The fault
zone is not impervious and groundwater can flow across this boundary into the Main
Basin. The source of natural groundwater supply to the Raymond Basin is direct
rainfall, percolation from surface runoff from the northern and western sides, and
presumably some underground percolation of water from the mountain mass to the
alluvium.
HYDROGEOLOGY
DWR describes the hydrogeology of the Raymond Basin in its Bulletin 118.
According to the report, the water-bearing materials of the Raymond Basin are
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-14
dominated by unconsolidated Quaternary alluvial gravel, sand, and silt deposited by
streams flowing out of the San Gabriel Mountains. Younger alluvium typically follows
active streambeds and reaches a maximum thickness of about 150 feet. Older alluvium
generally thickens southward from the mountain front, reaching a maximum of about
1,140 feet near Pasadena, then thins to about 200 feet near the Raymond Fault.
However, confined groundwater conditions have existed locally in the Raymond Basin,
particularly along the Raymond Fault near Raymond Hill where layers of finer grained
sediments become more abundant.
The Raymond Fault trends east-northeast and acts as a groundwater barrier
along the southern boundary of the Raymond Basin. This fault acts as a complete
barrier along its western end and becomes a less effective barrier eastward. East of
Santa Anita Wash, this fault ceases to be an effective barrier and the flow of
groundwater southward into the Main Basin becomes essentially unrestricted. A north-
trending divide paralleling the Eaton Wash separates both surface and subsurface
water flow in the eastern portion of the Raymond Basin. The water level is higher on
the eastern side of this divide, ranging from 300 feet higher in the north to about 50 feet
higher in the south. Groundwater contour maps for the Raymond Basin (prepared for
the Raymond Basin Annual Report) are included in Appendix I.
Natural recharge to the Raymond Basin is mainly from direct percolation of
precipitation and percolation of ephemeral stream flow from the San Gabriel Mountains
in the north. The principal streams bringing surface inflow are the Arroyo Seco, Eaton
Creek, Little Santa Anita Creek (Sierra Madre Wash), and Santa Anita Creek. Some
stream runoff is diverted into spreading grounds and some is impounded behind small
dams allowing the water to infiltrate and contribute to groundwater recharge of the
Raymond Basin. An unknown amount of underflow enters the Raymond Basin from the
San Gabriel Mountains through fracture systems.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-15
The Santa Anita Sub-Area is replenished only by local storm runoff that is
percolated in the Santa Anita and Sierra Madre Spreading Grounds. Currently, there is
no means of delivering untreated imported water into the Santa Anita Sub-Area.
Consequently, water levels in the Santa Anita Sub-Area of Raymond Basin have
declined by over 100 feet in the past 10 years. Hydrographs from the Raymond Basin
Annual Report of 2009-10 show the water levels in the Santa Anita Sub-Area have
decreased (see Appendix K, Figure 11). Consequently, the yield from the City’s wells
has also fluctuated and has demonstrated a concurrent decrease.
Water levels in the Pasadena Sub-Area of Raymond Basin have also generally
declined in the past 10 years. Hydrographs from the Raymond Basin Annual Report of
2009-10 show the water levels in the Pasadena Sub-Area have decreased (see
Appendix K, Figures 10a and 10b).
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
According to the Raymond Basin Annual Report of 2009-10, in general water in
the Basin continues to be of good quality regarding most constituents, except for a few
sources with high fluoride concentrations in the foothills and high nitrate concentrations
in the Monk Hill Sub-Area and Pasadena Sub-Area. VOC contaminants have been
detected in several areas. In June 1997, perchlorate was detected in several Basin
wells and several monitoring wells at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Superfund
site.
The City has a blend program to reduce Nitrate and VOC concentrations to
below 80 percent of California Department of Pubic Health (CDPH) standards. As a
result of the City's blending activities, the City's wells are expected to provide a reliable
water source from the Raymond Basin to City customers for the next 25 years.
Although unanticipated changes in blending activities could result in a loss of Raymond
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-16
Basin well capacity, the City can reliably produce groundwater from the Main Basin and
can obtain treated imported water from USG-6 to meet demands.
4.2.3.2 MAIN SAN GABRIEL BASIN
The Main Basin is located within the San Gabriel Valley in southeastern Los
Angeles County and is bounded on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains; on the west
by the San Rafael and Merced Hills, on the south by the Puente Hills and the San Jose
Hills, and on the east by a low divide between the San Gabriel River system and the
Upper Santa Ana River system, as shown on Plate 2.
The San Gabriel River and its distributary, the Rio Hondo, drain an area of about
490 square miles upstream of Whittier Narrows. Whittier Narrows is a low gap between
Merced and Puente Hills, just northwest of the City of Whittier, through which the San
Gabriel River and the Rio Hondo flow to the coastal plain of Los Angeles County.
Whittier Narrows is a natural topographic divide and a subsurface restriction to the
movement of groundwater between the Main Basin and the Coastal Plain.
Approximately 490 square miles of drainage area upstream of Whittier Narrows consists
of about 167 square miles of valley lands and about 323 square miles of mountains and
foothills.
The Main Basin includes essentially the entire valley floor of San Gabriel Valley
with the exception of the Raymond Basin and Puente Basin. The boundaries of the
Main Basin are the Raymond Basin on the northwest, the base of the San Gabriel
Mountains on the north, the groundwater divide between San Dimas and La Verne and
the lower boundary of the Puente Basin on the east, and the common boundaries
between Upper District and Central District through Whittier Narrows on the southwest.
The common water supply of the Main Basin does not include the Raymond Basin, the
area northerly of Raymond Hill Fault, which was adjudicated in the Pasadena v.
Alhambra case (Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, 1944). The Puente
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-17
Basin, although tributary to the Main Basin, is not included in the Main Basin
administered by the Basin Watermaster.
The Main Basin (administered by the Main Basin Watermaster) is a large
groundwater basin replenished by stream runoff from the adjacent mountains and hills,
by rainfall directly on the surface of the valley floor, subsurface inflow from Raymond
Basin and Puente Basin, and by return flow from water applied for overlying uses.
Additionally, the Main Basin is replenished with imported water. The Main Basin serves
as a natural storage reservoir, transmission system and filtering medium for wells
constructed therein.
There are three municipal water districts overlying and/or partially overlying the
Main Basin. The three districts are Upper District, SGVMWD, and TVMWD. The
boundaries of these water districts are shown on Plate 3.
Urbanization of the San Gabriel Valley began in the early part of the twentieth
century, but until the 1940’s, agricultural land use occupied more area than residential
and commercial land use. After World War II, agricultural areas reduced rapidly and are
now less than two thousand acres. The agricultural areas tend to be located in the
easterly portion of the Main Basin and along power transmission rights of way adjacent
to the San Gabriel River. Agricultural plots are discontinuous and relatively small.
There are several major industrial areas adjacent to the San Gabriel River and within
other portions of the valley. The greatest area of land use in the valley is for residential
and commercial purposes. The California Department of Water Resources’ Bulletin 118
does not identify the Main Basin as being in overdraft.
MAIN BASIN GEOLOGY
The Main Basin consists of a roughly bowl-shaped depression of bedrock, filled
over millions of years with alluvial deposits. This bowl-shaped depression is relatively
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-18
deep; the elevation at the base of the groundwater reservoir declines from about 800
feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the vicinity of San Dimas, at the northeast corner of
the Main Basin, to about 2,200 feet below MSL in the vicinity of South El Monte (DWR,
1966, Plate II).
Most of the alluvium deposited within this depression is debris from the San
Gabriel Mountains, washed and blown down from the side of the mountains over time.
This process has also resulted in the materials of the Main Basin varying in size from
relatively coarse gravel nearer the mountains to fine and medium-grained sand
containing silt and clay as the distance from the mountains increases. The principal
water-bearing formations of the Main Basin are unconsolidated and semi-consolidated
sediments, which vary in size from coarse gravel to fine-grained sands. The interstices
between these alluvial particles throughout the Main Basin fill with water and transmit
water readily to wells. The thickness of the water-bearing materials in the Main Basin
ranges from 200 to 300 feet in the northeastern portion of the Main Basin near the
mountains (DPW, 1934, page 141) to nearly 4,000 feet in the South El Monte area
(DWR, 1966, page 31).
The soils overlying the Main Basin average about six feet in depth. Soil depths
are generally greater at the perimeter of the valley and decrease toward the center
along the San Gabriel River. These soils are residual, formed in place through
chemical, mechanical and plant weathering processes. The infiltration rates of these
soils are greater along the natural channels and their adjacent flood plains. Lower
infiltration rates are found in the perimeter areas of the valley. Since the valley is mostly
urbanized, a significant portion of the area has been paved and many miles of stream
channel have been lined for flood control purposes, thus decreasing infiltration of water
through streambeds. Detailed basin geology is discussed in the report entitled “Planned
Utilization of Ground Water Basins, San Gabriel Valley, Appendix A: Geo-hydrology”
(DWR, 1966).
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-19
MAIN BASIN HYDROLOGY
The total fresh water storage capacity of the Main Basin is estimated to be about
9.5 million acre-feet. Of that, about 1,100,000 acre-feet have been used historically in
Main Basin operations. The change in groundwater elevation at the Key Well is
representative of changes in groundwater in the Main Basin. One foot of elevation
change at the Key Well is roughly the equivalent of about 8,000 acre-feet of water
storage. The location of the Key Well is shown on Plate 5 and the hydrograph of the
Key Well is shown on Figure 1. The historical high groundwater elevation was recorded
at over 329.1 feet in April 1916, at which time Main Basin storage was estimated to be
about 8,700,000 acre-feet. The historical low was recorded in December 2009 at 189.2
feet, at which time Main Basin storage was estimated to be about 7,600,000 acre-feet.
The Key Well hydrograph shown on Figure 1 illustrates the cyclic nature of basin
recharge and depletion. The hydrograph also illustrates the dramatic recharge
capability of the Main Basin during wet periods.
Generally, water movement in the Main Basin is from the San Gabriel Mountains
on the north to Whittier Narrows to the southwest, as shown on Plate 5. Groundwater
movement in the northern and northeastern regions of the Main Basin is affected by
faulting. For example, the Raymond Fault located in the northwesterly portion of the
Main Basin separates the Raymond Basin from the Main Basin.
The Main Basin is an unconfined aquifer. Although clay deposits appear mixed
with the soils in several locations in the Main Basin and there are various clay lenses
throughout the Main Basin, they do not coalesce to form a single impermeable barrier
for the movement of subsurface water. The Main Basin therefore operates as a single,
unconfined aquifer. As previously mentioned, a thorough discussion of basin
hydrogeology is contained in the report “Planned Utilization of Ground Water Basins,
San Gabriel Valley, Appendix A: Geo-hydrology” (DWR, 1966).
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-20
Within the Main Basin there are a number of identified sub-basins. These
include the Upper San Gabriel Canyon Basin, Lower San Gabriel Canyon Basin,
Glendora Basin, Foothill Basin, Way Hill Basin and San Dimas Basin. In addition, the
Puente Basin is tributary to the Main Basin from the southeast, between the San Jose
and Puente Hills, but is not included in the Main Basin adjudication. Plate 5 shows the
location of the sub-basins within the Main Basin.
MAIN BASIN GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT
The major sources of recharge to the Main Basin are direct penetration of rainfall
on the valley floor, percolation of runoff from the mountains, percolation of imported
water and return flow from applied water. Rainfall occurs predominantly in the winter
months and is more intense at higher elevations and closer to the San Gabriel
Mountains. Table 2 shows historical annual rainfall, which is highly variable from year
to year, in the San Gabriel Valley. In water year 2006-07 the total rainfall (four station
average) was less than five inches, while in 2004-05 the total rainfall (four station
average) was about 45 inches, as shown on Table 2.
The magnitude of annual recharge from direct penetration of local rainfall and
return flow from applied water is not easily quantifiable. Percolation of runoff from the
mountains and valley floor along with percolation of imported water has only been
estimated. The DPW maintains records on the amount of local and imported water
conserved in water spreading facilities and stream channels.
The San Gabriel River bisects the Main Basin. The San Gabriel River originates
at the confluence of its west and east forks in the San Gabriel Mountains. It flows
through the San Gabriel Canyon and enters the Main Basin at the mouth of the canyon
north of the City of Azusa. The San Gabriel River flows southwesterly across the valley
to Whittier Narrows, a distance of about 15 miles. It exits San Gabriel Valley at Whittier
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-21
Narrows, and transverses the Coastal Plain in a southerly direction to reach the Pacific
Ocean at Alamitos Bay near the City of Long Beach.
The San Gabriel River is joined and fed by tributary creeks and washes. In the
Main Basin these include: Big Dalton Wash, which originates in the San Gabriel
Mountains; Walnut Creek, which originates at the northeast end of the San Jose Hills;
and San Jose Creek, which originates in the San Gabriel Mountains, but which travels
around the southerly side of the San Jose Hills through the Puente Narrows before
joining the San Gabriel River just above Whittier Narrows.
The channel of the San Gabriel River bifurcates in the upper middle portion of the
Main Basin, forming a channel to the west of and parallel to the San Gabriel River,
known as the Rio Hondo. Tributaries draining the westerly portion of the Main Basin,
including Sawpit Wash, Santa Anita Wash, Eaton Canyon Wash, Rubio Wash and
Alhambra Wash, all of which originate in the San Gabriel Mountains or the foothills, feed
the Rio Hondo. The Santa Anita Wash, Eaton Canyon Wash, Rubio Wash and
Alhambra Wash all cross the Raymond Basin area before entering the Main Basin. The
channel of the Rio Hondo passes through Whittier Narrows westerly of the San Gabriel
River, and then flows southwesterly to join the Los Angeles River on the Coastal Plain.
To protect residents of the San Gabriel Valley from flooding that can result during
periods of intensive rainfall, the DPW and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of
Engineers) have constructed an extensive system of dams, debris basins, reservoirs
and flood control channels, which are shown on Plate 5. The dams and reservoirs also
operate as water conservation facilities. The dams and reservoirs that control the flow
of the San Gabriel River and the Rio Hondo include: Cogswell Reservoir on the west
fork of the San Gabriel River, San Gabriel Reservoir at the confluence of the west and
east forks of the San Gabriel River, Morris Reservoir near the mouth of the San Gabriel
Canyon, Santa Fe Reservoir in the northerly portion of the Main Basin and Whittier
Narrows Reservoir at the southwestern end of the San Gabriel Valley.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-22
Many of the stream channels tributary to the San Gabriel River have been
improved with concrete banks (walls) and concrete-lined bottoms. These stream
channel improvements have significantly reduced the area of previous stream channels
and reduce Main Basin recharge. A number of off-stream groundwater replenishment
facilities have been established along these stream channels to offset such reductions
in recharge. The locations of these water spreading facilities are shown on Plate 5.
Some of these facilities are accessible to imported water supplies, while some facilities
receive only local runoff.
The paths of the surface streams are mirrored in the soils and in the direction of
groundwater movement in the Main Basin. The tributary creeks and washes, carrying
smaller amounts of water, generally flow toward the center of the San Gabriel Valley,
while the direction of flow of the major streams, the San Gabriel River and the Rio
Hondo, is from the mountains in the north to Whittier Narrows in the southwest. In
similar fashion, the primary direction of groundwater movement in the Main Basin is
from the north to the southwest, with contributing movement generally from the east and
west toward the center of the Main Basin as shown on Plate 6. The greatest infiltration
and transmissivity rates of soils in the Main Basin are from north to south, with the
maximum rates found in the center of the valley along the stream channels. Generally,
the Main Basin directs groundwater to the southwest through Whittier Narrows.
4.2.4 LOCATION, AMOUNT AND SUFFICIENCY OF GROUNDWATER
PUMPED FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS
Section 10631(b)(3)
A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of
groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The
description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available,
including, but not limited to, historic use records.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-23
4.2.4.1 GROUNDWATER SOURCES IN RAYMOND BASIN
The City produces groundwater through its eight active wells in the
Raymond Basin, as discussed in Section 4.1. The City’s historical groundwater
production in Raymond Basin over the past 15 years is shown on Table 9. The Decreed
Right of 1955 provides the City with water rights to 2,118.0 AFY from the Pasadena
Subarea and with water rights to 3,526.0 AFY from the Santa Anita Subarea. As
discussed in Section 4.2.1, the Raymond Basin Management Board has phased in a 30
percent reduction requirement over five years for all Decreed Rights to the Pasadena
Subarea, beginning fiscal year 2009-10. As a result, the City’s adjusted right to the
Pasadena Subarea will be 1,482.6 AFY by fiscal year 2013-14. The City’s total water
right in the Raymond Basin will be 5,008.6 AFY by fiscal year 2013-14. The City’s
groundwater production from the Raymond Basin from 2006 to 2010 has averaged
approximately 5,480 AFY.
4.2.4.2 GROUNDWATER SOURCES IN MAIN BASIN
The City produces groundwater through its seven active wells in the Main Basin,
as discussed in Section 4.1. The City’s historical groundwater production in the Main
Basin over the past 15 years is shown on Table 9. The groundwater supply from the
Main Basin is pumped to the City’s reservoir storage facilities and then delivered to the
City’s customers. The City’s groundwater production from the Main Basin from 2006 to
2010 has averaged approximately 11,290 AFY.
4.2.5 LOCATION, AMOUNT AND SUFFICIENCY OF GROUNDWATER
PROJECTED TO BE PUMPED
Section 10631(b)(4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is
projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-24
shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited
to, historic use records.
4.2.5.1 GROUNDWATER SOURCES IN RAYMOND BASIN
As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.1, the Raymond Basin has been adjudicated and
is managed. During the period of management under the Raymond Basin Judgment,
significant drought events have occurred from 1969 to 1977, 1983 to 1991, 1998 to
2004, and 2006-07 to 2008-09. In general, in each drought cycle, the City was able to
obtain sufficient supplies from the Raymond Basin to meet its demands, as shown on
Table 9. However groundwater levels, as shown in Appendix K, have declined over 100
feet in the past 10 years impacting the collective pumping capacity of the City’s wells.
Although the Raymond Basin has been managed for about 70 years under the
adjudication, water levels continue to decrease. Based on historical and ongoing water
levels, as well as the 30 percent reduction requirement over five years for all Decreed
Rights to the Pasadena Subarea, the City’s groundwater supplies in the Raymond Basin
have been reduced. The City will be able to rely on the Raymond Basin for water
supply over the next 25 years under single year and multiple year droughts. The
groundwater projected to be pumped by the City from the Raymond Basin is shown on
Table 9. Details on any changes or expansion planned for the groundwater supply is
provided in Chapter 4.6 below.
4.2.5.2 GROUNDWATER SOURCES IN MAIN BASIN
As noted in Section 4.2.1.1 the Main Basin is managed by the Basin
Watermaster. Section 42, Basin Operating Criteria, of the Main Basin Judgment states
in part “…Watermaster shall not spread Replacement Water when the water level at the
Key Well exceeds Elevation two hundred fifty (250), and Watermaster shall spread
Replacement Water, insofar as practicable, to maintain the water level at the Key Well
above Elevation two hundred (200).” Figure 1 shows the historical fluctuation of the Key
Well elevation and illustrates since the Main Basin was adjudicated in 1973, it generally
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-25
operated between an elevation 250 feet and 200 feet MSL. Furthermore, at elevation
200 feet MSL at the Key Well, the Main Basin has about 7,600,000 acre-feet of
available storage. During the period of management under the Judgment, significant
drought events have occurred from 1969 to 1977, 1983 to 1991, 1998 to 2004, and
2006 to present. In each drought cycle the Main Basin has been managed to maintain
water levels. Therefore, based on historical and on-going management practices, the
City will be able to rely on the Main Basin for adequate supply over the next 25 years
under single year and multiple year droughts.
4.3 TRANSFER OPPORTUNITIES
Section 10631(d)
Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or
long-term basis.
4.3.1 SHORT-TERM
The City has emergency interconnections with other water agencies that serve
as short-term emergency exchange opportunities. Emergency interconnections are
distribution system interconnections between water agencies for use during critical
situations where one system or the other is temporarily unable to provide sufficient
potable water to meet its water demands and/or fire protection needs. An emergency
interconnection will allow a water system to continue serving water during critical
situations such as local water supply shortages as a result of earthquakes, fires,
prolonged power outages and droughts. The City has the ability to receive water from
interconnections with the following water agencies:
- Golden State Water Company (two way)
- Sunny Slope Water Company (two way)
- MWD – USG-6 Connection (one way- in)
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-26
4.3.2 LONG-TERM
As a Party to the Main Basin Judgment, the City can pump from the Main Basin.
The Main Basin Judgment does not restrict the quantity of groundwater that can be
produced, but provides for a Replacement Water assessment for production in excess
of water rights. The City has entered into a Cyclic Storage agreement, described in
Chapter 4.2.1.2, with the Main Basin Watermaster to store imported water in the Main
Basin for a period of up to five years to be used to offset a future Replacement Water
requirement. As of the end of fiscal year 2009-10, the City has a cyclic storage account
of 5,000 acre-feet with an ending balance of approximately 570 acre-feet within cyclic
storage.
4.4 DESALINATED WATER OPPORTUNITIES
Section 10631(i)
Describe the opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not
limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long-term supply.
The City pumps groundwater from the Raymond Basin which is low in Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) and does not require desalination. According to the City’s 2010
Consumer Confidence Report, the average TDS value for the City’s groundwater
sources is about 310 milligrams per liter (mg/l) and ranges from 170 mg/l to 420 mg/l.
The CDPH recommended level of TDS is 500 mg/l and water can be provided for long-
term domestic use with TDS concentrations of up to 1,000 mg/l. Due to the low TDS
concentration of the groundwater from the Raymond Basin, the City does not need to
investigate the use of desalination as a long-term supply. However, there may be
opportunities for use of desalinated ocean water as a potential water supply source in
the future, through coordination with other agencies that have ocean desalination
programs.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-27
Groundwater produced from the Main Basin has acceptable TDS concentrations
(less than secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 1,000 milligrams per liter or
mg/l) and does not require desalination. The average TDS value for the City’s wells is
below its secondary MCL, based on recent data. CDPH recommended level is 500 mg/l
and water can be provided for long-term domestic use with TDS concentrations of up to
1,000 mg/l. Due to the high quality (low TDS concentration) of the groundwater in the
Main Basin, the City does not need to investigate the use of desalination to develop or
reestablish a new long-term supply. As mentioned above, if the City needed to
investigate the use of desalination to develop or reestablish a long-term supply of water,
the City would coordinate with other agencies that have ocean desalination programs.
4.5 RECYCLED WATER OPPORTUNITIES
4.5.1 RECYCLED WATER AND POTENTIAL FOR USE
Section 10633
The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its
potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier.
The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater,
groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area,
and shall include all of the following:
The City does not have access to recycled water due to the lack of infrastructure
to convey recycled water to the City. The City would have to construct transmission and
distribution facilities to deliver recycled water to customers within its service area.
4.5.2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL
Section 10633
(a) A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s
service area, including a quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and
treated and the methods of wastewater disposal.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-28
(b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water
standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water
project.
There are two water reclamation plants in the Basin; the Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant (WNWRP) and the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant
(SJCWRP). The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) operates both of
these facilities. The method of disposal when treated recycled water is not used (non-
recycled) is discharge to the San Gabriel River/Rio Hondo and eventually flows to the
ocean.
The WNWRP, which began operation in 1962, was the first reclamation plant
built by LACSD. It has a treatment capacity of about 15 million gallons per day (MGD)
and provides coagulated, filtered and disinfected tertiary effluent. The WNWRP serves
a population of approximately 150,000 people. The WNWRP produced 6.04 MGD
(6,769 acre-feet per year) of coagulated, filtered, disinfected tertiary recycled water in
fiscal year 2008-09. The volume of wastewater collected and treated is shown in
Appendix L. An average of 5.901 MGD (6,613 acre-feet per year), or 97.7 percent of
the recycled water produced during fiscal year 2008-09 at the WNWRP was re-used for
landscape/plant irrigation and groundwater replenishment. The method of disposal
when treated recycled water is not used (non-recycled) is discharge to the San Gabriel
River and eventually flows to the ocean (see Appendix L).
The SJCWRP, which began operation in 1971, currently has a treatment capacity
of about 100 MGD. The treatment level is coagulation, filtration and disinfection tertiary
effluent. The SJCWRP has room for an expansion of an additional 25 MGD, although
there is no schedule for such an expansion. The SJCWRP plant serves a population of
approximately 1 million people, largely a residential population. The SJWRP produced
71.05 MGD (79,615 acre-feet per year) of coagulated, filtered, disinfected tertiary
recycled water in fiscal year 2008-09. The volume of wastewater collected and treated
is shown in Appendix L. An average of 26.23 MGD (29,392 acre-feet per year), or 36.9
percent of the recycled water produced during fiscal year 2008-09 at the SJCWRP was
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-29
re-used for landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, industrial use, impoundment and
groundwater replenishment. The method of disposal when treated recycled water is not
used (non-recycled) is discharge to the San Gabriel River and eventually flows to the
ocean (see Appendix L).
4.5.3 CURRENT RECYCLED WATER USE
Section 10633
(c) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier’s service area,
including, but not limited to, the type, place, and quantity of use
The City currently does not have any recycled water use within its service
area. Therefore, this requirement is currently not applicable to the City.
4.5.4 POTENTIAL USES OF RECYCLED WATER
Section 10633
(d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but
not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat
enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect potable
reuse, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical
and economic feasibility of serving those uses.
The City’s “Draft Recycled Water Feasibility Study”, November 2006,
identified potential recycled water customers within the City based on recycled
water use for large-volume irrigation purposes (e.g. municipal parks, fields, golf
courses, etc.). Recycled water use factors were applied to overall water
demands for these customers to determine the potential recycled water
demands. A proposed recycled distribution water pipeline route was based on
maximizing recycled water demands and minimizing pipeline and infrastructure
costs (See Appendix M).
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-30
4.5.5 PROJECTED RECYCLED WATER USE
Section 10633
(e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier’s service area at the end of 5,
10, 15 and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in
comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision
The City’s “Draft Recycled Water Feasibility Study” identified potential recycled
water customers within the City (e.g. municipal parks, fields, golf courses, etc.).
Recycled water use factors were applied to overall water demands for these customers
to determine the potential recycled water demands. A proposed recycled distribution
water pipeline route was based on maximizing recycled water demands and minimizing
pipeline and infrastructure costs. Although a schedule for recycled water use has not
been specified in the Study, the proposed recycled water system will provide recycled
water to 23 potential customers with a total annual recycled water demand of
approximately 644 acre-feet per year (See Appendix M). The total potential coincident
‘peak hour recycled water demand’ for the 23 potential recycled water users is
approximately 2,996 gallons per minute. Recycled water deliveries could begin by fiscal
year 2019-2020 with the full projected amount of 644 AFY by fiscal year 2024-25
subject to availability of funding.
4.5.6 ENCOURAGING USE OF RECYCLED WATER
Section 10633
(f) A description of actions, including financial incentives, which may be taken to
encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of these actions in
terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.
The City’s “Draft Recycled Water Feasibility Study” identified potential funding
sources. Funding for construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of facilities
for the proposed City’s recycled water distribution system will be obtained from federal,
state, and local sources, including City revenues.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-31
4.5.7 PLAN FOR OPTIMIZING USE OF RECYCLED WATER
Section 10633
(g) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier’s service area,
including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems, to promote
recirculating uses, to facilitate the increased use of treated wastewater that meets
recycled water standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that increased
use.
The City’s “Draft Recycled Water Feasibility Study” identified potential recycled
water customers within the City (e.g. municipal parks, fields, golf courses, etc.) and a
proposed recycled distribution water pipeline route was based on maximizing recycled
water demands and minimizing pipeline and infrastructure costs. The Study also
identified recycled water facilities, including recycled water distribution pipelines,
booster pumps, reservoirs, and backflow prevention assemblies, and identified potential
funding sources for these facilities. Although the proposed recycled water project is not
projected to change any land use or planning designations of the proposed recycled
customers, implementation of the proposed facilities may cause temporary and/or
permanent changes to the physical environment during construction. However, the
Study indicates mitigation measures are available for any potential air quality, water
quality, hydrology, soils, traffic, land use, and aesthetics impacts from implementation of
the proposed facilities.
The City’s “Draft Recycled Water Feasibility Study” identified LACSD’s WNWRP
as the preferred source of recycled water. The WNWRP currently supplies recycled
water to Upper District’s Phase IIA recycled water system. Upper District has recently
completed construction of its Phase IIA recycled water system expansion into the City of
Rosemead. Upper District will continue to study future recycled water expansion
projects, including recycled water deliveries to the City of Arcadia.
4.5.7.1 UPPER DISTRICT GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-32
Upper District is investigating the possibility of a potential recycled water project
for groundwater replenishment that will provide recycled water for replenishment of the
Main Basin of up to 10,000 acre-feet per year. The initial phase of the project will
produce about 5,000 acre-feet per year for groundwater replenishment of the Main
Basin. Subsequent phases will produce about an additional 5,000 acre-feet per year of
recycled water for groundwater replenishment of the Main Basin.
4.6 FUTURE WATER PROJECTS
Section 10631
(h) Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may
be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water uses as
established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier
shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs, other
than the demand management programs identified pursuant to paragraph (1) of
subdivision (f), that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount
of water supply available to the urban water supplier in average, single-dry, and
multiple-dry water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a
description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each
project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation
timeline for each project or program.
As discussed in Section 4.1, the City’s current groundwater pumping capacity in
the Main Basin is approximately 18,300 gpm. The City plans to construct an additional
well (City Library) between 2010 and 2015 that is projected to increase total pumping
capacity to approximately 19,800 gpm. The City also has plans to construct a backup
well for the Live Oak 1 well in 2015. In addition, the 2008 City of Arcadia Water Master
Plan Update report identified potential reservoir, pipeline, and booster station projects,
for at least 10 years into the future.
In addition to Decreed Right to the Raymond Basin and groundwater extraction from
the Main Basin, the City has the ability to obtain supplemental water supplies from the
following sources:
- Up to 1,591.2 AF of water stored in the Pasadena Subarea of the Raymond
Basin
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-33
- Lease of Decreed Rights in the Raymond Basin. The City has historically
obtained leases of up to 1,700 AFY of groundwater in the Santa Anita
Subarea. The City has historically obtained leases of up to 1,600 AFY of
groundwater in the Pasadena Subarea.
- Cyclic storage provisions allow producers, including the City, to store
supplemental water within the Main Basin for the purpose of supplying
replacement water.
- The City can receive direct deliveries of treated imported water through its
MWD connection, USG-6, which has a capacity of 20 cubic feet per second
(about 14,500 acre-feet per year if used continuously). The City does not
typically use service connection USG-6 because the City’s collective
groundwater supplies are sufficient to meet water demands.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-1
Chapter 5
WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY AND WATER SHORTAGE
CONTINGENCY PLANNING
5.1 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
5.1.1 WATER MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Section 10620(f)
An urban water supplier shall describe in the plan water management tools and
options used by that entity that will maximize resources and minimize the need to
import water from other regions.
This Plan describes water management tools and options used by the City to
maximize local resources and minimize the need to import water. These include
Groundwater Basin Management Structure (Chapter 4.2), Future Water Projects
(Chapter 4.6), and Demand Management Measures (Chapter 6).
5.1.2 SUPPLY INCONSISTENCY
Section 10631(c)(2)
For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given
specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to
supplement or replace that source with alternative sources or water demand
management measures, to the extent practicable.
As a result of the Raymond Basin and Main Basin management, the City has not
experienced water supply deficiencies. The management of both basins is based on
their adjudications, which are described in Chapter 4.2.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-2
5.2 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING
5.2.1 CATASTROPIC INTERRUPTION OF WATER SUPPLIES
Section 10632
(c) Actions to be undertaken by the urban water supplier to prepare for, and implement
during, a catastrophic interruption of water supplies including, but not limited to, a
regional power outage, an earthquake, or other disaster.
The City of Arcadia’s City Council has acted upon several water conservation
ordinances and resolutions to prepare for water shortages. Copies of these ordinances
and resolutions are available for review in the City Clerk’s office located at City Hall and
are briefly described below.
1. Ordinance No. 1598 adopted by the Arcadia City Council on June 21, 1977,
established City policy for water conservation including power to issue a
declaration of a state of urgency, prohibited uses, percentage curtailment of use,
implementation of phases, penalties, adjustments, etc.
2. Resolution No. 5435 passed by the City Council on August 16, 1988, adopted a
program of voluntary water conservation to reduce consumption by 10 percent.
3. Ordinance No. 1930 adopted by the City Council on February 5, 1991.
Mandatory Water Conservation Plan passed as an emergency measure due to
drought. Provided for a progressive surcharge schedule for multiple violations of
excessive water use, and restricted certain uses of water.
4. Resolution No. 5568 passed on February 5, 1991, enacting Phase I mandatory
measures and Phase 2 measures (10 percent mandatory reduction) pursuant to
Ordinance No. 1930.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-3
5. Resolution No. 5638 passed by the City Council on March 21, 1995, rescinded
Phase 1 measures and restored 10 percent voluntary reduction goal pursuant to
Resolution No. 5435.
6. Resolution No. 5481 passed by the City Council on March 21, 1995, rescinded
Phase 1 measures pursuant to Ordinance 1930; continued 10 percent reduction
goal per Resolution No. 5435.
7. Ordinance No. 2036 adopted by the City Council April 4, 1995, amended Article
VII, Division 3 Part 5, chapter 5 of Arcadia Municipal Code. Phases 6, 7 and 8
were added to the original Ordinance 1930 to provide for emergency water use
reductions of up to 50 percent as required by mandatory Urban Water Shortage
Contingency Plan (June 1992). Also enacted City “Water Banking” program,
which allows residents to carry over water conservation credits from one billing
cycle to another.
8. Resolution No. 6637 passed by the City Council on August 5, 2008, authorized
the Assistant City Manager / Public Works Services Director to implement a
voluntary water conservation program in order to reduce water use by ten
percent. In addition, the resolution determined a public campaign was to be
launched regarding water shortages and voluntary water use reductions.
