3. East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers Dated 2023

CITY OF ANAHEIM

East Anaheim
Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers

MARCH 2023

Prepared By

320 Goddard Way, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92618

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers | 11146303 | Page i Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.2.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 3

1.2.2 Land Use and Densities ................................................................................... 3

1.3 Collection System Evaluation ............................................................................................ 4

1.3.1 Existing Land Use Condition ............................................................................ 4

1.3.2 Build-Out Land Use Condition .......................................................................... 4

1.4 Capital Improvements ........................................................................................................ 4

1.5 Unit Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................... 5

1.6 Technical Memorandums................................................................................................... 5

2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Model Areas ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Sewer Improvements Added to GIS/Model ....................................................................... 6

2.4 Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 8

2.5 Residential Densities ....................................................................................................... 10

2.6 Water Usage Correlations................................................................................................ 11

2.7 Special Development Conditions / Projects ..................................................................... 13

2.8 Accessory Dwelling Units................................................................................................. 15

2.9 Hydraulic Analysis ............................................................................................................ 17

2.9.1 Software Overview ......................................................................................... 17

2.9.2 Flow Factors and Model Loading ................................................................... 17

2.9.3 Model Methodology and Construction ............................................................ 24

2.9.4 Model Calibration ............................................................................................ 25

3. Collection System Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 27

3.1 Sewer Design Criteria ...................................................................................................... 27

3.2 Existing Land Use Condition ............................................................................................ 27

3.3 Build-Out Land Use Condition ......................................................................................... 29

3.4 Alternative Analysis and Recommendations ................................................................... 32

3.4.1 Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 – Running Springs Drive ........................................... 32

3.4.2 Basin Area BO-2 – Weir Canyon Road .......................................................... 33

3.4.3 Basin Area BO-3 – Lenain Water Treatment Plant Basin .............................. 35

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers | 11146303 | Page ii

4. Capital Improvements ................................................................................................................ 37

4.1 Unit Costs ........................................................................................................................ 37

4.2 Existing and Build-Out Improvement Costs ..................................................................... 38

4.3 Operationally Deficient Improvement Costs .................................................................... 41 Figure Index
Figure 1.1 Study Area Boundary ........................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2.1 Sewer Improvement Project Since CEAAMPSS ............................................................... 7 Figure 2.2 Existing Land Uses ............................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2.3 Parcels with Elevated Water Usages .............................................................................. 12 Figure 2.4 Specific Plans Map .......................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2.5 Existing or Approved ADU Locations Within EAMPSS Study Area ................................ 16 Figure 2.6 Point Sewer Load from City of Placentia at Manhole SW120401 ................................... 21 Figure 2.7 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW286101 ...................................... 22 Figure 2.8 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manholes SW156407 and SW156308 .......... 22 Figure 2.9 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW163228 ...................................... 23 Figure 2.10 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW169124 ...................................... 23 Figure 2.11 Typical Residential Diurnal Curve for the EAMPSS Study Area ..................................... 24 Figure 2.12 Typical Non-Residential Diurnal Curve for the EAMPSS Study Area ............................. 25 Figure 2.13 Surveyed Manholes ......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 3.1 Existing Condition Sewer Needs ..................................................................................... 28 Figure 3.2 Build-Out Condition Sewer Needs ................................................................................... 31 Figure 3.3 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 ................................... 32 Figure 3.4 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-2 ............................................ 34 Figure 3.5 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Areas 1 and 2 ............ 36 Figure 3.6 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Area 3 ........................ 36 Figure 4.1 Operationally Deficient Sewer Needs .............................................................................. 42

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers | 11146303 | Page iii Table Index
Table 1.1 Unit Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................... 5 Table 2.1 East Anaheim Area Sewer Improvement Summary .......................................................... 6 Table 2.2 Existing Land Use Categories ......................................................................................... 10 Table 2.3 Additional Sewer Loadings from ADUs ........................................................................... 16 Table 2.4 Existing Condition Flow Factors ...................................................................................... 18 Table 2.5 Build-out Condition Flow Factors .................................................................................... 19 Table 2.6 Point Sewer Loads .......................................................................................................... 20 Table 3.1 Existing Condition Sewer Needs ..................................................................................... 27 Table 3.2 Build-Out Condition Capacity Deficiencies ...................................................................... 30 Table 3.3 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 ................................... 33 Table 3.4 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-2 ............................................ 34 Table 3.5 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-3 ............................................ 37 Table 4.1 Unit Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................... 37 Table 4.2 Sewer Improvement Cost Summary ............................................................................... 38 Table 4.3 Existing Condition Sewer Improvement Cost Estimates ................................................. 39 Table 4.4 Build-Out Condition Sewer Improvement Cost Estimates ............................................... 40 Table 4.5 Operationally Deficient Lines ........................................................................................... 43

Appendix Index
Appendix A Technical Memorandum No. 1 – Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Criteria Appendix B Technical Memorandum No. 2 – Sewer Improvement Updates Appendix C Technical Memorandum No. 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects Appendix D Technical Memorandum No. 4 – Modeling Software Platform Selection Appendix E Technical Memorandum No. 5 – Land Use/Population Updates and Model Calibration
Appendix F Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Model ing Results and Alternative Analysis Appendix G City of Anaheim Sewer Design Manual

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers | 11146303 | Page 1

1. Executive Summary

1.1 General
The primary objective of the East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (EAMPSS) is to evaluate the sewer system within the eastern portion of the City of Anaheim (City) to identify potential deficiencies under Existing Peak Dry Weather Flow (Existing) and Build-Out Peak Dry Weather Flow (Build-Out) conditions. The EAMPSS study area is shown in Figure 1.1.

In the previous Combined East Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers dated December 2005 (CEAAMPSS), Hydra software by Pizer was used to simulate the sewer system operations.

H2OMap Sewer by Innovyze is selected for this master plan revision due to its more user-friendly software interface and its ability to conduct more advanced modeling compared to Hydra, including consideration of complex flow attenuations and source tracing. The individual Hydra models from the previous master plan were combined into a single model to increase ease of use and to provide a more accurate simulation of sewer flow attenuations and source tracing. The existing 43 hydraulic model basins that contributed sewer flow in 2005 Study are converted to an ArcGIS based platform.

There are 11 additional sewer basins not modeled in the previous CEAAMPSS models due to a direct connection to an Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) trunk sewer. The pipelines and manholes in these areas were added to the EAMPSS model.

The following tasks were completed as part of the sewer system evaluation:
 Converted and consolidated sewer hydraulic models from Hydra to H 2OMap Sewer software  Updated sewer database (pipe and manhole data) in the City’s geographic information system (GIS) to include all capital improvements completed since the CEAAMPSS  Incorporated the newly added pipe and manhole data into the H 2OMap Sewer model  Developed sewer hydraulic model with H 2OMap Sewer, including:
o Calibration of hydraulic model based on the updated land uses, densities, and flow contributions, and re-evaluation of the diurnal curves from the CEAAMPSS o Development of land use flow factors and sewer loadings from each parcel within the study area under Existing and Build-Out Conditions
 Analyzed hydraulic model results and determined sewer needs under Existing and Build-Out Conditions (proposed capital improvements) according to the defined sewer design criteria  Developed capital improvement costs for the recommended capital improvements

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page i Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1

1.1 General ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1

1.2 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 3

1.2.1 Study Area ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3

1.2.2 Land Use and Densities ................................ ................................ ................ 3

1.3 Collection System Evaluation ................................ ................................ ........................ 4

1.3.1 Existing Land Use Condition ................................ ................................ ......... 4

1.3.2 Build-Out Land Use Condition ................................ ................................ ....... 4

1.4 Capital Improvements ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4

1.5 Unit Cost Estimates ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 5

1.6 Technical Memorandums ................................ ................................ .............................. 5

2. Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 6

2.1 Study Area ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 6

2.2 Model Areas ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 6

2.3 Sewer Improvements Added to GIS/Model ................................ ................................ .... 6

2.4 Land Use................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 8

2.5 Residential Densities ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10

2.6 Water Usage Correlations ................................ ................................ ........................... 11

2.7 Special Development Conditions / Projects ................................ ................................ .. 13

2.8 Accessory Dwelling Units ................................ ................................ ............................ 15

2.9 Hydraulic Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 17

2.9.1 Software Overview ................................ ................................ ...................... 17

2.9.2 Flow Factors and Model Loading ................................ ................................ 17

2.9.3 Model Methodology and Construction ................................ ......................... 24

2.9.4 Model Calibration ................................ ................................ ........................ 25

3. Collection System Evaluation ................................ ................................ ................................ 27

3.1 Sewer Design Criteria ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 27

3.2 Existing Land Use Condition ................................ ................................ ........................ 27

3.3 Build-Out Land Use Condition ................................ ................................ ..................... 29

3.4 Alternative Analysis and Recommendations ................................ ................................ 32

3.4.1 Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 – Running Springs Drive ................................ ......... 32

3.4.2 Basin Area BO-2 – Weir Canyon Road................................ ........................ 33

3.4.3 Basin Area BO-3 – Lenain Water Treatment Plant Basin ............................. 35

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page ii

4. Capital Improvements................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 37

4.1 Unit Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 37

4.2 Existing and Build-Out Improvement Costs ................................ ................................ .. 38

4.3 Operationally Deficient Improvement Costs ................................ ................................ . 41 Figure Index
Figure 1.1 Study Area Boundary ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2 Figure 2.1 Sewer Improvement Project Since CEAAMPSS ................................ ............................ 7 Figure 2.2 Existing Land Uses ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9 Figure 2.3 Parcels with Elevated Water Usages ................................ ................................ ........... 12 Figure 2.4 Specific Plans Map................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 14 Figure 2.5 Existing or Approved ADU Locations Within EAMPSS Study Area ............................... 16 Figure 2.6 Point Sewer Load from City of Placentia at Manhole SW120401 ................................ . 21 Figure 2.7 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW286101 ................................ .... 22 Figure 2.8 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manholes SW156407 and SW156308 ......... 22 Figure 2.9 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW163228 ................................ .... 23 Figure 2.10 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW169124 ................................ .... 23 Figure 2.11 Typical Residential Diurnal Curve for the EAMPSS Study Area ................................ ... 24 Figure 2.12 Typical Non-Residential Diurnal Curve for the EAMPSS Study Area ............................ 25 Figure 2.13 Surveyed Manholes ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 26 Figure 3.1 Existing Condition Sewer Needs ................................ ................................ ................. 28 Figure 3.2 Build-Out Condition Sewer Needs ................................ ................................ ............... 31 Figure 3.3 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 ................................ . 32 Figure 3.4 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-2 ................................ .......... 34 Figure 3.5 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Areas 1 and 2 ............ 36 Figure 3.6 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Area 3 ....................... 36 Figure 4.1 Operationally Deficient Sewer Needs ................................ ................................ .......... 42

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page iii Table Index
Table 1.1 Unit Cost Estimates................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 5 Table 2.1 East Anaheim Area Sewer Improvement Summary ................................ ....................... 6 Table 2.2 Existing Land Use Categories ................................ ................................ ..................... 10 Table 2.3 Additional Sewer Loadings from ADUs ................................ ................................ ........ 16 Table 2.4 Existing Condition Flow Factors ................................ ................................ .................. 18 Table 2.5 Build-out Condition Flow Factors ................................ ................................ ................. 19 Table 2.6 Point Sewer Loads ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 20 Table 3.1 Existing Condition Sewer Needs ................................ ................................ ................. 27 Table 3.2 Build-Out Condition Capacity Deficiencies ................................ ................................ ... 30 Table 3.3 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 ................................ . 33 Table 3.4 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-2 ................................ .......... 34 Table 3.5 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-3 ................................ .......... 37 Table 4.1 Unit Cost Estimates................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 37 Table 4.2 Sewer Improvement Cost Summary ................................ ................................ ............ 38 Table 4.3 Existing Condition Sewer Improvement Cost Estimates ................................ ............... 39 Table 4.4 Build-Out Condition Sewer Improvement Cost Estimates ................................ ............. 40 Table 4.5 Operationally Deficient Lines ................................ ................................ ....................... 43

Appendix Index
Appendix A Technical Memorandum No. 1 – Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Criteria Appendix B Technical Memorandum No. 2 – Sewer Improvement Updates Appendix C Technical Memorandum No. 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects Appendix D Technical Memorandum No. 4 – Modeling Software Platform Selection Appendix E Technical Memorandum No. 5 – Land Use/Population Updates and Model Calibration
Appendix F Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis Appendix G City of Anaheim Sewer Design Manual

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 1

1. Executive Summary

In the previous Combined East Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers dated December 2005 (CEAAMPSS), Hydra software by Pizer was used to simulate the sewer system operations.

The following tasks were completed as part of the sewer system evaluation:
• Converted and consolidated sewer hydraulic models from Hydra to H2OMap Sewer software • Updated sewer database (pipe and manhole data) in the City’s geographic information system (GIS) to include all capital improvements completed since the CEAAMPSS • Incorporated the newly added pipe and manhole data into the H2OMap Sewer model • Developed sewer hydraulic model with H2OMap Sewer, including:
o Calibration of hydraulic model based on the updated land uses, densities, and flow contributions, and re-evaluation of the diurnal curves from the CEAAMPSS o Development of land use flow factors and sewer loadings from each parcel within the study area under Existing and Build-Out Conditions
• Analyzed hydraulic model results and determined sewer needs under Existing and Build-Out Conditions (proposed capital improvements) according to the defined sewer design criteria • Developed capital improvement costs for the recommended capital improvements

LEGEND
City of Anaheim Limits
EAMPSS Study Area Boundary
0 0.5 1
Miles
FIGURE 1.1
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146303
Date 07/15/2022

CITY OF ANAHEIM

EAST ANAHEIM MASTER PLAN

OF SANITARY SEWERS
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet
Paper Size ANSI B
o
Data source: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Created by: pwleung
G:\111\11146303 City of Anaheim2017 E MP\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EAMPSS Report\Figure 1.1 - Study Area Boundary_Council.mxd
Print date: 18 Apr 2023 - 17:27

STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
·|}þ90
·|}þ57
·|}þ91
·|}þ55
·|}þ57
·|}þ241
Yorba Linda
Placentia
Villa Park
Orange
Central Anaheim
Master Plan Area

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 3

1.2 Methodology

1.2.1 Study Area
The EAMPSS study area is generally bounded on the north by the Northern City Limits, on the west by the Orange Freeway (State Route 57) and the Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers Study Area, on the south by the Southern City Limits, and on the east by the Eastern City Limits.

The EAMPSS study area consists of approximately 14,550 acres in gross area and a population of approximately 60,500 people per the 2020 census. The area is essentially fully developed and designated as a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The infrastructure within the EAMPSS study area is relatively new compared to the rest of the City since the area was developed more recently.

1.2.2 Land Use and Densities
The EAMPSS study area is essentially fully developed, with the exception of the Mountain Park area located at the eastern end of the study area, which is designated for preservation as Open Space.

The existing land uses for the EAMPSS study area have largely remained unchanged since the last sewer master plan update in 2005 (Combined East Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CEAAMPSS)).

A combination of City-provided data, aerial maps, and panoramic street imagery were utilized to determine the current land uses of areas that have been or are currently undergoing redevelopment.

According to the City General Plan, future land uses of the EAMPSS study area are anticipated to largely remain the same, with the rescission of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area. Sustainable redevelopment is being encouraged in the Anaheim Canyon area within the EAMPSS study area through the adoption of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan.

Household density is typically directly proportional to the volume of sewage generated from a dwelling unit (DU). The 2020 census tract data was used in conjunction with water metering data to estimate household sewer generation.

Water conservation efforts and the use of low flow water fixtures are expected to occur in the EAMPSS study area. Therefore, a per capita sewer flow factor of 85 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) was adopted as a guideline for determining residential sewer generations. For further details on the study methodology, refer to Section 2 of this report and Technical Memorandum No. 5 (included in this report as Appendix E).

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 4

1.3 Collection System Evaluation

1.3.1 Existing Land Use Condition
In the Existing Condition, the hydraulic model identified approximately 295 LF of deficient sewer pipelines that have d/D ratios above the City’s design criteria (d/D ratios greater than 0.67 for 8-inch and 10-inch pipelines, or 0.75 for 12-inch and larger pipelines). The deficient pipelines are located within eastern most portions of the EAMPSS study area. All deficient pipe segments are 8-inch in diameter. The evaluation of the Existing Condition scenario is presented in detail in Section 3.2 and Technical Memorandum No. 6, which is included in this report as Appendix F. Recommended capital improvements for the Existing Condition are identified in Section 4 below.

1.3.2 Build-Out Land Use Condition
In the Build-Out Condition, the hydraulic model identified approximately 3,352 LF of deficient sewer pipelines that have d/D ratios above the City’s design criteria (d/D ratios greater than 0.67 for 8-inch and 10-inch pipelines, or 0.75 for 12-inch and larger pipelines). The deficient pipelines are located within central and eastern portions of the EAMPSS study area. The deficient pipe segments range from 8-inch to 18-inch in diameter. The evaluation of the Build-Out Condition scenario is presented in detail in Section 3.3 and Technical Memorandum No. 6, which is included in this report as Appendix F. Recommended capital improvements for the Build-Out Condition are identified in Section 4 below.

1.4 Capital Improvements
Cost contributions are based on the number of manholes and the length of sewer pipeline to be replaced. Unit costs were identified for typical manhole constructions, and standard construction of each sewer pipeline diameter. Other project costs such as engineering; technical services such as surveying and soil and materials testing; contract administration; construction management; construction inspection; permitting; and minor utility relocations are assumed to be an additional 45% of the cost contribution.

A total of 471 LF of sewer pipelines are recommended for replacement or rerouting under the Existing condition, and an additional 3,517 LF of pipelines are recommended for improvements under the Build-Out condition, for a total length of improvements of 3,988 LF. The capital improvement cost totaled to $713,000 for Existing sewer needs, and an additional $6,253,000 for Build-Out needs. The total cost for all recommended Existing and Build-Out improvements is $6,966,000. In addition, the City plans to eventually replace all 6-inch sewer pipelines, which are designated as operationally deficient, with 8-inch pipelines. The total length of operationally deficient pipelines is approximately 9,111 LF and the total replacement cost is approximately $6,939,000. All costs are rounded and based on June 2022 dollars for the State of California Department of General Services (DGS) Construction Cost Index (CCI). The capital improvement costs are presented in detail in Section 4.2.

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 5

1.5 Unit Cost Estimates
The capital improvement costs are based on the number of manholes and the length of sewer pipeline to be replaced. Table 1.1 represents the unit costs for typical manhole and sewer constructions based on June 2022 dollars within the study area (Department of General Services California Construction Cost Index = 8,925). Other project costs such as engineering; technical services such as surveying and soil and materials testing; contract administration; construction management; construction inspection; permitting; and minor utility relocations are assumed to be an additional 45% of the unit costs.

Table 1.1 Unit Cost Estimates
Item Unit Cost
Manhole each $11,000
8" Pipe per LF $700
12" Pipe per LF $950
15” Pipe per LF $1,190
18” Pipe per LF $1,430
24” Pipe per LF $1,900

1.6 Technical Memorandums
Six Technical Memorandums for the EAMPSS are attached as Appendix A through Appendix F in numerical order, including:
• Appendix A Technical Memorandum No. 1 – Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Criteria • Appendix B Technical Memorandum No. 2 – Sewer Improvement Updates • Appendix C Technical Memorandum No. 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects • Appendix D Technical Memorandum No. 4 – Modeling Software Platform Selection • Appendix E Technical Memorandum No. 5 – Land Use/Population Updates and Model Calibration
• Appendix F Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 6

2. Methodology
The methodologies for developing model parameters such as defining the study area limits, determining residential densities and determining potential high sewage generators are presented in Sections 2.1 through 2.8 below. In addition, the methodology for developing the hydraulic model using the Innovyze H2OMap software, including diurnal curve selection, model calibration, and residential and non-residential flow factor adjustments, is presented in Section 2.9.

2.1 Study Area
The East Anaheim Area is generally bounded on the north by the Northern City Limits, on the west by the Orange Freeway (State Route 57) and the Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers Study Area, on the south by the Southern City Limits, and on the east by the Eastern City Limits.

The EAMPSS study area consists of approximately 14,550 acres in gross area and a population of approximately 60,500 people per the 2020 census. The area is essentially fully developed and designated as a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The EAMPSS study area boundary is depicted in Figure 1.1.

2.2 Model Areas
In the previous master plan study, Hydra software by Pizer was used to simulate the sewer system operations. The individual Hydra models from the previous master plan were combined into a single model to increase ease of use and to provide a more accurate simulation of sewer flow attenuations and source tracing. Prior to calibration, the sewer collection system GIS database was updated with any capital improvement projects constructed within the EAMPSS study area since the last master plan update.

2.3 Sewer Improvements Added to GIS/Model
The City has conducted one sewer improvement project within the EAMPSS study area since the last CEAAMPSS revision in 2005. A summary of the Santa Ana River / 91 Freeway Crossing sewer improvement project is presented in Table 2.1 below. The location of the sewer improvement project is shown in Figure 2.1.

