City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Executive Summary

The City of Azusa prepared this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the City from the effects of natural disasters and hazard events. This plan demonstrates the community’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources. This plan was also developed in order for the City to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program.

Each year in the United States, natural disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters, because additional expenses to insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated. The purpose of hazard mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long- term risk to people and property from hazards

LHMP Plan Development Process

Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified, likely impacts determined, mitigation goals set, and appropriate mitigation strategies determined, prioritized, and implemented. This plan documents the hazard mitigation planning process and identifies relevant hazards and vulnerabilities and strategies the City will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability in the community.

This LHMP was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007. The City followed a planning process prescribed by FEMA as detailed in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Process

City of Azusa i Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

DMA Process Modified CRS Process 3) Develop the Mitigation Plan 201.6(c)(3)(i) 6) Set Goals 201.6(c)(3)(ii) 7) Review Possible Activities 201.6(c)(3)(iii) 8) Draft an Action Plan 4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress 201.6(c)(5) 9) Adopt the Plan 201.6(c)(4) 10) Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan

The planning process began with the organizational phase to establish the hazard mitigation planning committee (HMPC) comprised of key City representatives, and other local and regional stakeholders; to involve the public; and to coordinate with other departments and agencies. A detailed risk assessment was then conducted followed by the development of a focused mitigation strategy for Azusa. Once approved by Cal OES and FEMA, this plan will be adopted and implemented by the City over the next five years.

Risk Assessment

The HMPC conducted a risk assessment that identified and profiled hazards that pose a risk to the City, assessed the vulnerability of the planning area to these hazards, and examined the existing capabilities to mitigate them.

The City is vulnerable to numerous hazards that are identified, profiled, and analyzed in this plan. Dam failures, floods, earthquakes, drought, liquefaction, landslides, wildfires, and other severe weather events are among the hazards that can have a significant impact on the City. Table ES-2 details the hazards identified for the City LHMP.

City of Azusa ii Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Table ES-2 Azusa Hazard Identification Assessment

Geographic Likelihood of Magnitude/ Climate Change Hazard Extent Future Occurrences Severity Significance Impacts Climate Change Extensive Likely Negligible Low --- Dam Failure Extensive Unlikely Catastrophic High Low Drought and Water Medium Shortage Extensive Likely Limited Medium Earthquake Extensive Likely Catastrophic High Low Earthquake Liquefaction Extensive Occasional Catastrophic High Low Flood: 1%/0.2% chance Significant Occasional/ Unlikely Critical Medium Medium Flood: Medium Localized/Stormwater Limited Highly Likely Negligible Medium Landslide and Mudslides Limited Likely Limited Low Low Levee Failure Limited Unlikely Negligible Medium Low Severe Weather: Medium Extreme Heat Extensive Highly Likely Negligible Low Severe Weather: Heavy Medium Rains and Storms Extensive Highly Likely Negligible Medium Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes Extensive Highly Likely Limited Low Low Wildfire Significant Likely Critical High Medium Geographic Extent Magnitude/Severity Limited: Less than 10% of City Catastrophic—More than 50 percent of property severely damaged; Significant: 10-50% of City shutdown of facilities for more than 30 days; and/or multiple deaths Extensive: 50-100% of City Critical—25-50 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities Probability of Future Occurrences for at least two weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent Highly Likely: Near 100% chance of disability occurrence in next year, or happens every Limited—10-25 percent of property severely damaged, shutdown of year. facilities for more than a week; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable do not Likely: Between 10 and 100% chance of result in permanent disability occurrence in next year, or has a Negligible—Less than 10 percent of property severely damaged, shutdown recurrence interval of 10 years or less. of facilities and services for less than 24 hours; and/or injuries/illnesses Occasional: Between 1 and 10% chance treatable with first aid of occurrence in the next year, or has a Significance recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. Low: minimal potential impact Unlikely: Less than 1% chance of Medium: moderate potential impact occurrence in next 100 years, or has a High: widespread potential impact recurrence interval of greater than every Climate Change Impact: 100 years. Low: Climate change is not likely to increase the probability of this hazard. Medium: Climate change is likely to increase the probability of this hazard. High: Climate change is very likely to increase the probability of this hazard.

Strategy

Based on the results of the risk assessment, the HMPC developed a mitigation strategy for reducing the City’s risk and vulnerability to hazards. The resulting Mitigation Strategy for Azusa is comprised of LHMP

City of Azusa iii Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

goals and objectives and a mitigation action plan which includes a series of mitigation action projects and implementation measures.

The goals and objectives of this LHMP are:

➢ Goal 1: Minimize risk and vulnerability of Azusa to natural hazards and protect lives and prevent losses to property, public heath, economy, and the environment. ✓ Objective 1.1: Reduce the risk and vulnerability to the community from all identified hazards of concern, with an emphasis on priority hazards, such as wildfire, flood, and earthquake. ✓ Objective 1.1: Provide protection for existing and future development. ✓ Objective 1.2: Provide protection for critical facilities, utilities, and services. ✓ Objective 1.3: Provide protection for natural resources and the environment.

➢ Goal 2: Increase community education, awareness, and preparedness to hazards of concern and promote participation and action to reduce hazard-related losses. ✓ Objective 2.1: Improve resiliency from hazard events by increasing awareness and emphasizing preparedness for city workers and residents. ✓ Objective 2.2: Inform and educate residents and businesses about all hazards they are exposed to, where they occur, what they can do to mitigate exposure or damages. ✓ Objective 2.3: Make developers, builders, and the public aware that these mitigation measure are cost effective and in their long-term best interest ✓ Objective 2.4: Increase use of technologies to better inform the public, before, during, and after an emergency.

➢ Goal 3: Improve community’s capabilities to prevent/mitigate hazard-related losses and to be prepared for, respond to, and recover from a disaster event. ✓ Objective 3.1: Continued improvements to emergency management capabilities to protect the safety of all constituents, reduce losses, and speed community recovery. ✓ Objective 3.2: Make better use of technologies to enhance community preparedness and readiness. ✓ Objective 3.3: Update, strengthen, and integrate community disaster preparedness, emergency response, and recovery plans. ✓ Objective 3.4: Establish and coordinate departmental/agency policies and responsibilities for hazard events through disaster planning and exercising ✓ Objective 3.5: Maintain community access to essential services and maintain current service levels during a hazard event. ✓ Objective 3.6: Ensure availability of mutual aid resources and cooperation between all agencies. ✓ Objective 3.6: Promote hazard policies and standards in the Safety Element of the General Plan.

Actions to support these goals are shown on Table ES-3.

City of Azusa iv Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Table ES-3 Azusa’s City Planning Team Mitigation Actions

Address Address Continued Goals Existing Future Compliance Hazard/ Mitigation Action Title Addressed Hazards Addressed Development Development with NFIP Mitigation Type Multi-Hazard Mitigation Actions 1. Integrate Local Hazard Mitigation 1, 2, 3 Dam Failure, Drought and Water X X Prevention Plan into Safety Element of General Shortage, Earthquake, Earthquake Plan Liquefaction, Flood: 1%/0.2% chance, Flood: Localized/Stormwater, Landslide and Mudslides, Levee Failure, Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms, Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes, and Wildfire 2. Public Awareness, Education, 1, 2, 3 Dam Failure, Drought and Water X X Public Information Outreach, and Preparedness Program Shortage, Earthquake, Earthquake Enhancements. Liquefaction, Flood: 1%/0.2% chance, Flood: Localized/Stormwater, Landslide and Mudslides, Levee Failure, Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms, Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes, and Wildfire 3. Establish CERT Program 1, 2, 3 Dam Failure, Drought and Water X X Emergency Service Shortage, Earthquake, Earthquake Liquefaction, Flood: 1%/0.2% chance, Flood: Localized/Stormwater, Landslide and Mudslides, Levee Failure, Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms, Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes, and Wildfire

City of Azusa v Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Address Address Continued Goals Existing Future Compliance Hazard/ Mitigation Action Title Addressed Hazards Addressed Development Development with NFIP Mitigation Type 4. Develop Emergency Operations Plan 1, 2, 3 Dam Failure, Drought and Water X X Emergency Services (EOP) Update and all Annexes Shortage, Earthquake, Earthquake Liquefaction, Flood: 1%/0.2% chance, Flood: Localized/Stormwater, Landslide and Mudslides, Levee Failure, Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms, Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes, and Wildfire 5. Evacuation Planning 1, 2, 3 Dam Failure, Drought and Water X X Emergency Services Shortage, Earthquake, Earthquake Liquefaction, Flood: 1%/0.2% chance, Flood: Localized/Stormwater, Landslide and Mudslides, Levee Failure, Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms, Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes, and Wildfire 6. City Ordinance and Regulatory 1, 2, 3 Dam Failure, Drought and Water X X X Prevention Updates for All Hazards Shortage, Earthquake, Earthquake Property Protection Liquefaction, Flood: 1%/0.2% Natural Resource chance, Flood: Protection Localized/Stormwater, Landslide Public Information and Mudslides, Levee Failure, Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms, Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes, and Wildfire

City of Azusa vi Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Address Address Continued Goals Existing Future Compliance Hazard/ Mitigation Action Title Addressed Hazards Addressed Development Development with NFIP Mitigation Type 7. Coordinate Mitigation Efforts 1, 2, 3 Dam Failure, Drought and Water X X X Prevention Shortage, Earthquake, Earthquake Property Protection Liquefaction, Flood: 1%/0.2% Structural Projects chance, Flood: Natural Resource Localized/Stormwater, Landslide Protection and Mudslides, Levee Failure, Public Information Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Emergency Services Storms, Severe Weather: High Public Information Winds and Tornadoes, and Wildfire 8. GIS Mapping and Data Updates 1, 2, 3 Dam Failure, Earthquake, X X X Prevention Earthquake Liquefaction, Flood: Property Protection 1%/0.2% chance, Flood: Emergency Services Localized/Stormwater, Landslide and Mudslides, Levee Failure, Tornadoes, and Wildfire

9. Above Ground Storage Tanks 1, 2, 3 Drought and Water Shortage, X X Property Protection Earthquake, and Wildfire Structural Projects Natural Resource Protection Emergency Services 10. Access Road Improvements 1, 2, 3 Dam Failure, Drought and Water X X Property Protection Shortage, Earthquake, Earthquake Emergency Services Liquefaction, Flood: 1%/0.2% chance, Flood: Localized/Stormwater, Landslide and Mudslides, Levee Failure, Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms, Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes, and Wildfire

City of Azusa vii Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Address Address Continued Goals Existing Future Compliance Hazard/ Mitigation Action Title Addressed Hazards Addressed Development Development with NFIP Mitigation Type Climate Change Actions 11. Climate Change Planning 1, 2, 3 Climate Change (and all hazards X X Prevention affected by it) Property Protection Natural Resource Protection Public Information Drought Actions 12. Drought Program 1, 2, 3 Drought and Water Shortage X X Prevention Property Protection Natural Resource Protection Public Information Earthquake and Liquefaction Actions 13. Earthquake Program 1, 2, 3 Earthquake, Liquefaction, and X X Prevention Dam Failure Property Protection Structural Projects Flood, Localized Flood, Levee Failure, and Dam Failure Actions 14. Flood/Stormwater Program 1, 2, 3 Localized Flood, Flood (1% and X X X Prevention .2% Annual Chance), Levee Property Protection Failure, Dam Failure Structural Projects Natural Resource Protection Landslide Actions 15. Landslide Program 1, 2, 3 Landslide X X Prevention Property Protection Emergency Services

City of Azusa viii Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Address Address Continued Goals Existing Future Compliance Hazard/ Mitigation Action Title Addressed Hazards Addressed Development Development with NFIP Mitigation Type Severe Weather Actions 16. Severe Weather Program 1, 2, 3 Drought, Heavy Rains and Storms, X X Prevention High Winds and Tornadoes Property Protection Structural Projects Natural Resource Protection Emergency Services Public Information Wildfire Actions 17. Wildfire Program – Fuels 1, 2, 3 Wildfire X X Prevention Management Property Protection Natural Resource Protection 18. Wildfire Program – Water 1, 2, 3 Wildfire, Drought and Water X X Property Protection Management Shortage Natural Resource Protection

City of Azusa ix Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Table of Contents

Chapters

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1-1 1.2 Background and Scope ...... 1-1 1.3 Plan Organization ...... 1-2 2 Community Profile...... 1-3 2.1 City of Azusa ...... 2-1 2.2 History ...... 2-3 2.3 Geography and Climate ...... 2-3 2.4 Economy and Tax Base ...... 2-3 2.5 Population and Socioeconomic Profile ...... 2-5 3 PLANNING PROCESS ...... 3-1 3.1 Local Government Participation...... 3-1 3.2 The 10-Step Planning Process ...... 3-2 3.2.1 Phase 1: Organize Resources ...... 3-3 3.2.2 Phase 2: Assess Risks ...... 3-9 3.2.3 Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan ...... 3-10 3.2.4 Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress ...... 3-10 4 RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 4-1 4.1 Hazard Identification: Natural Hazards ...... 4-2 4.1.1. Methodology and Results ...... 4-2 4.1.2. Disaster Declaration History ...... 4-4 4.2 Hazard Profiles ...... 4-10 4.2.1. Severe Weather: General ...... 4-12 4.2.2. Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Hazard Profile...... 4-14 4.2.3. Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms Hazard Profile ...... 4-21 4.2.4. Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes ...... 4-31 4.2.5. Climate Change Hazard Profile ...... 4-36 4.2.6. Dam Failure Hazard Profile ...... 4-41 4.2.7. Drought and Water Shortage Hazard Profile ...... 4-48 4.2.8. Earthquake Hazard Profile ...... 4-58 4.2.9. Earthquake: Liquefaction Hazard Profile ...... 4-73 4.2.10. Flood: 1%/0.2% Annual Chance Hazard Profile ...... 4-74 4.2.11. Localized Flooding Hazard Profile ...... 4-87 4.2.12. Landslides and Mudslides Hazard Profile ...... 4-89 4.2.13. Levee Failure Hazard Profile ...... 4-93

City of Azusa x Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

4.2.14. Wildfire Hazard Profile...... 4-98 4.2.15. Natural Hazards Summary ...... 4-107 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4-108 4.3.1. Azusa’s Vulnerability and Assets at Risk ...... 4-109 4.3.2. Azusa’s Vulnerability to Specific Hazards ...... 4-132 4.3.3. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4-133 4.3.4. Dam Failure Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4-136 4.3.5. Drought and Water Shortage Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4-154 4.3.6. Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4-156 4.3.7. Earthquake: Liquefaction Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4-158 4.3.8. Flood: 1%/0.2% Annual Chance Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4-166 4.3.9. Flood: Localized Stormwater Flooding Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4-182 4.3.10. Levee Failure Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4-183 4.3.11. Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4-185 4.3.12. Wildfire Vulnerability Assessment ...... 4-185 4.4 Capability Assessment ...... 4-198 4.4.1. City of Azusa’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities ...... 4-198 4.4.2. City of Azusa’s Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities ...... 4-207 4.4.3. City of Azusa’s Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities ...... 4-208 4.4.4. Mitigation Education, Outreach, and Partnerships ...... 4-210 4.4.5. Other Mitigation Efforts ...... 4-210 5 MITIGATION STRATEGY ...... 5-1 5.1 Mitigation Strategy: Overview ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Continued Compliance with NFIP ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Integration of Mitigation with Post Disaster Recovery and Mitigation Strategy Funding Opportunities ...... 5-2 5.2 Goals and Objectives ...... 5-4 5.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions ...... 5-6 5.31 Prioritization Process ...... 5-7 5.4 Mitigation Action Plan ...... 5-9 6 PLAN ADOPTION ...... 6-1 7 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE ...... 7-1 7.1 Implementation ...... 7-1 7.1.1 Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee in Implementation and Maintenance ...... 7-2 7.2 Maintenance ...... 7-2 7.2.1 Maintenance Schedule ...... 7-3 7.2.2 Maintenance Evaluation Process ...... 7-3 7.2.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ...... 7-5 7.2.4 Continued Public Involvement ...... 7-6

City of Azusa xi Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Appendices

Appendix A: Planning Process

Appendix B: References

Appendix C: Mitigation Strategy

Appendix D: Adoption Resolution

Appendix E: Critical Facilities

City of Azusa xii Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Acronym Definition AB Assembly Bill AGL Above Ground Level AHJ Authorities Having Jurisdiction AHPS Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service ALERT Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time ALW Azusa Light and Water APG California Adaptation Planning Guide APU Azusa Pacific University BAM Best Available Map BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices CA California CA-DWR California Department of Water Resources Cal OES California Office of Emergency Services CAP Climate Adaptation Plan CAS Climate Adaptation Strategy CBC California Business Code CDAA California Disaster Assistance Act CDEC California Data Exchange Center CDFA California Department of Food & Agriculture CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERT Community Emergency Response Training CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geologic Survey CHP California Highway Patrol CIP Capital Improvements Plan CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision CNPS California Native Plant Society CNRA California Natural Resource Agency CRS (National Flood Insurance Program’s) Community Rating System CRV Content Replacement Values CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan DMA Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

City of Azusa xiii Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Acronym Definition DOF Department of Finance DOT Department of Transportation DSOD Division of Safety of Dams EAS Emergency Alert System EF Enhanced Fujita EOC Emergency Operations Center EOP Emergency Operations Plan EWP Emergency Watershed Protection Program F Fujita FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS Flood Insurance Study FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Program FRA Federal Responsibility Area FWS US Fish and Wildlife Service GHG Greenhouse Gases GIS Geographic Information Systems HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HI Heat Index IBC International Business Code IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRC International Residential Code LCPW Los Angeles County Public Works LFPZ Levee Flood Protection Zone LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan LOMA Letter of Map Amendment LOMR Letter of Map Revision LRA Local Responsibility Area MGD Million Gallons per Day MHDP Multi Hazards Demonstration Project MMHW Mean Higher High Water MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale MSL Mean Sea Level NASA National Aerospace and Science Agency NAVD 88 North America Vertical Datum 1988 NCDC National Climactic Data Center

City of Azusa xiv Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Acronym Definition NDMC National Drought Mitigation Center NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NGVD 29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 NIDIS National Integrated Drought Information System NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDP National Performance of Dams Program NPS National Park Service NWS National Weather Service OHP Office of Historic Preservation PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program PMR Physical Map Revision PPI Program for Public Information PRP Preferred Risk Policy RAWS Remote Automated Weather Stations RL Repetitive Loss SB Senate Bill SBA Small Business Administration SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SGR7 San Gabriel River 7 SHBC State Historical Building Code SOI Sphere of Influence SOP Standardized Operations Procedures SRA State Responsibility Area SRL Severe Repetitive Loss SWP State Water Project TC Tropical cyclone TOD Transit Oriented Development UCERF Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast UHI Urban Heat Island ULDC Urban Levee Design Criteria ULOP Urban Level of Protection Criteria USACE US Army Corp of Engineers USGS United States Geologic Survey

City of Azusa xv Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Acronym Definition USDA United States Department of Agriculture UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone WMP Wildlife Hazard Management Plan WRCC Western Regional Climate Center WUI Wildland Urban Interface

City of Azusa xvi Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

The City of Azusa prepared this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the City from the effects of hazard events. This LHMP demonstrates the community’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources. This LHMP was also developed so the City can be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. 1.2 Background and Scope

Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” The results of a three-year, congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities provides evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $6 in avoided future losses in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries (National Institute of Building Science Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves 2017 Interim Report).

Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified, likely impacts determined, mitigation goals set, and appropriate mitigation strategies determined, prioritized, and implemented. This LHMP documents the City’s hazard mitigation planning process and identifies relevant hazards, vulnerabilities, and mitigation strategies the City will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability in the community.

The Azusa LHMP is a single jurisdictional plan that geographically covers the entire area within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries. This plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007. (Hereafter, these requirements and regulations will be referred to collectively as the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) or DMA 2000.) This planning effort also follows FEMA’s most current Plan Preparation and Review Guidance. While the DMA 2000 emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated mitigation planning and implementation efforts, the regulations established the

City of Azusa 1-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 requirements that local hazard mitigation plans must meet in order for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93-288). Because the City is subject to many kinds of hazards, access to these programs is vital.

Information in this LHMP will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and decisions for local land use policy in the future. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to communities and their residents by protecting critical community facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community impacts and disruptions. Azusa has been affected by hazards in the past and is thus committed to reducing future impacts from hazard events and becoming eligible for mitigation-related federal funding. 1.3 Plan Organization

The City of Azusa’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is organized as follows:

➢ Chapter 1: Introduction ➢ Chapter 2: Community Profile ➢ Chapter 3: Planning Process ➢ Chapter 4: Risk Assessment ➢ Chapter 5: Mitigation Strategy ➢ Chapter 6: Plan Adoption ➢ Chapter 7: Plan Implementation and Maintenance ➢ Appendices

City of Azusa 1-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Chapter 2 Community Profile

2.1 City of Azusa

The City of Azusa was founded in 1887 and incorporated as a general law city on December 29, 1898. The City is located in the County of Los Angeles, situated 27 miles northeast of the City of Los Angeles, and nestled against the San Gabriel Mountain foothills. The City of Azusa encompasses 9.13 square miles. The City is located at the entrance to the San Gabriel Canyon, on the east side of the San Gabriel River.

The dominant regional transportation corridor is the Interstate 210 (Foothill Freeway) providing access to State Route 605 (San Gabriel River Freeway) and Interstate Route 5. The Santa Fe railroad corridor, which played such a key historic role in the development of Azusa’s downtown and industry, will again be a vital regional link as the Gold Line light rail system has been extended east from Pasadena to Azusa. State Route 39, which originally ran from Huntington Beach to the crest of the San Gabriel Mountains, carved out the dominant north-south route through the City, Azusa Avenue. The old Route 66 along Alosta and Foothill Boulevards is no longer a major regional connector, but remains a key feature of the foothill communities along the San Gabriel Mountains between the cities of Pasadena and Glendora.

The City can be seen in Figure 2-1 below.

City of Azusa 2-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 2-1 City of Azusa

City of Azusa 2-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 2.2 History

The first recorded reference to Azusa was found in the diary of Father Juan Crespi, diarist and engineer with Portola Expedition in 1769, then on its way northward from San Diego in search of Monterey Bay. Having come northward through Brea Canyon, Crespi, while camping in the vicinity of Bassett, remarked of the river and the valley to the north. He referred to this area as The Azusa in his diary. Here roamed the Shoshonean-Indian, locally known as the Gabrieleno when the area of Azusa was first inhabited by white immigrants and homesteaders. Their community was known as Asuksa-nga. It is said Azusa was derived from the native American name.

During 1854, gold was discovered in the San Gabriel Canyon and a town named El Doradoville was built at the fork of the San Gabriel to take care of some 2,000 miners who had filed on gold claims along the east fork of the canyon. During the next 20 years, it is estimated that $12 million in gold was mined and shipped to various mints throughout the United States. The town of El Doradoville was destroyed by flood waters in 1861 and 1862.

On December 29, 1898, the City was incorporated as a city of the sixth class. Beginning with a population of 865 in 1899, Azusa grew from 29,380 residents in 1980 to 41,330 residents in 1990, an increase of 41 percent. Since 1990, however, population growth has been relatively moderate, reflecting both the economic recession of the early to mid-1990s, and the limited availability of land remaining for residential development in a mostly built-out community. The US Census Bureau estimated 2010 population for the City as 46,361, while the California Department of Finance estimated the population of the City to be 49,485 on January 1, 2016. 2.3 Geography and Climate

The City of Azusa is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the Cities of Irwindale and Duarte to the west, the City of Covina to the south, and the city of Glendora to the east. The topography of the City is generally flat, with the exception of the northernmost portion of the City.

Azusa has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate. This region experiences warm (but not hot) and dry summers. Temperatures exceed 90F on 77 days each year, on average. The record high temperature for the City occurred on June 17, 1917 and was recorded at 115F. Cold weather is rare, and the City sees temperatures below 32F 10.5 days out of the year on average. Most of the rain occurs from November to March each year. Average annual rainfall for the City is 18.96 inches. Record daily rainfall for the City was 8.95 inches on January 26, 1956. 90 percent of the annual precipitation occurs between November and April. 2.4 Economy and Tax Base

The economy of the San Gabriel Valley, the region that includes Azusa, has demonstrated sustained dynamism over the last decade, weathering the recession of the early 1990s better than Los Angeles County as a whole and creating jobs at a rapid rate since the end of the recession. This is due primarily to the Valley’s lower dependence on the aerospace industries that suffered severe job losses during the 1990s.

City of Azusa 2-3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 The Region’s already diversified economy is showing great promise in the area of high technology, with the Valley’s considerable academic and research infrastructure beginning to generate significant commercial spin-offs. Some traditional industries, such as food processing and light manufacturing, are also growing rapidly and adding significant numbers of jobs. Even some industries that lost many jobs in the 1990s appear to have stabilized, and are restructuring to compete by producing high-quality, specialized, high-value goods. The Valley also enjoys growing service and retail sectors and a healthy real estate market.

The US Census Bureau tracks economic statistics for the City of Azusa. These are shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 City of Azusa Civilian Employed Population 16 years and Over

Industry Estimated Percent Employment Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 169 0.8% Construction 1,221 5.5% Manufacturing 2,844 12.8% Wholesale trade 683 3.1% Retail trade 2,604 11.7% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 1,283 5.8% Information 634 2.9% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 940 4.2% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management 2,556 11.5% services Educational services, and health care and social assistance 5,025 22.6% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 2,239 10.1% Other services, except public administration 1,329 6.0% Public administration 673 3.0% Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2015 Estimates

According to Azusa's 2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the top employers in the City are shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2 City of Azusa Largest Employers

Employer Number of Employees Azusa Pacific University 1,433 Azusa Unified School District 1,250 Northrup Grumman 859 City of Azusa 383 Costco 295 S&S Foods 285 Hanson Distributing 195

City of Azusa 2-4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Employer Number of Employees Buena Vista Food Products 186 Target 142 Artisian Screen 140 Source: Azusa’s 2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

The City has a wide and varied tax base. Table 2-3 shows the breakdown of the City’s taxable values.

Table 2-3 Azusa – Tax Base by Property Use

Property Use Category Parcels Net Taxable Value Percentage of Total Value Commercial 398 $342,637,289 8.9% Government 141 $7,928,268 0.2% Industrial 410 $545,984,174 14.1% Institutional 38 $162,127,824 4.2% Miscellaneous 94 $16,400,864 0.4% Residential 8,535 $2,788,322,500 72.2% Open - No Use Code 294 $0 0.0% Total 9,910 $3,863,400,919 100.00% Source: Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office 2.5 Population and Socioeconomic Makeup

According to 2017 California Department of Finance estimates, the population of the City is 49,762. This represents a moderate increase in population from the 2000 US Census, which estimated the City population at 46,361. Select social and economic information for the City is shown in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4 Azusa– Select Social and Economic Statistics

Statistic Number Populations Population under 5 6.2% Population over 65 8.6% Median Age 28.7 Racial Makeup White 41.9% Black or African American 2.6% American Indian or Alaska Native 0.5% Asian 10.4% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.0% Other Races 40.9%

City of Azusa 2-5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Statistic Number Populations Two or more races 3.8% Income and Poverty Median income $53,315 Mean Income $68,275 Poverty rate All families 14.1% All people 17.6% Unemployment Rate (April 2017) 3.1% Source: 2010 US Census, 2015 US Census American Community Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics

City of Azusa 2-6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Chapter 3 Planning Process

Requirements §201.6(b) and §201.6(c)(1): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: 1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; 2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests to be involved in the planning process; and 3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.

The City of Azusa recognized the need and importance of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and initiated its development. After receiving a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which served as the primary funding source for this plan, the City contracted with Foster Morrison Consulting, Ltd. (Foster Morrison) to facilitate and develop the plan. Jeanine Foster, a professional planner with Foster Morrison, was the project manager in charge of overseeing the planning process and the development of this LHMP. Chris Morrison, also a professional planner with Foster Morrison, was the lead planner for the development of this LHMP. The Foster Morrison’s team’s role was to:

➢ Assist in establishing the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) as defined by the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA); ➢ Meet the DMA requirements as established by federal regulations and following FEMA’s planning guidance; ➢ Support objectives under the NFIPs CRS and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program; ➢ Facilitate the entire planning process; ➢ Identify the data requirements that HMPC participants could provide and conduct the research and documentation necessary to augment that data; ➢ Assist in facilitating the public input process; ➢ Produce the draft and final plan documents; and ➢ Coordinate with the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and FEMA Region IX plan reviews. 3.1 Local Government Participation

The DMA planning regulations and guidance stress that each local government seeking FEMA approval of their mitigation plan must participate in the planning effort in the following ways:

➢ Participate in the process as part of the HMPC; ➢ Detail where within the planning area the risk differs from that facing the entire area;

City of Azusa 3-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Identify potential mitigation actions; and ➢ Formally adopt the plan.

For the City of Azusa, “participation” meant the following:

➢ Providing facilities for meetings; ➢ Providing printed materials and refreshments for meeting attendees; ➢ Attending and participating in the HMPC meetings; ➢ Completing and returning the Data Collection Worksheets; ➢ Collecting and providing other requested data (as available); ➢ Coordinating information sharing between internal and external agencies; ➢ Managing administrative details; ➢ Making decisions on plan process and content; ➢ Identifying mitigation actions for the plan; ➢ Reviewing and providing comments on plan drafts; ➢ Informing the public, local officials, and other interested stakeholders about the planning process and providing opportunity for them to comment on the plan; ➢ Coordinating, and participating in the public input process; and ➢ Coordinating the formal adoption of the plan by the governing board.

Azusa met all of these participation requirements. In most cases one or more representatives for key City department and other local agency stakeholders attended the HMPC meetings described in Table 3-2 and worked together to help collect data, identify mitigation actions and implementation strategies, and review and provide data on plan drafts. Appendix A provides additional information and documentation of the planning process. 3.2 The 10-Step Planning Process

Foster Morrison established the planning process for the City of Azusa LHMP using the DMA planning requirements and FEMA’s associated guidance. This guidance is structured around a four-phase process:

1. Organize Resources; 2. Assess Risks; 3. Develop the Mitigation Plan; and 4. Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress.

Into this process, Foster Morrison integrated a more detailed 10-step planning process used for FEMA’s CRS and FMA programs. Thus, the modified 10-step process used for this plan meets the requirements of six major programs: FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program; CRS program; FMA Program; Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) program; and new flood control projects authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Table 3-1 shows how the modified 10-step process fits into FEMA’s four-phase process. The sections that follow describe each planning step in more detail.

City of Azusa 3-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 3-1 Mitigation Planning Processes Used to Develop the Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan

DMA Process Modified CRS Process 1) Organize Resources 201.6(c)(1) 1) Organize the Planning Effort 201.6(b)(1) 2) Involve the Public 201.6(b)(2) and (3) 3) Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies 2) Assess Risks 201.6(c)(2)(i) 4) Identify the Hazards 201.6(c)(2)(ii) 5) Assess the Risks 3) Develop the Mitigation Plan 201.6(c)(3)(i) 6) Set Goals 201.6(c)(3)(ii) 7) Review Possible Activities 201.6(c)(3)(iii) 8) Draft an Action Plan 4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress 201.6(c)(5) 9) Adopt the Plan 201.6(c)(4) 10) Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan

3.2.1. Phase 1: Organize Resources

Planning Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort

With Azusa’s commitment to participate in the DMA planning process, Foster Morrison worked with the City of Azusa’s Planning Department, as overall project lead, to establish the framework and organization for development of the Plan. An initial call was held with key community representatives to discuss the organizational and process aspects of the planning process.

The initial kick-off meeting was held on March 29, 2017. Invitations to the kickoff meeting were extended to key City departments and other federal, state, and local stakeholders that might have an interest in participating in the planning process. Representatives from the City and key community stakeholders participated in this LHMP project with additional invitations extended as appropriate throughout the planning process. The list of initial invitees is included in Appendix A.

The HMPC was established as a result of the initial kickoff meeting, as well as through interest generated through the initial public meeting and outreach conducted for this project as detailed later in this section. The HMPC, comprising key city, county, special district, and other government and stakeholder representatives and the public, developed the plan with leadership from Azusa Planning and facilitation by Foster Morrison. The following participated on the HMPC:

City of Azusa 3-3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 City of Azusa

➢ Economic/Community Development ➢ Planning Division ➢ Management Analyst ➢ Library - Director ➢ City Engineer ➢ Public Works/Engineering ➢ Light & Water ➢ GIS Analyst ➢ EOC - Police Officer ➢ Water Engineer ➢ Building Official ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ Police Department ➢ Planning Division

Other Government and Stakeholder Representatives

➢ Azusa Pacific University ➢ National Weather Service ➢ CAL FIRE ➢ Cal OES ➢ LA County ➢ Los Angeles County Fire ➢ US Army Corps of Engineers

A list of participating HMPC representatives is included in Appendix A. This list includes all HMPC members that attended one or more HMPC meetings detailed in Table 3-2. The above list of HMPC members also includes several other government and stakeholder representatives that were invited to participate and contributed to the planning process, by providing technical data, plan reviews, and other requested input.

Meetings

The planning process officially began with a kick-off meeting held in in the City on March 29, 2017, followed by public kick-off meeting held the same day at 7:00 pm as part of the Planning Commission hearing. The meetings covered the scope of work and an introduction to the DMA, CRS, and FMA requirements. During the HMPC meetings, participants were provided with data collection worksheets to facilitate the collection of information necessary to support development of the plan. Using FEMA guidance, these worksheets were designed to capture information on past hazard events, identify hazards of concern to the City, quantify values at risk to identified hazards, inventory existing capabilities, and to record possible mitigation actions. A copy of the worksheets for this project are included in Appendix A. The City and HMPC participants completed and returned the worksheets to Foster Morrison for incorporation into the plan document.

During the planning process, the HMPC communicated through face-to-face meetings, email, telephone conversations, file transfer protocol (ftp) and Dropbox websites, and through a City developed webpage

City of Azusa 3-4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 dedicated to the plan development process. This later website was developed to provide information to the HMPC, the public and all other stakeholders on the LHMP process. Draft documents were also posted on these websites so that the HMPC members and the public could easily access and review them. The LHMP website can be accessed at:

➢ http://www.ci.azusa.ca.us/1499/2017-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan

The HMPC met formally five times during the planning period (March 2017 – November 2018) which adequately covers the four phases of DMA and the 10-Step CRS planning process. The formal meetings held and topics discussed are described in Table 3-2. Agendas and sign-in sheets for each of the meetings are included in Appendix A.

Table 3-2 HMPC Meetings

Meeting Meeting Topic Meeting Meeting Location(s) Type Date(s) HMPC #1 1) Introduction to DMA 2000 and the planning process March 29, City of Azusa North Kick-off 2) Organize Resources: (DMA/CRS Steps 1,2, &3): the 2017 Recreation Center, Meeting role of the HMPC, planning for public involvement, Memorial Park coordinating with other agencies/stakeholders 3) Introduction to Hazard Identification HMPC #2 1) Risk assessment overview and work session June 14, Azusa Police Department -DMA/CRS Step 4: Assess the Hazard 2017 EOC -DMA/CRS Step 5: Assess the Problem HMPC #3 1) Review of risk assessment summary August 15, Azusa Police Department 2) Review of mitigation goals 2017 EOC -DMA/CRS Step 6: Set Goals HMPC #4 1) Review of mitigation action alternatives August 16, Azusa Police Department 2) Identify list of mitigation actions by hazard 2017 EOC 3) Review of mitigation selection criteria 4) Prioritize mitigation actions 5) Mitigation Action Strategy Implementation and Draft Action Development -DMA/CRS Step 7: Review possible activities -DMA/CRS Step 8: Draft an Action Plan HMPC #5 1) Review of final HMPC, City, and public comments and November Azusa Police Department input to plan. 15, 2018 EOC 3) DMA/CRS Step 8: Draft an Action Plan 4) DMA/CRS Step 9 & 10: Plan maintenance and Implementation Procedures

Planning Step 2: Involve the Public

Up-front coordination discussions with the City of Azusa and HMPC established the initial plan for public involvement. Public involvement activities for this LHMP included press releases, social media communications, stakeholder and public meetings, development of an LHMP webpage and associated website postings, the collection of public and stakeholder comments on the draft plan through a variety of mechanisms, and other public outreach activities as further described below.. Information provided to the

City of Azusa 3-5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 public included an overview of the LHMP process, including a review of the hazard risk assessment and proposed mitigation strategies for this LHMP.

Public Meetings

Three public meetings for the Azusa LHMP were held during key times of the LHMP development process:

Public Meeting #1: LHMP Kickoff

Public outreach for this LHMP began at the beginning of the plan development process with an advertisement placed in the local newspaper and other local outreach methods to inform the public of the purpose of the DMA and the hazard mitigation planning process for the City of Azusa. A press release was also issued at the beginning of the project to invite the public to a public meeting for the kick-off the LHMP project on March 29, 2017 at the Planning Commission Hearing in Azusa’s Civic Auditorium.

Public Meeting #2: Risk Assessment Overview

A second public meeting was held to provide an overview of the hazard risk assessment portion of the LHMP. This meeting was held the evening of June 15, 2017 at the Planning Commission Hearing in Azusa’s Civic Auditorium. This meeting was advertised through the City website and through direct emails to those members of the public expressing an interest in the LHMP planning process.

Public Meeting #3: Meeting on the Draft LHMP

The first draft of the plan was provided to the HMPC in September of 2017, with a public review draft provided in October of 2018. A public meeting was held on November 14, 2018 as part of the Planning Commission hearing to present the draft LHMP and to collect public comments on the plan prior to finalization and submittal to Cal OES/FEMA. The public meeting on the draft LHMP was advertised in a variety of ways to maximize outreach efforts to both targeted groups and to the public at large and included an advertisement in the local newspaper. The advertisement in the local newspaper included information on the date, location and time of the meeting, where the draft plan could be accessed in the community, and how to provide comments on the draft plan. In addition to a copy of the draft plan being placed on the City website in advance of these meetings (see Figure 3-1), hard copies of the draft of the plan were made available to interested parties at the City Planning Department and the Azusa Main Public Library.

Figure 3-1 Public Notice of the Public Meeting #3 on the City Website

TO BE INSERTED

Documentation to support the all the public meetings can be found in Appendix A. In addition to advertisement for public participation, notices of meetings were sent directly to all persons on the HMPC contact list and also to other agency and key stakeholders with an interest in the Azusa LHMP project. The majority of these people reside in Azusa, Los Angeles County and surrounding communities. The formal public meetings for this project are summarized in Table 3-3.

City of Azusa 3-6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 3-3 Schedule of Public and Stakeholder Meetings

Meeting Type Meeting Topic Meeting Date Meeting Locations Public Meeting #1 1) Intro to DMA and mitigation March 29, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing in planning Azusa’s Civic Auditorium 2) The 2017 Azusa LHMP Development Process Public Meeting #2 1) Risk Assessment Overview & August 16, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing in Mitigation Strategy Introduction Azusa’s Civic Auditorium Public Meeting #3 1)Presentation of Draft LHMP & November 15, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing in Mitigation Strategy and solicitation of Azusa’s Civic Auditorium public and stakeholder comments

Where appropriate, stakeholder and public comments and recommendations were incorporated into the final plan throughout the plan development process, including the sections that address mitigation goals and strategies. No public comments were received on the LHMP’s public outreach process. All press releases, newspaper advertisements and articles, website postings, and public outreach efforts are on file with the Azusa Planning Department and are included in Appendix A.

Planning Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies

Early in the planning process, the HMPC determined that data collection, mitigation strategy development, and plan approval would be greatly enhanced by inviting other local, state and federal agencies and organizations to participate in the process. Based on their involvement in hazard mitigation planning, their landowner status in the City, and/or their interest as a neighboring jurisdiction, representatives from the following agencies were invited to participate on the HMPC:

➢ Cal DWR ➢ Cal Fire ➢ Cal OES ➢ City of Covina ➢ City of Duarte ➢ City of Glendora ➢ City of Irwindale ➢ FEMA IX Region - Hazard Mitigation ➢ Ham Radio Group ➢ LA – Disaster Management Area C ➢ LA County Public Works ➢ LA Emergency Management Department ➢ LA Fire ➢ National Weather Service ➢ Railroads ➢ Red Cross ➢ San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District ➢ So Cal GAS ➢ Southern California Edison ➢ U.S Army Corps of Engineers ➢ US Forest Service City of Azusa 3-7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Verizon

Coordination with key agencies, organizations, and advisory groups throughout the planning process allowed the HMPC to review common problems, development policies, and mitigation strategies as well as identifying any conflicts or inconsistencies with regional mitigation policies, plans, programs and regulations. Coordination involved contacting these agencies through a variety of mechanisms, including email, phone calls, and during planning team meetings, and informing them on how to participate in the LHMP process and if they had any expertise or assistance they could lend to the planning process, risk assessment, or specific mitigation strategies

In addition, as part of the overall stakeholder and agency coordination effort, the HMPC coordinated with and utilized input to the LHMP from the following agencies:

➢ CAL OES ➢ CAL FIRE ➢ California Department of Finance ➢ California Department of Water Resources ➢ California Geological Survey ➢ FEMA Region IX ➢ Library of Congress ➢ Los Angeles County ➢ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association ➢ National Performance of Dams Program ➢ National Register of Historic Places ➢ National Resource Conservation Service ➢ National Response Center ➢ National Weather Service ➢ United States Army Corps of Engineers ➢ United States Bureau of Land Management ➢ United States Bureau of Reclamation ➢ United States Department of Agriculture ➢ United States Farm Service Agency ➢ United States Forest Service ➢ United States Geological Survey ➢ Western Regional Climate Center

Several opportunities were provided for the groups listed above to participate in the planning process. At the beginning of the planning process, invitations were extended to many of these groups to actively participate on the HMPC. Specific participants from these groups are detailed in Appendix A. Others assisted in the process by providing data directly as requested in the Data Worksheets or through data contained on their websites or as maintained by their offices. Further as part of the public outreach process, all groups were invited to attend the public meetings and to review and comment on the plan prior to submittal to CAL OES and FEMA. In addition, as part of the review of the draft plan, key agency stakeholders were contacted and their comments specifically solicited.

City of Azusa 3-8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Other Community Planning Efforts and Hazard Mitigation Activities

Coordination with other community planning efforts is also paramount to the success of this plan. Hazard mitigation planning involves identifying existing policies, tools, and actions that will reduce a community’s risk and vulnerability to hazards. Azusa uses a variety of comprehensive planning mechanisms, such as general plans and ordinances, to guide growth and development. Integrating existing planning efforts and mitigation policies and action strategies into this plan establishes a credible and comprehensive plan that ties into and supports other community programs. The development of this Plan incorporated information from the following existing plans, studies, reports, and initiatives as well as other relevant data from neighboring communities and other jurisdictions.

➢ 2013 State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ➢ City of Azusa Emergency Operations Plan ➢ City of Azusa General Plan ➢ City of Azusa General Plan Background Report ➢ City of Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report ➢ City of Azusa Housing Element ➢ City of Azusa Special Plans ➢ City of Azusa Urban Water Management Plan ➢ Colby Fire BAER Report ➢ CT Aerojet Project Mitigated Negative Declaration ➢ Los Angeles County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ➢ Los Angeles County Community Wildfire Protection Plan ➢ Los Angeles County Flood Insurance Study ➢ Los Angeles County Strategic Fire Plan ➢ Natural Resource Conservation Service Emergency Watershed Protection Program Plans ➢ USGS Great Shakeout Scenario

Specific source documents are referenced at the beginning of each section of Chapter 4 and Appendix B. These and other documents were reviewed and considered, as appropriate, during the collection of data to support Planning Steps 4 and 5, which include the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment. Data from these plans and ordinances were incorporated into the risk assessment and hazard vulnerability sections of the Plan. Data was also used to support the resulting mitigation strategy. Where the data from the existing studies and reports is used, the source document is referenced throughout this LHMP. The data was also used in determining the capability of the community in being able to implement certain mitigation strategies. Appendix B provides a detailed list of references used in the preparation of this LHMP.

3.2.2. Phase 2: Assess Risks

Planning Steps 4 and 5: Identify the Hazards and Assess the Risks

Foster Morrison led the HMPC in a research effort to identify, document, and profile all the hazards that have, or could have, an impact to the Planning Area. The HMPC relied on information from the City’s Safety Element to the General Plan, the General Plan Background Report, the City’s EOP, and the 2013 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan, and other sources to establish the hazards list for this LHMP. Data collection worksheets and other data provided by the HMPC and other stakeholders were used in this

City of Azusa 3-9 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 effort to aid in determining hazards and vulnerabilities and where the risk varies across the Planning Area. Geographic information systems (GIS) were used to display, analyze, and quantify hazards and vulnerabilities.

The HMPC also conducted a capability assessment to review and document the Planning Area’s current capabilities to mitigate risk from and vulnerability to hazards. By collecting information about existing government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and emergency plans, the HMPC could assess those activities and measures already in place that contribute to mitigating some of the risks and vulnerabilities identified. A more detailed description of the risk assessment process, methodologies, and results are included in Chapter 4 Risk Assessment.

3.2.3. Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan

Planning Steps 6 and 7: Set Goals and Review Possible Activities

Foster Morrison facilitated brainstorming and discussion sessions with the HMPC that described the purpose and process of developing planning goals and objectives, a comprehensive range of mitigation alternatives, and a method of selecting and defending recommended mitigation actions using a series of selection criteria. This information is included in Chapter 5 Mitigation Strategy. Additional documentation on the process the HMPC used to develop the goals and strategy is in Appendix C.

Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan

Based on input from the HMPC regarding the draft risk assessment and the goals and activities identified in Planning Steps 6 and 7, a complete first draft of the plan was developed. This complete draft was provided for HMPC review and comment via a Dropbox web link. Other agencies were invited to comment on this draft as well. HMPC and agency comments were integrated into the second public review draft, which was advertised and distributed to collect public input and comments. The HMPC integrated comments and issues from the public, as appropriate, along with additional internal review comments and produced a final draft for the CAL OES and FEMA Region IX to review and approve, contingent upon final adoption by the Azusa City Council.

3.2.4. Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress

Planning Step 9: Adopt the Plan

In order to secure buy-in and officially implement the plan, the plan was adopted by the governing board of the City, the Azusa City Council, using the sample resolution contained in Appendix D.

Planning Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan

The true worth of any mitigation plan is in the effectiveness of its implementation. Up to this point in the planning process, all of the HMPC’s efforts have been directed at researching data, coordinating input from participating entities, and developing appropriate mitigation actions. Each recommended action includes key descriptors, such as a lead manager and possible funding sources, to help initiate implementation. An overall implementation strategy is described in Chapter 7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance. City of Azusa 3-10 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Finally, there are numerous organizations within Azusa whose goals and interests interface with hazard mitigation. Coordination with these other planning efforts, as addressed in Planning Step 3, is paramount to the implementation and ongoing success of this plan and mitigation in Azusa and is addressed further in Chapter 7.

City of Azusa 3-11 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Chapter 4 Risk Assessment

Requirement §201.6(c)(2): [The plan shall include] A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.

As defined by FEMA, risk is a combination of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. “It is the impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community and refers to the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage.”

The risk assessment process identifies and profiles relevant hazards and assesses the exposure of lives, property, and infrastructure to these hazards. The process allows for a better understanding of a jurisdiction’s potential risk to hazards and provides a framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future hazard events.

This risk assessment followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication Understanding Your Risks—Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2, 2002), which breaks the assessment into a four-step process:

1. Identify hazards 2. Profile hazard events 3. Inventory assets 4. Estimate losses

Data collected through this process has been incorporated into the following sections of this chapter:

➢ Section 4.1 Hazard Identification: Natural Hazards identifies the natural hazards that threaten the City and describes why some hazards have been omitted from further consideration. ➢ Section 4.2 Hazard Profiles discusses the threat to the City and describes previous occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences. ➢ Section 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment assesses the City’s total exposure to natural hazards, considering assets at risk, critical facilities, populations, and future development trends. ➢ Section 4.4 Capability Assessment inventories existing mitigation activities and policies, regulations, and plans that pertain to mitigation in the City and can affect net vulnerability.

This risk assessment covers the entire geographical extent of the City of Azusa Planning Area.

City of Azusa 4-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 4.1 Hazard Identification: Natural Hazards

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type…of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.

The HMPC conducted a hazard identification study to determine the hazards that threaten the City. This section details the methodology and results of this effort.

Data Sources

The following data sources were used for this Hazard Identification: Natural Hazards portion of the plan:

➢ HMPC input ➢ Cal OES ➢ NCDC ➢ 2014 Los Angeles County All Hazard Mitigation Plan ➢ 2013 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan ➢ City of Azusa General Plan ➢ FEMA Disaster Declaration Database 4.1.1. Methodology and Results

Using existing natural hazards data and input gained through the kickoff planning meeting, the HMPC agreed upon a list of natural hazards that could affect Azusa. Hazards data from the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), FEMA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and many other sources were examined to assess the significance of these hazards to the City. Significance of each identified hazard was measured in general terms and focused on key criteria such as frequency and resulting damage, which includes deaths and injuries, as well as property and economic damage. The natural hazards evaluated as part of this plan include those that have occurred historically or have the potential to cause significant human and/or monetary losses in the future.

As a starting point, the updated 2013 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan was consulted to evaluate the applicability of State hazards of concern to the City. Building upon this effort, hazards from the Los Angeles County LHMP and the City of Azusa General Plan were also identified and considered.

The worksheet below was completed by the HMPC to identify, profile, and rate the significance of identified hazards. Only the more significant (or priority) hazards have a more detailed hazard profile and are analyzed further in Section 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment. Table 4-1 in Section 4.2.15 Natural Hazards Summary provides an overview of these significant hazards.

City of Azusa 4-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-1 City of Azusa Hazard Assessment

Hazards not covered in this plan are shown in Table 4-2.

City of Azusa 4-3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-2 Azusa – Hazards Not Included

Hazard Why not included Tsunami There is no coastline in the City. Volcano No volcanoes are located near the City. Avalanche Snow does not occur near the City. Energy Shortage The City does not consider this a natural hazard. Freeze Freeze is very rare in the City. Insect Pests and Diseases The City does not consider this a natural hazard. Epidemic The City does not consider this a natural hazard. Hazardous Materials The City does not consider this a natural hazard. Marine Invasive Species The City does not consider this a natural hazard. Natural Gas Pipeline Hazards The City does not consider this a natural hazard. Oil Spills The City does not consider this a natural hazard. Radiological Incidents The City does not consider this a natural hazard. Terrorism The City does not consider this a natural hazard. Cyber Threats The City does not consider this a natural hazard.

4.1.2. Disaster Declaration History

One method to identify hazards based upon past occurrences is to look at what events triggered federal and/or state disaster declarations within the City (though disaster declarations are declared on a county basis). Disaster declarations are granted when the severity and magnitude of the event’s impact surpass the ability of the local government to respond and recover. Disaster assistance is supplemental and sequential. When the local government’s capacity has been surpassed, a state disaster declaration may be issued, following the local agency’s declaration, allowing for the provision of state assistance. Should the disaster be so severe that both the local and state government’s capacity is exceeded, a federal disaster declaration may be issued allowing for the provision of federal disaster assistance.

The federal government may issue a disaster declaration through FEMA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and/or the Small Business Administration (SBA). FEMA also issues emergency declarations, which are more limited in scope and without the long-term federal recovery programs of major disaster declarations. The quantity and types of damage are the determining factors. This section focuses on state and federal disaster and emergency declarations.

Los Angeles County has experience 69 federal and 63 state declarations since 1950. 43 of the federal declarations were associated with fire events, 12 with flood events, 6 with severe storm, 3 with earthquake, 1 with dam failure, 2 with freezing, and 1 with hurricane (for evacuations stemming from Hurricane Katrina in 2005), and one with other (for a seismic sea wave in 1964). 19 of the state declarations were associated with fire events, 14 were associated with flood events, 8 were associated with agricultural disease, 7 were associated with severe storms, 5 were related to earthquake, 2 were related to drought, 2 were economic, 1 was related to freeze, 1 was related to high winds, 1 was related to a dam failure, 1 was related to landslide,

City of Azusa 4-4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 1 was related to a collision on I-5, and 1 was related to civil unrest. Details of federal and state disaster declarations is shown in Table 4-3. A summary of federal and state disaster declarations is shown in Table 4-4.

Table 4-3 Los Angeles County Disaster Declaration History 1950 to 2017

Year Disaster Disaster Cause County Disaster State Federal Type Number Declaration Declaration Date Date 1950 Flood 1950 Floods Statewide OCD 50‐01 11/21/1950 – 1954 Flood Flood & Erosion Statewide DR – 15 – 2/5/1954 1955 Flood Flood Statewide DR – 47 12/22/1955 12/23/1955 1956 Fire Forest Fire Statewide DR – 65 – 12/29/1956 1958 Fire Newton Fires (Monrovia Fires) Los Angeles CDO 58‐01 1/3/1958 –

1958 Flood Heavy Rainstorms & Flood Statewide DR – 82 4/2/1958 4/4/1958 1959 Flood Potential Flood Damage and Los Angeles CDO 59‐01 1/8/1959 – Landsides as a Result of Fires 1961 Fire Fire (Los Angeles County) Statewide DR – 119 – 11/16/1961 1962 Flood Floods Statewide DR – 122 2/16/62 3/6/1962 2/23/62 1962 Flood Severe Storms & Flooding Statewide DR – 138 – 10/24/1962 1963 Flood Severe Storms, Heavy Rains & Statewide DR – 145 – 2/25/1963 Flooding 1963 Dam/Levee Flood Due to Broken Dam Statewide DR – 161 3/16/1964 12/21/1963 Break 1964 Other Seismic Sea Wave Statewide DR – 169 – 4/1/1964 1964 Fire Weldon Fire Los Angeles N/A 3/16/1964 – 964 Storms Floods Los Angeles N/A 4/3/1964 – 1965 Landslide 1965 Landslide Los Angeles N/A 6/21/1965 – 1965 Civil Unrest 1965 Riots Los Angeles N/A 8/14/1965 – 1976 Fire Woodson Fire Los Angeles N/A 1/7/1967 – 1969 Flood Severe Storms & Flooding Los Angeles DR – 253 1/23/69, 1/26/1969 1/25,69, 1/28/69, 1/29/69, 2/8/69, 2/10/69, 2/16/69, 3/12/69 1970 Fire Forest & Brush Fires Los Angeles DR – 295 9/24/70, 9/29/1970 9/28/70, 10/1/70, 10/2/70, 10/20/70, 11/14/70

City of Azusa 4-5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Year Disaster Disaster Cause County Disaster State Federal Type Number Declaration Declaration Date Date 1971 Earthquake San Fernando Earthquake Los Angeles DR – 299 2/9/1971 2/9/1971 1972 Agricultural Exotic Newcastle Disease Los Angeles N/A 4/10/72, – Disease Epidemic 5/22/72 1973 Fire 1973 Fires Los Angeles N/A 7/16/1973 – 1974 Economic Gasoline Shortage - OPEC Los Angeles N/A 2/28/74, – 3/4/74, 3/10/74 1975 Fire 1975 Fires Los Angeles N/A 11/24/1975 – 1976 Drought 1976 Drought Los Angeles N/A 2/9/76, – 2/13,76, 2/24/76, 3/26/76, 7/6/76 1978 Flood Coastal Storms, Mudslides & Los Angeles DR – 547 3/9/78, 2/15/1978 Flooding 2/27,78, 2/13/78 1978 Fire Brush Fires Los Angeles EM – 3067 10/24/1978 10/29/1978 1979 Fire 1979 Fires Los Angeles N/A 9/28/79, – 9/21/79, 9/20/79 1979 Economic Gasoline Shortage - OPEC Los Angeles N/A 5/8/79 ‐ – 11/13/79 1980 Flood Severe Storms, Mudslides & Los Angeles DR – 615 2/21/80, 2/21/1980 Flooding 2/7/80, 2/19/80 1980 Fire Brush & Timber Fires Los Angeles DR – 635 11/18/1980, 11/27/1980 11/25/80 1981 Agricultural 1981 Mediterranean Fruit Fly Los Angeles N/A 8/8/81 ‐ – Insect pest Infestation 9/25/81 1982 Fire Dayton Hills Fire Los Angeles GP 1982 10/10/1982 – 1983 Coastal Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides & Los Angeles DR – 677 12/8/82‐ 2/9/1983 Storm Tornadoes 3/21/83 1983 Flood 1983 Floods Los Angeles 82‐19 3/83 – 1983 High Winds Wind Storms Los Angeles 83‐01 3/83 – 1983 Agricultural Mexican Fruit Fly Los Angeles N/A 11/4/1983 – Insect pests 1985 Fire 1985 Statewide Fires Los Angeles DR‐739 7/1/85 ‐ 7/18/1985 7/11/85 1987 Agricultural Mediterranean Fruit Fly Los Angeles GP 1987 8/25/1987 – Insect pest 1987 Earthquake Earthquake & Aftershocks Los Angeles DR – 799 10/2/87 ‐ 10/7/1987 10/5/87

City of Azusa 4-6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Year Disaster Disaster Cause County Disaster State Federal Type Number Declaration Declaration Date Date 1988 Flood Severe Storms, High Tides & Los Angeles DR – 812 1/21/1988 2/5/1988 Flooding 1988 Fire 1988 Fires Los Angeles GP 87‐07 5/88 – 1988 Agricultural Mediterranean Fruit Fly Los Angeles GP 1988 7/21/1988 – Insect pest 1988 Fire Fires (Los Angeles) Los Angeles GP 88‐03 12/9/1988 – 1989 Agricultural Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Los Los Angeles GP 1989 8/9/1989 – Insect pest Angeles) 1990 Earthquake Earthquake Los Angeles GP 89‐07 3/9/90, – 3/13/90 1990 Agricultural Mexican Fruit Fly Los Angeles GP 1990 5/14/1990 – Insect pest 1990 Fire Fires Los Angeles DR – 872 6/28/90, 6/30/1990 6/29/90 1991 Freezing Severe Freeze Los Angeles DR – 894 12/19/90‐ 2/11/1991 1/18/91 1991 Earthquake Sierra Madre Earthquake Los Angeles GP 91‐04 7/5/1991 – 1992 Flood Rain/Snow/Wind Storms, Los Angeles DR – 935 2/12/92, 2/25/1992 Flooding, Mudslides 2/19/92 1992 Fire Fire During a Period Of Civil Los Angeles DR – 942 4/29/1992 5/2/1992 Unrest 1993 Flood Severe Winter Storm, Mud & Los Angeles DR – 979 1/7/93 ‐ 2/3/1993 Land Slides, & Flooding 2/19/93 1993 Fire Fires, Mud/Landslides, Flooding, Los Angeles DR – 1005 – 10/28/1993 Soil Erosion 1994 Earthquake Northridge Earthquake Los Angeles DR – 1008 1/17/94, 1/17/1994 1/24/94 1995 Severe Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Los Angeles DR – 1044 1/6/95 ‐ 1/10/1995 Storm Landslides, Mud Flows 3/14/95 1995 Severe Severe Winter Storms, Flooding Los Angeles DR – 1046 1/6/95 ‐ 3/12/1995 Storm Landslides, Mud Flow 3/14/95 1996 Severe Fires Fire Los Angeles 96‐04 1996 10/22/1996 – 1996 Fire Severe Firestorms Los Angeles EM – 3120 10/1/1996 10/23/1996 1998 Severe Severe Winter Storms and Los Angeles DR – 1203 Proclaimed 2/9/1998 Storm Flooding 2001 Flood Storms Los Angeles DC 2001‐01 3/1/2001 – 2001 2001 Economic Greed Statewide GP 2001 1/1/2001 – 2002 Fire Ca - Copper Fire Los Angeles FS – 2417 – 6/6/2002 2002 Fire Leona Fire Los Angeles FS – 2462 – 9/4/2002 2002 Fire Williams Fire Los Angeles FS – 2464 – 9/24/2002

City of Azusa 4-7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Year Disaster Disaster Cause County Disaster State Federal Type Number Declaration Declaration Date Date 2003 Agricultural Exotic Newcastle Disease Los Angeles GP 2003 1/3/2003 Disease Epidemic 2003 2003 Fire Ca - Wildfire (Pacific Fire) Los Angeles FM – 2466 – 1/7/2003 2003 Fire Ca-Verdale Fire Los Angeles FM – 2502 – 10/25/2003 2003 Fire Wildfires, Flooding, Mudflow Los Angeles DR – 1498 10/26/2003 10/27/2003 And Debris Flow 2003 Flood Storms Los Angeles GP 2003‐04 11/14/2003 – 2 2004 Fire Ca - Pine Fire Los Angeles FM – 2528 7/14/2004 2004 Fire Ca-Foothill Wildfire Los Angeles FM – 2534 – 7/18/2004 2004 Fire Ca-Crown Wildfire Los Angeles FM – 2535 – 7/21/2004 2005 Severe Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Los Angeles DR – 1577 1/12/2005 2/4/2005 Storm Flows, And Mudslides GP2005‐01 2005 Severe Severe Storms, Flooding, Los Angeles DR – 1585 3/16/2005 4/14/2005 Storm Landslides, And Mud And Debris Flows 2005 Hurricane Hurricane Katrina Evacuation Los Angeles EM – 3248 – 9/13/2005 2005 Fire Topanga Fire Los Angeles FM – 2583 – 9/28/2005 2007 Freezing Severe Freeze Los Angeles DR – 1689 – 3/13/2007 2007 Fire Griffith Park Fire Los Angeles FM – 2691 – 5/9/2007 2007 Fire Island Fire Los Angeles FM – 2694 – 5/10/2007 2007 Fire Canyon Fire Los Angeles FM – 2708 – 7/8/2007 2007 Fire Buckweed Fire Los Angeles FM – 2733 – 10/21/2007 2007 Fire Canyon Fire Los Angeles FM – 2732 – 10/21/2007 2007 Fire Ranch Fire Los Angeles FM – 2736 – 10/22/2007 2007 Fire Wildfires Los Angeles EM – 3279 – 10/23/2007 2007 I‐5 Major Road Damage Accident Los Angeles GP 2007‐13 10/14/2007 – Collision 2007 Fire Wildfires, Flooding, Mud Flows, Los Angeles DR – 1731 – 10/24/2007 And Debris Flows 2008 Fire Santa Anita Fire Los Angeles FM – 2763 – 4/27/2008 2008 Fire Firestorms and Flooding Los Angeles GP 2008‐09 4/27/2008 – 2008 2008 Fire Marek Fire Los Angeles FM – 2788 – 10/12/2008 2008 Fire Sesnon Fire Los Angeles FM – 2789 – 10/13/2008 2008 Fire Freeway Fire Complex Los Angeles FM – 2792 – 11/15/2008 2008 Fire Sayre Fire Los Angeles FM – 2791 – 11/15/2008 2008 Fire Wildfires Los Angeles DR – 1810 – 11/18/2008

City of Azusa 4-8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Year Disaster Disaster Cause County Disaster State Federal Type Number Declaration Declaration Date Date 2009 Fire Pv Fire Los Angeles FM – 2828 – 8/28/2009 2009 Fire Station Fire Los Angeles FM – 2830 – 8/28/2009 2009 Fire Los Angeles County Wildfires Los Angeles GP-2009-05 N/A – 2010 Severe Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Los Angeles DR – 1884 1/21/2010, 3/8/2010 Storm And Debris and Mud Flows 1/22/2010, 1/27/2010 2010 Fire Crown Fire Los Angeles FM – 2851 – 7/30/2010 2013 Fire Powerhouse Fire Los Angeles FM – 5025 – 6/2/2013 2014 Fire Colby Fire Los Angeles FM – 5051 – 1/16/2014 2014 California Drought Drought GP 2014-13 1/17/2014 – Drought 2016 Fire Old Fire Los Angeles FM – 5124 – 6/5/2016 2016 Fire Fish Fire Los Angeles FM – 5129 – 6/21/2016 2016 Fire Sage Fire Los Angeles FM – 5132 – 7/9/2016 2016 Fire Sand Fire Los Angeles FM – 5135 – 7/23/2016 Source: Cal OES, FEMA

Table 4-4 Los Angeles County Disaster Declaration History 1950 to 2017 Summary

Disaster Type Federal Declarations State Declarations Count Years Count Years Agricultural Disease 0 – 8 1972, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2003 Civil Unrest 0 – 1 1965 Dam/Levee Break 1 1963 1 1963 Drought 0 – 2 1976, 2014 Earthquake 3 1971, 1987, 1994 5 1971, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1994 Economic 0 – 2 1979, 2001 Fire 43 1956, 1961, 1970, 1978, 1980, 19 1958, 1964, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1985, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 2002 (three times), 2003 (three 1985, 1988 (twice), 1990, 1992, times), 2004 (three times), 2005, 1996 (twice), 2003, 2008 2007 (eight times), 2008 (six times), 2009 (twice), 2010, 2013, 2014, 2016 (four times) Flood 12 1954, 1955, 1958, 1962 (two 14 1950, 1955, 1958, 1959, 1962, times), 1963, 1969, 1978, 1980, 1969, 1978, 1980, 1983, 1988, 1988, 1992, 1993 1992, 1993, 2001, 2003 Freeze 2 1991, 2007 1 1991 High Winds 0 – 1 1983 Hurricane 1 2005 0 –

City of Azusa 4-9 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Disaster Type Federal Declarations State Declarations Count Years Count Years I-5 Collision 0 – 1 2007 Landslide 0 – 1 1965 Other 1 1964 0 – Severe Storms 6 1995 (twice), 1998, 2005 (twice), 7 1964, 1995 (twice), 1998, 2005 2010 (twice), 2010 Totals 69 – 63 – Source: Cal OES, FEMA 4.2 Hazard Profiles

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the…location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.