To further prepare for a catastrophic interruption of water supplies, the City
maintains a water fund balance, commonly referred to as reserves, for the purpose of
maintaining adequate funds for the replacement, repair or operation of critical water
facilities in the event of a major catastrophe, such as a major power outage, earthquake
or similar natural disaster. The City’s Water Fund is comprised of an Operating Fund,
Capital Fund and Equipment Fund.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-4
In 1991, in accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill 11X, the City of
Arcadia developed a comprehensive Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The City also
created an Emergency Response Plan consistent with guidelines prepared by the
California State Office of Emergency Services.
The City recognizes the importance of Demand Management Measures (DMM)
in reducing water demand and continues to implement DMM programs whether or not a
shortage exists. The City of Arcadia realizes that media attention of the City’s water
supply is a good way of informing the public of any water supply shortages and will
increase media attention and public water education programs should a water supply
shortage occur.
The City also participated in a seismic reliability program and has obtained
federal funding for the study that examined damage to water infrastructures resulting
from a major earthquake. Funding has also become available for the design and
retrofitting of various City facilities. These retrofits help “disaster proof” the City’s water
system and help prevent water outages because of infrastructure failure.
The following include examples of actions the City will take in preparation of a
water supply catastrophe:
- Determine what constitutes a proclamation of a water shortage
- Stretch existing water shortage
- Obtain additional water supplies
- Develop alternative water supplies
- Determine where the funding will come from
- Contact and coordinate with other agencies
- Create an Emergency Response Team/Coordinator
- Create a catastrophe preparedness plan
- Put employees/contractors on call
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-5
- Develop methods to communicate with the public
- Develop methods to prepare for water quality interruptions
As mentioned earlier, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2036 in April 1995 to provide for
emergency water use reductions of up to 50 percent as required by mandatory Urban
Water Shortage Contingency Plan. In addition, the City Council would adopt a
resolution to declare a water shortage emergency if necessary.
5.2.2 MANDATORY PROHIBITIONS
Section 10632
(d) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices during water
shortages, including, but not limited to, prohibiting the use of potable water for street
cleaning.
The City of Arcadia’s Mandatory Water Conservation Ordinance includes
prohibitions on various wasteful water uses such a lawn watering during mid-day hours,
washing sidewalks and driveways with potable water and allowing plumbing leaks to go
uncorrected.
5.2.3 CONSUMPTION REDUCTION METHODS
Section 10632
(e) Consumption reduction methods in the most restrictive stages. Each urban water
supplier may use any type of consumption reduction methods in its water shortage
contingency analysis that would reduce water use, as appropriate for its area, and
have the ability to achieve a water use reduction consistent with up to a 50 percent
reduction in water supply.
The City has developed an eight-stage rationing plan to invoke during declared
water shortages. The rationing plan includes the following mandatory rationing,
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-6
depending on the causes, severity, and anticipated duration of the water supply
shortage:
Shortage
Condition
Phase Customer
Reduction
Goal
Type of
Rationing
Program
Imminent Drought I 10% Mandatory
Up to 10% II 10% Mandatory
11 – 15% III 15% Mandatory
16 – 20% IV 20% Mandatory
21 – 25% V 25% Mandatory
26 – 30% VI 30% Mandatory
31 – 40% VII 40% Mandatory
41 – 50% VIII 50% Mandatory
Water allocations are established for all customers according to the following
ranking system:
1. Average of past usage for a “base” period.
2. Health and safety allocations (includes hospitals, convalescent facilities, fire
fighting and public safety).
3. Health and safety allocations (includes single family, multi-family, and retirement
communities).
4. Commercial, industrial, institutional/governmental operations (where water is
used for manufacturing and to maintain jobs and economic base of the
community (not for landscape uses).
The City has established a “base” period as the allocation method for each of the
phases of reduction. All customer types fall within this allocation method. Customers
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-7
may appeal their allotments by completing a form, which asks specific questions as to
why the added allotment is necessary, and what that customer has done to conserve
water before granting the allotment. The “base” period is a recent consecutive three-
year period. This gives the City a more accurate view of the usual water need of each
customer, allows for fluctuations in temperature and rainfall, and provides additional
flexibility in determining allotments and reviewing appeals. The rationing percentage is
then deducted from the customer’s allotment. The allotment is specific for each of the
six billing cycles to provide for more water use in warmer months and less use in cooler
months, thereby reflecting seasonal patterns.
5.2.4 PENALTIES OR CHARGES FOR EXCESSIVE USE
Section 10632
(f) Penalties or charges for excessive use, where applicable.
It is unlawful and a misdemeanor for any customer to fail to comply with any
provisions of the regulations and restrictions on water use set forth in the City’s
Mandatory Water Conservation Plan Ordinance. Violators of Phase I restricted uses will
receive a written notice. A violator receiving three or more written notices is referred to
the City Attorney who may proceed with filing a misdemeanor against the customer.
For the first violation of Phases II through VIII, the City will impose a surcharge
penalty, in addition to the water rate, in an amount equal to two times the current water
rate for those billing units used in excess of base.
For the second violation of Phases II through VIII, the City will impose a
surcharge penalty, in addition to the water rate, in an amount equal to three times the
current water rate for those billing units used in excess of base. The third violation
increases the amount to four times the current water rate for those water units used in
excess of the base allotment. For example, a customer with an overuse of 10 units of
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-8
water (10 hundred cubic feet) would pay $2.44 per unit (two times the current water rate
of $1.22), or $24.40 for the first violation. The second violation would be $3.66, or
$36.60 (three times the rate) and the third violation for the same amount of units would
be four times the water rate ($4.88, or $48.80) added to the amount of the regular water
bill.
5.2.5 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE IMPACTS
Section 10632
(g) An analysis of the impacts of each of the actions and conditions described in
subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, on the revenues and expenditures of the urban water
supplier, and proposed measures to overcome those impacts, such as the
development of reserves and rate adjustments.
Revenues that the City collects are used to fund Operations and Maintenance,
including the Capital Improvement and Equipment Replacement Program. Depending
on the length of the drought and the possible decrease in revenue as a result, projects
may have to be postponed. If a drought persisted for several years and a serious
decrease in revenue occurred, the Water Fund Reserve would have to be used to keep
the water system operating. The last measure to cover the revenue shortfall would be
to ask the City of Arcadia’s City Council to adjust the water rate.
5.2.6 DRAFT WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY RESOLUTION OR
ORDINANCE
Section 10632
(h) A draft water shortage contingency resolution or ordinance.
As mentioned earlier, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2036 (see Appendix N) in
April 1995 to provide for emergency water use reductions of up to 50 percent as
required by mandatory Urban Water Shortage Contingency Plan. In addition, the City
Council would adopt a resolution to declare a water shortage emergency if necessary.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-9
5.3 WATER QUALITY
Section 10634
The plan shall include information, to the extent practicable, relating to the quality of
existing sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments
as described in subdivision (a) of Section 10631, and the manner in which water
quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability.
5.3.1 GROUNDWATER FROM MAIN BASIN
Water from the City’s water system supplied from the Main Basin meets all
drinking water regulations. Groundwater from the City’s Longden 1 and Longden 2
wells contains concentrations of VOCs at levels exceeding CDPH standards. The City
installed air stripping treatment equipment in the 1980’s to remove VOCs from the
groundwater produced from the Longden 1 and Longden 2 wells. Groundwater from the
Longden 2 and St Joseph 2 wells contains concentrations of Nitrate at levels exceeding
CDPH standards. Consequently, the City has instituted CDPH approved blend plans to
reduce Nitrate and VOC concentrations to below 80 percent of CDPH standards. As a
result of the City's CDPH approved treatment and blending activities, the City's wells will
provide a reliable water source from the Main Basin to City customers for the next 25
years.
5.3.2 GROUNDWATER FROM RAYMOND BASIN
Water from the City’s water system supplied from the Raymond Basin meets all
drinking water regulations. Groundwater from the City’s Orange Grove 1A and Orange
Grove 5 wells contains concentrations of VOCs at levels exceeding CDPH standards.
Groundwater from the Orange Grove 5 well contains concentrations of Nitrate at levels
exceeding CDPH standards. Consequently, the City has a blend program to reduce
Nitrate and VOC concentrations to below 80 percent of CDPH standards. As a result of
the City's CDPH approved blending activities, the City's wells are expected to provide a
reliable water source from the Raymond Basin to City customers for the next 25 years.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-10
Although unanticipated changes in blending activities may result in a loss of Raymond
Basin well capacity, the City can reliably produce groundwater from the Main Basin and
can obtain treated imported water from USG-6 to meet demands.
5.3.3 IMPORTED WATER
The City can also receive direct delivery of treated imported water from its connection
(USG-6) with MWD water supplies. Water supplied from treated imported water meets
all drinking water regulations.
5.4 DROUGHT PLANNING
5.4.1 RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY AND VULNERABILITY TO SEASONAL OR
CLIMATIC SHORTAGE
Section 10631(c)(1)
Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic
shortage, to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of the following:
(A) An average water year.
(B) A single dry water year.
(C) Multiple dry water years.
As a result of the Main Basin and the Raymond Basin management, the City has
not experienced water supply deficiencies. The management of both basins is based on
their adjudications, which are described in Section 4.2. Based on current management
practices in the Main Basin and Raymond Basin, the minimum water supplies available
at the end of an average water year, a single dry year, and multiple dry years would be
at least equal if not greater than the City’s water demand.
Information regarding the reliability of the groundwater supplies from Main Basin
and Raymond Basin is based on the 51-year rainfall data for the San Gabriel Valley
(Table 2), and past data on the availability of water supply to meet demands during
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-11
seasonal or climatic shortage. Table 2 summarizes the rainfall in the San Gabriel Valley
from water year 1958-59 through water year 2008-09. According to the rainfall data for
the San Gabriel Valley, the annual average rainfall is 17.8 inches. Therefore, water
year 2005-06 (or fiscal year 2005-06) represents an average water year for the City in
which the total amount of rainfall was about 16.8 inches. A single dry year for the City
was represented in water year 2006-07 (or fiscal year 2006-07) in which the total
amount of rainfall was about 4.9 inches. A multiple dry year sequence for the City is
represented from water year 2006-07 to water year 2008-09 (or from fiscal years 2006-
07 to 2009-09), where the total amount of rainfall was about 4.9 inches, 16.4 inches,
and 14.0 inches, respectively. Table 9 shows that during an average year, single dry
year and multiple dry years, groundwater production for the City remained stable. A dry
year or multiple dry years did not compromise the City’s ability to provide a reliable
supply of water to its customers.
Based on current management practices, the City will be able to rely on the Main
Basin and the Raymond Basin for adequate supply over the next 25 years under single
year and multiple year droughts.
5.4.2 STAGES OF ACTION IN RESPONSE TO WATER SUPPLY
SHORTAGES
Section 10632
(a) Stages of action to be undertaken by the urban water supplier in response to water
supply shortages, including up to 50 percent reduction in water supply, and an outline
of specific water supply conditions which are applicable to each stage.
As the water purveyor, the City must provide the minimum health and safety water
needs of the community at all times. The water shortage response is designed to
provide a minimum of 50 percent of the normal supply during a severe or extended
water shortage. The rationing program triggering levels shown in Appendix O were
established to ensure that this goal is met.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-12
Although an actual shortage may occur at any time during the year, a shortage (if one
occurs) is usually forecasted by local agencies such as MWD, State Department of
Water Resources, Main Basin Watermaster and Raymond Basin Management Board.
The City’s potable water sources are groundwater and imported water (when the City’s
allotment is over pumped in the Main Basin). Rationing phases may be triggered by a
supply shortage or by contamination in one source or a combination of sources.
5.4.3 THREE YEAR MINIMUM WATER SUPPLY
Section 10632
(b) An estimate of the minimum water supply available during each of the next three
water years based on the driest three-year historic sequence for the agency’s water
supply.
Over the past 20 years, the driest three-year sequence (multiple dry years) in the
City's service area occurred from water year 2006-07 (or fiscal year 2006-07) to water
year 2008-09 (or fiscal year 2008-09), as shown in Table 2. The ratio between the
normal water year in 2005-06 (or fiscal year 2005-6) and multiple dry years (or fiscal
years 2006-07 to 2008-09) was estimated for the City’s supply, as shown on Table 11.
This ratio from Table 11 was used to estimate the minimum water supply available
during each of the next three water years based on the driest three-year historical
sequence for the City’s water supply (see Table 12).
5.4.4 WATER USE REDUCTION MEASURING MECHANISM
Section 10632
(i) A mechanism for determining actual reductions in water use pursuant to the urban
water shortage contingency analysis.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-13
Under normal water supply conditions, potable water production figures are recorded
daily during business hours and on the first day of the month. Totals are quantified on a
monthly basis. Before returning to any phase of the Mandatory Water Conservation
Plan, the City Council would have to be advised of a water shortage well in advance of
approving any phase of the Mandatory Water Conservation Plan. The Director of Public
Works Services would keep the City Manager advised on a weekly basis if there was a
water shortage and he in turn would brief the City Council. Reports would have to be
made at public meetings of the City Council.
5.4.5 ASSESSMENT OF THE RELIABILITY OF WATER SERVICE
Section 10635
(a) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan,
an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal,
dry, and multiple dry years. This water supply and demand assessment shall
compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total
projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal
water year, a single dry year water year, and multiple dry water years. The water
service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant
to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency
population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.
As previously discussed in Chapter 3.2, the City applied SBX7-7 to estimate the
City’s 2015 Interim Urban Water Use Target of 265 GPCD and the City’s 2020 Urban
Water Use Target of 236 GPCD. These Urban Water Use Targets were then applied to
estimate the City’s projected normal year demands in 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, and
2035, as shown on Table 6. The City will continue to use groundwater as its main
source of water supply over the next 25 years. The following sections discuss the City’s
water service reliability assessment, which compares the City’s supply and demand
over the next 25 years during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-14
5.4.5.1 NORMAL WATER YEAR
As previously discussed, the City’s projected normal water year demand over the
next 20 years in five-year increments was based on the City’s 2015 and 2020 Urban
Water Use Targets of 265 GPCD and 236 GPCD, respectively. The City’s projected
supply was based on the projected demand, as shown on Table 8. The comparison of
the City’s projected supply and demand during a normal water year is shown on Table
13. As shown on Table 13, the City’s supply can meet demands during a normal water
year for the next 25 years.
5.4.5.2 SINGLE-DRY YEAR
As shown on Table 2, the City experienced a single-dry year during fiscal year
2006-07 and a normal water year during fiscal year 2005-06. The ratio between the
normal water year and single-dry year was estimated for the City’s supply and demand,
as shown on Table 11. This ratio and the projected supply and demand during a normal
water year from Table 13 was used to estimate the City’s projected supply and demand
during a single-dry year over the next 25 years in five-year increments. The comparison
of the City’s projected supply and demand during a single-dry year is shown on Table
14. As shown on Table 14, the City’s supply can meet demands during a single-dry
year for the next 25 years.
5.4.5.3 MULTIPLE DRY YEARS
As shown on Table 2, the City experienced multiple dry years during fiscal years
2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The ratio between the normal water year in 2005-06
and multiple dry years were estimated for the City’s supply and demand, as shown on
Table 11. This ratio and the projected supply and demand during a normal water year
from Table 13 was used to estimate the City’s projected supply and demand during
multiple dry years over the next 25 years in five-year increments. The comparison of
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-15
the City’s projected supply and demand during multiple dry years is shown on Table 15.
As shown on Table 15, the City’s supply can meet demands during multiple dry years
for the next 25 years.
5.4.5.4 GROUNDWATER RELIABILITY
The City obtains its water supply from groundwater wells, located in the Raymond
Basin and the Main Basin, and from imported treated water. Chapter 4 provides a
description of the management of water resources in the Raymond Basin and Main
Basin, as well as information on basin management. Chapter 4 also demonstrates the
management structure of the Main Basin provides a reliable source of groundwater
supply for the City in an average, single-dry and multiple-dry water years. Historical
data indicate the Raymond Basin and Main Basin have been well managed for over 40
years of adjudication The City will be able to rely on the Raymond Basin for water
supply over the next 25 years under single year and multiple year droughts. There are
no contemplated basin management changes, other than the planned use of recycled
water for groundwater replenishment in the Main Basin. Therefore, based on historical
and on-going management practices, the City will be able to rely on the Main Basin for
adequate supply over the next 25 years under single year and multiple year droughts.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-1
Chapter 6
DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
The City is committed to implementing water conservation programs and works
collaboratively with Upper District to provide water conservation programs for its
residents. As a member of Upper District, the City’s residents have the benefit of
participating in Upper District’s conservation efforts. Upper District offers an extensive
program throughout the San Gabriel Valley and is a signatory to the Memorandum of
Understanding regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU) and is
therefore a member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC).
Although the City did not sign the MOU regarding Urban Water Conservation in
California and is not a member of the CUWCC, the City takes advantage of its
relationship with Upper District as a member agency. The following sections describe
the City’s implementation of the Demand Management Measures (DMMs) required in
the UWMP Act.
6.1 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES BEING IMPLEMENTED
Section 10631
(f) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures.
This description shall include all of the following:
(1) A description of each water demand management measure that is currently
being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, including the steps
necessary to implement any proposed measures, including, but not limited to, all
of the following:
(A) Water survey programs for single-family residential and multifamily
residential customers.
(B) Residential plumbing retrofit.
(C) System water audits, leak detection, and repair.
(D) Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of
existing connections.
(E) Large landscape conservation programs and incentives.
(F) High-efficiency washing machine rebate programs.
(G) Public information programs.
(H) School education programs.
(I) Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional
accounts.
(J) Wholesale agency programs.
(K) Conservation pricing.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-2
(L) Water conservation coordinator.
(M) Water waste prohibition.
(N) Residential ultra-low-flush toilet replacement programs.
(2) A schedule of implementation for all water demand management measures
proposed or described in the plan.
(3) A description of the methods, if any, that the supplier will use to evaluate the
effectiveness of water demand management measures implemented or
described under the plan.
(4) An estimate, if available, of existing conservation savings on water use within the
supplier’s service area, and the effect of the savings on the supplier’s ability to
further reduce demand.
6.1.1 WATER SURVEY PROGRAMS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS [10631(F)(1)(A)]
The City monitors customer’s water use through its computerized billing system.
The City’s billing system automatically audits customer’s water bills and flags those bills
that show unusual or high consumption. The City’s billing system alerts the City when a
customer’s bill is flagged for high consumption and a customer can make a request to
have a service representative inspect their system to make necessary repairs. In
addition, City staff can review water usage bills to determine if “excessive water use”
occurred and can help customers individually determine the reason for the “excessive
water use. The City is currently preparing a procedure for documenting service calls,
surveys and their corresponding water savings through its Customer Service group.
Estimated savings are expected to be 3 to 150 gallons per day per customer.
Upper District encourages its member agencies, including the City, to implement
water survey programs. Additionally, Upper District supports its member agencies'
efforts by offering workshops to train staff on how to conduct residential water surveys.
6.1.2 RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING RETROFIT [10631(F)(1)(B)]
The City, in conjunction with Upper District, participates in a residential plumbing
retrofit program. Upper District’s residential plumbing retrofit program is through MWD.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-3
MWD distributes residential plumbing retrofits, Ultra –Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) and
high-efficiency clothes washers, to its member agencies. As a member agency of
MWD, Upper District receives residential plumbing retrofits and distributes them to its
member agencies. The distribution of the toilets within Upper District’s service area is
conducted at local schools within San Gabriel Valley.
The City also implements additional residential plumbing retrofit programs.
When City staff issues building permits for new or remodeled homes or other facilities,
City staff enforces Chapter 4 of the Uniform Building Code that applies to Water
Conserving Fixtures and Fittings.
In addition, Upper District's residential plumbing retrofit program consist of rebate
programs for high- efficiency clothes washer, high-efficiency toilets, rotating nozzles for
sprinklers, weather-based irrigation controllers, and synthetic turf. Information and
water conservation savings regarding these programs are located in MWD's draft 2010
Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) which is incorporated by reference.
6.1.3 SYSTEM WATER AUDITS, LEAK DETECTION, AND REPAIR
[10631(F)(1)(C)]
The City has installed radio frequency read meters and is continuing to install
radio frequency read meters. The City repairs leaks within its distribution system on an
as needed basis. The City closely monitors its water production and consumption use
tabulating the amount of “unaccounted for water”. The City’s current estimated
“unaccounted for water” is approximately 10 percent. The City calculates the amount of
“unaccounted for water” by finding the difference between the amount of water the City
pumped and the amount of water sold to its customers. This program is effective in
maintaining distribution systems that deliver water effectively and efficiently with the
least amount of water loss. The amount of water conserved through the City’s system
water audits, leak detection and repair program can be estimated by evaluating the
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-4
average amount of “unaccounted for water”. For the period of 2005 to 2010, the
average unaccounted for water has dropped from 160 milion gallons (MG) per year to 4
MG for an annual savings of $230,000 annually.
Upper District is a member agency of MWD which conducts various system
audits and leak detection program for MWD’s entire system. Additional information
regarding system water audits, leak detection, repair, and water conservation savings
can be found in MWD's draft 2010 RUWMP, which is incorporated by reference.
6.1.4 METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW
CONNECTIONS AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS
[10631(F)(1)(D)]
The City is fully metered for all customer sectors, including separate meters for
single-family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, institutional and
governmental facilities. Furthermore, within the City if there is new development, each
facility is individuality metered. Service charges for the City are based on the
customer’s connection size. Chapter 6.1.10 provides greater detail about the City’s
service fees and conservation pricing. The City’s system effectively promotes water
conservation by being completely metered. Water lost through unmetered use is
included in “unaccounted for water”. For the period of 2005 to 2010, the average
unaccounted for water has dropped from 160 MG per year to 4 MG for an annual
savings of $230,000 annually.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-5
6.1.5 LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND
INCENTIVES [10631(F)(1)(E)]
The City installs state-of-the-art irrigation systems in all new public projects
constructed within the City and encourages the use of irrigation systems for private
projects. The City uses “cal-sense” controllers that are computer based with automatic
shut off in case of an excessive flow of water. The Santa Anita Golf Course utilizes an
irrigation system that allows more efficient use of water on the course. In addition, the
City of Arcadia’s Code of Ordinances include landscaping regulations intended to
conserve water. To further promote water conservation and more efficient use of water
on large landscape areas, the City considered the use of synthetic turf and has installed
synthetic turf at the City’s Civic Center Athletic Field.
The City’s large landscape conservation and incentives program is effective at
conserving water because the irrigation systems installed by the City only use water as
needed, therefore, the irrigation systems eliminate water waste. The City currently
budgets $26,000 annually for water conservation upgrades to City medians and facility
landscapes.
In addition, Upper District's large landscape conservation program includes the
Sythetic Turf Grant School Program. The goal of the Sythetic Turf Grant School
Program is to assist schools with funding for retrofitting large landscape areas with
synthetic turf. Through this program, Upper District offers grants of up to $75,000 per
site to assist with the cost of installing sythetic turf. Since the start of the program in
fiscal year 2005-06, five schools have participated in this program. Based on estimated
service life of 10 years for synthetic turf, the total annual water savings for the 5
synthetic turf programs is estimated at 53 acre-feet.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-6
6.1.6 HIGH-EFFICIENCY WASHING MACHINE REBATE PROGRAMS
[10631(F)(1)(F)]
The City does not currently implement its own high-efficiency washing machine
rebate program because it is not economically viable. However, the City does
participate in a high-efficiency washing machine program through its relationship with
Upper District. Upper District in partnership with MWD, DWR, CalFed Bay Delta
Program and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, offers a residential high-efficiency clothes
washer rebate program. Residential customers within Upper District’s service area
(including the City) can install a high-efficiency washing machine in place of standard-
efficiency washing machine for a rebate. This program allows the City’s customers to
benefit from a high-efficiency washing program and contributes to the conservation of
water.
Moreover, Upper District, in partnership with MWD, State Department of Water
Resources, CalFed Bay Delta program and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, offers a
residential high-efficiency clothes washer rebate program. Residential dwellings (single-
family homes, condominiums, townhouses, apartments or mobile homes) that are
located within Upper District’s service area can install a high-efficiency washing
machine in place of standard-efficiency washing machine for a rebate. A residence that
installs a high-efficiency washing machine could receive a rebate of $200 per washer as
of fiscal year 2008-09. The program began in fiscal year 2002-03. Since the program
began, a total of 6,656 rebates have been provided. Metropolitan states that this
program saves about 10,000 gallons per year per washer over a conventional top
loading washer. Based on an estimated service life of 15 years for each washer, the
total annual water savings for 6,656 washers is estimated at 160 acre-feet. Additional
information on the high-efficiency washing machine rebate program can be found in
Upper District’s 2010 Plan, incorporated by reference.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-7
6.1.7 PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(G)]
The City informs City of Arcadia residents about water conservation through its
public information programs. The City has a quarterly newsletter that is sent to the
City’s customers/residents, which provides information about water conservation on a
seasonal basis. The City also prints water conservation messages periodically on its
customer’s water bills. In addition, the City’s new “Hot Sheet”, which is mailed with the
City’s water bills (a two-sided, one-page leaflet), is also used to remind residents of
useful water conservation tips, purposely focused on a monthly basis either on indoor or
outdoor conservation practices. Lastly, the City’s website located at
http://www.ci.arcadia.ca.us/home/index.asp contains additional useful information.
As a member of Upper District, the customers of the City can also receive public
information about water conservation through Upper District’s various public information
programs. Upper District offers conservation brochures, posters, activity booklets,
public outreach display and workshops. Upper District also raises awareness about
water conservation through paid advertising, press releases, news ads and media
events.
Each year, the Upper District hosts its annual Water Fest event, in which the City
has participated in since 2003. Each fall, Upper District holds this community event to
promote water conservation on every level; targeted towards area residents, business
owners and visitors alike. A well attended day, this effort has proven to draw thousands
of eager visitors who are able to peruse the many booths, participate in children’s
games, as well as win conservation related raffle prizes and receive a wealth of
literature and give-away items to assist them in their water conservation practices.
To ensure that an abundant supply of water conservation information is provided
to the City of Arcadia residents, the City hosts Concerts in the Park, the Summer
Reading Program Kick Off, and the Community Picnic where amongst other activities,
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-8
the Public Works Services staff talks with residents and hands out countless
environmental pieces and give-aways – much of which focused on water-wise practices
and water conservation. The City also publishes an annual calendar for its residents,
with the theme for both 2005 & 2006, focusing on environmental topics, of which, water
conservation is highlighted. Calendars are mailed to residents in December.
Furthermore, the City has joined forces with the Los Angeles County to
participate in the annual LA County Environmental Education Fair (LAEEF), held at the
Arboretum which is located in the City of Arcadia. Again, manning booths and speaking
with area residents, school-age children and educators alike – City staff is able to
continue its dissemination of water conservation information and related take home
items, The City currently budgets $8,000 annually for the promotion and education of
water conservation.
In addition, Upper District promotes water conservation through its many public
information programs. Upper District offers conservation brochures and posters, activity
booklets, public outreach displays, oral presentations, and workshops to inform the
public of conservation efforts. Upper District also raises awareness about water
conservation through paid advertising, press releases, news ads, media events, and
through the Speaker's Bureau. Annually, Upper District hosts a water awareness
festival (Water Fest) to raise public awareness about water conservation, water quality,
and other water-related issues. Water conservation savings are not available for this
DMM. Additional information regarding Upper District's public information programs can
be found in Upper District's 2010 Plan.
6.1.8 SCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(H)]
The customers of the City or Arcadia also receive educational tools regarding
water conservation through Upper District’s school educational programs. Upper
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-9
District’s school educational programs include an annual Water Awareness Youth Art
Contest, combining an art poster contest for grades K though 3rd and 4th though 6th and
a T-shirt contest for grades 7th through 12th.
Winning artwork graces the Upper District's
custom water bottle labels, as well as promotional stickers that are handed out at
community events. Printed materials can be provided to schools within Upper District’s
service area (including the City). Upper District’s educational materials and
presentations meet state education framework requirements.
In addition, Upper District directly offers school education programs in an effort to
raise awareness of water issues. Upper District started its school education programs
in September 1992 and the materials and presentations meet state education
framework requirements. The following is a list of Upper District’s school educational
programs:
• Water Awareness Art Contests
• Solar Cup Competition
• Water Education Grant Program
• Annual Art Poster Contest for grades K through 3rd and 4th through 6th
• T-shirt Art Contest for grades 7
th through12th
• Water Educational Posters
• Water Resource Library
Upper District also participates in additional educational school programs through
MWD, which has extensive educational programs that includes schools within Upper
District’s boundaries. MWD’s educational programs meet state education framework
requirements. A list of MWD’s school education programs and water conservation
savings is included in MWD’s draft 2010 RUWMP, which is incorporated by reference.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-10
6.1.9 CONSERVATION PROGRAMS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND
INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTS [10631(F)(1)(I)]
As shown on Table 5, the City currently has approximately 820 commercial meter
accounts, most of which are office buildings and small shops. The City participates in a
commercial and industrial water conservation program through Upper District’s
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Program. Upper District in conjunction with
MWD offers rebates for retrofitting certain high water-use fixtures/equipment with more
water efficient models. Eligible fixtures included in Upper District’s CII Program include:
Fixture Rebate
Ultra Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) up to $180
ULF Urinals up to $100
Flush Valve Retrofit Kit up to $25
Automatic Faucet Shut-off Valve up to $80
Coin or Card Operated High-Efficiency Clothes Machine up to $450
Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller – up to $700
Replacement or New Installation
Hospital X-Ray Processor Recirculating System up to $3,000
Water Pressurized Broom up to $150
This program effectively conserves water by replacing regular efficiency
machines with high-efficiency equipment, which ultimately reduces the amount of water
used.
Likewise, Upper District offers a conservation program for CII facilities. Upper
District's program offers CII facilities rebates for retrofitting existing high water-use
fixtures with efficient water-use fixtures. The CII program includes the following fixtures:
1. Commercial High Efficiency Toilet (includes flushometer, tank, and dual flash)
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-11
2. Commercial High Efficiency Toilet (new construction)
3. Ultra Low Water Urinal (less than 0.25 gallons per flush (gpf) and Zero Water
Urinals
4. Ultra Low Water Urinal and Zero Water Urinals Upgrade or New Construction
5. Water Broom
6. Connectionless Food Steamer
7. Ice Making Machine Tier III standard
8. Dry Vacuum Pump
9. Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller
10. pH Cooling Tower Controller
11. Weather-Base Irrigation Controller and Central Computer Irrigation Controller
12. Rotating Nozzles for Pop-up Spray Head Retrofits
13. Large Rotary Nozzles
The program began in fiscal year 2000-01. A total of 10,568 rebates have been
received through this program. Based on an estimated weighted service life of 19 years
for CII rebate programs items, the total annual water savings for the 10,568 rebate
program items is estimated at 490 acre-feet.
6.1.10 CONSERVATION PRICING [10631(F)(1)(K)]
The City’s Mandatory Water Conservation Program, as outlined in its Municipal
Code, contains penalties for overuse of water during drought times that are based on
the various stages enacted upon by resolutions passed by the Arcadia City Council.
In addition the City’s Cyclic Storage account is a form of conservation pricing.
The recently implemented Long-term Cyclic Storage program allows retail agencies to
purchase untreated imported water at a reduced rate to store in Main Basin for a period
of up to five years. The stored water creates a drought reserve that can be utilized to
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-12
mitigate future imported water supply shortages. This program helps water utilities
meet their potential future water demands by pre-purchasing and storing imported water
that they can later use to supplement existing groundwater supply. The City has
participated in this program during fiscal year 2009-10.
In 2010 the City prepared a Tiered Water Rate Study intended to analyze the
current water use and billing practices and to provide recommendations for a tiered
water rate structure that would provide a conservation incentive, ensure financial
stability and meet the regulatory requirements of SBX7-7. At the time of this report no
decision has been reached as to the acceptance of, or appropriate implementation of a
tiered water rate structure.
In addition, Upper District implements conservation pricing to encourage sub-
agencies to conserve water. Additional information regarding Upper District's
conservation pricing can be found in its 2010 Plan incorporated by reference.
6.1.11 WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR [10631(F)(1)(L)]
The City’s Environmental Services Officer is responsible for all aspects of
environmental issues including water conservation measures for residents and business
owners alike. The City’s Environmental Services Officer coordinates public water
awareness materials, public outreach events, speaks with residents/business owners
who contact the City for water conservation information and participates in the active
dissemination of Upper District efforts such as the High Efficiency Clothes Washer
Rebate Program.
In addition as a member of Upper District, the City can utilize Upper District’s
water conservation coordinator, who is employed by Upper District to promote water
conservation issues and programs within Upper District’s service area including the
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-13
City. The water conservation coordinator does research on water management
practices and advises retail water purveyors on water conservation matters. Upper
District’s water conservation coordinator is effective at informing the public on water
awareness and is involved in public information programs and school education
programs.
The water conservation coordinator employed by Upper District promotes water
conservation issues and programs. The position was created in 1992 as a full-time
position. The water conservation coordinator does research on water managements
practices and advises the Upper District Board Members and its subagencies, including
the City, on water conservation matters. More information about Upper District’s
conservation coordinator can be found in its 2010 Plan, which is incorporated by
reference.
6.1.12 WATER WASTE PROHIBITION [10631(F)(1)(M)]
The City has adopted several Ordinances and Resolutions that address
the issue of water waste, and conservation measures (by % reduction), during times of
decided drought by action of the City Council. These ordinances are listed in Chapter
5.2.1 of this report and are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office. In addition, the
City’s service crews and meter readers report all wasteful uses of water, and residents
are contacted regarding leaks and significant sprinkler run-off.