Table 2.1 East Anaheim Area Sewer Improvement Summary
Approval Date/Constructed Date January 2008 / February 2012 City of Anaheim Plan Numbers 27674 – 27679
Project Extent • 91 Freeway Crossing south of the Santa Ana River and north of Riverdale Avenue
Project Description • Installed 18" VCP or DIP for the project extent • Constructed four standard 4’ I.D. manholes
• 300.38 LF of 18” VCP installed within a 36” O.D. steel casing beneath the 91 Freeway
Total Pipe Improvement Length 428 LF

91 Tustin Ave Orangethorpe Ave
57 91
Nohl Ranch Rd
Santa Ana Canyon Rd
Canyon Rim Rd
Weir Canyon Rd
Serrano Ave
La Palma Ave
Fairmont Blvd
Kraem
er Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Santa Ana River
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Santa Ana River
UV91
Riverside Fwy
Riverdale Ave
LEGEND
!( Sewer Manholes
Sewer Improvement
Sewer Mains
City of Anaheim Limits
EAMPSS Study Area Boundary
FIGURE 2.1
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146303
Date 07/15/2022

CITY OF ANAHEIM

EAST ANAHEIM MASTER PLAN

OF SANITARY SEWERS
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet
Paper Size ANSI B
o
Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: pwleungG:\111\11146303 City of Anaheim2017 E MP\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EAMPSS Report\Figure

2.1 - Sewer-Improvement-Locations.mxd
Print date: 15 Jul 2022 - 10:42

SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

SINCE CEAAMPSS
0 3,000 6,000
Feet

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 8

2.4 Land Use
The EAMPSS study area is essentially fully developed, with the rescission of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area located at the eastern end of the study area. The existing land uses for the EAMPSS study area have largely remained unchanged since the last sewer master plan update in 2005 CEAAMPSS. Recent new residential development included The Crossings Apartments at La Palma Avenue west of Tustin Avenue, with an addition of 132 medium-density DUs, and Auburn Heights at Anaheim Hills Road and La Paz Way with 60 DUs of townhouses and single-family residences. An example of a new non-residential development is the Kaiser Permanente Anaheim Medical Center at La Palma Avenue west of Tustin Avenue.

Land uses within the EAMPSS study area can be generally segregated by the Santa Ana River.

The area north of the Santa Ana River is comprised predominately of industrial and commercial parcels, with pockets of low, low-medium and medium density residential areas along Orangethorpe Avenue near the City limits with Placentia and Yorba Linda. Open spaces are designated along the northern bank of the Santa Ana River. Existing land uses within the EAMPSS study area are shown in Figure 2.2 and a list describing the land use categories is presented in Table 2.2. Additional information about the EAMPSS land use is presented in Technical Memorandum No. 5 in Appendix E.

LEGEND
City of Anaheim Limits
EAMPSS Study Area Boundary
Existing Land Uses
Residential
Commercial
Institutional
Public
Industrial
Open Space
Vacant
FIGURE 2.2
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146303
Date 07/15/2022

CITY OF ANAHEIM

EAST ANAHEIM MASTER PLAN

OF SANITARY SEWERS
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet
Paper Size ANSI B
o
Data source: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Created by: pwleung
G:\111\11146303 City of Anaheim2017 E MP\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EAMPSS Report\Figure 2.2 - Existing Land Use.mxd
Print date: 01 Nov 2022 - 13:13

EXISTING LAND USES
0 0.5 1
Miles

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 10 Table 2.2 Existing Land Use Categories
Land Use Category Land Use Subcategory Generic Name Description Residential
Low Density Single Family Residence
Low-Medium Density Condominium/Townhouse, Mobile Home
Park, Fourplex, Triplex, Duplex
Medium Density Apartment
Commercial
Auto
Auto Dealership, Auto Repair/Service,
Service Station, Car Wash, Auto Salvage
Yard
Retail Bank, Nursery, Retail Use, Adult Oriented
Business
Hotels Hotel/Motel
Office Office Use, Business Park
Restaurant Restaurant
Institutional
School Day Care Center, Preschool, Private School,
Public School, Vocational School
Medical Medical Office, Veterinary Clinic, Hospital,
Nursing Home
Community Religious Use, Library, Retirement Facility,
Mortuary, Community or Charity Group
Public
Government Fire Station, Post Office
Entertainment Golf Course, Bowling Alley, Athletic Club Railroad Railroad
Industrial Industrial Industrial Use, Self-Storage Facility Open Space Utilities
Orange County Flood Control District
(OCFCD), Public Utilities, Water Use,
Southern California Edison Co. Easement
Open Space Open Space, Park, Parking Lot, Agriculture
Vacant Vacant Vacant

2.5 Residential Densities
Household density is typically directly proportional to the volume of sewage generated from a DU.

The 2020 census tract data was used in conjunction with water metering data to estimate household sewer generation. Under the City’s existing land use classifications, both types of regular single SFR and estate-type SFR are listed under the same land use category. A regular SFR within the EAMPSS study area has a parcel size of approximately 0.2 acres, while an estate-type SFR has a parcel size of approximately 0.8 acres. However, both types of SFRs have average household densities of around 3 persons/DU, as inferred from the 2020 census tract data. Based on household density alone, sewer generation between the two types of SFR is expected to be similar. However, water usage is also a factor that will be examined in Section 2.6 below.

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 11

2.6 Water Usage Correlations
Monthly or bi-monthly water meter records from January 2015 to June 2018 were provided by the City Public Utilities Department. The records consist of the read date, days since the last record, address, and water consumption volumes in hundred cubic feet (HCF).

For residential parcels, the recent drought conditions and installations of low flow water fixtures such as toilets, shower heads, and washing machines have resulted in a significant reduction in water usage. However, while the current residential sewer flow factors have been calibrated for the existing flow and water consumption conditions, the decrease in the flow factors at Build-Out and in the near future is considered too high when the drought is taken into consideration. Therefore, a per capita sewer flow factor of 85 GPCD was adopted as a guideline for determining residential sewer generations.

Water usage was examined in particular for single family residentials (SFR) due to the presence of regular and estate-type SFRs within the EAMPSS study area. Based on the provided water meter records, an estate-type SFR typically consumes approximately 2.7 times more water than a regular SFR (approximately 1,260 GPD versus 450 GPD). However, the return to sewer ratio is expected to be much lower from an estate-type SFR than a regular SFR.

For non-residential land uses, water usages were used to determine if the flow factors from previous sewer master plans are suitable for the EAMPSS study area. Additional analyses were conducted for schools and parks to determine the appropriate flow factors since a large portion of these parcels are typically undeveloped with no sewage being generated. Student counts and parcel sizes were considered when determining the flow factors for schools. An estimation of restroom fixtures and the source of irrigation water were examined when determining the flow factors for parks.

Major water users are more likely to have significant contributions to the sewer collection system, which can skew the flow factor calibration for the rest of a tributary area if they are treated as normal contributors. Seventeen major non-residential water users were identified from the water meter records, all of which consumed over 5,000 GPD of water per acre and over 5,000 GPD of water per parcel. The major water users within the EAMPSS study area are shown in Figure 2.3.

!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.!.
!.
!.

APN 34517108
APN 34517302
APN 35408205
APN 35405205
APN 36007130
APN 35618108
APN 35445112
APN 35405304
APN 35221101
APN 34938111
APN 34908109
APN 34622202APN 34519104
APN 34517414
APN 34440116
APN 34426203
APN 34424113
LEGEND
!. APN Parcels with Point Loads
Existing Sewer Mains
City of Anaheim Limits
EAMPSS Study Area Boundary
FIGURE 2.3
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146303
Date 07/15/2022

CITY OF ANAHEIM

EAST ANAHEIM MASTER PLAN

2.3 - Point Loads.mxd
Print date: 15 Jul 2022 - 10:57

PARCELS WITH

ELEVATED WATER USAGES
0 0.5 1
Miles

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 13

2.7 Special Development Conditions / Projects
Special development conditions and projects are recognized as specific plans. These specific plans provide focused guidance and regulations in designated areas, including land use, circulation and infrastructure plans along with zoning requirements. As a result, these specific plans can have a specific impact to the City’s sanitary sewer system. Figure 2.4 shows the locations of these specific plans. To date, the City has approved eleven (11) specific plans, six (6) of which are located within the EAMPSS study area:
• The Anaheim Hills Festival (SP 90-1)
• The Highlands at Anaheim Hills (SP 87-1)
• Sycamore Canyon (SP 88-1)
• The Summit of Anaheim Hills (SP 90-1)
• Mountain Park (SP 90-4)
• Anaheim Canyon (SP 2015-1)
Additional information about the specific plans within EAMPSS study area is presented in Technical Memorandum No. 3 in Appendix C.

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 14

Figure 2.4 Specific Plans Map

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 15 Of the six (6) specific plans, four (4) have been implemented based on a comparison with the existing land uses, including The Highlands at Anaheim Hills, Sycamore Canyon, The Summit of Anaheim Hills, and Anaheim Hills Festival. Therefore, these implemented specific plans require no modifications to the sewer loadings on the EAMPSS model.

The Mountain Park area was originally slated for development in accordance with the adopted Mountain Park Specific Plan. However, the Mountain Park Specific Plan is being rescinded per the draft version of the City’s Housing Element Update – 6th Cycle: 2021-2029 dated October 2021. The property owner/developer for the Mountain Park Specific Plan, the Irvine Company, has donated the land to the County of Orange to preserve as Open Space in 2014.

The Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan covers an area that is already developed with primarily industrial and commercial parcels. The specific plan aims to provide guidance to redevelop the area in a sustainable manner to maximize the potential of the area. To achieve that goal, the specific plan proposed a number of zoning changes. A sewer study was performed as part of the specific plan to identify the potential sewer needs with the proposed zoning updates. The EAMPSS model accounted for these zoning changes and reanalyzed the area with the revised flow factors developed for this master plan update.

2.8 Accessory Dwelling Units
Changes in state law in recent years have increased the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to support increased housing demands. An ADU is an accessory dwelling unit with complete independent living facilities for one or more persons built on lots with existing or proposed housing. New laws have been adopted to set development criteria for ADUs and streamline processing, hence paving the road for more ADUs to be built in the future. For the purpose of the EAMPSS, the increasing prevalence of ADU constructions translates to additional potential flows to the City sanitary sewer system. It is important to determine the impact of these additional flows to the sewer system to ensure there is sufficient capacity to handle the flows.

For the Existing Condition model scenario, the number of existing or approved ADUs can be determined using City permitting records. From 2018 to 2020, a total of 133 ADU permits were issued, of which 6 were located within the EAMPSS study area. The locations are shown in cyan in Figure 2.5.

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 16

Figure 2.5 Existing or Approved ADU Locations Within EAMPSS Study Area Furthermore, determining the effects of ADUs to the Buildout Condition model scenario is challenging as the amount and location of ADUs varies. The City follows the State Department of Housing and Community Development’s guidelines for ADU projections based on past data. The guidelines project that 4 ADUs will be constructed in the EAMPSS study area in a yearly basis. A summary of the additional sewer loadings for Existing and Buildout Condition scenario from ADUs is presented in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Additional Sewer Loadings from ADUs
Model
Scenario
# of
ADUs
Additional Sewer
Loadings from
ADUs (GPD)
# of Residential
Parcels
Residential Sewer
Loadings without
ADUs (GPD)
% Additional
Loading from
ADUs
Existing 6 1,020 20,972 4,984,000± +0.02%
Buildout 42 7,140 46,822 8,323,000± +0.09%
For the purpose of the EAMPSS, the additional sewer loadings will not be included in the model since it will not have a noticeable impact to the number of deficient pipe segments, the recommended Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), and the cost of the CIPs. Detailed information on ADUs is found in Technical Memorandum No. 5 in Appendix E.

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 17

2.9 Hydraulic Analysis
A sewer hydraulic model of the EAMPSS study area was created to simulate the sewer system operations under Existing Condition and Build-Out Condition scenarios using the data gathered from Sections 2.1 through 2.8 above.

2.9.1 Software Overview
The sewer hydraulic model for this master plan revision was constructed with H2OMap Sewer by Innovyze. Several hydraulic modeling software applications were evaluated in Technical Memorandum No. 4 in Appendix D. H2OMap Sewer was selected due to its reasonable price and its functionalities that serve the City’s modeling requirements. While Hydra by Pizer was used previously by the City for their sewer master plans, the software does not have the capability to account for complex hydraulics. H2OMap Sewer and the other Innovyze products provide a more user-friendly software interface and the ability to conduct more advanced modeling with consideration of complex flow attenuations and source tracing.

The software calculated the flow and capacity of each pipe segment for each scenario. Sewer deficiencies within the existing sewer collection system were determined at peak flows. The capacity of a pipeline is often determined by a set ratio of the flow depth ‘d’ to the pipeline diameter ‘D’ at actual peak flow, designated as ‘d/D’. Pipes with d/D ratios greater than the City’s criteria are identified as needing improvement. The maximum allowable d/D ratios for existing pipe segments are 0.67 for 8-inch and 10-inch pipelines, and 0.75 for 12-inch and larger pipelines. The City’s sewer design criteria are described in detail in Section 3.1 and Technical Memorandum No. 1 in Appendix A.

2.9.2 Flow Factors and Model Loading
For the purpose of the model and based on an evaluation of the historical water usage trends, the Existing and Build-Out flow factors are established to be the same. The proposed per capita sewer generation factor is conservative compared to the Existing sewer flow conditions. It is expected that the ongoing water conservation efforts such as the installation of low flow water fixtures will keep the per capita generation factor relatively stable. The average household densities are also expected to remain stable based on historical census trends. Even though the flow factors are the same between the two scenarios, the Build-Out Condition flow is equal to or higher than the Existing Condition flow since the maximum building density from the General Plan was used to determine the flow from each parcel. The existing condition flow factors and Built out condition flow factors are summarized in Table 2.4 and Table 2.5, respectively, and in details in Technical Memorandum No. 5 in Appendix E.

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 18 Table 2.4 Existing Condition Flow Factors
Code Land Use Category EAMPSS Flow Factors
1001 Agriculture 0 GPD/acre
1002 Amusement/Theme Park 1,000 GPD/acre
1003 Apartment 170 GPD/DU
1006 Auto Dealership 815 GPD/acre
1007 Auto Repair/Service 815 GPD/acre
1008 Auto Salvage Yard 130 GPD/acre
1009 Bank 1,000 GPD/acre
1012 Condominium/Townhouse 225 GPD/DU
1015 Southern California Edison Co. Easement 0 GPD/acre 1016 Fire Station 815 GPD/acre
1017 Golf Course 250 GPD/acre
1018 Hospital 2,800 GPD/acre
1019 Hotel/Motel 150 GPD/room
1020 Industrial use 700 GPD/acre
1021 Library 540 GPD/acre
1022 Medical Office 815 GPD/acre
1024 Mobile Home Park 260 GPD/DU
1025 Fourplex 225 GPD/DU
1026 Nursery 700 GPD/acre
1028 OCFCD 0 GPD/acre
1029 Office Use 1,000 GPD/acre
1030 Oil Wells/Tanks 0 GPD/acre
1031 Open Space 0 GPD/acre
1032 Park 40 GPD/acre
1033 Parking Lot 0 GPD/acre
1035 Police Station 1,000 GPD/acre
1036 Post Office 1,000 GPD/acre
1037 Preschool 2,400 GPD/acre
1038 Private School 500 GPD/acre
1039 Public School 500 GPD/acre
1040 Public Utilities 0 GPD/acre
1041 Railroad 0 GPD/acre
1042 Religious Use 815 GPD/acre
1043 Restaurant 2,000 GPD/acre
1044 Retail Use 1,700 GPD/acre
1045 Retirement Facility 120 GPD/DU
1046 Triplex 225 GPD/DU
1047 Service Station 1,700 GPD/acre
1048 Adult Oriented Business 1,700 GPD/acre
1049 Single Family Residence 260 GPD/DU
1049 Single Family Residence (Estate) 300 GPD/DU
1050 Theater 815 GPD/acre

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 19 Table 2.4 Existing Condition Flow Factors
Code Land Use Category EAMPSS Flow Factors
1052 Under Construction See Note*
1053 Vacant 0 GPD/acre
1056 Water Use 0 GPD/acre
1057 Duplex 225 GPD/DU
1058 Car Wash 12,000 GPD/acre
1059 Business Park 1,000 GPD/acre
1060 Self-Storage Facility 250 GPD/acre
1061 Bowling Alley 1,000 GPD/acre
* = For modeling purposes, parcels assigned with Land Use Code “1052 – Under Construction” is reassigned with its General Plan land use since the parcel is expected to generate sewer flow imminently.

Table 2.5 Build-out Condition Flow Factors
Code Land Use Category EAMPSS Flow Factors
R-E Residential - Estate 300 GPD/DU
R-L Residential - Low 260 GPD/DU
R-LM Residential - Low Medium 225 GPD/DU R-LM MP
R-LMH Residential - Low Medium Hillside 225 GPD/DU R-LMH MP R-M Residential - Medium 170 GPD/DU
C-GC Commercial - General 2,125 GPD/acre
C-NC Commercial - Neighborhood 2,125 GPD/acre
C-RC Commercial - Regional 2,125 GPD/acre
I-L Industrial 875 GPD/acre
MU Mixed Use 170 GPD/DU
MU NR Mixed Use - Non-Residential 1,250 GPD/acre
O-L Office-Low 1,250 GPD/acre
OS
Open Space 0 GPD/acre OS MP
OS*
OS-P Open Space - Park 40 GPD/acre
OS-W Open Space - Water 0 GPD/acre
P-I Public-Institutional 1,000 GPD/acre P-I MP
RR Railroad 0 GPD/acre
School Public-School 500 GPD/acre

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 20 As mentioned in the Technical Memorandum No.5, seventeen major water users have been identified within the EAMPSS study area. Each major water user has been assigned a parcel- specific point sewer load to represent their expected sewer flow. In addition, the City has identified the Lenain Water Treatment Plant to require a point sewer load due to its irregular discharge pattern and volume to the sewer system. The discharges from the treatment plant are not scheduled and can occur at any time throughout the day. Therefore, a point load equivalent to its peak discharge rate of 500 gallons per minute (GPM) was applied to ensure the model can capture the worst case scenario, which is when the plant is discharging at its maximum rate while the surrounding residential basin area is also discharging at its peak rate. The Point Sewer Loads are presented in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6 Point Sewer Loads
Land Use
Code
Land Use
Description APN Business Type Point Sewer
Load
1020 Industrial
34424113 Powder coating company 6,400 GPD
34426203 Food services. 6,400 GPD
34440116 Waste disposal services 7,700 GPD
34517108 Food manufacturing 52,300 GPD
34517302 Packaging supply manufacturer 1,700 GPD
34622202 Circuit board manufacturer 9,400 GPD
35221101 Security product manufacturer 12,100 GPD
36007130 Waste disposal services 13,900 GPD
1029 Offices
34519104 Metal polishing company 6,000 GPD
35405205 Church office, pilates studio and
dental office
7,400 GPD
1044 Retail
34938111 Supermarket 6,200 GPD
35445112 Restaurant 5,400 GPD
35618108 Restaurant and medical office 7,900 GPD
1047 Service Station 35408205 Gas station with car wash 22,200 GPD 1056 Water Use 08559103 Lenain Water Treatment Plant 720,000 GPD* 1058 Car Wash 34908109 Car wash 11,800 GPD
35405304 Car wash 7,500 GPD
1059 Business Park 34517414 Linen services 13,200 GPD
* Equivalent to the water treatment plant’s peak discharge rate of 500 GPM Five (5) additional point sewer loads were added to the model to represent sewer inflow from outside the City boundary.
• At Manhole SW120401 in Melrose Street, an 8-inch City of Placentia sewer main is connected to the City sewer system as shown in Figure 2.6. The City of Placentia sewer mains services a tributary area consisting of primarily low-medium to medium density residences. According to the latest City of Placentia Sanitary Sewer Master Plan dated February 2018, approximately 560,000 GPD enters the City sewer network at this point. • At Manhole SW286101 in Nohl Ranch Road, a 6-inch City of Orange sewer main is connected to the City sewer network as shown in Figure 2.7. The City of Orange sewer main services a single-family residential neighborhood. Approximately 30,500 GPD enters the City sewer network at this point according to the City of Orange.

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 21 • At Manhole SW156407 and SW156308 in Santa Ana Canyon Road, a hotel parcel and a business park parcel from the City of Orange connect to the City’s 12-inch sewer main due to the unique street and sewer network configurations, as shown in Figure 2.8.

Approximately 5,690 GPD enters the City sewer network at these points based on land uses of these tributary parcels.
• At Manhole SW163228 in Nohl Ranch Road, an 8-inch City of Orange sewer main is connected to the City sewer network as shown in Figure 2.9. The City of Orange sewer main serves approximately 13 DUs of single-family residential homes. Approximately 3,380 GPD enters the City sewer network at this point based on land uses of tributary parcels. • At Manhole SW169124 in Kingsgate Drive, an 8-inch City of Orange sewer main is connected to the City sewer network as shown in Figure 2.10. The City of Orange sewer main serves approximately 14 DUs of single-family residential homes. Approximately 3,640 GPD enters the City sewer network at this point based on land uses of the tributary parcels.