The hazards identified in Section 4.1 Hazard Identification Natural Hazards, are profiled individually in this section. In general, information provided by planning team members is integrated into this section with information from other data sources. These profiles set the stage for Section 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment, where the vulnerability is quantified, as data allows, for each of the priority hazards.

Each hazard is profiled in the following format:

➢ Hazard/Problem Description—This section gives a description of the hazard and associated issues followed by details on the hazard specific to the City. Where known, this includes information on the hazard location and extent, seasonal patterns, speed of onset/duration, and magnitude and/or any secondary effects. ➢ Past Occurrences—This section contains information on historical incidents, including impacts where known. The extent or location of the hazard within or near the City is also included here. Historical incident worksheets were used to capture information from the City on past occurrences. ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence—The frequency of past events is used in this section to gauge the likelihood of future occurrences. Where possible, frequency was calculated based on existing data. It was determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years on record and multiplying by 100. This gives the percent chance of the event happening in any given year (e.g., three droughts over a 30-year period equates to a 10 percent chance of a experiencing a drought in any given year). The likelihood of future occurrences is categorized into one of the following classifications: ✓ Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or happens every year ✓ Likely—Between 10 and 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less ✓ Occasional—Between 1 and 10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years ✓ Unlikely—Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years. ➢ Climate Change—This section contains the effects of climate change (if applicable). The possible ramifications of climate change on the hazard are discussed. City of Azusa 4-10 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Section 4.2.15 Natural Hazards Summary provides an initial assessment of the profiles and assigns a level of significance or priority to each hazard. Those hazards determined to be of medium or high significance were characterized as priority hazards that required further evaluation in Section 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment. Those hazards that occur infrequently or have little or no impact on the City were determined to be of low significance and not considered a priority hazard. Significance was determined based on the hazard profile, focusing on key criteria such as frequency and resulting damage, including deaths/injuries and property, crop, and economic damage. This assessment was used by the HMPC to prioritize those hazards of greatest significance to the City, enabling Azusa to focus resources where they are most needed.

The following sections provide profiles of the natural hazards that the HMPC identified in Section 4.1 Hazard Identification. Given that most disasters that affect the City are directly or indirectly related to severe weather events, severe weather hazards begin this section, and the other individual hazard profiles follow alphabetically.

Data Sources

The following data sources formed the basis for this Hazard Profiles portion of the plan:

➢ 2013 State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ➢ 2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps ➢ CAL FIRE Wildfire History Database ➢ Cal-Adapt ➢ California Climate Adaptation Strategy ➢ California Department of Conservation ➢ California Department of Water Resources ➢ California Department of Water Resources Best Available Maps ➢ California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams ➢ California Division of Mines and Geology ➢ California Division of Mines and Geology. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California, 2003. ➢ California Geological Survey ➢ California Natural Resources Agency ➢ California’s Drought of 2007-2009, An Overview. State of California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources. ➢ City of Azusa General Plan Background Report ➢ City of Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report ➢ City of Azusa General Plan. ➢ City of Azusa Housing Element 2014-2021 ➢ City of Azusa Light and Water Department ➢ City of Azusa Public Works ➢ City of Azusa, "Analysis of Existing Conditions and Trends," December 2001. ➢ Climate Change Impacts in the United States ➢ Enhanced Fujita Scale. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center. ➢ Federal Emergency Management Agency – Wind Zones in the United States ➢ Federal Emergency Management Agency: Building Performance Assessment: Oklahoma and Kansas Tornadoes

City of Azusa 4-11 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Federal Emergency Management Agency: Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. ➢ Galloway, Jr Dr. Gerald E. Levees in History: The Levee Challenge. Water Policy Collaborative, University of Maryland, Visiting Scholar, USACE, IWR. ➢ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ➢ Johnstone, J. and Dawson, T. Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 7, 2010. ➢ LA Almanac ➢ Los Angeles County Community Wildfire Protection Plan ➢ Los Angeles County Flood Insurance Study ➢ Los Angeles County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ➢ Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, FEMA 1997 ➢ National Aeronautics and Space Administration ➢ National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database. ➢ National Drought Mitigation Center ➢ National Flood Insurance Program ➢ National Integrated Drought Information System ➢ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center ➢ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center ➢ National Performance of Dams Program ➢ National Weather Service Heat Index ➢ National Weather Service Wind Chill Index ➢ Public Policy Institute of California. If drought continues: Environment and poor rural communities most likely to suffer. [press release]. ➢ Underwood, E. Models predict longer, deeper US droughts. Science, 347(6223) 707 DOI: 10.1126/science.347.6223.707. 2015. ➢ United State Geologic Survey. Earthquake Intensity Zonation and Quaternary Deposits, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 9093, 1977. ➢ University of California Santa Barbara Department of Geology ➢ US Army Corps of Engineers ➢ US Bureau of Reclamation ➢ US Drought Monitor ➢ US Geological Survey ➢ US Geological Survey Open File Report 2015‐3009 ➢ USA TODAY ➢ USDA Secretarial Disasters Declarations ➢ Western Regional Climate Center ➢ Wildfire Today

4.2.1. Severe Weather: General

Severe weather is generally any destructive weather event, but usually occurs in the City as localized storms that bring heavy rain, strong winds, and sometimes hail and lightning.

NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has been tracking severe weather since 1950. Their Storm Events Database contains county level data on the following: all weather events from 1993 to current (except from 6/1993-7/1993); and additional data from the Storm Prediction Center, which includes

City of Azusa 4-12 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 tornadoes (1950-1992), thunderstorm winds (1955-1992), and hail (1955-1992). This database contains 854 severe weather events that occurred in Los Angeles County between January 1, 1950, and December 31, 2016. Table 4-5 summarizes these events.

Table 4-5 NCDC Weather Events for Los Angeles County, 1950 to December 31, 2016*

Event Type Number Deaths Injuries Property Crop Deaths Injuries of Events Damage Damage (indirect) (indirect) Avalanche 1 3 3 $0 $0 0 0 Coastal Flood 1 0 1 $0 $0 0 0 Debris Flows 2 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Dense Fog 1 0 41 $0 $0 0 0 Dust Devil 3 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Dust Storm 1 0 1 $0 $0 0 0 Excessive Heat 10 8 0 $0 $0 0 0 Flash Flood 129 7 4 $1,310,000 $3,200,00 0 0 Flood 17 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Frost/Freeze 3 0 0 0 $8,200,000 0 0 Funnel Cloud 9 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Hail 24 0 0 $3,500,000 $0 0 0 Heat 10 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Heavy Rain 13 0 4 $5,000,000 $0 0 0 Heavy Snow 26 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 High Surf 30 5 3 $40,000,000 $0 1 0 High Wind 319 0 1 $0 $0 0 0 Lightning 9 2 13 $0 $0 0 0 Rip Current 4 4 1 $0 $0 0 0 Sneakerwave 1 1 4 $0 $0 0 0 Storm Surge/Tide 1 0 27 $0 $0 0 0 Strong Wind 3 2 1 $0 $0 0 1 Thunderstorm Winds 59 0 10 $55,000 $0 0 0 Tornado 44 0 45 $61,195,310 $0 0 0 Tropical Storm 4 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Waterspout 5 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Wildfire 48 0 46 $99,800,000 $0 0 2 Winter Storm 59 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Winter Weather 18 3 0 $0 $0 0 0 Total 854 35 205 $210,860,310 $8,203,200 1 3 Source: NCDC *Note: Losses reflect totals for all impacted areas, not just Los Angeles County or Azusa

City of Azusa 4-13 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 The NCDC table above summarizes severe weather events that occurred in Los Angeles County, many of which likely similarly affected Azusa. Only a few of the events actually resulted in state and federal disaster declarations.

As previously mentioned, many of Los Angeles County’s state and federal disaster declarations have been a result of severe weather and related flooding. For this plan, severe weather is discussed in the following subsections:

➢ Extreme Heat ➢ Heavy Rains and Storms ➢ High Winds

While the HMPC decided not to include cold and freeze as a hazard, cold weather does happen periodically, with little effect to the City. Record colds are shown in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6 Azusa – Record Cold Temperatures by Month from 1917 to 2012

Month Temperature Date Month Temperature Date January 34 1/11/1921 July 40 7/22/1926 February 30 2/9/1929 August 49 8/25/1919 March 33 3/26/1924 September 40 9/26/1929 April 32 4/23/1920 October 40 10/11/11924 May 41 5/8/1930 November 32 11/28/1919 June 47 6/1/1927 December 35 12/19/1924 Source: Western Regional Climate Center – San Gabriel Canyon Coop Station

4.2.2. Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

According to information provided by FEMA, extreme heat is defined as temperatures that hover 10 degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and last for several weeks. Heat kills by taxing the human body beyond its abilities. In a normal year, about 175 Americans succumb to the demands of summer heat. According to the NWS, among natural hazards, only the cold of winter—not lightning, hurricanes, tornados, floods, or earthquakes—takes a greater toll. In the 40-year period from 1936 through 1975, nearly 20,000 people were killed in the United States by the effects of heat. In the heat wave of 1980, more than 1,250 people died.

Heat disorders generally have to do with a reduction or collapse of the body’s ability to shed heat by circulatory changes and sweating or a chemical (salt) imbalance caused by too much sweating. When heat gain exceeds the level the body can remove, or when the body cannot compensate for fluids and salt lost through perspiration, the temperature of the body’s inner core begins to rise and heat-related illness may develop. Elderly persons, small children, chronic invalids, those on certain medications or drugs, and

City of Azusa 4-14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 persons with weight and alcohol problems are particularly susceptible to heat reactions, especially during heat waves in areas where moderate climate usually prevails.

Location

Extreme heat events occur on a regional basis. Extreme heat can occur in any location of the City. All portions of the City are at risk to extreme heat. Extreme heat occurs throughout the Planning Area primarily during the summer months. The WRCC maintains data on weather normal and extremes in the western United States. WRCC data for the County is summarized below. There is a COOP weather station in the City, however it stopped recording data in 1972. Information from the San Gabriel Canyon weather station (the closest station with a more current record) is summarized below.

San Gabriel Canyon Weather Station, Period of Record 1917 to 2016

In the City, the Western Regional Climate Center shows that monthly average high temperatures in the warmest months (June through September) range from the mid 70s to low 90s. The highest recorded daily extreme was 117°F on June 17, 1917. In a typical year, maximum temperatures exceed 90°F on 73 days. Average and high temperatures for the County are shown in Figure 4-1. Details of monthly high temperatures are shown in Table 4-7.

Figure 4-1 Daily Average Temperatures and Extremes – San Gabriel Canyon Station

Source: Western Regional Climate Center

City of Azusa 4-15 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-7 Record High Temperatures – San Gabriel Canyon Station

Month Temperature Date Month Temperature Date January 99 1/2/1953 July 107 7/17/1917 February 92 2/16/1930 August 109 8/12/2012 March 92 3/23/1927 September 112 9/15/2012 April 100 4/21/2012 October 110 10/02/2012 May 102 5/13/1927 November 97 11/21/1924 June 117 6/17/1917 December 90 12/18/1929 Source: Western Regional Climate Center

Extent

Heat emergencies are often slower to develop, taking several days of continuous, oppressive heat before a significant or quantifiable impact is seen. Heat waves do not strike victims immediately, but rather their cumulative effects slowly take the lives of vulnerable populations. Heat waves do not cause damage or elicit the immediate response of floods, fires, earthquakes, or other more “typical” disaster scenarios. While heat waves are obviously less dramatic, they are potentially more deadly. According to the 2013 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the worst single heat wave event in California occurred in Southern California in 1955, when an eight-day heat wave resulted in 946 deaths. Severe heat in California often causes rolling blackouts. These blackouts have occurred in the past (namely 2001 and 2002) and can increase the risk of injury or death.

The NWS has in place a system to initiate alert procedures (advisories or warnings) when extreme heat is expected to have a significant impact on public safety. The expected severity of the heat determines whether advisories or warnings are issued. The NWS HeatRisk forecast provides a quick view of heat risk potential over the upcoming seven days. The heat risk is portrayed in a numeric (0-4) and color (green/yellow/orange/red/magenta) scale which is similar in approach to the Air Quality Index (AQI) or the UV Index. This can be seen in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8 National Weather Service Heat Risk Categories

Category Level Meaning Green 0 No Elevated Risk Yellow 1 Low Risk for those extremely sensitive to heat, especially those without effective cooling and/or adequate hydration Orange 2 Moderate Risk for those who are sensitive to heat, especially those without effective cooling and/or adequate hydration Red 3 High Risk for much of the population, especially those who are heat sensitive and those without effective cooling and/or adequate hydration Magenta 4 Very High Risk for entire population due to long duration heat, with little to no relief overnight Source: National Weather Service

City of Azusa 4-16 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 The NWS office in Oxnard can issue the following heat-related advisory as conditions warrant.

➢ Heat Advisories are issued during events where the HeatRisk is on the Orange/Red threshold (Orange will not always trigger an advisory) ➢ Excessive Heat Watches/Warnings are issued during events where the HeatRisk is in the Red/Magenta output

The City’s focus is on the prevention of heat-related illnesses or deaths for its residents, visitors, or business employees from extreme heat events. The City is proactive to ensure notification through multiple platforms about the upcoming extreme heat events, where cooling centers are located and their hours of operation, and providing safety tips to practice during the event.

Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

According to Table 4-3, there have been no federal or state disaster declarations due to extreme heat.

NCDC Events

The NCDC database reported 20 extreme heat events for the County since 1993. These 20 events occurred on 8 dates. These are shown on Table 4-9. It should be noted that heat events in California often are unreported to the NCDC database. Events with damages, injuries, or deaths are discussed below the table.

Table 4-9 NCDC Extreme Heat Events in Los Angeles County 1993 to 12/31/2016

Date Event Type Deaths Injuries Property Crop Injuries Deaths Direct Direct Damage Damage Indirect (Indirect 8/3/1997 Heat 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 8/3/1997 Heat 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 8/3/1997 Heat 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 7/15/2006 Heat 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 7/15/2006 Heat 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 7/15/2006 Heat 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 7/22/2006 Heat 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 7/22/2006 Heat 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 7/22/2006 Heat 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 7/22/2006 Heat 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 8/30/2007 Excessive 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Heat 8/30/2007 Excessive 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Heat 8/30/2007 Excessive 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Heat

City of Azusa 4-17 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Date Event Type Deaths Injuries Property Crop Injuries Deaths Direct Direct Damage Damage Indirect (Indirect 9/1/2007 Excessive 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Heat 9/1/2007 Excessive 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Heat 9/1/2007 Excessive 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Heat 9/3/2007 Excessive 8 0 $0 $0 0 0 Heat 6/20/2008 Excessive 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Heat 6/21/2008 Excessive 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Heat 6/21/2008 Excessive 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Heat Totals 8 0 $0 $0 0 0 Source: NCDC

➢ August 3, 2007 – The heat wave which started at the end of August continued into the first few days of September. The combination of above normal temperatures and relative humidity continued to produce excessive heat conditions across sections of Southern California. Heat index values between 105 and 112 degrees were reported. At the end of the heat wave, 8 heat-related deaths were reported across Los Angeles County.

HMPC Events

The City noted that the greatest heat related concern is that associated with the elderly and sick, especially those low-income households that generally can’t afford air conditioning. The City indicated that cooling centers are opened and used every year. These centers provided in areas like the library and senior center also have transportation available as needed through a Dial-a-Ride service.

When heat advisories are issued through the NWS, the City puts notifications out for these vulnerable populations which in addition to the elderly include other populations such as the horseback riding community, where horses and other livestock are also vulnerable to extreme heat conditions.

Likelihood of Future Occurrence

Highly Likely—Data from the Western Regional Climate Center (shown in Table 4-7) indicates that high temperatures will continue to occur in the City on an annual basis; thus the likelihood of future occurrence is highly likely.

Climate Change and Extreme Heat

The 2014 Climate Adaptation Study (CAS), citing a California Energy Commission study, states that “over the past 15 years, heat waves have claimed more lives in California than all other declared disaster events combined.” This study shows that California is getting warmer, leading to an increased frequency, City of Azusa 4-18 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 magnitude, and duration of heat waves. These factors may lead to increased mortality from excessive heat, as shown in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2 California Historical and Projected Temperature Increases - 1961 to 2099

Source: Dan Cayan; California Climate Adaptation Strategy

Per the CAS report and the 2013 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan, by 2100, hotter temperatures are expected throughout the state, with projected increases of 3-5.5°F (under a lower emissions scenario) to 8-10.5°F (under a higher emissions scenario). As temperatures increase, California, Los Angeles County, and the City of Azusa will face increased risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke, heat exhaustion, heart attack, stroke and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat. If temperatures rise to the higher warming range, there could be 100 more days per year with temperatures above 95°F in the City (see Figure 4-3). These changes could lead to an increase in deaths related to extreme heat in Azusa.

City of Azusa 4-19 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-3 Increase in Heat in Major California Cities from 2070 to 2099

Source: 2010 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan

Cal Adapt noted that overall temperatures are expected to rise substantially throughout this century. For the south coast region, which includes Azusa, the following is predicted (emphasis added):

➢ January increase in average temperatures: 1°F to 2.5°F by 2050 and 5°F to 6°F by 2100 ➢ July increase in average temperatures: 3°F to 4°F by 2050 and 5°F to 10°F by 2100 with larger increases projected inland, which is where Azusa is located. (Modeled high temperatures; high carbon emissions scenario)

The projected temperature increases begin to diverge at mid-century so that, by the end of the century, the temperature increases projected in the higher emissions scenario (A2) are much higher than those projected in the lower emissions scenario (B1).

These projections also differ depending on the time of year and the type of measurement (highs vs. lows), all of which have different potential effects to the state's ecosystem health, agricultural production, water use and availability, and energy demand. Future temperature estimates from Cal-Adapt are shown in Figure 4-4.

City of Azusa 4-20 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-4 City of Azusa – Future Temperature Estimates in High and Low Emission Scenarios

Source: Cal-Adapt – Temperature: Decadal Averages Map

4.2.3. Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

According to the NWS Office in Oxnard, storms in Los Angeles County and the City of Azusa and are generally characterized by heavy rain often accompanied by strong winds and occasionally lightning. Approximately 10 percent of the thunderstorms that occur each year in the United States are classified as severe. A thunderstorm is classified as severe when it contains one or more of the following phenomena: hail that is one inch or greater, winds in excess of 50 knots (57.5 mph), or a tornado. Heavy precipitation in the City area falls mainly in the fall, winter, and spring months.

Heavy Rain and Storms

Heavy rains and storms result from the rapid upward movement of warm, moist air. They can occur inside warm, moist air masses and at fronts. As the warm, moist air moves upward, its cools, condenses, and forms cumulonimbus clouds that can reach heights of greater than 35,000 ft. As the rising air reaches its dew point, water droplets and ice form and begin falling the long distance through the clouds towards earth's surface. As the droplets fall, they collide with other droplets and become larger. The falling droplets create a downdraft of air that spreads out at Earth's surface and causes strong winds associated with these severe storms.

City of Azusa 4-21 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Location

Heavy rain events occur on a regional basis. Rains and storms can occur in any location of the County. All portions of the County are at risk to heavy rains. Most of these rains occur during the winter months, as discussed below.

Extent

There is no scale by which heavy rains are measured – usually it is measured in terms of rainfall amounts. Magnitude of storms is measured often in rainfall and damages. The speed of onset of heavy rains can be short, but accurate weather prediction mechanisms often let the public know of upcoming events. Duration of thunderstorms in California is often short, ranging from minutes to hours. Information from the San Gabriel Canyon Station regarding rainfall and precipitation is summarized below.

San Gabriel Canyon Weather Station, Period of Record 1894 to 2016

Average annual precipitation at the San Gabriel Canyon Station is 22.28 inches per year. The highest recorded annual precipitation is 49.39 inches in 1978; the highest for a 24-hour period is 8.25 inches on December 31, 1933. The lowest recorded annual precipitation was 6.19 inches in 1947. Average monthly precipitation totals for this station are shown in Figure 4-5. Precipitation extremes for this station are shown in Figure 4-6.

Figure 4-5 Monthly Average Total Precipitation – San Gabriel Canyon Station

Source: Western Regional Climate Center

City of Azusa 4-22 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-6 Daily Precipitation Average and Extremes – San Gabriel Canyon Station

Source: Western Regional Climate Center

The NOAA Storm Prediction Center tracks thunderstorm watches on a county basis. Figure 4-7 shows thunderstorm watches in and around the City and the United States for a 20-year period between 1993 and 2012.

City of Azusa 4-23 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-7 Azusa – Average Thunderstorm Watches per Year (1993 to 2012)

Source: NOAA Storm Prediction Center

Hail

According to the NWS, hail is formed when water droplets freeze and thaw as they are thrown high into the upper atmosphere by the violent internal forces of thunderstorms. Hail is sometimes associated with severe storms within the City, though it is rare. Hailstones are usually less than two inches in diameter and can fall at speeds of 120 miles per hour (mph). Severe hailstorms can be quite destructive, causing damage to roofs, buildings, automobiles, vegetation, and crops. The National Weather Service classifies hail by diameter size, and corresponding everyday objects to help relay scope and severity to the population. Table 4-10 indicates the hailstone measurements utilized by the National Weather Service.

Table 4-10 Hailstone Measurements

Average Diameter Household Object Average Diameter Household Object .25 inch Pea 2.0 inch Hen Egg .5 inch Marble/Mothball 2.5 inch Tennis Ball .75 inch Dime/Penny 2.75 inch Baseball .875 inch Nickel 3.00 inch Teacup 1.0 inch Quarter 4.00 inch Grapefruit 1.5 inch Ping-pong ball 4.5 inch Softball 1.75 inch Golf-Ball Source: National Weather Service

City of Azusa 4-24 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Location

Hail events can occur in any location of the City. All portions of the City are at risk to hail. Hail tends to be rare in the City, as discussed in the extent section below.

Extent

Hail tends to be rare in California. There is no scale in which to measure hail, other than hail stone size as detailed above. The speed of onset of hail can be short, but accurate weather prediction mechanisms often let the public know of upcoming events. Duration of thunderstorms that can cause hail in California is often short, ranging from minutes to hours. Hail events last shorter than the duration of the total thunderstorm. The National Weather Service tracks hail events. Figure 4-8 shows the average days each year where hail of greater than 1" in diameter occurred during a 20-year period from 1990 to 2009.

Figure 4-8 Azusa – Average Hail Days per Year (1990 to 2009)

Source: National Weather Service

Lightning

Lightning is defined by the NWS as any and all of the various forms of visible electrical discharge caused by thunderstorms. Thunderstorms and lightning are usually (but not always) accompanied by rain. Cloud- to-ground lightning can kill or injure people by direct or indirect means. Objects can be struck directly, which may result in an explosion, burn, or total destruction. Or, damage may be indirect, when the current passes through or near an object, which generally results in less damage.

Intra-cloud lightning is the most common type of discharge. This occurs between oppositely charged centers within the same cloud. Usually it takes place inside the cloud and looks from the outside of the cloud like a diffuse brightening that flickers. However, the flash may exit the boundary of the cloud, and a bright channel, similar to a cloud-to-ground flash, can be visible for many miles. Cloud-to-ground lightning is the most damaging and dangerous type of lightning, though it is also less common. Most flashes originate City of Azusa 4-25 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 near the lower-negative charge center and deliver negative charge to earth. However, a large minority of flashes carry positive charge to earth. These positive flashes often occur during the dissipating stage of a thunderstorm's life. Positive flashes are also more common as a percentage of total ground strikes during the winter months. This type of lightning is particularly dangerous for several reasons. It frequently strikes away from the rain core, either ahead or behind the thunderstorm. It can strike as far as 5 or 10 miles from the storm in areas that most people do not consider to be a threat. Positive lightning also has a longer duration, so fires are more easily ignited. And, when positive lightning strikes, it usually carries a high peak electrical current, potentially resulting in greater damage. Heavy rains and severe storms occur in the City primarily during the late fall, winter, and spring (i.e., November through April). Lightning can accompany these storms, but tends to be rare.

Location

Lightning events can occur in any location of the City and are often associated with thunderstorms. All portions of the City are at risk to lightning. Lightning tends to be rare in the City, as discussed in the extent section below.

Extent

Lightning in the City can occur during storms. The speed of onset of thunderstorms that can cause lightning can be short, but accurate weather prediction mechanisms often let the public know of upcoming events. Duration of thunderstorms in California is often short, ranging from minutes to hours. Thunderstorms and lightning are rare in the County. Vaisala maintains the National Lightning Detection Network. It tracks cloud to ground lightning incidences in the United States. Figure 4-9 shows lightning incidences in the City and the rest of the United States from 1997 to 2012.

City of Azusa 4-26 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-9 Azusa – Lightning Incidence Map 1997 to 2012

Source: Vaisala National Lightning Detection Network

Hurricane Winds and Rains

Although the risk of a land-falling tropical cyclone (TC) is very low for southern California, there is a history of a tropical storm (sustained winds at or above 39 mph and less than 73 mph) hitting California near Long Beach on September 25, 1939 (see Figure 4-10). There was widespread heavy rainfall reported across the Los Angeles metro area with 4.83 inches in Pasadena and 11.60 inches at Mt. Wilson. Slowly rising ocean temperatures due to climate change and warmer than normal ocean water associated with strong El Nino events could support additional TC’s reaching the southern California coast in the future, with the highest probability of occurrence during the fall months. The largest impacts for this region of the country from a TC would be strong and damaging winds, coastal erosion, and inland flooding. The City of Azusa would likely see very heavy rainfall and flash flooding, along with the potential for significant debris flows from any recent nearby burn area.

City of Azusa 4-27 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-10 1939 Tropical Storm

Source: National Weather Service

Location

The entire City is subject hurricane winds. Each area of the City is at risk to high winds.

Extent

Magnitude of winds is measured often in speed and damages. These events are usually part of a heavy rain and storm event. This is discussed in more detail in the high winds and tornadoes hazard profile in Section 4.2.4 below.

Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

A search of FEMA and Cal OES disaster declarations turned up multiple events. These events are captured in Table 4-11. It should be noted that these disaster declarations are for the County, and may or may not have affected the City of Azusa.

City of Azusa 4-28 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-11 Los Angeles County Severe Storms Disaster Declarations 1950-2017

Disaster Type Federal Declarations State Declarations Count Years Count Years Severe Storms 6 1995 (twice), 1998, 2005 (twice), 7 1964, 1995 (twice), 1998, 2005 2010 (twice), 2010 Totals 6 – 7 – Source: Cal OES, FEMA

NCDC Events

The NCDC data recorded 149 hail, heavy rain, lightning, winter storm, and winter weather events for Los Angeles County since 1950. A summary of these events is shown in Table 4-12 Storms that were recorded to have caused specific damages in the City are discussed below the table.

Table 4-12 NCDC Severe Weather Events in Los Angeles County 1950 to 12/31/2016

Event Type Number Deaths Injuries Property Crop Deaths Injuries of Events Damage Damage (indirect) (indirect) Hail 24 0 0 $3,500,000 $0 0 0 Heavy Rain 13 0 4 $5,000,000 $0 0 0 Heavy Snow 26 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Lightning 9 2 13 $0 $0 0 0 Winter Storm 59 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Winter Weather 18 3 0 $0 $0 0 0 Total 149 5 17 $8,500,000 $0 0 0 Source: NCDC

November 27, 1997 – A strong Pacific storm brought heavy rain, thunderstorms, and snow to Southern California. With this storm, snow levels dropped to around 5000 feet. Snow accumulations up to 6 inches were reported in the mountains. At lower elevations, heavy rain and small hail fell. Rainfall totals ranged from 0.50 to 1.50 inches across the coast up to 4.00 inches in the mountains. The heavy rain produced numerous street flooding.

January 7, 2005 – A powerful Pacific storm brought heavy rain, snow, flash flooding, high winds and landslides to Central and Southern California. During the 5-day event, rainfall totals ranged from 3 to 10 inches over coastal areas with up to 32 inches in the mountains. With such copious rainfall, flash flooding was a serious problem across Los Angeles County. Across Los Angeles County, flash flooding killed a homeless man in Elysian Park, flooded a mobile home park in Santa Clarita, closed Highway 1 and caused numerous problems in Palmdale. In the mountains, 4 to 12 feet of snowfall was recorded along with southeast winds between 30 and 50 MPH with higher gusts. Overall, damage estimates for the entire series of storms that started December 27th, 2004 and ended on January 11th, 2005 were easily over $5 million in Los Angeles County.

City of Azusa 4-29 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 HMPC Events

According to the HMPC, short-term, heavy storms can cause flooding as well as localized drainage issues. With the increased growth of the area, adequate drainage systems has become an increasingly important issue. In addition to the flooding that often occurs during these storms, strong winds, when combined with saturated ground conditions, can down very mature trees and cause localized slides on sloped areas, especially when post-fire burn areas are involved. The HMPC noted that hail and lightning are rare.

The HMPC noted that the City sees heavy rains on an annual basis. In 2017, severe rains caused localized flooding and mud and debris flows on Encanto Parkway. More information on this event can be found in the past occurrences in Section 4.2.11.

Likelihood of Future Occurrence

Highly Likely –– 149 events were recorded in the County since 1950. The NCDC database doesn’t report all heavy rain, hail, and lightning events. Severe weather is a well-documented seasonal occurrence that will continue to occur annually in Azusa.

Climate Change and Heavy Rains and Storms

Per the CAS, while average annual rainfall may increase or decrease slightly, the intensity of individual rainfall events is likely to increase during the 21st century. It is unlikely that hail will become more common in the County. The amount of lightning is not projected to change.

Cal-Adapt noted that, on average, the projections show little change in total annual precipitation in California. Furthermore, among several models, precipitation projections do not show a consistent trend during the next century. The Mediterranean seasonal precipitation pattern is expected to continue, with most precipitation falling during winter from North Pacific storms. One of the four climate models projects slightly wetter winters, and another projects slightly drier winters with a 10 to 20 percent decrease in total annual precipitation. However, even modest changes would have a significant impact because California ecosystems are conditioned to historical precipitation levels and water resources are nearly fully utilized. Future precipitation estimates for the City are shown in Figure 4-11.

City of Azusa 4-30 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-11 City of Azusa – Future Precipitation Estimates: High and Low Emission Scenarios

Source: Cal-Adapt – Precipitation: Decadal Averages Map

4.2.4. Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes

Hazard/Problem Description

High Winds

High winds, including those accompanying severe thunderstorms, can cause property damage, threaten public safety, and have adverse economic impacts from business closures and power loss.

The City is subject to significant, non-tornadic (straight-line), winds, and strong downslope north wind events mainly during the winter months. Azusa is fairly protected from classic Santa Ana winds in southern California, but occasionally strong low-pressure systems across eastern California and Arizona can result in damaging downslope winds from the north. High winds, as defined by the NWS glossary, are sustained wind speeds of 40 mph or greater lasting for 1 hour or longer, or winds of 58 mph or greater for any duration. These winds may occur as part of a seasonal climate pattern or in relation to other severe weather events such as thunderstorms. Straight-line winds may also exacerbate existing weather conditions by increasing the effect on temperature and decreasing visibility due to the movement of particulate matters through the air, as in dust and snow storms. The winds may also exacerbate fire conditions by drying out the ground cover, propelling fuel around the region, and increasing the ferocity of exiting fires. These winds may damage crops, push automobiles off roads, damage roofs and structures, and cause secondary damage due to flying debris.

Location

The entire Planning Area is subject to significant, non-tornadic (straight-line), winds. Each area of the City is at risk to high winds.

City of Azusa 4-31 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Extent

Magnitude of winds is measured often in speed and damages. These events are usually part of a heavy rain and storm event. The speed of onset of thunderstorms can be short, but accurate weather prediction mechanisms often let the public know of upcoming events. Duration of thunderstorm winds in California is often short, ranging from minutes to hours. The Beaufort scale is an empirical measure that relates wind speed to observed conditions at sea or on land. Its full name is the Beaufort wind force scale. Figure 4-12 shows the Beaufort wind scale.

Figure 4-12 Beaufort Wind Scale

Source: National Weather Service

Figure 4-13 depicts wind zones for the United States. The map denotes that Azusa falls into Zone I, which is characterized by high winds of up to 130 mph. The City also borders a special wind region, due to the strong downslope north winds that may occur in the area near the San Gabriel Mountains.

City of Azusa 4-32 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-13 Wind Zones in the United States

Source: FEMA

Heavy rains and severe storms occur in the City primarily during the late fall, winter, and spring (i.e., November through April). Damaging winds often accompany winter storm systems moving through the area.

Tornadoes

Tornadoes and funnel clouds can also occur during these types of storms. Tornadoes are another severe weather hazard that can affect the Los Angeles County Planning Area, primarily during the rainy season in the late fall and early spring. Tornadoes are very rare in the City as well as in Los Angeles County. Tornadoes form when cool, dry air sits on top of warm, moist air. Tornadoes are rotating columns of air marked by a funnel-shaped downward extension of a cumulonimbus cloud whirling at destructive speeds of up to 300 mph, usually accompanying a thunderstorm. Tornadoes are the most powerful storms that exist. They can have the same pressure differential across a path only 300 yards wide or less as 300-mile- wide hurricanes. Figure 4-14 illustrates the potential impact and damage from a tornado.

City of Azusa 4-33 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-14 Potential Impact and Damage from a Tornado

Source: FEMA: Building Performance Assessment: Oklahoma and Kansas Tornadoes

Location

Tornadoes, while rare, can occur at any location in the City. All areas of the City are at risk to tornadoes.

Extent

Prior to February 1, 2007, tornado intensity was measured by the Fujita (F) scale. This scale was revised and is now the Enhanced Fujita scale. Both scales are sets of wind estimates (not measurements) based on damage. The new scale provides more damage indicators (28) and associated degrees of damage, allowing for more detailed analysis and better correlation between damage and wind speed. It is also more precise because it takes into account the materials affected and the construction of structures damaged by a tornado. Table 4-13 shows the wind speeds associated with the original Fujita scale ratings and the damage that could result at different levels of intensity. Table 4-14 shows the wind speeds associated with the Enhanced Fujita Scale ratings.

Table 4-13 Original Fujita Scale

Fujita (F) Fujita Scale Wind Typical Damage Scale Estimate (mph) F0 < 73 Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; branches broken off trees; shallow- rooted trees pushed over; sign boards damaged. F1 73-112 Moderate damage. Peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos blown off roads. F2 113-157 Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars overturned; large trees snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles generated; cars lifted off ground.

City of Azusa 4-34 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Fujita (F) Fujita Scale Wind Typical Damage Scale Estimate (mph) F3 158-206 Severe damage. Roofs and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted; heavy cars lifted off the ground and thrown. F4 207-260 Devastating damage. Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown away some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated. F5 261-318 Incredible damage. Strong frame houses leveled off foundations and swept away; automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters (109 yards); trees debarked; incredible phenomena will occur. Source: NOAA Storm Prediction Center, www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f-scale.html

Table 4-14 Enhanced Fujita Scale

Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale Enhanced Fujita Scale Wind Estimate (mph) EF0 65-85 EF1 86-110 EF2 111-135 EF3 136-165 EF4 166-200 EF5 Over 200 Source: NOAA Storm Prediction Center, www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-scale.html

Though rare in the City, tornadoes can cause damage to property and loss of life. While most tornado damage is caused by violent winds, the majority of injuries and deaths generally result from flying debris. Property damage can include damage to buildings, fallen trees and power lines, broken gas lines, broken sewer and water mains, and the outbreak of fires. Commercial industries may also be damaged or destroyed. Access roads and streets may be blocked by debris, delaying necessary emergency response.

Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

A search of FEMA and state disaster declarations turned up one event for high winds. This event is captured in Table 4-15. It should be noted that these disaster declarations are for the County, and may or may not have affected the City of Azusa.

Table 4-15 Los Angeles County High Wind Disaster Declarations for 1950-2017

Disaster Type Federal Declarations State Declarations Count Years Count Years High Winds 0 – 1 1983 Totals 0 – 1 – Source: Cal OES, FEMA

City of Azusa 4-35 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 NCDC Events

The NCDC data recorded 438 wind related incidents for Los Angeles County since 1950. A summary of these events is shown in Table 4-16. The NCDC database shows no damages, injuries, or deaths in the City of Azusa associated with these events.

Table 4-16 NCDC High Wind Events in Los Angeles County 1950 to 12/31/2016

Event Type Number Deaths Injuries Property Crop Deaths Injuries of Events Damage Damage (indirect) (indirect) Dust Devil 3 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Dust Storm 1 0 1 $0 $0 0 0 Funnel Cloud 9 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 High Wind 319 0 1 $0 $0 0 0 Strong Wind 3 2 1 $0 $0 0 1 Thunderstorm Winds 59 0 10 $55,000 $0 0 0 Tornado 44 0 45 $61,195,310 $0 0 0 Total 438 2 58 $61,250,310 $0 0 1 Source: NCDC

HMPC Events

The HMPC noted that wind events occur each year. The HMPC could not recall wind or tornado events that caused damages or injuries in the City.

Likelihood of Future Occurrence

Highly Likely –– 438 wind events were recorded in the County since 1950. The NCDC database doesn’t report all wind and tornado events. High winds are a well-documented seasonal occurrence that will continue to occur annually in Azusa. Tornadoes remain unlikely.

Climate Change and High Winds/Tornadoes

According to the 2014 CAS, while average annual rainfall may increase or decrease slightly, the intensity of individual events is likely to increase during the 21st century. This may bring stronger wind events. The number of tornadoes is not projected to change.

4.2.5. Climate Change Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

Climate change is the distinct change in measures of weather patterns over a long period of time, ranging from decades to millions of years. More specifically, it may be a change in average weather conditions such as temperature, rainfall, snow, ocean and atmospheric circulation, or in the distribution of weather around the average. While the Earth’s climate has cycled over its 4.5-billion-year age, these natural cycles

City of Azusa 4-36 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 have taken place gradually over millennia, and the Holocene, the most recent epoch in which human civilization developed, has been characterized by a highly stable climate – until recently.

Through changes to oceanic and atmospheric circulation cycles and increasing heat, climate change affects weather systems around the world. Climate change increases the likelihood and exacerbates the severity of extreme weather – more frequent or intense storms, floods, droughts, and heat waves. Consequences for human society include loss of life and injury, damaged infrastructure, long-term health effects, loss of agricultural crops, disrupted transport and freight, and more. Climate change is not a discrete event but a long-term hazard, the effects of which communities are already experiencing.

This LHMP is concerned with human-induced climate change that has been rapidly warming the Earth at rates unprecedented in the last 1,000 years. Since industrialization began in the 19th century, the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) at escalating quantities has released vast amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases responsible for trapping heat in the atmosphere, increasing the average temperature of the Earth. Secondary impacts include changes in precipitation patterns, the global water cycle, melting glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change will “increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems” if unchecked.

Climate change adaptation is a key priority of the State of California. The 2013 State of California Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan stated that climate change is already affecting California. Sea levels have risen by as much as seven inches along the California coast over the last century, increasing erosion and pressure on the state’s infrastructure, water supplies, and natural resources. The State has also seen increased average temperatures, more extreme hot days, fewer cold nights, a lengthening of the growing season, shifts in the water cycle with less winter precipitation falling as snow, and earlier runoff of both snowmelt and rainwater in the year. In addition to changes in average temperatures, sea level, and precipitation patterns, the intensity of extreme weather events is also changing. Data suggests that the effects of climate change have already been felt in the area around Azusa.

Location

Climate change is a global phenomenon. It is expected to affect the whole of the City.

Extent

There is no scale to measure the extent of climate change. Climate change exacerbates other hazard, such as drought, extreme heat, flooding, wildfire, and others. The speed of onset of climate change is very slow. The duration of climate change is not yet known, but is feared to be tens to hundreds of years.

City of Azusa 4-37 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

Climate change has never been directly linked for any declared disasters, as shown in Table 4-3.

NCDC Events

The NCDC does not track climate change events.

HMPC Events

Past flooding, wildfire, levee failure, and drought disasters may have been exacerbated by climate change, but it is impossible to make direct connections to individual events. Unlike earthquake and floods that occur over a finite time period, climate change is a slow onset, long term hazard, the effects of which some communities may already be already experiencing, but for which little empirical data exists. Further, given the science, it is likely that measurable effects may not be seriously experienced for years, decades, or may be avoided altogether by mitigation actions taken today.

The City noted that it seems that the summers have been getting hotter; cooling centers are being opened more frequently.

The Planning Team noted the following on climate change events in the City:

➢ When it rains, the data shows that storms are more intense ➢ Droughts seem more intense, extended ➢ Because of trend with increased temperatures – longer droughts, increased heat contributes to wildfire conditions ➢ It is a slow moving disaster Likelihood of Future Occurrences

Highly Likely – Climate change is virtually certain to continue without immediate and effective global action. According to NASA, 15 of the 17 hottest years ever have occurred since 2000. Without significant global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the IPCC concludes in its Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report (2014) that average global temperatures are likely to exceed 1.5 C by the end of the 21st century, with consequences for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges.

The 2014 CAS noted that the City of Azusa will have to comply with recent and anticipated state and federal regulations on reducing GHG emissions, such as California’s landmark AB32 and SB375 legislation. At present, local governments in California are being asked to reduce GHG emissions 15% from current levels by 2020, with an ultimate state-wide goal of 80% reductions by 2050, which scientists have determined to be the amount necessary to arrest the effects of global warming.

City of Azusa 4-38 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Climate Scenarios

The United Nations IPCC developed several GHG emissions scenarios based on differing sets of assumptions about future economic growth, population growth, fossil fuel use, and other factors. The emissions scenarios range from “business-as-usual” (i.e., minimal change in the current emissions trends) to more progressive (i.e., international leaders implement aggressive emissions reductions policies). Each of these scenarios leads to a corresponding GHG concentration, which is then used in climate models to examine how the climate may react to varying levels of GHGs. Climate researchers use many global climate models to assess the potential changes in climate due to increased GHGs.

Key Uncertainties Associated with Climate Projections

➢ Climate projections and impacts, like other types of research about future conditions, are characterized by uncertainty. Climate projection uncertainties include but are not limited to: ✓ Levels of future greenhouse gas concentrations and other radiatively important gases and aerosols, ✓ Sensitivity of the climate system to greenhouse gas concentrations and other radiatively important gases and aerosols, ✓ Inherent climate variability, and ✓ Changes in local physical processes (such as afternoon sea breezes) that are not captured by global climate models.

Even though precise quantitative climate projections at the local scale are characterized by uncertainties, the information provided can help identify the potential risks associated with climate variability/climate change and support long term mitigation and adaptation planning.

Maps show projected change in average surface air temperature in the later part of this century (2071-2099) relative to the later part of the last century (1970-1999) under a scenario that assumes substantial reductions in heat trapping gases and a higher emissions scenario that assumes continued increases in global emissions. These are shown in Figure 4-15.

City of Azusa 4-39 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-15 Projected Temperature Change – Lower and Higher Emissions Scenario

Source: National Climate Assessment

According to the California Natural Resource Agency (CNRA), climate change is already affecting California and is projected to continue to do so well into the foreseeable future. Current and projected changes include increased temperatures, seal level rise, a reduced winter snowpack altered precipitation patterns, and more frequent storm events. Over the long term, reducing greenhouse gases can help make these changes less severe, but the changes cannot be avoided entirely. Unavoidable climate impacts can result in a variety of secondary consequences including detrimental impacts on human health and safety, economic continuity, ecosystem integrity and provision of basic services.

The 2014 CAS delineated how climate change may impact and exacerbate natural hazards in the future, including wildfires, extreme heat, floods, drought, and levee failure:

➢ Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in Azusa and the rest of California, which are likely to increase the risk of mortality and morbidity due to heat-related illness and exacerbation of existing chronic health conditions. Those most at risk and vulnerable to climate-related illness are the elderly, individuals with chronic conditions such as heart and lung disease, diabetes, and mental illnesses, infants, the socially or economically disadvantaged, and those who work outdoors. ➢ Higher temperatures will melt the Sierra snowpack earlier and drive the snowline higher, resulting in less snowpack to supply water to California users. ➢ Droughts are likely to become more frequent and persistent in the 21st century. ➢ Intense rainfall events, periodically ones with larger than historical runoff, will continue to affect California with more frequent and/or more extensive flooding. ➢ Storms and snowmelt may coincide and produce higher winter runoff from the landward side, while accelerating sea-level rise will produce higher storm surges during coastal storms. Together, these

City of Azusa 4-40 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 changes may increase the probability of floods and levee and dam failures, along with creating issues related to salt water intrusion. ➢ Warmer weather, reduced snowpack, and earlier snowmelt can be expected to increase wildfire through fuel hazards and ignition risks. These changes can also increase plant moisture stress and insect populations, both of which affect forest health and reduce forest resilience to wildfires. An increase in wildfire intensity and extent will increase public safety risks, property damage, fire suppression and emergency response costs to government, watershed and water quality impacts, vegetation conversions and habitat fragmentation. ➢ Sea-level rise will increase erosion, threatening public and private property and structures and causing social, economic, and resource losses. 4.2.6. Dam Failure Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

According to the California Division of Safety of Dams, dams are manmade structures built for a variety of uses including flood protection, power generation, agriculture, water supply, and recreation. When dams are constructed for flood protection, they are usually engineered to withstand a flood with a computed risk of occurrence. For example, a dam may be designed to contain a flood at a location on a stream that has a certain probability of occurring in any one year. If prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding occur that exceed the design requirements, that structure may be overtopped and fail. Overtopping is the primary cause of earthen dam failure in the United States.

Dam failures can also result from any one or a combination of the following causes:

➢ Earthquake; ➢ Inadequate spillway capacity resulting in excess overtopping flows; ➢ Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage, or piping or rodent activity; ➢ Improper design; ➢ Improper maintenance; ➢ Negligent operation; and/or ➢ Failure of upstream dams on the same waterway.

Water released by a failed dam generates tremendous energy and can cause a flood that is catastrophic to life and property. A catastrophic dam failure could challenge local response capabilities and require evacuations to save lives. Impacts to life safety will depend on the warning time and the resources available to notify and evacuate the public. Major loss of life could result as well as potentially catastrophic effects to roads, bridges, and homes. Electric generating facilities and transmission lines could also be damaged and affect life support systems in communities outside the immediate hazard area. Associated water supply, water quality and health concerns could also be an issue. Factors that influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam failure are the amount of water impounded; the density, type, and value of development and infrastructure located downstream; and the speed of failure.

In general, there are three types of dams: concrete arch or hydraulic fill; earth and rockfill; and concrete gravity. Each type of dam has different failure characteristics. A concrete arch or hydraulic fill dam can fail suddenly; the flood wave builds up rapidly to a peak then gradually declines. An earthfill or rockfill

City of Azusa 4-41 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 dam gradually fails due to erosion of the breach; a flood wave will build gradually to a peak and then decline until the reservoir is empty. A concrete gravity dam can fail suddenly or gradually with a corresponding buildup and decline of the flood wave.

Dams and reservoirs have been built throughout California to supply water for agriculture and domestic use, to allow for flood control, as a source of hydroelectric power, and to serve as recreational facilities. The storage capacities of these reservoirs range from a less than a hundred acre feet to 4.5 million acre-feet. The water from these reservoirs eventually makes its way to the Pacific Ocean by way of several river systems.

The California Department of Water Resources (Cal DWR) Division of Safety of Dams has jurisdiction over impoundments that meet certain capacity and height criteria. Embankments that are less than six feet high and impoundments that can store less than 15 acre-feet are non-jurisdictional. Additionally, dams that are less than 25 feet high can impound up to 50 acre-feet without being jurisdictional. Cal DWR Division of Safety of Dams assigns hazard ratings to large dams within the State. The following two factors are considered when assigning hazard ratings: existing land use and land use controls (zoning) downstream of the dam. Dams are classified in three categories that identify the potential hazard to life and property:

➢ High hazard indicates that a failure would most probably result in the loss of life ➢ Significant hazard indicates that a failure could result in appreciable property damage ➢ Low hazard indicates that failure would result in only minimal property damage and loss of life is unlikely

Location

The City could be subject to inundation from multiple dams. The Cogswell Dam is located upstream of San Gabriel Dam on the West Fork of the San Gabriel River in the Angeles National Forest. Cogswell Dam is a rockfill dam with a total reservoir capacity of 11,136 acre-feet. Cogswell Dam is owned, operated, and maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. Morris Dam is located downstream of San Gabriel Dam on the San Gabriel River in the Angeles National Forest. Morris Dam is a concrete gravity dam owned, operated, and maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. A failure of San Gabriel Dam could potentially result in the overtopping and ultimate failure of Morris Dam. In normal operations, releases from San Gabriel Dam would be intercepted by Morris Dam immediately downstream. In the event of a combined failure of San Gabriel and Morris Dam, portions of the Cities of Azusa, Duarte, Irwindale, and Baldwin Park could potentially be inundated. In this scenario, the downstream Santa Fe Dam and Flood Control Basin in Irwindale would ultimately intercept a large percentage of flood flows.

The City is also at risk from a Big Dalton Dam failure. Table 4-17 identifies these four dams of concern in the vicinity of the City of Azusa. This can be seen on Figure 4-16.

Table 4-17 City of Azusa – Dams of Concern Inventory

Federal Year Structural Maximum Hazard Completed Dam Height of Storage of Dam Name Classification River Type Dam (ft) (acre-ft)* Big Dalton Dam High Big Dalton Wash 1929 Rockfill 155 1,290

City of Azusa 4-42 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Federal Year Structural Maximum Hazard Completed Dam Height of Storage of Dam Name Classification River Type Dam (ft) (acre-ft)* Cogswell Dam High San Gabriel River 1935 Rockfill 270 8,969 Morris Dam High San Gabriel River 1935 Gravity 245 39,300 San Gabriel Dam High San Gabriel River 1937 Rockfill 310 53,344 Source: National Inventory of Dams and California Division of Safety of Dams *One Acre Foot=326,000 gallons

City of Azusa 4-43 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-16 City of Azusa –Dams of Concern

City of Azusa 4-44 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 South of the I-210 Freeway is the Santa Fe spreading grounds. The Irwindale spreading grounds are part of the Santa Fe Dam Flood Control Basin. In the case of dam failures from the San Gabriel or Morris Dams, the Santa Fe Dam Control Basin, including the Irwindale spreading grounds, would detain much of the water, protecting many cities south of Santa Fe Dam, however, much of the City of Azusa would potentially become inundated from the overflow of the San Gabriel River. This can be seen on Figure 4-17.

City of Azusa 4-45 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-17 City of Azusa – Spreading Grounds

City of Azusa 4-46 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Extent

Dam failure is a natural disaster from two perspectives. First, the inundation from released waters resulting from dam failure is related to naturally occurring floodwaters. Second, dam failure would most probably happen in consequence of the natural disaster triggering the event. There is no scale with which to measure dam failure. While a dam may fill slowly with runoff from winter storms, a dam break can have a very quick speed of onset. The duration of dam failure is not long – only as long as it takes to empty the reservoir of water the dam held back.

Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

There have been one federal and one state disaster declaration related to dam failure in Los Angeles County. They stem from the 1963 Baldwin Hills Dam failure. While it had disastrous affects for those downstream in the West Los Angeles area, no damages occurred in Azusa.

Table 4-18 Los Angeles County Dam Failure Disaster Declaration History 1950 to 2017

Disaster Type Federal Declarations State Declarations Count Years Count Years Dam/Levee Break 1 1963 1 1963 Totals 1 – 1 – Source: Cal OES, FEMA

NCDC Events

The NCDC does not track dam failure events.

NPDP Events

The National Performance of Dams Program (NPDP) database was searched for dam failure incidents in or around Azusa. No dam failure incidents were found.

HMPC Events

The City Planning Team noted no events of dam failure that have affected the City. They also noted that the dams are not maintained at capacity which mitigates the opportunity for a catastrophic dam failure. Even with the heavy winter rains of 2017, the two dams are not over 45% capacity; although this is also related to the four previous years of drought.

Likelihood of Future Occurrence

Unlikely – There have been no recorded events of dam failure in or around Azusa. None of the dams have ever been at risk of failure in the past. Based on past occurrences, it is unlikely a dam failure will occur in the future that would impact the City of Azusa.

City of Azusa 4-47 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Climate Change and Dam Failure

According to the CAS and the HMPC, increases in both precipitation and heat causing snow melt could increase the potential for dam failure and uncontrolled releases in Los Angeles County and the City of Azusa.

4.2.7. Drought and Water Shortage Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

The National Drought Mitigation Center states that drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or forest fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts occur slowly, over a multi-year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and ends. Water districts normally require at least a 10-year planning horizon to implement a multiagency improvement project to mitigate the effects of a drought and water supply shortage.

Drought is a complex issue involving (see Figure 4-18) many factors—it occurs when a normal amount of precipitation and snow is not available to satisfy an area’s usual water-consuming activities. Drought can often be defined regionally based on its effects:

➢ Meteorological drought is usually defined by a period of below average water supply. ➢ Agricultural drought occurs when there is an inadequate water supply to meet the needs of the state’s crops and other agricultural operations such as livestock. ➢ Hydrological drought is defined as deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is generally measured as streamflow, snowpack, and as lake, reservoir, and groundwater levels. ➢ Socioeconomic drought occurs when a drought impacts health, well-being, and quality of life, or when a drought starts to have an adverse economic impact on a region.