Furthermore, Upper District passed Resolution 6-90-266 in 1990 to reduce water
demands within Upper District's service area. In addition, Upper District has prepared a
draft Urban Water Shortage Contingency Resolution that may be adopted in case of an
emergency which will require mandatory reductions in water use within Upper District's
service area. Water conservation savings are not available for this DMM.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-14
6.1.13 RESIDENTIAL ULTRA-LOW FLUSH TOILET REPLACEMENT
PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(N)]
As mentioned in Chapter 6.1.2, Upper District in partnership with MWD
conducts an ULFT Retrofit Program on behalf of the City. Residents are encouraged to
replace existing high flow volume toilets with Ultra Low Flow toilets by receiving a rebate
for their retrofit. MWD offers a rebate of $60, with local agencies having the ability to
offer an extended rebate if feasible. Older toilet models use approximately 3.5 gallons
of water per flush, with the new ULFT models using only 1.6 gallons or less per flush.
Upper District provides High Efficiency Toilets (HETs) for free to qualifying
residents. The cost of the HET is funded by Upper District and MWD. MWD can only
provide funding for High HETs (1.28 gallons per flush or less), which use 20 percent
less than Ultra-Low Flush Toilets (ULFTs) (1.6 gallons per flush). A total of 26,960
HETs/ULFTs have been provided through this program since in first began in fiscal year
1992-93. Based on an estimated service life of 20 years for each HET, the total annual
savings for the 26,960 HETs/ULFTs is estimated at 1,005 acre-feet. More information
regarding the residential ultra-low-flush toilet replacement program is located in MWD’s
2010 RUWMP, which is incorporated by reference.
6.2 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES NOT IMPLEMENTED
Section 10631
(g) An evaluation of each water demand management measure listed in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (f) that is not currently being implemented or scheduled for
implementation. In the course of the evaluation, first consideration shall be given to
water demand management measures, or combination of measures, that offer lower
incremental costs than expanded or additional water supplies. This evaluation shall
do all of the following:
(1) Take into account economic and non-economic factors, including environmental,
social, health, customer impact, and technological factors.
(2) Include a cost-benefit analysis, identifying total benefits and total costs.
(3) Include a description of funding available to implement any planned water supply
project that would provide water at a higher unit cost.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-15
(4) Include a description of the water supplier’s legal authority to implement the
measure and efforts to work with other relevant agencies to ensure the
implementation of the measure and to share the cost of implementation.
6.2.1 WHOLESALE AGENCY PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(J)]
The City is a retail water supplier therefore cannot implement wholesale agency
programs. However, as a member of Upper District, the City participates in Upper
District's wholesale agency programs.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
7-1
Chapter 7
COMPLETED URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CHECKLIST
A completed Plan checklist, with page information indicating where the required
element can be found within the Plan, is provided in Appendix P.
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Text\Text Format\Arcadia 2010 UWMPDraft(030111).doc
FIGURES
CITY OF ARCADIA
STETSON ENGINEERS INC.Covina San Rafael Mesa, Arizona
HISTORICAL BALDWIN PARK KEY WELL ELEVATION
WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERS
FIGURE 1
180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330
10/37
10/38
10/39
10/40
10/41
10/42
10/43
10/44
10/45
10/46
10/47
10/48
10/49
10/50
10/51
10/52
10/53
10/54
10/55
10/56
10/57
10/58
10/59
10/60
10/61
10/62
10/63
10/64
10/65
10/66
10/67
10/68
10/69
10/70
10/71
10/72
10/73
10/74
10/75
10/76
10/77
10/78
10/79
10/80
10/81
10/82
10/83
10/84
10/85
10/86
10/87
10/88
10/89
10/90
10/91
10/92
10/93
10/94
10/95
10/96
10/97
10/98
10/99
10/00
10/01
10/02
10/03
10/04
10/05
10/06
10/07
10/08
10/09
ELEVATION IN FEET
HISTORIC LOW (189.2 FEET)
WATER YEAR
HISTORIC RECORDED HIGH 329.1FEET IN 1916
Z:\Jobs\2343\Figures\Figure 1 Key Well Elevation
TABLES
Agencies
Participated in
Developing the Plan
Commented on the Draft
Attended Public
Meetings
Was
Contacted for
A
ssistanc
e
Was Sent a
Copy of the Draft Plan
Was Sent a Notice of Intent to A
dopt
Not
Involved/ No Information
Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster
X
Raymond Basin Management Board
XUpper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water DistrictXXCity of Arcadia City Clerk's Office
XX
County of Los Angeles Registrar / Recorder
X
City of Monrovia
X
City of Pasadena Water & Power Department
X
City of Sierra Madre
X
East Pasadena Water Company
X
Golden State Water Company
X
San Gabriel Valley Water Company
X
Sunny Slope Water Company
X
TABLE 1
COORDINATION WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 1- Coord Agencies
TABLE 2
ANNUAL RAINFALL IN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
FROM 1958-59 THROUGH 2008-09*
WATER YEARRAINFALL IN INCHES
1958-598.5
1959-6010.6
1960-615.9
1961-6222.4
1962-6312.3
1963-649.4
1964-6515.2
1965-6619.6
1966-6725.0
1967-6815.0
1968-6930.5
1969-7011.1
1970-7113.3
1971-728.5
1972-7322.4
1973-7416.8
1974-7514.9
1975-7612.1
1976-7714.5
1977-7838.4
1978-7923.9
1979-8034.8
1980-8110.3
1981-8218.9
1982-8339.3
1983-8410.6
1984-8514.6
1985-8622.0
1986-879.1
1987-8814.9
1988-8911.2
1989-9012.4
1990-9115.1
1991-9222.8
1992-9335.9
1993-9411.6
1994-9530.4
1995-9615.6
1996-9717.5
1997-9836.1
1998-998.6
1999-0014.4
15.5
6.4
2002-0319.4
2003-0412.7
2004-0545.3
2005-0616.8
2006-074.9
2007-0816.4
2008-0914.0
TOTAL907.8
51-YEAR AVERAGE17.8
*Annual rainfall determined as the average of rainfall at San Dimas
(station 95), Pomona (station 356C), El Monte (station 108D), and
Pasadena (station 610B).
Pomona (station 356C) replaced Walnut (station 102D) in 2000-01.
2000-01
2001-02
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 2 -Historical Rainfall Rev
JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberAnnual
Average Rainfall (in.)
3.65.51.91.20.50.10.00.00.21.01.42.417.8
Average Temperature (oF)
54545659616972777670615763.8
Evapotranspiration (in.)
2.22.84.05.15.96.67.46.85.74.02.71.955.1Source: Rainfall data from average of four LA County Department of Public Works rainfall stations. Temperature data from www.city-data.com for San Gabriel Valley.Evapotranspiration data from California Irrigation Management Information System.Table 3
Climate
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\/Table 3 - Climate
Fiscal Year Population within the City's
Service Area
Percent Average Annual Increase
of the Population within the City
2004-0553,677--
2009-1054,5040.31
2014-1555,5060.37
2019-2056,5080.36
2024-2557,5100.35
2029-3058,5120.35
2034-3559,5140.34
TABLE 4
CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
Source: Based on May 2010 Draft Water Supply Assessment prepared for the City of Arcadia’s
General Plan Update. Population projections were based on data obtained from the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG). The SCAG data incorporates demographic trends,
existing land use, general plan land use policies, and input and projections from the Department of
Finance (DOF) and the US Census Bureau.
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 4 - Population (Arcadia)
Single
Family
Residential
Multi Family Residential
CommercialIndustrial
Landscape Irrigation
Institutional / Governmental
Sub Total
2004-05No. of Metered Accounts8,990946610017914210,86710,867Metered Deliveries (AF)
9,4602,2712,3530419
769
15,272
65815,930
2009-10No. of Metered Accounts11,3881,094818
0223
142
13,665
13,665
Metered Deliveries (AF)
8,5751,9141,9930622
592
13,6952,10215,798
2014-15No. of Metered Accounts11,4781,128824
0259
144
13,833
13,833
Metered Deliveries (AF)
9,2322,1422,2240533
697
14,8281,64816,475
2019-20No. of Metered Accounts11,5681,163831
0295
146
14,002
14,002
Metered Deliveries (AF)
8,3541,9382,0130482
631
13,4181,49114,909
2024-25No. of Metered Accounts11,6591,199837
0331
148
14,173
14,173
Metered Deliveries (AF)
8,5021,9732,0490491
642
13,6561,51715,173
2029-30No. of Metered Accounts11,7501,236843
0367
150
14,347
14,347
Metered Deliveries (AF)
8,6502,0072,0840499
653
13,8941,54415,438
2034-35No. of Metered Accounts11,8431,274850
0403
152
14,522
14,522
Metered Deliveries (AF)
8,7992,0412,1200508
664
14,1321,57015,702
AF = Acre-FeetNumber of metered accounts and deliveries for 2005 and 2010 were based on information provided by City of ArcadiaProjected number of metered accounts from 2015 to 2035 were based on average projected annual percentage increase in metered accounts from the 2005 Arcadia UWMP.Project deliveries from 2015 to 2035 were based on Arcadia's Demands (See Table 8), average percent use within customer classes, and 10 percent system losses (average losses between 2006 and 2010)TABLE 5
PAST, CURRENT, AND PROJECTED WATER DELIVERIES
Fiscal YearDescription
Total
Water Use Sectors
System Losses
Fiscal
Year
Total Demands
(1)
Metered
Deliveries (2)
Unaccounted
Use (3)
Projected Water
Demand for
Lower Income
Households (4)
Urban Water
Use Target (5)
(GPCD)
2004-0515,93015,272658
2005-0616,78515,7151,070
2006-0718,66817,6101,058
2007-0817,52415,5162,008
2008-0916,76314,7262,037
2009-1015,79813,6952,102
2014-1516,47514,8281,6483,116265
2019-2014,90913,4181,4912,470235
2024-2515,17313,6561,5172,870235
2029-3015,43813,8941,5442,920235
2034-3515,70214,1321,5702,970235
(2) See Table 5
(3) Historical unaccounted use is equal to demand minus delivery ; Projected unaccounted use is
based on 10 percent system losses (from 2006 to 2010)
(4) Included in "Total Demands" ; Lower income demands are approximately 27.4 percent of total
residential demands
(5) See Chapter 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 for urban water use target and interim urban water use target,
respectively
TABLE 6
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
(ACRE-FEET)
(1) See Table 7 for 2005 to 2010 demands; Projected water demands based on Urban Water Use
Target and populations (Table 4).
A
verage Per Capita Water Us
e
10-Year
Continuous (2)
(gpcd)
5-Year
Continuous (3)
(gpcd)
1995-9616,72714,932,880
48,645
307
1996-9717,27915,425,703
49,102
314
1997-9815,07913,461,822
49,560
272
1998-9916,05314,331,107
50,017
287
1999-0017,87915,961,226
50,474
316
2000-0117,18315,340,116
50,932
301
2001-0217,01415,188,983
51,768
293
2002-0316,70114,909,598
52,604
283
2003-0418,05716,120,224
53,440
302
2004-0515,93014,221,629
53,677
265294
2005-0616,78514,984,499
53,914
278291
2006-0718,66816,665,344
53,977
309291
2007-0817,52415,644,372
54,040
289292289
2008-0916,76314,965,341
54,104
277291284
2009-1015,79814,103,430
54,504
25928628210-Year Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use=294
gallons per capita per day. (4)
5-Year Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use=
289
gallons per capita per day. (5)
(2)
Average per capita water use for first base period of 10-year continuous, ending no earlier than December 31, 2004 and no later than December 31, 2010.
(3)
Average per capita water use for second base period of 5-year continuous, ending no earlier than December 31, 2007 and no later than December 31, 2010.
(4)
Highest value calculated for a 10-year continuous period between 1995 and 2009.
(5)
Highest value calculated for a 5-year continuous period between 2004 and 2009.CALCULATION OF BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USETABLE 7
Calculated
Gross Water Use (gallons per day)
(1)
Based on data from the Southern California Association of Governments, Department of Finance, and US Census BureauPopulation within City's Service Area (1)
Calculated Daily per
Capita Use (gpcd)
Fiscal Yea
r
Total Water Supply (Excluding
Recycled Water (in Service Area
(
AF
)
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 7 - SBX7_7 (Arcadia).xls
Fiscal
Year
Population within
City's Service Area (1)
Urban Water Use
Target (2) (gpcd)
Total Demands
(gpd)
Total Demands
(AF)
2014-1555,50626514,687,51716,452
2019-2056,50823513,291,25114,888
2024-2557,51023513,526,93215,152
2029-3058,51223513,762,61215,416
2034-3559,51423513,998,29315,680
(1) See Table 4
(2) See Table 7
TABLE 8
PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS BASED ON URBAN WATER USE TARGETS
(ACRE-FEET)
TABLE 9
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES (NORMAL YEAR)
(ACRE-FEET)
Imported Water Supplies
Main Basin
Raymond Basin
(2)
Groundwater Delivered
by the City of Arcadia to the City of Sierra Madre (3)
Sub Total
Groundwater
Percentage
Groundwater of Total Supply
MWD
(4)
Historical1994-957,8637,437
0
15,300100.0%
0
0
15,300
1995-9611,2155,512
0
16,727100.0%
0
0
16,727
1996-9710,1767,103
0
17,279100.0%
0
0
17,279
1997-989,3285,751
0
15,079100.0%
0
0
15,079
1998-998,7377,315
0
16,053100.0%
0
0
16,053
1999-0011,6966,183
0
17,879100.0%
0
0
17,879
2000-0111,1616,022
0
17,183100.0%
0
0
17,183
2001-0211,4185,596
0
17,014100.0%
0
0
17,014
2002-0312,1534,548
0
16,701100.0%
0
0
16,701
2003-0412,4395,078
0
17,51697.0%
541
0
18,057
2004-0510,0026,176
(247)
15,930100.0%
0
0
15,930
2005-069,2307,609
(54)
16,785100.0%
0
0
16,785
2006-0712,2866,382
0
18,668100.0%
0
0
18,668
2007-0812,6864,811
(68)
17,42999.5%
95
0
17,524
2008-0910,7804,584
0
15,36491.7%
1,399
0
16,763
2009-1011,4784,034
0
15,51298.2%
286
0
15,798
Projected (Normal Year)2014-1511,4435,009
0
16,452100.0%
0
0
16,452
2019-209,5795,009
0
14,58898.0%
0
300
14,888
2024-259,4995,009
0
14,50895.7%
0
644
15,152
2029-309,7635,009
0
14,77295.8%
0
644
15,416
2034-3510,0275,009
0
15,03695.9%
0
644
15,680
(1)
See Table 8 for total projected normal year demands(3)
Groundwater pumped by the City of Arcadia and delivered to the City of Sierra Madre for Main Basin management purposes
(4)
Treated water deliveries from USG-6 were made in response to a request from the Main Basin Watermaster, although groundwater supplies and capacity were available. The City does not typically use USG-6 because the City's collective groundwater supplies are sufficient to meet total water demands.Fiscal Year
Total
(1)
Groundwater Supplies
(2)
Raymond Basin supplies include 30 percent reduction over five years for all Decreed Rights to the Pasadena Subarea beginning fiscal year 2009-10. Projected Raymond Basin supplies include 1,482.6 AfY from the Pasadena Subarea and 3,526.0 AFY from the Santa Anita Subarea.Recycled Water Supplies
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 9 and 10- Historical and Projected (Arcadia).xls
TABLE 10
PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES (SINGLE AND MULTIPLE DRY YEARS)(ACRE-FEET)
Imported Water Supplies
Main Basin
Raymond Basin
Sub Total
Groundwater
Percentage
Groundwater of Total Supply
MWD
Projected (Single Dry Year)2014-1513,2895,00918,298100.0%
0
0
18,298
2019-2011,2495,00916,25898.2%
0
300
16,558
2024-2511,1995,00916,20896.2%
0
644
16,852
2029-3011,4925,00916,50196.2%
0
644
17,145
2034-3511,7865,00916,79596.3%
0
644
17,439
Projected (Multiple Dry Year 1)2014-1513,2895,00918,298100.0%
0
0
18,298
2019-2011,2495,00916,25898.2%
0
300
16,558
2024-2511,1995,00916,20896.2%
0
644
16,852
2029-3011,4925,00916,50196.2%
0
644
17,145
2034-3511,7865,00916,79596.3%
0
644
17,439
Projected (Multiple Dry Year 2)2014-1512,1685,00917,177100.0%
0
0
17,177
2019-2010,2355,00915,24498.1%
0
300
15,544
2024-2510,1665,00915,17595.9%
0
644
15,819
2029-3010,4425,00915,45196.0%
0
644
16,095
2034-3510,7185,00915,72796.1%
0
644
16,371
Projected (Multiple Dry Year 3)2014-1511,4225,00916,431100.0%
0
0
16,431
2019-209,5605,00914,56998.0%
0
300
14,869
2024-259,4805,00914,48995.7%
0
644
15,133
2029-309,7435,00914,75295.8%
0
644
15,396
2034-3510,0075,00915,01695.9%
0
644
15,660
(1)
See Table 14 and Table 15 for total projected single dry and multiple dry year demandsFiscal Year
Total
(1)
Groundwater Supplies
Recycled Water Supplies
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 9 and 10- Historical and Projected (Arcadia).xls
Year 1Year 2Year 3
(2005-06)(2006-07)(2006-07)(2007-08)(2008-09)
City Water Production16,78518,66818,66817,52416,763
Percent of Normal Year Supply111.2%111.2%104.4%99.9%
See Table 9 for historical production
TABLE 11
SUPPLY RELIABILITY - HISTORICAL CONDITIONS
(ACRE-FEET)
Average/
Normal Year
Single Dry
Year
Multiple Dry Years
Year 2010-11 (2)Year 2011-12 (2)Year 2012-13 (2)
Total Supply16,78518,66817,52416,763
(1) See Table 9 (Based on year 2005-06)
(2) See Table 9 (Years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 based on years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, respectively)
TABLE 12
SUPPLY RELIABILITY - THREE-YEAR ESTIMATED MINIMUM
(ACRE-FEET PER YEAR)
Sources of Supply Normal Year
(2005-06) (1)
Multiple Dry Years
2014-152019-202024-252029-302034-35
Projected Normal Water Year Supply
Total Supply (1)16,45214,88815,15215,41615,680
Projected Normal Water Year Demand
Demand (2)16,45214,88815,15215,41615,680
Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Difference (Supply minus Demand)00000
(1) See Table 9.
TABLE 13
PROJECTED NORMAL WATER YEAR SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON
(ACRE-FEET)
(2) See Table 8.
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 13 - Normal Year (Arcadia).xls
2014-152019-202024-252029-302034-35
Projected Single-Dry Year Water Supply
Total Supply (1)18,29816,55816,85217,14517,439
Projected Single-Dry Year Water Demand
Demand (2)18,29816,55816,85217,14517,439
Projected Single-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison
Difference (Supply minus Demand)00000
(1) See Table 10.
(2) Based on ratio between Normal Water Year with Single-Dry Year. See Tables 8 and 11.
TABLE 14
PROJECTED SINGLE-DRY WATER YEAR SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON
(ACRE-FEET)
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 14 - Single Dry Year (Arcadia).xls
Multiple Dry Year 1
2014-152019-202024-252029-302034-35
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply Supply (1)
18,29816,55816,85217,14517,439
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Demand Demand
(2)
18,29816,55816,85217,14517,439
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand ComparisonDifference (Supply minus Demand)
0
0
0
0
0
Multiple Dry Year 2
2014-152019-202024-252029-302034-35
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply Supply (1)
17,17715,54415,81916,09516,371
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Demand Demand
(2)
17,17715,54415,81916,09516,371
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand ComparisonDifference (Supply minus Demand)
0
0
0
0
0
Multiple Dry Year 3
2014-152019-202024-252029-302034-35
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply Supply (1)
16,43114,86915,13315,39615,660
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Demand Demand
(2)
16,43114,86915,13315,39615,660
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand ComparisonDifference (Supply minus Demand)
0
0
0
0
0
(1) See Table 10.(2) Based on ratio between Normal Water Year with Multiple Dry Years. See Tables 8 and 11.TABLE 15
PROJECTED MULTIPLE-DRY YEAR
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON(ACRE-FEET)
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 15 - Multi Dry Year (Arcadia).xls
PLATES
A P P E N D I X B
PM2.5 Localized Significance Threshold Look-up Tables
Appendix B – PM2.5 Localized Significance Threshold Look-up Tables
B-1
Table B-1. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Construction
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 3 5 10 24 102 5 7 12 28 110
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 3 4 8 18 77 4 5 10 21 82
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 3 5 9 21 75 5 7 12 25 81
4 South Coastal LA County 3 5 10 26 93 5 7 13 30 101
5 Southeast LA County 3 4 8 19 86 4 6 10 22 92
6 West San Fernando Valley 3 4 7 18 79 4 5 9 21 84
7 East San Fernando Valley 3 4 8 18 68 4 6 10 21 73
8 West San Gabriel Valley 3 4 7 18 77 4 5 9 21 82
9 East San Gabriel Valley 3 5 9 22 94 5 7 12 26 100
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 3 4 7 18 75 4 6 10 21 80
11 South San Gabriel Valley 4 5 9 20 83 5 8 12 24 89
12 South Central LA County 3 4 7 17 70 4 6 9 19 74
13 Santa Clarita Valley 3 4 7 18 74 4 5 9 20 80
15 San Gabriel Mountains 3 4 7 18 74 4 5 9 20 80
16 North Orange County 3 4 9 20 74 4 6 11 24 79
17 Central Orange County 3 4 9 22 85 4 6 11 25 92
18 North Coastal Orange County 3 5 9 22 76 5 7 12 26 83
19 Saddleback Valley 3 4 8 19 68 4 6 10 22 74
20 Central Orange County Coastal 3 5 9 22 76 5 7 12 26 83
21 Capistrano Valley 3 4 8 19 68 4 6 10 22 74
22 Norco/Corona 3 5 9 22 92 5 7 12 25 98
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
24 Perris Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
25 Lake Elsinore 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
26 Temecula Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
27 Anza Area 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
29 Banning Airport 4 7 14 36 156 6 9 17 41 166
30 Coachella Valley 3 5 10 24 105 5 7 12 28 112
31 East Riverside County 3 5 10 24 105 5 7 12 28 112
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 3 5 9 23 98 4 6 12 26 104
35 East San Bernardino Valley 4 5 10 26 112 5 7 13 30 120
36 Central San Bernardino Mountains 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
37 West San Bernardino Valley 3 5 9 23 98 4 6 12 26 104
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 4 5 10 26 112 5 7 13 30 120
Appendix B – PM2.5 Localized Significance Threshold Look-up Tables
B-2
Table B-1. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Construction (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 8 11 18 36 126
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 6 8 14 29 95
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 8 11 19 35 96
4 South Coastal LA County 8 10 18 39 120
5 Southeast LA County 7 10 15 30 103
6 West San Fernando Valley 6 8 13 26 96
7 East San Fernando Valley 8 10 15 28 86
8 West San Gabriel Valley 7 9 14 27 93
9 East San Gabriel Valley 8 11 17 35 116
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 7 9 15 28 93
11 South San Gabriel Valley 9 12 19 34 104
12 South Central LA County 7 10 15 27 86
13 Santa Clarita Valley 6 8 13 26 95
15 San Gabriel Mountains 6 8 13 26 95
16 North Orange County 6 9 15 34 95
17 Central Orange County 7 9 15 32 109
18 North Coastal Orange County 9 11 18 35 101
19 Saddleback Valley 8 11 16 30 90
20 Central Orange County Coastal 9 11 18 35 101
21 Capistrano Valley 8 11 16 30 90
22 Norco/Corona 8 11 18 34 113
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 8 10 16 31 105
24 Perris Valley 8 10 16 31 105
25 Lake Elsinore 8 10 16 31 105
26 Temecula Valley 8 10 16 31 105
27 Anza Area 8 10 16 31 105
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 8 10 16 31 105
29 Banning Airport 11 14 25 55 189
30 Coachella Valley 8 11 19 37 128
31 East Riverside County 8 11 19 37 128
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 9 12 21 45 170
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 9 12 21 45 170
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 8 10 17 35 120
35 East San Bernardino Valley 9 12 20 40 140
36 Central San Bernardino Mountains 9 12 21 45 170
37 West San Bernardino Valley 8 10 17 35 120
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 9 12 20 40 140
Appendix B – PM2.5 Localized Significance Threshold Look-up Tables
B-3
Table B-2. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Operation
SRA No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 1 2 3 6 25 2 2 3 7 27
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 3 6 20
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 1 2 3 5 18 1 2 3 6 20
4 South Coastal LA County 1 2 3 7 23 1 2 4 8 25
5 Southeast LA County 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
6 West San Fernando Valley 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 2 5 21
7 East San Fernando Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 5 18
8 West San Gabriel Valley 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 3 5 20
9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 2 3 6 23 2 2 3 7 25
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 3 5 20
11 South San Gabriel Valley 1 2 3 5 20 2 2 3 6 22
12 South Central LA County 1 1 2 4 17 1 2 3 5 18
13 Santa Clarita Valley 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 2 5 20
15 San Gabriel Mountains 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 2 5 20
16 North Orange County 1 1 3 5 18 1 2 3 6 19
17 Central Orange County 1 1 2 6 21 1 2 3 6 22
18 North Coastal Orange County 1 2 3 6 19 2 2 3 7 20
19 Saddleback Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 6 18
20 Central Orange County Coastal 1 2 3 6 19 2 2 3 7 20
21 Capistrano Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 6 18
22 Norco/Corona 1 2 3 6 23 2 2 3 6 24
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
24 Perris Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
25 Lake Elsinore 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
26 Temecula Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
27 Anza Area 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
29 Banning Airport 1 2 4 9 38 2 3 5 10 40
30 Coachella Valley 1 2 3 6 26 2 2 3 7 27
31 East Riverside County 1 2 3 6 26 2 2 3 7 27
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 6 24 1 2 3 7 25
35 East San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 7 27 2 2 4 8 29
36 Central San Bernardino Mountains 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
37 West San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 6 24 1 2 3 7 25
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 1 2 3 7 27 2 2 4 8 29
Appendix B – PM2.5 Localized Significance Threshold Look-up Tables
B-4
Table B-2. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Operation (Continued)
SRA No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 2 3 5 9 31
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 2 2 4 7 23
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 2 3 5 9 24
4 South Coastal LA County 2 3 5 10 29
5 Southeast LA County 2 3 4 8 25
6 West San Fernando Valley 2 2 3 7 23
7 East San Fernando Valley 2 3 4 7 21
8 West San Gabriel Valley 2 3 4 7 23
9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 3 5 9 28
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 2 3 4 7 23
11 South San Gabriel Valley 2 3 5 9 25
12 South Central LA County 2 3 4 7 21
13 Santa Clarita Valley 2 2 3 7 23
15 San Gabriel Mountains 2 2 3 7 23
16 North Orange County 2 3 4 8 23
17 Central Orange County 2 3 4 8 27
18 North Coastal Orange County 2 3 5 9 25
19 Saddleback Valley 2 3 4 8 22
20 Central Orange County Coastal 2 3 5 9 25
21 Capistrano Valley 2 3 4 8 22
22 Norco/Corona 2 3 5 9 28
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 3 4 8 26
24 Perris Valley 2 3 4 8 26
25 Lake Elsinore 2 3 4 8 26
26 Temecula Valley 2 3 4 8 26
27 Anza Area 2 3 4 8 26
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 2 3 4 8 26
29 Banning Airport 3 4 6 14 46
30 Coachella Valley 2 3 5 9 31
31 East Riverside County 2 3 5 9 31
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 11 41
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 11 41
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 9 29
35 East San Bernardino Valley 3 3 5 10 34
36 Central San Bernardino Mountains 2 3 5 11 41
37 West San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 9 29
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 3 3 5 10 34
C-1 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-1. 2006 – 2008 Thresholds for Construction and Operation with
Gradual Conversion of NOx to NO2
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function of
receptor distance (meters) from site boundary
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 74 74 82 106 168 108 106 110 126 179
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 103 104 121 156 245 147 143 156 186 262
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 91 93 107 139 218 131 128 139 165 233
4 South Coastal LA County 57 58 68 90 142 82 80 87 106 151
5 Southeast LA County 80 81 94 123 192 114 111 121 145 205
6 West San Fernando Valley 103 104 121 157 245 147 143 156 187 263
7 East San Fernando Valley 80 81 94 122 191 114 111 121 144 204
8 West San Gabriel Valley 69 69 81 104 164 98 95 104 124 175
9 East San Gabriel Valley 89 112 159 251 489 128 151 200 284 513
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 103 129 185 292 570 149 175 230 330 598
11 South San Gabriel Valley 83 84 96 123 193 121 118 126 147 206
12 South Central LA County 46 46 54 70 109 65 64 69 82 117
13 Santa Clarita Valley 114 115 133 173 273 163 159 172 204 291
15 San Gabriel Mountains 114 115 133 173 273 163 159 172 204 291
16 North Orange County 103 104 121 159 252 147 143 156 186 269
17 Central Orange County 81 83 98 123 192 115 114 125 148 205
18 North Coastal Orange County 92 93 108 140 219 131 128 139 165 235
19 Saddleback Valley 91 93 108 140 218 131 127 139 165 233
20 Central Orange County Coastal 92 93 108 140 219 131 128 139 165 235
21 Capistrano Valley 91 93 108 140 218 131 127 139 165 233
22 Norco/Corona 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 118 148 212 335 652 170 200 264 379 684
24 Perris Valley 118 148 212 335 652 170 200 264 379 684
25 Lake Elsinore 162 203 292 460 896 234 275 363 521 941
26 Temecula Valley 162 203 292 460 896 234 275 363 521 941
27 Anza Area 162 203 292 460 896 234 275 363 521 941
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 162 203 292 460 896 234 275 363 521 941
29 Banning Airport 103 131 189 299 585 149 176 234 340 614
30 Coachella Valley 132 166 238 376 733 191 225 296 425 769
31 East Riverside County 132 166 238 376 733 191 225 296 425 769
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
35 East San Bernardino Valley 118 148 211 334 651 170 200 263 377 683
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 118 148 211 334 652 170 200 263 378 684
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 118 148 211 334 651 170 200 263 377 683
C-2 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-1. 2006 – 2008 Thresholds for Construction and Operation with
Gradual Conversion of NOx to NO2 (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function of
receptor distance (meters) from site boundary
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 161 157 165 173 212
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 221 212 226 250 312
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 197 189 202 222 277
4 South Coastal LA County 123 118 126 141 179
5 Southeast LA County 172 165 176 194 244
6 West San Fernando Valley 221 212 226 250 313
7 East San Fernando Valley 172 165 176 194 242
8 West San Gabriel Valley 148 141 151 166 208
9 East San Gabriel Valley 203 227 286 368 584
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 236 265 330 426 681
11 South San Gabriel Valley 183 176 184 202 245
12 South Central LA County 98 94 101 111 139
13 Santa Clarita Valley 246 236 251 275 345
15 San Gabriel Mountains 246 236 251 275 345
16 North Orange County 221 212 226 249 317
17 Central Orange County 183 167 180 202 245
18 North Coastal Orange County 197 190 202 223 278
19 Saddleback Valley 197 189 201 222 278
20 Central Orange County Coastal 197 190 202 223 278
21 Capistrano Valley 197 189 201 222 278
22 Norco/Corona 270 302 378 486 778
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 270 302 378 488 780
24 Perris Valley 270 302 378 488 780
25 Lake Elsinore 371 416 520 672 1,072
26 Temecula Valley 371 416 520 672 1,072
27 Anza Area 371 416 520 672 1,072
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 371 416 520 672 1,072
29 Banning Airport 236 265 333 434 698
30 Coachella Valley 304 340 425 547 875
31 East Riverside County 304 340 425 547 875
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 270 303 378 486 778
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 270 303 378 486 778
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 270 302 378 486 778
35 East San Bernardino Valley 270 302 378 486 778
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 270 303 378 486 778
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 270 302 378 486 778
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 270 302 378 486 778
C-3 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-2. 2006 – 2008 CO Emission Thresholds for Construction and Operation
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function of
receptor distance (meters) from site boundary
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 680 882 1,259 2,406 7,911 1,048 1,368 1,799 3,016 8,637
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 562 833 1,233 2,367 7,724 827 1,213 1,695 2,961 8,446
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 664 785 1,156 2,228 7,269 967 1,158 1,597 2,783 7,950
4 South Coastal LA County 585 789 1,180 2,296 7,558 842 1,158 1,611 2,869 8,253
5 Southeast LA County 571 735 1,088 2,104 6,854 861 1,082 1,496 2,625 7,500
6 West San Fernando Valley 426 652 1,089 2,096 6,815 644 903 1,497 2,629 7,460
7 East San Fernando Valley 498 732 1,158 2,227 7,267 786 1,068 1,594 2,786 7,947
8 West San Gabriel Valley 535 783 1,158 2,229 7,270 812 1,125 1,594 2,785 7,957
9 East San Gabriel Valley 623 945 1,914 4,803 20,721 953 1,344 2,445 5,658 22,093
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 612 911 1,741 4,345 18,991 885 1,358 2,298 5,097 20,256
11 South San Gabriel Valley 673 760 1,113 2,110 6,884 1,031 1,143 1,554 2,660 7,530
12 South Central LA County 231 342 632 1,545 5,452 346 515 841 1,817 5,962
13 Santa Clarita Valley 590 879 1,294 2,500 8,174 877 1,256 1,787 3,108 8,933
15 San Gabriel Mountains 590 879 1,294 2,500 8,174 877 1,256 1,787 3,108 8,933
16 North Orange County 522 685 1,014 1,975 6,531 762 1,010 1,395 2,444 7,121
17 Central Orange County 485 753 1,128 2,109 6,841 715 1,041 1,547 2,685 7,493
18 North Coastal Orange County 647 738 1,090 2,096 6,841 962 1,089 1,506 2,615 7,493
19 Saddleback Valley 696 833 1,234 2,376 7,724 993 1,227 1,696 2,965 8,454
20 Central Orange County Coastal 647 738 1,090 2,096 6,841 962 1,089 1,506 2,615 7,493
21 Capistrano Valley 696 833 1,234 2,376 7,724 993 1,227 1,696 2,965 8,454
22 Norco/Corona 674 999 1,853 4,352 17,637 1,007 1,474 2,461 5,183 18,934
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 602 887 1,746 4,359 17,640 883 1,262 2,232 5,136 18,947
24 Perris Valley 602 887 1,746 4,359 17,640 883 1,262 2,232 5,136 18,947
25 Lake Elsinore 750 1,105 2,176 5,501 23,866 1,100 1,572 2,781 6,399 25,412
26 Temecula Valley 750 1,105 2,176 5,501 23,866 1,100 1,572 2,781 6,399 25,412
27 Anza Area 750 1,105 2,176 5,501 23,866 1,100 1,572 2,781 6,399 25,412
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 750 1,105 2,176 5,501 23,866 1,100 1,572 2,781 6,399 25,412
29 Banning Airport 1,000 1,420 2,623 6,154 25,057 1,541 2,049 3,458 7,395 26,890
30 Coachella Valley 878 1,387 2,565 6,021 24,417 1,299 1,931 3,409 7,174 26,212
31 East Riverside County 878 1,387 2,565 6,021 24,417 1,299 1,931 3,409 7,174 26,212
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 863 1,328 2,423 5,691 23,065 1,232 1,877 3,218 6,778 24,768
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 863 1,328 2,423 5,691 23,065 1,232 1,877 3,218 6,778 24,768
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 667 1,059 2,141 5,356 21,708 972 1,463 2,738 6,346 23,304
35 East San Bernardino Valley 775 1,205 2,279 5,351 21,703 1,174 1,712 3,029 6,375 23,294
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 863 1,328 2,423 5,691 23,065 1,232 1,877 3,218 6,778 24,768
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 667 1,059 2,141 5,356 21,708 972 1,463 2,738 6,346 23,304
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 775 1,205 2,279 5,351 21,703 1,174 1,712 3,029 6,375 23,294
C-4 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-2. 2006 – 2008 CO Emission Thresholds for Construction and Operation (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function of
receptor distance (meters) from site boundary
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 1,861 2,331 3,030 4,547 10,666
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 1,531 1,985 2,762 4,383 10,467
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 1,796 1,984 2,608 4,119 9,852
4 South Coastal LA County 1,530 1,982 2,613 4,184 10,198
5 Southeast LA County 1,480 1,855 2,437 3,867 9,312
6 West San Fernando Valley 1,158 1,537 2,438 3,871 9,271
7 East San Fernando Valley 1,434 1,872 2,599 4,119 9,848
8 West San Gabriel Valley 1,540 1,921 2,599 4,119 9,857
9 East San Gabriel Valley 1,733 2,299 3,680 7,600 25,558
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 1,566 2,158 3,691 7,011 23,450
11 South San Gabriel Valley 1,814 1,984 2,549 4,024 9,342
12 South Central LA County 630 879 1,368 2,514 7,389
13 Santa Clarita Valley 1,644 2,095 2,922 4,608 11,049
15 San Gabriel Mountains 1,644 2,095 2,922 4,608 11,049
16 North Orange County 1,311 1,731 2,274 3,605 8,754
17 Central Orange County 1,253 1,734 2,498 4,018 9,336
18 North Coastal Orange County 1,711 1,864 2,455 3,888 9,272
19 Saddleback Valley 1,804 2,102 2,763 4,387 10,507
20 Central Orange County Coastal 1,711 1,864 2,455 3,888 9,272
21 Capistrano Valley 1,804 2,102 2,763 4,387 10,507
22 Norco/Corona 1,700 2,470 3,964 7,350 22,490
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1,577 2,178 3,437 6,860 22,530
24 Perris Valley 1,577 2,178 3,437 6,860 22,530