Figure 2.6 Point Sewer Load from City of Placentia at Manhole SW120401

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 22

Figure 2.7 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW286101

Figure 2.8 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manholes SW156407 and SW156308

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 23

Figure 2.9 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW163228

Figure 2.10 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW169124

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 24

2.9.3 Model Methodology and Construction
Similar to the CEAAMPSS, the diurnal curve method was used to model the sewer flow under an extended period simulation. Diurnal curves represent the pattern of sewer flows generated by a land use type over a 24-hour period. Each parcel contributes varying amounts of sewer flow to a particular location in the sewer collection system throughout the day. The model will account for the location of the sewer load, the volume of the load, and the flow rate through the pipelines to determine the time delay of a particular load through the sewer system. When the loads are combined, the model will establish a unique hourly flow pattern at any location throughout the study area.

Two diurnal curves from the CEAAMPSS were used to model the sewer flow patterns of typical residential and non-residential land uses. The diurnal curve for Flow Monitoring Site #9 was adopted for residential land uses and the diurnal curve for Flow Monitoring Site #4 was adopted for non-residential land uses. For the purpose of this study, GHD believes that these two curves can be used to represent all land uses within the entire study area. These curves have the following characteristics that made them suitable to be adopted for the study area:
• They represented a significant portion of the residential and non-residential land uses in the

CEAAMPSS,
• They resembled typical flow patterns of their respective land uses, and • Their peaking factors are on the conservative end when anomalous peaks are weeded out.

The diurnal curves are shown in Figure 2.11 and Figure 2.12. The x-axis represents the hour of the day and the y-axis represents the peaking factor applied to the average flow at each hour of the day.

Figure 2.11 Typical Residential Diurnal Curve for the EAMPSS Study Area

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 25

Figure 2.12 Typical Non-Residential Diurnal Curve for the EAMPSS Study Area

2.9.4 Model Calibration
For this study, sewer inverts were field verified at fifty-three (53) manholes by Calvada Surveying, Inc. in February 2018. The surveyed manholes were selected near the downstream end of each Hydra model area. The surveyed manhole locations are shown in Figure 2.13.

A “global” adjustment was made to each Hydra model area based on the difference between the modeled and actual inverts at the surveyed manhole locations. The typical adjustment is an addition of 2.0 to 2.5 feet, which is in line with the accepted adjustment between the City’s 1963 datum and 1988 datum (2.12 to 2.36 feet). Several areas on the west end of the East Anaheim area were adjusted by +7.4 to 7.7 feet, which is in line with the accepted adjustment between the City’s pre- 1963 local datum and the 1988 datum (5.15 to 5.39 feet + 2.12 to 2.36 feet). For Hydra model areas that are interconnected, each connection was reviewed and verified for accuracy. Pipe parameters were adjusted per City record drawings when errors were identified.

"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/"/ "/
"/"/"/"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
SW131403
SW139312SW120407
SW165118
SW165219
SW165220
SW171307
SW171411
SW171417
SW177414
SW190404
SW212304
SW212305
SW171322
SW196203
SW226219
SW232106
SW210312
SW211103
SW220104
SW220107
SW213211
SW206403
SW201401
SW201314
SW196103
SW190406
SW192412
SW191102
SW185404SW185302
SW168104
SW167104
SW173401
SW156410
SW156101
SW145403
SW200321
SW195109
SW195307
SW177418
SW165109
SW172105
SW166208
SW153304
SW184119
SW149104
SW144201
SW131413
SW139113
SW150111
SW130411
SW121201
LEGEND
"/ Surveyed Manholes
Existing Sewer Mains
City of Anaheim Limits
EAMPSS Study Area Boundary
FIGURE 2.13
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146303
Date 07/15/2022

CITY OF ANAHEIM

EAST ANAHEIM MASTER PLAN

2.13 - Surveyed Manhole.mxd
Print date: 15 Jul 2022 - 10:51

SURVEYED MANHOLES
0 0.5 1
Miles

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 27

3. Collection System Evaluation

3.1 Sewer Design Criteria
Per the design criteria that were established in Technical Memorandum No. 1, existing pipe segments are identified as deficient if the d/D ratio exceeds 0.67 for 8-inch and 10-inch pipelines, or

0.75 for 12-inch and larger pipelines. The City has separate design criteria for new sewer designs that is more stringent than the above criteria. The recommended sewer improvements were sized per this criterion, which calls for a maximum allowable d/D of 0.50 for pipes with diameters less than 12-inches, and a d/D of 0.60 for pipes with diameters equal to or greater than 12-inches. Additional design criteria such as downstream downsizing and gaps between sewer needs were also included in the technical memorandum. Technical Memorandum No. 1 is included in this report as Appendix A.

3.2 Existing Land Use Condition
In the Existing Condition scenario, the hydraulic model identified approximately 295 LF of deficient sewer pipelines that have d/D ratios above the City’s design criteria. The pipe segments are located within a single basin area in the eastern portion of the EAMPSS study area.

The two deficient 8-inch pipe segments are located in Running Springs Drive, designated as Basin Area EX-1. The deficient pipe segments serve a low-density single family residential area. The area was identified as deficient in the CEAAMPSS, corresponding to Model Area 62. The maximum d/D ratio in Basin Area EX-1 is 0.72.

Pipe input data such as size, slope, and length, along with the maximum flow and maximum d/D modeling output data for each of the deficient segments are shown in Table 3.1 for the Existing Condition scenario. Deficient pipe segments for each basin area are listed from upstream to downstream. Each pipe segment is identified by a Pipe ID, which is comprised of the pipe’s upstream and downstream manhole ID. The hydraulic model results for the Existing Condition are shown in Figure 3.1. The red-colored segments represent pipelines where the d/D ratios exceeded the City’s sewer design criteria.

Table 3.1 Existing Condition Sewer Needs
Basin
Area
Location Pipe ID Diameter
(inch)
Length
(feet)
Slope
(feet/feet)
Max
Flow
(MGD)
Max
d/D
EX-1
Running
Springs
Drive
SW226223-SW226222 8 115 0.0050 0.455 0.69
SW226222-SW226221 8 180 0.0050 0.479 0.72

FIGURE 3.1
0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146303
Date 07/15/2022

CITY OF ANAHEIM

EAST ANAHEIM MASTER PLAN

OF SANITARY SEWERS
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Grid: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Ft US Paper Size ANSI B
o
Data source: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Created by: pwleung
G:\111\11146303 City of Anaheim2017 E MP\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EAMPSS Report\Figure

3.1 - Existing Deficiencies.mxd
Print date: 15 Jul 2022 - 11:12
Legend
Existing Non-Deficient Lines
Existing Sewer Needs
City of Anaheim Limits
EAMPSS Study Area Boundary

EXISTING CONDITION

SEWER NEEDS
Area EX-1
(See Inset Map Below)
Running Springs Dr
W
indsong Dr
Sedona Ln
Garden View Dr
SW226223
SW226220 SW226221
SW226222
SW226402
SW226214
Basin Area EX-1

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 29

3.3 Build-Out Land Use Condition
In the Build-Out Condition scenario, the hydraulic model identified approximately 3,352 LF of deficient sewer pipelines that have d/D ratios above the City’s design criteria. The pipe segments are located within three basin areas in the central and eastern portion of the EAMPSS study area.

All deficient pipe segments are 10-inch or smaller in diameter.

Basin Area BO-1 corresponds to the same area as Basin Area EX-1. The same number of segments are identified as deficient in Basin Area BO-1 as in Basin Area EX-1. As expected, the higher loadings in the Build-out Condition caused the maximum flow and the resultant maximum d/D ratios to be slightly higher. The maximum d/D ratio in Basin Area BO-1 is 0.74.

Five deficient 10-inch pipe segments are located in Weir Canyon Road, designated as Basin Area BO-2. The deficient pipe segments serve a number of single and multi-family residential neighborhood in the Sycamore Canyon and the Summit of Anaheim Hills areas. The maximum d/D ratio in Basin Area BO-2 is 0.70. The area was not identified as deficient in the 2005 CEAAMPSS.

The remaining six deficient pipe segments are located downstream of the City’s Lenain Water Treatment Plant, designated as Basin Area BO-3. One 10-inch pipe segment is located in the access road to the treatment plant. Two 12-inch pipe segments are located within the Anaheim Hills Golf Course. Three 15-inch to 18-inch pipe segments are located along the stormwater channel east of Avenida Palmera between Camino Manzano and Camino Correr. The deficient pipe segments predominantly serve a number of single residential neighborhood in the central portion of the EAMPSS study area. The maximum d/D ratio in Basin Area BO-3 is 1.00. The area was not identified as deficient in the 2005 CEAAMPSS.

Pipe input data such as size, slope, and length, along with the maximum flow and maximum d/D modeling output data for each of the deficient segments is shown in Table 3.2 for the Build-Out Condition scenario. Deficient pipe segments for each basin area are listed from upstream to downstream. Each pipe segment is identified by a Pipe ID, which is comprised of the pipe’s upstream and downstream manhole ID. The hydraulic model results for the Build-Out Condition scenario are shown in Figure 3.2. The red-colored segments represent pipelines where the d/D ratios exceeded the City’s sewer design criteria.

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 30 Table 3.2 Build-Out Condition Capacity Deficiencies
Basin
Area
Location Pipe ID Diameter
(inch)
Length
(feet)
Slope
(feet/feet)
Max
Flow
(MGD)
Max
d/D
BO-1 Running
Springs Drive
SW226223-SW226222 8 115 0.0050 0.462 0.70
SW226222-SW226221 8 180 0.0050 0.494 0.74
BO-2 Weir Canyon
Road
SW220106-SW220105 10 258 0.0292 2.01 0.69
SW220105-SW220103 10 336 0.0289 2.01 0.70
SW220103-SW220102 10 135 0.0295 2.01 0.69
SW220102-SW219317 10 299 0.0295 2.01 0.69
SW219317-SW219315 10 214 0.0292 2.01 0.69
BO-3
Lenain Water
Treatment
Plant Access
Road
SW211109-SW211101 10 218 0.0168 1.73 0.77
Anaheim Hills
Golf Course
SW204302-SW204301 12 140 0.0100 2.37 1.00
SW204301-SW204306 12 419 0.0100 2.37 1.00
Stormwater
Channel east
of Avenida
Palmera
SW191204-SW190426 15 350 0.0060 3.40 1.00
SW190426-SW190418 15 341 0.0061 3.40 1.00
SW190418-SW190404 18 347 0.0020 3.41 1.00
FIGURE 3.2
0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146303
Date 07/15/2022

CITY OF ANAHEIM

EAST ANAHEIM MASTER PLAN

3.2 - Build-Out Deficiencies.mxd
Print date: 15 Jul 2022 - 11:20
Legend
Build-Out Non-Deficient Lines
Build-Out Sewer Needs
City of Anaheim Limits
EAMPSS Study Area Boundary

BUILD-OUT CONDITION

SEWER NEEDS
Area BO-1
(See Inset Map Below)
Running Springs Dr
W
indsong Dr
Sedona Ln
Garden View Dr
SW226223
SW226220 SW226221
SW226222
SW226402
SW226214
SW226224
Basin Area BO-1
SW220205
SW220106
SW220209
SW220103
SW219315
SW220105
SW219317
SW220102
Basin Area BO-2
Area BO-2
(See Inset Map Below)
Monte
Vista
Rd
Canyon Vista RdWeir Canyon Rd
Area BO-3 Sub-Area 1
(See Inset Map Above)
Area BO-3 Sub-Area-2
(See Inset Map Above)
Area BO-3 Sub-Area 3
(See Inset Map Above)
SW190404
SW191204
SW190426
SW190418
SW204306
SW204301
SW204302
SW211109
SW211101
Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Area 3 Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Area 2 Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Area 1

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 32

3.4 Alternative Analysis and Recommendations
As mentioned in Section 3.1, the City has separate design criteria for new sewer designs that is more stringent than the analysis criteria. The sewer improvements proposed below are sized according to these criteria.

3.4.1 Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 – Running Springs Drive
The existing 8-inch sewer pipeline in Running Springs Drive from Manhole SW226223 to Manhole SW226221 were identified as existing condition deficiencies in the CEAAMPSS. The CEAAMPSS also recommended improving an additional 8-inch pipe segment immediately downstream, Pipe SW226221-SW226220, based on the City’s pipe improvement criteria that no downsizing is allowed for 8-inch and 10-inch diameter mains. The CEAAMPSS recommended upsizing these 8-inch pipe segments to 10-inch. GHD evaluated the CEAAMPSS recommendations against the maximum flow rates from the Build-Out Condition scenario. GHD concurs with the CEAAMPSS improvement recommendations. However, 12-inch replacement pipelines are recommended instead of 10-inch pipelines based on the City’s preference for new pipeline constructions. The projected maximum d/D ratio after the improvement would be between 0.18 and 0.38, below the City’s design criteria of 0.6 for new sewer mains. The total improvement length is approximately 471 LF. The recommended improvements are shown in Figure 3.3 and in detail on Table 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area EX-1/BO-1

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 33 Table 3.3 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 Pipe ID
Existing
Diameter
(inch)
Length
(feet)
Slope
(feet/feet)
Selected
Diameter
(inch)
Max
Build-Out
Flow
(MGD)
Build-Out
d/D
Build-Out
d/D after
Improvement
SW226223-
SW226222 8 115 0.0050 12 0.462 0.70 0.37
SW226222-
SW226221 8 180 0.0050 12 0.494 0.74 0.38
SW226221-
SW226220 8 176 0.1000 12* 0.496 0.30 0.18
SW226220-
SW226119 10 271 0.0822 --** 0.547 0.25 --**
SW226119-
SW226118 10 38 0.0361 --** 0.547 0.31 --**
* Pipe segment is not hydraulically deficient. Recommended for improvement based on City’s criteria for pipe improvement, which indicate that no downsizing is allowed for pipe diameters of 8-inch and 10-inch.
** Pipe segment is not hydraulically deficient. No improvements recommended.

3.4.2 Basin Area BO-2 – Weir Canyon Road
The existing 10-inch sewer pipeline in Weir Canyon Road from Manhole SW220106 to Manhole SW219315 were identified as Build-Out Condition deficiencies in the model. GHD evaluated the maximum flow rates from the Build-Out Condition scenario and determined that a 12-inch replacement pipeline is suitable. The projected maximum d/D ratio after the improvement would be between 0.50 and 0.51, below the City’s design criteria of 0.6 for new sewer mains. The total improvement length is approximately 1,242 LF. The recommended improvements are shown in Figure 3.4 and in detail on Table 3.4.

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 34

Figure 3.4 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-2

Table 3.4 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-2 Pipe ID Existing
Diameter
(inch)
Length
(feet)
Slope
(feet/feet)
Selected
Diameter
(inch)
Max
Build-Out
Flow
(MGD)
Build-Out
d/D
Build-Out
d/D after
Improvement
SW220106-
SW220105 10 258 0.0292 12 2.008 0.69 0.51
SW220105-
SW220103 10 336 0.0289 12 2.008 0.70 0.51
SW220103-
SW220102 10 135 0.0295 12 2.006 0.69 0.50
SW220102-
SW219317 10 299 0.0295 12 2.005 0.69 0.50
SW219317-
SW219315 10 214 0.0292 12 2.005 0.69 0.51

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 35

3.4.3 Basin Area BO-3 – Lenain Water Treatment Plant Basin The Build-Out Condition scenario identified six deficient pipelines ranging from 10-inch to 18-inch in diameter. It is noteworthy that the hydraulic deficiencies identified in the model are associated with the effluent discharge from the Lenain Water Treatment Plant. The identified hydraulic deficiencies would be alleviated if the treatment plant flow is removed from the model. As mentioned in Section

2.9.2, the discharges from the treatment plant are not scheduled and can occur at any time throughout the day. Based on operating data provided by the City, the treatment plant can discharge up to 500 GPM and the flow is typically sustained for a 1-minute period every other hour.

Therefore, a point load equivalent to its peak discharge rate of 500 GPM was applied to ensure the model can capture the worst case scenario, which is when the plant is discharging at its maximum rate while the surrounding residential basin area is also discharging at its peak rate.

Prior to considering the pipe improvements below, optimizations to the discharge operation at the treatment plant should be considered first. Changes in operating strategy such as reducing the peak discharge rate from the plant while lengthening the discharge period, if viable from a plant operation perspective, can effectively attenuate the flow spikes to the sewer system and potentially eliminate the hydraulic deficiencies identified in this study. In addition, flow monitoring is recommended to be performed immediately downstream of the treatment plant and near the most downstream deficient segment to verify the peak flows from the hydraulic model.

The deficient pipeline segments are located in three separate sub-areas downstream of the Lenain Water Treatment Plant:

Sub-Area 1 is located at the treatment plant access road and consists of one 10-inch deficient segment: Pipe SW211109-SW211101. One additional downstream 10-inch segment, Pipe SW211101-SW205204, is recommended for improvement based on the City’s pipe improvement criteria that no downsizing is allowed for 8-inch and 10-inch diameter mains. The recommended pipe size for these segments is 12-inch, and the total length of this sub-area is 678 LF.

Sub-Area 2 is located within the Anaheim Hills Golf Course and consists of two deficient segments:

Pipes SW204302-SW204301 and SW204301-SW204306. The recommended pipe size for these segments is 15 inch, and the total length of this sub-area is 559 LF. No additional downstream 12- inch segments are recommended for improvement since the downstream segments have steeper pipe slopes due to local topography, resulting in significantly lower d/D ratios than the upstream deficient segments. Per the established sewer master plan criteria, downsizing by one pipe size is acceptable for existing pipes that are 12-inch or larger.

Sub-Area 3 is located alongside a stormwater channel east of Avenida Palmera and consists of three deficient segments: Pipes SW191204-SW190426, SW190426-SW190418 and SW190418- SW190404. The recommended pipe size for these segments is between 18-inch and 24-inch, and the total length of this sub-area is 1,038 LF.

The projected maximum d/D ratio after the improvement would be between 0.47 and 0.59, below the City’s design criteria of 0.6 for new sewer mains. The total improvement length is approximately 2,275 LF. The recommended improvements are shown in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6. A summary of the recommended improvements is presented in Table 3.5.

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 36 Figure 3.5 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Areas 1 and 2

Figure 3.6 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Area 3

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 37 Table 3.5 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-3 Pipe ID Existing
Diameter
(inch)
Length
(feet)
Slope
(feet/feet)
Selected
Diameter
(inch)
Max
Build-Out
Flow
(MGD)
Build-Out
d/D
Build-Out
d/D after
Improvement
SW211109-
SW211101 10 218 0.0168 12 1.73 0.77 0.55
SW211101-
SW205204 10 460 0.0276 12 1.73 0.64 0.47
SW204302-
SW204301 12 140 0.0100 15 2.37 1.00 0.54
SW204301-
SW204306 12 419 0.0098 15 2.37 1.00 0.54
SW191204-
SW190426 15 350 0.0060 18 3.40 1.00 0.59
SW190426-
SW190418 15 341 0.0061 18 3.40 1.00 0.58
SW190418-
SW190404 18 347 0.0020 24 3.41 1.00 0.51

4. Capital Improvements

4.1 Unit Costs
The capital improvement costs are based on the number of manholes and the length of sewer pipeline to be replaced. Unit costs were identified for a typical manhole construction, and for standard construction of each sewer pipeline size. Table 4.1 below represents the unit costs under Existing and Build-Out Conditions based on June 2022 dollars within the study area (DGS CCI = 8,925).

Table 4.1 Unit Cost Estimates
Item Unit Cost
Manhole each $11,000
8" Pipe per LF $700
12" Pipe per LF $950
15” Pipe per LF $1,190
18” Pipe per LF $1,430
24” Pipe per LF $1,900
Other project costs such as engineering; technical services such as surveying and soil and materials testing; contract administration; construction management; construction inspection; permitting; and minor utility relocations are assumed to be an additional 45% of the unit costs.

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 38

4.2 Existing and Build-Out Improvement Costs
The recommended sewer system improvements under the Existing and Build-Out conditions are shown in Table 4.2, which includes a summary of deficient pipe lengths and the associated cost of improvements. A total of 471 LF of sewer pipelines are recommended for replacement or rerouting under the Existing condition, and an additional 3,517 LF of pipelines are recommended for improvements under the Build-Out condition, for a total length of sewer improvements of 3,988 LF.

The total improvement cost is $713,000 for Existing sewer needs, and an additional $6,253,000 for Build-Out needs. The total cost for all recommended Existing and Build-Out improvements is $6,966,000 (June 2022 dollars), and is summarized in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4, respectively.

Table 4.2 Sewer Improvement Cost Summary
Existing
Condition
Additional for
Build-Out
Condition
Total Existing and
Build-Out
Improvements
Pipe Length Recommended for
Replacement 471 LF 3,517 LF 3,988 LF
Cost of Improvements (rounded) $713,000 $6,253,000 $6,966,000

Table 4.3 Existing Condition Sewer Improvement Cost Estimates Existing Pipe
Diameter
Existing Pipe
Length
Selected Pipe
Diameter(1)
Selected Pipe
Length
(inch) (feet) (inch) (feet)
SW226223-SW226222 8 115
SW226222-SW226221 8 180
SW226221-SW226220 8 176
$713,000
(1) Selected pipe diameter based on existing condition. (2) Refer to Table 4.1 for unit cost estimates based on June 2022 dollars (DGS CCI = 8,925). 471 4 $44,000 $491,450 $712,603
Subtotal
Replace 12
Cost of Improvement (rounded)
(3) The total project cost to include Engineering and other Technical Services, Contract Administration, Permitting and Construction Management was assumed to be an additional 45% of the construction cost estimate. All costs are in June 2022 dollars (DGS CCI = 8,925).