City of Azusa 4-48 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-18 Causes and Impacts of Drought

Source: National Drought Mitigation Center

Location

Drought in the United States is monitored by the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS). A major component of this portal is the U.S. Drought Monitor. The Drought Monitor concept was developed jointly by the NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, the NDMC, and the USDA’s Joint Agricultural Weather Facility in the late 1990s as a process that synthesizes multiple indices, outlooks and local impacts, into an assessment that best represents current drought conditions. The final outcome of each Drought Monitor is a consensus of federal, state, and academic scientists who are intimately familiar with the conditions in their respective regions. A recent snapshot of the drought conditions in Azusa and California can be found in Figure 4-19. A snapshot from 2015, 2016, and 2017 is shown in Figure 4-20.

City of Azusa 4-49 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-19 Drought Status in Azusa

Source: US Drought Monitor

City of Azusa 4-50 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-20 Previous Drought Status in Azusa

Source: US Drought Monitor

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) says the following about drought:

One dry year does not normally constitute a drought in California. California’s extensive system of water supply infrastructure—its reservoirs, groundwater basins, and inter-regional conveyance facilities—mitigates the effect of short-term dry periods for most water users. Defining when a drought begins is a function of drought impacts to water users. Hydrologic conditions constituting a drought for water users in one location may not constitute a drought for water users elsewhere, or for water users having a different water supply. Individual water suppliers may use criteria such as rainfall/runoff, amount of water in storage, or expected supply from a water wholesaler to define their water supply conditions.

The drought issue in California is further compounded by water rights. Water is a commodity possessed under a variety of legal doctrines. The prioritization of water rights between farming and federally protected fish habitats in California is part of this issue.

City of Azusa 4-51 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Extent

As shown on the previous figures, drought is tracked by the US Drought Monitor. The Drought Monitor includes a scale to measure drought intensity:

➢ None ➢ D0 (Abnormally Dry) ➢ D1 (Moderate Drought) ➢ D2 (Severe Drought) ➢ D3 (Extreme Drought) ➢ D4 (Exceptional Drought)

Drought is not initially recognized as a problem because it normally originates in what is considered good weather, which typically includes a dry late spring and summer in Mediterranean climates, such as in California. It is difficult to quantitatively assess drought impacts to Azusa and Los Angeles County because not many county-specific studies have been conducted. Some factors to consider include the impacts of fallowed agricultural land, habitat loss and associated effects on wildlife, and the drawdown of the groundwater table. The drawdown of the groundwater table is one factor that has been recognized to occur during repeated dry years. Lowering of groundwater levels results in the need to deepen wells, which subsequently lead to increased pumping costs. These costs are a major consideration for residents relying on domestic wells and agricultural producers that irrigate with groundwater and/or use it for frost protection. Some communities in higher elevations with shallow bedrock do not have a significant source of groundwater.

Drought impacts are wide-reaching and may be economic, environmental, and/or societal. The most significant impacts associated with drought in the City are those related to water intensive activities such as wildfire protection, municipal usage, commerce, tourism, recreation, agriculture, and wildlife preservation. Also, during a drought, allocations go down and water costs increase, which results in reduced water availability. Voluntary conservation measures are a normal and ongoing part of system operations and actively implemented during extended droughts. A reduction of electric power generation and water quality deterioration are also potential problems. Drought conditions can also cause soil to compact and not absorb water well, potentially making an area more susceptible to flooding and erosion.

Water Shortage

Southern California counties, including Los Angeles County, generally do not have sufficient groundwater and surface water supplies to mitigate the severest droughts of the past century. Azusa is fortunate. Potable water in Azusa is provided by the Azusa Light and Water (ALW) Department via local groundwater primarily and via the San Gabriel River when groundwater is not sufficient and from the Metropolitan Water District in extreme conditions. The 2015 City of Azusa Urban Water Management Plan noted that ALW produces groundwater from groundwater wells that pump water from the Main San Gabriel Basin. Well No. 9 and the Aspen well are currently inactive due to water quality issues. The City's wells range in capacity from 900 gallons per minute (gpm) to 3,000 gpm and provide 65 percent of the total water supply. In addition to groundwater, ALW also diverts San Gabriel River water from either the San Gabriel or the Morris Reservoir and treats it at its Joseph F. Hsu

City of Azusa 4-52 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Filtration Plant. The Plant has a capacity of 12 million gallons per day (MGD) and provides approximately one third of the total supply. Azusa Light and Water does have an imported water supply through its connection to Upper District. The connection has a capacity of 3,300 gpm. Overall, imported water is used only on an emergency basis to supplement groundwater and surface water supplies. In addition to imported water and groundwater, ALW’s water supply system also includes three emergency interconnections: the MWD USG-8 Connection (3,300 gpm), the Valley County Water District Emergency Connection (1,500 gpm), and the City of Glendora Emergency Connection (1,000 gpm). For storage needs, ALW maintains 13 storage reservoirs with a capacity of 38 million gallons, 11 of which are in the northern part of the City above the I-210 Freeway.

Location

Since water shortage happens on a regional scale, the entirety of the City is at risk.

Extent

There is no established scientific scale to measure water shortage. The speed of onset of water shortage tends to be lengthy. The duration of water shortage can vary, depending on the severity of the drought that accompanies it.

Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

There have been no federal and two state declarations in Los Angeles County due to drought. This can be seen in Table 4-19. More information on the 2014 declaration can be found below the table.

Table 4-19 Los Angeles County Drought Disaster Declarations 1950-2017

Disaster Type Federal Declarations State Declarations Count Years Count Years Drought 0 – 2 1976, 2014 Totals 0 – 2 – Source: Cal OES, FEMA

2014 Governor’s Drought Declaration

California’s ongoing response to its five-year drought has been guided by a series of executive orders issued by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. that are listed below beginning with the most recent and continuing in reverse chronological order:

➢ Executive Order B-37-16, May 9, 2016: The Governor’s latest drought-related executive order established a new water use efficiency framework for California. The order bolstered the state’s drought resilience and preparedness by establishing longer-term water conservation measures that include

City of Azusa 4-53 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 permanent monthly water use reporting, new urban water use targets, reducing system leaks and eliminating clearly wasteful practices, strengthening urban drought contingency plans and improving agricultural water management and drought plans. ➢ Executive Order B-36-15, November 13, 2015: This executive order called for additional actions to build on the State’s ongoing response to record dry conditions and assist recovery efforts from 2015’s devastating wildfires. ➢ Executive Order B-29-15, April 1, 2015: Key provisions included ordering the State Water Resources Control Board (Board) to impose restrictions to achieve a 25-percent reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016; directing the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to lead a statewide initiative, in partnership with local agencies, to collectively replace 50 million square feet of lawns and ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscapes, and directing the California Energy Commission to implement a statewide appliance rebate program to provide monetary incentives for the replacement of inefficient household devices. ➢ Executive Order B-28-14, December 22, 2014: The order cited paragraph 9 of the January 17, 2014 Proclamation and paragraph 19 of the April 25, 2014 Proclamation (both are linked below) and extended the operation of the provisions in these paragraphs through May 31, 2016. ➢ Executive Order B-27-14, October 6, 2014: The order directed State agencies to assist local governments in their response to wildfires during California’s drought conditions. ➢ Executive Order B-26-14, September 18, 2014: The order facilitated efforts to provide water to families in dire need as extreme drought continued throughout California. ➢ Proclamation of a Continued State of Emergency, April 25, 2014: The order strengthened the State’s ability to manage water and habitat effectively in drought conditions and called on all Californians to redouble their efforts to conserve water. ➢ Drought State of Emergency, January 17, 2014: The Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency and directed State officials to take all necessary actions to make water immediately available. Key measures in the proclamation included: ✓ Asking all Californians to reduce water consumption by 20 percent and referring residents and water agencies to the Save Our Water campaign – www.saveourwater.com – for practical advice on how to do so; ✓ Directing local water suppliers to immediately implement local water shortage contingency plans; ✓ Ordering the Board to consider petitions for consolidation of places of use for the State Water Project and Central Valley Project, which could streamline water transfers and exchanges between water users; ✓ Directing DWR and the Board to accelerate funding for projects that could break ground in 2014 and enhance water supplies; ✓ Ordering the Board to put water rights holders across the state on notice that they may be directed to cease or reduce water diversions based on water shortages; ✓ Asking the Board to consider modifying requirements for releases of water from reservoirs or diversion limitations so that water may be conserved in reservoirs to protect cold water supplies for salmon, maintain water supplies and improve water quality.

NCDC Drought Events

The NCDC contains no drought events for Los Angeles County or Azusa.

City of Azusa 4-54 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 HMPC Events

According to the City Planning Team, the most recent drought starting in 2014 resulted in a significant loss to turf throughout the City. These turf areas were replaced by mulch and drought tolerant landscaping. As a result of this drought, the City has fully adopted the State’s drought planning program which includes among other items, continued implementation of water conservation measures. In the City’s foothills, impacts included a loss of scrub and other ground cover on both sides of the river. This included a loss of Chaparral, a usually drought tolerant vegetation.

Also, according to the City Planning Team, the recent drought did cause a reduced water supply, but the City noted that they are better off than other areas in LA County. The City has its own surface water sources combined with some groundwater which is all managed through City water.

Historically, California has experienced multiple severe droughts. According to the DWR, the 1929-34 drought established the criteria commonly used in designing storage capacity and yield of large northern California reservoirs. The driest single year of California’s measured hydrologic record between 1850 and 2000 was 1977. Figure 4-21 depicts California’s Multi-Year Historical Dry Periods, 1850-2000. Figure 4-22 depicts runoff for the State from 1900 to 2015. This gives a historical context for the 2014-2015 drought to past droughts

Figure 4-21 California’s Multi-Year Historical Dry Periods, 1850-2000

Source: California Department of Water Resources, www.water.ca.gov/ Notes: Dry periods prior to 1900 estimated from limited data; covers dry periods of statewide or major regional extent

City of Azusa 4-55 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-22 Annual California Runoff – 1900 to 2015

Source: California DWR

Water Shortage

Figure 4-23 illustrates several indicators commonly used to evaluate water conditions in California. The percent of average values are determined by measurements made in each of the ten major hydrologic regions. The chart describes water conditions in California between 1996 and 2007. The chart illustrates the cyclical nature of weather patterns in California. Snow pack and precipitation increased between 1996 and 1997, began decreasing in 1998, and began to show signs of recovery in 2002, increased in 2005, and decreased sharply in 2007.

Figure 4-23 Water Supply Conditions, 1996 to 2012

Source: 2013 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan

City of Azusa 4-56 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Since 2012, snowpack levels in California had dropped dramatically. 2015 estimates placed snowpack as 5 percent of normal levels. Snowpack measurements have been kept in California since 1950 and nothing in the historic record comes close 2015’s severely depleted level. The previous record for the lowest snowpack level in California, 25 percent of normal, was set both in 1976-77 and 2013-2014. In “normal” years, the snowpack supplies about 30 percent of California’s water needs, according to the California Department of Water Resources. Snowpack levels began to increase in 2016, and in 2017 snowpack increased to the largest in 22 years, according to the State Department of Water Resources.

Likelihood of Future Occurrence

Drought

Likely—Historical drought data for Azusa and region indicate there have been 5 significant droughts in the last 85 years. This equates to a drought every 17 years on average or a 5.8 percent chance of a drought in any given year. Based on this data, droughts will affect the City of Azusa.

Water Shortage

Likely— Recent historical data for water shortage indicates that Azusa is at risk to both short and prolonged periods of water shortage. Based on this it is likely that water shortages will affect the City. Potable water in Azusa is provided by the Azusa Light and Water Department via local groundwater primarily and via the San Gabriel River when groundwater is not sufficient and from the Metropolitan Water District in extreme conditions. Future water use projections must consider significant factors on water demand, such as development and/or redevelopment, and climate patterns, among other less significant factors that affect water demand. Although redevelopment is expected to be an ongoing process, it is not expected to significantly impact water use since ALW is already in a near "built-out" condition. Rainfall, however, will continue to be a major influence on demand as drought conditions will increase demand at a time when these supplies are limited and may therefore result in water use restrictions in accordance with ALW's Emergency Conservation Plan Ordinance.

Climate Change and Drought and Water Shortage

Climate scientists studying California find that drought conditions are likely to become more frequent and persistent over the 21st century due to climate change. The experiences of California during recent years underscore the need to examine more closely the state’s water storage, distribution, management, conservation, and use policies. The CAS stresses the need for public policy development addressing long term climate change impacts on water supplies. The CAS notes that climate change is likely to significantly diminish California’s future water supply, stating that:

California must change its water management and uses because climate change will likely create greater competition for limited water supplies needed by the environment, agriculture, and cities.

According to California’s Adaptation Planning Guide: Understanding Regional Characteristics, the City falls within the South Coast Region designated based on similarities in biophysical setting, climate and jurisdictional characteristics. These regions were established to better address climate change issues associated with climate vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning. According to this guide, the City of Azusa 4-57 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 region derives its water supply primarily from the State Water Project (SWP) (which draws from the Sierra), the Colorado River, groundwater, and local imports. These sources vary in quantity in a given year, but on average the SWP and groundwater provide more than 1 million acre-feet each, while the Colorado River provides nearly the same. Depending on the water supply in a given year, approximately 5 million acre- feet of water are used. Most of the use is by urban areas at around 4 million acre-feet, followed by agriculture, which uses about 0.5 to 1 million acre-feet annually. Total reservoir storage capacity is about 3 million acre-feet. While the City is insulated from this due to their use of differing water sources, competition for future water sources may be greater due to increased population and static or dropping water supplies.

Members of the HMPC noted a report published in Science magazine in 2015 that stated:

Given current greenhouse gas emissions, the chances of a 35+ year “megadrought” striking the Southwest by 2100 are above 80 percent.

The HMPC also noted a report from the Public Policy Institute of California that thousands of Californians – mostly in rural, small, disadvantaged communities – already face acute water scarcity, contaminated groundwater, or complete water loss. Climate change would make these effects worse.

4.2.8. Earthquake Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

According to the California Geological Survey (CGS), an earthquake is caused by a sudden slip on a fault. Stresses in the earth’s outer layer push the sides of the fault together. Stress builds up, and the rocks slip suddenly, releasing energy in waves that travel through the earth’s crust and cause the shaking that is felt during an earthquake.

Location

California is seismically active because it sits on the boundary between two of the earth’s tectonic plates. Most of the state ‐ everything east of the San Andreas Fault ‐ is on the North American Plate. The cities of Monterey, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego are on the Pacific Plate, which is constantly moving northwest past the North American Plate. The relative rate of movement is about two inches per year. The San Andreas Fault is considered the boundary between the two plates, although some of the motion is taken up on faults as far away as central Utah.

The General Plan Environmental Impact Report detailed the geology specific to the City. The geology of the City of Azusa can be thought of in three basic types of geologic groupings. The steeper mountains are made up of very old "basement" rocks that are generally very hard and resistant to erosion. Formations in the foothills are old "bedrock" formations and the oldest "alluvium" formations. South of the steep mountains and foothills are the intermediate-age and younger alluvium formations (often called alluvial fans because of their shape on a map), and man-made fill deposits. The geologic units that are found in the City are shown in Table 4-20.

City of Azusa 4-58 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-20 Azusa – Geologic Units

Geologic Unit Location Artificial Fill Fond either as dams or in the quarries/pits where reclamation is underway. Youngest Alluvium Found in the San Gabriel River active channel and active floodplains, in the immediate vicinity of Little Dalton Wash, in a few small canyons along the foothills, and in the local talus deposits at the base of steep slopes (e.g., quarries). Talus is the wedge- or cone-shaped accumulation of material that moves under gravity from a slope face to the base of a slope. Landslide Deposits Found along steep-walled canyons in the foothills and in the steep mountainsides along San Gabriel Canyon Road and west of Fish Canyon Road. It is most abundant in the basement rock of the mountains. Young Alluvial Fan Deposits Located to the east of the active San Gabriel River floodplain extending to meet the intermediate-age alluvial fan deposits along a line connecting the intersection of Sierra Madre Boulevard and Azusa Avenue with Little Dalton Wash and Alosta Avenue. Intermediate-Age Alluvial Fan Occupies the flatter alluvial area bordering the foothills. Deposits Older Alluvial Fan Deposits Found in isolated patches along the flanks of San Gabriel Canyon (each side of San Gabriel Canyon Road) north of the central City area. Older alluvial fan deposits are also found in the foothills along the base on the mountains just northeast of the central City area Bedrock--Topanga Formation Found throughout the flatter portions of the City. Bedrock exposures are known and Glendora Volcanics along the Sierra Madre and Duarte faults east of Azusa Avenue at the transition from a) the higher mountains to the foothills, and b) the foothills to the alluvial fans. Source: City of Azusa, "Analysis of Existing Conditions and Trends," December 2001.

Earthquake Hazards

Earthquakes can cause structural damage, injury, and loss of life, as well as damage to infrastructure networks, such as water, power, gas, communication, and transportation. Earthquakes may also cause collateral emergencies including dam and levee failures, seiches, hazmat incidents, fires, and landslides. The degree of damage depends on many interrelated factors. Among these are: the magnitude, focal depth, distance from the causative fault, source mechanism, duration of shaking, high rock accelerations, type of surface deposits or bedrock, degree of consolidation of surface deposits, presence of high groundwater, topography, and the design, type, and quality of building construction. This section briefly discusses issues related to types of seismic hazards.

Ground Shaking

Groundshaking is motion that occurs as a result of energy released during faulting. The damage or collapse of buildings and other structures caused by groundshaking is among the most serious seismic hazards. Damage to structures from this vibration, or groundshaking, is caused by the transmission of earthquake vibrations from the ground to the structure. The intensity of shaking and its potential impact on buildings is determined by the physical characteristics of the underlying soil and rock, building materials and workmanship, earthquake magnitude and location of epicenter, and the character and duration of ground motion.

City of Azusa 4-59 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Seismic Structural Safety

Older buildings constructed before building codes were established, and even newer buildings constructed before earthquake-resistance provisions were included in the codes, are the most likely to be damaged during an earthquake. Buildings one or two stories high of wood-frame construction are considered to be the most structurally resistant to earthquake damage. Older masonry buildings without seismic reinforcement (unreinforced masonry) are the most susceptible to the type of structural failure that causes injury or death.

The susceptibility of a structure to damage from ground shaking is also related to the underlying foundation material. A foundation of rock or very firm material can intensify short-period motions which affect low- rise buildings more than tall, flexible ones. A deep layer of water-logged soft alluvium can cushion low- rise buildings, but it can also accentuate the motion in tall buildings. The amplified motion resulting from softer alluvial soils can also severely damage older masonry buildings.

Other potentially dangerous conditions include, but are not limited to: building architectural features that are not firmly anchored, such as parapets and cornices; roadways, including column and pile bents and abutments for bridges and overcrossings; and above-ground storage tanks and their mounting devices. Such features could be damaged or destroyed during strong or sustained ground shaking.

Settlement

Settlement can occur in poorly consolidated soils during ground shaking. During settlement, the soil materials are physically rearranged by the shaking to result in a less stable alignment of the individual minerals. Settlement of sufficient magnitude to cause significant structural damage is normally associated with rapidly deposited alluvial soils or improperly founded or poorly compacted fill. These areas are known to undergo extensive settling with the addition of irrigation water, but evidence due to ground shaking is not available.

Other Hazards

Earthquakes can also cause landslides and dam failures. Earthquakes may cause landslides (discussed in Section 4.2.11), particularly during the wet season, in areas of high water or saturated soils. Finally, earthquakes can cause dams to fail (see Section 4.2.4 Dam Failure).

Faults

A fault is defined by the CGS as “a fracture or fracture zone in the earth’s crust along which there has been displacement of the sides relative to one another.” For the purpose of planning there are two types of faults, active and inactive. Active faults have experienced displacement in historic time, suggesting that future displacement may be expected. Inactive faults show no evidence of movement in recent geologic time, suggesting that these faults are dormant. This does not mean, however, that faults having no evidence of surface displacement within the last 11,000 years are necessarily inactive. For example, the 1975 Oroville earthquake, the 1983 Coalinga earthquake, and the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake occurred on faults not previously recognized as active. Potentially active faults are those that have shown displacement within

City of Azusa 4-60 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 the last 1.6 million years (Quaternary). An inactive fault shows no evidence of movement in historic (last 200 years) or geologic time, suggesting that these faults are dormant.

Two types of fault movement represent possible hazards to structures in the immediate vicinity of the fault: fault creep and sudden fault displacement. Fault creep, a slow movement of one side of a fault relative to the other, can cause cracking and buckling of sidewalks and foundations even without perceptible ground shaking. Sudden fault displacement occurs during an earthquake event and may result in the collapse of buildings or other structures that are found along the fault zone when fault displacement exceeds an inch or two. The only protection against damage caused directly by fault displacement is to prohibit construction in the fault zone.

The State of California Department of Conservation indicates that no Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones are located in Azusa. This can be seen in Figure 4-24.

Figure 4-24 Azusa – Earthquake Zones

Source: California Department of Conservation

City of Azusa 4-61 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 However, multiple known faults traverse the city, including the Sierra Madre Fault and the Upper Duarte Fault, as well as multiple unnamed faults. Furthermore, four critical regional faults (Sierra, Raymond, Whittier, and San Andreas Central) are located within a 100 kilometer radius of the City. Rupture of any of these faults could result in an earthquake that could result in severe ground shaking in Azusa. Figure 4-25 is a map of faults in the Azusa area with the potential for strong earthquake shaking.

City of Azusa 4-62 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-25 Active Faults in and around Azusa

Source: City of Azusa General Plan City of Azusa 4-63 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Maps indicating the maximum expectable intensity of groundshaking for the County are available through several sources. Figure 4-26, prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, shows the expected relative intensity of ground shaking and damage in California from anticipated future earthquakes. The shaking potential is calculated as the level of ground motion that has a 2% chance of being exceeded in 50 years, which is the same as the level of ground-shaking with about a 2,500-year average repeat time. According to the map, Azusa is located in an area of high earthquake shaking.

Figure 4-26 Maximum Expectable Earthquake Intensity

Source: California Division of Mines and Geology. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California, 2003.

Extent

The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed as a magnitude and is measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs. An earthquake’s magnitude is expressed in whole numbers and decimals (e.g., 6.8). Seismologists have developed several magnitude scales. One of the first was the Richter Scale, developed in 1932 by the late Dr. Charles F. Richter of the California Institute of Technology. The Richter Magnitude Scale is used to quantify the magnitude or strength of the seismic energy released by an earthquake. Another measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the ground surface (see Table 4-21). Seismic shaking is typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes.

Table 4-21 Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale

MMI Felt Intensity I Not felt except by a very few people under special conditions. Detected mostly by instruments. II Felt by a few people, especially those on upper floors of buildings. Suspended objects may swing. III Felt noticeably indoors. Standing automobiles may rock slightly. IV Felt by many people indoors; by a few outdoors. At night, some people are awakened. Dishes, windows, and doors rattle.

City of Azusa 4-64 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 MMI Felt Intensity V Felt by nearly everyone. Many people are awakened. Some dishes and windows are broken. Unstable objects are overturned. VI Felt by everyone. Many people become frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture is moved. Some plaster falls. VII Most people are alarmed and run outside. Damage is negligible in buildings of good construction, considerable in buildings of poor construction. VIII Damage is slight in specially designed structures, considerable in ordinary buildings, and great in poorly built structures. Heavy furniture is overturned. IX Damage is considerable in specially designed buildings. Buildings shift from their foundations and partly collapse. Underground pipes are broken. X Some well-built wooden structures are destroyed. Most masonry structures are destroyed. The ground is badly cracked. Considerable landslides occur on steep slopes. XI Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Rails are bent. Broad fissures appear in the ground. XII Virtually total destruction. Waves are seen on the ground surface. Objects are thrown in the air.

Source: Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, FEMA 1997

Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

There has been three federal and five state disaster declarations for earthquakes in Los Angeles County. This can be seen in Table 4-22. More information can be found below the table. The HMPC noted no specific damages from these quakes.

Table 4-22 Los Angeles County Earthquake Disaster Declarations 1950-2017

Disaster Type Federal Declarations State Declarations Count Years Count Years Earthquake 3 1971, 1987, 1994 5 1971, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1994 Totals 3 – 5 – Source: Cal OES, FEMA

➢ The 1971 earthquake declarations (federal and state) were from the San Fernando earthquake. ➢ The 1987 earthquake declarations (federal and state) were from the Whittier Narrow earthquake. ➢ The 1990 state earthquake disaster declaration was from the Upland earthquake. ➢ The 1991 state earthquake disaster declaration was from the Sierra Madre. ➢ The 1994 earthquake declarations (federal and state) were from the Northridge earthquake.

NCDC Events

The NCDC database does not track earthquakes.

City of Azusa 4-65 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 USGS Events

In addition, the USGS National Earthquake Information Center database contains data on earthquakes in the Azusa area. Table 4-23 shows the approximate distances earthquakes can be felt away from the epicenter. According to the table, a magnitude 5.0 earthquake could be felt up to 90 miles away. The USGS database was searched for magnitude 5.0 or greater on the Richter Scale within 90 miles of the City of Azusa. These results are shown on Table 4-23.

Table 4-23 Approximate Relationships between Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity

Richter Scale Magnitude Maximum Expected Intensity (MM)* Distance Felt (miles) 2.0 - 2.9 I – II 0 3.0 - 3.9 II – III 10 4.0 - 4.9 IV – V 50 5.0 - 5.9 VI – VII 90 6.0 - 6.9 VII – VIII 135 7.0 - 7.9 IX – X 240 8.0 - 8.9 XI – XII 365 *Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Source: United State Geologic Survey, Earthquake Intensity Zonation and Quaternary Deposits, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 9093, 1977.

Table 4-24 Magnitude 5.0 Earthquakes within 90 Miles of Azusa

Date* Richter Magnitude Location 12/26/1951 5.75 11km NNE of San Clemente Is. (SE tip), CA 7/21/1952 5.8 13km WNW of Grapevine, CA 7/23/1952 5.55 13km ENE of Grapevine, CA 7/25/1952 5.55 22km N of Tehachapi, CA 7/31/1952 5.64 14km NNW of Tehachapi, CA 8/7/1952 5.03 19km NW of Grapevine, CA 1/12/1954 5.4 13km WNW of Grapevine, CA 5/23/1954 5.03 7km WNW of Grapevine, CA 9/23/1963 5.29 6km SSE of Hemet, CA 9/25/1965 5.14 25km W of Ludlow, CA 9/12/1970 5.22 3km W of Lytle Creek, CA 2/9/1971 5.8 10km SSW of Agua Dulce, CA 2/21/1973 5.3 22km W of Malibu, CA 8/6/1973 5.14 9km SSE of Santa Cruz Is. (E end), CA 6/1/1975 5.28 38km SW of Ludlow, CA 1/1/1979 5.21 13km S of Malibu Beach, CA 3/15/1979 5.23 23km NNW of Joshua Tree, CA

City of Azusa 4-66 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Date* Richter Magnitude Location 2/25/1980 5.34 18km ESE of Anza, CA 9/4/1981 5.45 11km NNW of Santa Barbara Is., CA 7/8/1986 6 6km SSW of Morongo Valley, CA 7/13/1986 5.45 47km ENE of San Clemente Is. (SE tip), CA 10/1/1987 5.9 2km SSW of Rosemead, CA 10/4/1987 5.25 2km WSW of Rosemead, CA 6/10/1988 5.37 16km NE of Lebec, CA 12/3/1988 5.02 1km SSE of Pasadena, CA 12/16/1988 5.03 12km SW of Morongo Valley, CA 2/28/1990 5.7 Greater Los Angeles area, California 6/28/1991 5.8 13km NNE of Sierra Madre, CA 4/23/1992 6.1 17km NNE of Thousand Palms, California 6/28/1992 6.3 7km SSE of Big Bear City, CA 6/29/1992 5.69 3km ESE of Yucca Valley, California 7/1/1992 5.34 24km N of Yucca Valley, California 7/9/1992 5.3 Southern California 7/11/1992 5.67 12km NW of California City, California 8/17/1992 5.23 7km SE of Big Bear Lake, California 9/15/1992 5.26 9km SE of Yucca Valley, California 11/27/1992 5.29 10km NNW of Big Bear City, California 12/4/1992 5.26 10km SE of Lucerne Valley, California 8/21/1993 5 12km S of Joshua Tree, California 1/17/1994 5.8 Greater Los Angeles area, California 1/18/1994 5.24 10km ESE of Piru, California 1/19/1994 5.06 8km ESE of Piru, California 1/29/1994 5.06 6km NNE of Chatsworth, California 3/20/1994 5.24 3km WNW of Panorama City, California 6/26/1995 5.02 11km SW of Valencia, California 3/18/1997 5.26 20km ENE of Barstow, California 4/26/1997 5.07 12km ESE of Piru, California 10/16/1999 5.6 7km ENE of Running Springs, CA 10/31/2001 5.02 16km ESE of Anza, CA 6/12/2005 5.2 10km ESE of Anza, CA 7/29/2008 5.44 5km S of Chino Hills, CA 3/29/2014 5.1 2km NW of Brea, CA Source: USGS *Search dates 1/1/1950 to 5/1/2017

City of Azusa 4-67 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 The 2013 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan contained a map of large earthquakes in the State since 1769. That is shown in Figure 4-27.

City of Azusa 4-68 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-27 Major Earthquakes in California since 1769

Source: 2013 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan

City of Azusa 4-69 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 HMPC Events

The HMPC noted the following events that affected the City and surrounding areas prior to 1950. This includes the earthquakes in Table 4-25. The HMPC could not recall if specific damages occurred to the City as a result.

Table 4-25 Earthquake Events in Los Angeles County 1769 to 2014

Year Date Location Time Richter Mercalli Deaths & Property Damage 1769 Jul 28 L.A. Area --- 6.0 VIII No information 1812 Dec 8 L.A. Area 3:00pm 7.0 VII 40 deaths, Mission San Juan Capistrano severely to moderately damaged. Mission San Gabriel moderately damaged. 1827 Sep 24 L.A. Area 4:00am 5.5 --- No information 1855 Jul 11 L.A. Area 4:15am 6.0 VIII Bells of Mission San Gabriel torn down. 26 buildings damaged in L.A. 1857 Jan 9 Fort Tejon 4:24pm 7.9 IX 2 deaths; Heavy property damage and loss 1916 Oct 23 Tejon Pass 2:44pm 5.3 --- No Region information 1933 Mar 10 Long Beach 5:54pm 6.4 IX 120 deaths; $50 million 1941 Oct 21 Torrance- 10:57pm 4.8 VII No deaths; Gardena $100,000 1941 Nov 14 Torrance- 12:42am 4.8 VIII No deaths; $1 Gardena million 1951 Dec 25 San Clemente 4:46pm 5.9 --- No deaths; No Island appreciable damage

City of Azusa 4-70 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Year Date Location Time Richter Mercalli Deaths & Property Damage 1971 Feb 9 San Fernando 6:01am 6.6 --- 65 deaths; $505 million 1979 Jan 1 Malibu 3:15pm 5.2 --- No deaths; minor damage 1987 Oct 1 Whittier- 7:42am 5.9 --- 8 deaths; $358 Narrows million 1988 Dec 3 Pasadena 11:38pm 5.0 --- No deaths; No appreciable damage 1989 Jan 19 Malibu 10:38pm 5.0 --- No deaths; slight damage 1989 Jun 12 Montebello 9:57am 4.6 --- No deaths; No appreciable damage 1991 Jun 28 Sierra Madre 7:44am 5.8 --- 2 deaths; $40 million 1994 Jan 17 Northridge 4:31am 6.7 --- 61 deaths Est. $20 billion 2001 Sep 9 SE of West 4:59pm 4.2 --- No deaths; Hollywood moderate damage 2010 Mar 16 Pico Rivera 4:04am 4.4 --- No deaths; moderate damage 2014 Mar 17 Encino 6:25am 4.4 --- No deaths; moderate damage Source: LA Almanac

The City Planning Team noted that while many of these earthquakes have been felt by residents of Azusa, damages to the City during these past earthquake events have been limited, confined to mostly cosmetic damages. Notable earthquake events for the City included: Northridge, Chino Hills, Whittier, and the Sierra Madres. The planning team further noted that as a result of the Sierra Madre event, the mountains moved upwards an estimated ½ inch.

The City Planning Team also noted that during earthquakes in surrounding areas, issues of concern to the City include those related to impacts to the regional transportation systems. When freeways and roads are impacted, communities can become isolated causing interruptions to food and gas supplies and other necessities. The City’s economy can also be impacted during regional earthquake events, even when the City does not sustain direct impacts.

City of Azusa 4-71 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Likelihood of Future Occurrence

Occasional (major earthquake)/Likely (minor earthquake) – Based on historical data and the location of the City relative to active and potentially active faults, Azusa may experience a significantly damaging earthquake occasionally.

In 2014, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Geological Survey (CGS) released the time‐dependent version of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF III) model. The UCERF III results have helped to reduce the uncertainty in estimated 30‐year probabilities of strong ground motions in California. The UCERF map is shown in Figure 4-28 and indicates that Azusa has a moderate to high risk of earthquake occurrence, which coincides with the likelihood of future occurrence rating of occasional.

Figure 4-28 Probability of Earthquake Magnitudes Occurring in 30 Year Time Frame

Source: United States Geological Survey Open File Report 2015‐3009

Climate Change and Earthquake

According to the CAS, climate change is unlikely to increase earthquake frequency or strength.

City of Azusa 4-72 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 4.2.9. Earthquake: Liquefaction Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

Liquefaction can be defined as the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to a buildup of pore-water pressure during a seismic event and is associated primarily with relatively loose, saturated fine- to medium-grained unconsolidated soils. Areas most prone to liquefaction are those that are water saturated (e.g., where the water table is less than 30 feet below the surface) and consist of relatively uniform sands that are loose to medium density. In addition to necessary soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must be of sufficient energy to induce liquefaction. Seismic ground shaking of relatively loose, granular soils that are saturated or submerged can cause the soils to liquefy and temporarily behave as a dense fluid. If this layer is at the surface, its effect is much like that of quicksand for any structure located on it. If the liquefied layer is in the subsurface, the material above it may slide laterally depending on the confinement of the unstable mass. Liquefaction is caused by a sudden temporary increase in pore-water pressure due to seismic densification or other displacement of submerged granular soils. Liquefiable soil conditions are not uncommon in alluvial deposits in moderate to large canyons and could also be present in other areas of alluvial soils where the groundwater level is shallow (i.e., 50 feet below the surface). Bedrock units, due to their dense nature, are unlikely to present a liquefaction hazard.

Location

The City’s General Plan Natural Environment Element noted that the hazard of liquefaction, where a buried saturated sand layer liquefies during an earthquake, is present over nearly all of the City’s valley due to the shallow water and strong earthquake shaking potential. According to the Azusa General Plan EIR, much of the northern portion of the City, north of Foothill Boulevard has potential for liquefaction as does a portion south of Foothill Boulevard to approximately 2nd Street between Todd Avenue and Rockvale Avenue. As noted above, the City of Azusa is located within a seismically active region of Southern California. However, liquefaction hazards occur in areas where groundwater exists near the ground surface. According to the General Plan EIR, the depth to groundwater is more than 50 feet, resulting in low potential for liquefaction.

Extent

Liquefaction during major earthquakes has caused severe damage to structures on level ground as a result of settling, titling, or floating. Such damage occurred in San Francisco on bay-filled areas during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, even though the epicenter was several miles away. If liquefaction occurs in or under a sloping soil mass, the entire mass may flow toward a lower elevation. Also of particular concern in terms of developed and newly developing areas are fill areas that have been poorly compacted.

Typical effects of liquefaction include:

➢ Loss of bearing strength—the ground can liquefy and lose its ability to support structures. ➢ Lateral spreading—the ground can slide down very gentle slopes or toward stream banks riding on a buried liquefied layer.

City of Azusa 4-73 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Sand boils—sand-laden water can be ejected from a buried liquefied layer and erupt at the surface to form sand volcanoes; the surrounding ground often fractures and settles. ➢ Flow failures—earth moves down steep slope with large displacement and much internal disruption of material. ➢ Ground oscillation—the surface layer, riding on a buried liquefied layer, is thrown back and forth by the shaking and can be severely deformed. ➢ Flotation—light structures that are buried in the ground (like pipelines, sewers and nearly empty fuel tanks) can float to the surface when they are surrounded by liquefied soil. ➢ Settlement—when liquefied ground re-consolidates following an earthquake, the ground surface may settle or subside as shaking decreases and the underlying liquefied soil becomes more dense.

Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

There have been no federal or state disaster declaration due to earthquake liquefaction.

NCDC Events

The NCDC does not track liquefaction events.

HMPC Events

The City noted there have been no liquefaction occurrences from recent major earthquakes. Liquefaction is reviewed and addressed through the City’s Plan Check process to ensure consistency with the current adopted version of the California Building Code (CBC). In addition, a soils report is required for all development.

Likelihood of Future Occurrences

Occasional – Due to the City’s proximity to major faults, combined with the areas of the City where groundwater exists near the surface, the City does have risk to future liquefaction. Since liquefaction is a secondary hazard to earthquake, future occurrence in the City is considered occasional.

Climate Change and Earthquake

According to the CAS, climate change is unlikely to increase earthquake frequency or strength.

4.2.10. Flood: 1%/0.2% Annual Chance Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

According to Cal DWR, flooding is the rising and overflowing of a body of water onto normally dry land. Floods are among the most costly natural disasters in terms of human hardship and economic loss nationwide. Floods can cause substantial damage to structures, landscapes, and utilities as well as life safety issues. Floods can be extremely dangerous, and even six inches of moving water can knock over a person given a strong current. A car will float in less than two feet of moving water and can be swept downstream City of Azusa 4-74 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 into deeper waters. This is one reason floods kill more people trapped in vehicles than anywhere else. During a flood, people can also suffer heart attacks or electrocution due to electrical equipment short outs. Floodwaters can transport large objects downstream which can damage or remove stationary structures. Ground saturation can result in instability, collapse, or other damage. Objects can also be buried or destroyed through sediment deposition. Floodwaters can also break utilities lines and interrupt services. Standing water can cause damage to crops, road, foundations, and electrical circuits. Direct impacts, such as drowning, can be limited with adequate warning and public education about what to do during floods. Where flooding occurs in populated areas, warning and evacuation will be of critical importance to reduce life and safety impacts from any type of flooding.

Health Hazards from Flooding

According to FEMA, certain health hazards are also common to flood events. While such problems are often not reported, three general types of health hazards accompany floods. The first comes from the water itself. Floodwaters carry anything that was on the ground that the upstream runoff picked up, including dirt, oil, animal waste, and lawn, farm and industrial chemicals. Pastures and areas where cattle and hogs are kept or their wastes are stored can contribute polluted waters to the receiving streams.

Floodwaters also saturate the ground, which leads to infiltration into sanitary sewer lines. When wastewater treatment plants are flooded, there is nowhere for the sewage to flow. Infiltration and lack of treatment can lead to overloaded sewer lines that can back up into low-lying areas and homes. Even when it is diluted by flood waters, raw sewage can be a breeding ground for bacteria such as e. coli and other disease causing agents.

The second type of health problem arises after most of the water has gone. Stagnant pools can become breeding grounds for mosquitoes, and wet areas of a building that have not been properly cleaned breed mold and mildew. A building that is not thoroughly cleaned becomes a health hazard, especially for small children and the elderly.

Another health hazard occurs when heating ducts in a forced air system are not properly cleaned after inundation. When the furnace or air conditioner is turned on, the sediments left in the ducts are circulated throughout the building and breathed in by the occupants. If a water system loses pressure, a boil order may be issued to protect people and animals from contaminated water.

The third problem is the long-term psychological impact of having been through a flood and seeing one’s home damaged and irreplaceable keepsakes destroyed. The cost and labor needed to repair a flood-damaged home puts a severe strain on people, especially the unprepared and uninsured. There is also a long-term problem for those who know that their homes can be flooded again. The resulting stress on floodplain residents takes its toll in the form of aggravated physical and mental health problems.

Location

Floodplains

The area adjacent to a channel is the floodplain (see Figure 4-29). Floodplains are illustrated on inundation maps, which show areas of potential flooding and water depths. In its common usage, the floodplain most City of Azusa 4-75 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 often refers to that area that is inundated by the 100-year flood, the flood that has a one percent chance in any given year of being equaled or exceeded (1% annual chance flood). The 1% annual chance flood is the national minimum standard to which communities regulate their floodplains through the National Flood Insurance Program. The 200-year flood is one that has 0.5% chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. The 500-year flood is the flood that has a 0.2 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (0.2% annual chance flood). The potential for flooding can change and increase through various land use changes and changes to land surface, which result in a change to the floodplain. A change in environment can create localized flooding problems inside and outside of natural floodplains by altering or confining natural drainage channels. These changes are most often created by human activity.

Figure 4-29 Floodplain Schematic

Source: FEMA

There are three types of freshwater flood events in the Azusa area: riverine, flash, and urban stormwater. Regardless of the type of flood, the cause is often the result of severe weather and excessive rainfall, either in the flood area or upstream reaches.

➢ Riverine flooding is the most common type of flood event and occurs when a watercourse exceeds its “bank-full” capacity. Riverine flooding generally occurs as a result of prolonged rainfall, or rainfall that is combined with already saturated soils from previous rain events. The duration of riverine floods may vary from a few hours to many days. Factors that directly affect the amount of flood runoff include precipitation amount, intensity and distribution, the amount of soil moisture, seasonal variation in vegetation, snow depth, and water-resistance of the surface due to urbanization. The warning time associated with slow rise floods assists in life and property protection. City of Azusa 4-76 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ The term “flash flood” describes localized floods of great volume and short duration. In contrast to riverine flooding, this type of flood usually results from a heavy rainfall on a relatively small drainage area. Precipitation of this sort usually occurs in the winter and spring. Flash floods often require immediate evacuation within the hour. ➢ Stormwater/Urban flood events have increased as land has been converted from fields or woodlands to roads and parking lots and lost its ability to absorb rainfall. Urbanization increases runoff by two to six times that of natural terrain. This is discussed in the Localized Flooding section of this hazard profile below.

The area is also at risk to flooding resulting from levee failures and dam failures. Dam failure flooding is discussed separately in Section 4.2.6 of this document; levee failure flooding is discussed separately in Section 4.2.13 of this document. Regardless of the type of flood, the cause is often the result of severe weather and excessive rainfall, either in the flood area or upstream reach.

The potential for flooding can change and increase through various land use changes and changes to land surface, resulting in a change to the floodplain. Environmental changes can create localized flooding problems in and outside of natural floodplains by altering or confining natural drainage channels. These changes are most often created by human activity.

Major Sources of Flooding

According to Cal DWR, California is divided into 10 hydrologic regions. Los Angeles County and Azusa are traversed by one hydrologic region: the South Coast. A map of the California’s hydrological regions is provided in Figure 4-30.

City of Azusa 4-77 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-30 California Hydrologic Regions

Source: California Department of Water Resources

City of Azusa 4-78 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Azusa Streams and Watersheds

The City of Azusa is located in the San Gabriel River Watershed. The San Gabriel River Watershed is located in the eastern portion of Los Angeles County. It is bound by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, most of San Bernardino/Orange County to the east, the division of the Los Angeles River from the San Gabriel River to the west, and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The watershed drains into the San Gabriel River from the San Gabriel Mountains flowing 58 miles south until its confluence with the Pacific Ocean. The watershed can be seen in Figure 4-31.

Major tributaries to the San Gabriel River include Walnut Creek, San Jose Creek, Coyote Creek, and numerous storm drains entering from the 19 cities that the San Gabriel River passes through. Channel flows pass through different sections in the San Gabriel river, diverting from the riverbed into four different spreading grounds, held behind several rubber dams for controlled flow and ground water recharge, and controlled through 10 miles of concrete channel bottom from below Whittier Narrows Dam to past Coyote Creek. Waterways and floodwater areas in the City are shown in Figure 4-32.

City of Azusa 4-79 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-31 Azusa – Watersheds

City of Azusa 4-80 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-32 Azusa – Waterways and Floodwater Areas

Source: City of Azusa Housing Element Initial Study

City of Azusa 4-81 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Floodplain Mapping

FEMA established standards for floodplain mapping studies as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP makes flood insurance available to property owners in participating communities adopting FEMA-approved local floodplain studies, maps, and regulations. Floodplain studies that may be approved by FEMA include federally funded studies; studies developed by state, city, and regional public agencies; and technical studies generated by private interests as part of property annexation and land development efforts. Such studies may include entire stream reaches or limited stream sections depending on the nature and scope of a study. A general overview of floodplain mapping and associated products is provided in the following paragraphs.

Flood Insurance Study (FIS)

The FIS develops flood-risk data for various areas of the community that will be used to establish flood insurance rates and to assist the community in its efforts to promote sound floodplain management. The current Los Angeles County FISs are dated January 6, 2016.

Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM)

As part of its Map Modernization program, FEMA is converting paper FIRMS to digital FIRMs, DFIRMS. These digital maps:

➢ Incorporate the latest updates (LOMRs and LOMAs); ➢ Utilize community supplied data; ➢ Verify the currency of the floodplains and refit them to community supplied basemaps; ➢ Upgrade the FIRMs to a GIS database format to set the stage for future updates and to enable support for GIS analyses and other digital applications; and ➢ Solicit community participation.

DFIRMs for Los Angeles County and Azusa, dated January 6, 2016 and are used for this plan’s flood hazard analysis. This is shown in Figure 4-54 in Section 4.3.8.

Department of Water Resource (DWR) Floodplain Mapping

Also to be considered when evaluating the flood risks in Los Angeles County are various floodplain maps developed by Cal DWR for various areas throughout California, including Los Angeles County and Azusa.

DWR Best Available Maps

The FEMA regulatory maps provide just one perspective on flood risks in Los Angeles County and Azusa. Senate Bill 5 (SB 5), enacted in 2007, authorized the California DWR to develop the Best Available Maps (BAM) displaying 100- and 200-year floodplains for areas located within the Sacramento-San Joaquin (SAC-SJ) Valley watershed. SB 5 requires that these maps contain the best available information on flood hazards and be provided to cities and counties in the SAC-SJ Valley watershed. This effort was completed by DWR in 2008. DWR has expanded the BAM to cover all counties in the State and to include 500-year floodplains.

City of Azusa 4-82 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Different than the FEMA DFIRMs which have been prepared to support the NFIP and reflect only the 100- year event risk, the BAMs are provided for informational purposes and are intended to reflect current 100- and 500-year event risks using the best available data. The 100-year floodplain limits on the BAM are a composite of multiple 100-year floodplain mapping sources. It is intended to show all currently identified areas at risk for a 100-year flood event, including FEMA’s 100-year floodplains. The BAM maps are comprised of different engineering studies performed by FEMA, Corps, and DWR for assessment of potential 100- and 500-year floodplain areas. These studies are used for different planning and/or regulatory applications. They are for the same flood frequency; however, they may use varied analytical and quality control criteria depending on the study type requirements.

The value in the BAMs is that they provide a bigger picture view of potential flood risk to the City of Azusa than that provided in the FEMA DFIRMs. This provides the community and residents with an additional tool for understanding potential flood hazards not currently mapped as a regulated floodplain. Improved awareness of flood risk can reduce exposure to flooding for new structures and promote increased protection for existing development. Informed land use planning will also assist in identifying levee maintenance needs and levels of protection. By including the FEMA 100-year floodplain, it also supports identification of the need and requirement for flood insurance.

These floodplain maps for Azusa can be seen in Figure 4-33.

City of Azusa 4-83 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-33 City of Azusa – Best Available Map

Source: California DWR Legend explanation: Blue - FEMA 100-Year, Orange – Local 100-Year (developed from local agencies), Red – DWR 100-year (Awareness floodplains identify the 100-year flood hazard areas using approximate assessment procedures.), Pink – USACE 100- Year (2002 Sac and San Joaquin River Basins Comp Study), Yellow – USACE 200-Year (2002 Sac and San Joaquin River Basins Comp Study), Tan – FEMA 500-Year, Grey – Local 500-Year (developed from local agencies), Purple – USACE 500-Year (2002 Sac and San Joaquin River Basins Comp Study). City of Azusa 4-84 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Extent

Flood extents are usually measured in depths of flooding. Expected flood depths in the City vary. Flood durations in the City tend to be short to medium term, or until either the storm drainage system can catch up or flood waters move downstream.

Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

Los Angeles County has experienced multiple federal and state declarations related to flooding since 1950. These are shown in Table 4-26.

Table 4-26 Los Angeles County Flood Disaster Declaration History from 1950 to 2017

Disaster Type Federal Declarations State Declarations Count Years Count Years Flood 12 1954, 1955, 1958, 1962 (two 14 1950, 1955, 1958, 1959, 1962, times), 1963, 1969, 1978, 1980, 1969, 1978, 1980, 1983, 1988, 1988, 1992, 1993 1992, 1993, 2001, 2003 Totals 12 – 14 – Source: Cal OES, FEMA

NCDC Events

The NCDC has been tracking severe weather since 1950. This database contains 147 flood related events that occurred in Los Angeles County between January 1, 1950, and December 31, 2016. Table 4-5 summarizes these events. Events that specifically affected Azusa are detailed below the table.

Table 4-27 NCDC Flood Events for Los Angeles County, 1950 to December 31, 2016*

Event Type Number Deaths Injuries Property Crop Deaths Injuries of Events Damage Damage (indirect) (indirect) Coastal Flood 1 0 1 $0 $0 0 0 Flash Flood 129 7 4 $1,310,000 $3,200,00 0 0 Flood 17 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Total 147 7 5 $1,310,000 $3,200 0 0 Source: NCDC *Note: Losses reflect totals for all impacted areas, not just Azusa or Los Angeles County

July 11, 1999 – Heavy thunderstorm rains produced flash flooding along the San Gabriel River, just north of Azusa. One hundred hikers had to be rescued when the river overflowed its banks.

February 22, 2004 – A cold Pacific storm brought snow and heavy rain to sections of Southern California. In the mountains of Ventura and Los Angeles counties, 8 to 16 inches of snowfall was reported. In the

City of Azusa 4-85 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Padua Burn area, California Highway Patrol reported flash flooding and mudslides which closed Mount Baldy road.

May 22, 2008 – Strong thunderstorms produced heavy rain and flash flooding across east-central Los Angeles county. California Highway Patrol reported significant flooding and road closures along Interstate 10 and Interstate 605. A cold and unseasonable upper level low pressure system brought strong winds, strong thunderstorms and flash flooding to Southern California. The upper level low first brought strong and gusty northerly winds to the mountains of Ventura and Los Angeles counties as well as the Antelope Valley. Northerly wind gusts between 58 and 85 mph were reported by various automated sensors. As the upper low moved directly over Southern California, the winds diminished, but moisture and instability increased. Over east-central Los Angeles county, strong thunderstorms developed, producing damaging winds and heavy rain. In Azusa, severe thunderstorm winds knocked power poles and lines. In Baldwin Park, over one inch of small hail accumulated. The strong thunderstorms also brought heavy rain and flash flooding to the area. Significant flooding and lane closures were reported along Interstate 10 and Interstate 605.

February 28, 2014 – At the end of February and into early March, a strong winter storm moved across Southern California. This storm generated heavy showers and thunderstorms which produced flash flooding and debris flows across Los Angeles county on the last day of February. Flash flooding and debris flows were reported near the Colby burn scar in the San Gabriel Valley near Glendora.

FIS Flood Events

The FIS noted the following flood event that affected Azusa:

During the 1969 storms, considerable damage occurred in the eastern portion of Los Angeles County, particularly in the foothill areas of the San Gabriel Mountains. Water and mud destroyed or damaged many residences and other buildings near the Cities of Glendora and Azusa, despite the presence of a large network of local flood control channels, storm drains, and debris basins.

HMPC Events

The City noted that a primary concern is the heavy downpours that can result in flash flooding. During flash flood events, people have less time to seek safety, including the homeless and other people in the City riverbeds.

In 1938, the San Gabriel River reached a peak of 150,000 cu ft/s at the confluence of the East and West Forks. The water swept into the reservoir of the nearly completed San Gabriel Dam, filling it to capacity. Dam operators held releases to a maximum of 90,000 cu ft/s, while further downstream Morris Dam was able to reduce the flood to 65,700 cu ft/s. As a result, large areas of the San Gabriel Valley were spared from flooding, although damage still occurred locally on smaller streams that drain out of the mountains. The City Planning Team noted, that after 1938, when the area flooded heavily, many flood control improvements were made to the area to reduce future flood risk. These improvements which included the San Gabriel levee system have been effective in minimizing flood related impacts in the City.

City of Azusa 4-86 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 The City Planning Team noted that in 2017 there were multiple severe storms. The City weathered these storms well, with the exception of a post-burn area which had some issues. Storm events that followed the Station Fire resulted in up to 3-feet of mud on City streets in the western portion of the City. Storm events that followed the Colby Fire resulted in mudflow and flooding to several homes on Ridge View Drive in the City, as well as flooding in homes in the San Gabriel Canyon area. More information on this can be found in the past occurrences discussion of localized flooding in Section 4.2.11.

Likelihood of Future Occurrence

1% Annual Chance Flood

Occasional—This is the flood that has a 1- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Thus, the 1% annual chance flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time.

0.2% Annual Chance Flood

Unlikely—The flood has a 0.2 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.

Climate Change and Flood

According to the CAS, climate change may affect flooding in the City. While average annual rainfall may increase or decrease slightly, the intensity of individual rainfall events is likely to increase during the 21st century. It is possible that average soil moisture and runoff could decline, however, due to increasing temperature, evapotranspiration rates, and spacing between rainfall events. Reduced snowpack and increased number of intense rainfall events are likely to put additional pressure on water infrastructure which could increase the chance of flooding associated with breaches or failures of flood control structures such as levees and dams. Future precipitation projections was shown in Figure 4-11 in Section 4.2.3.

4.2.11. Localized Flooding Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

According to the City Planning Team, localized, stormwater flooding also occurs throughout the City. Urban storm drainpipes and pump stations have a finite capacity. When rainfall exceeds this capacity, or the system is clogged, water accumulates in the street until it reaches a level of overland release. This type of flooding may occur when intense storms occur over areas of development.

Location

According to the City, numerous parcels and roads throughout Azusa not included in the FEMA 1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplains are subject to flooding in heavy rains. These are delineated in Table 4-66 in Section 4.3.9. In addition to flooding, damage to these areas during heavy storms includes pavement deterioration, washouts, mudslides, debris areas, and downed trees. The frequency and type of damage or flooding that occurs varies from year to year, depending on the quantity of runoff.

City of Azusa 4-87 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Extent

There is no established scientific scale or measurement system for localized flooding. Localized flooding is generally measured by depth of flooding and the area affected. Localized flooding often happens quickly and has a short speed of onset. Localized flooding often has a short duration.

Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

There have been no state or federal disaster declarations related to localized flooding in the City of Azusa, according to Table 4-3.

NCDC Events

The past occurrences of localized flooding are included in the 1%/0.2% annual chance flood hazard profile in Section 4.2.10.

HMPC Events

The City noted that localized flooding occurs on a regular basis in areas of the City, though the severity ranges from minor to moderate on a case-by-case basis. In 2017, severe storms caused flooding in areas in the City. Encanto Parkway is the only street in the City that has sustained localized flooding recently. This road was impacted with approximately 4 to 5 feet in depth of mud on a stretch of road approximately 300 feet in length. An example is shown in Figure 4-34.

Figure 4-34 2017 Encanto Parkway Flooding

Source: City of Azusa Public Works

City of Azusa 4-88 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 The City noted that following the Colby Fire, the City has been working collaboratively with neighboring cities to install K-Rail concrete barriers prior to storm events to address storm-related flooding in fire- burned areas.

Likelihood of Future Occurrence

Highly Likely— Urban storm drainage systems have a finite capacity. When rainfall exceeds this capacity or systems clog, water accumulates in the street until it reaches a level of overland release. Due to the developed nature of the City, future development will not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the area, and will not substantially increase the rate of surface run-off that will cause flooding on or off site. Although the City is considered built out, due to aging infrastructure, this type of flooding will continue to occur during heavy rains.

Climate Change and Localized Flood

While average annual rainfall may decrease slightly, the intensity of individual rainfall events is likely to increase during the 21st century, increasing the likelihood of overwhelming stormwater systems built to historical rainfall averages. This makes localized flooding more likely.

4.2.12. Landslides and Mudslides Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

Like its earthquake‐generating faults, California’s mountainous terrain is also a consequence of dynamic geologic processes in operation as the North American Plate grinds past the Pacific Plate. The 2013 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan noted that more than one third of California is mountainous terrain that generally trends parallel to the coast, forming a barrier that captures moisture from offshore storms originating in the Gulf of Alaska and Mexico. This is true in the sloped areas of the Azusa foothills. Steep topography, weak rocks, heavy winter rains, and occasional earthquakes all lead to slope failures more frequently than would otherwise occur under gravity alone.

According to the CGS, a landslide is a general term for a variety of mass-movement processes that generate a down-slope movement of mud, soil, rock, and/or vegetation. Landslides are classified into many different types based on form and type of movement. They range from slow‐moving rotational slumps and earth flows, which can slowly distress structures but are less threatening to personal safety, to fast‐moving rock avalanches and debris flows that are a serious threat to structures and have been responsible for most fatalities during landslide events. For the purposes of this plan, the term landslide includes mudslides, debris flows, and rockfalls that tend to occur suddenly; as well as hillside erosion, which is a similar process that tends to occur on smaller scales and more gradually, but can exacerbate landslide events.

Natural conditions that contribute to landslide, mudslides, hillside erosion, and debris flows include the following:

➢ Degree of slope ➢ Water (heavy rain, river flows, or wave action) ➢ Unconsolidated soil or soft rock and sediments City of Azusa 4-89 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Lack of vegetation (no stabilizing root structure) ➢ Previous wildfires and other forest disturbances ➢ Road building, excavation and grading ➢ Earthquake

Location

In addition, many human activities tend to make the earth materials less stable and, thus, increase the chance of ground movement. Human activities contribute to soil instability through grading of steep slopes or overloading them with artificial fill, by extensive irrigation, construction of impermeable surfaces, excessive groundwater withdrawal, and removal of stabilizing vegetation. Wildfire burn areas are at risk to erosion and landslide in areas near the City. According to the General Plan EIR, portions of Azusa near the mountainous portions of the City are susceptible to landslides from potentially unstable slopes.

Destructive landslides, mudslides, and debris flows usually occur very suddenly with little or no warning time and are short in duration. Slides have caused significant damage or destroyed homes, streets, and utilities from their heaving soils and slow downslope development. The 2013 State Plan noted that although the area affected by a single landslide is less than that of earthquakes, landslides are pervasive in California’s mountainous terrain and occur far more often.

Figure 4-35 was included in the 2013 State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. It indicates that portions of the City are at moderate to high risk for landslides.

City of Azusa 4-90 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-35 Landslide Susceptibility Areas

Source: 2018 State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Extent

The legend on Figure 4-35 shows the measurement system that the California Geological Survey uses to show the possible magnitude of landslides. It is a combination of slope class and rock strength. The speed of onset of landslide is often short, especially in post-wildfire burn scar areas, but it can also take years for

City of Azusa 4-91 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 a slope to fail. Landslide duration is usually short, though digging out and repairing landslide areas can take some time.

Previous Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

There are no recorded federal and one recorded state disasters directly related to landslides and mudslides in LA County. The 1965 event did not have any effects on the City of Azusa. Table 4-3 also contained events where landslides occurred, but were not the primary source of the disaster declaration. These events are summarized below the table.