25 Lake Elsinore 1,965 2,714 4,282 8,547 29,256
26 Temecula Valley 1,965 2,714 4,282 8,547 29,256
27 Anza Area 1,965 2,714 4,282 8,547 29,256
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 1,965 2,714 4,282 8,547 29,256
29 Banning Airport 2,817 3,575 5,534 10,383 31,903
30 Coachella Valley 2,292 3,237 5,331 10,178 31,115
31 East Riverside County 2,292 3,237 5,331 10,178 31,115
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 2,193 2,978 5,188 9,611 29,410
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 2,193 2,978 5,188 9,611 29,410
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1,746 2,396 4,142 8,532 27,680
35 East San Bernardino Valley 2,075 2,890 4,765 9,044 27,650
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 2,193 2,978 5,188 9,611 29,410
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 1,746 2,396 4,142 8,532 27,680
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 2,075 2,890 4,765 9,044 27,650
C-5 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-3. PM10 Emission Thresholds for Operation
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 mg/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 2 4 8 17 43 2 6 11 20 46
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 1 3 7 14 36 2 5 9 16 37
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 1 4 7 14 34 2 6 9 16 36
4 South Coastal LA County 1 3 7 15 38 2 5 9 17 40
5 Southeast LA County 1 3 8 16 42 2 5 10 18 44
6 West San Fernando Valley 1 3 7 15 38 2 5 8 16 39
7 East San Fernando Valley 1 3 7 13 33 2 5 9 15 35
8 West San Gabriel Valley 1 3 7 14 37 2 5 9 16 39
9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 4 9 19 48 2 6 11 20 50
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 1 3 7 14 36 2 5 8 16 38
11 South San Gabriel Valley 1 4 7 15 37 2 6 9 17 39
12 South Central LA County 1 3 7 13 34 2 5 9 15 36
13 Santa Clarita Valley 1 3 6 13 32 2 5 8 15 34
15 San Gabriel Mountains 1 3 6 13 32 2 5 8 15 34
16 North Orange County 1 3 6 13 33 2 4 8 15 35
17 Central Orange County 1 3 7 15 38 2 5 9 17 40
18 North Coastal Orange County 1 4 7 13 33 2 6 9 15 35
19 Saddleback Valley 1 3 6 12 29 2 5 8 14 31
20 Central Orange County Coastal 1 4 7 13 33 2 6 9 15 35
21 Capistrano Valley 1 3 6 12 29 2 5 8 14 31
22 Norco/Corona 1 3 8 18 48 2 5 10 20 50
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
24 Perris Valley 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
25 Lake Elsinore 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
26 Temecula Valley 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
27 Anza Area 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 1 3 8 17 43 2 5 10 18 45
29 Banning Airport 2 5 14 31 84 3 8 18 38 98
30 Coachella Valley 1 3 9 20 52 2 6 16 36 97
31 East Riverside County 1 3 9 20 52 2 6 16 36 97
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 2 4 11 25 68 2 5 9 16 39
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 2 4 11 25 68 2 5 9 16 39
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 3 8 18 47 2 6 10 20 50
35 East San Bernardino Valley 1 3 9 20 53 2 5 11 22 56
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 2 4 11 25 68 2 5 9 16 39
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 1 3 8 18 47 2 6 10 20 50
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 1 3 9 20 53 2 5 11 22 56
C-6 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-3. PM10 Emission Thresholds for Operation (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 mg/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 acres
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 4 12 17 26 53
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 3 10 13 21 42
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 4 12 15 21 41
4 South Coastal LA County 4 10 14 22 46
5 Southeast LA County 4 10 15 23 49
6 West San Fernando Valley 3 9 13 21 44
7 East San Fernando Valley 4 11 14 21 41
8 West San Gabriel Valley 3 9 13 21 44
9 East San Gabriel Valley 4 11 16 26 55
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 3 9 13 20 42
11 South San Gabriel Valley 4 11 15 22 45
12 South Central LA County 4 10 14 20 40
13 Santa Clarita Valley 3 10 13 19 39
15 San Gabriel Mountains 3 10 13 19 39
16 North Orange County 3 9 12 19 40
17 Central Orange County 3 10 14 22 45
18 North Coastal Orange County 4 11 14 21 41
19 Saddleback Valley 3 9 12 18 36
20 Central Orange County Coastal 4 11 14 21 41
21 Capistrano Valley 3 9 12 18 36
22 Norco/Corona 3 9 14 25 55
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 4 10 14 23 50
24 Perris Valley 4 10 14 23 50
25 Lake Elsinore 4 10 14 23 50
26 Temecula Valley 4 10 14 23 50
27 Anza Area 4 10 14 23 50
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 4 10 14 23 50
29 Banning Airport 6 16 25 44 98
30 Coachella Valley 4 11 16 27 60
31 East Riverside County 4 11 16 27 60
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 4 12 20 34 78
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 4 12 20 34 78
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 4 11 16 26 55
35 East San Bernardino Valley 4 11 16 28 62
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 4 12 20 34 78
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 4 11 16 26 55
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 4 11 16 28 62
C-7 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-4. PM10 Emission Thresholds for Construction
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 mg/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 5 15 33 70 179 8 25 43 80 190
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 4 12 27 57 146 6 19 34 64 154
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 5 14 28 56 140 8 23 37 65 148
4 South Coastal LA County 4 13 29 61 158 7 21 37 70 167
5 Southeast LA County 4 13 30 66 173 7 21 39 74 182
6 West San Fernando Valley 4 11 27 59 155 6 17 33 66 162
7 East San Fernando Valley 4 13 26 54 136 7 21 34 62 144
8 West San Gabriel Valley 4 11 27 58 152 6 19 34 66 160
9 East San Gabriel Valley 5 14 34 75 199 7 22 42 84 207
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 4 11 26 57 148 6 18 33 64 156
11 South San Gabriel Valley 5 13 29 60 153 7 22 37 68 162
12 South Central LA County 4 12 26 54 139 7 20 34 62 146
13 Santa Clarita Valley 4 12 25 51 131 6 19 32 59 139
15 San Gabriel Mountains 4 12 25 51 131 6 19 32 59 139
16 North Orange County 4 10 24 53 137 6 17 31 60 145
17 Central Orange County 4 12 28 60 158 6 19 35 68 166
18 North Coastal Orange County 4 13 27 54 135 7 21 35 62 144
19 Saddleback Valley 4 11 24 48 121 6 18 30 55 129
20 Central Orange County Coastal 4 13 27 54 135 7 21 35 62 144
21 Capistrano Valley 4 11 24 48 121 6 18 30 55 129
22 Norco/Corona 4 11 32 73 198 6 18 39 81 206
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
24 Perris Valley 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
25 Lake Elsinore 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
26 Temecula Valley 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
27 Anza Area 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 4 12 30 67 178 7 20 38 75 186
29 Banning Airport 6 19 55 129 348 10 32 73 157 407
30 Coachella Valley 4 13 35 80 214 7 22 44 89 223
31 East Riverside County 4 13 35 80 214 7 22 44 89 223
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5 14 44 103 280 6 19 34 66 160
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 5 14 44 103 280 6 19 34 66 160
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 4 13 33 74 196 7 22 42 83 205
35 East San Bernardino Valley 4 12 36 82 220 7 21 44 90 230
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 5 14 44 103 280 6 19 34 66 160
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 4 13 33 74 196 7 22 42 83 205
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 4 12 36 82 220 7 21 44 90 230
C-8 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-4. PM10 Emission Thresholds for Construction (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 mg/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 acres
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 16 50 69 107 219
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 13 40 55 84 174
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 15 46 60 88 171
4 South Coastal LA County 14 42 58 92 191
5 Southeast LA County 14 42 60 95 203
6 West San Fernando Valley 11 35 51 84 181
7 East San Fernando Valley 14 42 56 84 167
8 West San Gabriel Valley 12 37 53 85 180
9 East San Gabriel Valley 14 43 63 105 229
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 12 36 51 82 175
11 South San Gabriel Valley 14 43 59 91 186
12 South Central LA County 13 41 55 83 166
13 Santa Clarita Valley 12 38 52 79 161
15 San Gabriel Mountains 12 38 52 79 161
16 North Orange County 11 34 49 78 165
17 Central Orange County 13 39 55 88 188
18 North Coastal Orange County 14 44 57 85 167
19 Saddleback Valley 12 37 49 74 148
20 Central Orange County Coastal 14 44 57 85 167
21 Capistrano Valley 12 37 49 74 148
22 Norco/Corona 12 37 58 101 228
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 13 40 59 96 207
24 Perris Valley 13 40 59 96 207
25 Lake Elsinore 13 40 59 96 207
26 Temecula Valley 13 40 59 96 207
27 Anza Area 13 40 59 96 207
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 13 40 59 96 207
29 Banning Airport 21 67 104 180 405
30 Coachella Valley 14 44 67 112 248
31 East Riverside County 14 44 67 112 248
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 16 50 80 140 322
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 16 50 80 140 322
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 14 44 65 106 229
35 East San Bernardino Valley 14 42 66 113 255
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 16 50 80 140 322
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 14 44 65 106 229
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 14 42 66 113 255
C-9 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-5. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Operation
SRA No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 1 2 3 6 25 2 2 3 7 27
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 3 6 20
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 1 2 3 5 18 1 2 3 6 20
4 South Coastal LA County 1 2 3 7 23 1 2 4 8 25
5 Southeast LA County 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
6 West San Fernando Valley 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 2 5 21
7 East San Fernando Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 5 18
8 West San Gabriel Valley 1 1 2 5 19 1 2 3 5 20
9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 2 3 6 23 2 2 3 7 25
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 3 5 20
11 South San Gabriel Valley 1 2 3 5 20 2 2 3 6 22
12 South Central LA County 1 1 2 4 17 1 2 3 5 18
13 Santa Clarita Valley 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 2 5 20
15 San Gabriel Mountains 1 1 2 5 18 1 2 2 5 20
16 North Orange County 1 1 3 5 18 1 2 3 6 19
17 Central Orange County 1 1 2 6 21 1 2 3 6 22
18 North Coastal Orange County 1 2 3 6 19 2 2 3 7 20
19 Saddleback Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 6 18
20 Central Orange County Coastal 1 2 3 6 19 2 2 3 7 20
21 Capistrano Valley 1 1 2 5 17 1 2 3 6 18
22 Norco/Corona 1 2 3 6 23 2 2 3 6 24
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
24 Perris Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
25 Lake Elsinore 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
26 Temecula Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
27 Anza Area 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 1 1 2 5 21 1 2 3 6 22
29 Banning Airport 1 2 4 9 38 2 3 5 10 40
30 Coachella Valley 1 2 3 6 26 2 2 3 7 27
31 East Riverside County 1 2 3 6 26 2 2 3 7 27
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 6 24 1 2 3 7 25
35 East San Bernardino Valley 1 2 3 7 27 2 2 4 8 29
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 1 2 3 8 34 2 2 4 9 36
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 1 2 3 6 24 1 2 3 7 25
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 1 2 3 7 27 2 2 4 8 29
C-10 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-5. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Operation (Continued)
SRA No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 2.5 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 2 3 5 9 31
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 2 2 4 7 23
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 2 3 5 9 24
4 South Coastal LA County 2 3 5 10 29
5 Southeast LA County 2 3 4 8 25
6 West San Fernando Valley 2 2 3 7 23
7 East San Fernando Valley 2 3 4 7 21
8 West San Gabriel Valley 2 3 4 7 23
9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 3 5 9 28
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 2 3 4 7 23
11 South San Gabriel Valley 2 3 5 9 25
12 South Central LA County 2 3 4 7 21
13 Santa Clarita Valley 2 2 3 7 23
15 San Gabriel Mountains 2 2 3 7 23
16 North Orange County 2 3 4 8 23
17 Central Orange County 2 3 4 8 27
18 North Coastal Orange County 2 3 5 9 25
19 Saddleback Valley 2 3 4 8 22
20 Central Orange County Coastal 2 3 5 9 25
21 Capistrano Valley 2 3 4 8 22
22 Norco/Corona 2 3 5 9 28
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 3 4 8 26
24 Perris Valley 2 3 4 8 26
25 Lake Elsinore 2 3 4 8 26
26 Temecula Valley 2 3 4 8 26
27 Anza Area 2 3 4 8 26
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 2 3 4 8 26
29 Banning Airport 3 4 6 14 46
30 Coachella Valley 2 3 5 9 31
31 East Riverside County 2 3 5 9 31
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 11 41
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 11 41
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 3 5 9 29
35 East San Bernardino Valley 3 3 5 10 34
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 2 3 5 11 41
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 2 3 5 9 29
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 3 3 5 10 34
C-11 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-6. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Construction
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
1 Acre 2 Acre
25 50 100 200 500 25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 3 5 10 24 102 5 7 12 28 110
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 3 4 8 18 77 4 5 10 21 82
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 3 5 9 21 75 5 7 12 25 81
4 South Coastal LA County 3 5 10 26 93 5 7 13 30 101
5 Southeast LA County 3 4 8 19 86 4 6 10 22 92
6 West San Fernando Valley 3 4 7 18 79 4 5 9 21 84
7 East San Fernando Valley 3 4 8 18 68 4 6 10 21 73
8 West San Gabriel Valley 3 4 7 18 77 4 5 9 21 82
9 East San Gabriel Valley 3 5 9 22 94 5 7 12 26 100
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 3 4 7 18 75 4 6 10 21 80
11 South San Gabriel Valley 4 5 9 20 83 5 8 12 24 89
12 South Central LA County 3 4 7 17 70 4 6 9 19 74
13 Santa Clarita Valley 3 4 7 18 74 4 5 9 20 80
15 San Gabriel Mountains 3 4 7 18 74 4 5 9 20 80
16 North Orange County 3 4 9 20 74 4 6 11 24 79
17 Central Orange County 3 4 9 22 85 4 6 11 25 92
18 North Coastal Orange County 3 5 9 22 76 5 7 12 26 83
19 Saddleback Valley 3 4 8 19 68 4 6 10 22 74
20 Central Orange County Coastal 3 5 9 22 76 5 7 12 26 83
21 Capistrano Valley 3 4 8 19 68 4 6 10 22 74
22 Norco/Corona 3 5 9 22 92 5 7 12 25 98
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
24 Perris Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
25 Lake Elsinore 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
26 Temecula Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
27 Anza Area 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 3 4 8 20 86 4 6 10 23 91
29 Banning Airport 4 7 14 36 156 6 9 17 41 166
30 Coachella Valley 3 5 10 24 105 5 7 12 28 112
31 East Riverside County 3 5 10 24 105 5 7 12 28 112
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 3 5 9 23 98 4 6 12 26 104
35 East San Bernardino Valley 4 5 10 26 112 5 7 13 30 120
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 4 6 12 32 141 5 8 14 36 150
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 3 5 9 23 98 4 6 12 26 104
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 4 5 10 26 112 5 7 13 30 120
C-12 Revised October 21, 2009
Table C-6. PM2.5 Emission Thresholds for Construction (Continued)
SRA
No. Source Receptor Area
Significance Threshold of 10.4 ug/m3
Allowable emissions (lbs/day) as a function
of receptor distance (meters) from boundary of site
5 Acre
25 50 100 200 500
1 Central LA 8 11 18 36 126
2 Northwest Coastal LA County 6 8 14 29 95
3 Southwest Coastal LA County 8 11 19 35 96
4 South Coastal LA County 8 10 18 39 120
5 Southeast LA County 7 10 15 30 103
6 West San Fernando Valley 6 8 13 26 96
7 East San Fernando Valley 8 10 15 28 86
8 West San Gabriel Valley 7 9 14 27 93
9 East San Gabriel Valley 8 11 17 35 116
10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 7 9 15 28 93
11 South San Gabriel Valley 9 12 19 34 104
12 South Central LA County 7 10 15 27 86
13 Santa Clarita Valley 6 8 13 26 95
15 San Gabriel Mountains 6 8 13 26 95
16 North Orange County 6 9 15 34 95
17 Central Orange County 7 9 15 32 109
18 North Coastal Orange County 9 11 18 35 101
19 Saddleback Valley 8 11 16 30 90
20 Central Orange County Coastal 9 11 18 35 101
21 Capistrano Valley 8 11 16 30 90
22 Norco/Corona 8 11 18 34 113
23 Metropolitan Riverside County 8 10 16 31 105
24 Perris Valley 8 10 16 31 105
25 Lake Elsinore 8 10 16 31 105
26 Temecula Valley 8 10 16 31 105
27 Anza Area 8 10 16 31 105
28 Hemet/San Jacinto Valley 8 10 16 31 105
29 Banning Airport 11 14 25 55 189
30 Coachella Valley 8 11 19 37 128
31 East Riverside County 8 11 19 37 128
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 9 12 21 45 170
33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 9 12 21 45 170
34 Central San Bernardino Valley 8 10 17 35 120
35 East San Bernardino Valley 9 12 20 40 140
36 West San Bernardino Mountains 9 12 21 45 170
37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 8 10 17 35 120
38 East San Bernardino Mountains 9 12 20 40 140
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
4610. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
4610.1. DEFINITIONS.
4610.2. SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS.
4610.3. NOISE LIMITS.
4610. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit unnecessary, excessive,
and annoying noises from all sources subject to its police power. At certain levels, noises are
detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizenry, and, in the public interests, such noise
levels shall be systematically proscribed.
4610.1. DEFINITIONS.
Unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, the words and phrases used in this
chapter are defined as follows:
(a)
A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level. "A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level" shall
mean the sound pressure level as measured with a sound meter using the A-
weighting network. The standard notation is dBA.
(b)
Cyclically Varying Sound. "Cyclically Varying Sound" shall mean and include
steady or non-steady sound which varies in amplitude such that the same
sound pressure level is obtained repetitively at reasonable uniform intervals
of time.
(c)
Day. "Day" shall mean the time period from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
(d)
Decibel. "Decibel" shall mean a unit for measuring the volume of a sound,
equal to the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure of a standard sound
(.0002 microbars). The standard notation is dB.
(e)
Emergency Work. "Emergency Work" shall mean work made necessary to
restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, or work
required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger
or work by public or private utilities to restore utility service.
(f)
Impulsive Noise. "Impulsive Noise" shall mean and include any noise which is
composed of momentary noises that are repeated at sufficiently slow rates,
such that a sound level meter set at "fast" meter characteristic will show
changes in sound pressure level greater than 10 dBA.
(g)
Night. "Night" shall mean the time period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
(h)
Person. "Person" shall mean a person, firm, association, copartnership, joint
venture, corporation, or any entity, public or private in nature.
(i)
Property Boundary. "Property Boundary" shall mean an imaginary line at the
ground surface, which separates the real property owned by one person from
that owned by another person and its vertical extension. This shall include
condominium units, with the "property boundary" being the wall, floor, or
ceiling separating the adjoining condominium units.
(j)
Pure Tone. "Pure Tone" shall mean a sound wave whose instantaneous
sound pressure varies essentially as a simple sinesoidal function of time.
(k)
Sound. "Sound" shall mean the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing.
For the purpose of this ordinance, the term "sound" and "noise" shall be used
synonymously.
(l)
Sound Amplifying Equipment. "Sound Amplifying Equipment" shall mean any
machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music, or any
other sound, but shall not include:
1.
Warning devices or emergency vehicles.
2.
Horns, burglar and fire alarms, or other warning devices expressly
authorized by law.
(m)
Sound Level. "Sound Level" shall mean the decibel level of a sound
measured by use of the "A" weight scale, and with slow response by a sound
level meter.
(n)
Sound Level Meter. "Sound Level Meter" shall mean a measurement
instrument containing a microphone, or amplifier, an output meter and "A"
frequency weighting networks for the measurement of sound levels, which
satisfies the pertinent requirements in American Specifications for Sound
Level Meters S-4-971, or the most recent revision thereof.
(o)
Steady Sound. "Steady Sound" shall mean sound for which the sound
pressure level remains essentially constant during the period of observation.
It does not vary more than six (6) dBA when measured with the "slow" meter
characteristics of a sound level meter.
4610.2. SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS.
Any sound level measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance
shall be measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighting and response as indicated
in Section 4610.1 (n) of this Article.
4610.3. NOISE LIMITS.
(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person within the City of Arcadia to produce or cause or
allow to be produced sound or noise which is amplified by the use of sound
amplifying equipment and which amplified noise or sound is received on property
occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the following
levels, except as expressly provided otherwise or exempted hereinafter:
Region Day 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Night 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Residential
Zone
55 dBA 50 dBA
Commercial
Zone
65 dBA 60 dBA
Industrial Zone 70 dBA 70 dBA
At the boundary line between two of the above zones the noise level of the quieter
zone shall be used.
(b)
Corrections to Noise Limits. The numerical limits given in Section 4610.3(a) shall be
adjusted by the following corrections, where appropriate:
Noise Condition Correction (in dB)
1. Impulsive sounds, pure tone or
sounds with a cyclically varying
amplitude
-5
(The following corrections apply to
day only)
2. Noise occurring more than 5 but less
than 15 minutes per hour
+ 5
3. Noise occurring more than 1 but less
than 5 minutes per hour
+10
4. Noise occurring less than 1 minute
per hour
+15
(c)
It shall be unlawful for any person to produce or cause or allow to be produced sound
or noise from air-conditioning equipment, pumps, fans or similar machinery which is
received on residentially zoned property occupied by another person in excess of 55
dBA, provided, however, that if such machinery was installed prior to December 1,
1970, the noise level shall not be in excess of 60 dBA.
(d)
Exemption: Noise caused by "Emergency Work" as herein defined and from
mechanical devices, apparatus, or equipment used, related to, or connected with
such Emergency Work is exempt from the limits prescribed by this Chapter.
(Amended by Ord. 1567 adopted 7-20-76; amended by Ord. 2302 adopted 10-2-12)
Urban Water Management Plan
2010 Update
June 2011
City of Arcadia
Public Works Services Department P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
City of Arcadia
CITY OF ARCADIA
URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2010 UPDATE
_____________________________________________________________________
WATER UTILITY INFORMATION
City of Arcadia
Public Works Services Department
P. O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
CONTACT INFORMATION
Ken Herman
City of Arcadia
Deputy Public Works Service Director
(626) 256-6654
(626) 359-7028 (fax)
kherman@ci.arcadia.ca.us
The Water supplier is a: Municipality
Utility services provided by the water supplier include: Water
This Agency is not a Bureau of Reclamation Contractor.
This Agency is not a State Water Project Contractor.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................. 1-1
PLAN PREPARATION ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 COORDINATION .................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.1 COORDINATION WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES ................. 1-3
1.2.2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .................................................. 1-4
1.2.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................ 1-4
1.3 PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION .................. 1-5
1.3.1 SUBMITTAL OF AMENDED PLAN .............................................. 1-5
1.3.2 PLAN ADOPTION ........................................................................ 1-6
1.3.3 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................... 1-6
1.3.4 PLAN SUBMITTAL ....................................................................... 1-6
1.3.5 PUBLIC REVIEW ......................................................................... 1-7
1.3.6 PLAN DISTRIBUTION (RELIABILITY AND SUPPLY AND
DEMAND) .................................................................................... 1-7
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................. 2-1
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 CITY OF ARCADIA FORMATION AND LOCATION .................... 2-1
2.2 SERVICE AREA PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ......................................... 2-2
2.2.1 SERVICE AREA ........................................................................... 2-2
2.2.2 CLIMATE ..................................................................................... 2-3
2.3 SERVICE AREA POPULATION ............................................................. 2-3
2.3.1 POPULATION .............................................................................. 2-3
2.3.2 OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS .......................................... 2-4
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................. 3-1
SYSTEM DEMANDS .................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 WATER DEMANDS ................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 PAST, CURRENT, AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND .......... 3-1
3.1.2 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND FOR LOWER INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS ............................................................................ 3-2
3.2 BASELINES AND TARGETS ................................................................. 3-2
3.2.1 BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE ............................ 3-3
3.2.2 URBAN WATER USE TARGET ................................................... 3-6
3.2.3 COMPLIANCE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE ...................... 3-8
3.2.4 MINIMUM WATER USE REDUCTION REQUIREMENT ............. 3-8
3.3 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS ...................................................... 3-10
3.4 WATER USE REDUCTION PLAN ........................................................ 3-10
3.5 PROGRESS REPORT .......................................................................... 3-11
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................. 4-1
SYSTEM SUPPLIES .................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 WATER SOURCES ................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................... 4-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
ii
4.2.1 RAYMOND BASIN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ............... 4-2
4.2.2 MAIN BASIN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ........................ 4-4
4.2.3 DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER BASIN ........................... 4-12
4.2.4 LOCATION, AMOUNT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
GROUNDWATER PUMPED FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS ..... 4-22
4.2.5 LOCATION, AMOUNT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
GROUNDWATER PROJECTED TO BE PUMPED .................... 4-23
4.3 TRANSFER OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................ 4-25
4.3.1 SHORT-TERM ........................................................................... 4-25
4.3.2 LONG-TERM .............................................................................. 4-26
4.4 DESALINATED WATER OPPORTUNITIES ......................................... 4-26
4.5 RECYCLED WATER OPPORTUNITIES .............................................. 4-27
4.5.1 RECYCLED WATER AND POTENTIAL FOR USE ................... 4-27
4.5.2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND
DISPOSAL ................................................................................. 4-27
4.5.3 CURRENT RECYCLED WATER USE ....................................... 4-29
4.5.4 POTENTIAL USES OF RECYCLED WATER ............................ 4-29
4.5.5 PROJECTED RECYCLED WATER USE ................................... 4-30
4.5.6 ENCOURAGING USE OF RECYCLED WATER ....................... 4-30
4.5.7 PLAN FOR OPTIMIZING USE OF RECYCLED WATER ........... 4-31
4.6 FUTURE WATER PROJECTS ............................................................. 4-32
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................. 5-1
WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY AND WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY
PLANNING ................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY ............................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 WATER MANAGEMENT TOOLS ................................................ 5-1
5.1.2 SUPPLY INCONSISTENCY ........................................................ 5-1
5.2 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING ............................... 5-2
5.2.1 CATASTROPIC INTERRUPTION OF WATER SUPPLIES ......... 5-2
5.2.2 MANDATORY PROHIBITIONS .................................................... 5-5
5.2.3 CONSUMPTION REDUCTION METHODS ................................. 5-5
5.2.4 PENALTIES OR CHARGES FOR EXCESSIVE USE .................. 5-7
5.2.5 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE IMPACTS ................................ 5-8
5.2.6 DRAFT WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY
RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE ................................................. 5-8
5.3 WATER QUALITY .................................................................................. 5-9
5.3.1 GROUNDWATER FROM MAIN BASIN ....................................... 5-9
5.3.2 GROUNDWATER FROM RAYMOND BASIN .............................. 5-9
5.3.3 IMPORTED WATER .................................................................. 5-10
5.4 DROUGHT PLANNING ........................................................................ 5-10
5.4.1 RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY AND VULNERABILITY TO
SEASONAL OR CLIMATIC SHORTAGE ................................... 5-10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
iii
5.4.2 STAGES OF ACTION IN RESPONSE TO WATER SUPPLY
SHORTAGES ............................................................................. 5-11
5.4.3 THREE YEAR MINIMUM WATER SUPPLY .............................. 5-12
5.4.4 WATER USE REDUCTION MEASURING MECHANISM .......... 5-12
5.4.5 ASSESSMENT OF THE RELIABILITY OF WATER
SERVICE ................................................................................... 5-13
CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................. 6-1
DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES ...................................................................... 6-1
6.1 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES BEING IMPLEMENTED .......... 6-1
6.1.1 WATER SURVEY PROGRAMS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS [10631(F)(1)(A)] .................................................... 6-2
6.1.2 RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING RETROFIT [10631(F)(1)(B)] ............ 6-2
6.1.3 SYSTEM WATER AUDITS, LEAK DETECTION, AND
REPAIR [10631(F)(1)(C)] ............................................................. 6-3
6.1.4 METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW
CONNECTIONS AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING
CONNECTIONS [10631(F)(1)(D)] ................................................ 6-4
6.1.5 LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND
INCENTIVES [10631(F)(1)(E)] ..................................................... 6-5
6.1.6 HIGH-EFFICIENCY WASHING MACHINE REBATE
PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(F)] ...................................................... 6-6
6.1.7 PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(G)] ............. 6-7
6.1.8 SCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(H)] ............... 6-8
6.1.9 CONSERVATION PROGRAMS FOR COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTS
[10631(F)(1)(I)] ........................................................................... 6-10
6.1.10 CONSERVATION PRICING [10631(F)(1)(K)] ............................ 6-11
6.1.11 WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR
[10631(F)(1)(L)] .......................................................................... 6-12
6.1.12 WATER WASTE PROHIBITION [10631(F)(1)(M)] ..................... 6-13
6.1.13 RESIDENTIAL ULTRA-LOW FLUSH TOILET
REPLACEMENT PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(N)] ........................ 6-14
6.2 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES NOT IMPLEMENTED ........... 6-14
6.2.1 WHOLESALE AGENCY PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(J)] ............. 6-15
CHAPTER 7 ................................................................................................................. 7-1
COMPLETED URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CHECKLIST .......................... 7-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Historical Baldwin Park Key Well Elevation
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Coordination with Appropriate Agencies
Table 2 Annual Rainfall in the San Gabriel Valley
Table 3 Climate
Table 4 Current and Projected Population
Table 5 Past, Current, and Projected Water Deliveries
Table 6 Historical and Projected Water Demand
Table 7 Calculation of Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use
Table 8 Projected Water Demands Based on Urban Water Use Targets
Table 9 Historical and Projected Water Supply
Table 10 Projected Water Supplies – Single and Multiple Dry Years
Table 11 Supply Reliability – Historical Conditions
Table 12 Supply Reliability – Three-Year Estimated Minimum
Table 13 Projected Normal Water Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Table 14 Projected Single-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison
Table 15 Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1 Location Map
Plate 2 Vicinity Map – Main San Gabriel Basin and Raymond Basin
Plate 3 Municipal Water District Boundaries
Plate 4 Raymond Basin
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
v
Plate 5 Location of Sub-Basins, Spreading Grounds and Water Channels, Main
San Gabriel Basin
Plate 6 Groundwater Contour Map for San Gabriel Basin – July 2010
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act
Appendix B Water Conservation Bill of 2009
Appendix C Notification Memoranda
Appendix D Notice of Public Hearing
Appendix E Resolution Adopting Plan
Appendix F Raymond Basin Judgment
Appendix G Long Beach Judgment
Appendix H Main San Gabriel Basin Judgment
Appendix I Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster Rules and Regulations
Appendix J Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster Five-Year Water Quality and Supply
Plan
Appendix K Historical Raymond Basin Groundwater Levels
Appendix L LACSD Recycled Water Treatment and Discharge Quantities
Appendix M Sections from “Draft City of Arcadia Recycled Water Feasibility Study”,
November 2006
Appendix N Water Shortage Contingency Ordinance
Appendix O Water Shortage Stages and Triggering Mechanisms
Appendix P Completed Plan Checklist
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-1
Chapter 1
PLAN PREPARATION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Section 10617. “Urban Water Supplier” means a supplier, either publicly or privately
owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than
3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. An urban
water supplier includes a supplier or contractor for water, regardless of the basis of right,
which distributes or sells for ultimate resale to customers.