Parallel/
Replace/
Reroute
No. of Manholes Cost for
Manholes(2)
Construction
Cost(2)
Project Cost
including Eng,
Contract, & CM(3)
Basin
Area Location Pipe ID
EX-1 Running Springs Drive $712,603
Table 4.4 Build-Out Condition Sewer Improvement Cost Estimates Existing Pipe
Diameter
Existing Pipe
Length
Selected Pipe
Diameter(1)
Selected Pipe
Length
(inch) (feet) (inch) (feet)
SW226223-SW226222 8 115
SW226222-SW226221 8 180
SW226221-SW226220 8 176
SW220106-SW220105 10 258
SW220105-SW220103 10 336
SW220103-SW220102 10 135
SW220102-SW219317 10 299
SW219317-SW219315 10 214
SW211109-SW211101 10 218
SW211101-SW205204 10 460
SW204302-SW204301 12 140
SW204301-SW204306 12 419
SW191204-SW190426 15 350
SW190426-SW190418 15 341
SW190418-SW190404 18 347 24 347
$6,966,000
Pipe segments that are already recommended for improvement in the Existing Condition.

Pipe segments that are not deficient in the Existing Condition, but are deficient in the Build-Out Condition. (1) Selected pipe diameter based on build-out condition. (2) Refer to Table 4.1 for unit cost estimates based on June 2022 dollars (DGS CCI = 8,925). $981,795 $981,795
$1,012,405$1,012,405
$2,452,574691
3 3
4 $33,000
$33,000
$44,000
$712,603BO-1 Running Springs Drive Replace 12 471 4
SubtotalBasin
Area Location Pipe ID
Parallel/
Replace/
Reroute/
Watchlist
No. of Manholes
Anaheim Hills Golf Course
Stormwater Channel east of
Avenida Palmera
Cost for
Manholes(2)
Construction
Cost(2)
Project Cost
including Eng,
Contract, & CM(3)
$44,000 $491,450 $712,603
Replace
12 15
18 $677,100
$698,210
678
559
$2,452,574$1,691,430
$1,806,555
Cost of Improvement (rounded)
(3) The total project cost to include Engineering and other Technical Services, Contract Administration, Permitting and Construction Management was assumed to be an additional 45% of the construction cost estimate. All costs are in June 2022 dollars (DGS CCI = 8,925).

BO-2 Weir Canyon Road $1,245,900 $1,806,555Replace 12 61,242 $66,000 BO-3
Lenain Water Treatment Plant
Access Road

GHD | East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanita ry Sewers | 11146303 | Page 41

4.3 Operationally Deficient Improvement Costs
The City is planning to replace all 6-inch sewer pipelines with 8-inch pipelines in the long run, regardless of capacity issues. Figure 4.1 and Table 4.5 include an inventory of the remaining 6-inch pipelines in the study area that are not capacity deficient and the associated replacement cost estimate. These pipe segments are designated as operationally deficient. The total length of operationally deficient pipelines is approximately 9,111 LF and the total replacement cost is approximately $6,939,000 (June 2022 dollars).

FIGURE 4.1
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146303
Date 07/15/2022

CITY OF ANAHEIM

EAST ANAHEIM MASTER PLAN

4.1 - Operationally Deficient Sewer Needs.mxd
Print date: 15 Jul 2022 - 11:42
Legend
Non Operationally Deficient Lines
Operationally Deficient Lines
City of Anaheim Limits
EAMPSS Study Area Boundary

OPERATIONALLY DEFICIENT

SEWER NEEDS
Monte
Vista
Rd
Canyon Vista RdWeir Canyon Rd
Table 4.5 Operationally Deficient Lines
Location/Street Pipe ID Pipe Length
(feet)
Pipe Diameter
(inch)
Maximum Flow
(gpm)
Maximum
d/D
Number of
Manhole Replacement Cost(1)
Yorba Regional
Park SW195208-SW195206* 290 6 <1 0.00 2 $225,000
Paseo de Grace SW170403-PM170402 235 6 2.0 0.05 2 $186,500 SW168406-SW168405 279 6 1.5 0.04 2 $217,214
SW168405-SW168404 290 6 2.3 0.04 1 $214,249
SW168404-SW168401 361 6 3.5 0.05 1 $264,004
SW168401-SW168307 343 6 11.8 0.17 1 $251,389
SW168307-SW168306 216 6 12.5 0.11 1 $162,299
SW168306-SW168304 222 6 16.3 0.11 1 $166,625
SW168304-SW168120 303 6 17.5 0.11 1 $223,193
SW168120-SW168119 94 6 18.7 0.15 1 $76,792
SW168119-SW168118 58 6 25.4 0.17 1 $51,740
SW168118-SW168117 109 6 25.8 0.17 1 $87,395
SW168117-SW168113 166 6 27.3 0.17 1 $127,190
SW168113-SW168108 238 6 27.6 0.18 1 $177,504
SW168108-SW168107 152 6 28.8 0.18 1 $117,328
SW168116-SW168117 301 6 <1 0.03 1 $221,809
SW162403-SW162405 176 6 1.9 0.05 2 $145,518
SW162405-SW162402 343 6 3.1 0.11 1 $250,755
SW162402-SW168301 210 6 5.1 0.11 1 $157,838
SW168301-SW168119 301 6 6.6 0.08 0** $210,895
SW168212-SW168211 124 6 <1 0.04 2 $109,045
SW168207-SW168206 189 6 4.7 0.10 2 $154,560
SW168206-SW168112 250 6 5.5 0.08 1 $186,226
SW168112-SW168110 244 6 5.8 0.06 1 $182,073
SW168110-SW168109 304 6 6.7 0.09 1 $223,586
SW168109-SW168107 305 6 7.8 0.10 0** $213,424
SW140207-SW140202* 52 6 <1 0.06 2 $58,467
SW140202-SW140210 216 6 5.8 0.12 1 $162,089
SW140210-SW140214 240 6 5.7 0.11 1 $178,736
SW131417-SW131303 264 6 1.5 0.07 2 $207,054
SW131304-SW131303 146 6 0.8 0.05 1 $112,916
SW131414-SW131413 176 6 1.3 0.17 2 $144,936
SW131308-SW131307 421 6 2.0 0.08 2 $316,502
SW131305-SW131307 287 6 1.5 0.07 1 $212,143
PM163402-PM163401 53 6 2.5 0.05 2 $59,156
PM163401-PM163305 196 6 2.6 0.09 1 $148,200
PM163305-PM163307 199 6 9.7 0.12 1 $150,300
PM163307-SW163306 61 6 9.7 0.05 1 $53,644
SW163306-SW163304 187 6 9.7 0.06 1 $142,047
SW163304-SW163303 128 6 9.7 0.08 1 $100,600
SW163303-SW163302 339 6 9.7 0.12 1 $248,118
SW163302-SW163301 41 6 9.7 0.16 1 $39,518
Total Length with
Operational Deficiency: 9,111 $6,939,000
* These pipe segments demonstrated low or no flow in the model. Additional evaluation shall be conducted during preliminary project design to determine if replacement with a minimum standard pipe is feasible.

Olive Hills Park
** Manhole accounted for by another segment.

Peralta Hills
Kraemer Blvd n/o
La Palma Ave
Miraloma Ave e/o
Red Gum St
Total Replacement Cost
(rounded):
(1) The replacement cost includes the cost for manhole(s) and upsizing to 8" pipe. See Table 4.1 for unit cost estimates.

Appendices

Appendix A
Technical Memorandum No. 1
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Criteria

GHD
175 Technology Drive Suite 200 Irvine California 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 W www.ghd.com
October 27, 2017
To: Johnn y Chan, City of Anaheim Ref. No.: 111/46303

From: GHD
CC: Khanh Chu, P.E., Cit y of Anaheim
Subject: Technical Memorandum No. 1 - Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Criteria This technical memorandum summarizes the City of Anaheim’s sanitary sewer master plan criteria to be followed when completing the 2017 East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (EAMPSS). The criteria are presented below:

1. Pipe Capacities
Sewer pipe capacities are dependent on a number of factors, including roughness of the pipe, the maximum allowable depth of flow, and limiting velocity and slope. Hydraulic calculations for gravity sewers under steady state flow are conducted using the Continuity Equation and the Manning’s Equation, as described below:

Continuity Equation: Q = V x A
where:

Q = peak flow, cubic feet per second
V = velocity, feet per second (fps)
A = cross-sectional area of pipe, square feet

EAMPSS Appendix A

11143303/Technical Memorandum No. 1 – Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Criteria 2 Manning’s Equation: V = (1.486 R2/3 S1/2)/n
where:

V = velocity, fps
n = Manning’s coefficient of friction
R = hydraulic radius (area divided by wetted perimeter), feet (ft) S = slope of pipe, ft/ft

The Manning’s coefficient of friction varies based on the type of pipe material, number of joints within the pipeline, and the potential presence of a slime layer on the wetted portions of the sewer piping. The ‘n’ values used for the hydraulic modeling for the EAMPSS are based on the City of Anaheim’s Sewer Design Manual and are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Manning’s Coe fficient of Friction
Pipe Material Manning’s ‘n’
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 0.010
Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) 0.013
Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACP) 0.013
Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) 0.013
Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) 0.013
Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) 0.013

2. Pipe Size
The following elements shall be considered during the hydraulic evaluation and analysis of the City’s sewer collection system:

2.1 Pipeline Velocity
In an effort to maintain the suspension of solids in sewers, the minimum design velocity shall be 2 feet per second (ft/s) during the peak dry weather flow (PDWF) at the time the pipe is placed into service. The maximum design velocity shall be limited to 10 ft/s.

2.2 Pipeline Slope
The minimum slope requirement for a gravity sewer pipeline is based on its pipe diameter. These requirements are presented in Table 2 below.

EAMPSS Appendix A

11143303/Technical Memorandum No. 1 – Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Criteria 3 Table 2 Minimum Sewer Slope Requirement
Pipe Diameter (inches) Minimum Slope (ft/ft)
8 0.0036
10 0.0030
12 0.0024
15 0.0020

2.3 Depth of Flow
The capacity of a pipeline is often determined by a set ratio of the flow depth ‘d’ to the pipeline diameter ‘D’ at actual peak flow, designated as ‘d/D’. Pipes with d/D ratios greater than the City’s criteria are identified as needing improvement. The maximum allowable d/D ratio criteria are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Maximum Allowable d/D Ratio
Design Type Pipe Diameter (inches) Maximum d/D Ratio
Existing <12 0.67
≥ 12 0.75
New <12 0.50
≥ 12 0.60

2.4 Pipe Replacement vs. Parallel Requirements
The recommended pipe improvements are based on the following sizing criteria:

A. Only pipe replacement is recommended for existing small diameter (8”, 10” and 12”) pipes rather than constructing a parallel system.

B. Either pipe replacement or a parallel system c an be recommended for existing 15” diameter pipes, on a case-by-case basis. This decision would typically be dependent on useful life remaining and available construction space within the street section.

C. Generally only a parallel system is recommended for existing 18” diameter pipes and larger.

D. For pipe diameters 12” and larger, only downsizing by ONE pipe size is allowed.

E. For pipe diameters 8” and 10”, no downsizing is allowed.

F. Concerning gaps in the sewer design requirement (i.e., when there is no sewer need in the sewer section being considered, but there is a sewer need on either or both sides of the sewer section, Criteria A through E applies.

EAMPSS Appendix A
Appendix B
Technical Memorandum No. 2
Sewer Improvement Updates

GHD
175 Technology Drive Suite 200 Irvine California 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 W www.ghd.com
October 27, 2017
To: Joh
nny Chan, City of Anaheim Ref. No.: 111/46303
From: GHD
CC: Khanh Chu, P.E., Cit y of Anaheim
Subject: Technical Memorandum No. 2 - Sewer Improvement Updates The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the sewer improvements within the East Anaheim study area that have been constructed between the last revision of the Combined East Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (EWAAMPSS) in 2005 through September 2017. The sewer improvements will be included in the 2017 East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (EAMPSS). A summary of the sewer improvement project is presented below as Table 1. The project location is shown on Figure 1.

Table 1 East Anaheim Area Sewer Improvement Summary
Approval Date/Constructed Date January 2008 / February 2012 City of Anaheim Plan Numbers 27674 – 27679
Project Extent  91 Freeway Crossing south of the Santa Ana River and north of Riverdale Avenue
Project Description  Installed 18" VCP or DIP for the project extent  Constructed four standard 4’ I.D. manholes
 300.38 LF of 18” VCP installed within a 36” O.D. steel casing beneath the 91 Freeway
Total Pipe Improvement Length 428 LF
EAMPSS Appendix B
175 Technology Drive Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 250 0501 F 949 250 0541 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com 91 Tustin Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
57 91
Nohl Ranch Rd
Santa Ana Canyon Rd
Canyon Rim Rd
Weir Canyon Rd
Serrano Ave
La Palma Ave
Fairmont Blvd
Kraemer Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Santa Ana River
N:\US\Irvine\Projects\111\11146303 City of Anaheim2017 E MP\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\TM#2\Figure-1_Sewer-Improvement-Locations.mxd © 2012. While every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 0 3,000 6,000
Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet
City of Anaheim
2017 East Anaheim Master Plan
of Sanitary Sewers
Technical Memo #2
Sewer Improvement Location Figure 1
Job Number
Revision A
111-46303
29 Sep 2017
o
Date
Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. Created by:pwleung Paper Size 11" x 17" (ANSI B)
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Santa Ana RiverUV91
Riverside Fwy
Riverdale Ave
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the
GIS User Community
LEGEND
!( Sewer Manholes
Sewer Improvement
Sewer Mains
City Boundary
East Anaheim Boundary
EAMPSS Appendix B
Appendix C
Technical Memorandum No. 3
Special Development Conditions/Projects

GHD
320 Goddard Way Suite 200 Irvine California 92618 USA
T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 W www.ghd.com
April 27, 2022
To: Kyle Aube, P.E., City of Anaheim Ref. No.: 11146303 From: Ulysses Fandino, P.E., GHD
CC: William Grigsby, P.E., City of Anaheim
Subject: Technical Memorandum No. 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects The purpose of this technical memorandum is to describe the special development conditions/projects that may have an impact on the updated East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (EAMPSS). The City of Anaheim (City) typically presents these special development conditions and/or projects as specific plans.

Specific plans provide focused guidance and regulations in designated areas, including land use, circulation and infrastructure plans along with zoning requirements and design guidelines. In particular, this technical memorandum will focus on the impacts to the City’s sanitary sewer system that were discussed in the specific plans.

1. Introduction
The City has approved eleven specific plans to date, as shown in Figure 1.1. Six of the eleven specific plans are located within the EAMPSS study area, including The Highlands at Anaheim Hills (SP 87-1), Sycamore Canyon (SP 88-1), The Summit of Anaheim Hills (SP 88-2), The Anaheim Hills Festival (SP 90-1), Mountain Park (SP 90-4), and Anaheim Canyon (SP 2015-1). GHD has reviewed the specific plans and evaluated them against the current conditions of the EAMPSS study area to determine if any modifications are needed to account for additional sewer loadings in the Build-Out Conditions model scenario.

Of note, the Mountain Park Specific Plan is being rescinded per the draft version of the City’s Housing Element Update – 6th Cycle: 2021-2029 dated October 2021. The property owner/developer for the Mountain Park Specific Plan, the Irvine Company, has donated the land to the County of Orange to preserve as Open Space in 2014. The City is in the process of updating the General Plan and Zoning Map to reflect this change. As such, the developments proposed in the Mountain Park specific plan will not be included in the EAMPSS evaluation.

The impacts of the specific plans to the EAMPSS modeling effort are summarized below.

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 2

Figure 1.1 Specific Plans Map

2. The Highlands at Anaheim Hills (SP 87-1)
The Highlands at Anaheim Hills specific plan, designated as SP 87-1, was adopted in June 1987 and encompasses an area of approximately 816 acres in the eastern portion of the EAMPSS study area. The specific plan provides guidance for the orderly development of the eastern portion of the Anaheim Hills Planned Community, bounded by the Deer Canyon Park to the northwest, Canyon Rim Road and City boundary to the southwest and south, a green strip east of Viewrim Drive to the east, and a green strip north of Canyon Creek Drive to the north. The specific plan area vicinity map is shown in Figure 2.1.

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 3

Figure 2.1 The Highlands Vicinity Map (Excerpt from SP 87-1)

2.1 Proposed Development
In general, the specific plan aimed to offer further guidance for the development of the subject area to preserve existing open space for recreational uses while providing a diversity of residential dwelling types and densities, and supporting facilities. The plan consisted of predominantly a mixture of residential development uses, including Hillside Estate, Hillside Low Density, Hillside Low-Medium Density and Hillside Medium Density developments. Approximately one-third of the area is preserved as open space, while small pockets of land area are designated for supporting facilities including schools, parks and general commercial parcels. The land use plan is depicted in Figure 2.2, and the current aerial imagery is shown in Figure 2.3 for comparison.

THE HIGHLANDS
DEER
CANYON
PARK
EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 4

Figure 2.2 The Highlands Land Use Plan (Excerpt from SP 87-1)

DEER
CANYON
PARK
EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 5

Figure 2.3 The Highlands Current Land Uses (Source: Google Earth) A comparison with the current land uses indicates that developments identified in the specific plan have been fully implemented. A cursory review shows minor variations in the residential densities between the current condition and the specific plan. Since the specific plan is fully implemented, no modifications to the sewer loadings are required for the EAMPSS model. The sewer loadings for the Build-Out Condition model scenario will be based on the City’s current General Plan.

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 6

2.2 Sanitary Sewer Improvements
The specific plan included a proposed sewer plan, which calls for a local sewer main network of 8-inch to 10-inch mains to be installed throughout the development areas and a 12-inch trunk sewer to be installed through Deer Canyon Park to tie-in with an existing 18-inch/24-inch trunk sewer in Santa Ana Canyon Road and Camino Tampico to the north. The existing sewer network mirrors the specific plan, with a small tributary area of residential parcels west of The Highlands draining south towards an existing 8-inch sewer main in Canyon Rim Road, and rest of the development areas draining north through the 12-inch trunk sewer in Deer Canyon Park to towards Santa Ana Canyon Road. The specific plan sanitary sewer system plan is depicted in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4 The Highlands Sanitary Sewer System Plan (Excerpt from SP 87-1)

DEER
CANYON
PARK
CANYON

RIM PARK
EXISTING 18”/24”

SEWER LINE IN SANTA

ANA CANYON RD AND

CAMINO TAPICO
EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 7

3. Sycamore Canyon (SP 88-1)
The Sycamore Canyon specific plan, designated as SP 88-1, was adopted in February 1988 and amended in April 1989. The specific plan encompasses an area of approximately 325 acres in the eastern portion of the EAMPSS study area and northeast of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills. The plan provides guidance for the development of an area bounded by a green strip west of Black Willow Circle to the west, Ronald Reagan Park (formerly Toyon Park) to the south, State Route 91 (SR-91) to the northeast, and Monte Vista Drive to the north. The specific plan area vicinity map is shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 Sycamore Canyon Vicinity Map (Excerpt from SP 88-1)

3.1 Proposed Development
Similar to the neighboring specific plan for The Highlands at Anaheim Hills, the specific plan for Sycamore Canyon aimed to provide further guidance for the development of the subject area to preserve existing open space for recreational uses while providing a diversity of residential dwelling types and densities. The plan also incorporates infrastructures and community services improvements. The developments are centered around Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue. The planned development consisted of predominantly a mixture of residential development uses, including Hillside Low Density and Hillside Medium Density developments. Approximately 40% of the area is preserved as open space, while small pockets of land area are provisioned for supporting facilities including parks, a church, a police substation and general commercial parcels. The specific plan was amended in April 1989 to revise the land use of a 19-acre junior EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 8 high school site into single family residential homes. The land use plan is depicted in Figure 3.2, and the current aerial imagery is shown in Figure 3.3 for comparison.

Figure 3.2 Sycamore Canyon Land Use Plan (Excerpt from SP 88-1)

Figure 3.3 Sycamore Canyon Current Land Uses (Source: Google Earth)

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 9 A comparison with the current land uses indicates that developments identified in the specific plan have been fully implemented. A cursory review shows minor variations including a fire station replacing the planned police sub-station and single family residences replacing the small commercial area at the northeast corner of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue/Canyon Vista Drive. Since the specific plan is fully implemented, no modifications to the sewer loadings are required for the EAMPSS model. The sewer loadings for the Build-Out Condition model scenario will be based on the City’s current General Plan.

3.2 Sanitary Sewer Improvement
The proposed sewer plan for Sycamore Canyon included a local sewer main network of 8-inch to 10-inch mains to be installed throughout the development areas and a 10-inch trunk sewer to be installed in Weir Canyon Road conveying flow from south to north. The existing sewer network mirrors the specific plan, with the tributary areas west of Weir Canyon Road generally connecting to a 10-inch main in Serrano Avenue and the tributary areas east of Weir Canyon Road generally connecting to a 10-inch main in Weir Canyon Road.