Table 4-28 Landslide Disaster Declarations in Los Angeles County from 1950-2017

Disaster Type Federal Declarations State Declarations Count Years Count Years Landslide 0 – 1 1965 Totals 0 – 1 – Source: Cal OES, FEMA

➢ Federal Disaster Declarations ✓ DR-1005 in 1993 – Fires, Mud/Landslides, Flooding, Soil Erosion ✓ DR-1044 in 1995 – Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud Flows ✓ DR-1046 in 1995 – Severe Winter Storms, Flooding Landslides, Mud Flow ✓ DR-1585 in 2005 – Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, And Mud And Debris Flows ✓ DR-1884 in 2010 – Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, And Debris and Mud Flows ➢ State Disaster Declarations ✓ 1995 (issued for same event as DR-1044) ✓ 1995 (issued for same event as DR-1046) ✓ 2005 (issued for same event as DR-1585) ✓ 2010 (issued for same event as DR-1884)

NCDC Events

The NCDC contains no landslide or mudflow events that have affected Los Angeles County or the City of Azusa.

HMPC Events

The City Planning Team noted that the primary concern of landslides and mudslides in the foothill areas of the City are those that occur in sloped, post fire impacted areas. It was noted, that after the 2014 Colby Fire, the City and other entities were proactive in preventing significant mudflows with a variety of measures implemented to minimize impacts to the City with a focus on protecting the City’s water treatment plant. The nearby City of Duarte was not so lucky; severe mudflows significantly impacted Duarte, while mostly just threatening some areas of Azusa. As a result of the 2014 Colby Fire, the City of Azusa installed over 2,000 linear feet of k-rail on City streets and within City complexes to protect from mud and debris City of Azusa 4-92 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 flows. Again in 2017, after the San Gabriel fire, mudflows occurred in the foothills on the west side of the river, with mud flowing down area roads.

Likelihood of Future Occurrences

Likely—Landslides in the form of debris flow, or mudslides, have occurred in the past in and near Azusa. Landslides occur more frequently in the winter and spring months, when high levels of precipitation and runoff combine with saturated soils, which leads to general slope instability. Landslides often can occur as a result of other hazard events, such as severe storms, floods, wildfires, or earthquakes. Due to the topography in and around Azusa and the rainfall the City receives during the winter, it is likely future occurrences of landslide, mudslide, and debris flow will occur.

Climate Change and Landslide/Debris Flows

According to the CAS, increased precipitation may result from climate change. Increased precipitation makes areas more vulnerable to landslide potential. More information on precipitation increases can be found in Section 4.2.3.

4.2.13. Levee Failure Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

The FIS refers to a levee as a raised area that runs along the banks of a river or canal. Levees reinforce the banks and help prevent flooding. By confining the flow, levees can also increase the speed of the water. Levees can be natural or man-made. A natural levee is formed when sediment settles on the river bank, raising the level of the land around the river. To construct a man-made levee, workers pile dirt or concrete along the river banks, creating an embankment. This embankment is flat at the top, and slopes at an angle down to the water. For added strength, sandbags are sometimes placed over dirt embankments.

Levees provide strong flood protection, but they are not failsafe. Levees are designed to protect against a specific flood level and could be overtopped during severe weather events. Levees reduce, not eliminate, the risk to individuals and structure behind them. Overtopping failure occurs when the flood water level rises above the crest of a levee.

City of Azusa 4-93 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-36 Flooding from Levee Overtopping

Source: Levees In History: The Levee Challenge. Dr. Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., P.E., Ph.D., Water Policy Collaborative, University of Maryland, Visiting Scholar, USACE, IWR. http://www.floods.org/ace-files/leveesafety/lss_levee_history_galloway.ppt

Location

While levees exist in the western portion of the City along the San Gabrile River, the 2016 FIS noted that there are no levees in the City of Azusa that are certified as protecting against the 1% annual chance flood. The FIS reports:

Results of the mapping study were not previously summarized in the effective FIS report for the City of Azusa; therefore, no flood protection measures are provided.

Effectively, this means that the City’s flood problems have not been fully and accurately described by FEMA. This goes to the level of protection provided by area levees. This does not mean that levee failure is not an issue in the City. A search of the National Levee database does show leveed areas in the western portion of the City along the banks of the San Gabriel River. This levee is operated and maintained by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The stretch of levee in the City is known by the USACE as the San Gabriel River 7 (SGR7) Levee System. A periodic inspection report for the levee was prepared by the Los Angeles District in September of 2012. This is the most recent report available. Information about the SGR7 levee system is captured below:

The SGR7 Levee System is located in the Cities of Azusa and Irwindale, in Los Angeles County, in the State of California. The National Levee Database shows the SGR7 Levee System along the left (east) bank of the San Gabriel River, from approximate Station 176+15 (D126+60) near San Gabriel Canyon Road to approximate Station 80+25 (D28+50) located approximately 500 feet upstream of Drop Structure 1, for a total length of 9,590 feet (1.82 miles) (see figure). However, as-built plans for the SGR7 Levee System indicate that the levee continues just downstream of the Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210), in the Santa Fe Dam Flood Control Basin to Station 8+40, for a total length of 16,775 feet (3.18 miles). This periodic inspection report covers the longer SGR7 Levee System represented by the as-built plans.

The SGR7 Levee System is a trapezoidal channel with a natural bottom and grouted rock-revetted riverside slopes. The SGR7 Levee System includes stone stabilizers, drop structures, bridge crossings, side-drainage

City of Azusa 4-94 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 structures, and a bicycle path on the crest. The SGR7 Levee System was federally authorized under the general comprehensive plan for flood risk management (Flood Control Act of 22 June 1936, amended as of 18 October 1938) and subsequently constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Levee and stone stabilizer construction was completed in 1948; drop structures were completed in 1969. It is operated and maintained by the USACE.

City of Azusa 4-95 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-37 City of Azusa – San Gabriel 7 Levee System

Source: USACE – LA District City of Azusa 4-96 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 During the inspection, the following deficiencies were observed and recorded:

➢ Boulder deposits and heavy vegetation growth in the channel invert may be impairing channel flow capacity. ✓ Levee encroachments include:  A pump house that appears to be related to the nearby spreading grounds.  Two side-drainage structures that do not appear on available as-built plans and a permit could not be located in USACE files.  A hole from a removed guard rail wood post extends more than 3.5 feet into the levee crest. ➢ Drop structure deficiencies include: ✓ Only one row of subdrain outlet pipes was observed at two of the drop structures. The second row may be located below the concrete apron. This is not consistent with available design and as-built plans. ✓ Some of the drop structure subdrain outlets are clogged with vegetation. ✓ Up to 16 inches of scour and a void under the concrete extending up to 26 inches horizontally was observed at the downstream toe. ➢ Stone stabilizer deficiencies include: ✓ Up to 10 feet of scour was observed on the downstream side of the stone stabilizers. ✓ Vegetation growing in and adjacent to the grouted stone stabilizers.

The Periodic Inspection report gave the SGR7 levees a grade of minimally acceptable.

An engineering determination concluded that the observed deficiencies would not prevent the system from performing as intended during the next flood event. Therefore, the Levee Safety Officer, Los Angeles District, has determined the overall system rating to be “Minimally Acceptable.”

A “Minimally Acceptable” system rating is defined as: “One or more items are rated as Minimally Acceptable or one or more items are rated as Unacceptable and an engineering determination concludes that the Unacceptable items would not prevent the segment/system from performing as intended during the next flood event.”

Extent

There is not a scientific scale or measurement system in place for levee failure. Maps showing inundation depths due to a levee failure in the City do not exist. The speed of onset is slow as the river rises, but if a levee fails the warning times are short for those in the inundation area. The duration of levee failure risk times can be hours to weeks, depending on the river flows that the levee holds back.

Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

There have been no federal or state disaster declarations related to levee failure, as shown in Table 4-3.

City of Azusa 4-97 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 NCDC Events

There are no recorded levee failure events in the NCDC database for Azusa or Los Angeles County.

HMPC Events

The HMPC noted that there have been no past occurrences of levee failure.

Likelihood of Future Occurrences

Occasional – Given that there are no past occurrences of levee failure in the City, levee failure is unlikely. The levees in the City are assisted in flood protection by the dams upstream. However, if the levees are not maintained over time or a dam failure occurs, likelihood of future occurrence may increase.

Climate Change and Levee Failure

According to the CAS, increased precipitation in the County could result in the possible overtopping of levees. This may be more true in Azusa, where the levees are not certified to provide a 1% annual chance flooding level of protection. Should increased precipitation cause dams to fail, the levees that protect the City would most likely fail as well.

4.2.14. Wildfire Hazard Profile

Hazard/Problem Description

According to the 2016 Los Angeles County Strategic Fire Plan, wildland fire is an ongoing concern for Los Angeles County and Azusa. Generally, the fire season can be year around, with the more extreme portions of the season extending from early spring through late fall of each year during the hotter, dryer months. Drought may extend the fire season in Los Angeles County. Fire conditions arise from a combination of high temperatures, low moisture content in the air and fuel, accumulation of vegetation, and high winds.

Wildland Urban Interface

Throughout California, communities are increasingly concerned about wildfire safety as increased development in the foothills and mountain areas and subsequent fire suppression practices have affected the natural cycle of the ecosystem. While wildfire risk is predominantly associated with wildland urban interface (WUI) areas, significant wildfires can also occur in heavily populated areas. The wildland urban interface is a general term that applies to development adjacent to landscapes that support wildland fire. Wildland fires affect grass, forest, and brushlands, as well as any structures located within them.

WUI fires are often the most damaging. WUI fires occur where the natural forested landscape and urban‐ built environment meet or intermix. Even relatively small acreage fires may result in disastrous damages. The damages can be widely varying, but are primarily reported as damage to infrastructure, built environment, loss of socio‐economic values and injuries to people.

City of Azusa 4-98 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 The pattern of increased damages is directly related to increased urban spread into historical forested areas that have wildfire as part of the natural ecosystem. Many WUI fire areas have long histories of wildland fires that burned only vegetation in the past. However, with new development, a wildland fire following a historical pattern may now burn these newly developed areas. WUI fires can occur where there is a distinct boundary between the built and natural areas or where development or infrastructure has encroached or is intermixed in the natural area. WUI fires may include fires that occur in remote areas that have critical infrastructure easements through them, including electrical transmission towers, railroads, water reservoirs, communications relay sites or other infrastructure assets.

Potential losses from wildfire include human life, structures and other improvements, natural and cultural resources, quality and quantity of water supplies, cropland, timber, and recreational opportunities. Economic losses could also result. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard. Also of significant concern to the City are the secondary impacts associated with a large burn area. Problems occur with landslides, debris flows, erosion, and other issues that lead to a significant loss of watershed. These problems can be compounded by climate conditions.

Consequently, wildland fires that burn in natural settings with little or no development are part of a natural ecological cycle and may actually be beneficial to the landscape. Century old policies of fire exclusion and aggressive suppression have given way to better understanding of the importance fire plays in the natural cycle of certain forest types.

Warning times are usually adequate to ensure public safety, provided that evacuation recommendations and orders are heeded in a timely manner. While in most cases wildfires are contained within a week or two of outbreak, in certain cases, they have been known to burn for months, or until they are completely extinguished by fall rains.

Location

Fire conditions arise from a combination of hot weather, an accumulation of vegetation, and low moisture content in the air. These conditions when combined with high winds and years of drought increase the potential for a wildfire to occur. Urban wildfires often occur in those areas where development has expanded into the rural areas. A fire along this urban/rural interface can result in major losses of property and structures. Generally, there are three major factors that sustain wildfires and allow for predictions of a given area’s potential to burn. These factors include fuel, topography, and weather.

➢ Fuel—Fuel is the material that feeds a fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel is generally classified by type and by volume. Fuel sources are diverse and include everything from dead tree needles and leaves, twigs, and branches to dead standing trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses. Fuel plays a major role in fire behavior and potential fire hazards. A fuel’s composition, including moisture level, chemical make-up, and density, determines its degree of flammability. Of these, fuel moisture level is the most important consideration. Generally, live trees contain a great deal of moisture while dead logs contain very little. The moisture content and distribution of fuels define how quickly a fire can spread and how intense or hot it may become. High moisture content will slow the burning process since heat from the fire must first eliminate moisture. In addition to moisture, a fuel’s chemical makeup determines how readily it will burn. Some plants, shrubs, and trees such as chamise and

City of Azusa 4-99 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 eucalyptus contain oils or resins that promote combustion, causing them to burn more easily, quickly, and intensely. Finally, the density of a fuel influences its flammability; when fuels are close together but not too dense, they will ignite each other, causing the fuel to spread readily. However, if fuels are so close that air cannot circulate easily, the fuel will not burn freely. Fuels are limited in the City, except in the northern areas where the topography changes. ➢ Topography—An area’s terrain and land slopes affect its susceptibility to wildfire spread. Both fire intensity and rate of spread increase as slope increases due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection. The arrangement of vegetation throughout a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes. Azusa is topographically diverse, with both valley and foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains inside the City limits. ➢ Weather—Weather components such as temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning also affect the potential for wildfire. The main weather patterns associated with severe wildfire in this area are lightning, which is common with summer thunderstorms, and the Santa Ana Wind, a warm, dry wind that blows from the north and northeast over the mountains from the desert, typically occurring in the autumn, further drying the vegetation. Previous fires have attested to the extensive damage that can take place from brush fires. Drought conditions contribute to concerns about wildfire vulnerability. During periods of drought, the threat of wildfire increases.

While many wildfires cause minimal damage to the land and pose few threats to the land or people downstream, some fires cause damage that requires special efforts to prevent problems afterwards. Loss of vegetation exposes soil to erosion; water runoff may increase and cause flooding; sediments may move downstream and damage houses or fill reservoirs putting endangered species and community water supplies at risk.

After a fire the first priority is emergency stabilization in order to prevent further damage to life, property or natural resources. The stabilization work begins before the fire is out and may continue for up to a year. The longer-term rehabilitation effort to repair damage caused by the fire begins after the fire is out and continues for several years. Rehabilitation focuses on the lands unlikely to recover naturally from wildland fire damage.

Extent

Wildfires tend to be measured in structure damages, injuries, and loss of life as well as on acres burned. Fires can have a quick speed of onset, especially during periods of drought. Fires can burn for a short period of time, or may have durations lasting for a week or more.

Past Occurrences

Disaster Declaration History

There have been 43 federal and 19 state disaster declaration events that have occurred in Los Angeles County. These are shown in Table 4-29.

City of Azusa 4-100 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-29 Los Angeles County Wildfire Disaster Declaration History 1950 to 2017

Disaster Type Federal Declarations State Declarations Count Years Count Years Fire 43 1956, 1961, 1970, 1978, 1980, 19 1958, 1964, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1985, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 2002 (three times), 2003 (three 1985, 1988 (twice), 1990, 1992, times), 2004 (three times), 2005, 1996 (twice), 2003, 2008 2007 (eight times), 2008 (six times), 2009 (twice), 2010, 2013, 2014, 2016 (four times) Totals 43 – 19 – Source: Cal OES, FEMA

NCDC Events

The NCDC data recorded 48 wildfire related incidents for Los Angeles County since 1950. A summary of these events is shown in Table 4-30. Information about specific events that affected or came close to affecting Azusa are detailed below the table.

Table 4-30 NCDC Wildfire Events in Los Angeles County 1950 to 12/31/2016

Event Type Number Deaths Injuries Property Crop Deaths Injuries of Events Damage Damage (indirect) (indirect) Wildfire 48 0 46 $99,800,000 $0 0 2 Source: NCDC

➢ August 29 to September 5, 1999 – A wildfire developed in the Angeles National Forest, north of Glendora. By the end of August, the fire had already burned over 2,000 acres and was not contained. The fire was extinguished before it threatened Azusa. As this fire was being fought, the Bridge Fire occurred in Glendora. The Bridge Fire, which started in late August, was finally contained. The wildfire burned 7.234 acres in the Angeles National Forest. No injuries, deaths, or damages resulted from either fire. ➢ September 1 to 12, 2002 – The Curve Fire burned 20,857 acres of land in the Angeles National Forest. The Curve Fire, which was caused by candles from a ritual sacrifice, destroyed 73 structures and injured at least 14 people. No deaths were reported. In all, $12.7 million in damages was attributed to this fire. ➢ September 22 to 30, 2002 – The Williams Fire burned 38.094 acres of land in the Angeles National Forest. This fire, which was located about 25 miles north of Azusa, destroyed 77 structures, including 62 cabins. 14 injuries were reported, but not deaths occurred. In all, $15.3 million in damages was attributed to this fire. ➢ January 16 to 25, 2016 – The Colby Wildfire started in the hills above the San Gabriel Valley in nearby Glendora (see image). The fire was fueled by the combination of an extended period of dry, northeast winds and very dry vegetation. The fire destroyed 5 homes and burned 1,952 acres.

City of Azusa 4-101 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Source: Wildfire Today

➢ July 1 to 7, 2016 – The San Gabriel Complex, which started in late June, was finally contained in early July. In total, the fire burned 5,399 acres in the mountains of Los Angeles County. More information on this fire can be found in the section below.

CAL FIRE Events

CAL FIRE, USDA Forest Service Region 5, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), Contract Counties and other agencies jointly maintain a comprehensive fire perimeter GIS layer for public and private lands throughout the state. The data covers fires back to 1878 (though the first recorded incident for the County was in 1950). For the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and US Forest Service, fires of 10 acres and greater are reported. For CAL FIRE, timber fires greater than 10 acres, brush fires greater than 50 acres, grass fires greater than 300 acres, and fires that destroy three or more residential dwellings or commercial structures are reported. CAL FIRE recognizes the various federal, state, and local agencies that have contributed to this dataset, including USDA Forest Service Region 5, BLM, National Park Service, and numerous local agencies.

Fires may be missing altogether or have missing or incorrect attribute data. Some fires may be missing because historical records were lost or damaged, fires were too small for the minimum cutoffs, documentation was inadequate, or fire perimeters have not yet been incorporated into the database. Also, agencies are at different stages of participation. For these reasons, the data should not be used for statistical or analytical purposes.

The data provides a reasonable view of the spatial distribution of past large fires in California. Using GIS, fire perimeters that intersect the City of Azusa or that threatened the City were extracted and are shown in Figure 4-38 and listed in Table 4-31. Table 4-31 lists each fire’s date, name, and acreage burned in the City and Los Angeles County.

City of Azusa 4-102 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-38 Azusa – Wildfire History 1905 to 2016

City of Azusa 4-103 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-31 Azusa and Los Angeles County – Wildfire History 1905 to 2016

Year Name Acres Alarm Date Containment Date 1924 San Gabriel 43,050 8/31/1924 – 1947 Azusa No. 112 351 7/4/1947 – 1909 – 19 – – 1909 – 20 – – 1946 Beatty No. 209 159 9/27/1946 1943 Azusa Fire No. 42 188 5/19/1943 – 1942 Hiyon #135/Vantasell 184 8/26/1942 – 1928 Brush Flats No. 12 241 5/6/1928 – 1929 Rock Pit No. 46 145 6/21/1929 – 1929 Bonita No. 28 145 5/29/1929 – 1968 Canyon Inn Fire 19,056 8/23/1968 – 1968 Newman Fire 67 7/20/1968 – 1923 – 119 – – 1974 – 8 7/1/1974 – 1968 – 47 7/5/1968 – 1968 – 26 7/27/1968 – 1958 – 67 9/1/1958 – 1958 – 13,944 10/2/1958 – 1980 Stable Fire 6,049 11/15/1980 – 1960 – 9 10/21/1960 – 1982 – 29 7/30/1982 – 1982 – 1 7/4/1982 – 1952 Baird Fire 138 8/25/1952 – 1950 – 18 7/30/1950 – 1979 Silver Fish Fire 154 7/14/1979 – 1959 – 119 6/18/1959 – 1961 – 257 9/6/1961 – 1962 – 861 7/8/1962 – 1975 Star Pine Fire 115 9/19/1975 – 1989 – 3 9/16/1989 – 1997 Canyon Ii Fire 3825 7/1/1997 – 1988 – 28 6/10/1988 – 1994 Oldsangabriel Cyn Rd 3 8/8/1994 – 1997 Roberts 5 3/13/1997 3/13/1997 1998 Foothill 9 7/10/1998 7/10/1998 1996 Reservoir 1,466 8/24/1996 8/28/1996

City of Azusa 4-104 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Year Name Acres Alarm Date Containment Date 2002 Williams 38,119 9/22/2002 10/10/2002 1932 Tunnel 31 7/12/1932 – 1918 Fish Canyon 51 10/1/1918 – 1953 Maddock 558 7/7/1953 – 1957 Morris 2,789 9/8/1957 – 1952 Spinks 179 8/25/1952 – 1916 Duarte 179 7/31/1916 – 2012 Reservoir 7 11/14/2012 – 2013 Madre 210 9/23/2013 9/27/2013 2013 Shooting 10 8/27/2013 8/27/2013 2014 Colby 1,952 1/16/2014 1/21/2014 Source: CAL FIRE

HMPC Events

The 2016 San Gabriel Fire that burned 5,381 acres near the City of Azusa. The fire started as two individual fires (Fish Fire above Duarte and the Reservoir Fire above Azusa) that merged to become the San Gabriel Complex fire. The Reservoir Fire began following a fatal crash involving a pickup truck that went over the side of Highway 39 near Morris Dam. Residents in the foothills above Azusa and Duarte who were evacuated, and Highway 39 was closed. At the height of the fire, 1,376 homes were evacuated. The planning team noted that this fire was particularly intense due to the dead vegetation caused by recent drought conditions. Also as a result of this fire, the planning team noted that post fire mudslides occurred in fire impacted areas.

The City also noted that with the drought and increased temperatures in recent years, the wildfire hazard is becoming a year around issue. The recent Colby fire occurred in January 2014. Recollections from a member of the planning team are:

The Colby Wildfire, began during a Red Flag Santa Ana wind event on the day of the fire. These winds are characterized by warm temperatures, low relative humidity, and increased wind speeds. The combination of wind, heat and dryness turns the chaparral into explosive fuel. The Colby Fire began at approximately 6:00 AM on January 16, 2014 in the Colby Canyon area which is located in the foothills north of Glendora. The fire quickly spread throughout the canyon in Glendora destroying homes, and damaging others. As the fire quickly grew in size aided by a westerly breeze, the Azusa Police Department received requests for assistance from the Glendora Police Department to help with evacuations in Glendora. Unfortunately, at 7:00 AM, one hour from the start of the fire, emergency personnel advised that the fire had crossed a ridgeline bordering Glendora and Azusa, and that the fire would soon be threatening homes in the foothill communities of Azusa.

In the first hour from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM the Azusa Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was activated. As the fire continued to spread west along the foothills, the Evacuation Warning Siren located in Azusa canyon was activated to give the foothill community residents notification that an emergency was occurring and evacuations were possible. At 9:00 AM the Azusa EOC was advised that the fire department was setting up a staging area at Azusa and Sierra Madre and that Hwy 39 was now closed. The EOC was advised by the City of Azusa 4-105 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 fire department that an evacuation of the foothill communities was now mandatory. Over the next 1½ hours, officers from the Azusa Police Department along with officers from five surrounding agencies evacuated approximately 870 homes totaling nearly 2,000 residents.

The protection of the evacuation areas from 10:00 AM on Thursday, January 16th until a partial lifting of the evacuation at 4:00 PM on Friday, January 17th required 18 officers to properly protect the evacuation areas and manage street closures, with an additional 8 officers assigned to patrolling duties and relief. Mandatory evacuation orders remained for the community of Mountain Cove From 4:00 PM on Friday, January 17th through 6:00 PM on Saturday, January 18th. During this operational period 12 officers were required for street closures, and for patrolling the Mountain Cove area. During the second and third days of the evacuation orders, the Azusa Police Department needed to coordinate numerous police escorts for residents to their homes for medications and essential items. The community of Mountain Cove was reopened to residents on Saturday, January 18th at 6:00 PM. On that same date and time the Azusa Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the Azusa Police Department command post were deactivated.

During the operational period of the fire on January 16th through the end of the evacuations two days later, a total of 79 police officers from surrounding agencies were assigned to assist the Azusa Police Department and it’s officers with evacuations, traffic control and security of the impacted areas. Although no civilian or emergency personnel lives were lost during this fire. There was over 1,950 acres burned, at a cost of nearly $7,000,000 to fight the fire, with hundreds of homes being saved by the heroic and humble actions of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, U.S. Forest Service, CAL FIRE, Azusa and Glendora Police Departments, and all of our Mutual Aid fire and law enforcement partners. The overtime costs to the Azusa Police Department alone for this event was $35,389.

Approximately six weeks after the Colby Fire, a severe storm/rain system moved into Los Angeles County and Azusa. This system had periods of heavy rain over two days. Water and mud from the burn areas flowed out of the hillsides and into residential areas causing damage to homes and mandatory evacuations. Once again, many residents had their lives inconvenienced and disrupted due to the Colby Fire and resulting flooding event. In anticipation of possible flooding and mudslides, the City of Azusa Department of Public Works lined the streets of residential neighborhoods and a city owned water treatment plant in potential mudflow areas with concrete K-rails to divert flood waters and mud. This preventative measure was done at a cost to the city of $70,309.

Likelihood of Future Occurrence

Likely—The season when wildfire is most likely to occur generally runs from late April through October, but can occur at any time. This is due to hot, dry conditions during this time of year. Drought, lightning, Santa Ana winds, and other fire weather can increase the likelihood of wildfire in the City each year.

Climate Change and Wildfire

According to the CAS, warmer temperature can exacerbate drought conditions. Drought often kills plants, which serve as fuel for wildfires. Warmer temperatures could increase the number of wildfires and pest outbreaks, such as the western pine beetle.

City of Azusa 4-106 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 The 2016 CAL FIRE Strategic Fire Plan noted that recent research indicates higher summer temperatures will likely increase the annual window of high fire risk. Future changes in fire frequency and severity are difficult to predict; however, regional climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gas concentrations could alter large weather patterns and produce conditions conducive to extreme fire behavior. A warmer climate will bring drier winters, higher spring temperatures, and early snowmelt. Combined with drought conditions, this leads to drier soils in early summer, drier vegetation, and an increase in the number of days in the year with flammable fuels, all which further raise the likelihood of fires.

Further, according to the California Adaptation Planning Guide: Understanding Regional Characteristics, a slight increase in fire occurrence is projected for the South Coast Region. While the fire risk is only anticipated to increase moderately, it is the increases in fire damages that are projected due to high populations in fire vulnerable areas. In addition to direct impacts and damages to property and infrastructure from fire, other impacts include temporary or permanent displacement of affected populations and increase in respiratory illnesses due to air pollution resulting from wildfires.

4.2.15. Natural Hazards Summary

Table 4-32 summarizes the results of the hazard identification and hazard profile for the City based on the hazard identification data and input from the HMPC. For each hazard profiled in Section 4.2, this table includes the likelihood of future occurrence and whether the hazard is initially considered a priority hazard for the City based on the hazard profiles.

Table 4-32 Hazard Identification and Initial Determination of Priority Hazards

Hazard Likelihood of Future Priority Hazard Occurrence Climate Change Likely N Dam Failure Unlikely Y Drought and Water Shortage Likely Y Earthquake Likely Y Earthquake Liquefaction Occasional Y Flood: 100/500–year Occasional/ Unlikely Y Flood: Localized/Stormwater Highly Likely Y Landslide and Mudslides Likely N Levee Failure Unlikely Y Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Highly Likely N Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms Highly Likely Y Severe Weather: High Winds Highly Likely N Wildfire Likely Y

City of Azusa 4-107 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas.

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate.

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.

With Azusa’s hazards identified and profiled, the HMPC conducted a vulnerability assessment to describe the impact that each priority hazard would have on the City. The vulnerability assessment quantifies, to the extent feasible using best available data, assets at risk to natural hazards and estimates potential losses.

This vulnerability assessment followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication Understanding Your Risks—Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses. The vulnerability assessment first describes the total vulnerability of the City and values at risk and then discusses vulnerability by hazard.

Data Sources

Data used to support this vulnerability assessment included the following:

➢ ArkStorm at Tahoe - Stakeholder Perspectives on Vulnerabilities and Preparedness for an Extreme Storm Event in the Greater Lake Tahoe, Reno and Carson City Region. 2014. ➢ CAL FIRE GIS datasets ➢ CAL FIRE GIS datasets ➢ Cal OES Dam Inundation datasets ➢ Cal-Adapt ➢ California Adaptation Planning Guide ➢ California Department of Finance, E-1 Report ➢ California Department of Finance, E-4 Report ➢ California Department of Finance, P-1 Report ➢ California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database ➢ California Department of Food and Agriculture ➢ California Division of Mines and Geology ➢ California Native Plant Society ➢ California Office of Historic Preservation ➢ City of Azusa General Plan Background Report

City of Azusa 4-108 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ City of Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report ➢ City of Azusa General Plan. ➢ City of Azusa GIS data ➢ City of Azusa Housing Element 2014-2021 ➢ City of Azusa Housing Element Initial Study ➢ City staff ➢ Dhammakaya Specific Plan ➢ Existing plans and studies ➢ FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map. January 16, 2016. ➢ FEMA Los Angeles County Flood Insurance Study. January 16, 2016. ➢ FEMA’s HAZUS-MH 2.2 GIS-based inventory data ➢ Kenward, Alyson PhD, Adams-Smith, Dennis, and Raja, Urooj. Wildfires and Air Pollution – The Hidden Health Hazards of Climate Change. Climate Central. 2013. ➢ Liu, J.C., Mickley, L.J., Sulprizio, M.P. et al. Climatic Change. 138: 655. doi:10.1007/s10584-016- 1762-6. 2016. ➢ Los Angeles County Community Wildfire Protection Plan ➢ Los Angeles County GIS data (hazards and base layers) ➢ Los Angeles County Parcel and Assessor’s Data ➢ National Drought Mitigation Center – Drought Impact Reporter ➢ National Levee Database ➢ National Park Service – Historic American Buildings Survey and Historic American Engineering Record ➢ Personal interviews and discussions with planning team members and staff from the City

➢ Personal interviews with planning team members and staff from the County and participating jurisdictions ➢ Public Health Alliance of Southern California ➢ State Department of Water Resource’s Delta Atlas ➢ Statewide GIS datasets from other agencies such as Cal OES, FEMA, USGS, CGS, Cal Atlas, and others ➢ TOD Specific Plan ➢ US Census Bureau 2010 Household Population Estimates ➢ US Fish and Wildlife Service ➢ US Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory maps ➢ USFS GIS datasets ➢ Written descriptions of inventory and risks provided by Azusa 4.3.1. Azusa’s Vulnerability and Assets at Risk

As a starting point for analyzing the City’s vulnerability to identified hazards, the HMPC used a variety of data to define a baseline against which all disaster impacts could be compared. If a catastrophic disaster was to occur in the City, this section describes significant assets at risk. Data and analysis used in this baseline assessment included:

➢ General City vulnerability data ➢ Total values at risk;

City of Azusa 4-109 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ City critical facilities; ➢ Natural, cultural, and historical resources; and ➢ Growth and development trends.

Total Values at Risk

Parcel Inventory and Assessed Values

This analysis captures the values associated with assessed assets located within the City of Azusa. The 2017 City of Azusa GIS parcel layer combined with the Los Angeles County assessor data, obtained from the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office, was used for as the basis of this analysis. This data provided by the City of Azusa represents best available data.

Understanding the total assessed value of the City of Azusa is a starting point to understanding the overall value of identified assets at risk in the City. When the total assessed values are combined with potential values associated with other community assets such as public and private critical infrastructure, historic and cultural resources, and natural resources, the big picture emerges as to what is potentially at risk and vulnerable to the damaging effects of natural hazards within the City.

Methodology

Los Angeles County’s 2017 Assessor Data and the City’s GIS parcel data were used as the basis for the inventory of assessed values for both improved and unimproved parcels within the City. This data provides the land and improved values assessed for each parcel, along with key information such as property use. Other GIS data, such as jurisdictional boundaries, roads, streams, and area features, was also obtained from the City to support mapping and analysis of City assets at risk. The City of Azusa GIS parcel data contained 10,511 parcels, and 9,910 parcels of those we determined to be within the City of Azusa jurisdictional boundary.

Data Limitations & Notations

Although based on best available data, the resulting information should only be used as an initial guide to overall values in the City. In the event of a disaster, structures and other infrastructure improvements are at the greatest risk of damage. Depending on the type of hazard and resulting damages, the land itself may not suffer a significant loss. For that reason, the values of structures and other infrastructure improvements are of greatest concern. As such, it is critical to note a specific limitation to the assessed values data within the City, created by Proposition 13. Instead of adjusting property values annually, no adjustments are made until a property transfer occurs. As a result, overall property value information is most likely low and may not reflect current market or true potential loss values for properties within the City.

Property Use Categories

Los Angeles County Assessor Use Codes provide detailed descriptive information about how each property is generally used, such as residential, commercial, or industrial. The Use Codes were categorized into the following property use categories found within the Los Angeles County Assessor data: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Irrigated Farm, Dry Farm, Recreational, Institutional, Miscellaneous, and

City of Azusa 4-110 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Government. Since the City of Azusa is the only jurisdiction participating in the LHMP, the Use Codes were refined a step further to better reflect assessed assets specific to the City. The final property use categories for the City of Azusa include:

➢ Commercial ➢ Government ➢ Industrial ➢ Institutional ➢ Miscellaneous ➢ Residential ➢ Open – No Use Code

Agriculture was eliminated as a category as there were no parcels with this Use Code within the City of Azusa. Once Use Codes were grouped into categories, the number of total and improved parcels and land and improved values were inventoried for the City by property use.

Estimated Content Replacement Values

Azusa’s assigned property use categories were used to develop estimated content replacement values (CRVs) that are potentially at loss from hazards. FEMA’s standard CRV factors were utilized to develop more accurate loss estimates for all mapped hazard analyses. FEMA’s CRV factors estimate value as a percent of improved structure value by property use. Table 4-33 shows the breakdown of the different property uses in Azusa and their estimated CRV factors.

Table 4-33 City of Azusa– Content Replacement Factors by Property Use

Azusa Property Use Categories Hazus Property Use Hazus Content Categories Replacement Values Commercial Commercial 100% Government Government 100% Industrial Industrial 150% Institutional Institutional 100% Miscellaneous Miscellaneous 100% Residential Residential 50% Unknown / Open – No Use Code Unknown 0% Source: Hazus

Azusa Values at Risk Results

Values associated with land, and improved structure values were identified and summed in order to determine total assessed values at risk in the City of Azusa. Together, the land value and improved structure value make up the majority of assessed values associated with each identified parcel or asset. Improved parcel counts were based on the assumption that a parcel was improved if a structure value was present. Information on other values such as personal property values were not readily available for inclusion in this

City of Azusa 4-111 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 effort. Table 4-34 is a summary table that shows the total values or exposure for the City of Azusa by property use.

Table 4-34 Azusa – Total Values by Property Use Summary

Property Use Total Parcel Improved Total Land Improved Total Value Count Parcel Count Value Structure Value Commercial 398 279 $204,409,978 $138,227,311 $342,637,289 Government 141 4 $7,618,863 $309,405 $7,928,268 Industrial 410 340 $256,963,411 $289,020,763 $545,984,174 Institutional 38 37 $35,004,711 $127,123,113 $162,127,824 Miscellaneous 94 23 $13,153,328 $3,247,536 $16,400,864 Residential 8,535 8,082 $1,411,593,484 $1,376,729,016 $2,788,322,500 Open - No Use 294 0 $0 $0 $0 Code Grand Total 9,910 8,765 $1,928,743,775 $1,934,657,144 $3,863,400,919 Source: City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

Table 4-35 shows the total values of the City as shown in Table 4-34, but with estimated content replacement values (CRVs) included (using CRV multipliers from Table 4-33). This table is important as potential losses to the City include structure contents. In addition, loss estimates contained in the hazard vulnerability sections below will use calculations based on the total values in Table 4-35.

Table 4-35 Azusa – Total Values by Property Use with Content Replacement Values

Property Use Total Parcel Improved Total Land Improved Estimated Total Value Count Parcel Count Value Structure Contents Value Value Commercial 398 279 $204,409,978 $138,227,311 $138,227,311 $480,864,600 Government 141 4 $7,618,863 $309,405 $309,405 $8,237,673 Industrial 410 340 $256,963,411 $289,020,763 $433,531,145 $979,515,319 Institutional 38 37 $35,004,711 $127,123,113 $127,123,113 $289,250,937 Miscellaneous 94 23 $13,153,328 $3,247,536 $3,247,536 $19,648,400 Residential 8,535 8,082 $1,411,593,484 $1,376,729,016 $688,364,508 $3,476,687,008 Open - No 294 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Grand Total 9,910 8,765 $1,928,743,775 $1,934,657,144 $1,390,803,018 $5,254,203,937 Source: City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

Critical Facilities

For purposes of this plan, a critical facility is defined as:

Any facility, including without limitation, a structure, infrastructure, property, equipment or service, that if adversely affected during a hazard event may result in severe consequences to public health and safety or City of Azusa 4-112 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during and after the hazard event.

A critical facility is classified by the following categories: (1) Essential Services Facilities (2) At-risk Populations Facilities, and (3) Hazardous Materials Facilities.

➢ Essential Services Facilities include, without limitation, public safety, emergency response, emergency medical, designated emergency shelters, communications, public utility plant facilities and equipment, and government operations. Sub-Categories: ✓ Public Safety - Police stations, fire and rescue stations, emergency operations centers ✓ Emergency Response - Emergency vehicle and equipment storage and essential governmental work centers for continuity of government operations. ✓ Emergency Medical - Hospitals, emergency care, urgent care, ambulance services. ✓ Designated Emergency Shelters ✓ Communications - Main hubs for telephone, main broadcasting equipment for television systems, radio and other emergency warning systems. ✓ Public Utility Plant Facilities - including equipment for treatment, generation, storage, pumping and distribution (hubs for water, wastewater, power and gas. ✓ Essential Government Operations - Public records, courts, jails, building permitting and inspection services, government administration and management, maintenance and equipment centers. ➢ At Risk Population Facilities include, without limitation, pre-schools, public and private primary and secondary schools, before and after school care centers with 12 or more students, daycare centers with 12 or more children, group homes, and assisted living residential or congregate care facilities with 12 or more residents. ➢ Hazardous Materials Facilities include, without limitation, any facility that could, if adversely impacted, release of hazardous material(s) in sufficient amounts during a hazard event that would create harm to people, the environment and property.

A fully detailed list of all critical facilities in the planning are can be found in Appendix E. A summary of critical facilities in the County can be found in Figure 4-39 and Table 4-36.

City of Azusa 4-113 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-39 Azusa – Critical Facilitty Inventory

City of Azusa 4-114 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-36 Azusa – Critical Facility Inventory

Facility Name Facility Count Essential Services 210 Freeway Overpass 1 Azusa Public Works 1 City Hall 1 Fire Station 32 1 Fire Station 97 1 Police 1 Railroad Overpass 1 Essential Services Total 7 At Risk Populations Azusa High School 1 Azusa Montessori Academy 1 Christbridge Academy 1 Dalton Elementary 1 Edgewood Center 1 Foothill Middle School 1 Gladstone Street Elementary 1 Hodge Elementary 1 Lee Elementary 1 Light & Life Christian School 1 Little Gems Learning & Daycare 1 Magnolia Elementary 1 Mountain View Elementary 1 Murray Elementary 1 Paramount Elementary 1 Saint Frances of Rome School 1 Silverado Sierra Vista Car Community 1 Slauson Middle School 1 Soldano Senior Village 1 Valleydale Elementary 1 WR Powell Elementary 1 At Risk Populations Total 21 Hazardous Materials Facilities Azusa Land Reclamation 1 IDR Environmental Services 1

City of Azusa 4-115 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Facility Name Facility Count Waste Management 1 Hazardous Materials Facilities Total 3

Grand Total 31 Source: City of Azusa GIS

Natural, Historical, and Cultural Resources

Assessing the vulnerability of the City to disaster also involves inventorying the natural, historic, and cultural assets of the area. This step is important for the following reasons:

➢ The community may decide that these types of resources warrant a greater degree of protection due to their unique and irreplaceable nature and contribution to the overall economy. ➢ If these resources are impacted by a disaster, knowing so ahead of time allows for more prudent care in the immediate aftermath, when the potential for additional impacts are higher. ➢ The rules for reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement are often different for these types of designated resources. ➢ Natural resources can have beneficial functions that reduce the impacts of natural hazards, such as wetlands and riparian habitat, which help absorb and attenuate floodwaters.

Natural Resources

The majority of Azusa is urbanized. Relatively natural vegetation communities and habitats for wildlife are largely limited to the remaining undeveloped floodplain of the San Gabriel River and tributaries including Van Tassel Canyon, upper Fish Canyon, Roberts Canyon, and the upland foothill areas of the San Gabriel Mountains that occur in the northern portion of the City. Approximately 40 percent of the City is draped in the greens, grays, and purples of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and woodlands growing on the rugged slopes and foothill valleys of the San Gabriel Mountains. Descending from these mountains is the San Gabriel River, originating from the 10,064-foot Mt. San Antonio (Old Baldy) and carrying flows from a 635-square mile watershed. The undeveloped floodplain and tributaries of the River create corridors of wetlands and pools for insects, frogs, and fish, including historic runs of steelhead. Places such as Van Tassel Canyon, upper Fish Canyon, and Roberts Canyon are lined with woodlands of willow, cottonwood, Sycamore, and alder. Along the River, natural vegetation termed alluvial scrub and woodland is present from the mouth of San Gabriel Canyon to the Foothill Boulevard Bridge, and beyond, to the Santa Fe Dam. On the steep, south-facing slopes of the northern part of the City is vegetation called coastal sage scrub, accented with interesting plants like Whipple’s yucca, white sage, wishbone bush, and locally dense patches of prickly-pear cactus. On the north-facing slopes, especially on the north side of the Glendora Ridge, a denser, chaparral vegetation prevails, along with scattered elements of the conifer forest. In addition, rockface cliff s of the mesic slopes host two rare plant species: the San Gabriel River dudleya and the San Gabriel Mountains dudleya. Another plant in this area is the San Gabriel leather oak, previously unreported in the area. Biological and natural resource areas of the City are shown on Figure 4-40.

City of Azusa 4-116 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-40 City of Azusa – Biological Resource Overlay Zones

Source; City of Azusa General Plan Natural Environment Element

City of Azusa 4-117 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Wetlands: Natural and Beneficial Functions

Wetlands are habitats in which soils are intermittently or permanently saturated or inundated. Wetland habitats vary from rivers to seasonal ponding of alkaline flats and include swamps, bogs, marshes, vernal pools, and riparian woodlands. Wetlands are considered to be waters of the United States and are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Where the waters provide habitat for federally endangered species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may also have authority.

Wetlands are a valuable natural resource for communities providing beneficial impact to water quality, wildlife protection, recreation, and education, and play an important role in hazard mitigation. Wetlands provide drought relief in water-scarce areas where the relationship between water storage and streamflow regulation is vital, and reduce flood peaks and slowly release floodwaters to downstream areas. When surface runoff is dampened, the erosive powers of the water are greatly diminished. Furthermore, the reduction in the velocity of inflowing water as it passes through a wetland helps remove sediment being transported by the water.

Wetlands are often found in floodplains and depressional areas of a watershed. Many wetlands receive and store floodwaters, thus slowing and reducing downstream flow. Wetlands perform a variety of ecosystem functions including food web support, habitat for insects and other invertebrates, fish and wildlife habitat, filtering of waterborne and dry-deposited anthropogenic pollutants, carbon storage, water flow regulation (e.g., flood abatement), groundwater recharge, and other human and economic benefits.

Wetlands, and other riparian and sensitive areas, provide habitat for insects and other invertebrates that are critical food sources to a variety of wildlife species, particularly birds. There are species that depend on these areas during all parts of their lifecycle for food, overwintering, and reproductive habitat. Other species use wetlands and riparian areas for one or two specific functions or parts of the lifecycle, most commonly for food resources. In addition, these areas produce substantial plant growth that serves as a food source to herbivores (wild and domesticated) and a secondary food source to carnivores.

Wetlands slow the flow of water through the vegetation and soil, and pollutants are often held in the soil. In addition, because the water is slowed, sediments tend to fall out, thus improving water quality and reducing turbidity downstream.

These natural floodplain functions associated with the natural or relatively undisturbed floodplain that moderates flooding, such as wetland areas, are critical for maintaining water quality, recharging groundwater, reducing erosion, redistributing sand and sediment, and providing fish and wildlife habitat. Preserving and protecting these areas and associated functions are a vital component of sound floodplain management practices for the City.

Natural site features such as wetlands with native plants and hydric soils have long disappeared and they no longer can function as they should. Landowners are encouraged to plant native plants on their property. These plants will assist with absorption and filtration of water. They will help to hold soils to keep erosion and siltation from occurring in the waterway. Landowners are also encouraged to remove any obstructions which might restrict water conveyance during high water events. The National Wetlands inventory

City of Azusa 4-118 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 indicates that wetlands areas are located within the northern portion of the City generally within the San Gabriel River. Wetlands in Azusa are shown in Figure 4-41.

Figure 4-41 City of Azusa – Wetlands

City of Azusa 4-119 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Critical Species

To further understand natural resources that may be particularly vulnerable to a hazard event, as well as those that need consideration when implementing mitigation activities, it is important to identify at-risk species (i.e., endangered species) in the City. An endangered species is any species of fish, plant life, or wildlife that is in danger of extinction throughout all or most of its range. A threatened species is a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Both endangered and threatened species are protected by law and any future hazard mitigation projects are subject to these laws. Candidate species are plants and animals that have been proposed as endangered or threatened but are not currently listed.

There are many federal endangered, threatened, or candidate species in or near Azusa. The California Natural Diversity Database was searched for listed species. The quad that contains the City of Azusa contained 69 species. These species are listed in Table 4-37.

Table 4-37 City of Azusa – Threatened and Endangered Species

Scientific Name Common Name Federal State CDFW CA Rare Status Status Status Plant Rank Animals – Amphibians Batrachoseps gabrieli San Gabriel slender salamander None None – – Rana boylii foothill yellow–legged frog None None SSC – Rana draytonii California red–legged frog Threatened None SSC – Rana muscosa southern mountain yellow– Endangered Endangered WL – legged frog Taricha torosa Coast Range newt None None SSC – Spea hammondii western spadefoot None None SSC – Animals – Birds Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk None None WL – Accipiter striatus sharp–shinned hawk None None WL – Pandion haliaetus osprey None None WL – Ardea alba great egret None None – – Ardea herodias great blue heron None None – – Nycticorax nycticorax black–crowned night heron None None – – Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike None None SSC – Larus californicus California gull None None WL – Icteria virens yellow–breasted chat None None SSC – Setophaga petechia yellow warbler None None SSC – Phalacrocorax auritus double–crested cormorant None None WL – Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher Threatened None SSC – Calypte costae Costa's hummingbird None None – –

City of Azusa 4-120 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Scientific Name Common Name Federal State CDFW CA Rare Status Status Status Plant Rank Contopus cooperi olive–sided flycatcher None None SSC – Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher None Endangered – – Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo Endangered Endangered – – Animals – Fish Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker Threatened None – – Gila orcuttii arroyo chub None None SSC – Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3 Santa Ana speckled dace None None SSC – Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead – southern California Endangered None – – DPS Animals – Mammals Ovis canadensis nelsoni desert bighorn sheep None None FP – Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat None None SSC – Nyctinomops macrotis big free–tailed bat None None SSC – Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None None SSC – Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat None None – – Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat None None SSC – Animals – Reptiles Diadophis punctatus modestus San Bernardino ringneck snake None None – – Lampropeltis zonata California mountain kingsnake None None WL – (parvirubra) (San Bernardino population) Emys marmorata western pond turtle None None SSC – Thamnophis hammondii two–striped gartersnake None None SSC – Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard None None SSC – Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal whiptail None None SSC – Community – Aquatic – Southern California Arroyo None None – – Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream Community – Terrestrial – Canyon Live Oak Ravine Forest None None – – – Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage None None – – Scrub – Southern Coast Live Oak None None – – Riparian Forest – Southern Sycamore Alder None None – – Riparian Woodland Plants – Vascular Asplenium vespertinum western spleenwort None None – 4.2

City of Azusa 4-121 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Scientific Name Common Name Federal State CDFW CA Rare Status Status Status Plant Rank Pseudognaphalium white rabbit–tobacco None None – 2B.2 leucocephalum Symphyotrichum greatae Greata's aster None None – 1B.3 Lepidium virginicum var. Robinson's pepper–grass None None – 4.3 robinsonii Dudleya cymosa ssp. crebrifolia San Gabriel River dudleya None None – 1B.2 Dudleya densiflora San Gabriel Mountains dudleya None None – 1B.1 Dudleya multicaulis many–stemmed dudleya None None – 1B.2 Cladium californicum California saw–grass None None – 2B.2 Astragalus brauntonii Braunton's milk–vetch Endangered None – 1B.1 Quercus durata var. gabrielensis San Gabriel oak None None – 4.2 Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak None None – 4.2 Juglans californica southern California black walnut None None – 4.2 Lepechinia fragrans fragrant pitcher sage None None – 4.2 Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis slender mariposa–lily None None – 1B.2 Calochortus plummerae Plummer's mariposa–lily None None – 4.2 Calochortus weedii var. intermediate mariposa–lily None None – 1B.2 intermedius Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum ocellated humboldt lily None None – 4.2 Orobanche valida ssp. valida Rock Creek broomrape None None – 1B.2 Imperata brevifolia California satintail None None – 2B.1 Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry's spineflower None None – 1B.1 Dodecahema leptoceras slender–horned spineflower Endangered Endangered – 1B.1 Horkelia cuneata var. puberula mesa horkelia None None – 1B.1 Galium angustifolium ssp. San Antonio Canyon bedstraw None None – 4.3 gabrielense Galium grande San Gabriel bedstraw None None – 1B.2 Heuchera caespitosa urn–flowered alumroot None None – 4.3 Thelypteris puberula var. Sonoran maiden fern None None – 2B.2 sonorensis Source: California Natural Diversity Database Legend: CDFW: WL – Watch List; SSC – Species of Special Concern; FP – Fully Protected Legend: CA Rare Plan Rank: 1A Plants presumed extinct in California and rare/extinct elsewhere 1B.1 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California 1B.2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly threatened in California 1B.3 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; not very threatened in California 2A Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere 2B.1 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; seriously threatened in California 2B.2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; fairly threatened in California 2B.3 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; not very threatened in California

City of Azusa 4-122 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 3.1 Plants about which we need more information; seriously threatened in California 3.2 Plants about which we need more information; fairly threatened in California 3.3 Plants about which we need more information; not very threatened in California 4.1 Plants of limited distribution; seriously threatened in California 4.2 Plants of limited distribution; fairly threatened in California 4.3 Plants of limited distribution; not very threatened in California

Historic and Cultural Assets

Azusa has a stock of historically significant homes, public buildings, and landmarks. To inventory these resources, the HMPC collected information from a number of sources. The California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) was the primary source of information. The OHP is responsible for the administration of federally and state mandated historic preservation programs to further the identification, evaluation, registration, and protection of California’s irreplaceable archaeological and historical resources. OHP administers the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and the California Points of Historical Interest programs. Each program has different eligibility criteria and procedural requirements.

➢ The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archeological resources. Properties listed include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. ➢ The California Register of Historical Resources program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance and identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Register is the authoritative guide to the state’s significant historical and archeological resources. ➢ California Historical Landmarks are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. Landmarks #770 and above are automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. ➢ California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. Points designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the California Register.

Historical resources included in the programs above are identified in Table 4-38.

City of Azusa 4-123 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-38 City of Azusa – Historic Resources

Name/Landmark National State California Point of Plaque Number Register Landmark Register Interest Date Listed Town Azusa Civic Center X 2/21/2002 Azusa (N2160) Source: California Office of Historic Preservation

It should be noted that as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), any property over 50 years of age is considered a historic resource and is potentially eligible for the National Register. Thus, in the event that the property is to be altered, or has been altered, as the result of a major federal action, the property must be evaluated under the guidelines set forth by NEPA. Structural mitigation projects are considered alterations for the purpose of this regulation.

Growth and Development Trends

As part of the planning process, the HMPC looked at changes in growth and development, both past and future, and examined these changes in the context of hazard-prone areas, and how the changes in growth and development affect loss estimates and vulnerability. Information from the 2014-2021 City of Azusa Housing Element, General Plan Background Report, and the California Department of Finance (DOF) form the basis of this discussion.

Past Growth and Current Population

The City of Azusa was founded in 1887 and incorporated as a general law city on December 29, 1898. Beginning with a population of 865 in 1899, Azusa grew from 29,380 residents in 1980 to 41,330 residents in 1990, an increase of 41 percent. Since 1990, however, population growth has been relatively moderate, reflecting both the economic recession of the early to mid-1990s, and the limited availability of land remaining for residential development in a mostly built-out community. As of 2017, the California Department of Finance noted that Azusa had an estimated population of 49,762, representing a seven percent increase since 2010. Population numbers since 1960 are shown in Table 4-39.

Table 4-39 City of Azusa– Past and Current Populations

Year Population Numerical Change Percent Change 1960 20,497 – – 1970 25,217 4,720 23% 1980 29,380 4,163 17% 1990 41,333 11,953 41% 2000 44,712 3,379 8% 2010 46,300 1,588 4% 2017 49,762 3,462 7% Source: City of Azusa 2014-2021 Housing Element, US Census Bureau, California Department of Finance E-1 Report

City of Azusa 4-124 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Special Populations

Special needs groups, as defined by State law, include the elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed families, farm workers, and the homeless. According to the 2010 Census, there were 3,576 elderly persons (over age 65) in Azusa. This represents a 15 percent increase from 2000. Of this elderly population, almost 39 percent had some form of disability in 2010. To help meet the needs of the disabled population, the City permits residential care facilities that serve six or fewer persons in all residential zones and all Corridor zones. Residential care facilities that serve seven or more persons are permitted with a minor use permit in all neighborhood zones, except Neighborhood Centers, and in the University District and Downtown Transit Village. They are permitted without a minor use permit in all zones. As of 2012, there were 10 State licensed facilities located in the City with a total capacity of 147 beds.

As required by SB 244, codified as Government Code Section 65302.10, the City is required to address identified Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within its sphere of influence in the Land Use Element upon next adoption of the housing element. DUCs for the City of Azusa have been identified based on communities that are below 80% of the State Median Household Income based on the latest census data. These DUCs include unincorporated communities along the City’s southern boundary, north of Arrow Highway within the City’s sphere of influence, and along the eastern boundary with Glendora. These can be seen in Figure 4-42.

City of Azusa 4-125 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-42 Azusa – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

Source: City of Azusa Housing Element Initial Study

City of Azusa 4-126 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 In addition to the special populations mentioned above, the HMPC noted that populations or areas that sometimes need additional notifications and sometimes assistance during a hazard event include the equestrian centers located in the foothills of the City. These areas often need early notifications and evacuation warnings for a variety of hazard types such as wildfire, flood, dam failure, and mudslides.

Also a significant issue to the City is the homeless populations that are both at risk to hazards and sometimes contributors to the hazard event, such as wildfires. Homeless encampments tend to form around the river beds and in the San Gabriel and Orundo areas. The City continues to address this issue through a variety of means and programs.

Land Use

The Land Use Map designates the land use pattern envisioned for the City. The designations on the map must be consistent with the General Plan in relationship to each land use category. The Zoning Ordinance sets forth regulations and standards for development to ensure that the policies, goals, and objectives of the General Plan are carried out. Land use and zoning in the City is shown on Figure 4-43.

City of Azusa 4-127 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-43 City of Azusa – Land Use Map

Source: City of Azusa General Plan

Future Development

In terms of future trends, the 2014-2021 Housing Element predicted future population through 2035:

➢ 2020 – 49,500

City of Azusa 4-128 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ 2035 – 53,800

Specific Plans

A Specific Plan is a tool for implementing the General Plan. A Specific Plan provides the standards for development within designated parts of the City. The City has two specific plan areas where growth and development is occurring:

➢ Dhammakaya Specific Plan – The City of Azusa (Lead Agency) received an application from the Dhammakaya International Meditation Center for the phased construction of a 69,179 square-foot meditation hall, nine two-story Organizational Housing buildings, a workshop building, a stormwater detention basin, a fire access road, additional parking, a reflecting pool, and landscaping located at 865 E. Monrovia Place in the City of Azusa. The Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on September 21, 2015. ➢ TOD Specific Plan – On September 10, 2012, City staff submitted an application to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) for Round 3 of their Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Planning Grant program. The TOD Planning Grant Program is designed to spur the adoption of local land use regulations that create a regulatory environment supportive of TOD in Los Angeles County, as well as pre-regulatory planning efforts that can lead to the adoption of such local land use regulations. The Planning Grant Program was open to municipalities with land use regulatory control over property within 0.25-mile of designated transit corridors. In February 2013, Metro awarded the City a $653,000 grant to develop to specific plan and promote TOD around the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station and Azusa Pacific University (APU)/Citrus Station. The Azusa TOD Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on November 16, 2015. The Azusa TOD Specific Plan area is approximately 308 acres in size, with approximately 170 acres potentially receiving new development opportunities, and approximately 138 acres of no-change areas. The Specific Plan area is located in the central portion of the City and is bound by 9th Street to the north, Lemon Avenue to the west, 5th and 6th Streets to the south, and Citrus Avenue to the east. The Plan allows for the addition of up to 403,000 square feet of retail, service, and office uses, 150 hotel rooms, and 840 dwelling units.

Other Development Plans

The CT Aerojet Project involves the development of three warehouse buildings totaling 181,800 square feet on an 8.35-acre site. The site was historically developed with numerous structures and was part of the Aerojet-General Corporation (Aerojet) campus. At its peak, the Aerojet campus was 125 acres. Locally, the project site is located south of Interstate 210 and east of North Irwindale Avenue in the southwestern portion of the City of Azusa at 301 Aerojet Avenue. The 8.35-acre project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project was approved by the Planning Commission on September 20, 2015. The project was under construction in 2017/2018.

Future Development GIS Analysis

Figure 4-44 identifies eight future development projects: 1) 803 -813 N. Dalton Avenue, 2) A2, 3) Atlantis Gardens, 4) Block 36, 5) Block 37, 6) Colorama, 7) Lagunitas, and 8) Smart & Final Extra. Parcel and acreage information is provided for each of the eight sites in Table 4-39. Six of the eight projects are located within the Azusa TOD Specific Plan area: 803 -813 N. Dalton Avenue, A2, Atlantis Gardens, Block 36, Block 37, and Smart & Final Extra.