Section 10620.
(a) Every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt an urban water management
plan in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640).
(b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water
management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier.
(c) An urban water supplier indirectly providing water shall not include planning
elements in its water management plan as provided in Article 2 (commencing with
Section 10630) that would be applicable to urban water suppliers or public agencies
directly providing water, or to their customers, without the consent of those suppliers
or public agencies.
(d) (1) An urban water supplier may satisfy the requirements of this part by participation
in areawide, regional, watershed, or basinwide urban water management planning
where those plans will reduce preparation costs and contribute to the achievement
of conservation and efficient water use.
(2) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other
appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a
common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the
extent practicable.
(e) The urban water supplier may prepare the plan with its own staff, by contract, or in
cooperation with other governmental agencies.
The City of Arcadia is a water supplier and is required to prepare an Urban Water
Management Plan (Plan) in accordance with the California Urban Water Management
Planning Act (Act)1
1 Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656
which was established in 1983. The Act requires every “urban water
supplier” to prepare and adopt a Plan, periodically review its Plan at least once every
five years and make any amendments or changes which are indicated by the review.
An “Urban Water Supplier” is defined as a supplier, either publicly or privately owned,
providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-2
customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. The primary
objective of the Act is to direct urban water suppliers to evaluate their existing water
conservation efforts and, to the extent practicable, review and implement alternative and
supplemental water conservation measures. The Act is directed primarily at retail water
purveyors where programs can be immediately affected upon the consumer. The Act,
originally known as Assembly Bill (AB) 797, is included in Appendix A.
In compliance with the Act, the City last updated the City of Arcadia Urban Water
Management Plan in 2005. There have been many new amendments added to the
City’s Plan and some reorganization of the California Water Code sections since the
City’s last update. The following is a list of new requirements which were incorporated
in the Plan:
• Senate Bill (SB) 1087 – Requires the City to report water use projections for
lower income households within the City.
• AB 1376 – Requires the City to provide a 60 day notice, prior to a public
hearing, to any City or County within which the City provides water supplies
notifying that the City is reviewing the Plan and is considering changes.
• AB 1420 – Requires the City to verify compliance of Demand Management
Measures (See Chapter 6) in order to qualify for water management grants or
loans.
• SBX7-7 – Requires the City to reduce the City’s per capita water use by 20
percent by 2020 (see Appendix B)
Section 10621(a) of the California Water Code states, “Each water supplier shall
update its plan at least once every five years on or before December 31, in years
ending in five and zero.” However, due to recent changes in Urban Water Management
Plan requirements, California State law has extended the deadline for the 2010 Plans to
July 1, 2011. The City’s 2010 Plan is an update to the City’s 2005 Plan.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-3
1.2 COORDINATION
1.2.1 COORDINATION WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES
Section 10620.
(d) (2) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other
appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a
common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the
extent practicable.
Section 10621
(b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to this part shall, at
least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642,
notify any
City or County within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water
supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan.
The urban water supplier may consult with, and obtain comments from, any City or
County that receives notices pursuant to this subdivision.
The City of Arcadia is a retail water supplier that serves the majority of the
residents within the City of Arcadia. The City is required to coordinate the preparation
of the Plan with appropriate agencies in the area, including appropriate water suppliers
that share a common source. Therefore, the City coordinated the preparation of the
Urban Water Management Plan with the Raymond Basin Management Board, the
County of Los Angeles, the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (Main Basin
Watermaster), the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (Upper District),
the San Gabriel Valley Water Company, the City of Sierra Madre, the City of Pasadena
Water and Power, Golden State Water Company, East Pasadena Water Company,
Sunny Slope Water Company, the City of Monrovia and Arcadia residents (see Table
1). The City notified these agencies and Arcadia residents at least sixty (60) days prior
to the public hearing of the preparation of the 2010 Plan and invited them to participate
in the development of the Plan. A copy of the notification letters sent to these agencies
is located in Appendix C. Table 1 indicates whether comments were provided to the City
regarding preparation of the 2010 Plan.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-4
1.2.2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Section 10642
Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social,
cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and
during the preparation of the plan. Prior to adopting a plan, the urban water supplier shall
make the plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing thereon.
Prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place of hearing shall be published within the
jurisdiction of the publicly owned water supplier pursuant to Section 6066 of the
Government Code. The urban water supplier shall provide notice of the time and place of
hearing to any City or County within which the supplier provides water supplies. A
privately owned water supplier shall provide an equivalent notice within its service area.
After the hearing, the plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing.
The City of Arcadia encouraged the active involvement of the population within
its service area prior to and during the preparation of the Plan. Pursuant to Section
6066 of the Government Code, the City published a notice of public hearing in the
newspaper during the weeks of June 6, 2011 and June 13, 2011. A notice of public
hearing was also provided to the City Clerk’s office and was posted throughout the City
of Arcadia and on the City’s website. Additionally, a notice of public hearing was sent
the Raymond Basin Management Board, the County of Los Angeles, Main Basin
Watermaster, Upper District, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, the City of Sierra
Madre, the City of Pasadena Water and Power, Golden State Water Company, East
Pasadena Water Company, Sunny Slope Water Company, and the City of Monrovia.
To ensure that the plan was available for review, the City placed a copy of the 2010
draft Plan at the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall and made a copy available for
review on its website. Copies of the notice of the public hearing are provided in
Appendix D.
1.2.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Section 10642
Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social,
cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and
during the preparation of the plan. Prior to adopting a plan, the urban water supplier shall
make the plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing thereon.
Prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place of hearing shall be published within the
jurisdiction of the publicly owned water supplier pursuant to Section 6066 of the
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-5
Government Code. The urban water supplier shall provide notice of the time and place of
hearing to any City or County within which the supplier provides water supplies. A
privately owned water supplier shall provide an equivalent notice within its service area.
After the hearing, the plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing.
Pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code, the City published a notice of public
hearing in the newspaper during the week of June 6, 2011 and June 13, 2011 indicating
that the City would hold a public hearing to hear public comments and consider
adoption of the draft 2010 Plan on June 21, 2011, as shown in Appendix D. In the same
newspaper notice, the City indicated the draft 2010 Plan update was available for public
review at the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall and on the City’s website. The
notice of public hearing was published and distributed to allow involvement of social,
cultural and economic community groups. A copy of the notice of the public hearing is
provided in Appendix D. The City also provided a notice of the public hearing to the
Raymond Basin Management Board, the County of Los Angeles, the Main Basin
Watermaster, the Upper District, the San Gabriel Valley Water Company, the City of
Sierra Madre, the City of Pasadena Water and Power, Golden State Water Company,
East Pasadena Water Company, the Sunny Slope Water Company and the City of
Monrovia, as shown in Appendix D.
1.3 PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION
1.3.1 SUBMITTAL OF AMENDED PLAN
Section 10621
c) The amendments to, or changes in, the plan shall be adopted and filed in the manner set
forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640).
If the Department of Water Resources (DWR) requires significant changes to the
Plan before it determines the Plan to be “complete,” the City will submit an amendment
or a revised Plan. The amendment or revised Plan will undergo adoption by the City’s
governing board prior to submittal to DWR.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-6
1.3.2 PLAN ADOPTION
Section 10642
After the hearing, the plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing.
The City held a public hearing on June 21, 2011. Following the public hearing,
the City adopted the draft Plan as its Plan. A copy of the resolution adopting the Plan is
provided in Appendix E.
1.3.3 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Section 10643
An urban water supplier shall implement its plan adopted pursuant to this chapter in
accordance with the schedule set forth in its plan.
The City of Arcadia is committed to the implementation of it’s 2010 Plan in
accordance with Section 10643 of the Act, including the water demand management
measures (DMMs) (see Chapter 6) and water conservation requirements of SBX7-7
(see Chapter 3). The City continues to be committed to the concept of good water
management practice and intends to expand its water conservation program as budgets
and staffing allow. The City's water conservation program will periodically be re-
evaluated and modified to institute additional methods or techniques as the need arises.
The City reviewed implementation of its 2005 Plan and incorporated changes to create
the 2010 Plan.
1.3.4 PLAN SUBMITTAL
Section 10644(a)
An urban water supplier shall submit to the department, the California State Library, and
any City or County within which the supplier provides water supplies a copy of its plan no
later than 30 days after adoption. Copies of amendments or changes to the plans shall be
submitted to the department, the California State Library, and any City or county within
which the supplier provides water supplies within 30 days after adoption.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-7
Within 30 days of adoption of the Plan by the City Council, a copy of the Plan will
be filed with the DWR, the State of California Library, the County of Los Angeles
Registrar / Recorders office, and the City Clerk’s Office. Copies of the letters to DWR,
State Library, and County of Los Angeles will be maintained in the City’s file.
1.3.5 PUBLIC REVIEW
Section 10645
Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the urban water
supplier and the department shall make the plan available for public review during normal
business hours.
Within 30 days after submittal of the 2010 Plan to DWR, the City will make the 2010
Plan available at City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall during normal business hours
and on the City’s website.
1.3.6 PLAN DISTRIBUTION (RELIABILITY AND SUPPLY AND DEMAND)
Section 10635(b)
The urban water supplier shall provide that portion of its urban water management
plan prepared pursuant to this article to any City or County within which it provides
water supplies no later than 60 days after submission of its urban water management
plan.
Under section 10635 (b), the City of Arcadia is required to provide the reliability section
and the supply and demand section of the City’s Plan to any City or County within which
the City of Arcadia provides water supplies no later than 60 days after submitting the
2010 Urban Water Management Plan to the DWR. As discussed in Section 1.3.4, within
30 days of adoption of the Plan by the City Council, the City will file a copy of the Plan
with the DWR, the State of California Library, and the County of Los Angeles Registrar /
Recorders office. The City will also place a hardcopy of the 2010 Plan at the City
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1-8
Clerk’s Office located at City Hall and will notify any City or County within which the City
of Arcadia provides water supplies that a copy is available on its website.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2-1
Chapter 2
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
2.1 BACKGROUND
2.1.1 CITY OF ARCADIA FORMATION AND LOCATION
The City of Arcadia is a mature residential community encompassing
approximately 11.5 square miles, which lies northeast of Los Angeles in the north
central area of the San Gabriel Valley and extends northward into the southerly slopes
of the San Gabriel Mountains.
The City of Arcadia was incorporated in 1903, and in 1914 its citizens decided to
construct a municipal water system. A bond issue was passed and by 1916 the City of
Arcadia had purchased an existing water company, drilled wells, built reservoirs and
installed thousands of feet of water main as well as fire hydrants and water meters.
In 1918, the State of California granted the City of Arcadia a domestic water
supply permit. Since then, the City has improved its water system by drilling additional
wells, building additional reservoirs, constructing booster pumps, and installing many
miles of water mains. These improvements were assisted through two bond issues.
The last bond was redeemed in 1966, and since then, all additional improvements have
been funded by water sales, developers and federal grants.
The City provides water service to a majority of the City of Arcadia and
encompasses an area of approximately 11.0 sq miles, as shown in Plate 1. The City
currently derives its water supply from groundwater wells that produce water from two
groundwater basins, the Main San Gabriel Basin and the Raymond Basin, with the Main
San Gabriel Basin as the City’s primary groundwater source. The locations of the City’s
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2-2
service area and the Main San Gabriel Basin and the Raymond Basin are shown in
Plate 2.
The City is a sub-agency of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water
District (Upper District), a wholesale water agency. The locations of the City’s service
area and Upper District are shown in Plate 3.
2.2 SERVICE AREA PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Section 10631.
A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do the following:
a) Describe the service area of the supplier; including current and projected population,
climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management
planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the
state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area
of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far
as data is available.
2.2.1 SERVICE AREA
The City provides water service to a majority of the City of Arcadia and
encompasses an area of approximately 11.0 sq miles. Based on the ratio of the area of
the City’s water system (11.0 sq miles) to the area of the City of Arcadia (11.5 sq miles),
the City serves approximately 96 percent of the population of the City of Arcadia. The
remaining portions of the City of Arcadia are provided water service by the San Gabriel
Valley Water Company (SGVWC), Golden State Water Company (GSWC), California
American Water Company (CAWC), Sunny Slope Water Company (Sunny Slope) and
East Pasadena Water Company (East Pasadena). Plate 1 shows the locations of the
City’s water system service area, the City of Arcadia and the other water companies
serving the City of Arcadia.
The City of Arcadia currently has a population of approximately 56,800. The City,
which serves approximately 96 percent of the population of the City of Arcadia, is a
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2-3
retail water agency and currently serves a population of approximately 54,500. The
primary service connections are residential with some commercial/institutional, industrial
and landscape irrigation users. It is estimated that the population in 2035 will be
approximately 59,500 (see Chapter 2.3 below). The projected water demand and
number of service connections by user category are discussed in Chapter 3.
2.2.2 CLIMATE
Historical rainfall in the San Gabriel Valley is shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows the
monthly average rainfall, monthly average temperature and monthly evapotranspiration
in the San Gabriel Valley. Average rainfall in the San Gabriel Valley is about 17.8
inches, as shown in Table 3. The annual rainfall in the San Gabriel Valley in water year
2008-09 was 14.0 inches, as shown in Table 2, which was 79 percent of the normal
conditions for the area. The service area and location of the City in the San Gabriel
Valley has a dry climate and summers can reach average daily temperatures in the high
70s. Although changes in climatic conditions will have an impact on water supply, the
projected water supply demands will be based on average year, single dry year and
multiple-dry years.
2.3 SERVICE AREA POPULATION
Section 10631.
A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do the following:
a) Describe the service area of the supplier; including current and projected population,
climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management
planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the
state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area
of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far
as data is available.
2.3.1 POPULATION
The City provides water service to an area of about 11 square miles and serves a
current population of approximately 54,500. Table 4 presents the current and projected
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2-4
population of the area encompassed by the City from 2010 to 2035. Projected
populations within the City were estimated in a May 2010 Draft Water Supply
Assessment, incorporated by reference, for the City of Arcadia’s General Plan Update.
Population projections were based on data obtained from the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG). The SCAG data incorporates demographic
trends, existing land use, general plan land use policies, and input and projections from
the Department of Finance (DOF) and the US Census Bureau.
2.3.2 OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
There are no other demographic factors affecting the City’s water management
planning.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-1
Chapter 3
SYSTEM DEMANDS
3.1 WATER DEMANDS
3.1.1 PAST, CURRENT, AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
Section 10631(e)
(1) Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the
same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use,
identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited
to, all of the following uses:
(A) Single-family residential.
(B) Multifamily.
(C) Commercial.
(D) Industrial.
(E) Institutional and governmental.
(F) Landscape.
(G) Sales to other agencies.
(H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive
use, or any combination thereof.
(I) Agricultural
(2) The water use projections shall be in the same five-year increments described in
subdivision (a).
The City’s water demands are supplied by groundwater pumped from the
Raymond Basin and Main San Gabriel Basin and treated imported surface water. The
City’s water supplies do not include recycled water. The City provides water service to
the following water use sectors:
• Single-Family Residential
• Multi-Family Residential
• Commercial/Institutional
• Industrial
• Landscape Irrigation.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-2
The City does not regularly provide water sales to other agencies and does not
have any additional water uses. Table 5 shows the historical, current, and projected
water use among water use sectors within the City’s service area. Table 6 shows the
historical, current, and projected total water demand and unaccounted water losses.
The projected water use is calculated based on the urban per capita water use target
developed per SBX7-7 (see Chapter 3.2 below) and population projections. Based on
the projected water uses, the City does not anticipate any problem meeting its water
demands.
3.1.2 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND FOR LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Section 10631.1(a)
The water use projections required by Section 10631 shall include projected water
use for single-family and multifamily residential housing needed for lower income
households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as
identified in the housing element of any City, County, or City and County in the
service area of the supplier.
Based on Chapter 5, Tables H-3 and H-5, of the the City’s General Plan dated
November 2010, approximately 27.4 percent of the total housing units in the City are
considered lower income units. Therefore, lower income households meters comprise
approximately 27.4 percent of the total current number of residential meters. Based on a
27.4 percent use factor of total residential water demands, the projected water demand
for lower income households is about 2,970 acre-feet per year by the year 2035, as
shown on Table 6.
3.2 BASELINES AND TARGETS
Section 10608.20 (e)
An urban retail water supplier shall include in its urban water management plan
required pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) due in 2010 the
baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use
target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for
determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-3
Methodologies for calculating baseline and compliance urban per capita water
use for the consistent implementation of the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 have been
published by DWR in its October 2010 guidance document.2
DWR’s guidance
document was used by the City to determine the required water use parameters which
are discussed below. The City developed the baselines and targets individually and not
regionally.
3.2.1 BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE
The Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use is defined as the average water use,
expressed in gallons per capita per day (GPCD), for a continuous, multi-year baseline
period. There are two different baseline periods for calculating Baseline Daily Per
Capita Water Use, as follows (CWC Sections 10608.20 and 10608.22):
• The first baseline period is a continuous 10- to 15-year period, and is used to
calculate Baseline Per Capita Water Use per CWC Section 10608.20. The
first baseline period is determined as follows:
o If recycled water makes up less than 10 percent of 2008 retail water
delivery, use a continuous 10-year period ending no earlier than
December 31, 2004, and no later than December 31, 2010.
o If recycled water makes up 10 percent or more of 2008 retail water
delivery, use a continuous 10- to 15-year period ending no earlier
than December 31, 2004, and no later than December 31, 2010.
2 California Department of Water Resources, Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management, Water
Use and Efficiency Branch. Methodologies for Calculating Baseline and Compliance Urban Per Capita
Water Use. October 1, 2010.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-4
The City does not have any recycled water use. Consequently, the first
baseline period will consist of a continuous 10-year period that can be
selected between 1995-96 and 2009-10.
• The second baseline period is a continuous five-year period, and is used to
determine whether the 2020 per capita water use target meets the minimum
water use reduction per CWC Section 10608.22. The continuous five-year
period shall end no earlier than December 31, 2007, and no later than
December 31, 2010.
The second baseline period consisting of a continuous five-year period can
be selected between 2003-04 and 2009-10.
Unless the urban water retailer’s five-year Baseline Daily Per Capita Water
Use per CWC Section 10608.12(b)(3) is 100 GPCD or less, Baseline Daily Per
Capita Water Use must be calculated for both baseline periods.
The calculation of the Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use entails the following
four steps:
Step 1 Calculate gross water use for each year in the baseline period using
Methodology 1 in DWR’s guidance document. According to Methodology
1, gross water use is a measure of water supplied to the distribution
system over 12 months and adjusted for changes in distribution system
storage and deliveries to other water suppliers that pass through the
distribution system. Recycled water deliveries are to be excluded from the
calculation of gross water use. Water delivered through the distribution
system for agricultural use may be deducted from the calculation of gross
water use. Under certain conditions, industrial process water use also
may be deducted from gross water use.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-5
The calculated gross water use, based on recorded groundwater use
(Raymond Basin and Main Basin) and imported surface water deliveries,
for each year in the baseline period is shown on Table 7.
Step 2 Estimate service area population for each year in the baseline period
using Methodology 2 in DWR’s guidance document. To obtain an
accurate estimate of GPCD, water suppliers must estimate population of
the areas that they actually serve, which may or may not coincide with
either their jurisdictional boundaries or with the boundaries of cities.
According to Methodology 2, data published by the California Department
of Finance (DOF) or the U.S. Census Bureau must serve as the
foundational building block for population estimates. In some instances,
data published by these two sources may be directly applicable. In other
instances, additional refinements may be necessary. For example, to
account for distribution areas that do not match City boundaries,
customers with private sources of supply, or other unique local
circumstances, water suppliers may have to supplement the above
sources of data with additional local data sources such as county
assessor data, building permits data, and traffic analysis zone data.
These refinements are acceptable as long as they are consistently applied
over time, and as long as they build upon population data sources of the
DOF or the U.S Census Bureau.
The City’s service area population for each year in the baseline period is
based on data from SCAG, DOF, and the US Census Bureau (see Table
7).
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-6
Step 3 Calculate daily per capita water use for each year in the baseline period.
Divide gross water use (determined in Step 1) by service area population
(determined in Step 2).
The calculated daily per capita water use for each year in the baseline
period is shown on Table 7.
Step 4 Calculate Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use. Calculate average per
capita water use by summing the values calculated in Step 3 and dividing
by the number of years in the baseline period. The result is Baseline Daily
Per Capita Water Use for the selected baseline period.
The average per capita water use calculated for a continuous 10-year
baseline period (first baseline period) is shown on Table 7, with the
highest value of 294 GPCD.
The Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use for the City was determined to be 294
GPCD, based on the highest value calculated for a continuous 10-year period (first
baseline period) between 1995-96 and 2009-10 (see Table 7).
3.2.2 URBAN WATER USE TARGET
Section 10608.20 (b)
An urban retail water supplier shall adopt one of the following methods for
determining its urban water use target pursuant to subdivision (a):
(1) Eighty percent of the urban retail water supplier’s baseline per capita daily water
use.
(2) The per capita daily water use that is estimated using the sum of the following
performance standards:
(A) For indoor residential water use, 55 gallons per capita daily water use as a
provisional standard. Upon completion of the department’s 2016 report to the
Legislature pursuant to Section 10608.42, this standard may be adjusted by
the Legislature by statute.
(B) For landscape irrigated through dedicated or residential meters or
connections, water efficiency equivalent to the standards of the Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance set forth in Chapter 2.7 (commencing with
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-7
Section 490) of Division 2 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations,
as in effect the later of the year of the landscape’s installation or 1992. An
urban retail water supplier using the approach specified in this subparagraph
shall use satellite imagery, site visits, or other best available technology to
develop an accurate estimate of landscaped areas.
(C) For commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, a 10-percent reduction in
water use from the baseline commercial, industrial, and institutional water
use by 2020.
(3) Ninety-five percent of the applicable state hydrologic region target, as set forth in
the state’s draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (dated April 30, 2009). If the
service area of an urban water supplier includes more than one hydrologic
region, the supplier shall apportion its service area to each region based on
population or area.
(4) A method that shall be identified and developed by the department, through a
public process, and reported to the Legislature no later than December 31, 2010.
The method developed by the department shall identify per capita targets that
cumulatively result in a statewide 20-percent reduction in urban daily per capita
water use by December 31, 2020. In developing urban daily per capita water use
targets, the department shall do all of the following:
(A) Consider climatic differences within the state.
(B) Consider population density differences within the state.
(C) Provide flexibility to communities and regions in meeting the targets.
(D) Consider different levels of per capita water use according to plant water
needs in different regions.
(E) Consider different levels of commercial, industrial, and institutional water use
in different regions of the state.
(F) Avoid placing an undue hardship on communities that have implemented
conservation measures or taken actions to keep per capita water use low.
The Urban Water Use Target is determined using one of the following methods:
Method 1: Eighty percent of the urban retail water supplier’s Baseline Per Capita
Daily Water Use.
Using this method, the Urban Water Use Target for the City was
calculated as 236 GPCD, based on the City’s Baseline Per Capita
Daily Water Use of 294 GPCD.
Method 2: Estimate using the sum of the specified three performance standards.
Although this method was reviewed, this method was not considered
due to insufficient data.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-8
Method 3: Ninety-five percent of the applicable state hydrologic region target, as
set forth in the state’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.3
Based on the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, the City’s service
area lies in DWR Hydrologic Region 4 (South Coast), with an
established Baseline Per Capita Daily Water Use of 180 GPCD and a
Target Per Capita Daily Water Use of 149 GPCD. Using this method,
the Urban Water Use Target for the City was calculated as 142 GPCD.
Method 4: Water Savings (Provisional)
Although this method was reviewed, this method was not considered
due to insufficient data.
The City’s Urban Water Use Target was determined to be 236 GPCD for 2020,
based on Method 1 above.
3.2.3 COMPLIANCE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE
Compliance Daily Per Capita Water Use is defined as the Gross Water Use
during the final year of the reporting period, and reported in GPCD. The Compliance
Daily Per Capita Water Use will be reported in the City’s 2015 Plan (interim compliance)
and 2020 Plan (final compliance).
3.2.4 MINIMUM WATER USE REDUCTION REQUIREMENT
Section10608.22
Notwithstanding the method adopted by an urban retail water supplier pursuant to
Section 10608.20, an urban retail water supplier’s per capita daily water use
reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use as
3 California Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board, California Bay-Delta
Authority, California Energy Commission, California Department of Public Health, California Public Utilities
Commission, and California Air Resources Board. 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. February 2010.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-9
defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 10608.12. This section does not
apply to an urban retail water supplier with a base daily per capita water use at or
below 100 gallons per capita per day.
The following calculation was made since the five-year Baseline Per Capita
Water Use per CWC Section 10608.12(b)(3) is greater than 100 GPCD. The calculation
is used to determine whether the City of Arcadia’s 2015 and 2020 per capita water use
targets meet the minimum water use reduction requirement per CWC Section 10608.22.
The calculation entails three steps:
Step 1: Calculate Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use using a continuous five-
year period ending no earlier than December 31, 2007, and no later than
December 31, 2010.
This value was calculated as 289 GPCD (see Table 7).
Step 2: Multiply the result from Step 1 by 0.95. The 2020 per capita water use
target cannot exceed this value (unless the water supplier’s five-year
Baseline Per Capita Water Use is 100 GPCD or less). If the 2020 target is
greater than this value, reduce the target to this value.
This value was calculated as 274 GPCD. The City’s 2020 Urban Water
Use Target was determined using Method 1 above to be 236 GPCD,
which is lower than the value calculated in this step. Therefore, no
adjustment is needed
for the City’s 2020 Urban Water Use Target of 236
GPCD.
Step 3: Set the 2015 target to mid-point between the 10- or 15-year Baseline Per
Capita Water Use and the 2020 target determined in Step 2.
The City’s 2015 Interim Urban Water Use Target is therefore set at 265
GPCD, which is the mid-point between the 10-year Baseline Daily Per
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-10
Capita Water Use of 294 GPCD and the 2020 Urban Water Use Target of
236 GPCD.
Therefore, the City’s 2015 Interim Urban Water Use Target of 265 GPCD and
2020 Urban Water Use Target of 236 GPCD meet the legislation’s minimum water use
reduction requirement per CWC Section 10608.22.
3.3 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Section 10631(k)
Urban water suppliers that rely upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall
provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that
source of water in five-year increments to 20 years as far as data is available. The
wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion
in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent
practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b)
,
available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-
year increments, and during various water-year types in accordance with subdivision
(c). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the
wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b)
and (c).
The City has the ability to purchase and use treated imported surface water from
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California, through Upper District. The
City notified Upper District of the development of its 2010 Plan. The City also provided
notification to Upper District notifying that the draft Plan was available on the City’s
website. In addition, the City has participated in Upper District’s development of its
Urban Water Management Plan by providing data and attending meetings. Upper
District in turn provided the City with a copy of their draft 2010 Plan, which is
incorporated as a reference in this Plan.
3.4 WATER USE REDUCTION PLAN
10608.36.
Urban wholesale water suppliers shall include in the urban water management plans
required pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) an assessment of
their present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help achieve
the water use reductions required by this part.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3-11
The City is not an urban wholesale water supplier. Therefore, this requirement is
not applicable to the City.
3.5 PROGRESS REPORT
10608.40.
Urban water retail suppliers shall report to the department on their progress in
meeting their urban water use targets as part of their urban water management plans
submitted pursuant to Section 10631. The data shall be reported using a
standardized form developed pursuant to Section 10608.52.
The City will report to the DWR on its progress in meeting its urban water use
targets, using a standardized form to be developed by the DWR, when the form
becomes available.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-1
Chapter 4
SYSTEM SUPPLIES
4.1 WATER SOURCES
Section 10631
A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do the following:
b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of
water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in
subdivision (a).
The City’s water supply sources include groundwater production from the Main
Basin and Raymond Basin and direct delivery of treated imported water from MWD
through Upper District.
Groundwater
The City currently owns and operates seven active groundwater wells in the Main
Basin. These wells include Camino Real 3, Live Oak 1, Longden 1, Longden 2, Longley
3, Peck 1 and St. Joseph 2. The current capacity of the City’s Main Basin wells is
approximately 18,300 gallons per minute (gpm). The City also has seven active wells
located within the Raymond Basin; Orange Grove 1A, Orange Grove 2A, Orange Grove
5, Orange Grove 6, Chapman 7, Colorado 1 and Anoakia 1. The current capacity of
the City’s Raymond Basin wells is approximately 4,760 gpm.
Treated Imported Water
The City of Arcadia can purchase treated imported water from Upper District, if
necessary. The City can receive direct deliveries of treated imported water through its
MWD connection, USG-6, which has a capacity of 20 cubic feet per second (about
14,500 acre-feet per year if used continuously). The City does not typically use service
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-2
connection USG-6 because the City’s collective groundwater supplies are sufficient to
meet water demands.
A discussion of recycled water opportunities within the City’s service area is
provided in Section 4.5.
Recycled Water
Total Water Supplies
The City’s historical and projected water supplies from groundwater, imported
surface water and recycled water are shown on Table 9. Table 10 provides the City’s
projected water supplies during future single and multiple dry year conditions.
4.2 GROUNDWATER
Section 10631(b)
If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the
supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan:
1) A copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier,
including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or
any other specific authorization for groundwater management.
4.2.1 RAYMOND BASIN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
Management of the water resources of the Raymond Basin is based on the
Raymond Basin Judgment.4
The City is a party to the Raymond Basin Judgment.
RAYMOND BASIN JUDGMENT
4 City of Pasadena vs. City of Alhambra, et al, Los Angeles County Case No. Pasadena C-1323,
Judgment entered December 23, 1944, modified April 29, 1955.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-3
In 1937, the City of Pasadena filed suit to adjudicate water rights of the Raymond
Basin. A copy of the Raymond Basin adjudication is located in Appendix F. The DWR
was retained to prepare a Report of Referee which described the geology and
hydrogeology of the Raymond Basin and identified the Safe Yield of the Raymond Basin
as 21,900 acre-feet. In 1950, the City of Pasadena requested the Safe Yield of the
Raymond Basin to be re-determined. Subsequently, the Court issued a Modification of
Judgment on April 29, 1955 increasing the Safe Yield of the Raymond Basin to 30,622
acre-feet. This is referred to as the “Decreed Right of 1955” and water rights for all
parties are shown in Appendix F. On January 17, 1974, the second modification of the
Raymond Basin Judgment was signed allowing Parties credit for spreading of canyon
diversions in spreading grounds in the vicinity of the Arroyo Seco, Eaton Wash and
Santa Anita Creek Canyon.
The Raymond Basin Judgment adjudicated groundwater rights based on a long-
term average yield of the Raymond Basin. The Decreed Right of 1955 provides the City
of Arcadia with water rights to 2,118.0 AFY from the Pasadena Subarea and with water
rights to 3,526.0 AFY from the Santa Anita Subarea. Due to recent multiple dry year
conditions, the Raymond Basin Management Board has phased in a 30 percent
reduction requirement over five years for all Decreed Rights to the Pasadena Subarea,
beginning fiscal year 2009-10. As a result, the City’s adjusted right to the Pasadena
Subarea will be 1,482.6 AFY (0.7 x 2,118.0 AFY) by fiscal year 2013-14. The City’s total
water right in the Raymond Basin will be 5,008.6 AFY (1,482.6 AFY + 3,526.0 AFY) by
fiscal year 2013-14. The Judgment allows a party to exceed its Decreed Right by no
more than 10 percent, which will be deducted from the following year’s total allowable
extraction. Conversely, a party is not allowed to carryover more than 10 percent of its
Decreed Right to a subsequent year. Over the past twenty years, on average, the City
of Arcadia has been able to extract groundwater in excess of its Decreed Right as a
result of water rights leases.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-4
4.2.2 MAIN BASIN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
The Main Basin has been adjudicated and management of the local water
resources within the Main Basin is based on its adjudication. Management of the water
resources in the San Gabriel Valley is based upon Watermaster services under two
Court Judgments: San Gabriel River Watermaster (River Watermaster)5 and Main San
Gabriel Basin Watermaster (Basin Watermaster)6
. The City is a defendant in the Main
Basin Judgment and as such had participation. The City also participates in the Main
Basin management described in the Main Basin Watermaster document entitled “Five-
Year Water Quality and Supply Plan.” The City is a defendant in the Long Beach
Judgment and as such has significant participation.
The following sections provide a description of the two Judgments and the Five
Year Water Quality and Supply Plan that make up the groundwater management plan
for the Main Basin. In addition, this section describes Upper District’s and Water Quality
Authority’s (WQA) policies to promote groundwater basin clean-up.
LONG BEACH JUDGMENT
On May 12, 1959, the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Long Beach,
Central Basin Municipal Water District (Central Basin) and the City of Compton, as
plaintiffs, filed an action against the San Gabriel Valley Water Company and 24 other
producers of groundwater from the San Gabriel Valley as defendants. This action
sought a determination of the rights of the defendants in and to the waters of the San
Gabriel River system and to restrain the defendants from an alleged interference with
the rights of plaintiffs and persons represented by the Central Basin in such waters.