The two mains join at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue and continues north in Weir Canyon Road as a 10-inch main. The specific plan sanitary sewer system plan is depicted in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4 Sycamore Canyon Sanitary Sewer System Plan (Excerpt from SP 88-1)

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 10

4. The Summit of Anaheim Hills (SP 88-2)
The Summit of Anaheim Hills specific plan, designated as SP 88-2, was adopted in September 1988 and encompasses an area of approximately 591 acres in the eastern portion of the EAMPSS study area. The area is east of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills and south of Sycamore Canyon. The plan provides guidance for the development of an area bounded by a green strip west of Taylor Court to the west, Blue Sky Road to the south, State Route 241 (SR-241) to the east, and Ronald Reagan Park (formerly Toyon Park) to the north. The specific plan area vicinity map is shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 The Summit Vicinity Map (Excerpt from SP 88-2)

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 11

4.1 Proposed Development
The specific plan aimed to provide further guidance for the development of the subject area. A major canyon spine was preserved, and significant amount of open space was provisioned for recreational uses and habitat preservation. The proposed development included a diversity of residential dwelling types and densities and supporting infrastructures including general commercial parcels, a park and a school. The planned development consisted of predominantly a mixture of residential development uses, including Hillside Low Density, Hillside Low Medium Density and Hillside Medium Density developments.

Approximately 29% of the area is preserved as open space, while small pockets of land area are designated for the supporting facilities. The land use plan is depicted in Figure 4.2, and the current aerial imagery is shown in Figure 4.3 for comparison.

Figure 4.2 The Summit Land Use Plan (Excerpt from SP 88-2)

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 12

Figure 4.3 The Summit Current Land Uses (Source: Google Earth) A comparison with the current land uses indicates that developments identified in the specific plan have been fully implemented. A cursory review shows minor variations including duplex residences replacing the small commercial area at the northwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and Oak Canyon Drive. Since the specific plan is fully implemented, no modifications to the sewer loadings are required for the EAMPSS model. The sewer loadings for the Build-Out Condition model scenario will be based on the City’s current General Plan.

4.2 Sanitary Sewer Improvement
The proposed sewer plan for The Summit of Anaheim Hills included a local 8-inch sewer main network to be constructed throughout the development areas, an 8-inch trunk line in Serrano Avenue and a 10-inch trunk line in Weir Canyon Road The existing sewer network mirrors the specific plan, with the tributary areas west of Weir Canyon Road generally connecting to a 8-inch main in Serrano Avenue and the tributary areas east of Weir Canyon Road generally connecting to a 10-inch main in Weir Canyon Road. The two mains flow into the tributary area of the Sycamore Canyon specific plan as mentioned in Section 3.2. The specific plan sanitary sewer system plan is depicted in Figure 4.4.

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 13

Figure 4.4 The Summit Sanitary Sewer System Plan (Excerpt from SP 88-2)

5. Anaheim Hills Festival (SP 90-1)
Anaheim Hills Festival specific plan, designated as SP 90-1, was adopted in April 1998 and encompasses an area of approximately 85 acres in the eastern portion of the EAMPSS study area. The plan provides guidance for the development of an area bounded by Santa Ana Canyon Road to the north and Roosevelt Road to the east, Deer Canyon Park to the west and a green strip south of Festival Drive to the south. The specific plan area vicinity map is shown in Figure 5.1.

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 14

Figure 5.1 Anaheim Hills Festival Vicinity Map (Excerpt from SP 90-1)

5.1 Proposed Development
The specific plan aimed to provide further guidance for the development of the subject area into a regional shopping center that is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The planned development consisted of various commercial uses, including Scenic Commercial, Retail Commercial and Entertainment, Visitor Commercial and Business Commercial. Retail Commercial and Entertainment uses are the anchor of the development, taking up over half of the area in the middle of the development, followed by Business Commercial at approximately 20% of the area in the south side of the development. The balance is made up of Scenic Commercial and Visitor Commercial parcels in the north and west sides of the development. The land use plan is depicted in Figure 5.2, and the current aerial imagery is shown in Figure 5.3 for comparison.

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 15

Figure 5.2 Anaheim Hills Festival Land Use Plan (Excerpt from SP 90-1)

Figure 5.3 Anaheim Hills Festival Current Land Uses (Source: Google Earth)

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 16 A comparison with the current land uses indicates that developments identified in the specific plan have been fully implemented. The major variation from the specific plan is the construction of senior residential housing in the place of the proposed Business Commercial developments, which is an approved alternate land use according to the specific plan. Since the specific plan is fully implemented, no modifications to the sewer loadings are required for the EAMPSS model. The sewer loadings for the Build-Out Condition model scenario will be based on the City’s current General Plan.

5.2 Sanitary Sewer Improvement
The proposed sewer plan for Anaheim Hills Festival is not available for review. Based on City records, the development is served by a network of private 8-inch sewer mains generally flowing from east to west and south to north. The private network connects to the City’s sewer collection system at the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Festival Drive. The sewage is then conveyed via a 10-inch sewer main towards the existing 18-inch to 24-inch trunk sewer in Camino Tampico. The existing private sewer network is shown in purple and the existing City sewer network is shown in green in Figure 5.4. The connection with the trunk sewer in Camino Tampico is shown in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.4 Anaheim Hills Festival Existing Sewer Connection (Excerpt from City Sewer Atlas No. 207)

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 17

Figure 5.5 Anaheim Hills Festival Existing Trunk Sewer Connection (Excerpt from City Sewer Atlas No. 201)

6. Anaheim Canyon (SP 2015-1)
Anaheim Canyon is located in the northern portion of Anaheim and the northwestern corner of the EAMPSS study area. The Anaheim Canyon specific plan, designated as SP 2015-1, was adopted in January 2016 to provide guidance for the revitalization of the area. The area is nearly built-out with primarily commercial and industrial parcels. Due to a combination of economic factors, many industries left Anaheim Canyon in the 1990s and early 2000s, leaving portions of area underutilized and obsolete in terms of commercial competitiveness. The plan aims to encourage sustainable development and create an attractive business environment. The plan would remove obstacles to allow the reuse of existing structures and promote infill development of currently vacant or underutilized properties.

The planning area encompasses approximately 2,600 acres, roughly bounded on the north by Orangethorpe Avenue, on the south by the Santa Ana River, on the east by Imperial Highway (State Route 90), and on the west by State Route 57. The specific plan area vicinity map is shown in Figure 6.1.

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 18

Figure 6.1 Anaheim Canyon Vicinity Map (Excerpt from SP 2015-1)

6.1 Proposed Development
The Specific Plan establishes six Development Areas (DAs) within the planning area. Each Development Area is, in essence, an individual zoning district within Anaheim Canyon. The Anaheim Canyon area will still mainly be zoned for industrial and commercial uses. DA-1 and DA-2 are designated as industrial and recycling areas that covers the majority of the planning area. DA-3, in proximity to the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station at La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue, is a mixed-use area designed to be transit- oriented. DA-4 and DA-5 are designated as neighborhood commercial and general commercial uses.

Neighborhood commercial parcels are spread throughout planning area, while general commercial parcels are primarily located near the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway, and along La Palma Avenue west of Grove Street. DA-6 is reserved for open spaces and water area, which are primarily located along the Santa Ana River and between Orangethorpe Avenue and Miraloma Avenue. DA-7 is a flexible zone in which both commercial and industrial uses will be permitted, located southwest of the La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard intersection. The land use plan is depicted in Figure 6.2, and the current aerial imagery is shown in Figure 6.3 for comparison.

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 19 Compared to the General Plan zoning at the time when the specific plan was developed, the major changes included the following:
• Designation of flexible land uses in DA-7,
• Reassignment of some General Commercial parcels into Neighborhood Commercial parcels, • Reassignment of General Commercial parcels into Low-density Office parcels along La Palma Avenue west of Miller Street,
• Reassignment of Industrial parcels into Low-density Office parcels along La Palma Avenue east of Van Buren Street and east of Lakeview Avenue, and
• Reorganization of mixed-use parcels around the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue.

Figure 6.2 Anaheim Canyon Land Use Plan (Excerpt from SP 2015-1)

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 20

Figure 6.3 Anaheim Canyon Current Land Uses (Source: Google Earth)

A comparison with the current land uses indicates that two of the major developments identified in the specific plan have been completed, including Oasis Anaheim apartments (formerly The Crossings at Anaheim) and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center at La Palma Avenue and Grove Street

6.2 Sanitary Sewer Improvement
The City operates and maintains a sewer collection system with gravity mains ranging from 6-inch to 27-inch in diameter. The City system connects to OC San trunk sewers at various locations within the Anaheim Canyon planning area. OC San’s trunk sewers are primarily located along La Palma Avenue and Miraloma Avenue.

The City sewer collection system has performed well according to the Combined East Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers from December 2005 and the system was expected to be able to handle the build-out sewer flows based on the General Plan zoning at that time. However, as mentioned in Section 6.1, the specific plan adopted in 2016 has proposed a number of zoning changes to the General Plan to promote sustainable growth in the area. A sewer study was performed in 2014 as part of the specific plan to analyze the sewer capacity and identify any sewer needs in the planning area with these updated General Plan land uses.

The sewer study indicated an approximately 17.6% increase in sewer flow from the zoning revisions and proposed developments compared to the CEAAMPSS build-out flow, increasing from 4.03 million gallons per day (MGD) to 4.74 MGD. As a result, the study identified approximately 11,473 linear feet (LF) of deficient pipeline at build-out. The study recommended for the deficient segments to be monitored as development intensify in the areas upstream or tributary to these sewer segments since the precise location and density of the projects are not known at the time of the study. The actual flow may be lower than assumed in the study EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 21 since maximum building densities were used to estimate the building area or the number of dwelling unit for each parcel. The deficient segments identified in the sewer study is shown in red in Figure 6.4.

As mentioned in Technical Memorandum 5 (TM5), flow factors from the CEAAMPSS are in general significantly higher than the flow factors in the recently adopted Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewer (CAMPSS) and West Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewer (WAMPSS). Water meter data for the EAMPSS study area also suggests the CEAAMPSS flow factors are too high for the existing condition of the study area. In addition, water meter data is now available for the Oasis Apartments and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center to confirm the sewer flow estimation for that tributary area. GHD will evaluate the planning area with the updated flow factors proposed in TM5 and update the list of deficient pipelines as needed. The updated results will be presented in Technical Memorandum 6.

Figure 6.4 Anaheim Canyon Build-out Deficient Sewer Segments (Excerpt from SP 2015-1)

EAMPSS Appendix C

EAMPSS TM 3 – Special Development Conditions/Projects 22

7. Conclusion
Development within a significant portion of the EAMPSS study area is governed by one of the adopted specific plans. GHD reviewed five specific plans for the study area to determine the development visions of those areas and their effects to sewer generation at build-out. Four of the specific plans appeared to be fully implemented based on a comparison with the existing land uses, including The Highlands at Anaheim Hills (SP 87-1), Sycamore Canyon (SP 88-1), The Summit of Anaheim Hills (SP 88-2), and Anaheim Hills Festival (SP 90-1). Since these specific plans are fully implemented, no modifications to the sewer loadings are required for the EAMPSS model. The sewer loadings for the Build-Out Condition model scenario will be based on the City’s current General Plan.

The Anaheim Canyon specific plan (SP 2015-1) covers an area that is already developed with primarily industrial and commercial parcels. The City aims to provide guidance to redevelop the area in a sustainable manner to maximum the potential of the area. To achieve that goal, the specific plan proposed a number of zoning changes. A sewer study was performed as part of the specific plan to identify the potential sewer needs with the proposed zoning updates. The EAMPSS model will account for the zoning changes and analyze the area with the revised flow factors developed for this master plan update.

One additional specific plan, the Mountain Park specific plan (SP 90-4), was previously approved by the City and is located within the EAMPSS study area. However, the specific plan is being rescinded since the property was donated to the County of Orange for preservation as Open Space in 2014. Therefore, the developments proposed in this specific plan will not be included in the EAMPSS evaluations.

EAMPSS Appendix C
Appendix D
Technical Memorandum No. 4
Modeling Software Selection

GHD
175 Technology Drive Suite 200 Irvine California 92618 USA T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 W www.ghd.com
October 27, 2017
To: Joh
nny Chan, City of Anaheim Ref. No.: 111/46303
From: GHD
CC: Khanh Chu, P.E., Cit y of Anaheim
Subject: Technical Memorandum No. 4 - Model Software Platform Selection The purpose of this technical memorandum is to present the available hydraulic modeling software programs for evaluating the City of Anaheim’s sewer collection system for the East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewer (EAMPSS) and provide a recommendation for the most suitable software based on the requirements of the master plan update and the City’s future modeling objectives. The recommended hydraulic software platform is based on the software’s modeling capabilities, user experience, interoperability with AutoCAD and GIS, vendor support and cost effectiveness.

1. INT

RODUCTION
GHD ha
s extensive experience in hydraulic modeling and software selection, and will recommend the most appropriate hydraulic network modeling software for the project that meets the City’s specific needs. The primary purpose of a hydraulic simulation model is to provide the City with a tool that can be used to gain a better understanding of the hydraulics of their sewer collection system. Modeling software can be used to evaluate and potentially improve existing operations and to assess and plan for future conditions, including master planning. The City may also want to:
 Update the models as CIP projects are implemented
 Review hydraulic impacts from proposed development projects 
Expand the model by adding additional pipes and nodes
The mod
eling software platform used by the City in the previous master plans was Hydra by Pizer. The existing 43 models that make up the East Anaheim Area will be converted to the modeling software of choice. In addition, eleven sewer basins not modeled in the 2005 Combined East Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (EWAAMPSS) due to a direct connection to an OCSD truck sewer will be added to the new model to determine if there are sewer deficiencies in those areas.

2. HYDRAULIC MODELING SOFTWARE EVALUATIONS
The hydrauli
c modeling software programs are compared on the following four features:

EAMPSS Appendix D

11146303/Technical Memorandum No. 4 – Model Software Platform Selection 2 Software Platform – Modeling software can be run in a variety of user-selected platforms including stand alone, AutoCAD and ArcGIS. Selection of the platform is typically user preference and having choices adds to the versatility of the user’s experience but the platform does not limit the functionality of the program.

GIS Integration – Most of the newer modeling software packages allow for GIS integration. This feature allows the user to import data from GIS and/or export modeling results to GIS.

Scenario Management – This feature allows the user to run various scenarios within the model, including subsets within a given scenario. The feature allows the user to run the scenarios within one model file rather than creating separate files for each scenario and sub-scenario.

Relative Cost – The cost of the various software packages will depend on the number of licenses purchased, network versus individual licenses, and the number of pipes/nodes that can be modeled. Relative cost provides a general guide as to how much the packages would cost relative to the others.

The most common modeling programs for sewer collection systems are provided in Table 1 below. These software packages are capable of simulations in steady state and extended period, have the ability to present results both graphically and in tabular format, and are supported by an experienced vendor with access to technical support.

EAMPSS Appendix D

11146303/Technical Memorandum No. 4 – Model Software Platform Selection 3 Table 1 Wastewater Hydraulic Model Features
Model Software Platform GIS
Integration
Scenario
Management
Relative
Cost
Bentley SewerCAD Stand alone and AutoCAD Yes Yes $$
Bentley SewerGEMS
Stand alone, AutoCAD,
and ArcGIS Yes Yes $$$$
Innovyze H2OMap Sewer Stand alone Yes Yes $$$
Innovyze InfoSewer ArcGIS Yes Yes $$$
Innovyze InfoWorks CS Stand alone and ArcGIS Yes Yes $$$$ Pizer Hydra Stand alone Yes Yes $$
XP SWMM Stand alone Yes Yes $$
DHI Mike Urban ArcGIS Yes Yes $$$$
EPA SWWM Stand alone No No Free

3. RECOMMENDATION
Table 1 compares the commonly used hydraulic modeling software applications based on the criteria identified above. While Hydra by Pizer was used previously by the City for their sewer master plan, the software does not have the capability to account for complex hydraulics due to its simplistic hydraulic methods. GHD recommends Innovyze H2OMap Sewer for the 2017 EAMPSS Update since it is reasonably priced and has the features to achieve the City’s modeling objectives for this sewer master plan update.

H2OMap Sewer and the other Innovyze products provide a more user-friendly software interface and the ability to conduct more advanced modeling with consideration of complex flow attenuations and source tracing. While H2OMap Sewer does not run within ArcGIS, the program does feature a seamless integration with the latest GIS databases.

Innovyze products were used in the recent sewer master plan updates for the Central Anaheim and West Anaheim study areas. By adopting H2OMap Sewer for the 2017 EAMPSS, the City will unify its modeling software platform across all three study areas, which will increase the City staff’s familiarity with the software and make it easier for City staff to access and/or update the sewer models in the future. H2OMap Sewer and the other Innovyze products are also widely used within the industry and will allow consultants to better utilize the City’s sewer model in future improvement projects.

EAMPSS Appendix D
Appendix E
Technical Memorandum No. 5
Land Use/Population Updates and
Model Calibration

GHD
320 Goddard Way Suite 200 Irvine California 92618 USA
T 949 648 5200 F 949 648 5299 W www.ghd.com
Updated July 14, 2022 (Original April 27, 2022)
To: K yle Aube, P.E., City of Anaheim Ref. No.: 11146303 From: Ul ysses Fandino, P.E., GHD
CC: William Gri gsby, P.E., City of Anaheim
Subject: Technical Memorandum No. 5 – Land Use/Population Updates and Model Calibration

1. Introduction
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to present the hydraulic model calibration process for the East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (EAMPSS). A desktop calibration effort was conducted to determine suitable sewer flow factors and diurnal curves that reflects the current condition of the EAMPSS study area. This calibration effort included the review of historical documents, and analysis of the current land uses, population distribution and water usage.

Generation factors from the adopted Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CAMPSS) and West Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (WAMPSS) were also used as a guideline for developing suitable model parameters for the EAMPSS. Sewer loadings based on the desktop calibration were inputted into the hydraulic model.

2. Land Use
The EAMPSS study area is essentially fully developed, with the exception of the Mountain Park area located at the eastern end of the study area. The Mountain Park area was originally slated for development in accordance with the adopted Mountain Park Specific Plan. However, the Mountain Park Specific Plan is being rescinded per the draft version of the City of Anaheim (City) Housing Element Update – 6th Cycle:
2021-2029 dated October 2021. The property owner/developer for the Mountain Park Specific Plan, the Irvine Company, has donated the land to the County of Orange to preserve as Open Space in 2014.

Recent new residential developments included The Crossings Apartments at La Palma Avenue west of Tustin Avenue with 132 medium-density dwelling units (DU), and Auburn Heights at Anaheim Hills Road and La Paz Way with 60 DUs of townhouses and single family residences. An example of a new non-residential development is the Kaiser Permanente Anaheim Medical Center at La Palma Avenue west of Tustin Avenue.

EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 2 Land uses within the EAMPSS study area can be generally segregated by the Santa Ana River. The area north of the Santa Ana River is comprised predominately of industrial and commercial parcels, with pockets of low, low-medium and medium density residential areas along Orangethorpe Avenue near the City limits with the Cities of Placentia and Yorba Linda. Open spaces are designated along the northern bank of the Santa Ana River. Existing land uses within the EAMPSS study area are shown in Figure 2.1.

The area south of the Santa Ana River is comprised predominantly of low-density residential areas. In particular, estate-type single family residential parcels are found in two distinct hillside areas, Peralta Hills east of the intersection of State Route 55 and State Route 91, and Anaheim Hills near Fairmont Boulevard.

Low-medium density and medium residential areas are commonly found near major streets such as Weir Canyon Road, Serrano Avenue, Nohl Ranch Road and Imperial Highway. Neighborhood commercial centers are located in clusters near the following intersections: Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road, Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard, and Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills Road. Large open spaces or recreational areas are typically found between hillside developments and in the Mountain Park area at the eastern end of this area.

A combination of City-provided data, aerial maps, and panoramic street imagery were utilized to determine the current land uses of areas that have been or are currently undergoing redevelopment. According to the City General Plan, future land uses of the EAMPSS study area are anticipated to largely remain the same with the rescindment of the Mountain Park Specific Plan.

EAMPSS Appendix E
320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 250 0501 F 949 250 0541 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
G:\111\11146303 City of Anaheim2017 E MP\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\TM#5\Figure 2.1 Existing Land Use.mxd © 2012. While every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.

Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet
East Anaheim Master Plan
of Sanitary Sewers
Technical Memo #5
Figure 2.1
Job Number
Revision B
11146303
11 Apr 2022
Existing Land Useso
Date
Created by:pwleung
Paper Size 11" x 17" (ANSI B) LEGEND
City of Anaheim Limits
EAMPSS Boundary
Existing Land Uses
Residential
Commercial
Institutional
Public
Industrial
Open Space
Vacant
0 0.5 1
Miles
EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 4

3. Population
Household density is typically directly proportional to the volume of sewage generated from a DU. Census tract data is needed to determine a suitable residential sewer loading for the various sub-areas within the EAMPSS study area. At the time of this analysis, the census tract data from the 2020 census is not available. However, 2020 census data is available for the City as a whole. A comparison between the 2010 and 2020 census data indicates the City’s overall household density is stable, with a variation of approximately 0.1 person between the two censuses. Therefore, the 2010 census tract data was deemed to be representative of the current conditions and was used in conjunction with water metering data to estimate household sewer generation.