City of Azusa 4-129 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ 803 – 813 N. Dalton Avenue – This 1.44 acre (62,798 sf) site is located at 803 -809 N. Dalton Avenue. On May 1, 2017 the City Council approved Final Tract Map No. 74376 for the development of 30 townhome units. The project is estimated to be constructed in 2018/2019. ➢ A2 – This 1.20 acre site (52,355 sf) site was previously owned by the Azusa Successor Agency and through a Request for Proposal and Exclusive Negotiation Agreement process is being sold to Costanza Investments, who will develop the site with a mixed use project. The property is zoned Gold Line District within the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. The project will include 12,000 sf of commercial area and 127 residential units. The project is anticipated to go before the Azusa Planning Commission in later summer/early fall 2018. ➢ Atlantis Gardens – The site is currently occupied by twelve-fifteen four-unit (Quadruplexes) multi- family properties, structures, and sub-surface parking areas. The site is owned by the Azusa Successor Agency. In June 2010, the previous Redevelopment Agency Board (now the Successor Agency) approved a Notice of Completion for the abatement and demolition of the Atlantis Gardens. Eighteen parcels have been cleared and are vacant lots. No development projects are proposed as of July 2018, but future projects are anticipated to include affordable housing units for very-low and low income households. ➢ Block 36 – This 2.24 acre (97,649 sf) site, located on the northeast corner of Azusa Avenue (Hwy 39) and Foothill Boulevard (Historic Route 66), was previously owned by the Azusa Successor Agency and through a Request for Proposal and Exclusive Negotiation Agreement process is being sold to Serrano Development Group, who will develop the site with a mixed use project. The property is zoned Downtown District within the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. The project will include 32,530 sf of commercial area for theater, retail, and restaurant uses and 148,690 sf of residential area. The commercial area includes a 270-seat movie theater (8,200 sf), 23,366 sf of retail and restaurant space. The residential area includes 163 apartment units and 3 live/work units. The project is anticipated to go before the Azusa Planning Commission in later summer 2018. ➢ Block 37 – The 1.29 acre (56,000 sf) site, located at 600-624 N. San Gabriel Avenue is owned by the Azusa Successor Agency. The site includes an existing 8,000 square foot building, suitable for an outdoor sporting goods or recreational equipment store, and adjoining parking areas. Alternatively the building could be demolished and combined with a portion of the existing parking area to create a larger footprint. On May 7, 2018, the City Council approved a Purchase and Sales Agreement by and between the Azusa Successor Agency and Summitrose Investments, LP and Hillrose Investments, LP, who would develop the site. No plans have been submitted to City as of July 2018. ➢ Colorama – The 23.27 (1,013,641 sf) acre site is located at 1025 N. Todd Avenue. There is a proposal to redevelop the Colorama Wholesale Nursery site with the Azusa Business Center project, which includes the construction of seven large industrial buildings with a total of 462,491 square feet. As of July 2018, the Azusa Business Center project is being reviewed by the Economic and Community Development Department and an Environmental Impact Report is being prepared. Public hearings with the Planning Commission and/or City Council are anticipated in 2018/2019. ➢ Lagunitas Brewery Company – This 21.63 acre (942,203 sf) site is located at 1001 N. Todd Avenue. The property is zoned West End Light Industrial (DWL). The Brewery opened in2017 and includes three buildings totaling 342,629 square feet, 24-hour brewery operations, taproom, outdoor dining, and on-site and off-site alcohol sales. ➢ Smart & Final Extra – This 1.5 acre (65,340 sf) site is located at 303 E. Foothill Boulevard. The property is zoned Downtown Expansion District within the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. The project includes a 29,996 sf commercial building and site improvements. The store opened in November 2017.

Mapping of these areas are included in Figure 4-44 and detailed in Table 4-40. City of Azusa 4-130 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-44 Azusa – Future Development Areas

City of Azusa 4-131 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-40 Azusa – Future Development Areas with Parcels and Acreage

Future Development Areas Parcels Acres 803-813 N Dalton Ave 4 1 A2 6 2 Atlantis Gardens 40 6 Block 36 1 2 Block 37 9 1 Colorama 1 23 Lagunitas 1 22 Smart & Final Extra 6 1 Grand Total 68 58 Source: City of Azusa

4.3.2. Azusa’s Vulnerability to Specific Hazards

The Disaster Mitigation Act regulations require that the HMPC evaluate the risk and vulnerability associated with priority hazards identified in the planning process. This section summarizes the possible impacts and quantifies, where data permits, the City’s vulnerability to each of the hazards identified as a priority hazard in Section 4.2.15 Natural Hazards Summary. The priority hazards evaluated further as part of this vulnerability assessment include:

➢ Dam Failure ➢ Drought and Water Shortage ➢ Earthquake ➢ Earthquake: Liquefaction ➢ Flood: 100/500 year ➢ Flood: Localized Stormwater Flooding ➢ Landslide and Mudslides ➢ Levee Failure ➢ Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms ➢ Severe Weather: High Winds ➢ Wildfire

It should be noted that, due to the limited likelihood of occurrence, tornadoes were dropped from the high winds hazard for the vulnerability assessment.

An estimate of the vulnerability of the City to each identified hazard, in addition to the estimate of likelihood of future occurrence, is provided in each of the hazard-specific sections that follow. Vulnerability is measured in general, qualitative terms and is a summary of the potential impact based on past occurrences, spatial extent, and damage and casualty potential. It is categorized into the following classifications:

➢ Extremely Low—The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal to nonexistent.

City of Azusa 4-132 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Low—Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. ➢ Medium—Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and/or built environment. Here the potential damage is more isolated and less costly than a more widespread disaster. ➢ High—Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past. ➢ Extremely High—Very widespread with catastrophic impact.

Vulnerability can be quantified in those instances where there is a known, identified hazard area, such as a mapped floodplain. In these instances, the numbers and types of buildings subject to the identified hazard can be counted and their values tabulated. Other information can be collected in regard to the hazard area, such as the location of City critical facilities, historic structures, and valued natural resources (e.g., an identified wetland or endangered species habitat). Together, this information conveys the impact, or vulnerability, of an area to that hazard.

The HMPC identified six hazards in the City for which specific geographical hazard areas have been defined and for which sufficient data exists to support a quantifiable vulnerability analysis. These seven hazards are dam failure, earthquake, flood, landslide, liquefaction, and wildfire. Because these hazards have discrete hazard risk areas, their risk varies throughout the City. For dam failure, flood, landslide, liquefaction, and wildfire, the HMPC inventoried the following, to the extent possible, to quantify vulnerability in identified hazard areas:

➢ General hazard-related impacts, including impacts to life, safety, and health ➢ Values at risk (i.e., types, numbers, and value of land and improvements) ➢ Population at risk ➢ Critical facilities at risk ➢ Overall community impact ➢ Future development/redevelopment trends within the identified hazard area

HMPC used FEMA’s loss estimation software, HAZUS-MH, to analyze the City’s vulnerability to earthquakes.

The vulnerability and potential impacts from priority hazards that do not have specific mapped areas nor the data to support additional vulnerability analysis are discussed here in more general terms.

4.3.3. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment

Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Likely Vulnerability—Low

Although deemed a low significance hazard, due it is importance to the State of California, climate change impacts to the City of Azusa are detailed here.

City of Azusa 4-133 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Hazard/Problem Description

The California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) prepared by California OES and CNRA was developed to provide guidance and support for local governments and regional collaboratives to address the unavoidable consequences of climate change.

The APG: Defining Local and Regional Impacts focuses on understanding the ways in which climate change can affect a community. According to this APG, climate change impacts (temperature, precipitation, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and wind) affect a wide range of community structures, functions and populations. These impacts further defined by regional and local characteristics are discussed by secondary impacts and seven sectors found in local communities: Public Health, Socioeconomic, and equity impacts; Ocean and Coastal Resources; Water Management; Forest and Rangeland; Biodiversity and Habitat; Agriculture; and Infrastructure.

Azusa Climate Change Impacts

The APG: Understanding Regional Characteristics identified the following impacts specific to the South Coast Region of which Azusa is part of. This can be found in Table 4-41.

Table 4-41 Summary of Cal-Adapt Climate Projections for the South Coast Region5

RANGES Temperature January increase in average temperatures: 1°F to 2.5°F by 2050 and 5°F to 6°F by 2100 July Change, 1990- increase in average temperatures: 3°F to 4°F by 2050 and 5°F to 10°F by 2100 with larger increases 2100 projected inland. (Modeled high temperatures; high carbon emissions scenario) Precipitation Annual precipitation will vary by area but will decline overall throughout the century. Low-lying coastal areas will lose up to 2 inches by 2050 and 3 to 5 inches by 2090, while high elevations will see a drop of 4 to 5 inches by 2050 and 8 to 10 inches by 2090. (CCSM3 climate model; high emissions scenario) Sea Level Rise By 2100, sea levels may rise up to 66 inches, posing considerable threats to coastal areas in the region including Venice Beach, the Port of Long Beach, the South Coast naval stations, and San Diego Harbor. As a result of sea level rise, 45 percent more land in Los Angeles County, 40 percent more land in San Diego County, 35 percent more land in Ventura County, and 28 percent more land in Orange County will be vulnerable to 100-year floods. Heat Wave Along the coast, a heat wave is five days over temperature in the 80s. Inland, the temperature must hit the 90s and 100s for five days. All areas can expect 3 to 5 more heat waves by 2050 and 12 to 14 by 2100 in most areas of the region. Snowpack March snowpack in the San Gabriel Mountains will decrease from the 0.7-inch level in 2010 to zero by the end of the century. (CCSM3 climate model; high emissions scenario) Wildfire Risk Little change is projected in the already high-fire risk in this region, save for slight increases expected in a few coastal mountainous areas such as near Ojai and in Castaic, Fallbrook, and Mission Viejo. Source: Public Interest Energy Research, 2011. Cal-Adapt6; OPC 2013. State of California Sea-level Rise Guidance Document7

Future Development

Azusa and Los Angeles County in general could see population fluctuations as a result of climate impacts relative to those experienced in other regions, and these fluctuations are expected to impact demand for

City of Azusa 4-134 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 housing and other development. For example, sea level rise may disrupt economic activity and housing in coastal communities, resulting in migration to inland urban areas like the City of Azusa. Other interior western states may experience an exodus of population due to challenges in adapting to heat even more extreme than that which is projected to occur here. While there are currently no formal studies of specific migration patterns expected to impact the South Coast region, climate-induced migration was recognized within the UNFCCC Conference of Parties Paris Agreement of 2015 and is expected to be the focus of future studies.

Climate change, coupled with shifting demographics and market conditions, could impact both the location of desired developments and the nature of development. Demand may increase for smaller dwellings that are less resource intensive, more energy efficient, easier to maintain and can be more readily adapted or even moved in response to changing conditions. Compact, mixed-use and infill developments that can help residents avoid long commutes and vulnerabilities associated with the transportation system will likely continue to grow in popularity. The value of open space and pressure to preserve it will likely increase, due in part to its restorative, recreational, environmental and habitat benefits but also for its ability to sequester carbon, help mitigate the accumulation of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and slow down the global warming trend. Higher flood risks, especially if coupled with increased federal flood insurance rates, may decrease market demand for housing and other types of development in floodplains, while increased risk of wildfires may do the same for new developments in the urban-wildland interface. Flood risks may also inspire new development and building codes that elevate structures while maintaining streetscapes and neighborhood characteristics.

Climate change will stress water resources. Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the potential impacts varies. Drought, related to reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants, is an important issue in many U.S. regions, especially in the West. Floods, water quality problems, and impacts on aquatic ecosystems and species are likely to be amplified by climate change. Declines in mountain snowpack are important in Los Angeles County, the Sierra Nevada Mountains and across the state, where snowpack provides vital natural water storage and supply. The ability to secure and provide water for new development requires on-going monitoring and assurances. It is recommended that the ability to provide a reliable water supply from the appropriate water purveyor, continue to be in the conditions for project approval, and such assurances shall be verified and in place prior to issuing building permits.

Climate change will affect transportation. The transportation network is vital to the county and the region’s economy, safety, and quality of life. While it is widely recognized that emissions from transportation have impacts on climate change, climate will also likely have significant impacts on transportation infrastructure and operations. Examples of specific types of impacts include softening of asphalt roads and warping of railroad rails; damage to roads; flooding of roadways, rail routes, and airports from extreme events; and interruptions to flight plans due to severe weather.

Climate change will affect land uses and planning. Climate change coupled with shifting demographics and market conditions, could impact both the location of desired developments and the nature of development. Demand may increase for smaller dwellings that are less resource intensive, more energy efficient, easier to maintain and can be more readily adapted or even moved in response to changing conditions. Compact, mixed-use and infill developments that can help residents avoid long commutes and

City of Azusa 4-135 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 vulnerabilities associated with the transportation system will likely continue to grow in popularity. The value of open space, urban greening, green infrastructure, tree canopy expansion and pressure to preserve it will likely increase, due in part to its restorative, recreational, environmental, and habitat, and physical and mental health benefits but also for its ability to sequester carbon and cool the surrounding environment.

Climate change will affect utilities. California is already experiencing impacts from climate change such as an increased number of wildfires, sea level rise and severe drought. Utility efforts to deal with these impacts range from emergency and risk management protocols to new standards for infrastructure design and new resource management techniques. Utilities are just beginning to build additional resilience and redundancy into their infrastructure investments from a climate adaptation perspective, but have been doing so from an overall safety and reliability perspective for decades. Significant efforts are also being made in those areas that overlap with climate change mitigation such as diversification of resources, specifically the addition of more renewables to the portfolio mix, as well as implementation of demand response efforts to curb peak demand. Efforts are also under way to upgrade the distribution grid infrastructure, which should add significant resilience to the grid as well. New development will have to adapt and incorporate these new approaches as they evolve. Existing and new development will be affected from impacts that includes not only diminished capacity from all of the utility assets from generation to transmission and distribution, but also the cost consequences resulting from prevention, replacement, outage, and energy loss. These have the potential for greatly impacting not just residential development but commercial and industrial and all utility users.

Addressing Urban Heat Islands and Heat Events. New development will contribute to urban heat island (UHI) impacts and will need to incorporate urban greening methods into all aspects of development; interior and exterior of buildings, surrounding environment and beyond. New development will need to reduce its impacts to the overall UHI impacts affecting the county and surrounding region. On-going and expanding heat wave awareness and assistance will also affect new development. Continued funding will be a priority for weatherization, reduced utility rates and similar programs that offers assistance to elderly, low-income residents to install roof insulation, solar, trees and cool surfaces to save energy and lower indoor temperatures.

4.3.4. Dam Failure Vulnerability Assessment

Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Unlikely Vulnerability—Extremely High

Hazard/Problem Description

Dam failure flooding can occur as the result of partial or complete collapse of an impoundment. Dam failures often result from prolonged rainfall and flooding. The primary danger associated with dam failure is the high velocity flooding of those properties downstream of the dam. A dam failure can range from a small, uncontrolled release to a catastrophic failure. Vulnerability to dam failures is confined to the areas subject to inundation downstream of the facility. Secondary losses would include loss of the multi-use functions of the facility and associated revenues that accompany those functions.

City of Azusa 4-136 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Dam failure flooding would vary by community depending on which dam fails and the nature and extent of the dam failure and associated flooding. Based on the risk assessment, it is apparent that a major dam failure could have a devastating impact on the City. Dam failure flooding presents a threat to life and property, including buildings, their contents, and their use. Large flood events can affect lifeline utilities (e.g., water, sewerage, and power), transportation, jobs, tourism, the environment, and the local and regional economies.

Flooding as a result of dam failure can occur as a result of manmade or natural causes. Such causes include improper sitting, structural design flaws, erosion of the face or foundation, earthquakes, massive landslides, and rapidly rising flood waters. Inundation as a result of dam failure would most likely be the result of a major flood or large earthquake.

Values at Risk

According to the General Plan EIR, 95 percent of the City is located within the inundation area of one of these dams. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report noted that the lowest areas of the City, and the areas immediately along the San Gabriel River channel, would be the most susceptible to damages from rapidly flowing water and associated floating debris. Areas farthest from the channel would suffer more from sheet flow and rising water.

The City Planning Team noted that that potential vulnerability from dam failure will depend on how full the reservoirs are as well as other factors such as rain, snowmelt etc. They noted that the Morris and San Gabriel reservoirs aren’t usually maintained at levels that are close to capacity, thus reducing potential impacts from a dam failure.

Methodology

The City of Azusa parcel layer and Los Angeles County’s 2017 Assessor’s data were used as the basis for the city inventory of parcels and values for Azusa’s dam inundation analysis. Azusa has mapped dam inundation zones for the Big Dalton, Cogswell, Morris, and San Gabriel dams. Inundation maps for these dams were provided by Cal OES. GIS was used to determine the possible impacts of dam failure within the City. The following methodology was followed in determining improved parcel counts and values in combined dam inundation areas. The dam inundation zones for the City for the Big Dalton, Cogswell, Morris, and San Gabriel dams are shown on Figure 4-45. Analysis results for the entire City of Azusa Planning Area are summarized in Table 4-42, which summarizes total parcel counts, improved parcel counts, and their land values, structure values, contents value, and total values by property use for all inundation zones in the City. Contents values were derived from the improved structure values using the same methodology as described in the Section 4.3.1.

City of Azusa 4-137 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-45 Azusa – Dam Inundation Areas for Dams of Concern

City of Azusa 4-138 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-42 Azusa – Dam Inundation Areas: Count and Values of Parcels by Property Use

Property Use Total Parcel Improved Total Land Improved Estimated Total Value* Count Parcel Count Value Structure Contents Value Value Commercial 390 277 $202,593,063 $136,658,492 $136,658,492 $273,316,984 Government 128 4 $7,249,516 $309,405 $309,405 $618,810 Industrial 407 340 $256,185,098 $289,020,763 $433,531,145 $722,551,908 Institutional 35 34 $23,433,085 $85,861,860 $85,861,860 $171,723,720 Miscellaneous 92 22 $13,079,702 $3,114,893 $3,114,893 $6,229,786 Residential 7,145 6,946 $1,117,757,734 $1,020,597,195 $510,298,598 $1,530,895,793 Open - No 59 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Total 8,256 7,623 $1,620,298,198 $1,535,562,608 $1,169,774,392 $2,705,337,000 Source: Cal OES, City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

Figure 4-45 and Table 4-42 show results of dam inundation analysis for all of the inundation areas in the City. The value of these tables is that they show the total area at risk to dam failure. It is unlikely that all dams would fail simultaneously. As such, analysis was performed for the Big Dalton, Morris, and San Gabriel dam inundation areas separately. The inundation area for the Big Dalton Dam can be seen on Figure 4-46, and analysis of parcels and values at risk is shown in Table 4-43. The inundation area for the Morris Dam can be seen on Figure 4-47 , and analysis of parcels and values at risk is shown in Table 4-44. The inundation area for the San Gabriel Dam can be seen on Figure 4-48, and analysis of parcels and values at risk is shown in Table 4-45.

City of Azusa 4-139 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-46 Azusa – Dam Inundation Area for Big Dalton Dam

City of Azusa 4-140 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-43 Azusa – Big Dalton Dam Inundation Area Count and Values of Parcels by Property Use

Property Use Total Parcel Improved Total Land Improved Estimated Total Value* Count Parcel Count Value Structure Contents Value Value Commercial 86 68 $94,663,273 $72,677,553 $72,677,553 $145,355,106 Government 30 1 $3,130,436 $40,757 $40,757 $81,514 Industrial 2 1 $4,507,271 $11,538,816 $17,308,224 $28,847,040 Institutional 9 9 $3,813,511 $36,749,885 $36,749,885 $73,499,770 Miscellaneous 4 0 $268,825 $0 $0 $0 Residential 1,854 1,841 $327,148,134 $300,018,011 $150,009,006 $450,027,017 Open - No 12 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Total 1,997 1,920 $433,531,450 $421,025,022 $276,785,425 $697,810,447 Source: Cal OES, City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

City of Azusa 4-141 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-47 Azusa – Dam Inundation Area for Morris Dam

City of Azusa 4-142 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-44 Azusa – Morris Dam Inundation Area Count and Values of Parcels by Property Use

Property Use Total Parcel Improved Total Land Improved Estimated Total Value* Count Parcel Count Value Structure Contents Value Value Commercial 278 192 $93,952,439 $55,341,288 $55,341,288 $110,682,576 Government 90 3 $3,860,130 $268,648 $268,648 $537,296 Industrial 405 339 $251,677,827 $277,481,947 $416,222,921 $693,704,868 Institutional 22 21 $11,835,790 $19,699,320 $19,699,320 $39,398,640 Miscellaneous 86 20 $12,521,537 $1,821,087 $1,821,087 $3,642,174 Residential 4,799 4,675 $714,287,181 $632,303,138 $316,151,569 $948,454,707 Open - No 30 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Total 5,710 5,250 $1,088,134,904 $986,915,428 $809,504,833 $1,796,420,261 Source: Cal OES, City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

City of Azusa 4-143 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-48 Azusa – Dam Inundation Area for San Gabriel Dam

City of Azusa 4-144 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-45 Azusa – San Gabriel Dam Inundation Area Count and Values of Parcels by Property Use

Property Use Total Parcel Improved Total Land Improved Estimated Total Value* Count Parcel Count Value Structure Contents Value Value Commercial 330 226 $142,702,430 $83,147,087 $83,147,087 $166,294,174 Government 113 4 $5,723,378 $309,405 $309,405 $618,810 Industrial 404 340 $254,847,238 $289,020,763 $433,531,145 $722,551,908 Institutional 32 31 $21,931,545 $54,581,420 $54,581,420 $109,162,840 Miscellaneous 88 21 $12,850,213 $3,111,194 $3,111,194 $6,222,388 Residential 5,933 5,743 $928,421,827 $833,421,526 $416,710,763 $1,250,132,289 Open - No 51 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Total 6,951 6,365 $1,366,476,631 $1,263,591,395 $991,391,014 $2,254,982,409 Source: Cal OES, City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

Population at Risk

The Big Dalton, Morris, San Gabriel inundation area was overlayed on the parcel layer. Those residential parcel centroids that intersect the inundation zones were counted and multiplied by the 2010 Census Bureau average household factors for Azusa (3.43). Population in the total dam inundation zones is shown in Table 4-46. Population by dam inundation area are shown in Table 4-47.

Table 4-46 Azusa – Count of Improved Residential Parcels and Population in Total Dam Inundation Areas

Dam Inundation Zone Improved Residential Parcels Population Inside Inundation Area 6,946 23,825 Total 6,946 23,825 Source: CAL FIRE, City of Azusa Parcel Layer, US Census Bureau

Table 4-47 Azusa – Count of Improved Residential Parcels and Population by Dam Inundation Areas

Dam Inundation Zone Improved Residential Parcels Population Big Dalton Dam 1,841 6,315 Morris Dam 4,675 16,035 San Gabriel Dam 5,743 19,699 Source: CAL FIRE, City of Azusa Parcel Layer, US Census Bureau

Critical Facilities at Risk

An analysis was performed on the critical facility inventory in Azusa in identified dam inundation zones. GIS was used to determine whether the facility locations intersects either the Morris or San Gabriel Dam

City of Azusa 4-145 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 inundation zone. Details of critical facilities in dam inundation areas for the City of Azusa are shown on Figure 4-51. 26 critical facilities fall within the dam inundation zones for the City, as shown in Table 4-48.

City of Azusa 4-146 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-49 Azusa – Critical Facilities in All Dam Inundation Areas

City of Azusa 4-147 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-48 Azusa – Critical Facilities in Dam All Inundation Areas

Facility Name Facility Count Essential Services 210 Fwy Overpass 1 Azusa Public Works 1 City Hall 1 Fire Station 32 1 Police 1 Railroad Overpass 1 Total 6 At Risk Populations Azusa High School 1 Azusa Montessori Academy 1 Christbridge Academy 1 Dalton Elementary 1 Edgewood Center 1 Foothill Middle School 1 Hodge Elementary 1 Lee Elementary 1 Light & Life Christian School 1 Little Gems Learing & Daycare 1 Mountain View Elementary 1 Paramount Elementary 1 Saint Frances of Rome School 1 Silverado Sierra Vista Car Community 1 Slauson Middle School 1 Soldano Senior Village 1 Valleydale Elementary 1 Total 17 Hazardous Material Facilities Azusa Land Reclamation 1 IDR Environmental Services 1 Waste Management 1 Total 3 Grand Total 26 Source: Cal OES, City of Azusa GIS

City of Azusa 4-148 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-48 shows the total number of critical facilities in all dam inundation areas. Critical facilities in the Big Dalton (Table 4-49), Morris (Table 4-50), and San Gabriel (Table 4-51) dam inundation areas are shown below.

Table 4-49 Azusa – Critical Facilities in the Big Dalton Dam Inundation Area

Facility Name Facility Count At Risk Populations Azusa High School 1 Foothill Middle School 1 Gladstone Street Elementary 1 Light & Life Christian School 1 Magnolia Elementary 1 Murray Elementary 1 Valleydale Elementary 1 WR Powell Elementary 1 Total 8 Source: Cal OES, City of Azusa GIS

Table 4-50 Azusa – Critical Facilities in the Morris Dam Inundation Area

Facility Name Facility Count Essential Services 210 Fwy Overpass 1 Azusa Public Works 1 City Hall 1 Fire Station 32 1 Police 1 Railroad Overpass 1 Total 6 At Risk Populations Azusa Montessori Academy 1 Dalton Elementary 1 Edgewood Center 1 Hodge Elementary 1 Little Gems Learing & Daycare 1 Mountain View Elementary 1 Paramount Elementary 1 Saint Frances of Rome School 1 Silverado Sierra Vista Car Community 1

City of Azusa 4-149 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Facility Name Facility Count Slauson Middle School 1 Soldano Senior Village 1 Total 11 Hazardous Material Facilities Azusa Land Reclamation 1 IDR Environmental Services 1 Waste Management 1 Total 3 Grand Total 20 Source: Cal OES, City of Azusa GIS

Table 4-51 Azusa – Critical Facilities in the San Gabriel Dam Inundation Area

City of Azusa 4-150 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Facility Name Facility Count Soldano Senior Village 1 Valleydale Elementary 1 Total 17 Hazardous Material Facilities Azusa Land Reclamation 1 IDR Environmental Services 1 Waste Management 1 Total 3 Grand Total 20 Source: Cal OES, City of Azusa GIS

Overall Community Impact

Dam failures and the floods that follow have impacts that vary by location and severity of any given event and will likely only affect certain areas of the City during specific times. Based on the risk assessment, it is evident that a dam failure would have potentially devastating economic impacts to areas of the Azusa. Impacts that can be anticipated in large future events, include:

➢ Commercial and residential structural and property damage; ➢ Costs incurred due to post-flood clean up and repair of buildings and infrastructure; ➢ Damage to roads/bridges resulting in loss of mobility; ➢ Decreased revenue due to loss of income, sales, tourism, and property taxes; ➢ Deterioration of homes and neighborhoods as floods recur; ➢ Disruption of and damage to public infrastructure and services; ➢ Health hazards associated with mold and mildew, contamination of drinking water, etc.; ➢ Impact on the overall mental health of the community; ➢ Injury and loss of life, including first responders rescuing those who did not evacuate or are stranded; ➢ Loss of historical or unique artifacts; ➢ Loss of jobs due to businesses closing or cutting back on operating hours; ➢ Loss of programs or services that are cut to pay for flood recovery; ➢ Mental health and family impacts, including increased occurrence of suicides and divorce ➢ Negative impact on commercial and residential property values; ➢ Significant disruption to students and teachers as temporary facilities and relocations would likely be needed; and ➢ Significant economic impact (jobs, sales, tax revenue) to the community.

Future Development

Future development areas for the City are broken out into eight areas. GIS data is maintained by the City of Azusa, and was made available for this plan. An analysis was performed to quantify parcels within these areas that are also in Cal OES dam inundation areas for Cogswell, Morrison, San Gabriel, and Big Dalton dams. Results can provide information on how and where to grow in the future. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point representing the center of the parcel polygon. Those parcels centroids that fall inside the

City of Azusa 4-151 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 future development areas and that were within the dam inundation zones are shown on Figure 4-50 and detailed in Table 4-52.

City of Azusa 4-152 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-50 Azusa – Future Development in Dam Inundation Areas

City of Azusa 4-153 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-52 Azusa – Future Development and Dam Inundation Areas

Future Development Areas Parcels Acres San Gabriel Morris Big Dalton Cogswell Inundation Inundation Inundation Inundation 803-813 N Dalton Ave 4 1 Y Y N N A2 6 2 Y Y N N Atlantis Gardens 40 6 Y Y N N Block 36 1 2 Y Y N N Block 37 9 1 Y Y N N Colorama 1 23 Y Y N N Lagunitas 1 22 Y Y N N Smart & Final Extra 6 1 Y Y N N 68 58 Source: Cal OES, City of Azusa GIS

4.3.5. Drought and Water Shortage Vulnerability Assessment

Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Likely Vulnerability—Medium

Hazard/Problem Description

Drought is different than many of the other natural hazards in that it is not a distinct event and usually has a slow onset. Drought can severely impact a region both physically and economically. Drought affects different sectors in different ways and with varying intensities. Adequate water is the most critical issue for agricultural, manufacturing, tourism, recreation, and commercial and domestic use. As the population in the area continues to grow, so too will the demand for water.

Based on historical information, the occurrence of drought in California, including in Azusa, is cyclical, driven by weather patterns. Drought has occurred in the past and will occur in the future. Periods of actual drought with adverse impacts can vary in duration, and the period between droughts is often extended. Although an area may be under an extended dry period, determining when it becomes a drought is based on impacts to individual water users. The vulnerability of the City to drought is citywide, but impacts may vary by area and include reduction in water supply and an increase in dry fuels.

Drought impacts are wide-reaching and may be economic, environmental, and/or societal. Tracking drought impacts can be difficult. The Drought Impact Reporter from the NDMC is a useful reference tool that compiles reported drought impacts nationwide by County. Table 4-53 show drought impacts for Los Angeles County from 1850 to May 1, 2017. The data represented is skewed, with the majority of these impacts from records within the past ten years.

City of Azusa 4-154 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-53 Los Angeles County – Drought Impacts (1850 to 2015)

Category Number Agriculture 31 Business and Industry 10 Energy 3 Fire 29 Plants & Wildlife 36 Relief, Response, and Restrictions 83 Society and Public Health 60 Tourism and recreation 8 Water Supply and Quality 126 Total 386 Source: National Drought Mitigation Center

The most significant qualitative impacts associated with drought in the City are those related to water intensive activities such as wildfire protection, municipal usage, commerce, and wildlife preservation. Mandatory conservation measures are typically implemented during extended droughts. A reduction of electric power generation and water quality deterioration are also potential problems. Drought conditions can also cause soil to compact and not absorb water well, potentially making an area more susceptible to flooding.

It is difficult to quantitatively assess drought impacts to Azusa and Los Angeles County because not many county- or City-specific studies have been conducted. Additional factors to consider include: habitat loss and associated effects on wildlife, and the drawdown of the groundwater table. The City Planning Team stated the biggest drought issue to natural resources was all the turf that died in medians and other public areas. As a result, the City replanted these turf areas with water resistant landscaping.

Drought can exacerbate tree mortality in the City, creating a greater wildfire risk. This is discussed in Section 4.3.12.

Future Development

Population growth in the City will add additional pressure to water companies during periods of drought and water shortage. Water companies will need to continue to plan for and add infrastructure capacity for population growth. Potable water in Azusa is provided by the Azusa Light and Water Department via local groundwater primarily and via the San Gabriel River when groundwater is not sufficient and from the Metropolitan Water District in extreme conditions. Azusa Light and Water has plans in place to handle future water demand for the City.

City of Azusa 4-155 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 4.3.6. Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment

Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Likely Vulnerability—Extremely High

Hazard/Problem Description

Earthquake vulnerability is primarily based on population and the built environment. Urban areas in high seismic hazard zones are the most vulnerable, while uninhabited areas are less vulnerable. Earthquake losses will vary across the City depending on the source and magnitude of the event. A map showing peak ground accelerations in Azusa was shown in Figure 4-26. Based on this map, the City is located in a high seismic risk area. The earthquake scenario run for this LHMP provides a good estimate of loss to the City based on a realistic earthquake scenario. The methodology and results of this scenario are described below.

2017 Earthquake Scenarios

HAZUS-MH 2.2 was utilized to model earthquake losses for the City. Specifically, the probable magnitude used for Azusa utilized a 8.3 magnitude earthquake, based on data from the City of Azusa General Plan. Level 1 analyses were run, meaning that only the default data was used and not supplemented with local building inventory or hazard data. There are certain data limitations when using the default data, so the results should be interpreted accordingly; this is a planning level analysis.

The methodology for running the probabilistic earthquake scenario used probabilistic seismic hazard contour maps developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the 2002 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps that are included with HAZUS-MH. The USGS maps provide estimates of potential ground acceleration and spectral acceleration at periods of 0.3 second and 1.0 second, respectively. The 2,500 year return period analyzes ground shaking estimates with a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years, from the various seismic sources in the area. The International Building Code uses this level of ground shaking for building design in seismic areas and is more of a worst case scenario.

The results of the probabilistic scenario are captured in Table 4-54. Key losses included the following:

➢ Total economic loss estimated for the earthquake was almost $1.476 billion, which includes building losses and lifeline losses based on the HAZUS-MH inventory. ➢ Building-related losses, including direct building losses and business interruption losses, totaled almost $1.44 billion. ➢ Over 45 percent of the buildings in the County were at least moderately damaged. 803 buildings were completely destroyed. ➢ Over 52 percent of the building- and income-related losses were residential structures. 13 percent of the estimated losses were related to business interruptions. ➢ There are an estimated 13 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of 4,761 (millions of dollars). Approximately 93.00 % of the buildings (and 77.00% of the building value) are associated with residential housing. ➢ The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be $909 and $0 million, respectively. ➢ The mid-day earthquake caused the most casualties: 104

City of Azusa 4-156 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ 84.4 percent of the households experienced a loss of potable water the first day after the earthquake. ➢ 87.3 percent of the households experienced a loss of potable water the first day after the earthquake.

Table 4-54 Azusa – HAZUS-MH 2,500-year Earthquake Scenario Results

Impacts/Earthquake 8.3 Magnitude Earthquake Residential Buildings Damaged Slight: 5,235 (Based upon 13,000 buildings) Moderate: 4,283 Extensive: 1,078 Complete: 803 Building Related Loss 1,444,250,000 Total Economic Loss $1,476,230,000 Injuries Without requiring hospitalization: 320 (Based upon 2am time of Requiring hospitalization: 78 occurrence) Life Threatening: 10 Fatalities: 18 Injuries Without requiring hospitalization: 1,046 (Based upon 2pm time of Requiring hospitalization: 320 occurrence) Life Threatening: 54 Fatalities: 104 Injuries Without requiring hospitalization: 677 (Based upon 5pm time of Requiring hospitalization: 217 occurrence) Life Threatening: 54 Fatalities: 67 Essential Facility Damage None with significant damage. (Based upon 19 buildings) Transportation and Utility Lifeline 18 bridges with at least moderate damage. 619 water line breaks. 444 waste Damage water line breaks. 127 natural gas line breaks. Households w/out Power & Water Water loss @ Day 1: 13,954 Power loss @ Day 1: 14,425 Service (Based upon 16,531 Water loss @ Day 3: 13,524 Power loss @ Day 3: 11,049 households) Water loss @ Day 7: 12,372 Power loss @ Day 7: 6,250 Water loss @ Day 30: 0 Power loss @ Day 30: 1,678 Water loss @ Day 90: 0 Power loss @ Day 90: 17 Displaced Households 1,351 Shelter Requirements 1,336 Debris Generation 350,000 tons Source: HAZUS-MH 2.2

Fires often occur after an earthquake. Because of the number of fires and the lack of water to fight the fires, they can often burn out of control. HAZUS uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the number of ignitions and the amount of burnt area. For this scenario, the model estimates that there will be no ignitions.

The HMPC noted that all of Azusa's known URM's have either been demolished or retrofitted.

Community Impact

The overall impact to the community from earthquake includes:

City of Azusa 4-157 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Commercial and residential structural and property damage; ➢ Damage to natural resource habitats and other natural resources; ➢ Disruption of and damage to public infrastructure and services; ➢ Loss of water, power, roads, phones, and transportation, which could impact, strand, and/or impair mobility for emergency responders and/or area residents; ➢ Economic losses (jobs, sales, tax revenue) associated with loss of commercial structures; ➢ Loss of churches, which could severely impact the social fabric of the community; ➢ Loss of schools, which could severely impact the entire school system and disrupt families and teachers, as temporary facilities and relocations would likely be needed; ➢ Impact on the overall mental health of the community; ➢ Injury and loss of life; and ➢ Negative impact on commercial and residential property values. Future Development

Any time construction is proposed in the City, plans are required to be submitted. The plans are reviewed to ensure future development addresses earthquake and other seismically-induced impacts. As part of the City’s Plan Check process, plans are reviewed by the Public Works Department, Building Division, Planning Division, and Light and Water to ensure development projects comply with the current adopted version of the California Building Code (CBC), and the City’s Municipal Code and Development Code. Structural and infrastructure integrity relative to earthquake and other seismically-induced impacts are fully reviewed and conditions of approval applied to each development through the Plan Check process.

4.3.7. Earthquake: Liquefaction Vulnerability Assessment

Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Occasional Vulnerability—High

Hazard/Problem Description

Earthquake is discussed in the Section 4.3.6, but is primarily focused on the vulnerability of buildings and people from earthquake shaking. This section deals with a secondary hazard associated with earthquake – the possible collapse of structural integrity of the ground in liquefaction prone areas. Impacts from liquefaction include property damage, critical facility damage, and life safety.

Values at Risk

The City of Azusa’s parcel layer and the Los Angeles County’s 2017 Assessor’s data was used as the basis for the City inventory of parcels and their associated values. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point representing the center of the parcel polygon. A liquefaction layer was obtained from the California Department of Conservation – California Division of Mines and Geology. The liquefaction layer was then overlaid on the parcel layer that was then joined to the County Assessor’s data. For the purposes of this analysis, the liquefaction zone that intersected a parcel centroid was assigned the liquefaction risk zone for the entire parcel. The parcels were segregated and analyzed in this fashion for the City of Azusa. Once completed, the parcel boundary layer was joined to the centroid layer and values were transferred based on the identification number in the Assessors database and the GIS parcel layer. The liquefaction zone for the

City of Azusa 4-158 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 City are shown in Figure 4-51. Details on risk to the City from liquefaction, by property use is shown on Table 4-55.

City of Azusa 4-159 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-51 Azusa – Liquefaction Risk Zones

City of Azusa 4-160 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-55 Azusa – Parcel Count and Values within Liquefaction Risk Zone by Property Use

Liquefaction Total Parcel Improved Total Land Improved Estimated Total Value Zone / Count Parcel Count Value Structure Contents Property Use Value Value Within Liquefaction Zone Commercial 227 148 $66,607,883 $40,085,640 $40,085,640 $146,779,163 Government 66 3 $2,437,707 $268,648 $268,648 $2,975,003 Industrial 201 160 $130,658,300 $139,214,090 $208,821,135 $478,693,525 Institutional 22 21 $28,681,057 $82,942,046 $82,942,046 $194,565,149 Miscellaneous 62 16 $7,394,614 $1,383,445 $1,383,445 $10,161,504 Residential 3,960 3,808 $591,797,003 $596,782,125 $298,391,063 $1,486,970,191 Open - No 189 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Within 4,727 4,156 $827,576,564 $860,675,994 $631,891,977 $2,320,144,535 Liquefaction Zone Total Source: California Division of Mines and Geology, City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

Population at Risk

The liquefaction zones were overlayed on the parcel layer. Those residential parcel centroids that fell within the liquefaction zone were counted and multiplied by the 2010 Census Bureau average household factors for the City of Azusa (3.43). This is shown in Table 4-59.

Table 4-56 Azusa– Count of Improved Residential Parcels and Population within Liquefaction Zone

Liquefaction Zone Improved Residential Parcels Population Within Liquefaction Zone 3,808 13,061 Total 3,808 13,061 Source: California Division of Mines and Geology, City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

Critical Facilities at Risk

An analysis was performed on the critical facility inventory in Azusa in the City’s identified liquefaction zone. GIS was used to determine whether the facility locations fell within the liquefaction zone. Details of critical facilities within the liquefaction zone for the City are shown in Figure 4-52 and Table 4-57. Details of critical facility definition, type, name and address and jurisdiction within the liquefaction zone are listed in Appendix E.

City of Azusa 4-161 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-52 Azusa – Critical Facilities in Liquefaction Risk Zone

City of Azusa 4-162 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-57 Azusa – Critical Facilities in Liquefaction Risk Zone

Facility Name Facility Count Essential Services Azusa Public Works 1 City Hall 1 Fire Station 32 1 Police 1 Railroad Overpass 1 Essential Services Total 5 At Risk Populations Azusa Montessori Academy 1 Dalton Elementary 1 Hodge Elementary 1 Little Gems Learning & Daycare 1 Saint Frances of Rome School 1 Silverado Sierra Vista Car Community 1 Slauson Middle School 1 Soldano Senior Village 1 At Risk Populations Total 8

Within Liquefaction Zone Total 13 Source: California Division of Mines and Geology, City of Azusa GIS

Community Impact

The overall impact to the community from earthquake induced liquefaction includes:

➢ Commercial and residential structural and property damage; ➢ Damage to natural resource habitats and other resources, such as timber and rangeland; ➢ Disruption of and damage to public infrastructure and services; ➢ Loss of water, power, roads, phones, and transportation, which could impact, strand, and/or impair mobility for emergency responders and/or area residents; ➢ Economic losses (jobs, sales, tax revenue) associated with loss of commercial structures; ➢ Loss of churches, which could severely impact the social fabric of the community; ➢ Loss of schools, which could severely impact the entire school system and disrupt families and teachers, as temporary facilities and relocations would likely be needed; ➢ Impact on the overall mental health of the community; ➢ Injury and loss of life; and ➢ Negative impact on commercial and residential property values.

City of Azusa 4-163 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Future Development

Future development areas for the City are broken out into eight areas. GIS data is maintained by the City of Azusa, and was made available for this plan. An analysis was performed to quantify parcels within these areas that are also in liquefaction hazard areas. Results can provide information on how and where to grow in the future. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point representing the center of the parcel polygon. Those parcels centroids that fall inside the future development areas and that were within the liquefaction area were selected and tabulated in Figure 4-53 and shown in Table 4-58.

City of Azusa 4-164 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-53 Azusa – Future Development Areas in Liquefaction Risk Zone

City of Azusa 4-165 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-58 Azusa – Future Development Areas in Liquefaction Risk Zone

Future Development Areas Parcels Acres Liquefaction Potential 803-813 N Dalton Ave 4 1 Within the Liquefaction Zone A2 6 2 Within the Liquefaction Zone Atlantis Gardens 40 6 Within and Not Within the Liquefaction Zone Block 36 1 2 Within the Liquefaction Zone Block 37 9 1 Within the Liquefaction Zone Colorama 1 23 Within the Liquefaction Zone Lagunitas 1 22 Within the Liquefaction Zone Smart & Final Extra 6 1 Within the Liquefaction Zone Grand Total 68 58 Source: California Division of Mines and Geology, City of Azusa GIS

4.3.8. Flood: 1%/0.2% Annual Chance Vulnerability Assessment

Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Occasional/Unlikely Vulnerability—Medium to High

Hazard/Problem Description

Flooding in the City can occur any time from fall to spring as a result of the occurrence of general rainstorms. General rain floods result from prolonged, heavy rainfall over tributary areas and are characterized by high peak flows and moderate duration and a large volume of runoff. Flooding is more severe when antecedent rainfall has resulted in saturated ground condition.

Flooding has historically occurred in the City, and the vulnerability to flood damages is high. Flood impacts in the City can include property damage, critical facility damage, health risks, and life safety issues. This section quantifies the vulnerability of Azusa to the 1% and 0.2% annual chance floods.

Values at Risk

The City of Azusa has mapped FEMA flood hazard areas. The City of Azusa parcel layer and Los Angeles County’s 2017 Assessor’s data were used as the basis for the City inventory of parcels, values, and acres. GIS was used to determine the possible impacts of flooding within the City and how the risk varies across the City. Maps and analysis tables detailing the FEMA flood hazard in the City are provided below. The following methodology was followed in determining parcels and values at risk to the 1% annual chance (i.e., 100-year) flood and 0.2% annual chance (i.e., 500-year) flood.

City of Azusa 4-166 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Methodology

Flood Parcel Inventory and Assessed Values

Azusa’s 2017 parcel layer and Assessor’s data were used as the basis for the City inventory of parcels, values, and acres. The City of Azusa has a FEMA DFIRM dated January 6, 2016 which was utilized to perform the flood analysis.

In some cases there are parcels in multiple flood zones, such as Zone A, Zone X, or Shaded X. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point representing the center of the parcel polygon. DFIRM flood data was then overlaid on the parcel layer. For the purposes of this analysis, the flood zone that intersected a parcel centroid was assigned the flood zone for the entire parcel. The parcels were segregated and analyzed in this fashion for the City of Azusa Planning Area. Once completed, the parcel boundary layer was joined to the centroid layer and values were transferred based on the identification number in the Assessors database and the GIS parcel layer.

Flood Loss Estimate

Using the data generated during the values at risk analysis, a flood loss estimate provides additional information as to what is potentially at risk to a 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood events. Unlike the values at risk which provide actual assessed values for parcels located within each FEMA flood zone, the flood loss estimate applies estimates of what may actually be at loss to a given flood event. The loss estimate for flood is based on the total of improved values obtained from the values at risk analysis and adds estimated contents values and a damage factor.

Improved parcels include those with improved structure values identified in the Assessor’s database. Only improved parcels and the value of their structure improvements were included in the flood loss analysis. The value of land is not included in the loss estimates as generally the land is not at loss to floods, just the value of improvements and structure contents. The land value is represented in the detailed flood tables as shown above, but are only present to show the value of the land associated with each flood zone.

The property use categories for the City (derived from the Los Angeles County Assessor Use Code categories and Use Code Descriptions) were used to develop estimated content replacement values (CRV) that are potentially at loss from hazards, using FEMA Hazus methodologies as previously described in Section 4.3.1. The CRVs were added to the improved parcel values.

Once the potential value of affected parcels was calculated, a damage factor was applied to obtain loss estimates by flood zone. When a flood occurs, seldom does the event cause total loss of an area or building. Potential losses from flooding are related to a variety of factors including flood depth, flood velocity, building type, and construction. The percent of damage is primarily related to the flood depth. FEMA’s flood benefit/cost module uses a simplified approach to model flood damage based on building type and flood depth. The values at risk in the flood analysis tables were refined by applying an average damage estimation of 20% of the total building value. The 20% damage estimate utilized FEMA’s Flood Building Loss Table based on an assumed average flood depth of 2 feet.

City of Azusa 4-167 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Each of the City of Azusa DFIRM flood zones that begins with the letter ‘A’ depict the Special Flood Hazard Area, or the 1% annual chance flood event (commonly referred to as the 100-year flood). Table 4-59 details the DFIRM mapped flood zones within the 1% annual chance flood zone as well as other flood zones located within the City, and also includes flood zone information for Los Angeles County which is also depicted in the City flood maps. The effective DFIRM maps for the City of Azusa are shown on Figure 4-54.

Table 4-59 Azusa– DFIRM Flood Hazard Zones

Flood Description Flood Zone Present Flood Zone Present Zone in Azusa in Los Angeles County A 1% Annual Chance or 100-year Flood: No base flood X X elevations provided Shaded X 500-year flood the areas between the limits of the 1% X X annual chance flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood X No flood hazard X X D Unmapped Areas X X Source: FEMA

City of Azusa 4-168 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-54 Azusa – DFIRM Flood Zones

City of Azusa 4-169 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 The end result of the flood hazard analysis is an inventory of the numbers, types, and values of parcels subject to the flood hazard. Results are presented for the City of Azusa, by property use.

Limitations

It also should be noted that the resulting flood loss estimates may actually be more or less than that presented in the below tables as the City may include structures located on parcels within the 1% annual chance floodplain that are actually outside the floodplain boundaries or otherwise elevated at or above the level of the base flood elevation, according to local floodplain development requirements. Also, it is important to keep in mind that these assessed values may be well below the actual market value of improved parcels located within the various flood zones due to proposition 13.

City of Azusa Values at Risk: Flood Analysis Results

Table 4-60 and Table 4-61 contain flood analysis results for the City of Azusa. Table 4-60 identifies parcels and associated values at risk by property use and detailed flood zone. This table shows the number of total parcels, improved parcels, and land and improved values at risk to each of the FEMA flood zones and also shows these potential losses summarized by 1% and 0.2% annual chance events.

Table 4-60 Azusa – Parcel Counts and Values in Flood Zones by Property Use

Flood Zone / Total Improved Total Land Improved Estimated Total Value Property Use Parcel Parcel Value Structure Contents Count Count Value Value 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone A Commercial 1 0 $48,991 $0 $0 $48,991 Government 4 0 $44,923 $0 $0 $44,923 Industrial 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Institutional 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous 2 0 $1,146 $0 $0 $1,146 Residential 8 1 $18,427 $1,365 $683 $20,475 Open - No 3 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Zone A Total 18 1 $113,487 $1,365 $683 $115,535 1% Annual 18 1 $113,487 $1,365 $683 $115,535 Chance Flood Total 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard (Zone X – shaded) Commercial 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Government 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Industrial 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Institutional 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

City of Azusa 4-170 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Flood Zone / Total Improved Total Land Improved Estimated Total Value Property Use Parcel Parcel Value Structure Contents Count Count Value Value Miscellaneous 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Residential 27 12 $5,215,277 $4,543,612 $2,271,806 $12,030,695 Open - No 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code 0.2% Annual 29 12 $5,215,277 $4,543,612 $2,271,806 $12,030,695 Chance Flood Hazard Total Zone X (unshaded) – Outside Flood Hazard Zones Commercial 395 279 $204,220,095 $138,227,311 $138,227,311 $480,674,717 Government 111 4 $7,143,940 $309,405 $309,405 $7,762,750 Industrial 391 340 $256,016,779 $289,020,763 $433,531,145 $978,568,687 Institutional 37 36 $33,901,377 $125,509,459 $125,509,459 $284,920,295 Miscellaneous 73 14 $8,355,479 $2,808,674 $2,808,674 $13,972,827 Residential 7,481 7,152 $1,193,284,115 $1,140,332,466 $570,166,233 $2,903,782,814 Open - No 266 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Zone X 8,754 7,825 $1,702,921,785 $1,696,208,078 $1,270,552,227 $4,669,682,090 (unshaded) Total Zone D (unmapped) Commercial 2 0 $140,892 $0 $0 $140,892 Government 26 0 $430,000 $0 $0 $430,000 Industrial 19 0 $946,632 $0 $0 $946,632 Institutional 1 1 $1,103,334 $1,613,654 $1,613,654 $4,330,642 Miscellaneous 19 9 $4,796,703 $438,862 $438,862 $5,674,427 Residential 1,019 917 $213,075,665 $231,851,573 $115,925,787 $560,853,025 Open - No 23 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Zone D 1,109 927 $220,493,226 $233,904,089 $117,978,303 $572,375,618 (unmapped) Total

Grand Total 9,910 8,765 $1,928,743,775 $1,934,657,144 $1,390,803,018 $5,254,203,937 Source: FEMA DFIRM 1/6/2016, City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

Table 4-61 gives details on flood loss estimates by flood zone and property use. The loss estimate for flood is based on the total of improved and CRVs and includes a 20% damage factor as previously described. The loss ratio is the loss estimate divided by the total potential exposure (i.e., total of improved and contents value for all parcels located in the City of Azusa) and displayed as a percentage of loss. FEMA considers

City of Azusa 4-171 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 loss ratios greater than 10% to be significant and an indicator that a community may have more difficulties recovering from a flood. The City should keep in mind that the loss ratio could increase with additional development in the 1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplain, unless development is elevated in accordance with the local floodplain management ordinance.

Table 4-61 Azusa– Flood Loss Estimates Summary

Property Use Improved Improved Estimated Total Value Loss Loss Parcel Structure Contents Value Estimate Ratio Count Value 1% Annual Chance 1 $1,365 $683 $2,048 $410 0.00% Flood 0.2% Annual Chance 12 $4,543,612 $2,271,806 $6,815,418 $1,363,084 0.02% Flood Total 13 $4,544,977 $2,272,489 $6,817,466 $1,363,494 0.02% Source: FEMA DFIRM 1/6/2016, City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

According to the information in Table 4-60 through Table 4-61, the City of Azusa has 1 improved parcel and roughly $2,048 of structure and contents value in the 1% annual chance floodplain. The City has 12 parcels and roughly $6.8 million in structure and contents values in the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. The loss estimate refines these values a step further. Applying the 20 percent damage factor as previously described, there is a 1% chance in any given year of a flood event causing roughly $410 in damage in the City of Azusa. Applying the same factor, there is a 0.2% chance of a flood event causing $1.36 million in damage to the City (since the 0.2% annual chance floodplain also encompasses the 1% annual chance floodplain). A loss ratio of 0.02% indicates that while the City has minimal values at risk in the floodplain, flood losses would be very limited compared to the total built environment and the community would likely be able to recover adequately.

Flooded Acres

Also of interest is the land area affected by the various flood zones. The following is an analysis of flooded acres in Azusa.

Methodology

GIS was used to calculate acres flooded by FEMA flood zones and property use categories. The Los Angeles County parcel layer for the City and FEMA DFIRM were intersected, and each segment divided by the intersection of flood zone and parcels was calculated for acres. This process was conducted for 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood areas, with each segment being defined by zone type and acres. The resulting data tables with flooded acreages were then imported into a database and linked back to the original parcels, including total acres by parcel number. Once this was completed, each parcel contained acreage values for flooded acre by zone type within the parcel. In the tables below, the 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood zones are summarized and then split out by property use, their total flooded acres, total improved acres, and percent of improved acres that are flooded.

City of Azusa 4-172 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 It is important to keep in mind that this methodology assumes that improvements are uniformly found throughout the parcel, while in reality only portions of the parcel are improved, and improvements may or may not fall within the flood zone portion of a parcel. Thus, areas of flooded improvements calculated through this method may be higher or lower than those presented.

Table 4-62 provides detailed flooded acres information by property use and detailed flood zone for the City. Table 4-64 provides summary flooded acres by zone for the City.

Table 4-62 Azusa – Flooded Acres by Flood Zone by Property Use

Flood Zone Total Flooded Acres Improved Flooded Acres Commercial 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 4 0 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 0 0 Commercial Total 4 0 Government 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 82 0 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 0 0 Government Total 82 0 Industrial 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 0 0 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 0 0 Industrial Total 0 0 Institutional 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 0 0 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 0 0 Institutional Total 0 0 Miscellaneous 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 6 3 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 0 0 Miscellaneous Total 6 3 Residential 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 24 4 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 8 2 Residential Total 32 6 Open - No Use Code 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 24 0 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 1 0 Open - No Use Code Total 25 0 Source: FEMA DFIRM 1/6/2016, City of Azusa Parcel Layer

City of Azusa 4-173 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-63 Azusa – Flooded Acres Summary

Flood Zone Total Flooded Improved Flooded % of Improved Flooded Acres Acres Acres 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 141 7 0.3% 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 8 2 0.1% Other Areas 5,223 2,395 99.6% Total 5,372 2,404 100.0% Source: FEMA DFIRM 1/6/2016, City of Azusa Parcel Layer

Population at Risk

The DFIRM flood zones were overlayed on the parcel layer. Those residential parcel centroids that intersect the flood zones were counted and multiplied by the 2010 Census Bureau average household factors for the City of Azusa (3.43). This is shown in Table 4-64.

Table 4-64 Azusa – Count of Improved Residential Parcels and Population by Flood Zone

Flood Zone Improved Residential Parcels Population A 1 3 Total 1% Annual Chance 1 3

0.2% Annual Chance (Shaded X) 12 41

Grand Total 13 44 Source: City of Azusa Parcel Layer; FEMA DFIRM 1/6/2016, US Census Bureau

NFIP Insurance Coverage Details

The City of Azusa joined the NFIP on September 7, 1984. The City does not currently participate in the Community Rating System. NFIP insurance data provided by DWR indicates that as of February 19, 2016, there were 41 policies in force in the City, resulting in $10,798,700 of insurance in force. Total premiums paid total $28,682. Of these 41 policies, 34 are for single family homes, 1 is for a multiple family home, 5 are for other residential properties, and 1 is for a non-residential property. Of the 41 policies, 0 are in FEMA 1% annual chance flood zones, 17 are in D Zones, and 27 are in B, C, or X zones (all are preferred policies). There has been 1 closed paid loss totaling $750. It was for a single-family home in a D Zone, and was a pre-FIRM loss. There have been no substantialdamage claims, nor are there any repetitive loss or severe repetitive loss properties in the City.

Cultural and Natural Resources at Risk

The City has significant historical, cultural, and natural resources located throughout the City as previously described. Risk analysis of these resources was not possible due to data limitations. However, any facility or resource located in a flood zone is potentially at risk from flooding.

City of Azusa 4-174 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Critical Facilities at Risk

An analysis was performed on the critical facility inventory in Azusa in identified DFIRM flood zones. GIS was used to determine whether the facility locations intersects a flood zone, and if so, which zone it intersects. Details of critical facilities and flood zones for the City are shown in Figure 4-55. As seen on the figure, there are no critical facilities in the DFIRM 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood zones in the City of Azusa.

City of Azusa 4-175 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-55 Azusa – Critical Facilities in FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones

City of Azusa 4-176 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Overall Community Impact

Floods and their impacts vary by location and severity of any given event and will likely only affect certain areas of the City during specific times. Based on the risk assessment, it is evident that floods will continue to have potential economic impacts to certain areas of the Azusa. However, many floods in the City are minor, localized events that cause nominal damage rather than a disaster. Impacts that are not quantified, but can be anticipated in large future events, include:

Future Development

Future development areas for the City are broken out into eight areas. GIS data is maintained by the City of Azusa, and was made available for this plan. An analysis was performed to quantify parcels within these areas that are also in FEMA DFIRM flood hazard areas. Results can provide information on how and where to grow in the future. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point representing the center of the parcel polygon. Those parcels centroids that fall inside the future development areas and that were within the DFIRM flood zones are shown on Figure 4-56 and detailed in Table 4-65.

City of Azusa 4-177 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-56 Azusa – Future Development Areas in FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones

City of Azusa 4-178 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-65 Azusa – Future Development Areas by DFIRM Flood Zone

Future Development Areas Parcels Acres Flood Zones 803-813 N Dalton Ave 4 1 Other Areas - Zone X (unshaded) A2 6 2 Other Areas - Zone X (unshaded) Atlantis Gardens 40 6 Other Areas - Zone X (unshaded) Block 36 1 2 Other Areas - Zone X (unshaded) Block 37 9 1 Other Areas - Zone X (unshaded) Colorama 1 23 Other Areas - Zone X (unshaded) Lagunitas 1 22 Other Areas - Zone X (unshaded) Smart & Final Extra 6 1 Other Areas - Zone X (unshaded) Grand Total 68 58 Source: FEMA DFIRM 1/6/2016, City of Azusa GIS

ARkStorm Scenario

Although much attention in California’s focuses on the “Big One” as a high magnitude earthquake, there is the risk of another significant event in California – a massive, statewide winter storm. The last such storms occurred in the 19th century, outside the memory of current emergency managers, officials, and communities. However, massive storms are a recurring feature of the state, the source of rare but inevitable disasters. The USGS Multi Hazards Demonstration Project’s (MHDP) developed a product called ARkStorm, which addressed massive U.S. West Coast storms analogous to those that devastated California in 1861‐1862. Over the last decade, scientists have determined that the largest storms in California are the product of phenomena called Atmospheric Rivers, and so the MHDP storm scenario is called the ARkStorm, for Atmospheric River 1000 (a measure of the storm’s size).

Scientific studies of offshore deposits in northern and southern California indicate that storms of this magnitude and larger have occurred about as often as large earthquakes on the southern San Andreas Fault. Such storms are projected to become more frequent and intense as a result of climate change. This scientific effort resulted in a plausible flood hazard scenario to be used as a planning and preparation tool by hazard mitigation and emergency response agencies.

For the ARkStorm Scenario, experts designed a large, scientifically realistic meteorological event followed by an examination of the secondary hazards (e.g., landslides and flooding), physical damages to the intense winter storms of 1861‐62 that left California’s Central Valley impassible. Storms far larger than the ARkStorm, dubbed megastorms, have also hit California at least six times in the last two millennia.