After six years of study and negotiation a Stipulation for Judgment was filed on February
5 Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, et al., v. San Gabriel Valley Water Company,
et al., Los Angeles County Case No. 722647, Judgment entered September 24, 1965.
6 Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District v. City of Alhambra, et al., Los Angeles County Case
No. 924128, Judgment entered January 4, 1973.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-5
10, 1965, and Judgment (Long Beach Judgment) was entered on September 24, 1965.
Under the terms of the Long Beach Judgment, the water supply of the San Gabriel
River system was divided at Whittier Narrows, the boundary between San Gabriel
Valley upstream and the coastal plain of Los Angeles County downstream. A copy of
the Long Beach Judgment is located in Appendix G.
Under the terms of the Long Beach Judgment, the area downstream from
Whittier Narrows (Lower Area), the plaintiffs and those they represent, are to receive a
quantity of usable water annually from the San Gabriel River system comprised of
usable surface flow, subsurface flow at Whittier Narrows and water exported to the
Lower Area. This annual entitlement is guaranteed by the area upstream of Whittier
Narrows (Upper Area), the defendants, and provision is made for the supply of Make-Up
Water by the Upper Area for years in which the guaranteed entitlement is not received
by the Lower Area.
Make-Up Water is imported water purchased by the Main Basin Watermaster
and delivered to agencies within Central Basin to satisfy obligations under the Long
Beach Judgment. The entitlement of the Lower Area varies annually, dependent upon
the 10-year average annual rainfall in San Gabriel Valley for the 10 years ending with
the year for which entitlement is calculated.
The detailed operations described in the Long Beach Judgment are complex and
require continuous compilation of data so that annual determinations can be made to
assure compliance with the Long Beach Judgment. In order to do this, a three-member
Watermaster was appointed by the Court, one representing the Upper Area parties
nominated by and through Upper District, one representing the Lower Area parties
nominated by and through Central Basin, and one jointly nominated by Upper District
and Central Basin. This three-member board is known as the River Watermaster.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-6
The River Watermaster meets periodically during the year to adopt a budget, to
review activities affecting water supply in the San Gabriel River system area, to compile
and review data, to make its determinations of usable water received by the Lower Area
and to prepare an annual report to the Court and to the Parties. The River Watermaster
has rendered annual reports for the water years 1963-64 through 2008-09 and
operations of the river system under the Long Beach Judgment and through the
administration by the River Watermaster have been very satisfactory since its inception.
One major result of the Long Beach Judgment was to leave the Main Basin free
to manage its water resources so long as it meets its downstream obligation to the
Lower Area under the terms of the Long Beach Judgment.
MAIN BASIN JUDGMENT
The Upper Area then turned to the task of developing a water resources
management plan to optimize the conservation of the natural water supplies of the area.
Studies were made of various methods of management of the Main Basin as an
adjudicated area and a report thereon was prepared for the Upper San Gabriel Valley
Water Association, an association of water producers in the Main Basin, including the
City. After consideration by the Association membership, Upper District was requested
to file as plaintiff, and did file, an action on January 2, 1968, seeking an adjudication of
the water rights of the Main Basin and its Relevant Watershed. In this Judgment, the
City was included as a Party. After several years of study (including verification of
annual water production) and negotiations, a stipulation for entry of Judgment was
approved by a majority of the Parties, by both the number of parties and the quantity of
rights to be adjudicated. Trial was held in late 1972 and Judgment (Main Basin
Judgment) was entered on January 4, 1973. A copy of the Main Basin Judgment is
located in Appendix H.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-7
Under the terms of the Main Basin Judgment, all rights to the diversion of surface
water and production of groundwater within the Main Basin and its Relevant Watershed
were adjudicated. The Main Basin Judgment provides for the administration of the
provisions of the Main Basin Judgment by a nine-member Watermaster. Six of those
members are nominated by water producers (producer members) and three members
(public members) are nominated by the Upper District and San Gabriel Valley Municipal
Water District (SGVMWD), which overlie most of the Main Basin. The nine-member
board employs a staff, an attorney and a consulting engineer. The Main Basin
Watermaster holds public meetings on a regular monthly basis through the year. A
copy of the Main Basin Watermaster’s Rules and Regulations is located in Appendix I.
The Main Basin Judgment does not restrict the quantity of water, which Parties
may extract from the Main Basin. Rather, it provides a means for replacing all annual
extractions in excess of a Party's annual right to extract water with Supplemental Water.
The Main Basin Watermaster annually establishes an Operating Safe Yield for the Main
Basin which is then used to allocate to each Party its portion of the Operating Safe Yield
which can be produced free of a Replacement Water Assessment. If a producer
extracts water in excess of its right under the annual Operating Safe Yield, it must pay
an assessment for Replacement Water, which is sufficient to the purchase of one
acre-foot of Supplemental Water to be spread in the Main Basin for each acre-foot of
excess production. All water production is metered and is reported quarterly to the
Basin Watermaster.
In addition to Replacement Water Assessments, the Main Basin Watermaster
levies an Administration Assessment to fund the administration of the Main Basin
management program under the Main Basin Judgment, and a Make-Up Obligation
Assessment in order to fulfill the requirements for any Make-Up Obligation under the
Long Beach Judgment and to supply 50 percent of the administration costs of the River
Watermaster service. The Main Basin Watermaster also levies an In-Lieu Assessment
and may levy special Administration Assessments.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-8
Water rights under the Main Basin Judgment are transferable by lease or
purchase so long as such transfers meet the requirements of the Main Basin Judgment.
There is also provision for Cyclic Storage Agreements by which Parties and Non-Parties
may store imported Supplemental Water in the Main Basin under such agreements with
the Main Basin Watermaster pursuant to uniform rules and conditions and Court
approval.
The Main Basin Judgment provides that the Main Basin Watermaster will not
allow imported water to be spread in the main part of the Main Basin when the
groundwater elevation at the Baldwin Park Key Well7
(Key Well) exceeds 250 feet; and
that the Main Basin Watermaster will, insofar as practicable, spread imported water in
the Main Basin to maintain the groundwater elevation at the Key Well above 200 feet.
One of the principal reasons for the limitation on spreading imported water when the
Key Well elevation exceeds 250 feet is to reserve ample storage space in the Main
Basin to capture native surface water runoff when it occurs and to optimize the
conservation of such local water. Under the terms of the Long Beach Judgment, any
excess surface flows that pass through the Main Basin at Whittier Narrows to the Lower
Area (which is then conserved in the Lower Area through percolation to groundwater
storage) is credited to the Upper Area as Usable Surface Flow.
OPERATIONS OF THE GROUNDWATER BASIN
Through the Long Beach Judgment and the Main Basin Judgment, operations of
the Main Basin are optimized to conserve local water to meet the needs of the parties of
the Main Basin Judgment.
7 The Baldwin Park Key Well is a water level monitoring well located in the City of Baldwin Park used to
determine when imported water may or may not be spread in the Basin.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-9
Typically, water producers within Upper District rely upon groundwater from Main
Basin for their water supply. The City of Alhambra has agreed to receive treated,
imported water as part of the Cooperative Water Exchange Agreement (CWEA) to
reduce the groundwater extractions from the western portion of the Main Basin and the
associated drawdown concerns.
Imported water for groundwater replenishment is delivered through the flood
control channels and diverted and spread at spreading grounds through Basin
Watermaster’s agreement with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(DPW). Groundwater replenishment utilizes imported water and is considered
Replacement Water under the terms of the Main Basin Judgment. It can be stored in
the Main Basin through Cyclic Storage agreements, authorized by terms of the Main
Basin Judgment, but such stored water may be used only to supply Supplemental
Water to the Basin Watermaster.
The Basin Watermaster has entered into a Cyclic Storage Agreement with each
of the three municipal water districts. One is with MWD and Upper District, which
permits MWD to deliver and store imported water in the Main Basin in an amount not to
exceed 100,000 acre-feet for future Replacement Water use. The second Cyclic
Storage Agreement is with Three Valleys Municipal Water District (TVMWD) and
permits MWD to deliver and store 40,000 acre-feet for future Replacement Water use.
The third is with San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (SGVMWD) and contains
generally the same conditions as the agreement with MWD except that the stored
quantity is not to exceed 40,000 acre-feet. As of the end of fiscal year 2009-10, the City
has a cyclic storage account of 5,000 acre-feet with an ending balance of approximately
570 acre-feet within cyclic storage.
Imported Make-up Water has been delivered to lined stream channels and
conveyed to the Lower Area. Make-up Water is required to be delivered to the Lower
Area by the Upper Area when the Lower Area entitlement under the Long Beach
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-10
Judgment exceeds the usable water received by the Lower Area. Imported water is
used to fulfill the Make-up Water Obligation when the amount of Make-up Water cannot
be fulfilled by reimbursing the Lower Area interests for their purchase of recycled water.
The amount of recycled water for which reimbursement may be made as a delivery of
Make-up Water is limited by the terms of the Long Beach Judgment to the annual
deficiency in Lower Area Entitlement water or to 14,735 acre-feet, whichever is the
lesser quantity.
FIVE-YEAR WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY PLAN
The Main Basin Watermaster was created in 1973 to resolve water issues that
had arisen among water users in the San Gabriel Valley. Main Basin Watermaster’s
mission is to generally manage the water supply of the Main Basin. During the late
1970s and early 1980s, significant groundwater contamination was discovered in the
Main Basin. The contamination was caused in part by past practices of local industries
that had carelessly disposed of industrial solvents referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) as well as by agricultural operations that infiltrated nitrates into the
groundwater. Cleanup efforts were undertaken at the local, state and federal level.
By 1989, local water agencies, including the City, adopted a joint resolution
regarding water quality issues that stated that Main Basin Watermaster should
coordinate local activities aimed at preserving and restoring the quality of groundwater
in the Main Basin. The joint resolution also called for a cleanup plan. In 1991, the
Court granted Main Basin Watermaster the authority to control pumping for water quality
purposes. Accordingly, Main Basin Watermaster added Section 28 to its Rules and
Regulations regarding water quality management. The new responsibilities included
development of a Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan, updating it annually,
submitting it to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles
Region, and making it available for public review by November 1 of each year. A copy
of the “Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan” is located in Appendix J.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-11
The Main Basin Watermaster prepares and annually updates the Five-Year
Water Quality and Supply Plan in accordance with the requirements of Section 28 of its
Rules and Regulations. The objective is to coordinate groundwater-related activities so
that both water supply and water quality in the Main Basin are protected and improved.
Many important issues are detailed in the Five-Year Plan, including how the Main Basin
Watermaster plans to:
1. monitor groundwater supply and quality;
2. develop projections of future groundwater supply and quality;
3. review and cooperate on cleanup projects, and provide technical assistance
to other agencies;
4. assure that pumping does not lead to further degradation of water quality in
the Main Basin;
5. address perchlorate, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), and other emerging
contaminants in the Main Basin;
6. develop a cleanup and water supply program consistent with the EPA plans
for its San Gabriel Valley Superfund sites; and
7. coordinate and manage the design, permitting, construction, and performance
evaluation of the Baldwin Park Operable Unit (BPOU) cleanup and water
supply plan.
The Main Basin Watermaster, in coordination with Upper District, has worked
with state and federal regulators, along with local water companies to clean up water
supplies. Section 28 of the Main Basin Watermaster’s Rules and Regulations require all
producers (including the City) to submit an application to 1) construct a new well, 2)
modify an existing well, 3) destroy a well, or 4) construct a treatment facility. Main Basin
Watermaster prepares a report on the implications of the proposed activity. As a Party
to the Main Basin Judgment, the City of Arcadia reviews a copy of these reports and is
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-12
provided the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed activity before Main
Basin Watermaster Board takes its final action.
4.2.3 DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER BASIN
Section 10631(b)(2)
A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier
pumps groundwater. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated
the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or
the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier
has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been
adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or
basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if
present management conditions continue, in the most current official departmental
bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed
description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to eliminate the
long-term overdraft condition.
4.2.3.1 RAYMOND BASIN
The Raymond Basin is located in Los Angeles County about 10 miles
north-easterly of downtown Los Angeles. Raymond Basin is a wedge in the
northwesterly portion of the San Gabriel Valley and is bounded on the north by the San
Gabriel Mountains, on the west by the San Rafael Hills, and is separated from the Main
Basin on the southeast by the Raymond Fault. The Raymond Basin is divided into the
Eastern Unit, which is the Santa Anita Sub-Area, and the Western Unit which is the
Pasadena Sub-Area and the Monk Hill Sub-Area. The location of the Raymond Basin
and the subareas is shown on Plate 2. The surface area of Raymond Basin is about
40.9 square miles.
The principal streams in the Raymond Basin are the Arroyo Seco, Eaton Wash,
and Santa Anita Wash. The Arroyo Seco drains to the Los Angeles River, while Eaton
Wash and Santa Anita Wash drain to the Rio Hondo, a distributary of the San Gabriel
River.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-13
Adjudication of water rights in the Raymond Basin is discussed in Chapter
4.2.1.1 above, including a description of the amount of groundwater the City has the
legal right to pump.
GEOLOGY
The geology of the Raymond Basin is described in details in the “Report of
Referee” prepared in 1943 by the DWR and is summarized below.
The Raymond Basin is roughly triangular in shape. Its northern boundary, about
12 miles in length, is formed by a portion of the southerly front of the San Gabriel
Mountains. The western boundary of the Raymond Basin is about 8 miles long and is
also composed chiefly of the same Basement Complex rocks which form the mountains
and which are continuous at depth, together with a small area of marine Tertiary
sediment at the southern end. The Raymond Fault, which is the southern boundary of
the triangle, crosses the Valley floor for a distance of about 9 miles, connecting a
granitic spur from the mountains at the eastern end of the Raymond Basin with Tertiary
sediments outcropping in its southwestern corner.
The Raymond Fault separates Raymond Basin from the Main Basin. The fault
zone is not impervious and groundwater can flow across this boundary into the Main
Basin. The source of natural groundwater supply to the Raymond Basin is direct
rainfall, percolation from surface runoff from the northern and western sides, and
presumably some underground percolation of water from the mountain mass to the
alluvium.
HYDROGEOLOGY
DWR describes the hydrogeology of the Raymond Basin in its Bulletin 118.
According to the report, the water-bearing materials of the Raymond Basin are
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-14
dominated by unconsolidated Quaternary alluvial gravel, sand, and silt deposited by
streams flowing out of the San Gabriel Mountains. Younger alluvium typically follows
active streambeds and reaches a maximum thickness of about 150 feet. Older alluvium
generally thickens southward from the mountain front, reaching a maximum of about
1,140 feet near Pasadena, then thins to about 200 feet near the Raymond Fault.
However, confined groundwater conditions have existed locally in the Raymond Basin,
particularly along the Raymond Fault near Raymond Hill where layers of finer grained
sediments become more abundant.
The Raymond Fault trends east-northeast and acts as a groundwater barrier
along the southern boundary of the Raymond Basin. This fault acts as a complete
barrier along its western end and becomes a less effective barrier eastward. East of
Santa Anita Wash, this fault ceases to be an effective barrier and the flow of
groundwater southward into the Main Basin becomes essentially unrestricted. A north-
trending divide paralleling the Eaton Wash separates both surface and subsurface
water flow in the eastern portion of the Raymond Basin. The water level is higher on
the eastern side of this divide, ranging from 300 feet higher in the north to about 50 feet
higher in the south. Groundwater contour maps for the Raymond Basin (prepared for
the Raymond Basin Annual Report) are included in Appendix I.
Natural recharge to the Raymond Basin is mainly from direct percolation of
precipitation and percolation of ephemeral stream flow from the San Gabriel Mountains
in the north. The principal streams bringing surface inflow are the Arroyo Seco, Eaton
Creek, Little Santa Anita Creek (Sierra Madre Wash), and Santa Anita Creek. Some
stream runoff is diverted into spreading grounds and some is impounded behind small
dams allowing the water to infiltrate and contribute to groundwater recharge of the
Raymond Basin. An unknown amount of underflow enters the Raymond Basin from the
San Gabriel Mountains through fracture systems.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-15
The Santa Anita Sub-Area is replenished only by local storm runoff that is
percolated in the Santa Anita and Sierra Madre Spreading Grounds. Currently, there is
no means of delivering untreated imported water into the Santa Anita Sub-Area.
Consequently, water levels in the Santa Anita Sub-Area of Raymond Basin have
declined by over 100 feet in the past 10 years. Hydrographs from the Raymond Basin
Annual Report of 2009-10 show the water levels in the Santa Anita Sub-Area have
decreased (see Appendix K, Figure 11). Consequently, the yield from the City’s wells
has also fluctuated and has demonstrated a concurrent decrease.
Water levels in the Pasadena Sub-Area of Raymond Basin have also generally
declined in the past 10 years. Hydrographs from the Raymond Basin Annual Report of
2009-10 show the water levels in the Pasadena Sub-Area have decreased (see
Appendix K, Figures 10a and 10b).
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
According to the Raymond Basin Annual Report of 2009-10, in general water in
the Basin continues to be of good quality regarding most constituents, except for a few
sources with high fluoride concentrations in the foothills and high nitrate concentrations
in the Monk Hill Sub-Area and Pasadena Sub-Area. VOC contaminants have been
detected in several areas. In June 1997, perchlorate was detected in several Basin
wells and several monitoring wells at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Superfund
site.
The City has a blend program to reduce Nitrate and VOC concentrations to
below 80 percent of California Department of Pubic Health (CDPH) standards. As a
result of the City's blending activities, the City's wells are expected to provide a reliable
water source from the Raymond Basin to City customers for the next 25 years.
Although unanticipated changes in blending activities could result in a loss of Raymond
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-16
Basin well capacity, the City can reliably produce groundwater from the Main Basin and
can obtain treated imported water from USG-6 to meet demands.
4.2.3.2 MAIN SAN GABRIEL BASIN
The Main Basin is located within the San Gabriel Valley in southeastern Los
Angeles County and is bounded on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains; on the west
by the San Rafael and Merced Hills, on the south by the Puente Hills and the San Jose
Hills, and on the east by a low divide between the San Gabriel River system and the
Upper Santa Ana River system, as shown on Plate 2.
The San Gabriel River and its distributary, the Rio Hondo, drain an area of about
490 square miles upstream of Whittier Narrows. Whittier Narrows is a low gap between
Merced and Puente Hills, just northwest of the City of Whittier, through which the San
Gabriel River and the Rio Hondo flow to the coastal plain of Los Angeles County.
Whittier Narrows is a natural topographic divide and a subsurface restriction to the
movement of groundwater between the Main Basin and the Coastal Plain.
Approximately 490 square miles of drainage area upstream of Whittier Narrows consists
of about 167 square miles of valley lands and about 323 square miles of mountains and
foothills.
The Main Basin includes essentially the entire valley floor of San Gabriel Valley
with the exception of the Raymond Basin and Puente Basin. The boundaries of the
Main Basin are the Raymond Basin on the northwest, the base of the San Gabriel
Mountains on the north, the groundwater divide between San Dimas and La Verne and
the lower boundary of the Puente Basin on the east, and the common boundaries
between Upper District and Central District through Whittier Narrows on the southwest.
The common water supply of the Main Basin does not include the Raymond Basin, the
area northerly of Raymond Hill Fault, which was adjudicated in the Pasadena v.
Alhambra case (Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, 1944). The Puente
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-17
Basin, although tributary to the Main Basin, is not included in the Main Basin
administered by the Basin Watermaster.
The Main Basin (administered by the Main Basin Watermaster) is a large
groundwater basin replenished by stream runoff from the adjacent mountains and hills,
by rainfall directly on the surface of the valley floor, subsurface inflow from Raymond
Basin and Puente Basin, and by return flow from water applied for overlying uses.
Additionally, the Main Basin is replenished with imported water. The Main Basin serves
as a natural storage reservoir, transmission system and filtering medium for wells
constructed therein.
There are three municipal water districts overlying and/or partially overlying the
Main Basin. The three districts are Upper District, SGVMWD, and TVMWD. The
boundaries of these water districts are shown on Plate 3.
Urbanization of the San Gabriel Valley began in the early part of the twentieth
century, but until the 1940’s, agricultural land use occupied more area than residential
and commercial land use. After World War II, agricultural areas reduced rapidly and are
now less than two thousand acres. The agricultural areas tend to be located in the
easterly portion of the Main Basin and along power transmission rights of way adjacent
to the San Gabriel River. Agricultural plots are discontinuous and relatively small.
There are several major industrial areas adjacent to the San Gabriel River and within
other portions of the valley. The greatest area of land use in the valley is for residential
and commercial purposes. The California Department of Water Resources’ Bulletin 118
does not identify the Main Basin as being in overdraft.
MAIN BASIN GEOLOGY
The Main Basin consists of a roughly bowl-shaped depression of bedrock, filled
over millions of years with alluvial deposits. This bowl-shaped depression is relatively
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-18
deep; the elevation at the base of the groundwater reservoir declines from about 800
feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the vicinity of San Dimas, at the northeast corner of
the Main Basin, to about 2,200 feet below MSL in the vicinity of South El Monte (DWR,
1966, Plate II).
Most of the alluvium deposited within this depression is debris from the San
Gabriel Mountains, washed and blown down from the side of the mountains over time.
This process has also resulted in the materials of the Main Basin varying in size from
relatively coarse gravel nearer the mountains to fine and medium-grained sand
containing silt and clay as the distance from the mountains increases. The principal
water-bearing formations of the Main Basin are unconsolidated and semi-consolidated
sediments, which vary in size from coarse gravel to fine-grained sands. The interstices
between these alluvial particles throughout the Main Basin fill with water and transmit
water readily to wells. The thickness of the water-bearing materials in the Main Basin
ranges from 200 to 300 feet in the northeastern portion of the Main Basin near the
mountains (DPW, 1934, page 141) to nearly 4,000 feet in the South El Monte area
(DWR, 1966, page 31).
The soils overlying the Main Basin average about six feet in depth. Soil depths
are generally greater at the perimeter of the valley and decrease toward the center
along the San Gabriel River. These soils are residual, formed in place through
chemical, mechanical and plant weathering processes. The infiltration rates of these
soils are greater along the natural channels and their adjacent flood plains. Lower
infiltration rates are found in the perimeter areas of the valley. Since the valley is mostly
urbanized, a significant portion of the area has been paved and many miles of stream
channel have been lined for flood control purposes, thus decreasing infiltration of water
through streambeds. Detailed basin geology is discussed in the report entitled “Planned
Utilization of Ground Water Basins, San Gabriel Valley, Appendix A: Geo-hydrology”
(DWR, 1966).
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-19
MAIN BASIN HYDROLOGY
The total fresh water storage capacity of the Main Basin is estimated to be about
9.5 million acre-feet. Of that, about 1,100,000 acre-feet have been used historically in
Main Basin operations. The change in groundwater elevation at the Key Well is
representative of changes in groundwater in the Main Basin. One foot of elevation
change at the Key Well is roughly the equivalent of about 8,000 acre-feet of water
storage. The location of the Key Well is shown on Plate 5 and the hydrograph of the
Key Well is shown on Figure 1. The historical high groundwater elevation was recorded
at over 329.1 feet in April 1916, at which time Main Basin storage was estimated to be
about 8,700,000 acre-feet. The historical low was recorded in December 2009 at 189.2
feet, at which time Main Basin storage was estimated to be about 7,600,000 acre-feet.
The Key Well hydrograph shown on Figure 1 illustrates the cyclic nature of basin
recharge and depletion. The hydrograph also illustrates the dramatic recharge
capability of the Main Basin during wet periods.
Generally, water movement in the Main Basin is from the San Gabriel Mountains
on the north to Whittier Narrows to the southwest, as shown on Plate 5. Groundwater
movement in the northern and northeastern regions of the Main Basin is affected by
faulting. For example, the Raymond Fault located in the northwesterly portion of the
Main Basin separates the Raymond Basin from the Main Basin.
The Main Basin is an unconfined aquifer. Although clay deposits appear mixed
with the soils in several locations in the Main Basin and there are various clay lenses
throughout the Main Basin, they do not coalesce to form a single impermeable barrier
for the movement of subsurface water. The Main Basin therefore operates as a single,
unconfined aquifer. As previously mentioned, a thorough discussion of basin
hydrogeology is contained in the report “Planned Utilization of Ground Water Basins,
San Gabriel Valley, Appendix A: Geo-hydrology” (DWR, 1966).
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-20
Within the Main Basin there are a number of identified sub-basins. These
include the Upper San Gabriel Canyon Basin, Lower San Gabriel Canyon Basin,
Glendora Basin, Foothill Basin, Way Hill Basin and San Dimas Basin. In addition, the
Puente Basin is tributary to the Main Basin from the southeast, between the San Jose
and Puente Hills, but is not included in the Main Basin adjudication. Plate 5 shows the
location of the sub-basins within the Main Basin.
MAIN BASIN GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT
The major sources of recharge to the Main Basin are direct penetration of rainfall
on the valley floor, percolation of runoff from the mountains, percolation of imported
water and return flow from applied water. Rainfall occurs predominantly in the winter
months and is more intense at higher elevations and closer to the San Gabriel
Mountains. Table 2 shows historical annual rainfall, which is highly variable from year
to year, in the San Gabriel Valley. In water year 2006-07 the total rainfall (four station
average) was less than five inches, while in 2004-05 the total rainfall (four station
average) was about 45 inches, as shown on Table 2.
The magnitude of annual recharge from direct penetration of local rainfall and
return flow from applied water is not easily quantifiable. Percolation of runoff from the
mountains and valley floor along with percolation of imported water has only been
estimated. The DPW maintains records on the amount of local and imported water
conserved in water spreading facilities and stream channels.
The San Gabriel River bisects the Main Basin. The San Gabriel River originates
at the confluence of its west and east forks in the San Gabriel Mountains. It flows
through the San Gabriel Canyon and enters the Main Basin at the mouth of the canyon
north of the City of Azusa. The San Gabriel River flows southwesterly across the valley
to Whittier Narrows, a distance of about 15 miles. It exits San Gabriel Valley at Whittier
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-21
Narrows, and transverses the Coastal Plain in a southerly direction to reach the Pacific
Ocean at Alamitos Bay near the City of Long Beach.
The San Gabriel River is joined and fed by tributary creeks and washes. In the
Main Basin these include: Big Dalton Wash, which originates in the San Gabriel
Mountains; Walnut Creek, which originates at the northeast end of the San Jose Hills;
and San Jose Creek, which originates in the San Gabriel Mountains, but which travels
around the southerly side of the San Jose Hills through the Puente Narrows before
joining the San Gabriel River just above Whittier Narrows.
The channel of the San Gabriel River bifurcates in the upper middle portion of the
Main Basin, forming a channel to the west of and parallel to the San Gabriel River,
known as the Rio Hondo. Tributaries draining the westerly portion of the Main Basin,
including Sawpit Wash, Santa Anita Wash, Eaton Canyon Wash, Rubio Wash and
Alhambra Wash, all of which originate in the San Gabriel Mountains or the foothills, feed
the Rio Hondo. The Santa Anita Wash, Eaton Canyon Wash, Rubio Wash and
Alhambra Wash all cross the Raymond Basin area before entering the Main Basin. The
channel of the Rio Hondo passes through Whittier Narrows westerly of the San Gabriel
River, and then flows southwesterly to join the Los Angeles River on the Coastal Plain.
To protect residents of the San Gabriel Valley from flooding that can result during
periods of intensive rainfall, the DPW and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of
Engineers) have constructed an extensive system of dams, debris basins, reservoirs
and flood control channels, which are shown on Plate 5. The dams and reservoirs also
operate as water conservation facilities. The dams and reservoirs that control the flow
of the San Gabriel River and the Rio Hondo include: Cogswell Reservoir on the west
fork of the San Gabriel River, San Gabriel Reservoir at the confluence of the west and
east forks of the San Gabriel River, Morris Reservoir near the mouth of the San Gabriel
Canyon, Santa Fe Reservoir in the northerly portion of the Main Basin and Whittier
Narrows Reservoir at the southwestern end of the San Gabriel Valley.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-22
Many of the stream channels tributary to the San Gabriel River have been
improved with concrete banks (walls) and concrete-lined bottoms. These stream
channel improvements have significantly reduced the area of previous stream channels
and reduce Main Basin recharge. A number of off-stream groundwater replenishment
facilities have been established along these stream channels to offset such reductions
in recharge. The locations of these water spreading facilities are shown on Plate 5.
Some of these facilities are accessible to imported water supplies, while some facilities
receive only local runoff.
The paths of the surface streams are mirrored in the soils and in the direction of
groundwater movement in the Main Basin. The tributary creeks and washes, carrying
smaller amounts of water, generally flow toward the center of the San Gabriel Valley,
while the direction of flow of the major streams, the San Gabriel River and the Rio
Hondo, is from the mountains in the north to Whittier Narrows in the southwest. In
similar fashion, the primary direction of groundwater movement in the Main Basin is
from the north to the southwest, with contributing movement generally from the east and
west toward the center of the Main Basin as shown on Plate 6. The greatest infiltration
and transmissivity rates of soils in the Main Basin are from north to south, with the
maximum rates found in the center of the valley along the stream channels. Generally,
the Main Basin directs groundwater to the southwest through Whittier Narrows.
4.2.4 LOCATION, AMOUNT AND SUFFICIENCY OF GROUNDWATER
PUMPED FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS
Section 10631(b)(3)
A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of
groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The
description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available,
including, but not limited to, historic use records.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-23
4.2.4.1 GROUNDWATER SOURCES IN RAYMOND BASIN
The City produces groundwater through its eight active wells in the
Raymond Basin, as discussed in Section 4.1. The City’s historical groundwater
production in Raymond Basin over the past 15 years is shown on Table 9. The Decreed
Right of 1955 provides the City with water rights to 2,118.0 AFY from the Pasadena
Subarea and with water rights to 3,526.0 AFY from the Santa Anita Subarea. As
discussed in Section 4.2.1, the Raymond Basin Management Board has phased in a 30
percent reduction requirement over five years for all Decreed Rights to the Pasadena
Subarea, beginning fiscal year 2009-10. As a result, the City’s adjusted right to the
Pasadena Subarea will be 1,482.6 AFY by fiscal year 2013-14. The City’s total water
right in the Raymond Basin will be 5,008.6 AFY by fiscal year 2013-14. The City’s
groundwater production from the Raymond Basin from 2006 to 2010 has averaged
approximately 5,480 AFY.
4.2.4.2 GROUNDWATER SOURCES IN MAIN BASIN
The City produces groundwater through its seven active wells in the Main Basin,
as discussed in Section 4.1. The City’s historical groundwater production in the Main
Basin over the past 15 years is shown on Table 9. The groundwater supply from the
Main Basin is pumped to the City’s reservoir storage facilities and then delivered to the
City’s customers. The City’s groundwater production from the Main Basin from 2006 to
2010 has averaged approximately 11,290 AFY.
4.2.5 LOCATION, AMOUNT AND SUFFICIENCY OF GROUNDWATER
PROJECTED TO BE PUMPED
Section 10631(b)(4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is
projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-24
shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited
to, historic use records.
4.2.5.1 GROUNDWATER SOURCES IN RAYMOND BASIN
As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.1, the Raymond Basin has been adjudicated and
is managed. During the period of management under the Raymond Basin Judgment,
significant drought events have occurred from 1969 to 1977, 1983 to 1991, 1998 to
2004, and 2006-07 to 2008-09. In general, in each drought cycle, the City was able to
obtain sufficient supplies from the Raymond Basin to meet its demands, as shown on
Table 9. However groundwater levels, as shown in Appendix K, have declined over 100
feet in the past 10 years impacting the collective pumping capacity of the City’s wells.
Although the Raymond Basin has been managed for about 70 years under the
adjudication, water levels continue to decrease. Based on historical and ongoing water
levels, as well as the 30 percent reduction requirement over five years for all Decreed
Rights to the Pasadena Subarea, the City’s groundwater supplies in the Raymond Basin
have been reduced. The City will be able to rely on the Raymond Basin for water
supply over the next 25 years under single year and multiple year droughts. The
groundwater projected to be pumped by the City from the Raymond Basin is shown on
Table 9. Details on any changes or expansion planned for the groundwater supply is
provided in Chapter 4.6 below.
4.2.5.2 GROUNDWATER SOURCES IN MAIN BASIN
As noted in Section 4.2.1.1 the Main Basin is managed by the Basin
Watermaster. Section 42, Basin Operating Criteria, of the Main Basin Judgment states
in part “…Watermaster shall not spread Replacement Water when the water level at the
Key Well exceeds Elevation two hundred fifty (250), and Watermaster shall spread
Replacement Water, insofar as practicable, to maintain the water level at the Key Well
above Elevation two hundred (200).” Figure 1 shows the historical fluctuation of the Key
Well elevation and illustrates since the Main Basin was adjudicated in 1973, it generally
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-25
operated between an elevation 250 feet and 200 feet MSL. Furthermore, at elevation
200 feet MSL at the Key Well, the Main Basin has about 7,600,000 acre-feet of
available storage. During the period of management under the Judgment, significant
drought events have occurred from 1969 to 1977, 1983 to 1991, 1998 to 2004, and
2006 to present. In each drought cycle the Main Basin has been managed to maintain
water levels. Therefore, based on historical and on-going management practices, the
City will be able to rely on the Main Basin for adequate supply over the next 25 years
under single year and multiple year droughts.
4.3 TRANSFER OPPORTUNITIES
Section 10631(d)
Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or
long-term basis.
4.3.1 SHORT-TERM
The City has emergency interconnections with other water agencies that serve
as short-term emergency exchange opportunities. Emergency interconnections are
distribution system interconnections between water agencies for use during critical
situations where one system or the other is temporarily unable to provide sufficient
potable water to meet its water demands and/or fire protection needs. An emergency
interconnection will allow a water system to continue serving water during critical
situations such as local water supply shortages as a result of earthquakes, fires,
prolonged power outages and droughts. The City has the ability to receive water from
interconnections with the following water agencies:
- Golden State Water Company (two way)
- Sunny Slope Water Company (two way)
- MWD – USG-6 Connection (one way- in)
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-26
4.3.2 LONG-TERM
As a Party to the Main Basin Judgment, the City can pump from the Main Basin.