In other areas of the City such as the WAMPSS study area, the average per capita sewer generation based on flow monitoring data was significantly lower than the previously accepted value of 100 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). Water conservation efforts due to the drought cycles experienced in recent years and the ongoing propagation of low flow water fixtures are likely reasons for the decrease in sewer generation.

However, the decrease in the flow factors at Build-Out and in the near future was considered too high when the drought is taken into consideration. A sewer flow factor of 85 GPCD was recommended for the WAMPSS study area after conducting an analysis on the discrepancies. Similar water conservation is expected to have occurred in the EAMPSS study area as well. Therefore, a per capita sewer flow factor of 85 GPCD was adopted as a guideline for determining residential sewer generations. The guideline was used for both the existing condition model scenario (Existing Condition) and build-out condition model scenario (Build-Out Condition) since per capita water usage is anticipated to remain leveled due to ongoing water conservation efforts.

The 2010 census tract data was also used to determine if there is a difference in household density between regular single family residences (SFR) and estate-type SFR that warrants the development of separate flow factors. Under the City’s existing land use classifications, both types of SFRs are listed under the same land use category. A regular SFR within the EAMPSS study area has a parcel size of approximately 0.2 acres, while an estate-type SFR has a parcel size of approximately 0.8 acres. However, both types of SFRs have average household densities of around 3 persons/du, as inferred from the 2010 census tract data. Based on household density alone, sewer generation between the two types of SFR is expected to be similar.

However, water usage is also a factor that will be examined in Section 4 below.

4. Water Usage Correlations
Monthly or bi-monthly water meter records from January 2015 to June 2018 were provided by the City Public Utilities Department. The records consist of the read date, days since the last record, address, and water consumption volumes in hundred cubic feet (HCF). The records were processed and consolidated to remove duplicate or anomalous data and to obtain an average water consumption volume in gallons per day (GPD) for each address. The records were added to a Geographic Information System (GIS) database by matching addresses and assessor’s parcel numbers (APN) with an existing sewer access point GIS database provided by the City Planning and Building Department.

EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 5 Water usage was examined in particular for SFRs. As mentioned in Section 3, there are two types of SFRs within the EAMPSS study area, regular and estate-type. Based on the provided water meter records, an estate-type SFR typically consumes approximately 2.7 times more water than a regular SFR (approximately 1,260 GPD versus 450 GPD). However, the return to sewer ratio is expected to be much lower from an estate-type SFR than a regular SFR. When using the per capita sewer flow factor of 85 GPCD, it is expected that 30% of the water use will return to the sewer system in an estate-type SFR compared to 70% for a regular SFR. This observation is anticipated since an estate-type SFR typically has higher irrigation needs due to a larger yard area, and irrigation water are typically not returned to the sewer system.

However, estate-type SFRs may have more water-consuming amenities such as decorative water features and swimming pools that may contribute to the additional sewer flows. Therefore, even though the average household densities are similar between the two types of SFRs, GHD believes the sewer generation from estate-type SFRs are slightly higher than regular SFRs and separate flow factors are warranted.

For non-residential land uses, water usages were used to determine if the flow factors from previous sewer master plans are suitable for the EAMPSS study area. The flow factors from the 2005 CEAAMPSS, 2017 CAMPSS and 2018 WAMPSS were analyzed. Adjustments were made when there was a significant deviation between the previously accepted flow factors and the water usage data. For non-residential land uses, the return-to-sewer ratios are typically up to 90% based on past models and accepted industry standards.

An analysis on student counts and parcel sizes was conducted for schools in order to determine an appropriate flow factor for schools in general. Eighteen properties within the EAMPSS study area were classified as “Schools” under the existing land use conditions, ten of which are public schools. Student counts for the 2018 school year was obtained for each public school through online research. For the purpose of this study, unit sewer flow factors of 10 gallons per student per day for elementary schools and 15 gallons per student per day for high schools were adopted per the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Sewer Design Manual. The resulting sewer generation for each school was compared with their water usages. The results indicated significant variations in water usages and return-to-sewer ratios between schools, with no apparent patterns in regard to the type of school, student count or land area of the schools. Four of the public schools have relatively low water usages, yielding return-to-sewer ratios of over 100%, while six of the public schools have relatively high water usages, yielding return-to-sewer ratios of below 65%. The public schools within the EAMPSS study area typically have large open fields for sports and recreational uses. A significant percentage of water consumed is used for irrigation purposes. The four schools with relatively low water usages may be using recycled water to supplement their irrigation needs.

Therefore, G
HD believes the return-to-sewer ratio comparison is not an accurate representation of the sewer generation and relied on the accepted unit sewer flow factor for determining the flow factors for schools.

Water usages at parks were also examined separately since elevated water usages were noted at some of the parks within the EAMPSS study area. Upon further investigation, the City has confirmed that potable water is used for irrigation purposes at all City parks, which would result in a low return-to-sewer ratio. In addition, a visual inspection of the aerial imageries did not indicate any significant facilities that would contribute flows to the sewer system other than restroom facilities. Therefore, the unit flow factor for park EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 6 was determined using an estimate number of restroom fixtures and a unit flow factor of 100 gallon per fixture per the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Sewer Design Manual.

The resulting sewer flow factors from the analyses above are presented in further detail in Section 5.2.1 Water meter records were also examined to identify major water users within the EAMPSS study area. The major water users are more likely to contribute significantly to the sewer collection system, which may skew the sewer flow in the rest of the system if they were treated as normal contributors. Seventeen major non-residential water users were identified from the water meter records, all of which have the following characteristics:
 Consumed over 5,000 GPD of water per acre,
 Consumed over 5,000 GPD of water per parcel (to rule out small parcels that may have a high water usage/acre, but insignificant overall usage), and
 A land use typically known to hav e a high return-to-sewer ratio (to rule out parcels that may be using a lot of water for irrigations purposes, such as parks and schools).

Most of the major water users within the EAMPSS study area are located in the industrial and commercial areas north of the Santa Ana River. Several retail businesses and automobile service stations near the Anaheim Hills Festival shopping center are also major water users. The major water users within the EAMPSS study area are shown in Figure 4.1. Parcel-specific point sewer loads are assigned for these users, which will be discussed in further detail in Section 5.2.3.

EAMPSS Appendix E
320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 250 0501 F 949 250 0541 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com !.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.!.
!.
!.

APN 34517108
APN 34517302
APN 35408205
APN 35405205
APN 36007130
APN 35618108
APN 35445112
APN 35405304
APN 35221101
APN 34938111
APN 34908109
APN 34622202APN 34519104
APN 34517414
APN 34440116
APN 34426203
APN 34424113
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
G:\111\11146303 City of Anaheim2017 E MP\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\TM#5\Figure 4.1 Point Loads.mxd © 2012. While every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.

Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet
2017 East Anaheim Master Plan
of Sanitary Sewers
Technical Memo #5
Figure 4.1
Job Number
Revision A
11146303
01 Feb 2019
Parcels with Elevated
Water Usageso
Date
Created by:pwleung
Paper Size 11" x 17" (ANSI B)
LEGEND
!. APN Parcels with Point Loads
Existing Sewer Mains
EAMPSS Study Area
0 0.5 1
Miles
EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 8

5. Model Calibration
In the previous master plan study, Hydra software by Pizer was used to simulate the sewer system operations. The individual Hydra models from the previous master plan were combined into a single model to increase ease of use and to provide a more accurate simulation of sewer flow attenuations and source tracing. Prior to calibration, the sewer collection system GIS database was updated with the Santa Ana River / 91 Freeway Crossing sewer improvement project, which is the only capital improvement project constructed within the EAMPSS study area since the last master plan update.

5.1 Survey Datum Adjustment
Sewer inverts within the EAMPSS study area were surveyed against an accepted datum at the time of their construction. However, the survey datum has been adjusted over the years which has resulted in invert discrepancies between sewer main segments that were constructed from different time periods. For this study, sewer inverts were field-verified at fifty-three (53) manholes by Calvada Surveying, Inc. in February 2018. The surveyed manholes were selected near the downstream end of each Hydra model area. It is anticipated that the individual Hydra models have been datum-adjusted previously in order for the models to have run correctly. The surveyed manhole locations are shown in Figure 5.1.

An attempt was made to back calculate the inverts of all sewer mains within the EAMPSS study area using the surveyed manhole inverts, and the lengths and slopes in the Hydra models with the assumption that there are no significant drops between manholes. However, significant discrepancies from the Hydra model inverts were noted during the back calculation process. The variances are especially noticeable in the Anaheim Hills area, where numerous drop manholes are present due to the steep topography.

Because of the issues experienced above, the datum adjustment method was revised. A “global” adjustment was made to each Hydra model area based on the difference between the modeled and actual inverts at the surveyed manhole locations. The typical adjustment is an addition of 2.0 to 2.5 feet, which is in line with the accepted adjustment between the City’s 1963 datum and 1988 datum (2.12 to 2.36 feet). Several areas on the west end of the East Anaheim area were adjusted by +7.4 to 7.7 feet, which is in line with the accepted adjustment between the City’s pre-1963 local datum and the 1988 datum (5.15 to 5.39 feet + 2.12 to 2.36 feet). For Hydra model areas that are interconnected, each connection was reviewed and verified for accuracy. Pipe parameters were adjusted per City record drawings when errors were identified.

EAMPSS Appendix E
320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 USA T 949 250 0501 F 949 250 0541 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com "/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/"/ "/
"/"/"/"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
SW131403
SW139312SW120407
SW165118
SW165219
SW165220
SW171307
SW171411
SW171417
SW177414
SW190404
SW212304
SW212305
SW171322
SW196203
SW226219
SW232106
SW210312
SW211103
SW220104
SW220107
SW213211
SW206403
SW201401
SW201314
SW196103
SW190406
SW192412
SW191102
SW185404SW185302
SW168104
SW167104
SW173401
SW156410
SW156101
SW145403
SW200321
SW195109
SW195307
SW177418
SW165109
SW172105
SW166208
SW153304
SW184119
SW149104
SW144201
SW131413
SW139113
SW150111
SW130411
SW121201
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Irvine\Projects\111\11146303 City of Anaheim2017 E MP\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\TM#5\Figure 5.1 Survey Location.mxd © 2012. While every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 0 0.5 1
Miles
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet
2017 East Anaheim Master Plan
of Sanitary Sewers
Technical Memo #5
Figure 5.1
Job Number
Revision A
11146303
30 Jan 2019
Survey Locationso
Date
Created by:cteng
Paper Size 11" x 17" (ANSI B)
LEGEND
"/ Surveyed Manholes
Existing Sewer Mains
EAMPSS Study Area
EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 10

5.2 Flow Factors
Generation flow factors were selected for the Existing Condition and Build-Out Condition for each land use category based on a combination of population density, water usage and flow factors from previous master plan studies within the City.

5.2.1 Existing Condition
Generation flow factors for residential land use categories were determined using the per capita flow factor of 85 GPCD as proposed in Section 3 with adjustments based on water usages. Based on this analysis, residential land uses can be categorized by five flow factors, which are presented in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1 Residential Land Use Flow Factors
Land Use Category Flow Factor
Single-Family Residential (Estate-type) 300 GPD/DU
Single-Family Residential (Regular); Mobile Home Park 260 GPD/DU Condominium/Townhouse; Duplex; Triplex; Fourplex 225 GPD/DU Apartment 170 GPD/DU
Retirement Facility 120 GPD/DU
Non-residential flow factors were determined using flow factors from the previous City master plans as a starting point with adjustments based on water usage. In general, flow factors from the CEAAMPSS are significantly higher than the adopted CAMPSS flow factors and WAMPSS flow factors. Water meter data for the EAMPSS study area also indicate the CEAAMPSS flow factors are too high for the existing condition of the study area. Consequently, the more recent CAMPSS and WAMPSS flow factors were consulted more heavily for determining the appropriate factors for the EAMPSS. Compared to the CAMPSS flow factors, a number of adjustments were made based on water usages to tailor to the EAMPSS study area. Flow factors with significant changes compared to the CAMPSS flow factors are presented in Table 5.2.

EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 11 Table 5.2 Non-Residential Land Use Flow Factors Comparison Code Land Use Category CAMPSS Flow
Factor
EAMPSS Flow
Factor
No. of Parcels
within EAMPSS
1002 Amusement/Theme Park 1,700 GPD/acre 1,000 GPD/acre 1 1006 Auto Dealership 1,700 GPD/acre 815 GPD/acre 19
1007 Auto Repair/Service 2,375 GPD/acre 815 GPD/acre 22 1008 Auto Salvage Yard 1,000 GPD/acre 130 GPD/acre 11
1009 Bank 1,700 GPD/acre 1,000 GPD/acre 1
1017 Golf Course 1,700 GPD/acre* 250 GPD/acre 2
1018 Hospital 815 GPD/acre 2,800 GPD/acre 3
1026 Nursery 1,700 GPD/acre 700 GPD/acre 3
1029 Office Use 1,700 GPD/acre 1,000 GPD/acre 243
1035 Police Station 2,035 GPD/acre 1,000 GPD/acre 1
1036 Post Office 1,700 GPD/acre 1,000 GPD/acre 3
1037 Preschool 320 GPD/acre 2,400 GPD/acre 1
1050 Theater 1,700 GPD/acre 815 GPD/acre 1
1058 Car Wash 2,375 GPD/acre 12,000 GPD/acre 3
1059 Business Park 1,700 GPD/acre 1,000 GPD/acre 222
1061 Bowling Alley 1,700 GPD/acre* 1,000 GPD/acre 2
* = Land use category not presently within the CAMPSS study area; used WAMPSS flow factor for comparison instead.

The significant adjustments compared to the CAMPSS flow factors are justified. Most land use categories on the list have five parcels or less within the EAMPSS study area. Therefore, the flow factors are specifically tailored to these parcels based on the observed water usages. For the auto-related land use categories, Office Use, and Business Park, the CAMPSS flow factors are too high compared to the water usages in the EAMPSS study area, yielding return-to-sewer ratios that are significantly more than 100%.

However, since the Office Use and Business Park land uses can encompass a wide variety of businesses and the water meter records used for the analysis dated back several years, the flow factors were augmented relative to the EAMPSS water usage to account for any potential changes in the nature of the businesses that may have significantly altered the sewage generation.

The complete list of Existing Condition flow factors is presented in Table 5.3.

EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 12 Table 5.3 Existing C ondition Flow Factors
Code Land Use Category EAMPSS Flow Factors
1001 Agriculture 0 GPD/acre
1002 Amusement/Theme Park 1,000 GPD/acre
1003 Apartment 170 GPD/DU
1006 Auto Dealership 815 GPD/acre
1007 Auto Repair/Service 815 GPD/acre
1008 Auto Salvage Yard 130 GPD/acre
1009 Bank 1,000 GPD/acre
1012 Condominium/Townhouse 225 GPD/DU
1015 Southern California Edison Co.

Easement 0 GPD/acre
1016 Fire Station 815 GPD/acre
1017 Golf Course 250 GPD/acre
1018 Hospital 2,800 GPD/acre
1019 Hotel/Motel 150 GPD/room
1020 Industrial use 700 GPD/acre
1021 Library 540 GPD/acre
1022 Medical Office 815 GPD/acre
1024 Mobile Home Park 260 GPD/DU
1025 Fourplex 225 GPD/DU
1026 Nursery 700 GPD/acre
1028 OCFCD 0 GPD/acre
1029 Office Use 1,000 GPD/acre
1030 Oil Wells/Tanks 0 GPD/acre
1031 Open Space 0 GPD/acre
1032 Park 40 GPD/acre
1033 Parking Lot 0 GPD/acre
1035 Police Station 1,000 GPD/acre
1036 Post Office 1,000 GPD/acre
1037 Preschool 2,400 GPD/acre
1038 Private School 500 GPD/acre
1039 Public School 500 GPD/acre
1040 Public Utilities 0 GPD/acre
1041 Railroad 0 GPD/acre
1042 Religious Use 815 GPD/acre
1043 Restaurant 2,000 GPD/acre
1044 Retail Use 1,700 GPD/acre
1045 Retirement Facility 120 GPD/DU
1046 Triplex 225 GPD/DU
1047 Service Station 1,700 GPD/acre
1048 Adult Oriented Business 1,700 GPD/acre
1049 Single Family Residence 260 GPD/DU
1049 Single Family Residence (Estate) 300 GPD/DU
1050 Theater 815 GPD/acre
1052 Under Construction See Note*
1053 Vacant 0 GPD/acre
EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 13 Table 5.3 Existing C ondition Flow Factors
Code Land Use Category EAMPSS Flow Factors
1056 Water Use 0 GPD/acre
1057 Duplex 225 GPD/DU
1058 Car Wash 12,000 GPD/acre
1059 Business Park 1,000 GPD/acre
1060 Self Storage Facility 250 GPD/acre
1061 Bowling Alley 1,000 GPD/acre
* = For modeling purposes, parcels assigned with Land Use Code “1052 – Under Construction” is reassigned with its General Plan land use since the parcel is expected to generate sewer flow imminently.

5.2.2 Build-Out Condition
The Existing Condition flow factors are generally applicable for the Build-Out Condition since sewage generation is anticipated to remain stable due to ongoing water conservation efforts such as the installation of low flow water fixtures, and stable average household densities according to historical census trends. For residential land uses, the per capita sewer flow factor proposed in the WAMPSS is conservative compared to the existing sewer flow conditions of the WAMPSS study area. Similar flow condition trends are anticipated in the EAMPSS study area as well. Even though the flow factors are similar between the Existing and Build-Out Conditions, the Build-Out Condition flows for residential parcels are equal to or higher than the Existing Condition flows since the maximum building density from the General Plan was used to determine the flow from each parcel.

For the EAMPSS study area, most of the non-residential parcels are located in the Anaheim Canyon area, in which developments are guided by the adopted Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan. The specific plan encourages sustainable redevelopment of the area, with a wide variety of approved business types that can operate within the proposed land use designations. For the purpose of this study, the Build-Out Condition flow factors for Commercial, Industrial and Office land uses are increased by 25% compared to the corresponding Existing Condition flow factors to account for any business changes in the future that may result in a higher volume of sewage being generated. This will ensure the sewer system outlook presented in this study is sufficiently conservative for master planning purposes.

The Build-Out Condition flow factors are based on the General Plan land use categories and conforms to the Existing Condition flow factors as closely as possible. The General Plan land use categories are broader in nature and typically encompass multiple existing land use categories, resulting in consolidation of the number of flow factors. The complete list of Build-Out Condition flow factors is presented in Table 5.4.

EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 14 Table 5.4 Build-out Condition Flow Factors
Code Land Use Category EAMPSS Flow Factors
R-E Residential - Estate 300 GPD/DU
R-L Residential - Low 260 GPD/DU
R-LM Residential - Low Medium 225 GPD/DU R-LM MP
R-LMH Residential - Low Medium Hillside 225 GPD/DU R-LMH MP R-M Residential - Medium 170 GPD/DU
C-GC Commercial - General 2,125 GPD/acre
C-NC Commercial - Neighborhood 2,125 GPD/acre
C-RC Commercial - Regional 2,125 GPD/acre
I-L Industrial 875 GPD/acre
MU Mixed Use 170 GPD/DU
MU H Mixed Use - High 170 GPD/DU
MU NR Mixed Use - Non Residential 1,250 GPD/acre
O-L Office-Low 1,250 GPD/acre
OS
Open Space 0 GPD/acre OS MP
OS*
OS-P Open Space - Park 40 GPD/acre
OS-W Open Space - Water 0 GPD/acre
P-I Public-Institutional 1,000 GPD/acre P-I MP
RR Railroad 0 GPD/acre
School Public-School 500 GPD/acre

5.2.3 Point Sewer Loads
As mentioned in Section 4 and shown in Figure 4.1, seventeen major water users have been identified within the EAMPSS study area. Each major water user has been assigned a parcel-specific point sewer load to represent their expected sewer flow. GHD obtained the average effluent discharge rate for six of the major water users from OC SAN and created point sewer loads based on these rates. For the remainder of the major water users, point sewer loads were based on the water usages with a 90% return-to-sewer ratio.

The City has also identified the Lenain Water Treatment Plant to require a point sewer load due to its irregular discharge pattern and volume to the sewer system. The plant discharges effluent from the water treatment process to the sewer system through three discharge valves at up to 500 gallons per minute (GPM). Each discharge valve is typically opened for a 1-minute period every 2 hours throughout the day.