The ARkStorm produces precipitation in many places exceeding levels experienced on average every 500 to 1,000 years. Extensive flooding in many cases overwhelms the state’s flood protection system, which is at best designed to resist 100‐ to 200‐year runoffs (many flood protection systems in the state were designed for much smaller runoff events). The Central Valley experiences widespread flooding. Serious flooding also occurs in Orange County, Los Angeles County, San Diego, the San Francisco Bay Area, and other coastal communities. In some places, winds reach hurricane speeds, as high as 125 miles per hour. Hundreds of landslides occur, damaging roads, highways, and homes. Property damage exceeds $300

City of Azusa 4-179 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 billion, most of it from flooding. Agricultural losses and other costs to repair lifelines, dewater flooded islands, and repair damage from landslides brings the total direct property loss to nearly $400 billion, of which only $20 to $30 billion would be recoverable through public and commercial insurance. Power, water, sewer, and other lifelines experience damage that takes weeks or months to restore. Flooding evacuation could involve over one million residents in the inland region and Delta counties.

A storm of ARkStorm’s magnitude has important implications: 1) it raises serious questions about the ability of existing national, state, and local disaster policy to handle an event of this magnitude; 2) it emphasizes the choice between paying now to mitigate, or paying a lot more later to recover; 3) innovative financing solutions are likely to be needed to avoid fiscal crisis and adequately fund response and recovery costs; 4) responders and government managers at all levels should be encouraged to conduct self‐ assessments and devise table‐top exercises to exercise their ability to address a similar event; 5) the scenario can be a reference point for application of FEMA and Cal OES guidance connecting federal, state, and local natural hazards mapping and mitigation planning under the NFIP and Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000; and 6) common messages to educate the public about the risk of such an extreme event could be developed and consistently communicated to facilitate policy formulation and transformation.

Figure 4-57 depicts an ARkStorm modeled scenario showing the potential for flooding in the Los Angeles Valley as the result of a large storm. The modeled scenario suggests that Azusa could face inundation.

City of Azusa 4-180 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-57 Projected ARkStorm Flooding in California

Source: USGS ArkStorm

City of Azusa 4-181 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 4.3.9. Flood: Localized Stormwater Flooding Vulnerability Assessment

Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Highly Likely Vulnerability—Medium

Hazard/Problem Description

Historically, the City has been at risk to flooding primarily during the spring months when river systems in the City swell with heavy rainfall. Localized flooding also occurs throughout the City at various times throughout the year.

Stormwater has the potential to damage public infrastructure and private property in all areas of the City. The most severe damage typically occurs when warm heavy rain falls on previously saturated ground. These storm events bring a higher than normal flow of water that can exceed the capacity of ditches and channels. The flooding can be more intense and problematic in areas with steep slopes where the water is more likely to carry heavy silt and rocks, filling rains and plugging culverts.

Table 4-66 lists the road that has experienced localized flooding and related events. The flooding events on this road triggered debris removal (at a minimum) with most requiring more extensive maintenance. Typically, debris removal and associated issues routinely included downed trees, heavy mud, pavement deterioration and washouts.

Table 4-66 City of Azusa – Localized Flooding Areas

High Water/ Pavement Creek Landslides/ Downed Road Name Flooding Deterioration Washouts Crossing Mudslides Debris Trees Encananto X X X X X X – Parkway Source: City of Azusa

The Housing Element Initial Study noted wind and water both cause erosion that could be deposited in local or regional washes and other water bodies. Impacts related to erosion and siltation will be less than significant.

Future Development

The risk of stormwater/localized flooding to future development can be minimized by accurate recordkeeping of repetitive localized storm activity. Mitigating the root causes of the localized stormwater or choosing not to develop in areas that often are subject to localized flooding will reduce future risks of losses due to stormwater/localized flooding.

Due to the urbanized nature of the City and the protection of existing open spaces, future housing development will not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the area, and will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. Future housing development on the Opportunity Areas and other projects constructed pursuant to General Plan policies will be required to implement standard on-site drainage

City of Azusa 4-182 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 controls and storm water conveyance devices to direct any drainage appropriately, both during construction and on a long-term basis

The potential for flooding may increase as storm water is channelized due to land development. Such changes can create localized flooding problems in and outside of natural floodplains by altering or confining natural drainage channels. Floodplain modeling and master planning should be based on the ultimate built- out land use in order to assure that all new development remains safe from future hydrologic conditions. While local floodplain management, stormwater management, and water quality regulations and policies address these changes on a site-by-site basis, their cumulative effects can result in floodplain impacts regardless. Without effective mitigation, additional growth and redevelopment in the City could contribute to increased localized flooding.

4.3.10. Levee Failure Vulnerability Assessment

Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Unlikely Vulnerability—Medium

Hazard/Problem Description

Levee failure flooding can occur as the result of partial or complete collapse of an impoundment, and often results from prolonged rainfall and flooding. The primary danger associated with dam or levee failure is the high velocity flooding of those properties downstream of the breach.

A levee failure can range from a small, uncontrolled release to a catastrophic failure. Vulnerability to levee failures is generally confined to the areas subject to inundation downstream of the facility. Secondary losses would include loss of the multi-use functions of the facility and associated revenues that accompany those functions.

Levee failure flooding would vary in the Planning Area depending on which structure fails and the nature and extent of the failure and associated flooding. This flooding presents a threat to life and property, including buildings, their contents, and their use. Large flood events can affect lifeline utilities (e.g., water, sewerage, and power), transportation, jobs, tourism, the environment, agricultural industry, and the local and regional economies.

Based on input from the City Planning Team, the following concerns were identified with respect to a potential failure of a levee within the City:

➢ Industrial, commercial, and residential buildings, roads, and natural and man-made open space within the levee protected areas, as well as other areas of the City, could be subjected to: ✓ Rapid inundation ✓ Concentration of high-energy flood waters in the area of the failure ✓ Larger area extent of inundation ➢ Residential and business property owners and tenants could lose everything and could not recover financially. ➢ Massive damage to the levee could leave property owners and tenants without protection until levee is repaired.

City of Azusa 4-183 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Assets at Risk

There are levee systems in the City, most notably the SGR7 levee. This levee is not accredited by FEMA as providing protection against the 100-year flood. Due to this, no GIS analysis could be performed on leveed zones in the City. However, buildings and people living and working in areas protected by levees are vulnerable to the effects of failures.

A search of the National Levee database does show leveed areas in the western portion of the City along the banks of the San Gabriel River. This can be seen in Figure 4-58.

Figure 4-58 City of Azusa – Levee Protected Areas

Source: National Levee Database Purple – approximate areas protected by levees.

Future Development

City of Azusa 4-184 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 4.3.11. Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms Vulnerability Assessment

Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Highly Likely Vulnerability—Medium

Hazard/Problem Description

According to historical hazard data, severe weather is an annual occurrence in Azusa. Damage and disaster declarations related to severe weather have occurred and will continue to occur in the future. Heavy rain and storms are the most frequent type of severe weather occurrences in the City. High winds often accompany these storms and have caused damage in the past. However, actual damage associated with the primary effects of severe weather has been limited in the City. It is the secondary hazards caused by weather, such as floods and mudslides that have had the greatest impact. The risk and vulnerability associated with these secondary hazards are discussed in other sections of this plan.

Future Development

New critical facilities should be built to withstand heavy rains and storms including, thunderstorm winds. While no damages have occurred to critical facilities in the past due to heavy rains and storms, there still remains future risk. With development occurring in the region, future losses to new development may occur.

4.3.12. Wildfire Vulnerability Assessment

Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Likely Vulnerability—High

During the April to October primary fire season, the dry vegetation and hot and sometimes windy weather, can result in an increase in the number of ignitions. Any fire, once ignited, has the potential to quickly become a large, out-of-control fire. Wildfires can cause short-term and long-term disruption to the City. High intensity wildfires can have devastating effects on watersheds through loss of vegetation and soil erosion, which may impact the City by changing runoff patterns, increasing sedimentation, reducing natural and reservoir water storage capacity, and degrading water quality. This may lead to landslides in the City. Fires may result in casualties and can destroy buildings and infrastructure.

Although the physical damages and casualties arising from wildland-urban interface fires may be severe, it is important to recognize that they also cause significant economic impacts by resulting in a loss of function of buildings and infrastructure. In some cases, the economic impact of this loss of services may be comparable to the economic impact of physical damages or, in some cases, even greater. Economic impacts of loss of transportation and utility services may include traffic delays/detours from road and bridge closures and loss of electric power, potable water, and wastewater services. Fires can also cause major damage to power plants and power lines needed to distribute electricity to operate facilities.

City of Azusa 4-185 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Communities at Risk

The National Fire Plan is a cooperative, long-term effort between various government agency partners with the intent of actively responding to severe wildland fires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity for the future. For purposes of the National Fire Plan, CAL FIRE generated a list of California communities at risk for wildfire. Three main factors were used to determine the wildfire threat in the wildland-urban interface areas of California: fuel hazards, probability of fire, and areas of suitable housing density that could create wildland urban interface fire protection strategy situations. The preliminary criteria and methodology for evaluating wildfire risk to communities is published in the Federal Register, January 4, 2001. It should be noted that the City of Azusa is considered a Community at Risk.

Fire Responsibility Areas

Fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the federal, state, or local government. On federally owned land, or federal responsibility areas (FRA), fire protection is provided by the federal government and in some cases in cooperation with state and local government agreements or contracts. In state responsibility areas (SRA), CAL FIRE typically provides fire protection. Local responsibility areas (LRA) include incorporated cities and cultivated agriculture lands, and fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government. Figure 4-59 shows the FRA, SRA, and LRA for the City of Azusa.

City of Azusa 4-186 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-59 Azusa – FRA, SRA, LRA Wildfire Areas

City of Azusa 4-187 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Fire Responsibility Areas and Values at Risk

The FRA in the City is relatively small. There are no SRA areas in the City. The LRA covers the majority of the City. The FRA contains no improved parcels. As such, the LRA contains all of the improved parcels in the City. It should be noted that fire does not just affect structural values, fire can also affect land values. As such the Assessor’s land values and all parcels were accounted for in this analysis to represent total county assets at risk. However, it is highly unlikely the whole City will ever be on fire at once. The City parcel inventory and associated values by responsibility area are provided in Table 4-67.

Table 4-67 Azusa – Count and Values at Risk in Local, State, and Federal Responsibility Areas by Property Use with Contents Replacement Values

Fire Total Parcel Improved Total Land Improved Estimated Total Value Responsibility Count Parcel Count Value Structure Contents Areas / Value Value Property Use Commercial FRA 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 LRA 398 279 $204,409,978 $138,227,311 $138,227,311 $480,864,600 Commercial 398 279 $204,409,978 $138,227,311 $138,227,311 $480,864,600 Total Government FRA 13 0 $1,051,973 $0 $0 $1,051,973 LRA 128 4 $6,566,890 $309,405 $309,405 $7,185,700 Government 141 4 $7,618,863 $309,405 $309,405 $8,237,673 Total Industrial FRA 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 LRA 410 340 $256,963,411 $289,020,763 $433,531,145 $979,515,319 Industrial 410 340 $256,963,411 $289,020,763 $433,531,145 $979,515,319 Total Institutional FRA - - $0 $0 $0 $0 LRA 38 37 $35,004,711 $127,123,113 $127,123,113 $289,250,937 Institutional 38 37 $35,004,711 $127,123,113 $127,123,113 $289,250,937 Total Miscellaneous FRA 1 - $9,729 $0 $0 $9,729 LRA 93 23 $13,143,599 $3,247,536 $3,247,536 $19,638,671 Miscellaneous 94 23 $13,153,328 $3,247,536 $3,247,536 $19,648,400 Total Residential FRA - - $0 $0 $0 $0

City of Azusa 4-188 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Fire Total Parcel Improved Total Land Improved Estimated Total Value Responsibility Count Parcel Count Value Structure Contents Areas / Value Value Property Use LRA 8,535 8,082 $1,411,593,484 $1,376,729,016 $688,364,508 $3,476,687,008 Residential 8,535 8,082 $1,411,593,484 $1,376,729,016 $688,364,508 $3,476,687,008 Total Open - No Use Code FRA 1 - $0 $0 $0 $0 LRA 293 - $0 $0 $0 $0 Open - No 294 - $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Total

Grand Total 9,910 8,765 $1,928,743,775 $1,934,657,144 $1,390,803,018 $5,254,203,937 Source: CAL FIRE, City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

Tree Mortality and Wildfire

While tree mortality is an issue in the State of California, it is not an issue of concern for the City Planning Team. They noted that during the recent droughts, which were some of the worst in memory, most of the impacts were to the turfed areas of the City.

Burn Areas and Flooding/Landslide

After the Colby Fire in 2014, a Burned Area Emergency Response plan was completed. While many wildfires cause minimal damage to the land and pose few threats to the land or people downstream, some fires cause damage that requires special efforts to prevent problems afterwards. Loss of vegetation exposes soil to erosion; water runoff may increase and cause flooding; sediments may also move downstream and damage houses or fill reservoirs putting endangered species and community water supplies at risk. It should be noted that future fires could cause similar risks for the City. Areas at risk to post-wildfire landslide (shown in pink) are shown on Figure 4-60.

City of Azusa 4-189 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-60 City of Azusa – 2014 Colby Fire Landslide Risk Areas

Source: US Forest Service

Values at Risk

The City of Azusa parcel layer and Los Angeles County’s 2017 Assessor’s data were used as the basis for the city inventory of parcels, values, and acres. Los Angeles County has mapped CAL FIRE fire hazard severity zones, which include the City of Azusa. GIS was used to determine the possible impacts of wildfire within the City and how the wildfire risk varies across the Planning Area. The following methodology was followed in determining improved parcel counts and values by fire severity.

Methodology

CAL FIRE mapped the SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs), or areas of significant fire hazard, based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. Zones are designated with Very High, High, Moderate, Non-Wildland/Non-Urban and Non-Very High hazard classes. The goal of this mapping effort is to create more accurate fire hazard zone designations such that mitigation strategies are implemented in areas where hazards warrant these investments. The fire hazard zones will provide specific designation for application of defensible space and building standards consistent with known mechanisms of fire risk to people, property, and natural resources.

City of Azusa 4-190 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 CAL FIRE also mapped the LRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). Mapping of these areas is based on data and models of potential fuels over a 30-50 year time horizon and their associated expected fire behavior, and expected burn probabilities to quantify the likelihood and nature of vegetation fire exposure (including firebrands) to buildings. The California Building Commission adopted California Building Code Chapter 7A requiring new buildings in VHFHSZs to use ignition resistant construction methods and materials. These new codes include provisions to improve the ignition resistance of buildings, especially from firebrands. The updated very high fire hazard severity zones will be used by building officials for new building permits in LRA. The updated zones will also be used to identify property whose owners must comply with natural hazards disclosure requirements at time of property sale and 100 foot defensible space clearance. It is likely that the fire hazard severity zones will be also used for updates to the safety element of general plans.

Analysis was performed using these datasets, ensuring the local, jurisdictional dataset superseded the statewide datasets. Using GIS, the parcel layer was overlaid on the Adopted and Recommended FHSZ and VHFHSZ layers. For the purposes of this analysis, if the parcel centroid intersects the zone’s area, it will be assumed that the entire parcel is in that area. This analysis illustrates the Fire Hazard Severity Zones specific to the planning area. For the City of Azusa, only two zones are present: the very high fire hazard severity zone and the non very high fire hazard zone.

Los Angeles County’s 2017 parcel layer and assessor’s data e were used as the basis for the City inventory of parcels and associated values for Azusa’s wildfire analysis. Results are presented by total City planning area, and the detailed tables show improved parcel counts and their structure values by property use (residential, industrial, etc.) within each severity zone. The two fire hazard severity zones for the City are shown on Figure 4-61.

Analysis results for the entire City of Azusa planning area are summarized in Table 4-68, which summarizes total parcel counts, improved parcel counts, and their land values, structure values, contents value, and total values by property use. Contents values were derived from the improved structure values using the same methodology as described in the Section 4.3.1. According to the information in Table 4-68, most of the assets of the City fall in the non-very high fire severity category, except those located in the WUI areas up against the foothills.

City of Azusa 4-191 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-61 Azusa – Fire Hazard Severity Zones

City of Azusa 4-192 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-68 Azusa – Fire Hazard Severity Zones: Count and Values of Parcels by Property Use

Fire Hazard Total Parcel Improved Total Land Improved Estimated Total Value* Severity Zone Count Parcel Count Value Structure Contents / Property Value Value Use Very High Commercial 6 0 $4,712,816 $0 $0 $4,712,816 Government 21 0 $565,601 $0 $0 $565,601 Industrial 33 14 $14,578,411 $14,200,963 $21,301,445 $50,080,819 Institutional 2 1 $2,034,693 $4,910,850 $4,910,850 $11,856,393 Miscellaneous 15 6 $4,447,160 $437,150 $437,150 $5,321,460 Residential 865 701 $183,756,144 $186,461,408 $93,230,704 $463,448,256 Open - No 26 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Very High 968 722 $210,094,825 $206,010,371 $119,880,149 $535,985,345 Total Non-Very High Commercial 392 279 $199,697,162 $138,227,311 $138,227,311 $476,151,784 Government 120 4 $7,053,262 $309,405 $309,405 $7,672,072 Industrial 377 326 $242,385,000 $274,819,800 $412,229,700 $929,434,500 Institutional 36 36 $32,970,018 $122,212,263 $122,212,263 $277,394,544 Miscellaneous 79 17 $8,706,168 $2,810,386 $2,810,386 $14,326,940 Residential 7,670 7,381 $1,227,837,340 $1,190,267,608 $595,133,804 $3,013,238,752 Open - No 268 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use Code Non-Very 8,942 8,043 $1,718,648,950 $1,728,646,773 $1,270,922,869 $4,718,218,592 High Total

Grand Total 9,910 8,765 $1,928,743,775 $1,934,657,144 $1,390,803,018 $5,254,203,937 Source: CAL FIRE, City of Azusa Parcel Layer/Los Angeles County 2017 Assessor Data

Population at Risk

The Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone dataset was overlayed on the parcel layer. Those residential parcel centroids that intersect the areas of concern were counted and multiplied by the 2010 Census Bureau average household factors for Azusa (3.43). Population in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is shown in Table 4-69.

City of Azusa 4-193 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-69 Azusa – Count of Improved Residential Parcels and Population in Fire Severity Zones

Fire Hazard Severity Zone Improved Residential Parcels Population Very High 701 2,404 Total 701 2,404 Source: CAL FIRE, City of Azusa Parcel Layer, US Census Bureau

Critical Facilities at Risk

An analysis was performed on the critical facility inventory in Azusa in identified Fire Hazard Severity Zones. GIS was used to determine whether the facility locations intersects a fire zone, and if so, which area it intersects. Details of critical facilities by Fire Hazard Severity Zone for the City of Azusa are shown on Figure 4-62. Only one critical facility falls within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Aone for the City, as shown in Table 4-70.

City of Azusa 4-194 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-62 Azusa – Critical Facilities in Fire Hazard Severity Zones

City of Azusa 4-195 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-70 Azusa – Critical Facilities in Fire Hazard Severity Zones

Fire Hazard Severity Zone/ Facility Facility Count Category/Facility Name Very High Essential Services Fire Station 97 1 Essential Services Total 1 Very High Total 1 Source: CAL FIRE, City of Azusa GIS

Overall Community Impact

The overall impact to the community from a severe wildfire includes:

➢ Injury and loss of life; ➢ Commercial and residential structural and property damage; ➢ Decreased water quality in area watersheds; ➢ Increase in post-fire hazards such as flooding, sedimentation, and mudslides; ➢ Damage to natural resource habitats and other resources, such as timber and rangeland; ➢ Loss of water, power, roads, phones, and transportation, which could impact, strand, and/or impair mobility for emergency responders and/or area residents; ➢ Economic losses (jobs, sales, tax revenue) associated with loss of commercial structures; ➢ Negative impact on commercial and residential property values; ➢ Loss of churches, which could severely impact the social fabric of the community; ➢ Loss of schools, which could severely impact the entire school system and disrupt families and teachers, as temporary facilities and relocations would likely be needed; and ➢ Impact on the overall mental health of the community.

Future Development

Future development areas for the City are broken out into eight areas. GIS data is maintained by the City of Azusa, and was made available for this Plan. An analysis was performed to quantify parcels within these areas that are also in wildfire hazard areas. Results can provide information on how and where to grow in the future. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point representing the center of the parcel polygon. Those parcels centroids that fall inside the future development areas and that were within the wildfire hazard areas area shown on Figure 4-63 and detailed in Table 4-71.

City of Azusa 4-196 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Figure 4-63 Azusa – Future Development in Fire Hazard Severity Zones

City of Azusa 4-197 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-71 Azusa – Future Development in Fire Hazard Severity Zones

Future Development Areas Parcels Acres Fire Hazard Severity Zone 803-813 N Dalton Ave 4 1 Non-Very High A2 6 2 Non-Very High Atlantis Gardens 40 6 Non-Very High Block 36 1 2 Non-Very High Block 37 9 1 Non-Very High Colorama 1 23 Very High, Non-Very High Lagunitas 1 22 Non-Very High Smart & Final Extra 6 1 Non-Very High Grand Total 68 58 Source: CAL FIRE, City of Azusa GIS 4.4 Capability Assessment

Thus far, the planning process has identified the natural hazards posing a threat to the City and described, in general, the vulnerability of the City to these risks. The next step is to assess what loss prevention mechanisms are already in place. This part of the planning process is the mitigation capability assessment. Combining the risk assessment with the mitigation capability assessment results in the City’s net vulnerability to disasters, and more accurately focuses the goals, objectives, and proposed actions of this plan.

The HMPC used a two-step approach to conduct this assessment for the City. First, an inventory of common mitigation activities was made through the use of matrices. The purpose of this effort was to identify policies and programs that were either in place, needed improvement, or could be undertaken if deemed appropriate. Second, the HMPC conducted an inventory and review of existing policies, regulations, plans, and programs to determine if they contributed to reducing hazard-related losses or if they inadvertently contributed to increasing such losses.

Similar to the HMPC’s effort to describe hazards, risks, and vulnerability of the City, this mitigation capability assessment describes the existing capabilities, programs, and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. This assessment is divided into four sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities are discussed in Section 4.4.1; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities are discussed in Section 4.4.2; fiscal mitigation capabilities are discussed in Section 4.4.3; and mitigation education, outreach, and partnerships are discussed in Section 4.4.4. A discussion of other mitigation efforts follows in Section 4.4.5.

4.4.1. City of Azusa’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities

Table 4-72 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities, and indicates those that are in place in the City. Excerpts from applicable policies, regulations, and plans and program descriptions follow to provide more detail on existing mitigation capabilities. FILL OUT TABLE City of Azusa 4-198 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table 4-72 City of Azusa– Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities

Does the plan/program address hazards? Does the plan identify projects to include in the mitigation Y/N strategy? Plans Year Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? General Plan Capital Improvements Plan Economic Development Plan Local Emergency Operations Plan Continuity of Operations Plan Transportation Plan Stormwater Management Plan/Program Engineering Studies for Streams Community Wildfire Protection Plan Other special plans (e.g., brownfields redevelopment, disaster recovery, coastal zone management, climate change adaptation) Building Code, Permitting, and Inspections Y/N Are codes adequately enforced? Building Code Version/Year: Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) Score Fire department ISO rating: Site plan review requirements Is the ordinance an effective measure for reducing hazard impacts? Land Use Planning and Ordinances Y/N Is the ordinance adequately administered and enforced? Zoning ordinance Subdivision ordinance Floodplain ordinance Natural hazard specific ordinance (stormwater, steep slope, wildfire) Flood insurance rate maps Elevation Certificates Acquisition of land for open space and public recreation uses Erosion or sediment control program Other

City of Azusa 4-199 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 As indicated in the table above, the City of Azusa has several plans and programs that guide the City’s mitigation of development of hazard-prone areas. Starting with the City of Azusa General Plan, some of these are described in more detail below.

City of Azusa Plans

City of Azusa General Plan (2004)

A general plan is a legal document, required by state law which serves as a community’s "constitution" for the development and use of its land. It must be a comprehensive, long-term document, detailing proposals for the physical development of the county, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning. There are seven required elements and an economic development element, plus a comprehensive action program. Each element while addressing a separate subject, is interrelated with all the other elements. The elements in the 2004 General Plan are:

➢ Vision and Values ➢ Foundation and Framework ➢ Built Environment ➢ Economy and Community ➢ Natural Environment ➢ Housing Element

The Natural Environment Chapter addresses multiple hazards: drought and water shortage, earthquake, flood, liquefaction, and landslide. Specific goals and policies related to mitigation from this Chapter include:

Geologic Hazards

➢ GOAL 1 – Ensure the continued functioning of essential (critical, sensitive and high-occupancy) facilities following a disaster; help prevent loss of life from the failure of critical and sensitive facilities in an earthquake; and help prevent major problems for post-disaster response, such as difficult or hazardous evacuations or rescues, numerous injuries, and major cleanup or decontamination of hazardous materials. ✓ Policy 1.1 Require that earthquake survival and efficient post-disaster functioning are primary concerns in the siting, design and construction standards of essential facilities. ✓ Policy 1.2 Require that proposed essential facilities apply the most current professional standards for seismic design and be subject to seismic review, including detailed site investigations for faulting, liquefaction, ground motion characteristics, and slope stability. ✓ Policy 1.3 Prohibit the location of Critical Facilities within an identified active fault zone or potentially active fault zone of concern (or future Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), unless it is determined by a qualified geologic engineer that a closer location will not result in undue risks based on detailed site investigations. ✓ Policy 1.4 Prohibit the location of Sensitive and High-Occupancy facilities within 100 feet of the identified active fault zone or potentially active fault zone of concern, unless itis determined by a qualified geologic engineer that a closer location will not result in undue risks based on detailed site investigations.

City of Azusa 4-200 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ✓ Policy 1.5 Attempt to locate Critical and Sensitive structures in areas with continuous road access where utility services can be maintained in the event of an earthquake. ✓ Policy 1.6 Encourage owners of existing Critical and Sensitive Facilities with significant seismic vulnerabilities to upgrade, relocate or phase out the facilities as appropriate. ✓ Policy 1.7 Incorporate planning for potential seismic incidents affecting Critical, Sensitive and High-Occupancy Facilities into the City’s contingency plans for disaster response and recovery ✓ Policy 1.8 Require that all existing essential facilities located in areas of potential geologic, seismic and soils hazards maintain emergency response plans, with contingencies for all appropriate hazards.

Hazardous Structures

➢ Goal 2 – Minimize to the greatest extent feasible the loss of life, serious injuries, and major social and economic disruption caused by the collapse of, or severe damage to, vulnerable structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, water storage facilities, key railroad components) resulting from an earthquake. ✓ Policy 2.1 Re-evaluate the seismic review procedures for tilt-up structures and other potentially hazardous buildings in the City at appropriate points in the structures’ history to ensure their seismic integrity. ✓ Policy 2.2 Establish incentives for owners of potentially hazardous buildings2 that would serve to encourage the seismic retrofitting of vulnerable structures.

Flooding and Drainage

➢ GOAL 3 Protect lives and property and ensure that structures proposed for sites located on flood plains subject to the 100-year flood are provided adequate protection from floods while preserving as open space in those areas that cannot be mitigated for flood hazard. ✓ Policy 3.1 Support a multi-use concept of flood plains, flood-related facilities, and waterways, including, where appropriate, the following uses flood control, groundwater recharge, open space, nature study, habitat preservation, pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle circulation, and outdoor sports, and recreation. ✓ Policy 3.2 Where feasible, given flood control requirements, maintain the natural condition of waterways and fl ood plains to ensure adequate groundwater recharge and water quality, preservation of habitat, and access to mineral resources. ✓ Policy 3.3 Coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Los Angeles County throughout construction, mitigation, and operation of the various components/projects that will directly affect the City and Sphere of Influence Area. ✓ Policy 3.4 Support the intent of the County of Los Angeles’ flood control policies as specified in the County General Plan. The County’s detailed flood policies specify a range of protective measures, encourage coordination among jurisdictions, and acknowledge the need for a multi-use concept of streams and creeks. ✓ Policy 3.5 Cooperate with all public and private agencies involved to ensure that flood control improvements do not disrupt environmentally sensitive areas beyond a level of basic necessary mitigation.

City of Azusa 4-201 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Emergency Preparedness and Education

➢ GOAL 4 – During a disaster, provide an effective emergency response that limits the loss of life and curtails property damage and social dislocation (i.e. homelessness); enhances emergency preparedness through community education and self-help programs; and minimize to the greatest extent feasible serious damage and injuries through effective hazard mitigation. ✓ Policy 4.1 Ensure that emergency preparedness is the mutual responsibility of City agencies, residents, schools, and the business community. ✓ Policy 4.2 Incorporate three elements into the City’s emergency preparedness program: hazard mitigation, disaster response, and resident, business and industry self-sufficiency/mutual support. ✓ Policy 4.3 Periodically evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of the City’s disaster response plans and update these as necessary.

Post-Disaster Reconstruction

➢ GOAL 5 – Encourage the preparation of a plan to facilitate the rapid and effective recovery of the city following an earthquake. identify alternative financing sources for the repair and reconstruction of disaster related damage. ✓ Policy 5.1 Participate in the development of programs and procedures that emphasize coordination between appropriate public agencies and private entities, promote the rapid reconstruction of the City following an earthquake, and facilitate an upgrading of the built environment, as opportunities allow. ✓ Policy 5.2 Establish the mitigation of earthquake hazards as a high priority for City programs, both before and after an earthquake. ✓ Policy 5.3 Ensure the development of plans and procedures that allow the City to declare itself a disaster area and receive its fair share of federal and state emergency funds in the event of a serious earthquake.

City of Azusa Urban Water Management Plan (2015)

In 2015, Azusa Light and Water worked to create the City of Azusa Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). This plan was prepared in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act, per Division 6 of the California Water Code, Sections 10610 to 10657, which has recently amended by Assembly Bill 2067 in 2014. The UWMP updates a previous 2010 UWMP. The plan describes:

➢ Water supply resources ➢ Water quality ➢ Water demand ➢ Reliability planning ➢ Demand management ➢ Contingency planning

Emergency Operations Plan

The City of Azusa Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) addresses the City of Azusa's planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national

City of Azusa 4-202 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 security emergencies. The plan does not address normal day-to-day emergencies or the well-established and routine procedures used in coping with such emergencies. Instead, the operational concepts reflected in this plan focus on potential largescale disasters which can generate unique situations requiring unusual emergency responses.

This plan is a preparedness document-designed to be read, understood, and exercised prior to an emergency. It is designed to include the City of Azusa as part of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). Each element of the emergency management organization is responsible for assuring the preparation and maintenance of appropriate and current standard operating procedures (SOPs)/emergency operations procedures (EOPs), resource lists and checklists that detail how assigned responsibilities are performed to support SEMS MHFP implementation and to ensure successful response during a major disaster. The EOP is broken down into the following sections:

➢ Part One - Basic Plan. Overall organizational and operational concepts relative to response and recovery, as well as an overview of potential hazards. Intended audience-EOC Management Team. ➢ Part Two - Emergency Organization Functions. Description of the emergency response organization and emergency action checklists. Intended audience-EOC staff. ➢ Part Three - Supporting and legal documents to the SEMS MHFP. Intended audience-All elements of the SEMS staff. City of Azusa Ordinances

The City General Plan provides policy direction for land use, development, open space protection, and environmental quality; however, this policy direction must be carried out through numerous ordinances, programs, and agreements. The following ordinances are among the most important tools for implementing the General Plan and/or are critical to the mitigation of hazards identified in this plan.

Buildings and Building Regulations (Chapter 14)

This Title concerns the regulation of buildings within the City. The city adopts by reference and makes part of this chapter by reference, subject to those certain amendments set forth in this chapter, the following California Building Standards Codes (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) and uniform codes. The California Building Code, 2016 Edition, as adopted by section 14-1, is amended, added to or modified as set out in this division. If there is any inconsistency between the provisions of the California Building Code, as adopted, and the modifications adopted by this division and other provisions of this Code, the more restrictive provision with respect to building regulations shall apply.

Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings (Section 14-381)

The purpose of this article is to promote public safety and welfare by reducing the risk of death or injury that may result from the effects of earthquakes on unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings constructed before 1934. Such buildings have been widely recognized for sustaining life hazardous damage as a result of partial or complete collapse during moderate to strong earthquakes. This is particularly important in the city where many buildings are of the pre-1934 type.

City of Azusa 4-203 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 The provisions of this article are minimum standards for structural seismic resistance established primarily to reduce the risk of life loss or injury and will not necessarily prevent loss of life or injury or prevent earthquake damage to an existing building which complies with these standards. This article shall not require existing electrical, plumbing, mechanical or fire safety systems to be altered unless they constitute a hazard to life or property.

This article provides systematic procedures and standards for identification and classification of unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings based on their use. Priorities, time periods and standards are also established under which these buildings are required to be structurally analyzed and anchored. Where the analysis determines deficiencies, this article requires the building to be strengthened or demolished.

The provisions of the State Historical Building Code (SHBC) established under part 8, title 24 of the State Administrative Code are incorporated in this article.

Floodplain Management Regulations (Article XVI of Chapter 14)

The flood hazard areas of the city are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. These flood losses are caused by uses that are inadequately elevated, flood proofed, or protected from flood damage. The cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards which increase flood heights and velocities also contribute to flood losses. These regulations are designed to:

➢ Protect human life and health; ➢ Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; ➢ Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; ➢ Minimize prolonged business interruptions; ➢ Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; ➢ Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future blighted areas caused by flood damage; ➢ Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; and ➢ Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions.

In order to accomplish its purposes, this article includes methods and provisions to:

➢ Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities; ➢ Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; ➢ Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters; ➢ Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage;

City of Azusa 4-204 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas; and ➢ These regulations take precedence over any less restrictive conflicting local laws, ordinances and codes.

Standards of construction for residential homes, utilities, subdivisions, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles are set forth. This ordinance covers floodways, as well as mudslide and mudflow areas.

Civil Emergencies (Chapter 26)

This chapter establishes the city emergency services organization and provides for the preparation and carrying out of the plans for the protection of persons and property within this city in the event of an emergency; the direction of the emergency organization; and the coordination of the emergency functions of this city with all other public agencies, incorporated areas, corporations, organizations, and affected private persons.

Fire Prevention and Protection (Chapter 30)

Subject to the changes and amendments as may be set forth in this article, that certain code entitled "2014 Los Angeles County Fire Code" adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has been filed in the office of the city clerk, which is referred to and by this reference expressly incorporated in this article, is adopted as the fire code of the city and by reference made a part of this article as if fully and for all intents and purposes as though set forth in this article at length. If there is any inconsistency between any provisions of such fire code and other provisions of this Municipal Code, such other provisions of this Municipal Code shall prevail.

Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention (Chapter 60)

The purpose of this chapter is to protect the health and safety of the residents of the city and county by protecting the beneficial uses, marine and river habitats, and ecosystems of receiving waters within the city from pollutants carried by stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. The intent of this chapter is to enhance and protect the water quality of the receiving waters of the city and the United States, consistent with the Act.

Subdivisions (Chapter 66)

This title shall be known and cited as the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Azusa. Pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 66410 et seq.) and in addition to any other regulations provided by law, this chapter shall apply to all subdivisions or parts of subdivisions made of land wholly within the incorporated territory of the city and to the preparation of subdivision maps thereof and to other maps provided for by such statute for approval, and each subdivision and each part thereof lying within the incorporated territory of this city shall be made and each such map shall be prepared and presented for approval as provided for and required in this chapter.

All actions and activities subject to the provisions of this title shall conform to all pertinent city-adopted plans, ordinances and environmental guidelines.

City of Azusa 4-205 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Development Code (Chapter 88)

This article adopts the Azusa Development Code, describes the authorities on which it is based, provides an overview of how it applies to development within the city, and establishes rules and procedures for the interpretation of Code provisions. The City of Azusa Development Code carries out the policies of the Azusa General Plan by regulating development and land uses within the city, consistent with the general plan. This Development Code is adopted to protect and to promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of residents, and businesses in the city. More specifically, the purposes of this Development Code are to:

➢ Provide standards for the continuing orderly growth and development of the city that will assist in enhancing and maintaining distinct community identity, and contribute to the health and well being of residents; ➢ Create a comprehensive and stable pattern of development and land uses upon which to plan transportation, water supply, sewerage, energy, and other public facilities and utilities; ➢ Ensure that proposed development is of human scale, pedestrian-oriented, energy conserving, and is designed to create attractive streetscapes and pedestrian spaces; ➢ Minimize automobile congestion through pedestrian-oriented development, compact community form, safe and effective traffic circulation, and adequate parking facilities; and ➢ Ensure compatibility between different types of development and land uses.

This Development Code applies to all land uses, subdivisions, and development within the City of Azusa,

County Programs and Plans

Los Angeles County 2016 Strategic Fire Plan

The 2016 Strategic Fire Plan for Los Angeles County was developed to reduce risk to the County from wildfires. The Los Angeles County Fire Department operates nine divisions, 22 battalions, 171 fire stations and nine fire suppression camps and answers over 380,870 emergency calls annually. Additionally, the Los Angeles County Fire Department has Planning, Information Management, Fire Prevention, Air and Wildland, Lifeguard, Forestry and Health Hazardous Materials Divisions, which provide valuable services to about four million people.

Cooling Centers

The County maintains and publishes a list of cooling centers in Azusa and in neighboring locations. The list can also be accessed by calling 211. Informational brochures are produced and distributed during times of expected extreme heat.

Heat Alert

The Los Angeles County Health Officer issues a Heat Alert when high temperatures have been forecast for Los Angeles Basin. The Department of Public Health reminds everyone that precautions should be taken, especially by individuals who participate in outdoor activities, older adults, caretakers of infants and children, and those sensitive to the heat. This alert may be extended if weather conditions do not improve.

City of Azusa 4-206 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 State and Federal Programs

A number of state and federal programs exist to provide technical and financial assistance to local communities for hazard mitigation. Some of the primary agencies/departments that are closely involved with local governments in the administration of these programs include:

➢ California Office of Emergency Services ➢ State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; ➢ California Department of Water Resources; ➢ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE); ➢ California Environmental Protection Agency; ➢ California Department of Fish and Game; ➢ California State Parks and Recreation Department ➢ California State Lands Commission; ➢ Federal Emergency Management Agency (Region IX); ➢ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; ➢ Bureau of Reclamation; ➢ USDA Forest Service; ➢ National Parks Service ➢ National Weather Service; ➢ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; ➢ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region IX); and ➢ American Red Cross.

In addition, the State Department of Safety of Dams (DOSD) inspects the two dams near the City:

➢ The Morris Dam is regulated by the DOSD and is inspected twice per year. ➢ The San Gabriel Dam is regulated by both DOSD and Federal Environmental Regulatory Committee and is inspected once per year 4.4.2. City of Azusa’s Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities

Table 4-73 identifies the City personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in the City. FILL OUT TABLE

Table 4-73 City of Azusa– Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities

City of Azusa 4-207 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Is staffing adequate to enforce regulations? Y/N Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation? Staff FT/PT Is coordination between agencies and staff effective? Chief Building Official Floodplain Administrator Emergency Manager Community Planner Civil Engineer GIS Coordinator Other Describe capability Has capability been used to assess/mitigate risk in the Technical Y/N past? Warning systems/services (Reverse 911, outdoor warning signals) Hazard data and information Grant writing Hazards analysis Other

4.4.3. City of Azusa’s Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities

Table 4-74 identifies financial tools or resources that the City could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities. FILL OUT TABLE

Table 4-74 City of Azusa – Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities

Has the funding resource been used in past Access/ and for what type of activities? Eligibility Could the resource be used to fund future Funding Resource (Y/N) mitigation actions? Capital improvements project funding Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services Impact fees for new development Storm water utility fee Incur debt through general obligation bonds and/or special tax bonds Incur debt through private activities Community Development Block Grant Other federal funding programs State funding programs

City of Azusa 4-208 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Has the funding resource been used in past Access/ and for what type of activities? Eligibility Could the resource be used to fund future Funding Resource (Y/N) mitigation actions? Other

City of Azusa 4-209 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 4.4.4. Mitigation Education, Outreach, and Partnerships

Table 4-75 identifies education and outreach programs and methods already in place in the City that could be/or are used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information. FILL OUT TABLE

Table 4-75 City of Azusa– Mitigation Education, Outreach, and Partnerships

Describe program/organization and how relates to disaster resilience and mitigation. Could the program/organization help Program/Organization Yes/No implement future mitigation activities? Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on environmental protection, emergency preparedness, access and functional needs populations, etc. Ongoing public education or information program (e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household preparedness, environmental education) Natural disaster or safety related school programs StormReady certification Firewise Communities certification Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues Other How can these capabilities be expanded and improved to reduce risk?

4.4.5. Other Mitigation Efforts

The City has other mitigation efforts that were not captured in the above sections. Existing mitigation capabilities noted by Planning Team are denoted below.

➢ After the Colby fire, the City partnered with LA County and the US Forest Service for flood mitigation efforts on the County owned hillsides above Azusa. The following actions were taken: ✓ Assistant Director of Water Operations Chet Anderson was assigned as Azusa's designee for citywide watershed protection. ✓ It was determined that for the next five years, the Colby Fire had increased the potential of possible sediment runoff from the burned hillsides during rainstorms. ✓ Los Angeles County Public Works (LACPW) personnel were brought into Azusa to determine what measures were needed to protect residents from potential debris flow associated with the Colby Fire.

City of Azusa 4-210 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ✓ The City worked with LACPW to provide flood preparation assistance for 11 private properties that were identified as in danger. The residents received recommended measures to mitigate potential damage from these debris flows. ✓ Los Angeles County crews began clearing debris from debris basins in Azusa in anticipation of increased debris flows. ✓ A copy of the Homeowners Guide to Mudflow Protection and other useful information was made available to residents on both the city and county website: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Fire/ ✓ Azusa officials reached out to Hudson Minshew from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service who briefed the City on the Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP). A meeting was held on Thursday, January 23, 2014. ✓ The EWP is a cost-share program that offers 75% of the costs to cities to install protection measures following a natural disaster. ✓ Protection measures completed by the City of Azusa include the installation of k-rails to help divert possible debris flows, in affected city owned areas identified by LACPW. ➢ Post-disaster redevelopment and mitigation policies and procedures are being evaluated and updated as part of the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) update ➢ Post fire mitigation planning also included a working partnership with the National Weather Service. ➢ Wildfire – Fuels modification activities are focused in the very high fire hazard severity zones up against the foothills. ➢ Wildfire – After the Colby Fire in 2014, the cities of Azusa and Glendora entered into a mutual aid agreement. The agreement states the cities will work together during times of drought and high wildfire risk.

City of Azusa 4-211 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Chapter 5 Mitigation Strategy

Requirement §201.6(c)(3): [The plan shall include] a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.

This chapter describes the mitigation strategy process and mitigation action plan for the City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). It describes how the City met the following requirements from the 10- step planning process:

➢ Planning Step 6: Set Goals ➢ Planning Step 7: Review Possible Activities ➢ Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan 5.1 Mitigation Strategy: Overview

The results of the planning process, the risk assessment, the goal setting, the identification of mitigation actions, and the hard work of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) led to the action plan in Section 5.4 Mitigation Action Plan. Taking all of the above into consideration, the HMPC developed the following umbrella mitigation strategy for this LHMP:

➢ Communicate the hazard information collected and analyzed through this planning process as well as HMPC success stories so that the community better understands what can happen where and what they can do to be better prepared. ➢ Use existing rules, regulations, policies, and procedures already in existence. ➢ Implement the action plan recommendations of this Plan. ➢ Monitor multi-objective management opportunities so that funding opportunities may be shared and packaged and broader constituent support may be garnered. 5.1.1. Continued Compliance with NFIP

Given the flood hazard in the planning area, an emphasis will be placed on continued compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by the City of Azusa. Detailed below is a description of the City’s flood management program to ensure continued compliance with the NFIP. Also to be considered are the numerous flood mitigation actions contained in this LHMP that support the ongoing efforts by the City to minimize the risk and vulnerability of the community to the flood hazard and to enhance their overall floodplain management program.

Azusa’s Flood Management Program

Azusa has participated in the Regular Phase of the NFIP since 1984. Since then, the City has administered floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP. Under that

City of Azusa 5-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 arrangement, residents and businesses paid the same flood insurance premium rates as most other communities in the country.

The Community Rating System (CRS) was created in 1990. It is designed to recognize floodplain management activities that are above and beyond the NFIP’s minimum requirements. If a community implements public information, mapping, regulatory, loss reduction and/or flood preparedness activities and submits the appropriate documentation to the FEMA, then its residents can qualify for a flood insurance premium rate reduction. The City does not currently participate in the CRS program, but will evaluate the overall value of joining CRS in the future during the implementation phase of this LHMP.

Presently, the City manages its floodplains in compliance with NFIP requirements and implements a floodplain management program designed to protect the people and property of the City. Floodplain regulations are a critical element in local floodplain management and are a primary component in the City’s participation in the NFIP. As well, the City’s floodplain management activities apply to existing and new development areas, implementing flood protection measures for structures and maintaining drainage systems to help reduce the potential of flooding within the City.

The City will continue to manage their floodplains in continued compliance with the NFIP. An overview of the City’s NFIP status and floodplain management program are discussed on Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Azusa NFIP Status

NFIP Topic Comments Insurance Summary How many NFIP policies are in the community? What is the total 41 policies premium and coverage? $28,682 in annual premiums 410,798,700 of coverage How many claims have been paid in the community? What is the total 1 closed claim for $750. No substantial amount of paid claims? How many of the claims were for substantial damage claims. damage? How many structures are exposed to flood risk within the community? 1 improved parcel in 1% chance 12 improved parcels in 0.2% chance Describe any areas of flood risk with limited NFIP policy coverage Community Floodplain Administration Is the Community Floodplain Administrator or NFIP Coordinator certified? Provide an explanation of NFIP administration services (e.g., permit review, GIS, education or outreach, inspections, engineering capability) What are the barriers to running an effective NFIP program in the community, if any? Compliance History Is the community in good standing with the NFIP? Y Are there any outstanding compliance issues (i.e., current violations)? No When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit (CAV) or 9/29/2006 Community Assistance Contact (CAC)?

City of Azusa 5-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 NFIP Topic Comments Is a CAV or CAC scheduled or needed? Unknown Regulation When did the community enter the NFIP? 5/1/1984 Are the FIRMs digital or paper? Digital Do floodplain development regulations meet or exceed FEMA or State minimum requirements? If so, in what ways? Provide an explanation of the permitting process. Community Rating System (CRS) Does the community participate in CRS? No What is the community’s CRS Class Ranking? N/A What categories and activities provide CRS points and how can the class N/A be improved? Does the plan include CRS planning requirements? N/A Source: FEMA/Azusa

5.1.2. Integration of Mitigation with Post Disaster Recovery and Mitigation Strategy Funding Opportunities

Hazard Mitigation actions are essential to weaving long-term resiliency into all community recovery efforts so that at-risk infrastructure, development, and other community assets are stronger and more resilient for the next severe storm event. Mitigation measures to reduce the risk and vulnerability of a community to future disaster losses can be implemented in advance of a disaster event and also as part of post-disaster recovery efforts.

Mitigation applied to recovery helps communities become more resilient and sustainable. It is often most efficient to fund all eligible infrastructure mitigation through FEMA’s Public Assistance mitigation program if the asset was damaged in a storm event. Mitigation work can be added to project worksheets if they can be proven to be cost-beneficial.

Integration of mitigation into post disaster recovery efforts should be considered by all communities as part of their post disaster redevelopment and mitigation policies and procedures. Post-disaster redevelopment and mitigation policies and procedures should be evaluated and updated as part of the updates to the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).

The EOP, through its policies and procedures, seek to mitigate the effects of hazards, prepare for measures to be taken which will preserve life and minimize damage, enhance response during emergencies and provide necessary assistance, and establish a recovery system in order to return the community to their normal state of affairs. Mitigation is emphasized as a major component of recovery efforts.

Mitigation Strategy Funding Opportunities

An understanding of the various funding streams and opportunities will enable the communities to match identified mitigation projects with the grant programs that are most likely to fund them. Additionally, some City of Azusa 5-3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 of the funding opportunities can be utilized together. Mitigation grant funding opportunities available pre- and post- disaster include the following.

FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Grants

Cal OES administers three main types of HMA grants: (1) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, (2) Pre- Disaster Mitigation Program, and (3) Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. Eligible applicants for the HMA include state and local governments, certain private non-profits, and federally recognized Indian tribal governments. While private citizens cannot apply directly for the grant programs, they can benefit from the programs if they are included in an application sponsored by an eligible applicant

FEMA Public Assistance Section 406 Mitigation

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act provides FEMA the authority to fund the restoration of eligible facilities that have sustained damage due to a presidentially declared disaster. The regulations contain a provision for the consideration of funding additional measures that will enhance a facility’s ability to resist similar damage in future events.

Community Development Block Grants

The California Department of Housing and Community Development administers the State’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The program is available to all non-entitlement communities that meet applicable threshold requirements. All projects must meet one of the national objectives of the program – projects must benefit 51 percent low- and moderate-income people, aid in the prevention or clearance of slum and blight, or meet an urgent need. Grant funds can generally be used in federally declared disaster areas for CDBG eligible activities including the replacement or repair of infrastructure and housing damaged during, or as a result of, the declared disaster.

Small Business Loans

SBA offers low-interest, fixed-rate loans to disaster victims, enabling them to repair or replace property damaged or destroyed in declared disasters. It also offers such loans to affected small businesses to help them recover from economic injury caused by such disasters. Loans may also be increased up to 20 percent of the total amount of disaster damage to real estate and/or leasehold improvements to make improvements that lessen the risk of property damage by possible future disasters of the same kind.

Increased Cost of Compliance

Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage is one of several resources for flood insurance policyholders who need additional help rebuilding after a flood. It provides up to $30,000 to help cover the cost of mitigation measures that will reduce flood risk. ICC coverage is a part of most standard flood insurance policies available under NFIP.

City of Azusa 5-4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 5.2 Goals and Objectives

Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.

Up to this point in the planning process, the HMPC has organized resources, assessed hazards and risks, and documented mitigation capabilities. The resulting goals, objectives, and mitigation actions were developed based on these tasks. The HMPC held a series of meetings and exercises designed to achieve a collaborative mitigation strategy as described further throughout this section. Appendix C documents the information covered in these mitigation strategy meetings, including information on the goals development and the identification and prioritization of mitigation alternatives by the HMPC.

During the initial goal-setting meeting, the HMPC reviewed the results of the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment. This analysis of the risk assessment identified areas where improvements could be made and provided the framework for the HMPC to formulate planning goals and objectives and to develop the mitigation strategy for Azusa.

Goals were defined for the purpose of this mitigation plan as broad-based public policy statements that:

➢ Represent basic desires of the community; ➢ Encompass all aspects of community, public and private; ➢ Are nonspecific, in that they refer to the quality (not the quantity) of the outcome; ➢ Are future-oriented, in that they are achievable in the future; and ➢ A time-independent, in that they are not scheduled events.

Goals are stated without regard to implementation. Implementation cost, schedule, and means are not considered. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent on the means of achievement. Goal statements form the basis for objectives and actions that will be used as means to achieve the goals. Objectives define strategies to attain the goals and are more specific and measurable.

HMPC members were given a list of sample goals to consider. They were told that they could use, combine, or revise the statements provided or develop new ones, keeping the risk assessment in mind. Each member was each given three index cards and asked to write a goal statement on each card. Goal statements were collected and grouped into similar themes and pasted onto the wall of the meeting room. The goal statements were then grouped into similar topics. New goals from the HMPC were discussed until the team came to consensus. Some of the statements were determined to be better suited as objectives or actual mitigation actions and were set aside for later use. As part of the goals exercise, the HMPC developed objectives that summarized strategies to achieve each goal.

Based on the risk assessment review and goal setting process, the HMPC identified the following goals and objectives, which provide the direction for reducing future hazard-related losses within Azusa.

➢ Goal 1: Minimize risk and vulnerability of Azusa to natural hazards and protect lives and prevent losses to property, public heath, economy, and the environment.

City of Azusa 5-5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ✓ Objective 1.1: Reduce the risk and vulnerability to the community from all identified hazards of concern, with an emphasis on priority hazards, such as wildfire, flood, and earthquake. ✓ Objective 1.1: Provide protection for existing and future development. ✓ Objective 1.2: Provide protection for critical facilities, utilities, and services. ✓ Objective 1.3: Provide protection for natural resources and the environment.

Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.

In order to identify and select mitigation actions to support the mitigation goals, each hazard identified in Section 4.1 Identifying Hazards was evaluated. Only those hazards that were determined to be a priority hazard at the completion of the risk assessment were considered further in the development of hazard- specific mitigation actions.

These priority hazards (in alphabetical order) are:

City of Azusa 5-6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Dam Failure ➢ Drought and Water Shortage ➢ Earthquake ➢ Earthquake Liquefaction ➢ Flood: 1%/0.2% chance ➢ Flood: Localized/Stormwater ➢ Landslide and Mudslides ➢ Levee Failure ➢ Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms ➢ Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes ➢ Wildfire

The HMPC eliminated the hazards identified below from further consideration in the development of mitigation actions because the risk of a hazard event in the City is unlikely or nonexistent, the vulnerability of the City is low, or capabilities are already in place to mitigate negative impacts. The eliminated hazards are:

➢ Climate Change ➢ Severe Weather: Extreme Heat

It is important to note, however, that all the hazards addressed in this plan are included in the City multi- hazard public education and outreach mitigation action as well as in other multi-hazard, emergency management and technology improvement actions.

Once it was determined which hazards warranted the development of specific mitigation actions, the HMPC analyzed viable mitigation options that supported the identified goals and objectives. The HMPC was provided with the following list of categories (or types) of mitigation actions, which originate from the Community Rating System:

➢ Prevention (required to be evaluated) ➢ Property protection ➢ Structural projects ➢ Natural resource protection ➢ Emergency services ➢ Public information

The HMPC was provided with examples of potential mitigation actions for each of the above categories. The HMPC was also instructed to consider both existing and future buildings in considering possible mitigation actions. A facilitated discussion then took place to examine and analyze mitigation options by category. Also utilized in the review of possible mitigation measures is FEMA’s publication on Mitigation Ideas, by hazard type. Prevention type mitigation alternatives were discussed for each of the priority hazards. This was followed by a brainstorming session that generated a list of preferred mitigation actions by hazard.

5.3.1. Prioritization Process

Once the mitigation actions were identified, the HMPC was provided with several decision-making tools, including FEMA’s recommended prioritization criteria, STAPLEE; sustainable disaster recovery criteria;

City of Azusa 5-7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Smart Growth principles; and others, to assist in deciding why one recommended action might be more important, more effective, or more likely to be implemented than another. STAPLEE stands for the following:

➢ Social: Does the measure treat people fairly? (e.g., different groups, different generations) ➢ Technical: Is the action technically feasible? Does it solve the problem? ➢ Administrative: Are there adequate staffing, funding, and other capabilities to implement the project? ➢ Political: Who are the stakeholders? Will there be adequate political and public support for the project? ➢ Legal: Does the jurisdiction have the legal authority to implement the action? Is it legal? ➢ Economic: Is the action cost-beneficial? Is there funding available? Will the action contribute to the local economy? ➢ Environmental: Does the action comply with environmental regulations? Will there be negative environmental consequences from the action?

In accordance with the DMA requirements, an emphasis was placed on the importance of a benefit-cost analysis in determining action priority. Other criteria used to assist in evaluating the benefit-cost of a mitigation action includes:

➢ Contribution of the action to save life or property ➢ Availability of funding and perceived cost-effectiveness ➢ Available resources for implementation ➢ Ability of the action to address the problem

The Mitigation Strategy Meeting Handout, which included hazard summaries, mitigation action categories, sample hazard actions, and prioritization criteria are included in Appendix C.

With initial lists of potential mitigation actions identified and the prioritization criteria in mind, HMPC members were each given a set of nine colored dots, three each of red, blue, and green. The dots were assigned red for high priority (worth five points), blue for medium priority (worth three points), and green for low priority (worth one point). The team was asked to use the dots to prioritize actions considering the various prioritization criteria reviewed for this effort. The point score for each action was totaled. Appendix C contains the total score given to each identified mitigation action.

Figure 5-1 Mitigation Action Prioritization

The process of identification and analysis of mitigation alternatives allowed the HMPC to come to consensus and to prioritize recommended mitigation actions. During the voting process, emphasis was placed on the importance of a benefit-cost review in determining project priority; however, this was not a quantitative analysis. The team agreed that prioritizing the actions collectively enabled the actions to be ranked in order of relative importance and helped steer the development of additional actions that meet the more important objectives while eliminating some of the actions which did not garner much support.

Benefit-cost was also considered in greater detail in the development of the Mitigation Action Plan detailed below in Section 5.4. The cost-effectiveness of any mitigation alternative will be considered in greater detail through performing benefit-cost project analyses when seeking FEMA mitigation grant funding for eligible actions associated with this plan.

City of Azusa 5-8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Recognizing the limitations in prioritizing actions from multiple jurisdictions and departments and the regulatory requirement to prioritize by benefit-cost to ensure cost-effectiveness, the HMPC decided to pursue actions that contributed to saving lives and property as first and foremost, with additional consideration given to the benefit-cost aspect of a project. This process drove the development of a determination of a high, medium, or low priority for each mitigation action, and a comprehensive prioritized action plan for the City of Azusa. 5.4 Mitigation Action Plan

Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.

This action plan was developed to present the recommendations developed by the HMPC for how the City of Azusa can reduce the risk and vulnerability of people, property, infrastructure, natural and cultural resources, and economic impacts to future disaster losses. Emphasis was placed on both existing and future development. The action plan summarizes who is responsible for implementing each of the prioritized actions as well as when and how the actions will be implemented. Each action summary also includes a discussion of the benefit-cost review conducted to meet the regulatory requirements of the DMA 2000.

Table 5-2 provides a summary of mitigation actions and lead department/jurisdiction for each action. Following this summary table of mitigation actions, a detailed implementation description is included for each mitigation action identified in the table. The implementation of any mitigation action in this Plan is subject to available funding and partnership of the City as the primary implementing agency for this LHMP.

As described throughout this LHMP, Azusa has many risks and vulnerabilities to identified hazards. Although many possible mitigation actions, as detailed in Appendix C, were brainstormed and prioritized during the mitigation strategy meetings, the resulting mitigation strategy presented in this Chapter 5 of this LHMP focuses only on those mitigation actions that are both reasonable and realistic for the community to consider for implementation over the next 5-years covered by this plan. Thus, only a portion of the actions identified in Appendix C have been carried forward into the mitigation strategy presented in Table 5-2. Although many good ideas were developed during the mitigation action brainstorming process, the reality of determining which priority actions to develop and include in this Plan came down to the actual priorities of individuals and departments based in part on department direction, staffing, and available funding. The overall value of the mitigation action table in Appendix C is that it represents a wide-range of mitigation actions that can be consulted and developed for this Plan at a later date during annual plan reviews and/or the formal 5-year update process.

It is important to note that Azusa has numerous existing, detailed action descriptions, which include benefit- cost estimates, in other planning documents, such as fire plans, climate change and stormwater plans, and capital improvement budgets and reports. These actions are considered to be part of this plan, and the details, to avoid duplication, should be referenced in their original source document. The HMPC also

City of Azusa 5-9 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 realizes that new needs and priorities may arise as a result of a disaster or other circumstances and reserves the right to support new actions, as necessary, as long as they conform to the overall goals of this Plan.