The Main Basin Judgment does not restrict the quantity of groundwater that can be
produced, but provides for a Replacement Water assessment for production in excess
of water rights. The City has entered into a Cyclic Storage agreement, described in
Chapter 4.2.1.2, with the Main Basin Watermaster to store imported water in the Main
Basin for a period of up to five years to be used to offset a future Replacement Water
requirement. As of the end of fiscal year 2009-10, the City has a cyclic storage account
of 5,000 acre-feet with an ending balance of approximately 570 acre-feet within cyclic
storage.
4.4 DESALINATED WATER OPPORTUNITIES
Section 10631(i)
Describe the opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not
limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long-term supply.
The City pumps groundwater from the Raymond Basin which is low in Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) and does not require desalination. According to the City’s 2010
Consumer Confidence Report, the average TDS value for the City’s groundwater
sources is about 310 milligrams per liter (mg/l) and ranges from 170 mg/l to 420 mg/l.
The CDPH recommended level of TDS is 500 mg/l and water can be provided for long-
term domestic use with TDS concentrations of up to 1,000 mg/l. Due to the low TDS
concentration of the groundwater from the Raymond Basin, the City does not need to
investigate the use of desalination as a long-term supply. However, there may be
opportunities for use of desalinated ocean water as a potential water supply source in
the future, through coordination with other agencies that have ocean desalination
programs.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-27
Groundwater produced from the Main Basin has acceptable TDS concentrations
(less than secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 1,000 milligrams per liter or
mg/l) and does not require desalination. The average TDS value for the City’s wells is
below its secondary MCL, based on recent data. CDPH recommended level is 500 mg/l
and water can be provided for long-term domestic use with TDS concentrations of up to
1,000 mg/l. Due to the high quality (low TDS concentration) of the groundwater in the
Main Basin, the City does not need to investigate the use of desalination to develop or
reestablish a new long-term supply. As mentioned above, if the City needed to
investigate the use of desalination to develop or reestablish a long-term supply of water,
the City would coordinate with other agencies that have ocean desalination programs.
4.5 RECYCLED WATER OPPORTUNITIES
4.5.1 RECYCLED WATER AND POTENTIAL FOR USE
Section 10633
The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its
potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier.
The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater,
groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area,
and shall include all of the following:
The City does not have access to recycled water due to the lack of infrastructure
to convey recycled water to the City. The City would have to construct transmission and
distribution facilities to deliver recycled water to customers within its service area.
4.5.2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL
Section 10633
(a) A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s
service area, including a quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and
treated and the methods of wastewater disposal.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-28
(b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water
standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water
project.
There are two water reclamation plants in the Basin; the Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant (WNWRP) and the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant
(SJCWRP). The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) operates both of
these facilities. The method of disposal when treated recycled water is not used (non-
recycled) is discharge to the San Gabriel River/Rio Hondo and eventually flows to the
ocean.
The WNWRP, which began operation in 1962, was the first reclamation plant
built by LACSD. It has a treatment capacity of about 15 million gallons per day (MGD)
and provides coagulated, filtered and disinfected tertiary effluent. The WNWRP serves
a population of approximately 150,000 people. The WNWRP produced 6.04 MGD
(6,769 acre-feet per year) of coagulated, filtered, disinfected tertiary recycled water in
fiscal year 2008-09. The volume of wastewater collected and treated is shown in
Appendix L. An average of 5.901 MGD (6,613 acre-feet per year), or 97.7 percent of
the recycled water produced during fiscal year 2008-09 at the WNWRP was re-used for
landscape/plant irrigation and groundwater replenishment. The method of disposal
when treated recycled water is not used (non-recycled) is discharge to the San Gabriel
River and eventually flows to the ocean (see Appendix L).
The SJCWRP, which began operation in 1971, currently has a treatment capacity
of about 100 MGD. The treatment level is coagulation, filtration and disinfection tertiary
effluent. The SJCWRP has room for an expansion of an additional 25 MGD, although
there is no schedule for such an expansion. The SJCWRP plant serves a population of
approximately 1 million people, largely a residential population. The SJWRP produced
71.05 MGD (79,615 acre-feet per year) of coagulated, filtered, disinfected tertiary
recycled water in fiscal year 2008-09. The volume of wastewater collected and treated
is shown in Appendix L. An average of 26.23 MGD (29,392 acre-feet per year), or 36.9
percent of the recycled water produced during fiscal year 2008-09 at the SJCWRP was
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-29
re-used for landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, industrial use, impoundment and
groundwater replenishment. The method of disposal when treated recycled water is not
used (non-recycled) is discharge to the San Gabriel River and eventually flows to the
ocean (see Appendix L).
4.5.3 CURRENT RECYCLED WATER USE
Section 10633
(c) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier’s service area,
including, but not limited to, the type, place, and quantity of use
The City currently does not have any recycled water use within its service
area. Therefore, this requirement is currently not applicable to the City.
4.5.4 POTENTIAL USES OF RECYCLED WATER
Section 10633
(d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but
not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat
enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect potable
reuse, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical
and economic feasibility of serving those uses.
The City’s “Draft Recycled Water Feasibility Study”, November 2006,
identified potential recycled water customers within the City based on recycled
water use for large-volume irrigation purposes (e.g. municipal parks, fields, golf
courses, etc.). Recycled water use factors were applied to overall water
demands for these customers to determine the potential recycled water
demands. A proposed recycled distribution water pipeline route was based on
maximizing recycled water demands and minimizing pipeline and infrastructure
costs (See Appendix M).
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-30
4.5.5 PROJECTED RECYCLED WATER USE
Section 10633
(e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier’s service area at the end of 5,
10, 15 and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in
comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision
The City’s “Draft Recycled Water Feasibility Study” identified potential recycled
water customers within the City (e.g. municipal parks, fields, golf courses, etc.).
Recycled water use factors were applied to overall water demands for these customers
to determine the potential recycled water demands. A proposed recycled distribution
water pipeline route was based on maximizing recycled water demands and minimizing
pipeline and infrastructure costs. Although a schedule for recycled water use has not
been specified in the Study, the proposed recycled water system will provide recycled
water to 23 potential customers with a total annual recycled water demand of
approximately 644 acre-feet per year (See Appendix M). The total potential coincident
‘peak hour recycled water demand’ for the 23 potential recycled water users is
approximately 2,996 gallons per minute. Recycled water deliveries could begin by fiscal
year 2019-2020 with the full projected amount of 644 AFY by fiscal year 2024-25
subject to availability of funding.
4.5.6 ENCOURAGING USE OF RECYCLED WATER
Section 10633
(f) A description of actions, including financial incentives, which may be taken to
encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of these actions in
terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.
The City’s “Draft Recycled Water Feasibility Study” identified potential funding
sources. Funding for construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of facilities
for the proposed City’s recycled water distribution system will be obtained from federal,
state, and local sources, including City revenues.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-31
4.5.7 PLAN FOR OPTIMIZING USE OF RECYCLED WATER
Section 10633
(g) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier’s service area,
including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems, to promote
recirculating uses, to facilitate the increased use of treated wastewater that meets
recycled water standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that increased
use.
The City’s “Draft Recycled Water Feasibility Study” identified potential recycled
water customers within the City (e.g. municipal parks, fields, golf courses, etc.) and a
proposed recycled distribution water pipeline route was based on maximizing recycled
water demands and minimizing pipeline and infrastructure costs. The Study also
identified recycled water facilities, including recycled water distribution pipelines,
booster pumps, reservoirs, and backflow prevention assemblies, and identified potential
funding sources for these facilities. Although the proposed recycled water project is not
projected to change any land use or planning designations of the proposed recycled
customers, implementation of the proposed facilities may cause temporary and/or
permanent changes to the physical environment during construction. However, the
Study indicates mitigation measures are available for any potential air quality, water
quality, hydrology, soils, traffic, land use, and aesthetics impacts from implementation of
the proposed facilities.
The City’s “Draft Recycled Water Feasibility Study” identified LACSD’s WNWRP
as the preferred source of recycled water. The WNWRP currently supplies recycled
water to Upper District’s Phase IIA recycled water system. Upper District has recently
completed construction of its Phase IIA recycled water system expansion into the City of
Rosemead. Upper District will continue to study future recycled water expansion
projects, including recycled water deliveries to the City of Arcadia.
4.5.7.1 UPPER DISTRICT GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-32
Upper District is investigating the possibility of a potential recycled water project
for groundwater replenishment that will provide recycled water for replenishment of the
Main Basin of up to 10,000 acre-feet per year. The initial phase of the project will
produce about 5,000 acre-feet per year for groundwater replenishment of the Main
Basin. Subsequent phases will produce about an additional 5,000 acre-feet per year of
recycled water for groundwater replenishment of the Main Basin.
4.6 FUTURE WATER PROJECTS
Section 10631
(h) Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may
be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water uses as
established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier
shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs, other
than the demand management programs identified pursuant to paragraph (1) of
subdivision (f), that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount
of water supply available to the urban water supplier in average, single-dry, and
multiple-dry water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a
description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each
project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation
timeline for each project or program.
As discussed in Section 4.1, the City’s current groundwater pumping capacity in
the Main Basin is approximately 18,300 gpm. The City plans to construct an additional
well (City Library) between 2010 and 2015 that is projected to increase total pumping
capacity to approximately 19,800 gpm. The City also has plans to construct a backup
well for the Live Oak 1 well in 2015. In addition, the 2008 City of Arcadia Water Master
Plan Update report identified potential reservoir, pipeline, and booster station projects,
for at least 10 years into the future.
In addition to Decreed Right to the Raymond Basin and groundwater extraction from
the Main Basin, the City has the ability to obtain supplemental water supplies from the
following sources:
- Up to 1,591.2 AF of water stored in the Pasadena Subarea of the Raymond
Basin
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4-33
- Lease of Decreed Rights in the Raymond Basin. The City has historically
obtained leases of up to 1,700 AFY of groundwater in the Santa Anita
Subarea. The City has historically obtained leases of up to 1,600 AFY of
groundwater in the Pasadena Subarea.
- Cyclic storage provisions allow producers, including the City, to store
supplemental water within the Main Basin for the purpose of supplying
replacement water.
- The City can receive direct deliveries of treated imported water through its
MWD connection, USG-6, which has a capacity of 20 cubic feet per second
(about 14,500 acre-feet per year if used continuously). The City does not
typically use service connection USG-6 because the City’s collective
groundwater supplies are sufficient to meet water demands.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-1
Chapter 5
WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY AND WATER SHORTAGE
CONTINGENCY PLANNING
5.1 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
5.1.1 WATER MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Section 10620(f)
An urban water supplier shall describe in the plan water management tools and
options used by that entity that will maximize resources and minimize the need to
import water from other regions.
This Plan describes water management tools and options used by the City to
maximize local resources and minimize the need to import water. These include
Groundwater Basin Management Structure (Chapter 4.2), Future Water Projects
(Chapter 4.6), and Demand Management Measures (Chapter 6).
5.1.2 SUPPLY INCONSISTENCY
Section 10631(c)(2)
For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given
specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to
supplement or replace that source with alternative sources or water demand
management measures, to the extent practicable.
As a result of the Raymond Basin and Main Basin management, the City has not
experienced water supply deficiencies. The management of both basins is based on
their adjudications, which are described in Chapter 4.2.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-2
5.2 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING
5.2.1 CATASTROPIC INTERRUPTION OF WATER SUPPLIES
Section 10632
(c) Actions to be undertaken by the urban water supplier to prepare for, and implement
during, a catastrophic interruption of water supplies including, but not limited to, a
regional power outage, an earthquake, or other disaster.
The City of Arcadia’s City Council has acted upon several water conservation
ordinances and resolutions to prepare for water shortages. Copies of these ordinances
and resolutions are available for review in the City Clerk’s office located at City Hall and
are briefly described below.
1. Ordinance No. 1598 adopted by the Arcadia City Council on June 21, 1977,
established City policy for water conservation including power to issue a
declaration of a state of urgency, prohibited uses, percentage curtailment of use,
implementation of phases, penalties, adjustments, etc.
2. Resolution No. 5435 passed by the City Council on August 16, 1988, adopted a
program of voluntary water conservation to reduce consumption by 10 percent.
3. Ordinance No. 1930 adopted by the City Council on February 5, 1991.
Mandatory Water Conservation Plan passed as an emergency measure due to
drought. Provided for a progressive surcharge schedule for multiple violations of
excessive water use, and restricted certain uses of water.
4. Resolution No. 5568 passed on February 5, 1991, enacting Phase I mandatory
measures and Phase 2 measures (10 percent mandatory reduction) pursuant to
Ordinance No. 1930.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-3
5. Resolution No. 5638 passed by the City Council on March 21, 1995, rescinded
Phase 1 measures and restored 10 percent voluntary reduction goal pursuant to
Resolution No. 5435.
6. Resolution No. 5481 passed by the City Council on March 21, 1995, rescinded
Phase 1 measures pursuant to Ordinance 1930; continued 10 percent reduction
goal per Resolution No. 5435.
7. Ordinance No. 2036 adopted by the City Council April 4, 1995, amended Article
VII, Division 3 Part 5, chapter 5 of Arcadia Municipal Code. Phases 6, 7 and 8
were added to the original Ordinance 1930 to provide for emergency water use
reductions of up to 50 percent as required by mandatory Urban Water Shortage
Contingency Plan (June 1992). Also enacted City “Water Banking” program,
which allows residents to carry over water conservation credits from one billing
cycle to another.
8. Resolution No. 6637 passed by the City Council on August 5, 2008, authorized
the Assistant City Manager / Public Works Services Director to implement a
voluntary water conservation program in order to reduce water use by ten
percent. In addition, the resolution determined a public campaign was to be
launched regarding water shortages and voluntary water use reductions.
To further prepare for a catastrophic interruption of water supplies, the City
maintains a water fund balance, commonly referred to as reserves, for the purpose of
maintaining adequate funds for the replacement, repair or operation of critical water
facilities in the event of a major catastrophe, such as a major power outage, earthquake
or similar natural disaster. The City’s Water Fund is comprised of an Operating Fund,
Capital Fund and Equipment Fund.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-4
In 1991, in accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill 11X, the City of
Arcadia developed a comprehensive Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The City also
created an Emergency Response Plan consistent with guidelines prepared by the
California State Office of Emergency Services.
The City recognizes the importance of Demand Management Measures (DMM)
in reducing water demand and continues to implement DMM programs whether or not a
shortage exists. The City of Arcadia realizes that media attention of the City’s water
supply is a good way of informing the public of any water supply shortages and will
increase media attention and public water education programs should a water supply
shortage occur.
The City also participated in a seismic reliability program and has obtained
federal funding for the study that examined damage to water infrastructures resulting
from a major earthquake. Funding has also become available for the design and
retrofitting of various City facilities. These retrofits help “disaster proof” the City’s water
system and help prevent water outages because of infrastructure failure.
The following include examples of actions the City will take in preparation of a
water supply catastrophe:
- Determine what constitutes a proclamation of a water shortage
- Stretch existing water shortage
- Obtain additional water supplies
- Develop alternative water supplies
- Determine where the funding will come from
- Contact and coordinate with other agencies
- Create an Emergency Response Team/Coordinator
- Create a catastrophe preparedness plan
- Put employees/contractors on call
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-5
- Develop methods to communicate with the public
- Develop methods to prepare for water quality interruptions
As mentioned earlier, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2036 in April 1995 to provide for
emergency water use reductions of up to 50 percent as required by mandatory Urban
Water Shortage Contingency Plan. In addition, the City Council would adopt a
resolution to declare a water shortage emergency if necessary.
5.2.2 MANDATORY PROHIBITIONS
Section 10632
(d) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices during water
shortages, including, but not limited to, prohibiting the use of potable water for street
cleaning.
The City of Arcadia’s Mandatory Water Conservation Ordinance includes
prohibitions on various wasteful water uses such a lawn watering during mid-day hours,
washing sidewalks and driveways with potable water and allowing plumbing leaks to go
uncorrected.
5.2.3 CONSUMPTION REDUCTION METHODS
Section 10632
(e) Consumption reduction methods in the most restrictive stages. Each urban water
supplier may use any type of consumption reduction methods in its water shortage
contingency analysis that would reduce water use, as appropriate for its area, and
have the ability to achieve a water use reduction consistent with up to a 50 percent
reduction in water supply.
The City has developed an eight-stage rationing plan to invoke during declared
water shortages. The rationing plan includes the following mandatory rationing,
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-6
depending on the causes, severity, and anticipated duration of the water supply
shortage:
Shortage
Condition
Phase Customer
Reduction
Goal
Type of
Rationing
Program
Imminent Drought I 10% Mandatory
Up to 10% II 10% Mandatory
11 – 15% III 15% Mandatory
16 – 20% IV 20% Mandatory
21 – 25% V 25% Mandatory
26 – 30% VI 30% Mandatory
31 – 40% VII 40% Mandatory
41 – 50% VIII 50% Mandatory
Water allocations are established for all customers according to the following
ranking system:
1. Average of past usage for a “base” period.
2. Health and safety allocations (includes hospitals, convalescent facilities, fire
fighting and public safety).
3. Health and safety allocations (includes single family, multi-family, and retirement
communities).
4. Commercial, industrial, institutional/governmental operations (where water is
used for manufacturing and to maintain jobs and economic base of the
community (not for landscape uses).
The City has established a “base” period as the allocation method for each of the
phases of reduction. All customer types fall within this allocation method. Customers
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-7
may appeal their allotments by completing a form, which asks specific questions as to
why the added allotment is necessary, and what that customer has done to conserve
water before granting the allotment. The “base” period is a recent consecutive three-
year period. This gives the City a more accurate view of the usual water need of each
customer, allows for fluctuations in temperature and rainfall, and provides additional
flexibility in determining allotments and reviewing appeals. The rationing percentage is
then deducted from the customer’s allotment. The allotment is specific for each of the
six billing cycles to provide for more water use in warmer months and less use in cooler
months, thereby reflecting seasonal patterns.
5.2.4 PENALTIES OR CHARGES FOR EXCESSIVE USE
Section 10632
(f) Penalties or charges for excessive use, where applicable.
It is unlawful and a misdemeanor for any customer to fail to comply with any
provisions of the regulations and restrictions on water use set forth in the City’s
Mandatory Water Conservation Plan Ordinance. Violators of Phase I restricted uses will
receive a written notice. A violator receiving three or more written notices is referred to
the City Attorney who may proceed with filing a misdemeanor against the customer.
For the first violation of Phases II through VIII, the City will impose a surcharge
penalty, in addition to the water rate, in an amount equal to two times the current water
rate for those billing units used in excess of base.
For the second violation of Phases II through VIII, the City will impose a
surcharge penalty, in addition to the water rate, in an amount equal to three times the
current water rate for those billing units used in excess of base. The third violation
increases the amount to four times the current water rate for those water units used in
excess of the base allotment. For example, a customer with an overuse of 10 units of
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-8
water (10 hundred cubic feet) would pay $2.44 per unit (two times the current water rate
of $1.22), or $24.40 for the first violation. The second violation would be $3.66, or
$36.60 (three times the rate) and the third violation for the same amount of units would
be four times the water rate ($4.88, or $48.80) added to the amount of the regular water
bill.
5.2.5 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE IMPACTS
Section 10632
(g) An analysis of the impacts of each of the actions and conditions described in
subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, on the revenues and expenditures of the urban water
supplier, and proposed measures to overcome those impacts, such as the
development of reserves and rate adjustments.
Revenues that the City collects are used to fund Operations and Maintenance,
including the Capital Improvement and Equipment Replacement Program. Depending
on the length of the drought and the possible decrease in revenue as a result, projects
may have to be postponed. If a drought persisted for several years and a serious
decrease in revenue occurred, the Water Fund Reserve would have to be used to keep
the water system operating. The last measure to cover the revenue shortfall would be
to ask the City of Arcadia’s City Council to adjust the water rate.
5.2.6 DRAFT WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY RESOLUTION OR
ORDINANCE
Section 10632
(h) A draft water shortage contingency resolution or ordinance.
As mentioned earlier, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2036 (see Appendix N) in
April 1995 to provide for emergency water use reductions of up to 50 percent as
required by mandatory Urban Water Shortage Contingency Plan. In addition, the City
Council would adopt a resolution to declare a water shortage emergency if necessary.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-9
5.3 WATER QUALITY
Section 10634
The plan shall include information, to the extent practicable, relating to the quality of
existing sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments
as described in subdivision (a) of Section 10631, and the manner in which water
quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability.
5.3.1 GROUNDWATER FROM MAIN BASIN
Water from the City’s water system supplied from the Main Basin meets all
drinking water regulations. Groundwater from the City’s Longden 1 and Longden 2
wells contains concentrations of VOCs at levels exceeding CDPH standards. The City
installed air stripping treatment equipment in the 1980’s to remove VOCs from the
groundwater produced from the Longden 1 and Longden 2 wells. Groundwater from the
Longden 2 and St Joseph 2 wells contains concentrations of Nitrate at levels exceeding
CDPH standards. Consequently, the City has instituted CDPH approved blend plans to
reduce Nitrate and VOC concentrations to below 80 percent of CDPH standards. As a
result of the City's CDPH approved treatment and blending activities, the City's wells will
provide a reliable water source from the Main Basin to City customers for the next 25
years.
5.3.2 GROUNDWATER FROM RAYMOND BASIN
Water from the City’s water system supplied from the Raymond Basin meets all
drinking water regulations. Groundwater from the City’s Orange Grove 1A and Orange
Grove 5 wells contains concentrations of VOCs at levels exceeding CDPH standards.
Groundwater from the Orange Grove 5 well contains concentrations of Nitrate at levels
exceeding CDPH standards. Consequently, the City has a blend program to reduce
Nitrate and VOC concentrations to below 80 percent of CDPH standards. As a result of
the City's CDPH approved blending activities, the City's wells are expected to provide a
reliable water source from the Raymond Basin to City customers for the next 25 years.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-10
Although unanticipated changes in blending activities may result in a loss of Raymond
Basin well capacity, the City can reliably produce groundwater from the Main Basin and
can obtain treated imported water from USG-6 to meet demands.
5.3.3 IMPORTED WATER
The City can also receive direct delivery of treated imported water from its connection
(USG-6) with MWD water supplies. Water supplied from treated imported water meets
all drinking water regulations.
5.4 DROUGHT PLANNING
5.4.1 RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY AND VULNERABILITY TO SEASONAL OR
CLIMATIC SHORTAGE
Section 10631(c)(1)
Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic
shortage, to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of the following:
(A) An average water year.
(B) A single dry water year.
(C) Multiple dry water years.
As a result of the Main Basin and the Raymond Basin management, the City has
not experienced water supply deficiencies. The management of both basins is based on
their adjudications, which are described in Section 4.2. Based on current management
practices in the Main Basin and Raymond Basin, the minimum water supplies available
at the end of an average water year, a single dry year, and multiple dry years would be
at least equal if not greater than the City’s water demand.
Information regarding the reliability of the groundwater supplies from Main Basin
and Raymond Basin is based on the 51-year rainfall data for the San Gabriel Valley
(Table 2), and past data on the availability of water supply to meet demands during
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-11
seasonal or climatic shortage. Table 2 summarizes the rainfall in the San Gabriel Valley
from water year 1958-59 through water year 2008-09. According to the rainfall data for
the San Gabriel Valley, the annual average rainfall is 17.8 inches. Therefore, water
year 2005-06 (or fiscal year 2005-06) represents an average water year for the City in
which the total amount of rainfall was about 16.8 inches. A single dry year for the City
was represented in water year 2006-07 (or fiscal year 2006-07) in which the total
amount of rainfall was about 4.9 inches. A multiple dry year sequence for the City is
represented from water year 2006-07 to water year 2008-09 (or from fiscal years 2006-
07 to 2009-09), where the total amount of rainfall was about 4.9 inches, 16.4 inches,
and 14.0 inches, respectively. Table 9 shows that during an average year, single dry
year and multiple dry years, groundwater production for the City remained stable. A dry
year or multiple dry years did not compromise the City’s ability to provide a reliable
supply of water to its customers.
Based on current management practices, the City will be able to rely on the Main
Basin and the Raymond Basin for adequate supply over the next 25 years under single
year and multiple year droughts.
5.4.2 STAGES OF ACTION IN RESPONSE TO WATER SUPPLY
SHORTAGES
Section 10632
(a) Stages of action to be undertaken by the urban water supplier in response to water
supply shortages, including up to 50 percent reduction in water supply, and an outline
of specific water supply conditions which are applicable to each stage.
As the water purveyor, the City must provide the minimum health and safety water
needs of the community at all times. The water shortage response is designed to
provide a minimum of 50 percent of the normal supply during a severe or extended
water shortage. The rationing program triggering levels shown in Appendix O were
established to ensure that this goal is met.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-12
Although an actual shortage may occur at any time during the year, a shortage (if one
occurs) is usually forecasted by local agencies such as MWD, State Department of
Water Resources, Main Basin Watermaster and Raymond Basin Management Board.
The City’s potable water sources are groundwater and imported water (when the City’s
allotment is over pumped in the Main Basin). Rationing phases may be triggered by a
supply shortage or by contamination in one source or a combination of sources.
5.4.3 THREE YEAR MINIMUM WATER SUPPLY
Section 10632
(b) An estimate of the minimum water supply available during each of the next three
water years based on the driest three-year historic sequence for the agency’s water
supply.
Over the past 20 years, the driest three-year sequence (multiple dry years) in the
City's service area occurred from water year 2006-07 (or fiscal year 2006-07) to water
year 2008-09 (or fiscal year 2008-09), as shown in Table 2. The ratio between the
normal water year in 2005-06 (or fiscal year 2005-6) and multiple dry years (or fiscal
years 2006-07 to 2008-09) was estimated for the City’s supply, as shown on Table 11.
This ratio from Table 11 was used to estimate the minimum water supply available
during each of the next three water years based on the driest three-year historical
sequence for the City’s water supply (see Table 12).
5.4.4 WATER USE REDUCTION MEASURING MECHANISM
Section 10632
(i) A mechanism for determining actual reductions in water use pursuant to the urban
water shortage contingency analysis.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-13
Under normal water supply conditions, potable water production figures are recorded
daily during business hours and on the first day of the month. Totals are quantified on a
monthly basis. Before returning to any phase of the Mandatory Water Conservation
Plan, the City Council would have to be advised of a water shortage well in advance of
approving any phase of the Mandatory Water Conservation Plan. The Director of Public
Works Services would keep the City Manager advised on a weekly basis if there was a
water shortage and he in turn would brief the City Council. Reports would have to be
made at public meetings of the City Council.
5.4.5 ASSESSMENT OF THE RELIABILITY OF WATER SERVICE
Section 10635
(a) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan,
an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal,
dry, and multiple dry years. This water supply and demand assessment shall
compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total
projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal
water year, a single dry year water year, and multiple dry water years. The water
service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant
to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency
population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.
As previously discussed in Chapter 3.2, the City applied SBX7-7 to estimate the
City’s 2015 Interim Urban Water Use Target of 265 GPCD and the City’s 2020 Urban
Water Use Target of 236 GPCD. These Urban Water Use Targets were then applied to
estimate the City’s projected normal year demands in 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, and
2035, as shown on Table 6. The City will continue to use groundwater as its main
source of water supply over the next 25 years. The following sections discuss the City’s
water service reliability assessment, which compares the City’s supply and demand
over the next 25 years during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-14
5.4.5.1 NORMAL WATER YEAR
As previously discussed, the City’s projected normal water year demand over the
next 20 years in five-year increments was based on the City’s 2015 and 2020 Urban
Water Use Targets of 265 GPCD and 236 GPCD, respectively. The City’s projected
supply was based on the projected demand, as shown on Table 8. The comparison of
the City’s projected supply and demand during a normal water year is shown on Table
13. As shown on Table 13, the City’s supply can meet demands during a normal water
year for the next 25 years.
5.4.5.2 SINGLE-DRY YEAR
As shown on Table 2, the City experienced a single-dry year during fiscal year
2006-07 and a normal water year during fiscal year 2005-06. The ratio between the
normal water year and single-dry year was estimated for the City’s supply and demand,
as shown on Table 11. This ratio and the projected supply and demand during a normal
water year from Table 13 was used to estimate the City’s projected supply and demand
during a single-dry year over the next 25 years in five-year increments. The comparison
of the City’s projected supply and demand during a single-dry year is shown on Table
14. As shown on Table 14, the City’s supply can meet demands during a single-dry
year for the next 25 years.
5.4.5.3 MULTIPLE DRY YEARS
As shown on Table 2, the City experienced multiple dry years during fiscal years
2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The ratio between the normal water year in 2005-06
and multiple dry years were estimated for the City’s supply and demand, as shown on
Table 11. This ratio and the projected supply and demand during a normal water year
from Table 13 was used to estimate the City’s projected supply and demand during
multiple dry years over the next 25 years in five-year increments. The comparison of
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-15
the City’s projected supply and demand during multiple dry years is shown on Table 15.
As shown on Table 15, the City’s supply can meet demands during multiple dry years
for the next 25 years.
5.4.5.4 GROUNDWATER RELIABILITY
The City obtains its water supply from groundwater wells, located in the Raymond
Basin and the Main Basin, and from imported treated water. Chapter 4 provides a
description of the management of water resources in the Raymond Basin and Main
Basin, as well as information on basin management. Chapter 4 also demonstrates the
management structure of the Main Basin provides a reliable source of groundwater
supply for the City in an average, single-dry and multiple-dry water years. Historical
data indicate the Raymond Basin and Main Basin have been well managed for over 40
years of adjudication The City will be able to rely on the Raymond Basin for water
supply over the next 25 years under single year and multiple year droughts. There are
no contemplated basin management changes, other than the planned use of recycled
water for groundwater replenishment in the Main Basin. Therefore, based on historical
and on-going management practices, the City will be able to rely on the Main Basin for
adequate supply over the next 25 years under single year and multiple year droughts.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-1
Chapter 6
DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
The City is committed to implementing water conservation programs and works
collaboratively with Upper District to provide water conservation programs for its
residents. As a member of Upper District, the City’s residents have the benefit of
participating in Upper District’s conservation efforts. Upper District offers an extensive
program throughout the San Gabriel Valley and is a signatory to the Memorandum of
Understanding regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU) and is
therefore a member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC).
Although the City did not sign the MOU regarding Urban Water Conservation in
California and is not a member of the CUWCC, the City takes advantage of its
relationship with Upper District as a member agency. The following sections describe
the City’s implementation of the Demand Management Measures (DMMs) required in
the UWMP Act.
6.1 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES BEING IMPLEMENTED
Section 10631
(f) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures.
This description shall include all of the following:
(1) A description of each water demand management measure that is currently
being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, including the steps
necessary to implement any proposed measures, including, but not limited to, all
of the following:
(A) Water survey programs for single-family residential and multifamily
residential customers.
(B) Residential plumbing retrofit.
(C) System water audits, leak detection, and repair.
(D) Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of
existing connections.
(E) Large landscape conservation programs and incentives.
(F) High-efficiency washing machine rebate programs.
(G) Public information programs.
(H) School education programs.
(I) Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional
accounts.
(J) Wholesale agency programs.
(K) Conservation pricing.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-2
(L) Water conservation coordinator.
(M) Water waste prohibition.
(N) Residential ultra-low-flush toilet replacement programs.
(2) A schedule of implementation for all water demand management measures
proposed or described in the plan.
(3) A description of the methods, if any, that the supplier will use to evaluate the
effectiveness of water demand management measures implemented or
described under the plan.
(4) An estimate, if available, of existing conservation savings on water use within the
supplier’s service area, and the effect of the savings on the supplier’s ability to
further reduce demand.
6.1.1 WATER SURVEY PROGRAMS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS [10631(F)(1)(A)]
The City monitors customer’s water use through its computerized billing system.
The City’s billing system automatically audits customer’s water bills and flags those bills
that show unusual or high consumption. The City’s billing system alerts the City when a
customer’s bill is flagged for high consumption and a customer can make a request to
have a service representative inspect their system to make necessary repairs. In
addition, City staff can review water usage bills to determine if “excessive water use”
occurred and can help customers individually determine the reason for the “excessive
water use. The City is currently preparing a procedure for documenting service calls,
surveys and their corresponding water savings through its Customer Service group.
Estimated savings are expected to be 3 to 150 gallons per day per customer.
Upper District encourages its member agencies, including the City, to implement
water survey programs. Additionally, Upper District supports its member agencies'
efforts by offering workshops to train staff on how to conduct residential water surveys.
6.1.2 RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING RETROFIT [10631(F)(1)(B)]
The City, in conjunction with Upper District, participates in a residential plumbing
retrofit program. Upper District’s residential plumbing retrofit program is through MWD.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-3
MWD distributes residential plumbing retrofits, Ultra –Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) and
high-efficiency clothes washers, to its member agencies. As a member agency of
MWD, Upper District receives residential plumbing retrofits and distributes them to its
member agencies. The distribution of the toilets within Upper District’s service area is
conducted at local schools within San Gabriel Valley.
The City also implements additional residential plumbing retrofit programs.
When City staff issues building permits for new or remodeled homes or other facilities,
City staff enforces Chapter 4 of the Uniform Building Code that applies to Water
Conserving Fixtures and Fittings.
In addition, Upper District's residential plumbing retrofit program consist of rebate
programs for high- efficiency clothes washer, high-efficiency toilets, rotating nozzles for
sprinklers, weather-based irrigation controllers, and synthetic turf. Information and
water conservation savings regarding these programs are located in MWD's draft 2010
Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) which is incorporated by reference.