The daily allowance of sewer discharge from the plant is 30,000 GPD. For the purpose of this hydraulic analysis, it is important to capture the maximum hydraulic impact of the plant’s contribution to the sewer system to identify any potential hydraulic deficiencies. Therefore, the peak discharge rate of 500 GPM (equivalent to 720,000 GPD) was considered to be a more appropriate point sewer load rather than the daily allowance of 30,000 GPD (equivalent to 83 GPM). In addition, since the discharges are not scheduled and can occur at any time throughout the day, this loading was applied constantly throughout the day instead of using a site-specific diurnal curve to simulate the flow variability into the sewer system. This method ensures EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 15 the model can capture the worst case scenario, which is when the plant is discharging at its maximum rate of 500 GPM while the surrounding residential basin area is also discharging at its peak rate. The model results will be reviewed to ensure this loading method does not create any unsubstantiated backwater effect in the downstream segments due to the high volume of flow being inputted in order to simulate the peak flow rate from the plant.

Table 5.5 Point Sewer Loads
Land Use
Code
Land Use
Description APN Business Type Point Sewer Load
1020 Industrial
34424113 Powder coating company 6,400 GPD
34426203 Food services. 6,400 GPD
34440116 Waste disposal services 7,700 GPD
34517108 Food manufacturing 52,300 GPD
34517302 Packaging supply manufacturer 1,700 GPD
34622202 Circuit board manufacturer 9,400 GPD
35221101 Security product manufacturer 12,100 GPD
36007130 Waste disposal services 13,900 GPD
1029 Offices
34519104 Metal polishing company 6,000 GPD
35405205 Church office, pilates studio and
dental office
7,400 GPD
1044 Retail
34938111 Supermarket 6,200 GPD
35445112 Restaurant 5,400 GPD
35618108 Restaurant and medical office 7,900 GPD
1047 Service Station 35408205 Gas station with car wash 22,200 GPD 1056 Water Use 08559103 Lenain Water Treatment Plant 720,000 GPD* 1058 Car Wash 34908109 Car wash 11,800 GPD
35405304 Car wash 7,500 GPD
1059 Business Park 34517414 Linen services 13,200 GPD
* Equivalent to the water treatment plant’s peak discharge rate of 500 GPM Five additional point sewer loads were added to the model to represent sewer inflow from outside the City boundary:
 At Manhole SW120401 in Melrose S treet, an 8-inch City of Placentia sewer main is connected to the City sewer system as shown in Figure 5.2. The City of Placentia sewer main serves a tributary area consisting of primarily low-medium to medium density residences. According to the City of Placentia Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, approximately 560,000 GPD enters the City sewer network at this point.
 At Manhole SW286101 in Nohl Ranch Road, a 6-inch City of Orang e sewer main is connected to the City sewer network as shown in Figure 5.3. The City of Orange sewer main serves a single family residential neighborhood. Approximately 30,500 GPD enters the City sewer network at this point according to the City of Orange.

EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 16  At Manholes SW156407 and SW156308 in Santa Ana Canyon Road, a hotel parcel and a business park parcel connects to the City’s 12-inch sewer main due to the unique street and sewer network configurations, as shown in Figure 5.4. Approximately 5,690 GPD enters the City sewer network at these points based on land uses of these tributary parcels.  At Manhole SW163228 in Nohl Ranch Road, an 8-inch City of Orange sewer main is connected to the City sewer network as shown in as shown in Figure 5.5. The City of Orange sewer main serves approximately 13 DUs of single family residential homes. Approximately 3,380 GPD enters the City sewer network at this point based on land uses of the tributary parcels.  At Manhole SW169124 in Kingsgate D rive, an 8-inch City of Orange sewer main is connected to the City sewer network as shown in as shown in Figure 5.6. The City of Orange sewer main serves approximately 14 DUs of single family residential homes. Approximately 3,640 GPD enters the City sewer network at this point based on land uses of the tributary parcels.

Figure 5.2 Point Sewer Load from City of Placentia at Manhole SW120401

EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 17

Figure 5.3 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW286101

Figure 5.4 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manholes SW156407 and SW156308

EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 18

Figure 5.5 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW163228

Figure 5.6 Point Sewer Load from City of Orange at Manhole SW169124

EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 19

5.3 Diurnal Curves Selection
The 24-hour flow generation diurnal curves are used to represent the pattern of sewage flows typically generated by each type of land use. Each parcel contributes varying amounts of sewer flow to a particular location in the collection system throughout the day. The model will account for the location of the sewer load, the volume of the load, and the flow rate through the pipelines to determine the time delay of a particular load through the sewer system. When the loads are combined, the model will establish a unique hourly flow pattern at any location throughout the study area.

The CEAAMPSS utilized eleven diurnal curves based on the flow monitoring locations in that study. Five of the diurnal curves were for industrial and commercial land uses, and the remaining six diurnal curves are for residential land uses. The diurnal curves were reviewed and verified for use in this study.

Two diurnal curves were adopted from the CEAAMPSS to represent the sewer flow patterns of typical residential and non-residential land uses. The diurnal curve for Flow Monitoring Site #9 was adopted for residential land uses and the diurnal curve for Flow Monitoring Site #4 was adopted for non-residential land uses. For the purpose of this study, GHD believes that these two curves can be used to represent all land uses within the entire study area. These curves have the following characteristics that made them suitable to be adopted for the study area:
 They represented a significan t portion of the residential and non-residential land uses in the

CEAAMPSS,
 They resembled typical flow patterns of their respective land uses, and  Their peaking factors are on the conservative end when anomalo us peaks are weeded out.

The diurnal curves are shown in Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8. The x-axis represents the hour of the day and the y-axis represents the peaking factor applied to the average flow at each hour of the day.

Figure 5.7 Typical Residential Diurnal Curve for the EAMPSS Study Area

EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 20

Figure 5.8 Typical Non-Residential Diurnal Curve for the EAMPSS Study Area

5.4 Sewage Pump Stations
The City does not currently own or maintain sewage pump stations within the EAMPSS study area.

However, two known private sewage pump stations are currently in operation within the study area. The first pump station is located on Foxhollow Drive in The Summit area and serves approximately 200 regular SFRs.

The second pump station is located on Whitestone Drive in the Anaheim Hills area and serves approximately 25 estate-type SFRs. Both pump stations are included in the model and their operation parameters are obtained from record drawings and design calculations.

5.5 Accessory D welling Units
Changes in state law in recent years have increased the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to support increased housing demands. An ADU is an accessory dwelling unit with complete independent living facilities for one or more persons built on lots with existing or proposed housing. New laws have been adopted to set development criteria for ADUs and streamline processing, hence paving the road for more ADUs to be built in the future. For the purpose of the EAMPSS, the increasing prevalence of ADU constructions translates to additional potential flows to the City sanitary sewer system. It is important to determine the impact of these additional flows to the sewer system to ensure there is sufficient capacity to handle the flows.

EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 21

Figure 5.9 Existing or Approved ADUs (EAMPSS Study Area Outlined in Red) The effect of ADUs to the Buildout Condition model scenario is more difficult to determine since the number and location of these ADUs can vary greatly. The City projects a negligible amount of ADU applications will be received per year. However, the location of these application can be from any suitable parcels within the City. The City followed the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s guidance to project the number of ADUs in the upcoming years using past data. It is projected that 4 ADUs will be constructed in the EAMPSS study area each year from 2021 through 2029, totaling to 36 additional ADUs within that period.

GHD estimates the additional sewer loadings from the ADUs with the assumption that each unit will adopt the sewer flow factor of an apartment unit, which is 170 GPD/unit. Under the Existing Condition model scenario, the ADUs will contribute approximately 1,020 gallons of sewage flow to the sanitary sewer system.

Compared to the overall Existing Condition residential sewer loadings, the additional flow represents a

0.02% increase. Under the Buildout Condition model scenario, the projected ADU count will contribute approximately 7,140 gallons of sewage flow to the system, which represents a 0.09% increase to Buildout Condition residential sewer loadings. A summary of the additional sewer loadings from ADUs is presented in Table 5.6.

Since the additional sewer loadings from the ADUs are minimal compared to the overall sewer loadings from residential parcels in the EAMPSS study area, the impact of the ADUs is expected to be insignificant to the overall capacity of the City’s sanitary sewer system. For the purpose of the EAMPSS, the additional sewer loadings will not be included in the model since it will not have a noticeable impact to the number of deficient pipe segments, the recommended Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), and the cost of the CIPs.

Table 5.6 Additional Se wer Loadings from ADUs
Model
Scenario
# of
ADUs
Additional Sewer
Loadings from
ADUs (GPD)
# of Residential
Parcels
Residential Sewer
Loadings without
ADUs (GPD)
% Additional
Loading from
ADUs
Existing 6 1,020 20,972 4,984,000± +0.02%
Buildout 42 7,140 46,822 8,323,000± +0.09%
EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 22

6. Conclusion
The EAMPSS study area is essentially fully developed based on existing land uses. According to the City’s General Plan, future land uses within the study area will mostly remain consistent with the existing land uses since the only major development plan of the area, the Mountain Park Specific Plan, has been rescinded.

Future changes to land uses are expected to consist of redevelopments of existing parcels such as the conversion of commercial parcels into higher density mixed use parcels in the Anaheim Canyon area.

Based on this outlook, no significant changes in sewer flows are anticipated at Build-Out Conditions for most parts of the existing sanitary sewer system.

As part of the model calibration process, sewer inverts were field-verified at fifty-three (53) manholes throughout the EAMPSS study area. A “global” adjustment was made to each of the previous Hydra model area based on the difference between the modeled and actual inverts at the surveyed manhole locations.

The typical adjustments made for this model are in line with the accepted adjustments between the City’s pre-1963 local datum, 1963 datum and 1988 datum. Two sewage pump stations in the Anaheim Hills area and The Summit area were added to the model according to City record drawings.

The EAMPSS study area has a large diversity of residential properties ranging from estate-type SFRs to large apartment complexes. Household densities are generally directly proportional to sewer flow. The 2010 census tract data was used in conjunction with water metering records from January 2015 to June 2018 to estimate household sewer generation under Existing Condition. A per capita sewer generation factor of 85 GPCD was adopted from the WAMPSS as a guideline for determining residential sewer generations.

Residential land uses under Existing Condition can be categorized by five flow factors: 300 GPD/DU for estate-type SFRs, 260 GPD/DU for regular SFRs and mobile home park, 225 GPD/DU for multi-family residences except for apartments, 170 GPD/DU for regular apartments, and 120 GPD/DU for retirement facilities.

For non-residential land uses under Existing Condition, water usages were used to determine if the flow factors from previous City sewer master plans are suitable for the EAMPSS study area. Return-to-sewer ratios of up to 90% are expected for non-residential land uses based on past models and accepted industry standards. Flow factors from the previous CEAAMPSS are significantly higher than the adopted CAMPSS flow factors and WAMPSS flow factors. A number of adjustments were made based on water usages to tailor to the EAMPSS study area. The flow factors for Office Use and Business Park land uses were augmented to account for potential variations in sewage generation due to the wide spectrum of businesses that these land uses are encompassing. Additional analyses were conducted for schools and parks to calibrate those flow factors.

The Build-Ou
t Condition residential flow factors are conformed to the Existing Condition residential flow factors since sewage generation is anticipated to remain stable due to ongoing water conservation efforts and stable average household densities. The Build-Out Condition flow is equal to or higher than the Existing Condition flow since the maximum building density from the General Plan was used to determine the flow from each residential parcel. Due to wide variety of businesses they encompass, the Build-Out Condition flow factors for Commercial, Industrial and Office land uses are increased by 25% compared to the EAMPSS Appendix E

EAMPSS TM 5 – Land Use Population Updates and Model Calibration (20220714) 23 corresponding Existing Condition flow factors to account for any business changes in the future that may result in a higher volume of sewage being generated.

Seventeen major non-residential water users were identified from the water meter records. Each major water user was assigned a parcel-specific point sewer load based on the average effluent discharge rate from OC SAN or water usages with a 90% return-to-sewer ratio. Additional point sewer loads were added to the model to represent sewer inflow from the Lenain Water Treatment Plant, City of Placentia, and City of Orange.

Two diurnal curves were adopted from the CEAAMPSS to represent the sewer flow patterns of typical residential and non-residential land uses. These curves represented a significant portion of the residential and non-residential land uses in the CEAAMPSS and resembled typical flow patterns of their respective land uses.

Since the last sewer master plan update, changes in state law have increased the potential for ADUs to support increased housing demands. GHD considered the impact of ADUs to the sewer system and determined that the additional sewer loadings from the ADUs are insignificant compared to the overall sewer loadings from residential parcels in the EAMPSS study area. For the purpose of the EAMPSS, the additional sewer loadings will not be included in the model since it will not have a noticeable impact to the number of deficient pipe segments, the recommended CIPs, and the cost of the CIPs.

Extended period simulation (EPS) modeling will be conducted for the EAMPSS study area. Each parcel will be assigned one of the calibrated flow factors, which in combination with the land area/dwelling unit and an applicable diurnal curve, will generate a sewer loading for the hydraulic model. The loading will be assigned to an appropriate manhole within the model. The EPS model will identify sewer deficiencies within the study area, in which the d/D ratio of a pipe segment exceeds the City’s design requirement. Sewer deficiencies and corresponding recommendations will be presented in Technical Memorandum No. 6.

EAMPSS Appendix E
Appendix F
Technical Memorandum No. 6
Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis

From: Ul ysses Fandino, P.E., GHD
CC: William Gri gsby, P.E., City of Anaheim
Subject: Technical Memorandum No. 6 - Modeling Results and Alte rnatives Analysis The purpose of this technical memorandum is to present the hydraulic model results for the East Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (EAMPSS). Two sewer flow scenarios were modeled: Existing Condition and Build-Out Condition. Deficient pipelines were identified based on the criteria established in the City of Anaheim (City) Sewer Design Manual and EAMPSS Technical Memorandum No. 1. The recommended capital improvement alternatives to address the deficient pipelines are also presented in this memorandum.

1. Introduction
Two sewer flow scenarios were modeled to establish current and future sewer needs within the EAMPSS study area. The Existing Condition scenario uses the existing land use conditions to estimate the sewer contribution from each parcel within the study area. Pipeline deficiencies identified in this scenario represent current capacity deficiencies. The Build-Out Condition scenario incorporates the land use conditions from the City’s General Plan to estimate sewer flow for the study area. Deficiencies identified in this scenario represent the potential future capacity deficiencies.

Per the City’s Sewer Design Manual (September 2009 revision), existing pipe segments that exhibit depth over diameter (d/D) ratios exceeding the following limits are considered deficient:
 10-inch and smaller: d/D ratios greater than 0.67
 12-inch and larger: d/D ratios greater than 0.75

2. Hydraulic Model Loading
Each parcel within the EAMPSS study area is assigned a sewer loading. For residential parcels, the sewer loading is calculated per dwelling unit using the generation flow factors proposed in Technical Memorandum No. 5. Generation flow factors for residential land use categories were determined using the per capita flow factor of 85 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The per capita flow factor was adopted from the West Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (WAMPSS) and verified against the EAMPSS study area water usages, which has a correlation to sewer generation. For non-residential parcels, the sewer loading is calculated based on the parcel area and the generation flow factors for the land use. In addition, major EAMPSS Appendix F
EAMPSS Final TM6 - Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis (20220714) 2 non-residential water users were identified from the water meter records and were assigned a parcel-specific sewer load based on the average effluent discharge rate from OCSD or water usages with a 90% return-to- sewer ratio. Additional point sewer loads were added to the model to represent sewer inflow from the Lenain Water Treatment Plan, City of Placentia, and City of Orange.

Each sewer loading is assigned to the nearest manhole and the consolidated sewer loading at each manhole is loaded into the hydraulic model. The method of loading to the nearest manhole will typically correctly assign the sewer loadings to the City sewer main in which the parcel is connected to. On occasions, areas with large parcels and non-conventional sewer routing due to local topography may result in sewer loadings being incorrectly loaded to the model. Spot checks were performed to increase the loading accuracy. The EAMPSS is a planning level document, hence this loading method was selected to streamline the modeling process. The sewer loading should be reconfirmed during the design phase to verify the accuracy of the loadings.

3. Hydraulic Model Results
The hydraulic model results for the Existing Condition and Build-Out Condition scenarios are shown on Figures 3.1 and 3.2, respectively. The red-colored segments represent pipelines where the d/D ratios exceed the City’s sewer design criteria. The sewer needs under the Existing and Build-Out Condition scenarios are described in detail below.

3.1 Scenario 1 – Existing Condition
Pipe input data such as size, slope, and length, along with the maximum flow and maximum d/D modeling output data for each of the deficient segments are shown in Table 3.1 for the Existing Condition scenario.

Deficient pipe segments are listed from upstream to downstream. Each pipe segment is identified by a Pipe ID, which is comprised of the pipe’s upstream and downstream manhole ID.

Table 3.1 Existing Conditi on Capacity Deficiencies
Basin
Area
Location Pipe ID Diameter
(inch)
Length
(feet)
Slope
(feet/feet)
Max
Flow
(MGD)
Max
d/D
EX-1 Running
Springs Drive
SW226223-SW226222 8 115 0.0050 0.455 0.69
SW226222-SW226221 8 180 0.0050 0.479 0.72
In the Existing Condition scenario, the hydraulic model identified two pipe segments that have d/D ratios above the City’s design criteria. The pipe segments are located within a single basin area in the eastern portion of the EAMPSS study area. The total deficient pipeline length is approximately 295 linear feet (LF).

The two deficient 8-inch pipe segments are located in Running Springs Drive, designated as Basin Area EX-1. The deficient pipe segments serve a low density single family residential area. The area was EAMPSS Appendix F

EAMPSS Final TM6 - Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis (20220714) 3 identified as deficient in the 2005 Combined East Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CEAAMPSS), corresponding to Model Area 62. The maximum d/D ratio in Basin Area EX-1 is 0.72.

3.2 Scenario 2 – Build-Out Condition
Pipe input data such as size, slope, and length, along with the maximum flow and maximum d/D modeling output data for each of the deficient segments are shown in Table 3.2 for the Build-out Condition scenario.

Deficient pipe segments for each basin area are listed from upstream to downstream. Each pipe segment is identified by a Pipe ID, which is comprised of the pipe’s upstream and downstream manhole ID.

Table 3.2 Build-Out Condi tion Capacity Deficiencies
Basin
Area
Location Pipe ID Diameter
(inch)
Length
(feet)
Slope
(feet/feet)
Max
Flow
(MGD)
Max
d/D
BO-1 Running
Springs Drive
SW226223-SW226222 8 115 0.0050 0.462 0.70
SW226222-SW226221 8 180 0.0050 0.494 0.74
BO-2 Weir Canyon
Road
SW220106-SW220105 10 258 0.0292 2.01 0.69
SW220105-SW220103 10 336 0.0289 2.01 0.70
SW220103-SW220102 10 135 0.0295 2.01 0.69
SW220102-SW219317 10 299 0.0295 2.01 0.69
SW219317-SW219315 10 214 0.0292 2.01 0.69
BO-3
Lenain Water
Treatment
Plant Access
Road
SW211109-SW211101 10 218 0.0168 1.73 0.77
Anaheim Hills
Golf Course
SW204302-SW204301 12 140 0.0100 2.37 1.00
SW204301-SW204306 12 419 0.0100 2.37 1.00
Access Road
along
Stormwater
Channel east
of Avenida
Palmera
SW191204-SW190426 15 350 0.0060 3.40 1.00
SW190426-SW190418 15 341 0.0061 3.40 1.00
SW190418-SW190404 18 347 0.0020 3.41 1.00
In the Build-Out Condition scenario, the hydraulic model identified 13 pipe segments that have d/D ratios above the City’s design criteria. The pipe segments are located within three basin areas in the central and eastern portions of the EAMPSS study area. The total deficient pipeline length is approximately 3,352 LF.

EAMPSS Appendix F

EAMPSS Final TM6 - Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis (20220714) 4 Basin Area BO-1 corresponds to the same area as Basin Area EX-1. The same number of segments are identified as deficient in Basin Area BO-1 as in Basin Area EX-1. As expected, the higher loadings in the Build-out Condition caused the maximum flow and the resultant maximum d/D ratios to be slightly higher.

The maximum d/D ratio in Basin Area BO-1 is 0.74.

Five deficient 10-inch pipe segments are located in Weir Canyon Road, designated as Basin Area BO-2.