It should also be clarified that the actions included in this mitigation strategy are subject to further review and refinement; alternatives analyses; and reprioritization due to funding availability and/or other criteria. The City of Azusa is not obligated by this document to implement any or all of these projects. Rather this mitigation strategy represents the desires of the community to mitigate the risks and vulnerabilities from identified hazards. The actual selection, prioritization, and implementation of these actions will also be further evaluated in accordance with the CRS mitigation categories and criteria contained in Appendix C, and as always subject to funding availability.

Further, many of these mitigation efforts are collaborative efforts among multiple local, state, and federal agencies. In addition, the public outreach action, as well as many of the emergency services actions, apply to all hazards regardless of hazard priority.

City of Azusa 5-10 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Table 5-2 City of Azusa’s Mitigation Actions

City of Azusa 5-11 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

City of Azusa 5-12 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

City of Azusa 5-13 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

City of Azusa 5-14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

City of Azusa 5-15 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Actions

Action 1. Integrate Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into Safety Element of General Plan

Hazards Addressed: Dam Failure, Drought and Water Shortage, Earthquake, Earthquake Liquefaction, Flood: 1%/0.2% chance, Flood: Localized/Stormwater, Landslide and Mudslides, Levee Failure, Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms, Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes, and Wildfire

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: Local jurisdictional reimbursement for mitigation projects and cost recovery after a disaster is guided by Government Code Section 8685.9 (AB 2140).

Project Description: Specifically, AB 2140 requires that each jurisdiction adopt a local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 as part of the Safety Element of its General Plan. Adoption of the LHMP into the Safety Element of the General Plan may be by reference or incorporation.

Other Alternatives: No action

Existing Planning Mechanisms through which Action will be Implemented: Safety Element of General Plan

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department Planning Division

Project Priority: High

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time

Benefits (avoided Losses): Incorporation of an adopted LHMP into the Safety Element of the General Plan will help jurisdictions maximize the cost recovery potential following a disaster.

Potential Funding: General Plan Update Fee

Timeline: As soon as possible

Action 2. Public Awareness, Education, Outreach, and Preparedness Program Enhancements.

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: Educate the community on how to seek information before, during, and after a disaster.

City of Azusa 5-16 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Project Description: Improve/Enhance public education, engagement, and preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery programs for all hazards using multi-media, educate, messaging, target audiences; promote self-responsibility; sustainability. Public awareness activities foster changes in behavior leading towards a culture of risk reduction. Examples of how this will be carried out include the following:

Multi-hazard

➢ Notification of Emergency Events and Shelters ✓ Use social media and a cell phone registration service to help notify residents of emergency events requiring evacuation and locations of emergency centers. ✓ Upon activating the emergency centers, place public information on the City website, City social media, and on the public access channel on cable television. ✓ Provide emergency hot line at City Hall with pre-recorded message to inform the public of emergency response and recovery activities. A list of emergency centers shall be provided on the recording.

Drought

➢ Inform the public of water conservation restrictions and drought conditions.

Earthquake

➢ Develop and make available to all residents and businesses literature on hazard prevention, mitigation, and disaster response, including information on how to earthquake-proof residences and places of business, and information on what to do before, during and after an earthquake. Reminders will be issued periodically to encourage the review and renewal of earthquake-preparedness kits and other emergency preparedness materials and procedures. ➢ Encourage owners of potentially hazardous buildings, including pre-1952 wood-frame structures, concrete tilt-ups, pre-1971 reinforced masonry, soft-story, and multi-family residential buildings, to assess the seismic vulnerability of their structures and conduct seismic retrofitting as necessary to improve the building’s resistance to seismic shaking. ➢ Hold seismic preparation workshops to educate community residents and businesses about securing property to reduce damage during an earthquake.

Flood: 1%/0.2% Chance and Localized/Stormwater

➢ Encourage property owners to improve drainage on their properties through low-impact development features, particularly property owners in and adjacent to flood hazard areas.

Severe Weather

➢ As part of mitigation and regular emergency preparedness education, continue to notify community members of current or future El Niño conditions, the anticipated impacts, and appropriate ways to mitigate and prepare.

City of Azusa 5-17 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Wildfire

➢ Continue to support the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Cal FIRE, California State Fire Marshal, and other relevant agencies to promote the implementation and awareness of fire prevention programs. ➢ Explore holding an annual or bi-annual Wildfire Forum with Emergency Response providers, City and County wildfire personnel, City staff, elected and appointed officials, and the citizens of Azusa. ➢ Update the public on vegetative and fire management activities via communication mechanisms in Azusa such as meetings; temporary signs at affected properties; the City web sites; newspapers; and direct mailings. ✓ Hold neighborhood meetings in interface neighborhoods to educate the residents on fire mitigation and prevention methods. ✓ Produce public information brochures that encourage residents to plant fire resistant landscaping, to clear dry brush, and to consider fire-resistant building materials. ✓ Publish fire prevention articles in City newsletter related to fire evacuation, fire escape plans, and fire safety.

Other Alternatives: Continue with limited hazard-based public outreach efforts

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City of Azusa Police Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, PIO’s from Police Department and City, along with established community groups; CERT, AACES.

Responsible Office/Partners: All City of Azusa Departments, Los Angeles County Fire Department

Project Priority: High

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Protect Life and Property, Public Awareness, Community Involvement

Potential Funding: FEMA/State Grants, City of Azusa Department Budgets

Timeline: Immediate/On-going

Action 3. Maintain CERT Program

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: City of Azusa would continue to enhance its community participation in the preparedness, response, and recovery during a disaster or community emergency.

City of Azusa 5-18 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Project Description: Study cost effective ways to maintain on-going CERT program classes and training. Maintain a CERT program using a variety of cost saving methods, volunteers, and on-duty police and fire personnel.

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City of Azusa Police Department and Los Angeles County Fire Department personnel.

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Police Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department

Project Priority: Medium

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Protect Life and Property, Public Awareness, Community Partnership

Potential Funding: City of Azusa Police Department Budget, Los Angeles County Fire Department Budget

Timeline: 2018

Action 4. Update Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and All Annexes

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: Existing City of Azusa EOP and annexes needs updating due to changes within the City regarding infrastructure, geography, residential, and staff changes since the completion of the City’s current EOP.

Project Description: This project involves conducting a detailed update to the City of Azusa’s current EOP, including all annexes.

Other Alternatives: Continue to work under an outdated EOP.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City of Azusa EOP. Police Department and all other City department staff and operating budget to be used to complete the project.

Responsible Office/Partners: All City of Azusa Departments

Project Priority: High

City of Azusa 5-19 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time; Consultant costs $10,000 to $25,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Project/Plan can decrease employee/citizen injury/death and property losses.

Potential Funding: City of Azusa Police Department Budget

Timeline: As soon as possible

Action 5. Evacuation Planning

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: During times where natural hazards or man-made hazards strike, evacuations may become necessary.

Project Description: This project seeks to enhance the ability of the City of Azusa to perform community evacuations.. Specifically, the following will be done:

➢ Annually re-evaluate evacuation resources and update the evacuation plan. ➢ Prepare a Dam Failure response and evacuation plan that can be incorporated into the City's Emergency Operations Plan.

Other Alternatives: Rely on Los Angeles County evacuation plans and systems.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Existing City and Los Angeles County evacuation plans.

Responsible Office/Partners: All City of Azusa and Los Angeles County Departments

Project Priority: High

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Increased life safety for those who are fleeing a natural disaster.

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund, Los Angeles County General Fund, Grants

Timeline: 2019 to 2020

Action 6. City Ordinance and Regulatory Updates for All Hazards

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: Ongoing review and update relevant portions of the City’s Municipal Code or other regulatory measures is necessary to ensure compliance with Federal or State regulations relative to hazards.

Project Description: The City can reduce risk by maintaining, updating, and enforcing City ordinances and regulations. This includes:

Multi-Hazard

➢ Review and update the City’s existing ordinances as they relate to hazards and risks identified in this LHMP.

Earthquake and Liquefaction

➢ Explore creating an ordinance requiring seismically vulnerable structures to conduct earthquake resistant retrofitting over a phased period and/or when major renovation occurs. ➢ To deal with earthquake and liquefaction hazards, the City shall conduct the following activities: ✓ Continue to adopt and enforce the most up-to-date California Building Code and California Fire Code with local amendments, and continue to support the training of City staff in the provisions of the latest codes, to provide for seismic safety and fire safety design. ✓ Regulate the location of new essential or critical facilities in areas that would be directly affected by seismic and geologic hazards (including surface fault rupture, liquefaction, and slope instability) to ensure the facility will not be located in an area identified as susceptible to damage from a natural hazard. ✓ Continue to require fault rupture hazard assessment studies for qualifying projects proposed in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and Fault Hazard Management Zones mapped through the City. ✓ Continue to require liquefaction assessment studies for qualifying projects proposed in areas of the City mapped as susceptible to liquefaction, and in areas where geotechnical testing shows the sediments are susceptible to liquefaction, require the implementation of mitigation measures as a condition of approval. ➢ Establish a zoning overlay for the Alquist-Priolo hazard zone, and create and enforce development standards for new construction activities in this hazard zone to improve the resiliency of new structures to seismic hazards. ➢ Require new development in the liquefaction vulnerability zone to conduct liquefaction vulnerability studies and conduct liquefaction mitigation activities as needed.

Flood and Localized Flood

➢ Continually monitor and review FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements to ensure that Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article XVI, Floodplain Management Regulations, is in compliance. Participate in the FEMA NFIP Community Rating System (CRS). ➢ Review and update Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article XVI, Floodplain Management Regulations, as it relates to storm/flooding hazards, consistent with the risks identified in this LHMP.

City of Azusa 5-21 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Severe Weather Hazards

➢ Design future critical infrastructure to withstand severe weather events beyond minimum Building Code standards.

Wildfire

➢ Adopt and enforce the most up-to-date California Building Code and California Fire Code, with local amendments as appropriate. ➢ Continue to provide development standards and zoning handouts to property owners and contractors that describe the fire prevention measures contained within the Very High Fire Hazard areas including unobstructed fire protection equipment access easements, Class A roof materials, fire hydrant locations, and water main minimum requirements. ➢ Update the development standards with new fire prevention measures as needed to address the construction of new buildings and infrastructure.

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Municipal Code

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Economic and Community Development, Police Department, Public Works Department, City Manager, and City Attorney

Project Priority: High

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Increased life and property safety. Increased safety to critical facilities. Maintain proper relationships with state, federal, and other local governments.

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund

Timeline: Ongoing

Action 7. Coordinate Mitigation Efforts

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: Natural disasters are often regional events, affecting multiple areas. Coordination between areas in and near the natural disaster is crucial for both life safety and recovery.

Project Description: The City seeks to coordinate with other cities, outside agencies, and the County to increase mitigation capabilities. Specifically, the City seeks to:

City of Azusa 5-22 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

➢ Coordinate hazard mitigation progress/efforts with the Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management and other agencies and cities within Los Angeles County. ➢ Continue to maintain cooperative fire protection and fire prevention mutual aid agreements with local cities, Los Angeles County, State of California, and Federal agencies. ➢ Coordinate with Los Angeles County Fire Department (through contract services) to replace out-of- date apparatus and equipment on a scheduled basis.

Other Alternatives: Rely on Los Angeles County Departments and services.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Mutual Aid Agreements

Responsible Office/Partners: City Manager, City Attorney, City of Azusa Police Department, Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management, Los Angeles County Fire Department

Project Priority: Medium

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Increased life and property safety, as well as faster recovery post-disaster.

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund; Mutual Aid Agreements

Timeline: Ongoing

Action 8. GIS Mapping and Data Updates

Hazards Addressed: Dam Failure, Earthquake, Earthquake Liquefaction, Flood: 1%/0.2% chance, Flood: Localized/Stormwater, Landslide and Mudslides, Levee Failure, Tornadoes, and Wildfire

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: Ongoing review and update of GIS maps is necessary to maintain current maps of hazards within the City.

Project Description: GIS mapping is performed both by outside agencies and the City. The City seeks to do the following:

➢ Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Hazard Mapping. Coordinate with appropriate agencies when mapping updates are performed for all hazards that have a clearly defined extent and location (i.e., dam failure, levee failure, flood, earthquake, landslide, and wildfire) ➢ Develop a map to identify urban flooding “hot-spots” areas in the City for maintenance needs and the identification of future stormwater management projects.

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Data from City, Los Angeles County, State of California, and Federal Emergency Management Agency.

City of Azusa 5-23 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Information Technology Department

Project Priority: High

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time; Software update costs $25,000 to $75,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Mitigation of properties can occur before expected natural disaster events occur. This can lead to increased property protection and increased life safety.

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund

Timeline: Ongoing

Action 9. Above Ground Storage Tanks

Hazards Addressed: Drought and Water Shortage, Earthquake, and Wildfire

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: The City may experience flooding of public infrastructure due to the failure of above- ground water storage tanks.

Project Description: The City is evaluating the above-ground water storage tanks in the City to assess their potential inundation hazard in the event of catastrophic failure and ensure that all tanks are fitted with the appropriate seismic safeguards, including shut-off valves, in accordance with the most recent water tank design guidelines.

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City of Azusa Emergency Operations Plan, Capital Improvements Plan

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Light and Water, Public Works Department

Project Priority: Medium

Cost Estimate: Cost of Individual Above-Ground Water Storage Tank $50,000 to $100,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Loss of available water supply.

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund; City of Azusa Capital Improvement Plan; Grant Opportunities for Hazard Mitigation;

Timeline: 2022

City of Azusa 5-24 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Action 10. Access Road Improvements

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: The City of Azusa transportation network consists of freeways, roads and rail systems. Disruption to any part of this system would result in a major safety and economic impacts to the City and surround areas. Ground transportation is essential for ingress and egress for emergency vehicles during disasters and is essential for police services. Access for emergency vehicles on freeways, highways, primary roads, and secondary roads due to road damage can significantly increase response times.

Project Description: Conduct a City-wide study to identify all access roadways, and identify which access roadways are inadequate. Develop a program to address inadequacies by altering the roadway design, if possible, as well as a maintenance schedule (e.g., pavement index).

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: None

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Public Works Department, Police Department, Light and Water; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works; Los Angeles County Fire Department

Project Priority: Low

Cost Estimate: $200,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Increased life safety in event of evacuations. Speeds emergency service response times to areas where roads may be poorer.

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund, Los Angeles County Transportation Authority (Metro) Measure M

Timeline: 2020

City of Azusa 5-25 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Climate Change Actions

Action 11. Climate Change Planning

Hazards Addressed: Climate Change and all hazards affected by it.

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in Azusa, which are likely to increase the risk of mortality and morbidity due to heat-related illness and exacerbation of existing chronic health conditions. Intense rainfall events, periodically ones with larger than historical runoff, will continue to affect California with more frequent and/or more extensive flooding, which may increase the probability of floods and levee and dam failures, and mudflows. Droughts are likely to become more frequent and persistent in the 21st century, which can increase the probability of wildfires.

Project Description: As part of the General Plan Update process, develop a plan to address climate change/climate adaptation and resiliency issues within the City and its surroundings.

Other Alternatives: Incorporate change/climate adaptation and resiliency topics within existing General Plan elements.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City of Azusa General Plan

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department

Project Priority: High

Cost Estimate: $75,000 to $150,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced risk to people, property, and the environment from the effects of climate change.

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund, General Plan Update Fee

Timeline: As part of next General Plan update.

City of Azusa 5-26 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Drought Actions

Action 12. Drought Program

Hazards Addressed: Drought and Water Shortage

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: The vulnerability of the City to drought is citywide, and as such, the City may experience a reduction in water supply and an increase in dry fuels. Azusa Light and Water has at least a 10-year planning horizon to implement improvement projects to mitigate the effects of a drought and water supply shortage.

Project Description: The City seeks to reduce drought and water shortage risk by pursuing the following:

➢ Implement increased water conservation strategies that maximize the use of existing water resources. ➢ Develop and implement long-term strategies to reduce community water use, including mandatory use of drought- tolerant plants in new or replacement landscapes, and requirements to install water fixtures in new buildings that exceed minimum code requirements. ➢ Continue to implement and enforce State and City drought regulations during drought emergency conditions. ➢ Consider implementing additional mandatory restrictions on water use during drought conditions. ➢ Incorporate drought-tolerant landscaping and materials at City park and recreation facilities and City properties, where feasible. ➢ Add compost and mulch to landscaped areas, as feasible, to reduce water evaporation. ➢ Hold water saving workshops, drought-tolerant courses, and smart gardening classes, and educate community residents and businesses about available rebates for water-efficient and water- conserving equipment. ➢ Continue to seek funding and provide rebate opportunities for residents and businesses to incorporate drought-tolerant landscaping. ➢ Partner with local organizations to offer low-cost or free water audits to residents and businesses.

Other Alternatives: State Mandates

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City of Azusa Municipal Code

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Light and Water, Economic and Community Development Department, Public Works Department, Recreation and Family Services Department

Project Priority: Medium

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced risk to property and the environment from drought and water shortage impacts.

City of Azusa 5-27 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund, Water Conservation Plan, Grant Opportunities for Drought Mitigation and Resiliency, Climate Change, Sustainability, Etc.

Timeline: Ongoing

City of Azusa 5-28 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Earthquake and Liquefaction Actions

Action 13. Earthquake Program

Hazards Addressed: Earthquake, Liquefaction, and Dam Failure

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: Azusa has aging public and private facilities, infrastructure, roads, and bridges that may not be able to survive a seismic event. Being located in a geographical region that may be impacted by seismic activity it is important to test the vulnerability of the dams and levees protecting the region as well as aging facilities and infrastructure.

Project Description: In order to mitigate the effects of earthquake, liquefaction, and potential dam failure from earthquake, the City will pursue the following:

➢ Conduct a seismic evaluation of essential/critical facilities, such as municipal-owned facilities, schools, and convalescent homes and hospitals that are located in or near mapped faults, or in areas mapped as susceptible to liquefaction or earthquake-induced slope instability. Seek funding sources to retrofit facilities at risk. ➢ Where appropriate, relocate, strengthen, or retrofit those essential/critical facilities found to be at risk from seismic hazards. ➢ Conduct an inventory of seismically vulnerable private buildings, including unreinforced masonry and soft first-story structures, and prioritize retrofits for more vulnerable structures and lower income housing. Identify potential funding sources to assist with seismic retrofits. ➢ In cooperation with utility providers, conduct seismic evaluations of gas lines, water distribution pipelines, sewer lines and critical roadways that extend across mapped fault zones. Seek funding to strengthen those lifelines found to be at risk.

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City of Azusa Municipal Code

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Light and Water, Public Works Department, Economic and Community Development Department, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison,

Project Priority: Medium

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time, Seismic Study $500,000 to $1,000,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced risk to people, property, and the environment. Limit economic impacts to City

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund, Grants

Timeline: 2021, 2022, and ongoing

City of Azusa 5-29 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Flood, Localized Flood, Levee Failure, and Dam Failure Actions

Action 14. Flood/Stormwater Program

Hazards Addressed: Localized Flood, Flood (1% and .2% Annual Chance), Levee Failure, Dam Failure

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: The City may experience risks associated with flooding from a dam or levee failure or other flood events, as well as risks due to aging internal drainage infrastructure. Although dam or levee failure may result in much more catastrophic damage than flooding from internal drainage, most of the City’s flood damage has resulted from drainage deficiencies.

Project Description: In order to reduce flood risk in the City, Azusa is pursuing the following:

➢ Assist in the planning and/or improvement of stormwater facilities to help minimize flooding impacts, particularly in critical flood-prone areas. ➢ Construct new and/or retrofit existing stormwater facilities identified in the City's Capital Improvements Program to manage stormwater from severe storm and flood events. ➢ Continue to evaluate the effectiveness of City-owned drain systems and carry out improvements, as needed. Monitor City-owned drainage infrastructure during rain events, and take emergency action as necessary to avoid or minimize flooding. ➢ The City seeks to prepare a Stormwater Master Plan to address drainage and flood control.

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Capital Improvements Program

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Public Works Department

Project Priority: Medium

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time, Stormwater Master Plan costs up to $300,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced risk to people and property from flooding

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund and Capital Improvements Plan; Bond Financing; Grant Opportunities for Flood Hazard Mitigation, Grants

Timeline: Ongoing, 2022

City of Azusa 5-30 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Landslide Actions

Action 15. Landslide Program

Hazards Addressed: Landslide

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: Earthquakes may cause landslides. This is true in the sloped areas of the Azusa foothills. Steep topography, weak rocks, heavy winter rains, and occasional earthquakes all lead to slope failures more frequently than would otherwise occur under gravity alone, particularly during the wet season, in areas of high water or saturated soil.

Project Description: In order to reduce risk to landslide, the City will monitor slope stability in landslide- prone areas, and issue evacuation notices if slopes appear unstable. The City can also determine any measures necessary to protect critical infrastructure and other property.

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City of Azusa General Plan Natural Environment Element, Municipal Code

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Public Works Department, Police Department, Economic and Community Development Department Building Division, Los Angeles County Fire Department

Project Priority: Medium

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced risk to people, property and critical facilities from landslide.

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund

Timeline: Ongoing

City of Azusa 5-31 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Severe Weather Actions

Action 16. Severe Weather Program

Hazards Addressed: Drought, Heavy Rains and Storms, High Winds and Tornadoes

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: The City experiences severe weather from heavy rain and storms and high winds; both the primary and secondary effects have caused damage in the City.

Project Description: In order to be prepared for and reduce risk from severe weather, the City will pursue:

➢ Continue to work with Azusa Light and Water (L&W) and Southern California Edison (SCE) to relocate above-ground power lines and associated infrastructure underground in order to reduce damage from fallen power lines during severe wind events. ➢ Continue to send requests for tree trimming in the City to L&W and SCE for trees located in close proximity to overhead power lines. ➢ Monitor trees, limbs, and other vegetation near power lines, and promptly inform ALP and SCE of the need for any tree trimming. ➢ Continue coordination with the National Weather Service (NWS) Decision Support program to be advised of upcoming weather conditions in a manner that enables smart decisions and disaster preparedness. ➢ Continue to regularly monitor El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions and incorporate forecasted conditions into short-term emergency planning. ➢ Continue to open cooling centers during severe heat conditions.

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City Emergency Operations Plans, City Public Information Office

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Recreation and Family Services Department, Police Department, Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department

Project Priority: High

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time; Underground power lines or other associated infrastructure $1,000,000 to $10,000,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced risk to people, property, and critical facilities from all severe weather hazards.

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund, Los Angeles County General Fund, Grants

Timeline: Ongoing

City of Azusa 5-32 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Wildfire Actions

Action 17. Wildfire Program Fuels Management

Hazards Addressed: Wildfire

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: Fire conditions arise from a combination of hot weather, an accumulation of vegetation, and low moisture content in the air. These conditions when combined with high winds and years of drought increase the potential for a wildfire to occur in Azusa. Urban wildfires often occur in those areas where development has expanded into the rural areas. A fire along this urban/rural interface can result in major losses of property and structures in the City.

Project Description: This project seeks to reduce fuels in and around the City by:

➢ Consider opportunities for cost share slash/mulch activities/modification/fuel reduction programs on a community or multi-community basis. ➢ Continue fire inspections and brush clearance programs sponsored by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los Angeles County Agricultural Commission. ➢ Develop a brush clearance plan that addresses fuel modification/reduction on annual schedule for public and private parcels. The schedule will remain flexible to meet staff workload and funding options, management objectives, neighborhood groups and other strategic inputs. Work with neighborhood groups who have demonstrated a commitment to hazardous fuels reduction and those neighborhoods who would benefit from a demonstration site where one has been proposed. Incorporate best management practice guidance set forth by the Cal FIRE. ➢ Develop a brush clearance and fuel modification/reduction plan that identifies a schedule for completion for maintenance of City-owned properties identified as needing a management plan. Work collaboratively with State and Federal agencies to plan, prepare, and implement fuel treatment options for the landscape, particularly as funding and cooperative opportunities become available for these items.

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: General Plan Safety Element, City of Azusa Municipal Code

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Economic and Community Development Department Community Improvement Division, Los Angeles County Fire Department, United States Forest Service, Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, Los Angeles County Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures

Project Priority: Medium

Cost Estimate: $80,000-$100,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Reduced risk to people, property, critical facilities, and the environment from wildfires

City of Azusa 5-33 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund, Los Angeles County General Fund, United States Forest Service, Grant Opportunities for Disaster Preparedness, Hazard Mitigation, Resiliency, Etc.

Timeline: Within 5 years

Action 18. Wildfire Program – Water Management

Hazards Addressed: Wildfire, Drought and Water Shortage

Goals Addressed: 1, 2, 3

Issue/Background: The City is located at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. The fuels from adjacent natural lands and the weather in California make it necessary for the City to plan for wildfires, drought conditions, and available water supply.

The vulnerability of the City to drought is citywide, and as such, the City may experience a reduction in water supply and an increase in dry fuels. Azusa Light and Water has at least a 10-year planning horizon to implement improvement projects to mitigate the effects of a drought and water supply shortage.

Project Description: This project seeks to do the following to mitigate wildfire through a continuous and enhanced water supply:

➢ Identify additional water sources within the City and outside the City that may be available for fighting fires. ➢ Coordinate and advocate with the U.S. Forest Service to install portable tanks filled with water or flame retardant chemical in strategic locations in the forest areas in the Very High Fire Hazard areas. ➢ To ensure an adequate supply of water for wildfire fighting purposes, the City shall conduct the following activities: ✓ Ensure City equipment is up to date and maintained to supplement the Los Angeles County Fire Department efforts (including City water trucks, City trucks, and tools), especially during red flag warning days. ✓ Ensure that there are an appropriate number of generators for emergency power, and compatibility with Los Angeles County Fire Department supply. Specifically, these generators will be used to provide back-up power systems in the event of an electrical power failure in order to pump water supply into water tanks for fire suppression. ✓ Identify all swimming pools via curb markers to be used for emergency pumping

Other Alternatives: No Action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: City of Azusa General Plan Safety Element, Municipal Code, Azusa Light and Water Urban Water Management Plan

Responsible Office/Partners: City of Azusa Light and Water, Economic and Community Development Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department

Project Priority: Medium

City of Azusa 5-34 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Cost Estimate: City Staff Time, Los Angeles County Fire Department Staff Time; Fire Prevention Equipment $50,000 to $200,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Increased life safety and property protection. Reduced risk of losses to homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure.

Potential Funding: City of Azusa General Fund, Grant Opportunities for Disaster Preparedness, Hazard Mitigation, Resiliency, Etc.

Timeline: Within 5 years

City of Azusa 5-35 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update October 2018

Chapter 6 Plan Adoption

Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally approved by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, county commissioner, Tribal Council).

The purpose of formally adopting this plan is to secure buy-in from the City of Azusa, raise awareness of the plan, and formalize the plan’s implementation. The adoption of this LHMP completes Planning Step 9 of the 10-step planning process: Adopt the Plan, in accordance with the requirements of DMA 2000. This adoption also establishes compliance with AB 2140 requiring adoption by reference or incorporation into the Safety Element of the Azusa General Plan.

The Azusa City Council has adopted this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by passing a resolution. A copy of the sample resolution and the executed copy for the City (pending) are included in Appendix D: Adoption Resolution.

City of Azusa 6-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Chapter 7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance

Requirement §201.6(c)(4): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.

Implementation and maintenance of this LHMP is critical to the overall success of hazard mitigation planning. This is Planning Step 10 of the 10-step planning process. This chapter provides an overview of the overall strategy for LHMP implementation and maintenance and outlines the method and schedule for monitoring, updating, and evaluating the plan. The chapter also discusses incorporating the LHMP into existing planning mechanisms and how to address continued public involvement. 7.1 Implementation

Once adopted, the plan faces the truest test of its worth: implementation. While this plan contains many worthwhile actions, the City will need to decide which action(s) to undertake first. Two factors will help with making that decision: the priority assigned the actions in the planning process and funding availability. Low or no-cost actions most easily demonstrate progress toward successful plan implementation.

An important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is incorporation of the hazard mitigation plan recommendations and their underlying principles into other plans and mechanisms, such as general plans, Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs), stormwater plans, Emergency Operations Plans (EOPS), evacuation plans, and other hazard and emergency management planning efforts for Azusa. The City already implements policies and programs to reduce losses to life and property from hazards. This plan builds upon the momentum developed through previous and related planning efforts and mitigation programs and recommends implementing actions, where possible, through these other program mechanisms.

Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated into the day-to-day functions and priorities of government and development. Implementation can be accomplished by adhering to the schedules identified for each action and through constant, pervasive, and energetic efforts to network and highlight the multi- objective, win-win benefits to each program, the City, the greater community and its stakeholders. This effort is achieved through the routine actions of monitoring agendas, attending meetings, and promoting a safe, sustainable community. Additional mitigation strategies could include consistent and ongoing enforcement of existing policies and vigilant review of programs for coordination and multi-objective opportunities.

Simultaneous to these efforts, it is important to maintain a constant monitoring of funding opportunities that can be leveraged to implement some of the more costly recommended actions. This will include creating and maintaining a bank of ideas on how to meet local match or participation requirements. When funding does become available, the City will be in a position to capitalize on the opportunity. Funding opportunities to be monitored include special pre- and post-disaster funds, state and federal programs and

City of Azusa 7-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

earmarked funds, benefit assessments, and other grant programs, including those that can serve or support multi-objective applications.

Responsibility for Implementation of Goals and Activities

The elected officials and staff appointed to head each department within the City are charged with implementation of various activities in the plan. During the annual reviews as described later in this section, an assessment of progress on each of the goals and activities in the plan should be determined and noted. At that time, recommendations were made to modify timeframes for completion of activities, funding resources, and responsible entities. On an annual basis, the priority standing of various activities may also be changed. Some activities that are found not to be doable may be deleted from the plan entirely and activities addressing problems unforeseen during plan development may be added.

7.1.1. Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee in Implementation and Maintenance

With adoption of this plan, the City will be responsible for the plan implementation and maintenance. The HMPC identified in Appendix A (or a similar committee) will reconvene each year to ensure mitigation strategies are being implemented and the City continues to maintain compliance with the NFIP. As such, the City will continue its relationship with each other, and with the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and:

➢ Act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues; ➢ Disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants; ➢ Pursue the implementation of high-priority, low/no-cost recommended actions; ➢ Ensure hazard mitigation remains a consideration for community decision makers; ➢ Maintain a vigilant monitoring of multi-objective cost-share opportunities to help the community implement the plan’s recommended actions for which no current funding exists; ➢ Monitor and assist in implementation and update of this plan; ➢ Report on plan progress and recommended changes to the City Council; and ➢ Inform and solicit input from the public.

The primary duty of the City is to see the plan successfully carried out and to report to their community governing boards and the public on the status of plan implementation and mitigation opportunities. Other duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation proposals, considering stakeholder concerns about hazard mitigation, passing concerns on to appropriate entities, and posting relevant information on the City website (and others as appropriate). 7.2 Maintenance

Plan maintenance implies an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate LHMP implementation and to update the plan as progress, roadblocks, or changing circumstances are recognized.

City of Azusa 7-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

7.2.1. Maintenance Schedule

The City of Azusa Planning Department is responsible for initiating plan reviews and consulting with the other City departments and LHMP stakeholders. In order to monitor progress and update the mitigation strategies identified in the action plan, Azusa Planning and the individual department representatives will revisit this plan annually and following a hazard event. The HMPC will meet annually to review progress on plan implementation and each implementing department will provide annual status reports. The HMPC will also submit a five-year written update to the State and FEMA Region IX, unless disaster or other circumstances (e.g., changing regulations) require a change to this schedule. With this plan anticipated to be fully approved and adopted in 2019, the next plan update for the City of Azusa will occur in 2024.

7.2.2. Maintenance Evaluation Process

Evaluation of progress can be achieved by monitoring changes in vulnerabilities identified in the plan. Changes in vulnerability can be identified by noting:

➢ Decreased vulnerability as a result of implementing recommended actions; ➢ Increased vulnerability as a result of failed or ineffective mitigation actions; and/or ➢ Increased vulnerability as a result of new development (and/or annexation). ➢ Increased vulnerability resulting from unforeseen or new circumstances.

Updates to this plan will:

➢ Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation; ➢ Document success stories where mitigation efforts have proven effective; ➢ Document areas where mitigation actions were not effective; ➢ Document any new hazards that may arise or were previously overlooked; ➢ Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks; ➢ Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities; ➢ Incorporate growth and development-related changes to infrastructure inventories; and ➢ Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization.

Changes will be made to the plan to accommodate for actions that have failed or are not considered feasible after a review of their consistency with established criteria, time frame, community priorities, and/or funding resources. All mitigation actions will be reviewed as well during the monitoring and update of this plan to determine feasibility of future implementation. Updating of the plan will be by written changes and submissions, as the HMPC deems appropriate and necessary. In keeping with the five-year update process, the HMPC will convene public meetings to solicit public input on the plan and its routine maintenance and the final product will be adopted by the Azusa City Council. Annual Plan Review Process

For the LHMP review process, the Azusa Planning will be responsible for facilitating, coordinating, and scheduling reviews and maintenance of the plan. The review of the LHMP will normally occur on an annual basis each year and will be conducted by the HMPC as follows:

City of Azusa 7-3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

➢ Azusa Planning will place an advertisement in the local newspaper advising the public of the date, time, and place for each annual review of the plan and will be responsible for leading the meeting to review the plan. ➢ Notices will be mailed to the members of the HMPC, federal, state, and local agencies, non-profit groups, local planning agencies, representatives of business interests, neighboring communities, and others advising them of the date, time, and place for the review. ➢ City/County/District officials will be noticed by email and telephone or personal visit and urged to participate. ➢ Members of the City’s Planning Commission and other appointed commissions and groups will also be noticed by email and either by telephone or personal visit. ➢ Prior to the review, department heads and others tasked with implementation of the various activities will be queried concerning progress on each activity in their area of responsibility and asked to present a report at the review meeting. ➢ The local news media will be contacted and a copy of the current plan will be available for public comment at the City of Azusa. ➢ After the review meeting, minutes of the meeting and an annual report will be prepared by the HMPC and forwarded to the news media (public) and other interested stakeholders. The report will also be presented to the Azusa City Council for review, and a request will be made that the Council take action to recognize and adopt any changes resulting from the review. Criteria for Annual Reviews

The criteria recommended in 44 CFR 201 and 206 will be utilized in reviewing and updating the plan. More specifically, the annual reviews will include the following information:

➢ Community growth or change in the past year ➢ The number of substantially damaged or substantially improved structures by flood zone ➢ The renovations to public infrastructure including water, sewer, drainage, roads, bridges, gas lines, and buildings ➢ Natural hazard occurrences that required activation of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and whether or not the event resulted in a presidential disaster declaration. ➢ Natural hazard occurrences that were not of a magnitude to warrant activation of the EOC or a federal disaster declaration but were severe enough to cause damage in the community or closure of businesses, schools, or public services ➢ The dates of hazard events descriptions ➢ Documented damages due to the event ➢ Closures of places of employment or schools and the number of days closed ➢ Road or bridge closures due to the hazard and the length of time closed ➢ Assessment of the number of private and public buildings damaged and whether the damage was minor, substantial, major, or if buildings were destroyed. The assessment will include residences, mobile homes, commercial structures, industrial structures, and public buildings, such as schools and public safety buildings ➢ Review of any changes in federal, state, and local policies to determine the impact of these policies on the community and how and if the policy changes can or should be incorporated into the LHMP. Review of the status of implementation of projects (mitigation strategies) including projects completed will be noted. Projects behind schedule will include a reason for delay of implementation.

City of Azusa 7-4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

7.2.3. Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms

Another important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is incorporation of the LHMP recommendations and their underlying principles into other City plans and mechanisms. Where possible, plan participants will use existing plans and/or programs to implement hazard mitigation actions. As previously stated in Section 7.1 of this plan, mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated into the day-to-day functions and priorities of government and development. The point is re-emphasized here. As described in this plan’s capability assessment, the City already implements policies and programs to reduce losses to life and property from hazards. This plan builds upon the momentum developed through previous and related planning efforts and mitigation programs and recommends implementing actions, where possible, through these other program mechanisms. These existing mechanisms include:

➢ City general plans (especially the Safety Element) ➢ City Emergency Operations Plans and other emergency management efforts ➢ City ordinances ➢ Flood/stormwater management/master plans ➢ Community Wildfire Protection Plans ➢ Capital improvement plans and budgets ➢ Climate Adaptation and other Climate plans ➢ Other plans and policies outlined in the capability assessments ➢ Other plans, regulations, and practices with a mitigation focus

HMPC members involved in these other planning mechanisms will be responsible for integrating the findings and recommendations of this plan with these other plans, programs, etc, as appropriate. As described in Section 7.1 Implementation, incorporation into existing planning mechanisms will be done through the routine actions of:

➢ monitoring other planning/program agendas; ➢ attending other planning/program meetings; ➢ participating in other planning processes; and ➢ monitoring community budget meetings for other community program opportunities.

The successful implementation of this mitigation strategy will require constant and vigilant review of existing plans and programs for coordination and multi-objective opportunities that promote a safe, sustainable community.

Examples of incorporation of the LHMP into existing planning mechanisms include:

1. As recommended by Assembly Bill 2140, the City should adopt (by reference or incorporation) this LHMP into the Safety Element of their General Plan. Evidence of such adoption (by formal, certified resolution) shall be provided to CAL OES and FEMA. 2. Integration of wildfire actions identified in this mitigation strategy and those established in existing and in process CWPPs and other City fire mitigation plans and programs. Key people responsible for mitigation of the wildfire hazard in the City participated on the HMPC. City wildfire projects were identified and integrated into the this LHMP. Actual implementation of these projects will likely occur through existing fire department plans and programs and as part of any new or updated City-specific CWPPs to be developed.

City of Azusa 7-5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

3. Integration of this LHMP Update into the City’s Climate Adaptation Plan (CAP). It is anticipated that this LHMP will being used to inform the development of the CAP and conversely risk and vulnerability data and climate adaptation strategies developed for the CAP will be integrated into future updates of this LHMP for the City. 4. Use of the LHMP risk assessment and other information to update the hazard analysis in future updates of the City’s Emergency Operations Plans and other emergency planning efforts for the City.

Efforts should continuously be made to monitor the progress of mitigation actions implemented through these other planning mechanisms and, where appropriate, their priority actions should be incorporated into future updates of this LHMP.

7.2.4. Continued Public Involvement

Continued public involvement is imperative to the overall success of the plan’s implementation. The update process provides an opportunity to solicit participation from new and existing stakeholders and to publicize success stores from the plan implementation and seek additional public comment. The plan maintenance and update process will include continued public and stakeholder involvement and input through attendance at designated committee meetings, web postings, press releases to local media, and through public meetings.

Public Involvement Process for Annual Reviews

The public will be noticed by placing an advertisement in local media and social media specifying the date and time for the review and inviting public participation. The HMPC, local, state, and regional agencies will also be notified and invited to attend and participate.

Public Involvement for Five-year Update

When the HMPC reconvenes for the update, they will coordinate with all stakeholders participating in the planning process—including those that joined the committee since the planning process began—to update and revise the plan. In reconvening, the HMPC will be responsible for coordinating the activities necessary to involve the greater public. The HMPC will develop a plan for public involvement and will be responsible for disseminating information through a variety of media channels detailing the plan update process. As part of this effort, public meetings will be held and public comments will be solicited on the LHMP Update draft.

City of Azusa 7-6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Appendix A Planning Process

A.1 Lists of HMPC Invites/Stakeholders

Table A-1 Initial LHMP Invite List

Name Agency Title Email Kurt Christiansen City of Azusa Econ/Comm Dir. [email protected] Edson Ibanez City of Azusa Planning Division [email protected] Troy Butzlaff City of Azusa City Manager [email protected] Louie L. City of Azusa Management Analy. [email protected] Ann Graf City of Azusa Library - Director [email protected] Daniel Bobdailla City of Azusa City Engineer - PW Dir. [email protected] Philip Flores City of Azusa Engineering/PW [email protected] Joe Jacobs City of Azusa [email protected] Federico Langit City of Azusa Light & Water Asst. Dir. [email protected] Carlos Salis City of Azusa Light & Water [email protected] Jaime Prado City of Azusa GIS Analyst [email protected] John Momot City of Azusa EOC - Police Officer [email protected] Sam Flemings City of Azusa Police Sergeant [email protected] Hien Vuong City of Azusa Electric Engineer [email protected] Melissa Barboas City of Azusa Water Engineer [email protected] Jeffery Cornejo City of Azusa City Clerk/City Historian [email protected] Robb Keyes City of Azusa Building Official [email protected] Rick McMinn City of Azusa Code Enforcement [email protected] Mayra Salas City of Azusa [email protected] Rob Landeros City of Azusa Police Department [email protected] Manuel Munoz City of Azusa Planning Division [email protected] Ruben Munoz LA County Fire Chief/ Plan Checker [email protected] and Chief Daniel Yniguez LA County Fire Haz Mat [email protected] Gary Kossky Azusa Pacific Sergeant - Campus Safety. [email protected] Univer. Collette Morse Consultant Planner [email protected] Louie Lacasella City of Azusa CM Office [email protected] Scarlett Santas City of Azusa CM Office [email protected] Edward Calzanes City of Azusa Azusa Light and Water [email protected]

City of Azusa Appendix A-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Name Agency Title Email Robert Danielson City of Azusa Azusa Planning Commission [email protected] Eduardo Escabor Flood Control City Floodplain Manager [email protected] District Robert McCord FEMA IX Region HMA Branch Chief [email protected] - Hazard M. Steven Larson Cal OES Flood Mitigation Div. [email protected] Chad Moxley Cal Fire Fire Capatin - Land Use [email protected] Raymond Cal Fire Fire Captain - Land Use [email protected] Martinez Heather Cal Fire [email protected] McCulley Joseph Azusa Pacific Campus Safety [email protected] Hovemeyer University Gary Kossky Azusa Pacific Campus Safety [email protected] University Eric Boldt National Weather NOAA/NWS [email protected] Service Mark Jackson National Weather [email protected] Service Juan Carlos Red Cross [email protected] [email protected] Lopez Philip Dixon USDA-NRCS Philip,[email protected] Tim Dunfee US Forest Sevice Acting District Ranger [email protected] Hu Yi LA County Public [email protected] Works Mike Miranda LA County Public Works [email protected] Siya Araumi LA County Public Works [email protected] Alicia Mejia LA County Fire Department [email protected] Ron Durbin LA County Fire Department [email protected]

– City of Duarte [email protected] Jeff Kugel City of Glendora Dir. Of Planning [email protected] – City of Covina [email protected] Marilyn Simpson City of Irwindale Principal Planner [email protected] Wallace Southern [email protected] Zimmerman California Edison Diana Manzano LA - DMAC Area D [email protected] J. Lopez LA Fire Assistant Chief - Forestry Div. [email protected] Teresa Roblero So Cal GAS Planning Associate [email protected] Rodney Porter Southern [email protected] California Edison

City of Azusa Appendix A-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Name Agency Title Email Jim Bollier Verizon [email protected] Dave Johnson SAN GABRIEL [email protected] VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Chief Executive OEM Office Alan Lin Cal Trans [email protected] Ali Showkatian Foothill Transit Safety Compliance Mana. [email protected] Emergency LA EMD [email protected] Management. Barbara [email protected] Dickerson Steven Castro City of Azusa Chamber [email protected] Azusa Unified City of Azusa [email protected] School District

Table A-2 HMPC Participant List

Department Title Name Email Kurt Christiansen City of Azusa Econ/Comm Dir. [email protected] Edson Ibanez City of Azusa Planning Division [email protected] Louie L. City of Azusa Management Analy. [email protected] Ann Graf City of Azusa Library - Director [email protected] Daniel Bobdailla City of Azusa City Engineer - PW Dir. [email protected] Philip Flores City of Azusa Engineering/PW [email protected] Carlos Salis City of Azusa Light & Water [email protected] Jaime Prado City of Azusa GIS Analyst [email protected] John Momot City of Azusa EOC - Police Officer [email protected] Melissa Barboas City of Azusa Water Engineer [email protected] Robb Keyes City of Azusa Building Official [email protected] Rick McMinn City of Azusa Code Enforcement [email protected] Mayra Salas City of Azusa [email protected] Rob Landeros City of Azusa Police Department [email protected] Manuel Munoz City of Azusa Planning Division [email protected] Daniel Yniguez LA County Fire Haz Mat [email protected] Gary Kossky Azusa Pacific Sergeant - Campus Safety. [email protected] Univer. Collette Morse Consultant Planner [email protected]

City of Azusa Appendix A-3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Department Title Name Email Louie Lacasella City of Azusa CM Office [email protected] Scarlett Santas City of Azusa CM Office [email protected] Edward Calzanes City of Azusa Azusa Light and Water [email protected] Robert Danielson City of Azusa Azusa Planning Commission [email protected] Steven Larson Cal OES Flood Mitigation Div. [email protected] Chad Moxley Cal Fire Fire Capatin - Land Use [email protected] Heather McCulley Cal Fire [email protected] Joseph Azusa Pacific Campus Safety [email protected] Hovemeyer University Gary Kossky Azusa Pacific Campus Safety [email protected] University Eric Boldt National NOAA/NWS [email protected] Weather Service Philip Dixon USDA-NRCS Philip,[email protected] Mike Miranda LA County Public Works [email protected] Siya Araumi LA County Public Works [email protected] Alicia Mejia LA County Fire Department [email protected] Ron Durbin LA County Fire Department [email protected] Diana Manzano LA - DMAC Area D [email protected] J. Lopez LA Fire Assistant Chief - Forestry Div. [email protected]

City of Azusa Appendix A-4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.2 Website for Hazard Mitigation Plan

City of Azusa Appendix A-5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.3 Kickoff Meeting (HMPC Meeting #1)

A.3.1. Kickoff Meeting Invite to Stakeholders

From: Edson Ibanez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 4:46 PM To: Ann Graf ; Daniel Bobadilla ; Federico Langit ; Hien Vuong ; Jaime Prado ; Melissa Barbosa ; Robb Keyes ; Sam Fleming ; [email protected] Cc: John Momot ; Kurt Christiansen ; Troy Butzlaff Subject: Hazard Mitigation Plan - Kick Off Meeting 03/29/2017

Dear Staff,

The City of Azusa is kicking off efforts to develop a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for the City. The purpose of the LHMP process is to help reduce the impacts of natural hazards to the citizens, property, and critical infrastructure in the City. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires that local governments have a FEMA-approved LHMP in place in order to be eligible for certain pre- and post-disaster mitigation funding utilized to protect communities from future disaster-related losses. You are receiving this notice because we would like to invite you to take part in the plan development process as a member of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC).

City, county, and other agency participation and coordination is a requirement of an approved plan, as is the inclusion of any hazard data, information, and mitigation projects your department or agency may recommend for inclusion in the plan. Thus, your participation in this process is important and encouraged. Your input will be critical to the success of this project. Participation includes:

• Attending and participating in the HMPC meetings (5 anticipated over the next 6 months) • Providing available data/information requested of the HMPC • Reviewing and providing comments on the plan drafts

City of Azusa, Community Development Department, is taking the lead on coordinating this planning project. A project kickoff meeting will be held at the following location and time:

March 29, 2017 , 1 pm-4 pm, Police Department, Emergency Operation Center (EOC) 725 N. Alameda Avenue. Azusa, California, 91702

*I need one representative from each department

The kickoff meeting will explain the process and how you can be involved. A public stakeholder meeting will also be held the evening of the same day of the kickoff meeting as part of the City’s regular Planning Commission Hearing. Details on the public meeting will be forthcoming.

Please RSVP (by responding to the email) and plan on attending or delegating attendance to this important meeting.

For further information, contact Edson Ibañez at [email protected] or 626.812.5289 City of Azusa Appendix A-6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.3.2. Kickoff Meeting Agenda

CITY OF AZUSA LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (LHMP) HMPC MEETING #1 MARCH 29, 2017

1. Introductions 2. Hazard Mitigation & the Disaster Mitigation Act Planning Requirements 3. The Role of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) 4. Planning for Public Input 5. Coordinating with other Agencies 6. Hazard Identification 7. Schedule 8. Data Needs 9. Questions and Answers

City of Azusa Appendix A-7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.3.3. Kickoff Meeting Sign-in Sheets

City of Azusa Appendix A-8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

City of Azusa Appendix A-9 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.4 Risk Assessment Meetings (HMPC Meeting #2)

A.4.1. Emailed Invites to Risk Assessment Meetings

City of Azusa Appendix A-10 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Dear All, You are invited to the second planning team meeting for the development of the City of Azusa’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). In March of 2017 the City of Azusa kicked-off its hazard mitigation planning effort with consultants Foster Morrison. Over the past two months, Foster Morrison have been working to collect data to inform Chapter 4 of our LHMP, the Risk Assessment. During this Risk Assessment meeting (agenda attached), we will be reviewing the risk assessment data developed to date and will be looking for your feedback in refining and adding to this in-process Risk Assessment Chapter. The meeting will be held on Wednesday June, 14th at the Azusa Police Department - EOC (725 N Alameda Ave, Azusa, CA 91702) TIME: 1 pm - 4 pm (http://www.ci.azusa.ca.us/1499/2017-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan) Please RSVP and plan on attending or delegating attendance to this important meeting. City and agency participation and coordination is a requirement of an approved plan, as is the inclusion of any hazard data, information, and mitigation projects your department or agency may want to see included in the plan. Thus, your participation in this process is important and encour aged. Your input will be critical to the success of this project. Thank You, Mark your calendars - August 15 & 16: Mitigation Strategy Meetings/Public meeting (Planning Commission) both days from 1 pm to 4 pm at the Azusa Police Department - EOC. Sincerely,

Edson Ibañez, Assistant Planner Planning Division City of Azusa 213 E. Foothill Blvd. Azusa, CA 91702 Phone 626-812-5289 Fax 626-334-5464 [email protected]

City of Azusa Appendix A-11 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.4.2. Risk Assessment Meeting Agenda

City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Update Risk Assessment Meeting June 14, 2017

1. Introductions 2. Status of the DMA Planning Process 3. Review (and discussions/input) of the Risk Assessment 4. Review of Data Needs 5. Questions 6. Next Steps

City of Azusa Appendix A-12 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.4.3. Risk Assessment Meeting Sign in Sheets

City of Azusa Appendix A-13 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.5 Mitigation Strategy Meetings (HMPC Meeting #3)

A.5.1. Email Invites to Mitigation Strategy Meetings

Hello Team,

I am providing some information in advance of our upcoming Mitigation Strategy Meetings scheduled for two days: August 15 & 16, 2017 from 1-4. Azusa Police Departement - EOC - 725 N Alameda Ave, Azusa, CA 91702

Mitigation Strategy Meetings. These are the two most important meetings for this plan! During these meetings, the planning team will develop LHMP plan goals and objectives and will identify and prioritize mitigation actions (projects) for the plan. See attached Agenda.

It is important that everyone on the planning team attends and brings ideas for mitigation actions to be included in the plan. We want to make sure all City departments and partnering agencies with projects to be included are represented at these meetings. This includes staff from public works, building, facilities, roads, planning, water, utilities, flood control, fire, and anyone else that would have mitigation actions to address identified hazards of concern.

Attached is a FEMA publication – Mitigation Ideas – that has mitigation ideas organized by hazard. Please review as it has numerous ideas for mitigation projects. I am also attaching the Mitigation Action Worksheet in case anyone wants to prepare these project worksheets in advance of the meetings. Eventually, each mitigation action/project for the plan will be detailed in a Mitigation Action Worksheet.

City of Azusa Appendix A-14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Chapter 4 – Risk Assessment. Reminder, see below link to access the first draft of the Chapter 4 Risk Assessment document. Please make sure to provide your edits/input to this document and to review in advance of these meetings. The mitigation actions will be developed to address the risk and vulnerabilities detailed in this Hazard Risk Assessment. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1zxjnt4w0ktlr9k/AADG0qgivtzcGYkGE8zde7CEa?dl=0.

Public Meeting. There will also be a public meeting the evening of August 15th Azusa Civic Auditorium- 213 E. Foothill Blvd, Azusa, CA 91702

The public meeting will provide an update on the status of the City’s Hazard Mitigation Planning Project, provide an overview of the hazard risk assessment data, and introduce the upcoming mitigation strategy phase of the project.

Please let me know if anyone has questions. Thanks very much.