6.1.3 SYSTEM WATER AUDITS, LEAK DETECTION, AND REPAIR
[10631(F)(1)(C)]
The City has installed radio frequency read meters and is continuing to install
radio frequency read meters. The City repairs leaks within its distribution system on an
as needed basis. The City closely monitors its water production and consumption use
tabulating the amount of “unaccounted for water”. The City’s current estimated
“unaccounted for water” is approximately 10 percent. The City calculates the amount of
“unaccounted for water” by finding the difference between the amount of water the City
pumped and the amount of water sold to its customers. This program is effective in
maintaining distribution systems that deliver water effectively and efficiently with the
least amount of water loss. The amount of water conserved through the City’s system
water audits, leak detection and repair program can be estimated by evaluating the
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-4
average amount of “unaccounted for water”. For the period of 2005 to 2010, the
average unaccounted for water has dropped from 160 milion gallons (MG) per year to 4
MG for an annual savings of $230,000 annually.
Upper District is a member agency of MWD which conducts various system
audits and leak detection program for MWD’s entire system. Additional information
regarding system water audits, leak detection, repair, and water conservation savings
can be found in MWD's draft 2010 RUWMP, which is incorporated by reference.
6.1.4 METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW
CONNECTIONS AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS
[10631(F)(1)(D)]
The City is fully metered for all customer sectors, including separate meters for
single-family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, institutional and
governmental facilities. Furthermore, within the City if there is new development, each
facility is individuality metered. Service charges for the City are based on the
customer’s connection size. Chapter 6.1.10 provides greater detail about the City’s
service fees and conservation pricing. The City’s system effectively promotes water
conservation by being completely metered. Water lost through unmetered use is
included in “unaccounted for water”. For the period of 2005 to 2010, the average
unaccounted for water has dropped from 160 MG per year to 4 MG for an annual
savings of $230,000 annually.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-5
6.1.5 LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND
INCENTIVES [10631(F)(1)(E)]
The City installs state-of-the-art irrigation systems in all new public projects
constructed within the City and encourages the use of irrigation systems for private
projects. The City uses “cal-sense” controllers that are computer based with automatic
shut off in case of an excessive flow of water. The Santa Anita Golf Course utilizes an
irrigation system that allows more efficient use of water on the course. In addition, the
City of Arcadia’s Code of Ordinances include landscaping regulations intended to
conserve water. To further promote water conservation and more efficient use of water
on large landscape areas, the City considered the use of synthetic turf and has installed
synthetic turf at the City’s Civic Center Athletic Field.
The City’s large landscape conservation and incentives program is effective at
conserving water because the irrigation systems installed by the City only use water as
needed, therefore, the irrigation systems eliminate water waste. The City currently
budgets $26,000 annually for water conservation upgrades to City medians and facility
landscapes.
In addition, Upper District's large landscape conservation program includes the
Sythetic Turf Grant School Program. The goal of the Sythetic Turf Grant School
Program is to assist schools with funding for retrofitting large landscape areas with
synthetic turf. Through this program, Upper District offers grants of up to $75,000 per
site to assist with the cost of installing sythetic turf. Since the start of the program in
fiscal year 2005-06, five schools have participated in this program. Based on estimated
service life of 10 years for synthetic turf, the total annual water savings for the 5
synthetic turf programs is estimated at 53 acre-feet.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-6
6.1.6 HIGH-EFFICIENCY WASHING MACHINE REBATE PROGRAMS
[10631(F)(1)(F)]
The City does not currently implement its own high-efficiency washing machine
rebate program because it is not economically viable. However, the City does
participate in a high-efficiency washing machine program through its relationship with
Upper District. Upper District in partnership with MWD, DWR, CalFed Bay Delta
Program and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, offers a residential high-efficiency clothes
washer rebate program. Residential customers within Upper District’s service area
(including the City) can install a high-efficiency washing machine in place of standard-
efficiency washing machine for a rebate. This program allows the City’s customers to
benefit from a high-efficiency washing program and contributes to the conservation of
water.
Moreover, Upper District, in partnership with MWD, State Department of Water
Resources, CalFed Bay Delta program and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, offers a
residential high-efficiency clothes washer rebate program. Residential dwellings (single-
family homes, condominiums, townhouses, apartments or mobile homes) that are
located within Upper District’s service area can install a high-efficiency washing
machine in place of standard-efficiency washing machine for a rebate. A residence that
installs a high-efficiency washing machine could receive a rebate of $200 per washer as
of fiscal year 2008-09. The program began in fiscal year 2002-03. Since the program
began, a total of 6,656 rebates have been provided. Metropolitan states that this
program saves about 10,000 gallons per year per washer over a conventional top
loading washer. Based on an estimated service life of 15 years for each washer, the
total annual water savings for 6,656 washers is estimated at 160 acre-feet. Additional
information on the high-efficiency washing machine rebate program can be found in
Upper District’s 2010 Plan, incorporated by reference.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-7
6.1.7 PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(G)]
The City informs City of Arcadia residents about water conservation through its
public information programs. The City has a quarterly newsletter that is sent to the
City’s customers/residents, which provides information about water conservation on a
seasonal basis. The City also prints water conservation messages periodically on its
customer’s water bills. In addition, the City’s new “Hot Sheet”, which is mailed with the
City’s water bills (a two-sided, one-page leaflet), is also used to remind residents of
useful water conservation tips, purposely focused on a monthly basis either on indoor or
outdoor conservation practices. Lastly, the City’s website located at
http://www.ci.arcadia.ca.us/home/index.asp contains additional useful information.
As a member of Upper District, the customers of the City can also receive public
information about water conservation through Upper District’s various public information
programs. Upper District offers conservation brochures, posters, activity booklets,
public outreach display and workshops. Upper District also raises awareness about
water conservation through paid advertising, press releases, news ads and media
events.
Each year, the Upper District hosts its annual Water Fest event, in which the City
has participated in since 2003. Each fall, Upper District holds this community event to
promote water conservation on every level; targeted towards area residents, business
owners and visitors alike. A well attended day, this effort has proven to draw thousands
of eager visitors who are able to peruse the many booths, participate in children’s
games, as well as win conservation related raffle prizes and receive a wealth of
literature and give-away items to assist them in their water conservation practices.
To ensure that an abundant supply of water conservation information is provided
to the City of Arcadia residents, the City hosts Concerts in the Park, the Summer
Reading Program Kick Off, and the Community Picnic where amongst other activities,
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-8
the Public Works Services staff talks with residents and hands out countless
environmental pieces and give-aways – much of which focused on water-wise practices
and water conservation. The City also publishes an annual calendar for its residents,
with the theme for both 2005 & 2006, focusing on environmental topics, of which, water
conservation is highlighted. Calendars are mailed to residents in December.
Furthermore, the City has joined forces with the Los Angeles County to
participate in the annual LA County Environmental Education Fair (LAEEF), held at the
Arboretum which is located in the City of Arcadia. Again, manning booths and speaking
with area residents, school-age children and educators alike – City staff is able to
continue its dissemination of water conservation information and related take home
items, The City currently budgets $8,000 annually for the promotion and education of
water conservation.
In addition, Upper District promotes water conservation through its many public
information programs. Upper District offers conservation brochures and posters, activity
booklets, public outreach displays, oral presentations, and workshops to inform the
public of conservation efforts. Upper District also raises awareness about water
conservation through paid advertising, press releases, news ads, media events, and
through the Speaker's Bureau. Annually, Upper District hosts a water awareness
festival (Water Fest) to raise public awareness about water conservation, water quality,
and other water-related issues. Water conservation savings are not available for this
DMM. Additional information regarding Upper District's public information programs can
be found in Upper District's 2010 Plan.
6.1.8 SCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(H)]
The customers of the City or Arcadia also receive educational tools regarding
water conservation through Upper District’s school educational programs. Upper
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-9
District’s school educational programs include an annual Water Awareness Youth Art
Contest, combining an art poster contest for grades K though 3rd and 4th though 6th and
a T-shirt contest for grades 7th through 12th.
Winning artwork graces the Upper District's
custom water bottle labels, as well as promotional stickers that are handed out at
community events. Printed materials can be provided to schools within Upper District’s
service area (including the City). Upper District’s educational materials and
presentations meet state education framework requirements.
In addition, Upper District directly offers school education programs in an effort to
raise awareness of water issues. Upper District started its school education programs
in September 1992 and the materials and presentations meet state education
framework requirements. The following is a list of Upper District’s school educational
programs:
• Water Awareness Art Contests
• Solar Cup Competition
• Water Education Grant Program
• Annual Art Poster Contest for grades K through 3rd and 4th through 6th
• T-shirt Art Contest for grades 7
th through12th
• Water Educational Posters
• Water Resource Library
Upper District also participates in additional educational school programs through
MWD, which has extensive educational programs that includes schools within Upper
District’s boundaries. MWD’s educational programs meet state education framework
requirements. A list of MWD’s school education programs and water conservation
savings is included in MWD’s draft 2010 RUWMP, which is incorporated by reference.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-10
6.1.9 CONSERVATION PROGRAMS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND
INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTS [10631(F)(1)(I)]
As shown on Table 5, the City currently has approximately 820 commercial meter
accounts, most of which are office buildings and small shops. The City participates in a
commercial and industrial water conservation program through Upper District’s
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Program. Upper District in conjunction with
MWD offers rebates for retrofitting certain high water-use fixtures/equipment with more
water efficient models. Eligible fixtures included in Upper District’s CII Program include:
Fixture Rebate
Ultra Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) up to $180
ULF Urinals up to $100
Flush Valve Retrofit Kit up to $25
Automatic Faucet Shut-off Valve up to $80
Coin or Card Operated High-Efficiency Clothes Machine up to $450
Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller – up to $700
Replacement or New Installation
Hospital X-Ray Processor Recirculating System up to $3,000
Water Pressurized Broom up to $150
This program effectively conserves water by replacing regular efficiency
machines with high-efficiency equipment, which ultimately reduces the amount of water
used.
Likewise, Upper District offers a conservation program for CII facilities. Upper
District's program offers CII facilities rebates for retrofitting existing high water-use
fixtures with efficient water-use fixtures. The CII program includes the following fixtures:
1. Commercial High Efficiency Toilet (includes flushometer, tank, and dual flash)
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-11
2. Commercial High Efficiency Toilet (new construction)
3. Ultra Low Water Urinal (less than 0.25 gallons per flush (gpf) and Zero Water
Urinals
4. Ultra Low Water Urinal and Zero Water Urinals Upgrade or New Construction
5. Water Broom
6. Connectionless Food Steamer
7. Ice Making Machine Tier III standard
8. Dry Vacuum Pump
9. Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller
10. pH Cooling Tower Controller
11. Weather-Base Irrigation Controller and Central Computer Irrigation Controller
12. Rotating Nozzles for Pop-up Spray Head Retrofits
13. Large Rotary Nozzles
The program began in fiscal year 2000-01. A total of 10,568 rebates have been
received through this program. Based on an estimated weighted service life of 19 years
for CII rebate programs items, the total annual water savings for the 10,568 rebate
program items is estimated at 490 acre-feet.
6.1.10 CONSERVATION PRICING [10631(F)(1)(K)]
The City’s Mandatory Water Conservation Program, as outlined in its Municipal
Code, contains penalties for overuse of water during drought times that are based on
the various stages enacted upon by resolutions passed by the Arcadia City Council.
In addition the City’s Cyclic Storage account is a form of conservation pricing.
The recently implemented Long-term Cyclic Storage program allows retail agencies to
purchase untreated imported water at a reduced rate to store in Main Basin for a period
of up to five years. The stored water creates a drought reserve that can be utilized to
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-12
mitigate future imported water supply shortages. This program helps water utilities
meet their potential future water demands by pre-purchasing and storing imported water
that they can later use to supplement existing groundwater supply. The City has
participated in this program during fiscal year 2009-10.
In 2010 the City prepared a Tiered Water Rate Study intended to analyze the
current water use and billing practices and to provide recommendations for a tiered
water rate structure that would provide a conservation incentive, ensure financial
stability and meet the regulatory requirements of SBX7-7. At the time of this report no
decision has been reached as to the acceptance of, or appropriate implementation of a
tiered water rate structure.
In addition, Upper District implements conservation pricing to encourage sub-
agencies to conserve water. Additional information regarding Upper District's
conservation pricing can be found in its 2010 Plan incorporated by reference.
6.1.11 WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR [10631(F)(1)(L)]
The City’s Environmental Services Officer is responsible for all aspects of
environmental issues including water conservation measures for residents and business
owners alike. The City’s Environmental Services Officer coordinates public water
awareness materials, public outreach events, speaks with residents/business owners
who contact the City for water conservation information and participates in the active
dissemination of Upper District efforts such as the High Efficiency Clothes Washer
Rebate Program.
In addition as a member of Upper District, the City can utilize Upper District’s
water conservation coordinator, who is employed by Upper District to promote water
conservation issues and programs within Upper District’s service area including the
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-13
City. The water conservation coordinator does research on water management
practices and advises retail water purveyors on water conservation matters. Upper
District’s water conservation coordinator is effective at informing the public on water
awareness and is involved in public information programs and school education
programs.
The water conservation coordinator employed by Upper District promotes water
conservation issues and programs. The position was created in 1992 as a full-time
position. The water conservation coordinator does research on water managements
practices and advises the Upper District Board Members and its subagencies, including
the City, on water conservation matters. More information about Upper District’s
conservation coordinator can be found in its 2010 Plan, which is incorporated by
reference.
6.1.12 WATER WASTE PROHIBITION [10631(F)(1)(M)]
The City has adopted several Ordinances and Resolutions that address
the issue of water waste, and conservation measures (by % reduction), during times of
decided drought by action of the City Council. These ordinances are listed in Chapter
5.2.1 of this report and are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office. In addition, the
City’s service crews and meter readers report all wasteful uses of water, and residents
are contacted regarding leaks and significant sprinkler run-off.
Furthermore, Upper District passed Resolution 6-90-266 in 1990 to reduce water
demands within Upper District's service area. In addition, Upper District has prepared a
draft Urban Water Shortage Contingency Resolution that may be adopted in case of an
emergency which will require mandatory reductions in water use within Upper District's
service area. Water conservation savings are not available for this DMM.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-14
6.1.13 RESIDENTIAL ULTRA-LOW FLUSH TOILET REPLACEMENT
PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(N)]
As mentioned in Chapter 6.1.2, Upper District in partnership with MWD
conducts an ULFT Retrofit Program on behalf of the City. Residents are encouraged to
replace existing high flow volume toilets with Ultra Low Flow toilets by receiving a rebate
for their retrofit. MWD offers a rebate of $60, with local agencies having the ability to
offer an extended rebate if feasible. Older toilet models use approximately 3.5 gallons
of water per flush, with the new ULFT models using only 1.6 gallons or less per flush.
Upper District provides High Efficiency Toilets (HETs) for free to qualifying
residents. The cost of the HET is funded by Upper District and MWD. MWD can only
provide funding for High HETs (1.28 gallons per flush or less), which use 20 percent
less than Ultra-Low Flush Toilets (ULFTs) (1.6 gallons per flush). A total of 26,960
HETs/ULFTs have been provided through this program since in first began in fiscal year
1992-93. Based on an estimated service life of 20 years for each HET, the total annual
savings for the 26,960 HETs/ULFTs is estimated at 1,005 acre-feet. More information
regarding the residential ultra-low-flush toilet replacement program is located in MWD’s
2010 RUWMP, which is incorporated by reference.
6.2 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES NOT IMPLEMENTED
Section 10631
(g) An evaluation of each water demand management measure listed in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (f) that is not currently being implemented or scheduled for
implementation. In the course of the evaluation, first consideration shall be given to
water demand management measures, or combination of measures, that offer lower
incremental costs than expanded or additional water supplies. This evaluation shall
do all of the following:
(1) Take into account economic and non-economic factors, including environmental,
social, health, customer impact, and technological factors.
(2) Include a cost-benefit analysis, identifying total benefits and total costs.
(3) Include a description of funding available to implement any planned water supply
project that would provide water at a higher unit cost.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6-15
(4) Include a description of the water supplier’s legal authority to implement the
measure and efforts to work with other relevant agencies to ensure the
implementation of the measure and to share the cost of implementation.
6.2.1 WHOLESALE AGENCY PROGRAMS [10631(F)(1)(J)]
The City is a retail water supplier therefore cannot implement wholesale agency
programs. However, as a member of Upper District, the City participates in Upper
District's wholesale agency programs.
CITY OF ARCADIA
2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
7-1
Chapter 7
COMPLETED URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CHECKLIST
A completed Plan checklist, with page information indicating where the required
element can be found within the Plan, is provided in Appendix P.
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Text\Text Format\Arcadia 2010 UWMPDraft(030111).doc
FIGURES
CITY OF ARCADIA
STETSON ENGINEERS INC.Covina San Rafael Mesa, Arizona
HISTORICAL BALDWIN PARK KEY WELL ELEVATION
WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERS
FIGURE 1
180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330
10/37
10/38
10/39
10/40
10/41
10/42
10/43
10/44
10/45
10/46
10/47
10/48
10/49
10/50
10/51
10/52
10/53
10/54
10/55
10/56
10/57
10/58
10/59
10/60
10/61
10/62
10/63
10/64
10/65
10/66
10/67
10/68
10/69
10/70
10/71
10/72
10/73
10/74
10/75
10/76
10/77
10/78
10/79
10/80
10/81
10/82
10/83
10/84
10/85
10/86
10/87
10/88
10/89
10/90
10/91
10/92
10/93
10/94
10/95
10/96
10/97
10/98
10/99
10/00
10/01
10/02
10/03
10/04
10/05
10/06
10/07
10/08
10/09
ELEVATION IN FEET
HISTORIC LOW (189.2 FEET)
WATER YEAR
HISTORIC RECORDED HIGH 329.1FEET IN 1916
Z:\Jobs\2343\Figures\Figure 1 Key Well Elevation
TABLES
Agencies
Participated in
Developing the Plan
Commented on the Draft
Attended Public
Meetings
Was
Contacted for
A
ssistanc
e
Was Sent a
Copy of the Draft Plan
Was Sent a Notice of Intent to A
dopt
Not
Involved/ No Information
Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster
X
Raymond Basin Management Board
XUpper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water DistrictXXCity of Arcadia City Clerk's Office
XX
County of Los Angeles Registrar / Recorder
X
City of Monrovia
X
City of Pasadena Water & Power Department
X
City of Sierra Madre
X
East Pasadena Water Company
X
Golden State Water Company
X
San Gabriel Valley Water Company
X
Sunny Slope Water Company
X
TABLE 1
COORDINATION WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 1- Coord Agencies
TABLE 2
ANNUAL RAINFALL IN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
FROM 1958-59 THROUGH 2008-09*
WATER YEARRAINFALL IN INCHES
1958-598.5
1959-6010.6
1960-615.9
1961-6222.4
1962-6312.3
1963-649.4
1964-6515.2
1965-6619.6
1966-6725.0
1967-6815.0
1968-6930.5
1969-7011.1
1970-7113.3
1971-728.5
1972-7322.4
1973-7416.8
1974-7514.9
1975-7612.1
1976-7714.5
1977-7838.4
1978-7923.9
1979-8034.8
1980-8110.3
1981-8218.9
1982-8339.3
1983-8410.6
1984-8514.6
1985-8622.0
1986-879.1
1987-8814.9
1988-8911.2
1989-9012.4
1990-9115.1
1991-9222.8
1992-9335.9
1993-9411.6
1994-9530.4
1995-9615.6
1996-9717.5
1997-9836.1
1998-998.6
1999-0014.4
15.5
6.4
2002-0319.4
2003-0412.7
2004-0545.3
2005-0616.8
2006-074.9
2007-0816.4
2008-0914.0
TOTAL907.8
51-YEAR AVERAGE17.8
*Annual rainfall determined as the average of rainfall at San Dimas
(station 95), Pomona (station 356C), El Monte (station 108D), and
Pasadena (station 610B).
Pomona (station 356C) replaced Walnut (station 102D) in 2000-01.
2000-01
2001-02
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 2 -Historical Rainfall Rev
JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberAnnual
Average Rainfall (in.)
3.65.51.91.20.50.10.00.00.21.01.42.417.8
Average Temperature (oF)
54545659616972777670615763.8
Evapotranspiration (in.)
2.22.84.05.15.96.67.46.85.74.02.71.955.1Source: Rainfall data from average of four LA County Department of Public Works rainfall stations. Temperature data from www.city-data.com for San Gabriel Valley.Evapotranspiration data from California Irrigation Management Information System.Table 3
Climate
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\/Table 3 - Climate
Fiscal Year Population within the City's
Service Area
Percent Average Annual Increase
of the Population within the City
2004-0553,677--
2009-1054,5040.31
2014-1555,5060.37
2019-2056,5080.36
2024-2557,5100.35
2029-3058,5120.35
2034-3559,5140.34
TABLE 4
CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
Source: Based on May 2010 Draft Water Supply Assessment prepared for the City of Arcadia’s
General Plan Update. Population projections were based on data obtained from the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG). The SCAG data incorporates demographic trends,
existing land use, general plan land use policies, and input and projections from the Department of
Finance (DOF) and the US Census Bureau.
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 4 - Population (Arcadia)
Single
Family
Residential
Multi Family Residential
CommercialIndustrial
Landscape Irrigation
Institutional / Governmental
Sub Total
2004-05No. of Metered Accounts8,990946610017914210,86710,867Metered Deliveries (AF)
9,4602,2712,3530419
769
15,272
65815,930
2009-10No. of Metered Accounts11,3881,094818
0223
142
13,665
13,665
Metered Deliveries (AF)
8,5751,9141,9930622
592
13,6952,10215,798
2014-15No. of Metered Accounts11,4781,128824
0259
144
13,833
13,833
Metered Deliveries (AF)
9,2322,1422,2240533
697
14,8281,64816,475
2019-20No. of Metered Accounts11,5681,163831
0295
146
14,002
14,002
Metered Deliveries (AF)
8,3541,9382,0130482
631
13,4181,49114,909
2024-25No. of Metered Accounts11,6591,199837
0331
148
14,173
14,173
Metered Deliveries (AF)
8,5021,9732,0490491
642
13,6561,51715,173
2029-30No. of Metered Accounts11,7501,236843
0367
150
14,347
14,347
Metered Deliveries (AF)
8,6502,0072,0840499
653
13,8941,54415,438
2034-35No. of Metered Accounts11,8431,274850
0403
152
14,522
14,522
Metered Deliveries (AF)
8,7992,0412,1200508
664
14,1321,57015,702
AF = Acre-FeetNumber of metered accounts and deliveries for 2005 and 2010 were based on information provided by City of ArcadiaProjected number of metered accounts from 2015 to 2035 were based on average projected annual percentage increase in metered accounts from the 2005 Arcadia UWMP.Project deliveries from 2015 to 2035 were based on Arcadia's Demands (See Table 8), average percent use within customer classes, and 10 percent system losses (average losses between 2006 and 2010)TABLE 5
PAST, CURRENT, AND PROJECTED WATER DELIVERIES
Fiscal YearDescription
Total
Water Use Sectors
System Losses
Fiscal
Year
Total Demands
(1)
Metered
Deliveries (2)
Unaccounted
Use (3)
Projected Water
Demand for
Lower Income
Households (4)
Urban Water
Use Target (5)
(GPCD)
2004-0515,93015,272658
2005-0616,78515,7151,070
2006-0718,66817,6101,058
2007-0817,52415,5162,008
2008-0916,76314,7262,037
2009-1015,79813,6952,102
2014-1516,47514,8281,6483,116265
2019-2014,90913,4181,4912,470235
2024-2515,17313,6561,5172,870235
2029-3015,43813,8941,5442,920235
2034-3515,70214,1321,5702,970235
(2) See Table 5
(3) Historical unaccounted use is equal to demand minus delivery ; Projected unaccounted use is
based on 10 percent system losses (from 2006 to 2010)
(4) Included in "Total Demands" ; Lower income demands are approximately 27.4 percent of total
residential demands
(5) See Chapter 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 for urban water use target and interim urban water use target,
respectively
TABLE 6
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
(ACRE-FEET)
(1) See Table 7 for 2005 to 2010 demands; Projected water demands based on Urban Water Use
Target and populations (Table 4).
A
verage Per Capita Water Us
e
10-Year
Continuous (2)
(gpcd)
5-Year
Continuous (3)
(gpcd)
1995-9616,72714,932,880
48,645
307
1996-9717,27915,425,703
49,102
314
1997-9815,07913,461,822
49,560
272
1998-9916,05314,331,107
50,017
287
1999-0017,87915,961,226
50,474
316
2000-0117,18315,340,116
50,932
301
2001-0217,01415,188,983
51,768
293
2002-0316,70114,909,598
52,604
283
2003-0418,05716,120,224
53,440
302
2004-0515,93014,221,629
53,677
265294
2005-0616,78514,984,499
53,914
278291
2006-0718,66816,665,344
53,977
309291
2007-0817,52415,644,372
54,040
289292289
2008-0916,76314,965,341
54,104
277291284
2009-1015,79814,103,430
54,504
25928628210-Year Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use=294
gallons per capita per day. (4)
5-Year Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use=
289
gallons per capita per day. (5)
(2)
Average per capita water use for first base period of 10-year continuous, ending no earlier than December 31, 2004 and no later than December 31, 2010.
(3)
Average per capita water use for second base period of 5-year continuous, ending no earlier than December 31, 2007 and no later than December 31, 2010.
(4)
Highest value calculated for a 10-year continuous period between 1995 and 2009.
(5)
Highest value calculated for a 5-year continuous period between 2004 and 2009.CALCULATION OF BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USETABLE 7
Calculated
Gross Water Use (gallons per day)
(1)
Based on data from the Southern California Association of Governments, Department of Finance, and US Census BureauPopulation within City's Service Area (1)
Calculated Daily per
Capita Use (gpcd)
Fiscal Yea
r
Total Water Supply (Excluding
Recycled Water (in Service Area
(
AF
)
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 7 - SBX7_7 (Arcadia).xls
Fiscal
Year
Population within
City's Service Area (1)
Urban Water Use
Target (2) (gpcd)
Total Demands
(gpd)
Total Demands
(AF)
2014-1555,50626514,687,51716,452
2019-2056,50823513,291,25114,888
2024-2557,51023513,526,93215,152
2029-3058,51223513,762,61215,416
2034-3559,51423513,998,29315,680
(1) See Table 4
(2) See Table 7
TABLE 8
PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS BASED ON URBAN WATER USE TARGETS
(ACRE-FEET)
TABLE 9
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES (NORMAL YEAR)
(ACRE-FEET)
Imported Water Supplies
Main Basin
Raymond Basin
(2)
Groundwater Delivered
by the City of Arcadia to the City of Sierra Madre (3)
Sub Total
Groundwater
Percentage
Groundwater of Total Supply
MWD
(4)
Historical1994-957,8637,437
0
15,300100.0%
0
0
15,300
1995-9611,2155,512
0
16,727100.0%
0
0
16,727
1996-9710,1767,103
0
17,279100.0%
0
0
17,279
1997-989,3285,751
0
15,079100.0%
0
0
15,079
1998-998,7377,315
0
16,053100.0%
0
0
16,053
1999-0011,6966,183
0
17,879100.0%
0
0
17,879
2000-0111,1616,022
0
17,183100.0%
0
0
17,183
2001-0211,4185,596
0
17,014100.0%
0
0
17,014
2002-0312,1534,548
0
16,701100.0%
0
0
16,701
2003-0412,4395,078
0
17,51697.0%
541
0
18,057
2004-0510,0026,176
(247)
15,930100.0%
0
0
15,930
2005-069,2307,609
(54)
16,785100.0%
0
0
16,785
2006-0712,2866,382
0
18,668100.0%
0
0
18,668
2007-0812,6864,811
(68)
17,42999.5%
95
0
17,524
2008-0910,7804,584
0
15,36491.7%
1,399
0
16,763
2009-1011,4784,034
0
15,51298.2%
286
0
15,798
Projected (Normal Year)2014-1511,4435,009
0
16,452100.0%
0
0
16,452
2019-209,5795,009
0
14,58898.0%
0
300
14,888
2024-259,4995,009
0
14,50895.7%
0
644
15,152
2029-309,7635,009
0
14,77295.8%
0
644
15,416
2034-3510,0275,009
0
15,03695.9%
0
644
15,680
(1)
See Table 8 for total projected normal year demands(3)
Groundwater pumped by the City of Arcadia and delivered to the City of Sierra Madre for Main Basin management purposes
(4)
Treated water deliveries from USG-6 were made in response to a request from the Main Basin Watermaster, although groundwater supplies and capacity were available. The City does not typically use USG-6 because the City's collective groundwater supplies are sufficient to meet total water demands.Fiscal Year
Total
(1)
Groundwater Supplies
(2)
Raymond Basin supplies include 30 percent reduction over five years for all Decreed Rights to the Pasadena Subarea beginning fiscal year 2009-10. Projected Raymond Basin supplies include 1,482.6 AfY from the Pasadena Subarea and 3,526.0 AFY from the Santa Anita Subarea.Recycled Water Supplies
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 9 and 10- Historical and Projected (Arcadia).xls
TABLE 10
PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES (SINGLE AND MULTIPLE DRY YEARS)(ACRE-FEET)
Imported Water Supplies
Main Basin
Raymond Basin
Sub Total
Groundwater
Percentage
Groundwater of Total Supply
MWD
Projected (Single Dry Year)2014-1513,2895,00918,298100.0%
0
0
18,298
2019-2011,2495,00916,25898.2%
0
300
16,558
2024-2511,1995,00916,20896.2%
0
644
16,852
2029-3011,4925,00916,50196.2%
0
644
17,145
2034-3511,7865,00916,79596.3%
0
644
17,439
Projected (Multiple Dry Year 1)2014-1513,2895,00918,298100.0%
0
0
18,298
2019-2011,2495,00916,25898.2%
0
300
16,558
2024-2511,1995,00916,20896.2%
0
644
16,852
2029-3011,4925,00916,50196.2%
0
644
17,145
2034-3511,7865,00916,79596.3%
0
644
17,439
Projected (Multiple Dry Year 2)2014-1512,1685,00917,177100.0%
0
0
17,177
2019-2010,2355,00915,24498.1%
0
300
15,544
2024-2510,1665,00915,17595.9%
0
644
15,819
2029-3010,4425,00915,45196.0%
0
644
16,095
2034-3510,7185,00915,72796.1%
0
644
16,371
Projected (Multiple Dry Year 3)2014-1511,4225,00916,431100.0%
0
0
16,431
2019-209,5605,00914,56998.0%
0
300
14,869
2024-259,4805,00914,48995.7%
0
644
15,133
2029-309,7435,00914,75295.8%
0
644
15,396
2034-3510,0075,00915,01695.9%
0
644
15,660
(1)
See Table 14 and Table 15 for total projected single dry and multiple dry year demandsFiscal Year
Total
(1)
Groundwater Supplies
Recycled Water Supplies
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 9 and 10- Historical and Projected (Arcadia).xls
Year 1Year 2Year 3
(2005-06)(2006-07)(2006-07)(2007-08)(2008-09)
City Water Production16,78518,66818,66817,52416,763
Percent of Normal Year Supply111.2%111.2%104.4%99.9%
See Table 9 for historical production
TABLE 11
SUPPLY RELIABILITY - HISTORICAL CONDITIONS
(ACRE-FEET)
Average/
Normal Year
Single Dry
Year
Multiple Dry Years
Year 2010-11 (2)Year 2011-12 (2)Year 2012-13 (2)
Total Supply16,78518,66817,52416,763
(1) See Table 9 (Based on year 2005-06)
(2) See Table 9 (Years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 based on years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, respectively)
TABLE 12
SUPPLY RELIABILITY - THREE-YEAR ESTIMATED MINIMUM
(ACRE-FEET PER YEAR)
Sources of Supply Normal Year
(2005-06) (1)
Multiple Dry Years
2014-152019-202024-252029-302034-35
Projected Normal Water Year Supply
Total Supply (1)16,45214,88815,15215,41615,680
Projected Normal Water Year Demand
Demand (2)16,45214,88815,15215,41615,680
Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Difference (Supply minus Demand)00000
(1) See Table 9.
TABLE 13
PROJECTED NORMAL WATER YEAR SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON
(ACRE-FEET)
(2) See Table 8.
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 13 - Normal Year (Arcadia).xls
2014-152019-202024-252029-302034-35
Projected Single-Dry Year Water Supply
Total Supply (1)18,29816,55816,85217,14517,439
Projected Single-Dry Year Water Demand
Demand (2)18,29816,55816,85217,14517,439
Projected Single-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison
Difference (Supply minus Demand)00000
(1) See Table 10.
(2) Based on ratio between Normal Water Year with Single-Dry Year. See Tables 8 and 11.
TABLE 14
PROJECTED SINGLE-DRY WATER YEAR SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON
(ACRE-FEET)
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 14 - Single Dry Year (Arcadia).xls
Multiple Dry Year 1
2014-152019-202024-252029-302034-35
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply Supply (1)
18,29816,55816,85217,14517,439
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Demand Demand
(2)
18,29816,55816,85217,14517,439
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand ComparisonDifference (Supply minus Demand)
0
0
0
0
0
Multiple Dry Year 2
2014-152019-202024-252029-302034-35
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply Supply (1)
17,17715,54415,81916,09516,371
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Demand Demand
(2)
17,17715,54415,81916,09516,371
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand ComparisonDifference (Supply minus Demand)
0
0
0
0
0
Multiple Dry Year 3
2014-152019-202024-252029-302034-35
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply Supply (1)
16,43114,86915,13315,39615,660
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Demand Demand
(2)
16,43114,86915,13315,39615,660
Projected Multiple-Dry Year Water Supply and Demand ComparisonDifference (Supply minus Demand)
0
0
0
0
0
(1) See Table 10.(2) Based on ratio between Normal Water Year with Multiple Dry Years. See Tables 8 and 11.TABLE 15
PROJECTED MULTIPLE-DRY YEAR
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON(ACRE-FEET)
Z:\Jobs\2276\07 UWMP2010\Tables\Table 15 - Multi Dry Year (Arcadia).xls
PLATES