Edson Ibañez, Assistant Planner Planning Division City of Azusa 213 E. Foothill Blvd. Azusa, CA 91702 Phone 626-812-5289 Fax 626-334-5464 [email protected]

City of Azusa Appendix A-15 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.5.2. Mitigation Strategy Meeting Agenda

City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Update Mitigation Strategy Meeting August 15 & 16, 2017

HMPC Meeting #3:

1. Introductions 2. Status of the DMA Planning Process 3. Risk Assessment Update 4. Develop Updated Plan Goals and Objectives 5. Identify and discuss Mitigation Alternatives/Projects

HMPC Meeting #4:

1. Introductions 2. Identify and discuss Mitigation Alternatives/Projects 3. Review Mitigation Selection Criteria 4. Prioritize Mitigation Projects 5. Review of Schedule/Data Needs

City of Azusa Appendix A-16 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.5.3. Mitigation Strategy Meeting Sign in Sheets

City of Azusa Appendix A-17 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

City of Azusa Appendix A-18 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

City of Azusa Appendix A-19 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

City of Azusa Appendix A-20 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.6 Final Team Meeting (HMPC Meeting #4)

A.6.1. Final Team Meeting Invite

TO BE INSERTED

City of Azusa Appendix A-21 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.6.2. Final Team Meeting Agenda

AGENDA City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Final Public Meeting February 11, 2018

1. Introductions 2. Status of the LHMP Update Process 3. Addressing Public Comments 4. Public Input: Data/Projects 5. Next Steps

City of Azusa Appendix A-22 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.6.3. Final Team Meeting Sign in Sheet

TO BE INSERTED

City of Azusa Appendix A-23 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.7 Public Involvement

A.7.1. Invite to Public Meeting #1/Planning Commission Hearing: Kickoff Meeting – Public

City of Azusa Appendix A-24 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.7.2. Kickoff Meeting Article

City of Azusa Appendix A-25 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.7.3. Public Meeting #1 Invitation – San Gabriel Valley Tribune 3/17/2017

City of Azusa Appendix A-26 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.7.4. Public Meeting #1/Planning Commission Hearing: Kickoff Meeting – Public Agenda

CITY OF AZUSA LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (LHMP) PUBLIC MEETING #1 MARCH 29, 2017

1. Introductions 2. Hazard Mitigation & the Disaster Mitigation Act Planning Requirements 3. Hazard Identification and Profiles 4. Opportunities for Public Participation and Input 5. Schedule 6. Questions and Answers

City of Azusa Appendix A-27 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.7.5. Public Meeting #1/Planning Commission Hearing: Kickoff Meeting – Public Sign in Sheets

City of Azusa Appendix A-28 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

City of Azusa Appendix A-29 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

City of Azusa Appendix A-30 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.7.6. Public Meeting #2/Planning Commission Hearing: Risk Assessment Overview – Public Agenda

CITY OF AZUSA LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (LHMP) PUBLIC MEETING #2 August 16, 2017

1. Introductions 2. LHMP Project Overview and Status 3. Risk Assessment Overview 4. Next Steps/Schedule 5. Questions and Answers

City of Azusa Appendix A-31 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.7.7. Public Meeting #2/Planning Commission Hearing: Risk Assessment Overview – Public Sign in Sheets

City of Azusa Appendix A-32 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

City of Azusa Appendix A-33 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.7.8. Press Release Invite to Final Review of Plan – Public

TO BE INSERTED

A.7.9. Advertisement to Public for Final Plan Review

TO BE INSERTED

A.7.10. Website Announcement

TO BE INSERTED

City of Azusa Appendix A-34 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.7.11. Final Review of Plan – Public Agenda

AGENDA City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Final Public Meeting May 10, 2017

1. Introductions 2. Status of the LHMP Update Process 3. Addressing Public Comments 4. Final HMPC Input: Data/Projects 5. Next Steps

A.7.12. Final Review of Plan – Public Sign in Sheets

TO BE INSERTED

City of Azusa Appendix A-35 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.8 Meeting Handouts

A.8.1. Kickoff Meeting Handouts

Below are the handouts for each meeting. City of Azusa Hazard Identification and Profiles – 2017

Los Angeles County Historic Hazard Occurrences

Table A-3 NCDC Severe Weather Events for Marin County 1950–12/31/2016

City of Azusa Appendix A-36 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Event Type Number Deaths Injuries Property Crop Deaths Injuries of Events Damage Damage (indirect) (indirect) Wildfire 48 0 46 $99,800,000 $0 0 2 Winter Storm 59 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 Winter Weather 18 3 0 $0 $0 0 0 Total 854 35 205 $210,860,310 $8,203,200 1 3 Source: NCDC

City of Azusa Appendix A-37 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table A-4 Los Angeles County Disaster Declaration History 1950-2017

City of Azusa Appendix A-38 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Year Disaster Disaster Cause County Disaster State Federal Type Number Declaration Declaration Date Date 1973 Fire 1973 Fires Los Angeles N/A 7/16/1973 – 1974 Economic Gasoline Shortage - OPEC Los Angeles N/A 2/28/74, – 3/4/74, 3/10/74 1975 Fire 1975 Fires Los Angeles N/A 11/24/1975 – 1976 Drought 1976 Drought Los Angeles N/A 2/9/76, – 2/13,76, 2/24/76, 3/26/76, 7/6/76 1978 Flood Coastal Storms, Mudslides & Los Angeles DR – 547 3/9/78, 2/15/1978 Flooding 2/27,78, 2/13/78 1978 Fire Brush Fires Los Angeles EM – 3067 10/24/1978 10/29/1978 1979 Fire 1979 Fires Los Angeles N/A 9/28/79, – 9/21/79, 9/20/79 1979 Economic Gasoline Shortage - OPEC Los Angeles N/A 5/8/79 ‐ – 11/13/79 1980 Flood Severe Storms, Mudslides & Los Angeles DR – 615 2/21/80, 2/21/1980 Flooding 2/7/80, 2/19/80 1980 Fire Brush & Timber Fires Los Angeles DR – 635 11/18/1980, 11/27/1980 11/25/80 1981 Agricultural 1981 Mediterranean Fruit Fly Los Angeles N/A 8/8/81 ‐ – Insect pest Infestation 9/25/81 1982 Fire Dayton Hills Fire Los Angeles GP 1982 10/10/1982 – 1983 Coastal Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides & Los Angeles DR – 677 12/8/82‐ 2/9/1983 Storm Tornadoes 3/21/83 1983 Flood 1983 Floods Los Angeles 82‐19 3/83 – 1983 High Winds Wind Storms Los Angeles 83‐01 3/83 – 1983 Agricultural Mexican Fruit Fly Los Angeles N/A 11/4/1983 – Insect pests 1985 Fire 1985 Statewide Fires Los Angeles DR‐739 7/1/85 ‐ 7/18/1985 7/11/85 1987 Agricultural Mediterranean Fruit Fly Los Angeles GP 1987 8/25/1987 – Insect pest 1987 Earthquake Earthquake & Aftershocks Los Angeles DR – 799 10/2/87 ‐ 10/7/1987 10/5/87 1988 Flood Severe Storms, High Tides & Los Angeles DR – 812 1/21/1988 2/5/1988 Flooding 1988 Fire 1988 Fires Los Angeles GP 87‐07 5/88 –

City of Azusa Appendix A-39 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Year Disaster Disaster Cause County Disaster State Federal Type Number Declaration Declaration Date Date 1988 Agricultural Mediterranean Fruit Fly Los Angeles GP 1988 7/21/1988 – Insect pest 1988 Fire Fires (Los Angeles) Los Angeles GP 88‐03 12/9/1988 – 1989 Agricultural Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Los Los Angeles GP 1989 8/9/1989 – Insect pest Angeles) 1990 Earthquake Earthquake Los Angeles GP 89‐07 3/9/90, – 3/13/90 1990 Agricultural Mexican Fruit Fly Los Angeles GP 1990 5/14/1990 – Insect pest 1990 Fire Fires Los Angeles DR – 872 6/28/90, 6/30/1990 6/29/90 1991 Freezing Severe Freeze Los Angeles DR – 894 12/19/90‐ 2/11/1991 1/18/91 1991 Earthquake Sierra Madre Earthquake Los Angeles GP 91‐04 7/5/1991 – 1992 Flood Rain/Snow/Wind Storms, Los Angeles DR – 935 2/12/92, 2/25/1992 Flooding, Mudslides 2/19/92 1992 Fire Fire During A Period Of Civil Los Angeles DR – 942 4/29/1992 5/2/1992 Unrest 1993 Flood Severe Winter Storm, Mud & Los Angeles DR – 979 1/7/93 ‐ 2/3/1993 Land Slides, & Flooding 2/19/93 1993 Fire Fires, Mud/Landslides, Los Angeles DR – 1005 – 10/28/1993 Flooding, Soil Erosion 1994 Earthquake Northridge Earthquake Los Angeles DR – 1008 1/17/94, 1/17/1994 1/24/94 1995 Severe Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Los Angeles DR – 1044 1/6/95 ‐ 1/10/1995 Storm Landslides, Mud Flows 3/14/95 1995 Severe Severe Winter Storms, Flooding Los Angeles DR – 1046 1/6/95 ‐ 3/12/1995 Storm Landslides, Mud Flow 3/14/95 1996 Severe Fires Fire Los Angeles 96‐04 1996 10/22/1996 – 1996 Fire Severe Firestorms Los Angeles EM – 3120 10/1/1996 10/23/1996 1998 Severe Severe Winter Storms And Los Angeles DR – 1203 Proclaimed 2/9/1998 Storm Flooding 2001 Flood Storms Los Angeles DC 2001‐ 3/1/2001 – 01 2001 2001 Economic Greed Statewide GP 2001 1/1/2001 – 2002 Fire Ca - Copper Fire Los Angeles FS – 2417 – 6/6/2002 2002 Fire Leona Fire Los Angeles FS – 2462 – 9/4/2002 2002 Fire Williams Fire Los Angeles FS – 2464 – 9/24/2002 2003 Agricultural Exotic Newcastle Disease Los Angeles GP 2003 1/3/2003 Disease Epidemic 2003 2003 Fire Ca - Wildfire (Pacific Fire) Los Angeles FM – 2466 – 1/7/2003

City of Azusa Appendix A-40 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Year Disaster Disaster Cause County Disaster State Federal Type Number Declaration Declaration Date Date 2003 Fire Ca-Verdale Fire Los Angeles FM – 2502 – 10/25/2003 2003 Fire Wildfires, Flooding, Mudflow Los Angeles DR – 1498 10/26/2003 10/27/2003 And Debris Flow 2003 Flood Storms Los Angeles GP 2003‐04 11/14/2003 – 2 2004 Fire Ca - Pine Fire Los Angeles FM – 2528 7/14/2004 2004 Fire Ca-Foothill Wildfire Los Angeles FM – 2534 – 7/18/2004 2004 Fire Ca-Crown Wildfire Los Angeles FM – 2535 – 7/21/2004 2005 Severe Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Los Angeles DR – 1577 1/12/2005 2/4/2005 Storm Flows, And Mudslides GP2005‐01 2005 Severe Severe Storms, Flooding, Los Angeles DR – 1585 3/16/2005 4/14/2005 Storm Landslides, And Mud And Debris Flows 2005 Hurricane Hurricane Katrina Evacuation Los Angeles EM – 3248 – 9/13/2005 2005 Fire Topanga Fire Los Angeles FM – 2583 – 9/28/2005 2007 Freezing Severe Freeze Los Angeles DR – 1689 – 3/13/2007 2007 Fire Griffith Park Fire Los Angeles FM – 2691 – 5/9/2007 2007 Fire Island Fire Los Angeles FM – 2694 – 5/10/2007 2007 Fire Canyon Fire Los Angeles FM – 2708 – 7/8/2007 2007 Fire Buckweed Fire Los Angeles FM – 2733 – 10/21/2007 2007 Fire Canyon Fire Los Angeles FM – 2732 – 10/21/2007 2007 Fire Ranch Fire Los Angeles FM – 2736 – 10/22/2007 2007 Fire Wildfires Los Angeles EM – 3279 – 10/23/2007 2007 I‐5 Major Road Damage Accident Los Angeles GP 2007‐13 10/14/2007 – Collision 2007 Fire Wildfires, Flooding, Mud Flows, Los Angeles DR – 1731 – 10/24/2007 And Debris Flows 2008 Fire Santa Anita Fire Los Angeles FM – 2763 – 4/27/2008 2008 Fire Firestorms and Flooding Los Angeles GP 2008‐09 4/27/2008 – 2008 2008 Fire Marek Fire Los Angeles FM – 2788 – 10/12/2008 2008 Fire Sesnon Fire Los Angeles FM – 2789 – 10/13/2008 2008 Fire Freeway Fire Complex Los Angeles FM – 2792 – 11/15/2008 2008 Fire Sayre Fire Los Angeles FM – 2791 – 11/15/2008 2008 Fire Wildfires Los Angeles DR – 1810 – 11/18/2008 2009 Fire Pv Fire Los Angeles FM – 2828 – 8/28/2009 2009 Fire Station Fire Los Angeles FM – 2830 – 8/28/2009 2009 Fire Los Angeles County Wildfires Los Angeles GP-2009-05 N/A –

City of Azusa Appendix A-41 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Year Disaster Disaster Cause County Disaster State Federal Type Number Declaration Declaration Date Date 2010 Severe Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Los Angeles DR – 1884 1/21/2010, 3/8/2010 Storm And Debris And Mud Flows 1/22/2010, 1/27/2010 2010 Fire Crown Fire Los Angeles FM – 2851 – 7/30/2010 2013 Fire Powerhouse Fire Los Angeles FM – 5025 – 6/2/2013 2014 Fire Colby Fire Los Angeles FM – 5051 – 1/16/2014 2014 California Drought Drought GP 2014-13 1/17/2014 – Drought 2016 Fire Old Fire Los Angeles FM – 5124 – 6/5/2016 2016 Fire Fish Fire Los Angeles FM – 5129 – 6/21/2016 2016 Fire Sage Fire Los Angeles FM – 5132 – 7/9/2016 2016 Fire Sand Fire Los Angeles FM – 5135 – 7/23/2016

City of Azusa Appendix A-42 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Table A-5 Azusa Hazard Identification Table

Probability Climate Geographic of Future Magnitude/ Change Hazard Extent Occurrences Severity Significance Influence Climate Change Extensive Likely Negligible Low --- Dam Failure Extensive Unlikely Catastrophic High Low Drought and Water Shortage Extensive Likely Limited Medium Medium Earthquake Extensive Likely Catastrophic High --- Earthquake Liquefaction Extensive Occasional Catastrophic High --- Flood: 100/500–year Occasional/ Medium Significant Unlikely Critical Medium Flood: Localized/Stormwater Limited Highly Likely Negligible Medium Medium Landslide and Mudslides Limited Likely Limited Medium Low Levee Failure Limited Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Extensive Highly Likely Negligible Low Medium Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms Extensive Highly Likely Negligible Medium Medium Severe Weather: High Winds Extensive Highly Likely Limited Medium --- Wildfire Significant Likely Critical High Medium Geographic Extent Magnitude/Severity Limited: Less than 10% of planning area Catastrophic—More than 50 percent of property severely damaged; Significant: 10-50% of planning area shutdown of facilities for more than 30 days; and/or multiple deaths Extensive: 50-100% of planning area Critical—25-50 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for at least two weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in Probability of Future Occurrences permanent disability Highly Likely: Near 100% chance of Limited—10-25 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of occurrence in next year, or happens every facilities for more than a week; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable do not year. result in permanent disability Likely: Between 10 and 100% chance of Negligible—Less than 10 percent of property severely damaged, occurrence in next year, or has a shutdown of facilities and services for less than 24 hours; and/or recurrence interval of 10 years or less. injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid Occasional: Between 1 and 10% chance of occurrence in the next year, or has a Significance recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. Low: minimal potential impact Unlikely: Less than 1% chance of Medium: moderate potential impact occurrence in next 100 years, or has a High: widespread potential impact recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years. Climate Change Impact: Low: Climate change is not likely to increase the probability of this hazard. Medium: Climate change is likely to increase the probability of this hazard. High: Climate change is very likely to increase the probability of this hazard.

City of Azusa Appendix A-43 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 City of Azusa 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Vulnerability & Capability Worksheets

Risk and Vulnerability Questions

Localized/Stormwater Flooding

1. Please describe the localized/stormwater flood issue specific to your jurisdiction in paragraph form. In addition, please complete a table similar to the below example detailing types and location of localized/stormwater flooding problems. If available, also attach a map of problem areas.

Text Description:

Table 6 Localized Flooding Areas

High Water/ Pavement Creek Landslides/ Downed Road Name Flooding Deterioration Washouts Crossing Mudslides Debris Trees

City of Azusa Appendix A-44 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Earthquake Vulnerability

1. Number of unreinforced masonry buildings. If available, please provide an inventory of URM buildings specific to your jurisdiction. Include any tables and/or maps. Is this a layer available in GIS?

Special Populations

1. Describe any hazard-related concerns or issues regarding the vulnerability of special needs populations, such as the elderly, disabled, low-income, or migrant farm workers.

Development Trends

1. Describe development trends and expected growth areas and how they relate to hazard areas and vulnerability concerns/issues. Please provide zoning maps and maps and tables detailing areas targeted for future development within your jurisdiction.

City of Azusa Appendix A-45 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. Please complete the tables and questions in the worksheet as completely as possible.

Planning and Regulatory

The following planning and land management tools are typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities. Please indicate which of the following your jurisdiction has in place. If your jurisdiction does not have this capability or authority, please indicate in the comments column if a higher level of government has the authority.

Does the plan/program address hazards? Does the plan identify projects to include in the mitigation Y/N strategy? Plans Year Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? General Plan Capital Improvements Plan Economic Development Plan Local Emergency Operations Plan Continuity of Operations Plan Transportation Plan Stormwater Management Plan/Program Engineering Studies for Streams Community Wildfire Protection Plan Other special plans (e.g., brownfields redevelopment, disaster recovery, coastal zone management, climate change adaptation) Building Code, Permitting, and Inspections Y/N Are codes adequately enforced? Building Code Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) Score Fire department ISO rating: Site plan review requirements Is the ordinance an effective measure for reducing hazard impacts? Land Use Planning and Ordinances Y/N Is the ordinance adequately administered and enforced? Zoning ordinance Subdivision ordinance Floodplain ordinance

City of Azusa Appendix A-46 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Natural hazard specific ordinance (stormwater, steep slope, wildfire) Flood insurance rate maps Elevation Certificates Acquisition of land for open space and public recreation uses Erosion or sediment control program Other How can these capabilities be expanded and improved to reduce risk?

Administrative/Technical

Identify the technical and personnel resources responsible for activities related to hazard mitigation/loss prevention within your jurisdiction. For smaller jurisdictions without local staff resources, if there are public resources at the next higher level government that can provide technical assistance, please indicate so in the comments column.

Describe capability Administration Y/N Is coordination effective? Planning Commission Mitigation Planning Committee Maintenance programs to reduce risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing drainage systems) Mutual aid agreements Other Is staffing adequate to enforce regulations? Y/N Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation? Staff FT/PT Is coordination between agencies and staff effective? Chief Building Official Floodplain Administrator Emergency Manager Community Planner Civil Engineer GIS Coordinator Other Describe capability Has capability been used to assess/mitigate risk in the Technical Y/N past? Warning systems/services (Reverse 911, outdoor warning signals)

City of Azusa Appendix A-47 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Hazard data and information Grant writing Hazus analysis Other How can these capabilities be expanded and improved to reduce risk?

Fiscal

Identify whether your jurisdiction has access to or is eligible to use the following financial resources for hazard mitigation

City of Azusa Appendix A-48 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Education and Outreach

Identify education and outreach programs and methods already in place that could be/or are used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.

City of Azusa Appendix A-49 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Worksheet

Use this worksheet to collect information on your community’s participation in and continued compliance with the NFIP, as well as identify areas for improvement that could be potential mitigation actions.

NFIP Topic Comments Insurance Summary How many NFIP policies are in the community? What is the total premium and coverage? How many claims have been paid in the community? What is the total amount of paid claims? How many of the claims were for substantial damage? How many structures are exposed to flood risk within the community? Describe any areas of flood risk with limited NFIP policy coverage Staff Resources Is the Community Floodplain Administrator or NFIP Coordinator certified? Provide an explanation of NFIP administration services (e.g., permit review, GIS, education or outreach, inspections, engineering capability) What are the barriers to running an effective NFIP program in the community, if any? Compliance History Is the community in good standing with the NFIP? Are there any outstanding compliance issues (i.e., current violations)? When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit (CAV) or Community Assistance Contact (CAC)? Is a CAV or CAC scheduled or needed? Regulation When did the community enter the NFIP? Are the FIRMs digital or paper? Do floodplain development regulations meet or exceed FEMA or State minimum requirements? If so, in what ways? Provide an explanation of the permitting process. Community Rating System Does the community participate in CRS? What is the community’s CRS Class Ranking? What categories and activities provide CRS points and how can the class be improved? Does the plan include CRS planning requirements?

Prepared by: Date Email Phone

City of Azusa Appendix A-50 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 HISTORIC HAZARD EVENTS WORKSHEET

Please fill out one sheet for each significant hazard event with as much detail as possible. Attach supporting documentation, photocopies of newspaper articles, or other original sources.

Type of event Nature and magnitude of event Location Date of event Injuries Deaths Property damage Infrastructure damage Crop damage Business/economic impacts Road/school/other closures Other damage Insured losses Federal/state disaster relief funding Opinion on likelihood of occurring again Source of information Comments Please return worksheets by mail, email, or fax to: Jeanine Foster, Foster Morrison Prepared by: 5628 West Long Place Phone: Littleton, CO 80123 fax: (720) 893-0863 Email: email: [email protected] Date:

City of Azusa Appendix A-51 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 A.8.2. Risk Assessment Meeting Handouts

Risk Assessment Summary: City of Azusa

Climate Change

➢ The 2013 State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan stated that climate change is already affecting California. Sea levels have risen by as much as seven inches along the California coast over the last century, increasing erosion and pressure on the state’s infrastructure, water supplies, and natural resources. The State has also seen increased average temperatures, more extreme hot days, fewer cold nights, a lengthening of the growing season, shifts in the water cycle with less winter precipitation falling as snow, and both snowmelt and rainwater running off sooner in the year. Climate Change has the potential to alter the nature and frequency of most hazards. ➢ HAS THE CITY NOTICED ANY CHANGES/IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH CLIMATE CHANGE? ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Likely ➢ Vulnerability: Medium? ➢ Non-Priority Hazard?? Dam failure

➢ City of Azusa High Hazard Dams of concern – Morris and San Gabriel -failure would flood downstream areas and could cause loss of life and property. According to the General Plan EIR, 95 percent of the City is located within the inundation area of one of these dams. ➢ ANY FAILURES OR SCARES IN AZUSA? ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Unlikely ➢ Vulnerability: Extremely High ➢ Priority Hazard Drought and Water Shortage

➢ Historical drought data for Azusa and region indicate there have been 5 significant droughts in the last 85 years. ➢ There have been no federal and two state declarations (1976, 2014) in Los Angeles County due to drought since 1950. There have been no NCDC drought events in LA County or Azusa. ➢ CAN THE CITY IDENTIFY ANY PAST DROUGHT EVENTS AND THEIR IMPACTS? WHAT ARE THE CITY’S PRIMARY IMPACTS/CONCERNS WITH DROUGHT EVENTS? WATER SUPPLY? ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Likely ➢ Vulnerability: High ➢ Priority Hazard Earthquake

City of Azusa Appendix A-52 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ There has been three federal and five state disaster declaration for earthquakes in Los Angeles County. HOW WAS THE CITY AFFECTED BY ANY OF THESE EVENTS? IMPACTS? ➢ California Division of Mines and Geology, shows Azusa is located in an area of high earthquake shaking. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) issues National Seismic Hazard Maps that shows that the expected severity of earthquakes in the region is moderate to very high. ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Occasional (major earthquake)/Likely (minor earthquake) ➢ Vulnerability: High? ➢ Priority Hazard Earthquake Liquefaction

➢ The General Plan Natural Environment Element noted that the hazard of liquefaction, where a buried saturated sand layer liquefies during an earthquake, is present over nearly all of the City’s valley due to the shallow water and strong earthquake shaking potential. According to the Azusa General Plan EIR, much of the northern portion of the City, north of Foothill Boulevard has potential for liquefaction as does a portion south of Foothill Boulevard to approximately 2nd Street between Todd Avenue and Rockvale Avenue. ➢ There has been no disaster declarations for earthquake liquefaction in Los Angeles County or Azusa. ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Occasional since liquefaction is a secondary hazard to earthquake. ➢ Vulnerability: High to Extremely High? ➢ Priority Hazard Flood Hazards

100/500 year

➢ The City of Azusa is located in the San Gabriel River Watershed. The watershed drains into the San Gabriel River from the San Gabriel Mountains flowing 58 miles south until its confluence with the Pacific Ocean. ➢ Los Angeles County has experience multiple federal and state declarations related to flooding since 1950. The NCDC showed 147 flood event from 1950 through 2016; 4 of which were identified as affecting Azusa. ➢ PLEASE REVIEW FLOOD SECTION AND PROVIDE INFO ON AZUSA FLOOD HISTORY AND HOW AZUSA WAS IMPACTED BY HISTORICAL FLOOD EVENTS? ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: 100-Occasional; 500-Unlikely ➢ Vulnerability: High ➢ Priority Hazard

Localized/Stormwater flooding

➢ Significant localized flood history in the City – occurs annually ➢ CAN THE HMPC PROVIDE DETAILS ON THESE AREAS? PICTURES/DESCRIPTIONS? COMPLETE TABLE FROM RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET. ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Highly Likely ➢ Vulnerability: Medium ➢ Priority Hazard

City of Azusa Appendix A-53 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Landslides and Mud Flows

➢ Due to the topography in and around Azusa and the rainfall the City receives during the winter, it is likely future occurrences of landslide, mudslide, and debris flow will occur. ➢ There have been no disaster declarations associated with landslides in Azusa. The NCDC contains no records of landslides in the City. ➢ WHAT AREAS ARE AT RISK TO LANDSLIDES? CAN THE CITY PROVIDE INFORMATION ON PAST LANDSLIDE EVENTS AND IMPACTS? ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Occasional? ➢ Vulnerability: Low? ➢ Non-Priority Hazard? Levee Failure

➢ National Levee database shows leveed areas in the western portion of the City along the banks of the San Gabriel River, known as the San Gabriel River 7 (SGR7) Levee System, owned and operated by the USACE. FIS indicates no levees in the City are certified as providing 100-year level of flood protection. ➢ ANY PAST LEVEE FAILURE EVENTS? IMPACTS? CONCERNS? ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Unlikely ➢ Vulnerability: Medium ➢ Priority Hazard Severe weather

Extreme Heat

➢ Annual occurrences of hot weather ➢ 20 extreme heat events (NCDC), occurring on 8 dates, for LA County since 1993 ➢ No state or federal disaster declarations ➢ CAN THE CITY IDENTIFY ANY PAST HEAT EVENTS AND THEIR IMPACTS? ➢ WHAT ARE THE CITY’S PRIMARY IMPACTS/CONCERNS WITH EXTREME HEAT EVENTS? ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Highly Likely ➢ Vulnerability: Low ➢ Non-Priority Hazard

Heavy rains and storms

➢ Significant City history: annual occurrences ➢ The NCDC data recorded 149 severe weather incidents for LA County since 1950; unknown how City was effected? ➢ There have been 7 state declarations and 6 federal declarations in LA County since 1950; unknown how City was effected? ➢ CAN THE CITY IDENTIFY ANY PAST SEVERE STORM EVENTS AND THEIR IMPACTS? ➢ WHAT ARE THE CITY’S PRIMARY IMPACTS/CONCERNS WITH EXTREME STORM EVENTS? ➢ Severe storms/heavy rains are the primary cause of most major flooding

City of Azusa Appendix A-54 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Highly Likely ➢ Vulnerability: Medium ➢ Priority Hazard

High Winds and Tornadoes

➢ Annual occurrences ➢ Heavy rains and severe storms occur in the City primarily during the late fall, winter, and spring (i.e., November through April). Damaging winds often accompany these storm systems moving through the area. Tornadoes may also occur, but are very rare in the City as well as in Los Angeles County. ➢ 438 high wind events (NCDC) for LA County since 1950; unknown how the city was effected? ➢ 1 state disaster declaration (1983) in LA County ➢ CAN THE CITY IDENTIFY ANY PAST HIGH WIND AND TORNADO EVENTS AND THEIR IMPACTS? ➢ WHAT ARE THE CITY’S PRIMARY IMPACTS/CONCERNS WITH EXTREME HIGH WINDS? ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Highly Likely ➢ Vulnerability: Medium ➢ Priority Hazard Wildfire

➢ Wildfires occur on an annual basis in the Azusa planning area. ➢ Generally, the fire season can be year around in the City, with the more extreme portions of the season extending from early spring through late fall of each year during the hotter, dryer months. ➢ Numerous state and federal disaster declarations for wildfire since 1950 in LA County ➢ Numerous named fires causing a variety of damages near Azusa ➢ Any ignition has the potential to become an out of control wildfire. ➢ CAN THE CITY IDENTIFY ANY PAST WILDFIRE EVENTS AND THEIR DAMAGES/IMPACTS TO THE CITY? MAPS, PHOTOS? ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Highly Likely ➢ Vulnerability: High ➢ Priority Hazard

A.8.3. Mitigation Strategy Meeting Handouts

Handouts specific to the Mitigation Strategy Meetings can be found in Appendix C.

A.8.4. Final Meting Handouts

TO BE INSERTED

City of Azusa Appendix A-55 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Appendix B References

2013 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan

2014 Los Angeles County All Hazard Mitigation Plan

2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps

ArkStorm at Tahoe - Stakeholder Perspectives on Vulnerabilities and Preparedness for an Extreme Storm Event in the Greater Lake Tahoe, Reno and Carson City Region. 2014.

CAL FIRE GIS datasets

CAL FIRE Wildfire History Database

Cal OES

Cal OES Dam Inundation datasets

Cal-Adapt

California Adaptation Planning Guide

California Climate Adaptation Strategy

California Department of Conservation

California Department of Finance, E-1 Report

California Department of Finance, E-4 Report

California Department of Finance, P-1 Report

California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database

California Department of Food and Agriculture

California Department of Water Resources

California Department of Water Resources Best Available Maps

California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams

City of Azusa B-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 California Division of Mines and Geology

California Division of Mines and Geology. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California, 2003.

California Geological Survey

California Native Plant Society

California Natural Resources Agency

California Office of Historic Preservation

California’s Drought of 2007-2009, An Overview. State of California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources.

City of Azusa General Plan

City of Azusa General Plan Background Report

City of Azusa General Plan Environmental Impact Report

City of Azusa General Plan.

City of Azusa GIS data

City of Azusa Housing Element 2014-2021

City of Azusa Housing Element Initial Study

City of Azusa Light and Water Department

City of Azusa Public Works

City of Azusa, "Analysis of Existing Conditions and Trends," December 2001.

City staff

Climate Change Impacts in the United States

Dhammakaya Specific Plan

Enhanced Fujita Scale. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center.

Existing plans and studies

Federal Emergency Management Agency – Wind Zones in the United States

City of Azusa B-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Federal Emergency Management Agency: Building Performance Assessment: Oklahoma and Kansas Tornadoes

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.

FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map. January 16, 2016.

FEMA Disaster Declaration Database

FEMA Los Angeles County Flood Insurance Study. January 16, 2016.

FEMA’s HAZUS-MH 2.2 GIS-based inventory data

Galloway, Jr Dr. Gerald E. Levees in History: The Levee Challenge. Water Policy Collaborative, University of Maryland, Visiting Scholar, USACE, IWR.

HMPC input

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Johnstone, J. and Dawson, T. Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 7, 2010.

Kenward, Alyson PhD, Adams-Smith, Dennis, and Raja, Urooj. Wildfires and Air Pollution – The Hidden Health Hazards of Climate Change. Climate Central. 2013.

LA Almanac

Liu, J.C., Mickley, L.J., Sulprizio, M.P. et al. Climatic Change. 138: 655. doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1762- 6. 2016.

Los Angeles County Community Wildfire Protection Plan

Los Angeles County Flood Insurance Study

Los Angeles County GIS data (hazards and base layers)

Los Angeles County Parcel and Assessor’s Data

Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, FEMA 1997

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database.

National Drought Mitigation Center

National Drought Mitigation Center – Drought Impact Reporter

City of Azusa B-3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 National Flood Insurance Program

National Institute of Building Science Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves 2017 Interim Report

National Integrated Drought Information System

National Levee Database

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center

National Park Service – Historic American Buildings Survey and Historic American Engineering Record

National Performance of Dams Program

National Weather Service Heat Index

National Weather Service Wind Chill Index

NCDC

Personal interviews and discussions with planning team members and staff from the City

Personal interviews with planning team members and staff from the County and participating jurisdictions

Public Health Alliance of Southern California

Public Policy Institute of California. If drought continues: Environment and poor rural communities most likely to suffer. [press release].

State Department of Water Resource’s Delta Atlas

Statewide GIS datasets from other agencies such as Cal OES, FEMA, USGS, CGS, Cal Atlas, and others

TOD Specific Plan

Underwood, E. Models predict longer, deeper US droughts. Science, 347(6223) 707 DOI: 10.1126/science.347.6223.707. 2015.

United State Geologic Survey. Earthquake Intensity Zonation and Quaternary Deposits, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 9093, 1977.

University of California Santa Barbara Department of Geology

US Army Corps of Engineers

US Bureau of Reclamation

City of Azusa B-4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 US Census Bureau 2010 Household Population Estimates

US Drought Monitor

US Fish and Wildlife Service

US Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory maps

US Geological Survey

US Geological Survey Open File Report 2015‐3009

USA TODAY

USDA Secretarial Disasters Declarations

USFS GIS datasets

Western Regional Climate Center

Wildfire Today

Written descriptions of inventory and risks provided by Azusa

City of Azusa B-5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Appendix C Mitigation Strategy

City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy Meetings August 15 & 16, 2017

Table of Contents

Agenda

Day 1:

➢ Hazard Identification & Profiles…4 ➢ Risk Assessment Methodology…5 ➢ Risk Assessment Summary …6 ➢ City of Azusa Priority Hazards…10 ➢ Mitigation Strategy: Goals…11 ➢ Sample Goals from Other Plans…12 ➢ Goals Development…14

Day 2:

➢ Mitigation Strategy: Actions …16 ➢ Categories of Mitigation Measures…16 ➢ Mitigation Strategy: Action Plan…21 ➢ Mitigation Criteria …21 ➢ Initial Prioritization Instructions…24 ➢ Mitigation Action Worksheet …25

Jeanine Foster ([email protected])

Foster Morrison Consulting, Ltd.

City of Azusa C-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 AGENDA

City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy Meetings August & 16, 2017

HMPC Meeting #3:

1. Introductions 2. Status of the DMA Planning Process 3. Risk Assessment Update 4. Develop Updated Plan Goals and Objectives 5. Identify and Review Mitigation Alternatives/Projects

HMPC Meeting #4:

1. Introductions 2. Identify and Review Mitigation Alternatives/Projects 3. Review Mitigation Selection Criteria 4. Prioritize Mitigation Projects 5. Review of Schedule/Next Steps

City of Azusa C-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Risk Assessment & Mitigation Strategy Meetings Day 1

City of Azusa C-3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Hazard Identification & Profiles

Table 1 Azusa Hazard Identification

Geographic Likelihood of Magnitude/ Climate Change Hazard Extent Future Occurrences Severity Significance Impacts Climate Change Extensive Likely Negligible Low --- Dam Failure Extensive Unlikely Catastrophic High Low Drought and Water Medium Shortage Extensive Likely Limited Medium Earthquake Extensive Likely Catastrophic High Low Earthquake Liquefaction Extensive Occasional Catastrophic High Low Flood: 1%/0.2% chance Significant Occasional/ Unlikely Critical Medium Medium Flood: Medium Localized/Stormwater Limited Highly Likely Negligible Medium Landslide and Mudslides Limited Likely Limited Medium Low Levee Failure Limited Unlikely Negligible Medium Low Severe Weather: Medium Extreme Heat Extensive Highly Likely Negligible Low Severe Weather: Heavy Medium Rains and Storms Extensive Highly Likely Negligible Medium Severe Weather: High Winds and Tornadoes Extensive Highly Likely Limited Medium Low Wildfire Significant Likely Critical High Medium Geographic Extent Magnitude/Severity Limited: Less than 10% of City Catastrophic—More than 50 percent of property severely damaged; Significant: 10-50% of City shutdown of facilities for more than 30 days; and/or multiple deaths Extensive: 50-100% of City Critical—25-50 percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities Probability of Future Occurrences for at least two weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent Highly Likely: Near 100% chance of disability occurrence in next year, or happens every Limited—10-25 percent of property severely damaged, shutdown of year. facilities for more than a week; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable do not Likely: Between 10 and 100% chance of result in permanent disability occurrence in next year, or has a Negligible—Less than 10 percent of property severely damaged, shutdown recurrence interval of 10 years or less. of facilities and services for less than 24 hours; and/or injuries/illnesses Occasional: Between 1 and 10% chance treatable with first aid of occurrence in the next year, or has a Significance recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. Low: minimal potential impact Unlikely: Less than 1% chance of Medium: moderate potential impact occurrence in next 100 years, or has a High: widespread potential impact recurrence interval of greater than every Climate Change Impact: 100 years. Low: Climate change is not likely to increase the probability of this hazard. Medium: Climate change is likely to increase the probability of this hazard. High: Climate change is very likely to increase the probability of this hazard.

City of Azusa C-4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Risk Assessment Methodology

Calculating Likelihood of Future Occurrence

The frequency of past events is used in this section to gauge the likelihood of future occurrences. Based on historical data, the likelihood of future occurrence is categorized into one of the following classifications:

➢ Highly Likely: Near 100% chance of occurrence in next year, or happens every year. ➢ Likely: Between 10 and 100% chance of occurrence in next year, or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. ➢ Occasional: Between 1 and 10% chance of occurrence in the next year, or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. ➢ Unlikely: Less than 1% chance of occurrence in next 100 years, or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years. Calculating Vulnerability

Vulnerability is measured in general, qualitative terms, and is a summary of the potential impact based on past occurrences, spatial extent, and damage and casualty potential:

➢ Extremely Low: The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal to non-existent. ➢ Low: Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. ➢ Medium: Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and/or built environment. Here the potential damage is more isolated and less costly than a more widespread disaster. ➢ High: Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have already occurred in the past. ➢ Extremely High: Very widespread and catastrophic impact. Defining Significance (Priority) of a Hazard

Defining the significance or priority of a hazard to a community is based on a subjective analysis of several factors. This analysis is used to focus and prioritize hazards and associated mitigation measures for the plan. These factors include the following:

➢ Past Occurrences: Frequency, extent, and magnitude of historic hazard events. ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrences: Based on past hazard events. ➢ Ability to Reduce Losses through Implementation of Mitigation Measures: This looks at both the ability to mitigate the risk of future occurrences as well as the ability to mitigate the vulnerability of a community to a given hazard event.

City of Azusa C-5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Risk Assessment Summary: City of Azusa

Climate Change

➢ Multiple known faults traverse the city, including the Sierra Madre Fault and the Upper Duarte Fault, as well as multiple unnamed faults. Furthermore, four critical regional faults (Sierra, Raymond, Whittier, and San Andreas Central) are located within a 100 kilometer radius of the City. ➢ There has been three federal and five state disaster declaration for earthquakes in Los Angeles County. HOW WAS THE CITY AFFECTED BY ANY OF THESE EVENTS? IMPACTS?

City of Azusa C-6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ California Division of Mines and Geology, shows Azusa is located in an area of high earthquake shaking. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) issues National Seismic Hazard Maps that shows that the expected severity of earthquakes in the region is moderate to very high. ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Occasional (major earthquake)/Likely (minor earthquake) ➢ Vulnerability: Extremely High ➢ Priority Hazard Earthquake Liquefaction

100/500 year

Localized/Stormwater flooding

City of Azusa C-7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Landslides and Mud Flows

➢ Due to the topography in and around Azusa and the rainfall the City receives during the winter, it is likely future occurrences of landslide, mudslide, and debris flow will occur. ➢ There have been no disaster declarations associated with landslides in Azusa. The NCDC contains no records of landslides in the City. ➢ WHAT AREAS ARE AT RISK TO LANDSLIDES? CAN THE CITY PROVIDE INFORMATION ON PAST LANDSLIDE EVENTS AND IMPACTS? ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Likely ➢ Vulnerability: Low ➢ Non-Priority Hazard Levee Failure

Extreme Heat

Heavy rains and storms

City of Azusa C-8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Likelihood of Future Occurrence: Highly Likely ➢ Vulnerability: Medium ➢ Priority Hazard

High Winds and Tornadoes

City of Azusa C-9 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Azusa Priority Hazards

➢ Climate Change ➢ Dam Failure ➢ Drought & Water Shortage ➢ Earthquake ➢ Earthquake Liquefaction ➢ Flood: 100/500–year ➢ Flood: Localized/Stormwater ➢ Levee Failure? ➢ Severe Weather: Heavy rains and Storms ➢ Severe Weather: High Winds & Tornadoes ➢ Wildfire Non-Priority Hazards:

➢ Landslides & Mud Flows ➢ Severe Weather: Extreme Heat?

City of Azusa C-10 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Mitigation Strategy: Goals

The most important element of the LHMP is the resulting mitigation strategy which serves as the long-term blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment. The mitigation strategy is comprised of three components:

1. Mitigation Goals 2. Mitigation Actions 3. Action (Implementation) Plan

Mitigation Goals

Up to now, the HMPC has been involved in collecting and providing data for the Modoc County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. From this information, a Risk Assessment has been developed that describes the risk and vulnerability of the Modoc County planning area to identified hazards and includes an assessment of the area’s current capabilities for countering these threats through existing policies, regulations, programs, and projects.

This analysis identifies areas where improvements could or should be made. Formulating Goals will lead us to incorporating these improvements into the Mitigation Strategy portion of the plan. Our planning goals should provide direction for what loss reduction activities can be undertaken to make the planning area more disaster resistant.

Mitigation Goals are general guidelines that represent the community’s vision for reducing or avoiding losses from identified hazards. Goals are stated without regard for achievement, that is, implementation cost, schedule, and means are not considered. Goals are public policy statements that:

➢ Represent basic desires of the jurisdiction; ➢ Encompass all aspects of planning area, public and private; ➢ Are nonspecific, in that they refer to the quality (not the quantity) of the outcome; ➢ Are future-oriented, in that they are achievable in the future; and ➢ Are time-independent, in that they are not scheduled events.

While goals are not specific (quantitative), they should not be so general as to be meaningless or unachievable.

Goals statements will form the basis for objectives. They should be stated in such a way as to develop one or more objectives related to each goal.

The key point in writing goals is to remember that they must deal with results, not the activities that produce those results.

Finally, before we formulate our goals, we should discuss other planning area goals from other regional/county/city programs and priorities. This keeps us from “reinventing the wheel,” as well as being consistent with Multi-Objective Management --- or “MOM” --- where communities strive for efficiency by combining projects/needs that are similar in nature or location. Utilizing “MOM” effectively can result in

City of Azusa C-11 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 identifying multiple sources of funding that can be “packaged” and broadening the supporting constituency base by including “outcomes” desired by various stakeholder groups.

Types/Sources of other area mitigation plans and programs include:

➢ Emergency Operations Plans ➢ General Plans ➢ Stormwater Program and Plans ➢ Flood/Watershed Management Plans and Studies ➢ Drought Plans ➢ Community Wildfire Protection Plans ➢ Dam Failure Plans ➢ Other? Sample Goals from other Plans

Goals from the 2013 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan

1. Significantly reduce life loss and injuries 2. Minimize damage to structures and property, as well as minimizing interruption of essential services and activities 3. Protect the environment 4. Promote hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy and as a standard business practice

Goals from the City of Azusa General Plan, 2004

Geologic Hazards

Hazardous Structures

Flooding and Drainage

City of Azusa C-12 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Emergency Preparedness and Education

Post-Disaster Reconstruction

Goals from the 2016 County of Los Angeles Strategic Fire Plan

Vision: A natural environment that is more resilient and man-made assets which are more resistant to the occurrence and effects of wildland fire through local, state, federal, and private partnerships.

Goals:

1. Identify and evaluate wildland fire hazards and recognize life, property and natural resource assets at risk, including watershed, habitat, social and other values of functioning ecosystems. Facilitate the sharing of all analyses and data collection across all ownerships for consistency in type and kind.

2. Articulate and promote the concept of land use planning as it relates to fire risk and individual landowner objectives and responsibilities.

3. Support and participate in the collaborative development and implementation of wildland fire protection plans and other local, county and regional plans that address fire protection and landowner objectives.

4. Increase awareness, knowledge and actions implemented by individuals and communities to reduce human loss and property damage from wildland fires. Actions can include creation of defensible space and other fuel reduction activities, educating homeowners about fire prevention, and encouraging fire safe building standards.

5. Develop a method to integrate fire and fuels management practices with landowner priorities and multiple jurisdictional efforts within local, state and federal responsibility areas.

6. Determine the level of fire suppression resources necessary to protect the values and assets at risk identified during planning processes.

7. Address post-fire responsibilities for natural resource recovery, including watershed protection, reforestation and ecosystem restoration.

City of Azusa C-13 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Goals Development

You will each be given 3 sticky notes. On each note you will write what you think the goals for this mitigation planning effort should be. To get you started, provided below are possible goals for this mitigation plan. You may reword these or develop your own. These goal statements should serve as examples. It is vital that our Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee establish its own goals. Use one note for each goal. The purpose of the goal development is to reach a consensus on plan goals.

➢ Minimize risk and vulnerability from natural hazards ➢ Increase communities’ awareness of vulnerability to hazards ➢ Increase the use of shared resources ➢ Improve communities’ capabilities to mitigate losses ➢ Maintain coordination of disaster plans with changing DHS/FEMA needs ➢ Maintain FEMA eligibility/position jurisdictions for grant funding ➢ Maintain/enhance the flood mitigation program to provide 200/500-year flood protection ➢ Maintain current service levels ➢ Provide protection for existing buildings from hazards ➢ Provide protection for future development from hazards ➢ Provide protection for natural and cultural resources from hazard impacts ➢ Provide protection for people’s lives from hazards ➢ Provide protection for public health ➢ Provide protection for critical services (fire, police, etc.) from hazard impacts ➢ Provide protection for critical lifeline utilities from hazard impacts ➢ Reduce exposure to hazard related losses ➢ Reduce the number of emergency incidents ➢ Make better use of technology

When done, we will:

➢ Pin/tape them to the wall/easel-chart and arrange them by category ➢ Combine and reword them into 3-4 goals for the plan.

City of Azusa C-14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategy Meetings Day 2

City of Azusa C-15 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Mitigation Strategy: Actions

Mitigation actions are specific projects and activities that help achieve the goals and accomplish risk reduction in the community.

Categories of Mitigation Measures

PREVENTION: Preventive measures are designed to keep the problem from occurring or getting worse. Their objective is to ensure that future development is not exposed to damage and does not increase damage to other properties.

➢ Planning ➢ Zoning ➢ Open Space Preservation ➢ Land Development Regulations ✓ Subdivision regulations ✓ Building Codes • Fire-Wise Construction ✓ Floodplain development regulations ✓ Geologic Hazard Areas development regulations (for roads too!) ➢ Storm Water Management ➢ Fuels Management, Fire-Breaks

EMERGENCY SERVICES: protect people during and after a disaster. A good emergency services program addresses all hazards. Measures include:

➢ Warning (flooding, tornadoes, winter storms, geologic hazards, fire) ✓ NOAA Weather Radio ✓ Sirens ✓ “Reverse 911” (Emergency Notification System) ➢ Emergency Response ✓ Evacuation & Sheltering ✓ Communications ✓ Emergency Planning • Activating the EOC (emergency management) • Closing streets or bridges (police or public works) • Shutting off power to threatened areas (utility company) • Holding/releasing children at school (school district) • Ordering an evacuation (mayor) • Opening emergency shelters (Red Cross) • Monitoring water levels (engineering) • Security and other protection measures (police) ➢ Critical Facilities Protection (Buildings or locations vital to the response and recovery effort, such as police/fire stations, hospitals, sewage treatment plants/lift stations, power substations)

City of Azusa C-16 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ✓ Buildings or locations that, if damaged, would create secondary disasters, such as hazardous materials facilities and nursing homes ✓ Lifeline Utilities Protection ➢ Post-Disaster Mitigation ➢ Building Inspections ✓ ID mitigation opportunities & funding before reconstruction

PROPERTY PROTECTION: Property protection measures are used to modify buildings subject to damage rather than to keep the hazard away. A community may find these to be inexpensive measures because often they are implemented by or cost-shared with property owners. Many of the measures do not affect the appearance or use of a building, which makes them particularly appropriate for historical sites and landmarks.

➢ Retrofitting/disaster proofing ✓ Floods • Wet/Dry floodproofing (barriers, shields, backflow valves) • Relocation/Elevation • Acquisition • Retrofitting ✓ High Winds/Tornadoes • Safe Rooms • Securing roofs and foundations with fasteners and tie-downs • Strengthening garage doors and other large openings ✓ Winter Storms • Immediate snow/ice removal from roofs, tree limbs • “Living” snow fences ✓ Geologic Hazards (Landslides, earthquakes, sinkholes) • Anchoring, bracing, shear walls • Dewatering sites, agricultural practices • Catch basins ✓ Drought • Improve water supply (transport/storage/conservation) • Remove moisture competitive plants (Tamarisk/Salt Cedar) • Water Restrictions/Water Saver Sprinklers/Appliances • Grazing on CRP lands (no overgrazing-see Noxious Weeds) • Create incentives to consolidate/connect water services • Recycled wastewater on golf courses ✓ Wildfire, Grassfires • Replacing building components with fireproof materials • Roofing, screening • Create “Defensible Space” • Installing spark arrestors • Fuels Modification

City of Azusa C-17 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ✓ Noxious Weeds/Insects • Mowing • Spraying • Replacement planting • Stop overgrazing • Introduce natural predators ➢ Insurance

NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION: Natural resource protection activities are generally aimed at preserving (or in some cases restoring) natural areas. In so doing, these activities enable the naturally beneficial functions of floodplains and watersheds to be better realized. These natural and beneficial floodplain functions include the following:

➢ storage of floodwaters ➢ absorption of flood energy ➢ reduction in flood scour ➢ infiltration that absorbs overland flood flow ➢ groundwater recharge ➢ removal/filtering of excess nutrients, pollutants, and sediments from floodwaters ➢ habitat for flora and fauna ➢ recreational and aesthetic opportunities

Methods of protecting natural resources include:

➢ Wetlands Protection ➢ Riparian Area/Habitat Protection/Threatened-Endangered Species ➢ Erosion & Sediment Control ➢ Best Management Practices

Best management practices (“BMPs”) are measures that reduce nonpoint source pollutants that enter the waterways. Nonpoint source pollutants come from non-specific locations. Examples of nonpoint source pollutants are lawn fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm chemicals, animal wastes, oils from street surfaces and industrial areas and sediment from agriculture, construction, mining and forestry. These pollutants are washed off the ground’s surface by stormwater and flushed into receiving storm sewers, ditches and streams. BMPs can be implemented during construction and as part of a project’s design to permanently address nonpoint source pollutants. There are three general categories of BMPs:

5. Avoidance: setting construction projects back from the stream. 6. Reduction: Preventing runoff that conveys sediment and other water-borne pollutants, such as planting proper vegetation and conservation tillage. 7. Cleanse: Stopping pollutants after they are en route to a stream, such as using grass drainageways that filter the water and retention and detention basins that let pollutants settle to the bottom before they are drained

➢ Dumping Regulations ➢ Set-back regulations/buffers

City of Azusa C-18 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ➢ Fuels Management ➢ Water Use Restrictions ➢ Landscape Management ➢ Weather Modification

STRUCTURAL: Projects that have traditionally been used by communities to control flows and water surface elevations. Structural projects keep flood waters away from an area. They are usually designed by engineers and managed or maintained by public works staff. These measures are popular with many because they “stop” flooding problems. However, structural projects have several important shortcomings that need to be kept in mind when considering them for flood hazard mitigation:

➢ They are expensive, sometimes requiring capital bond issues and/or cost sharing with Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Natural Resources Conservation Service. ➢ They disturb the land and disrupt natural water flows, often destroying habitats or requiring Environmental Assessments. ➢ They are built to a certain flood protection level that can be exceeded by a larger flood, causing extensive damage. ➢ They can create a false sense of security when people protected by a structure believe that no flood can ever reach them. ➢ They require regular maintenance to ensure that they continue to provide their design protection level.

Structural measures include: ➢ Detention/Retention structures ➢ Erosion and Sediment Control ➢ Basins/Low-head Weirs ➢ Channel Modifications ➢ Culvert resizing/replacement/Maintenance ➢ Levees and Floodwalls ➢ Anchoring, grading, debris basins (for landslides) ➢ Fencing (for snow, sand, wind) ➢ Drainage System Maintenance ➢ Reservoirs (for flood control, water storage, recreation, agriculture) ➢ Diversions ➢ Storm Sewers

PUBLIC INFORMATION: A successful hazard mitigation program involves both the public and private sectors. Public information activities advise property owners, renters, businesses, and local officials about hazards and ways to protect people and property from these hazards. These activities can motivate people to take protection

➢ Hazard Maps and Data ➢ Outreach Projects (mailings, media, web, speakers, displays) ➢ Library Resources ➢ Real Estate Disclosure ➢ Environmental Education

City of Azusa C-19 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Mitigation Strategy: Action Plan

The mitigation action plan describes how the mitigation actions will be implemented, including how those actions will be prioritized, administered, and incorporated into the community’s existing planning mechanism. Each participating jurisdiction must have a mitigation actions and an action plan specific to that jurisdiction and its priority hazards and vulnerabilities.

Mitigation Criteria

For use in selecting and prioritizing Proposed Mitigation Measures

1. STAPLEE

Social: Does the measure treat people fairly? (different groups, different generations)

➢ Community Acceptance ➢ Effect on Segment of Population ➢ Social Benefits

Technical: Will it work? (Does it solve the problem? Is it feasible?)

➢ Technical Feasibility ➢ Reduce Community Risk ➢ Long Tem Solution/Sustainable ➢ Secondary Impacts

Administrative: Do you have the capacity to implement & manage project?

➢ Staffing ➢ Funding Allocated ➢ Maintenance/Operations

Political: Who are the stakeholders? Did they get to participate? Is there public support? Is political leadership willing to support?

➢ Political Support ➢ Local Champion ➢ Public Support ➢ Achieves Multiple Objectives ➢ Supported by a broad array of Stakeholders

Legal: Does your organization have the authority to implement? Is it legal? Are there liability implications?

➢ Existing Local Authority ➢ State Authority ➢ Potential Legal Challenges

City of Azusa C-20 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Economic: Is it cost-beneficial? Is there funding? Does it contribute to the local economy or economic development?

➢ Benefit of Action ➢ Cost of Action ➢ Cost Effective/Economic Benefits ➢ Economically Viable ➢ Outside Funding Required

Environmental: Does it comply with Environmental regulations?

➢ Effect on Land/Water ➢ Effect on Endangered Species ➢ Effect on Cultural Resources ➢ Effect on Hazmat sites ➢ Consistent with Community Environmental Goals ➢ Consistent with Environmental Laws ➢ Environmental Benefits

2. SUSTAINABLE DISASTER RECOVERY

➢ Quality of Life ➢ Social Equity ➢ Hazard Mitigation ➢ Economic Development ➢ Environmental Protection/Enhancement ➢ Community Participation

3. SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES

➢ Infill versus Sprawl ➢ Efficient Use of Land Resources ➢ Full Use of Urban Resources ➢ Mixed Uses of Land ➢ Transportation Options ➢ Detailed, Human-Scale Design

4. OTHER

➢ Does measure address area with highest risk? ➢ Does measure protect … ✓ The largest # of people exposed to risk? ✓ The largest # of buildings? ✓ The largest # of jobs? ✓ The largest tax income? ✓ The largest average annual loss potential? ✓ The area impacted most frequently?

City of Azusa C-21 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 ✓ Critical Infrastructure (access, power, water, gas, telecommunications) ➢ Timing of Available funding ➢ Visibility of Project ➢ Community Credibility

City of Azusa C-22 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Mitigation Action Prioritization Instructions

Our Team recommendations are listed on flip-chart paper around the room.

You each have 3 sets of colored dots:

➢ 3 red dots ➢ 3 blue dots ➢ 3 green dots

The red dots are for high priority (5 points each)

The blue dots are for medium priority (3 points each)

The green dots are for low priority (1 point each)

Place your dots on the recommendations, using the different colors to indicate your priority. You may use as many of your dots, of any color, on any recommendation --- or you may spread them out using as few of your dots as you wish. The dots will indicate the consensus of the team.

Use your list of criteria to help you make your determinations.

After the totals are counted, we will discuss them further to confirm or change any of the results as we see fit.

City of Azusa C-23 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Mitigation Action Worksheet

Mitigation Action/Project Title: Hazards Addressed:

Issue/Background:

Project Description:

Other Alternatives: Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Responsible Office/Partners: Cost Estimate: Benefits (Losses Avoided): Potential Funding: Timeline: Project Priority:

Worksheet completed by: Name and Title: Phone:

City of Azusa C-24 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Mitigation Strategy Meeting: Mitigation Actions v/1 August 16, 2017

Initial Goals

City of Azusa C-25 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Initial Mitigation Action Ratings

Responsible Mitigation Action Title Hazards Points/ Department/ Addressed Worksheet Staff Status Public awareness, education, outreach, and preparedness program Multi-hazard 47 enhancements: Improve/Enhance public education, engagement, and preparedness, response, and recovery program for all hazards (multi- media, educate, messaging, target audiences; promote self- responsibility; sustainable) Planning Incorporate LHMP Update by reference through board adoption into Multi-hazard N/A* (Foster the safety element of the General Plan Update Morrison to complete worksheet) IT Implement GIS enhancements (to include hazards information, a Emergency 19 critical facilities layer, etc); Make interactive so public can evaluate Services/Multi- hazards in context of their homes hazard OES Develop EOP Update with Annexes Emergency 8 Services/Multi- hazard Achieve Storm-Ready certification for City Emergency 9 Services/Multi- hazard Evaluate technologies, apps, etc. for access to real time weather and Emergency 6 disaster data. (e.g., NOAA weather radios, Pulsepoint, others?) Services/Multi- hazard Conduct Citywide evaluation of technology improvements for disaster Emergency N/A* preparedness, prevention, mitigation, response, and recovery Services/Multi- hazard Valve replacements to lower water levels more quickly Dam Failure 6 Spillway inspections and modifications Dam Failure 3 Construct better and secondary access routes to better manage Dam Failure 0 facilities Telemetry upgrades Dam Failure 5 Dredging Dam Failure 3 Continue Conservation Measures Drought & 6 Water Supply Continue Rebate Programs (e.g., Drip program) Drought & 0 Water Supply Update and Implement residential parkway guide for use of drought Drought & 0 tolerant landscape Water Supply Update and Implement Urban Water Management Plan Drought & 0 Water Supply Evaluate use/install Wifi meters Drought & 0 Water Supply

City of Azusa C-26 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Responsible Mitigation Action Title Hazards Points/ Department/ Addressed Worksheet Staff Status Conduct soft story and pre-1976 tilt-up building inventories and Earthquake & 18 identify retrofit projects and those structures to be demolished Liquefaction Public facility and critical facility inventory and retrofits Earthquake & 28 Liquefaction Develop Climate Adaptation Plan and implement resulting climate Climate N/A* adaptation strategies Change Implement projects for Unmet Drainage Needs (UDN). City to Flood 15 provide County with top 3 drainage issues to prioritize and provide support and possible cost sharing Identify and focus projects to address drainage issues, as well as Flood 0 environmental and conservation issues Implement Stormwater Master Plan Flood 0 Tree evaluation and maintenance projects Drought, 9 Heavy Rains and Storms Undergrounding of utilities Heavy Rains 0 and Storms Drainage channels – maintenance and cleanout Heavy Rains 11 and Storms Use of post fire K Rails in key areas Landslides, 0 Debris Flows, and Mud Flows Monitor, clear & maintain drainage facilities and floodways Landslides, 0 Debris Flows, and Mud Flows Identify and investigate issues of concern Levee Failure 5 Implement post fire burn area debris flow program – non federal Wildfire 17 lands Implement post fire burn area debris flow program –federal lands Wildfire 9 Riverbed vegetation management and habitat improvement (include Wildfire 21 non-native species removal) Update City data to align with new Cal Fire, Fire Hazard Severity Wildfire 8 Zone Data & Maps Identify and implement tree mortality projects Wildfire 8 Public outreach and education Wildfire 6 Continue Brush land Clearance program Wildfire 10 Continue fuels modification plan review project Wildfire 2 Continue vegetation management projects Wildfire 14 Establish CERT program Wildfire 23 Conduct multi-agency brush drills/exercises for local fire fighters Wildfire 0

City of Azusa C-27 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Responsible Mitigation Action Title Hazards Points/ Department/ Addressed Worksheet Staff Status Conduct evacuation exercises Wildfire 8 Establish Fire Safe Councils and promote firewise communities (e.g., Wildfire 7 Mt Cove, Rosedale, Develop local CWPP Wildfire 0 Other wildfire projects? Wildfire N/A

City of Azusa C-28 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Appendix D Adoption Resolution

Note to Reviewers: When this plan has been reviewed and approved pending adoption by FEMA Region IX, the adoption resolutions will be signed by the participating jurisdictions and added to this appendix. A model resolution is provided below:

Resolution # ______

Adopting the Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan

Whereas, the City of Azusa recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property within our community; and

Whereas, undertaking hazard mitigation actions will reduce the potential for harm to people and property from future hazard occurrences; and

Whereas, the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (“Disaster Mitigation Act”) emphasizing the need for pre-disaster mitigation of potential hazards;

Whereas, the Disaster Mitigation Act made available hazard mitigation grants to state and local governments;

Whereas, an adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is required as a condition of future funding for mitigation projects under multiple FEMA pre- and post-disaster mitigation grant programs; and

Whereas, the City of Azusa fully participated in the FEMA-prescribed mitigation planning process to prepare this local hazard mitigation plan; and

Whereas, the California Office of Emergency Services and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX officials have reviewed the City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and approved it contingent upon this official adoption of the participating governing body;

Whereas, the City of Azusa desires to comply with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act and to augment its emergency planning efforts by formally adopting the City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan;

Whereas, adoption by the governing body for the City of Azusa, demonstrates the jurisdiction’s commitment to fulfilling the mitigation goals and objectives outlined in this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Whereas, adoption of this legitimacies the plan and authorizes responsible agencies to carry out their responsibilities under the plan.

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the City of Azusa adopts the City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and

City of Azusa D-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Be it resolved, that the City of Azusa adopts the City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by reference into the safety element of their general plan in accordance with the requirements of AB 2140, and

Be it further resolved, the City of Azusa will submit this adoption resolution to the California Office of Emergency Services and FEMA Region IX officials to enable the plan’s final approval in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and to establish conformance with the requirements of AB 2140.

Passed: (date)

Certifying Official

City of Azusa D-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Appendix E Critical Facilities

Table E-1 City of Azusa Critical Facility Inventory

Name Address Critical Facility Flood Zone Fire Severity Liquefaction Landslide Zone Dam Inundation Area Category Zone Police 725 N Alameda Essential Services 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Ave Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Fire Station 32 605 N Angeleno Essential Services 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Ave Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas City Hall 213 E Foothill Essential Services 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Blvd Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Azusa Public Works 809 N Angeleno Essential Services 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Ave Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Railroad Overpass 500 W Foothill Essential Services 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Blvd Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Slauson Middle School 340 W 5th St At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Dalton Elementary 500 E 10th St At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Hodge Elementary 700 W 11th St At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas

City of Azusa E-1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Name Address Critical Facility Flood Zone Fire Severity Liquefaction Landslide Zone Dam Inundation Area Category Zone Saint Frances of Rome 734 N Pasadena At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San School Ave Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Silverado Sierra Vista 125 W Sierra At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Car Community Madre Ave Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Soldano Senior Village 450 N Soldano At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Ave Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Little Gems Learing & 412 N San At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Daycare Gabriel Ave Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Azusa Montessori 405 N Azusa At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Within Outside of Morris Dam and San Academy Ave Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Fire Station 97 846 Juniper Essential Services 0.2% Annual Very High Outside of Outside of Outside of Dam Ridge Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Inundation Areas 210 Fwy Overpass 200 S Azusa Ave Essential Services 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of Morris Dam and San Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Mountain View 201 N Vernon At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of Morris Dam and San Elementary Ave Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Paramount 409 W At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of Morris Dam and San Elementary Paramount St Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Azusa High School 240 N Cerritos At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of San Gabriel Dam Ave Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Inundation Areas Foothill Middle 151 N Fenimore At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of San Gabriel Dam School Ave Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Inundation Areas Magnolia Elementary 945 E Nearfield At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of Outside of Dam St Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Inundation Areas

City of Azusa E-2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Name Address Critical Facility Flood Zone Fire Severity Liquefaction Landslide Zone Dam Inundation Area Category Zone Gladstone Street 1040 E At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of Outside of Dam Elementary Gladstone St Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Inundation Areas WR Powell 1035 E Mauna At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of Outside of Dam Elementary Loa Ave Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Inundation Areas Lee Elementary 550 N Cerritos At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of San Gabriel Dam Avee Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Inundation Areas Valleydale Elementary 700 S Lark Ellen At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of San Gabriel Dam Ave Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Inundation Areas Murray Elementary 505 E Renwick At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of Outside of Dam Rd Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Inundation Areas Christbridge Academy 405 S Azusa Ave At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of San Gabriel Dam Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Inundation Areas Light & Life Christian 777 E Alosta At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of San Gabriel Dam School Ave Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Inundation Areas Edgewood Center 200 W At Risk 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of Morris Dam and San Paramount St Populations Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas IDR Environmental 100 S Irwindale Hazardous 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of Morris Dam and San Services Ave Materials Facilities Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Waste Management 1211 W Hazardous 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of Morris Dam and San Gladstone St Materials Facilities Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Azusa Land 1211 W Hazardous 0.2% Annual Non-Very High Outside of Outside of Morris Dam and San Reclamation Gladstone St Materials Facilities Chance Flood Liquefaction Zone Landslide Zone Gabriel Dam Inundation Areas Source: City of Azusa GIS

City of Azusa E-3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

Foster Morrison Consulting 5628 W Long Pl Littleton, CO 80123 303.717.7171 www.fostermorrison.com