The deficient pipe segments serve a number of single and multi-family residential neighborhood in the Sycamore Canyon and the Summit of Anaheim Hills areas. The maximum d/D ratio in Basin Area BO-2 is

0.70. The area was not identified as deficient in the 2005 CEAAMPSS.

EAMPSS Appendix F
FIGURE 3.1
0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146303
Date 07/08/2022

CITY OF ANAHEIM

EAST ANAHEIM MASTER PLAN

OF SANITARY SEWERS
TECHNICAL MEMO #6
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Grid: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Ft US Paper Size ANSI B
o
Data source: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Created by: pwleung
G:\111\11146303 City of Anaheim2017 E MP\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\TM#6\Figure 3.1 Existing Deficiencies.mxd
Print date: 08 Jul 2022 - 17:11
Legend
Existing Non-Deficient Lines
Existing Sewer Needs
City of Anaheim Limits
EAMPSS Study Area Boundary

EXISTING CONDITION

SEWER NEEDS
Area EX-1
(See Inset Map Below)
Running Springs Dr
Windsong Dr
Sedona Ln
Garden View Dr
SW226223
SW226220 SW226221
SW226222
SW226402
SW226214
Basin Area EX-1
EAMPSS Appendix F
FIGURE 3.2
0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146303
Date 04/22/2022

CITY OF ANAHEIM

EAST ANAHEIM MASTER PLAN

OF SANITARY SEWERS
TECHNICAL MEMO #6
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Grid: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Ft US Paper Size ANSI B
o
Data source: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Created by: pwleung
G:\111\11146303 City of Anaheim2017 E MP\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\TM#6\Figure 3.2 Build-Out Deficiencies.mxd
Print date: 08 Jul 2022 - 17:14
Legend
Build-Out Non-Deficient Lines
Build-Out Sewer Needs
City of Anaheim Limits
EAMPSS Study Area Boundary

BUILD-OUT CONDITION

SEWER NEEDS
Area BO-1
(See Inset Map Below)
Running Springs Dr
Windsong Dr
Sedona Ln
Garden View Dr
SW226223
SW226220 SW226221
SW226222
SW226402
SW226214
SW226224
Basin Area BO-1
SW220205
SW220106
SW220209
SW220103
SW219315
SW220105
SW219317
SW220102
Basin Area BO-2
Area BO-2
(See Inset Map Below)
Monte
Vista Rd
Canyon Vista Rd
Weir Canyon Rd
Area BO-3 Sub-Area 1
(See Inset Map Above)
Area BO-3 Sub-Area-2
(See Inset Map Above)
Area BO-3 Sub-Area 3
(See Inset Map Above)
SW190404
SW191204
SW190426
SW190418
SW204306
SW204301
SW204302
SW211109
SW211101
Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Area 3 Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Area 2 Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Area 1 EAMPSS Appendix F

EAMPSS Final TM6 - Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis (20220714) 7

4. Alternative Analysis and Recommendations
The City has a separate design criteria for new sewer designs that is more stringent than the analysis criteria identified in Section 1. The new sewer design criteria calls for a maximum allowable d/D ratio of 0.50 for pipes with diameters less than 12-inches, and a d/D ratio of 0.60 for pipes with diameters equal to or greater than 12-inches. GHD adheres to this criteria for the proposed sewer improvements presented below.

4.1 Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 – Running Springs Drive
The existing 8-inch sewer pipeline in Running Springs Drive from Manhole SW226223 to Manhole SW226221 were identified as existing condition deficiencies in the CEAAMPSS. The CEAAMPSS also recommended improving an additional 8-inch pipe segment immediately downstream, Pipe SW226221- SW226220, based on the City’s pipe improvement criteria that no downsizing is allowed for 8-inch and 10-inch diameter mains. The CEAAMPSS recommended upsizing these 8-inch pipe segments to 10-inch.

GHD evaluated the CEAAMPSS recommendations against the maximum flow rates from the Build-Out Condition scenario. GHD concurs with the CEAAMPSS improvement recommendations. However, 12-inch replacement pipelines are recommended instead of 10-inch pipelines based on the City’s preference for new pipeline constructions. The projected maximum d/D ratio after the improvement would be between 0.18 and

0.38, below the City’s design criteria of 0.6 for new sewer mains.

The two existing 10-inch pipe segments that are downstream of the recommended improvements between Manhole SW226220 and Manhole SW226118 have significantly steeper pipe slopes due to local topography.

The steep slopes of these segments (between 0.0361 to 0.0822) improve flow considerably resulting in much lower d/D ratios than the upstream deficient segments, with a maximum d/D ratio of 0.34 observed.

Therefore, no improvements are recommended for these segments even though they are one size smaller than the pipe size recommended for the upstream improvements.

The total improvement length is approximately 471 LF. The recommended improvements are shown in Figure 4.1. A summary of the recommended improvements is presented in Table 4.1.

EAMPSS Appendix F

EAMPSS Final TM6 - Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis (20220714) 8

Figure 4.1 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area EX-1/BO-1

Table 4.1 Recommended Sewer Improv ements for Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 Pipe ID Existing
Diameter
(inch)
Length
(feet)
Slope
(feet/feet)
Selected
Diameter
(inch)
Max
Build-Out
Flow
(MGD)
Build-Out
d/D
Build-Out
d/D after
Improvement
SW226223-
SW226222 8 115 0.0050 12 0.462 0.70 0.37
SW226222-
SW226221 8 180 0.0050 12 0.494 0.74 0.38
SW226221-
SW226220 8 176 0.1000 12* 0.496 0.30 0.18
SW226220-
SW226119 10 271 0.0822 --** 0.547 0.25 --**
SW226119-
SW226118 10 38 0.0361 --** 0.547 0.31 --**
* Pipe segment is not hydraulically deficient. Recommended for improvement based on City’s criteria for pipe improvement, which indicate that no downsizing is allowed for pipe diameters of 8-inch and 10-inch. ** Pipe segment is not hydraulically deficient. No improvements recommended.

EAMPSS Appendix F

EAMPSS Final TM6 - Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis (20220714) 9

4.2 Basin Area BO-2 – Weir Canyon Road
The existing 10-inch sewer pipeline in Weir Canyon Road from Manhole SW220106 to Manhole SW219315 were identified as Build-Out Condition deficiencies in the model. GHD evaluated the maximum flow rates from the Build-Out Condition scenario and determined that a 12-inch replacement pipeline is suitable. The projected maximum d/D ratio after the improvement would be between 0.50 and 0.51, below the City’s design criteria of 0.6 for new sewer mains. The total improvement length is approximately 1,242 LF. The recommended improvements are shown in Figure 4.2. A summary of the recommended improvements is presented in Table 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-2

EAMPSS Appendix F

EAMPSS Final TM6 - Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis (20220714) 10 Table 4.2 Recommended Sewer Impr ovements for Basin Area BO-2 Pipe ID Existing
Diameter
(inch)
Length
(feet)
Slope
(feet/feet)
Selected
Diameter
(inch)
Max
Build-Out
Flow
(MGD)
Build-Out
d/D
Build-Out
d/D after
Improvement
SW220106-
SW220105 10 258 0.0292 12 2.008 0.69 0.51
SW220105-
SW220103 10 336 0.0289 12 2.008 0.70 0.51
SW220103-
SW220102 10 135 0.0295 12 2.006 0.69 0.50
SW220102-
SW219317 10 299 0.0295 12 2.005 0.69 0.50
SW219317-
SW219315 10 214 0.0292 12 2.005 0.69 0.51

4.3 Basin Area BO-3 – Lenain Water Treatment Plant Basin The Build-Out Condition scenario identified six deficient pipelines ranging from 10-inch to 18-inch in diameter. It is noteworthy that the hydraulic deficiencies observed in this basin area are due to the effluent discharge from the Lenain Water Treatment Plant. None of the six identified segments would be hydraulically deficient if the treatment plant flow is removed from the model. As mentioned in Technical Memorandum 5, the discharges from the treatment plant are not scheduled and can occur at any time throughout the day. Therefore, a point load equivalent to its peak discharge rate of 500 gallons per minute (GPM) was applied to ensure the model can capture the worst case scenario, which is when the plant is discharging at its maximum rate while the surrounding residential basin area is also discharging at its peak rate. Based on operating data provided by the City, the discharge rate of up to 500 GPM is typically sustained for a 1-minute period every other hour. Prior to considering the pipe improvements below, it is recommended that additional flow monitoring to be performed to verify the peak flows immediately downstream of the treatment plant and near the most downstream deficient segment identified for this basin area. In addition, optimizations to the discharge operation at the treatment plant should be considered.

Changes in operating strategy such as reducing the peak discharge rate from the plant while lengthening the discharge period can effectively attenuate the flow spikes to the sewer system and potentially eliminate the hydraulic deficiencies identified in this study.

If pipe improvements were to be considered, the deficient pipeline segments are located in three separate sub-areas downstream of the Lenain Water Treatment Plant:

EAMPSS Appendix F

EAMPSS Final TM6 - Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis (20220714) 11 Sub-Area 2 is located within the Anaheim Hills Golf Course and consists of two deficient segments: Pipes SW204302-SW204301 and SW204301-SW204306. The recommended pipe size for these segments is 15-inch, and the total length of this sub-area is 559 LF. No additional downstream 12-inch segments are recommended for improvement since the downstream segments have steeper pipe slopes due to local topography, resulting in significantly lower d/D ratios than the upstream deficient segments. Per the established sewer master plan criteria, downsizing by one pipe size is acceptable for existing pipes that are 12-inch or larger.

Sub-Area 3 is located alongside a stormwater channel east of Avenida Palmera and consists of three deficient segments: Pipes SW191204-SW190426, SW190426-SW190418 and SW190418-SW190404. The recommended pipe size for these segments is between 18-inch and 24-inch, and the total length of this sub- area is 1,038 LF.

The projected maximum d/D ratio after the improvement would be between 0.47 and 0.59, below the City’s design criteria of 0.6 for new sewer mains. The total improvement length is approximately 2,275 LF. The recommended improvements are shown in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4. A summary of the recommended improvements is presented in Table 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Areas 1 and 2

EAMPSS Appendix F

EAMPSS Final TM6 - Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis (20220714) 12 Figure 4.4 Recommended Sewer Improvements for Basin Area BO-3 Sub-Area 3

Table 4.3 Recommended Sewer Impr ovements for Basin Area BO-3 Pipe ID Existing
Diameter
(inch)
Length
(feet)
Slope
(feet/feet)
Selected
Diameter
(inch)
Max
Build-Out
Flow
(MGD)
Build-Out
d/D
Build-Out
d/D after
Improvement
SW211109-
SW211101 10 218 0.0168 12 1.73 0.77 0.55
SW211101-
SW205204 10 460 0.0276 12 1.73 0.64 0.47
SW204302-
SW204301 12 140 0.0100 15 2.37 1.00 0.54
SW204301-
SW204306 12 419 0.0098 15 2.37 1.00 0.54
SW191204-
SW190426 15 350 0.0060 18 3.40 1.00 0.59
SW190426-
SW190418 15 341 0.0061 18 3.40 1.00 0.58
SW190418-
SW190404 18 347 0.0020 24 3.41 1.00 0.51
EAMPSS Appendix F

EAMPSS Final TM6 - Modeling Results and Alternative Analysis (20220714) 13

5. Conclusion
In the Existing Condition scenario, the hydraulic model identified two pipe segments that have d/D ratios above the City’s design criteria. The pipe segments are located in Running Springs Drive in the eastern portion of the EAMPSS study area, which is designated as Basin Area EX-1. The total deficient pipeline length in the Existing Condition scenario is approximately 295 LF. The Build-Out Condition scenario identified 13 deficient pipe segments located in three Basin Areas in the central and eastern portions of the EAMPSS study area, designated as Basin Areas BO-1, BO-2 and BO-3. Basin Area BO-1 is identical to Basin Area EX-1, Basin Area BO-2 is located in Weir Canyon Drive and Basin Area BO-3 is located in three separate sub-areas downstream of the Lenain Water Treatment Plant. The total deficient pipeline length in the Build-Out scenario is approximately 3,352 LF.

Based on the model results, GHD recommends two sewer improvement projects to be constructed, including Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 – Running Springs Drive and Basin Area BO-2 – Weir Canyon Drive. The Basin Area EX-1/BO-1 project consists of the improvement of three pipe segments, including two segments identified as hydraulically deficient, as well as one downstream segment to conform to the City’s pipeline improvement criteria of no pipeline downsizing for 8-inch and 10-inch diameter sewer mains. The total recommended improvement length is approximately 471 LF. The Basin Area BO-2 project consists of the improvement of five pipe segments, with a total recommended improvement length of approximately 1,242 LF. For Basin Area BO-3, GHD recommends additional flow monitoring and flow discharge optimization from the Lenain Water Treatment Plant as the initial measures for verifying and addressing the identified hydraulic deficiencies. Sewer pipeline upgrades are recommended for Basin Area BO-3 only if the initial measures are not able to resolve the hydraulic deficiencies. The total recommended improvement length is approximately 2,275 LF.

EAMPSS Appendix F
Appendix G
City of Anaheim Sewer Design Manual

Sewer Design Manual Page 1 of 11 September 2009

CITY OF ANAHEIM
CIT

Y OF ANAHEIM

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

SUBDIVISION SECTION

SEWER DESIGN MANUAL

TABLE O

F CONTENTS

1. SIZ
ING ............................................................................................................ 2 Design flows: ........................................................................................... 2 Roughness coefficient (n): ....................................................................... 2 Velocity (Average flow): .......................................................................... 3 Maximum depth of flow (at peak flow condition): .................................. 3 Lateral sizes: ............................................................................................. 3

2. MODELING .................................................................................................... 3

3. ALIGNMENT ................................................................................................. 4

4. GRADE ........................................................................................................... 4

5. MATERIALS .................................................................................................. 5

6. BEDDING ....................................................................................................... 5

7. MANHOLES ................................................................................................... 5

8. EASEMENTS ................................................................................................. 6

9. PRIVATE SEWER ......................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT “A” WATER ENGINEERING STANDARD NO. W-130
REFERENCE: C

LAY PIPE ENGINEERING MANUAL
Se
ptember 2009
EAMPSS Appendix G
Sewer Design Manual Page 2 of 11 April 2008

SEWER DESIGN MANUAL

Sanitary sewers are designed primarily to carry to a satisfactory point of treatment and ultimate disposal the spent water supply of a community, industrial wastes and unavoidable amounts of ground water infiltration. All waters not containing impurities which are actually or potentially objectionable should be excluded as far as possible from the sanitary sewer system. The flow rates of sewage for which sewer capacity should be provided must be determined from careful considerations of the present and probable future quantities of domestic sewage and commercial and industrial wastes.

The objective of the Sewer Design Manual is to provide a concise guide for the analysis and design of sewer facilities in the City of Anaheim. This guide is intended to be used by design engineers for development projects. Plan preparation and submittal requirements are provided in a separate document “
Improvement Procedures” available online at:

1. SIZING
Since the quantity of domestic sewage is a function of the population and of water consumption, lateral and sub main sewers should be designed for the saturation density of population expected in the areas served. The sewer system should be designed for tributary areas, land use and population estimated based on the Anaheim General Plan and Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers.

All sewers shall be designed based on the peak flow rate and the following criteria.

A minimum pipe size of 8" shall be used for all public sewers and private sewers within street.

Design flows:

The average daily flow of sewage and ground water is the average 24 -hour discharge during a period of a year. The peak flow determines the hydraulic capacity of sewers.

Residential:

Average flow: 105 gpcd (gallons per capita per day)
Per capita factor: 3.3 people per household
Peak factor: 3.25

Non-Residential:

Commercial: 2,262 gpd/acre
Industrial: 3,167 gpd/acre
Institutional: 2,715 gpd/acre
Peak factor: 1.7

Lot coverage varies from 40 to 70% depending upon location.

Roughness coefficient (n):

EAMPSS Appendix G
Sewer Design Manual Page 3 of 11 April 2008
R.C.P., A.C.P., V.C.P., A.B.S., D.I.P.: 0.013
P.V.C.: 0.010

Velocity (Average flow):

Minimum: 2 fps
Maximum: 10 fps

Maximum depth of flow (at peak flow condition):
10" and smaller: 2/3 D, d/D = 0.67 (d: depth of flow) 12" and larger: 3/4 D, d/D = 0.75 (D: diameter of sewer pipe)

Lateral sizes:

Minimum lateral pipe size is 4".

2. MODELING
Modeling of the sewer system is required when proposed development intensifies the land use from the existing development on the site or proposed development requires a general plan amendment to a more intense use.

The following three scenarios must be modeled:

• Existing Condition – to identify existing deficiencies in the system • Existing Condition with Proposed Development – to identify additional deficiencies created by the proposed development
• General Plan Build Out Condition – to identify the ultimate pipe size for improvements

Sewer modeling shall be performed by the City’s on-call consultant for Sewer Studies for Private Development where available at the cost of the Developer. Developer will deposit the estimated amount for the proposed sewer study and City will contract the consultant to perform the study.

City’s consultant will input the developer’s project parameters into the Master Sewer Study to identify the project’s impact to the sewer system.

Development in areas with a downstream deficient sewer will be restricted. Where uses are discontinued on a property to allow for new development, new development up to the sewer generation rate of the previous use on the property will be allowed in sewer deficient areas.

Developer may make the needed improvements to the sewer system at his/her own cost and request a reimbursement agreement to recover a portion of the costs from other developments that tie into the system and benefit from the improvements. Reimbursement agreements run a term of twenty years and are not guaranteed to be paid in full.

EAMPSS Appendix G
Sewer Design Manual Page 4 of 11 April 2008

3. ALIGNMENT
Sewer shall be located in the street, not in the parkway. Sewer trench shall not extend under edge of gutter.

A minimum radius of 150' shall be used for any horizontal bend. Maximum deflection at any joint shall not exceed two (2) degrees.

Connection:
4” to main line (8" or larger): saddle
6” to main line (8" or larger): snap-in wye
8” to main line (8" or larger): manhole

When jacking is required, details to be shown on plans. 18" minimum diameter C.I.P. with 3/8" wall thickness required for 8" V.C.P. Jacking may be required by the City Engineer when crossing arterial highways.

Minimum horizontal spacing between sewer line and water line is 11'.

Provide lateral for each lot per Standard Detail No's.
222-1 and 223-1.

4. GRADE
Sewer shall be normally 7' to 8' deep (to soffit of pipe).

Mainline minimum depth at manhole shall be 5.67 ft (5'- 8").

Minimum slope:
d= 8”
d= 10”
d= 12”
d= 15”
s = 0.0036
s = 0.0030
s = 0.0024
s = 0.0020
Indicate slope in terms of s = 0.002, not s = 0.2%.

Avoid vertical curves. Straight grade from manhole to manhole. Use of vertical curve must be approved by the Development Services Manager.

Elevation drop thru manhole:

Straight thru: no change in pipe size,
Match soffit: right angle turns and change in pipe size,

0.10' drop: turns and no change in pipe size,

0.20' drop: right angle turns and no change in pipe size.

Avoid drop manholes. Use of drop manholes to be approved by the Development Services Manager.

Encasement is required when clearance between pipes is less than 18" and where required per EAMPSS Appendix G
Sewer Design Manual Page 5 of 11 April 2008
Water Engineering Standard No. W-130 (See Exhibit “A”)

Encase sewer line per Standard Detail No. 225-1 when:

• Top of bell of sewer is less than 3' from bottom of water line, • Storm drain is within 1.5' (18") above sewer line, or • Sewer line is above water line.

Slope anchors and backfill stabilizers are required where pipe slope exceeds 30%. Slope anchors shall be placed per Standard Detail No. 221-1.

5. MATERIALS
Main line sewer pipe shall be V.C.P.

Sewer pipe under median to be D.I.P. epoxylined, polylined D.I.P. or V.C.P. encased.

A.B.S. and P.V.C. solid wall pipe and A.B.S. composite pipe may be used as an alternate to V.C.P. as approved by the City Engineer. Use shall be limited to local interior streets and private streets tributary to residential flows only. Sizes shall not ex ceed 10" in diameter. Pipe characteristics and installation shall be per the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and a Bedding Detail shall be provided.

V.C.P. joints shall be mechanical compression or Band seal type.

6. BEDDING
V.C.P. and D.I.P. – Per Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for cover between 3' and 15', for cover less than 3' and greater than 15' special bedding is required. Calculations and supporting soils reports to be provided by the Design Engineer. Use a soil weight of 130 lbs/cf (unless soils reports state otherwise) and a safety factor of 1.5. Details of bedding shall be shown on plan.

A.B.S. and P.V.C. - Details of bedding shall be shown on plan. Supporting calculations are required.

7. MANHOLES
Manholes to be constructed at intersecting mains, B.C., E.C., angle points and change in pipe size or grade. Only one manhole at B.C. or E.C. is acceptable for a short length curve (Maximum 100’) with a central angle less than 45 degrees.

Maximum manhole spacing is 300'.

Manhole shall be constructed at the end of construction with 4' stub out for future connection.

Stub shall be plugged with brick and mortar.

EAMPSS Appendix G
Sewer Design Manual Page 6 of 11 April 2008
In unpaved areas where there i s a danger of the manhole becoming lost, set the top of cover elevation so as not to be less than 1' above existing ground.

8. EASEMENTS
When sewer cannot be located within the street, it shall be located in an approved easement.

Easements parallel to lot line shall be on one lot only.

Sewer easement shall be a minimum 15 ft. in width. For deep pipe the easement shall be 2 x depth - O.D. to a maximum 25 ft.

Access for maintenance of a public sewer shall be 12' wide and must be paved with 0.25' of A.C. over 0.35' of B.M. Location of access to be approved by the Streets and Sanitation Division.

Easement for public sewers shall be dedicated to the City on a recorded map or by a separate deed with the approved easement sketch and the legal description (including closure calculations).

EAMPSS Appendix G

Sewer Design Manual Page 7 of 11 April 2008

9. PRIVATE SEWER
Private on -site sewers designed to meet the California Plumbing Code will be reviewed, permitted and inspected by the Building Division. These plans will not be reviewed by the Public Works Department, but must meet all requirements of the California Plumbing Code and the Building Division. Contact the City of Anaheim Building Division at (714) 765- 5153 for plumbing plan check requirements.

Engineered Sewers (i.e. those within a private street or on-site systems that do not meet Plumbing Code) may be drawn in plan view only, however they must show rates of grade, direction of flow, size of pipe, invert and finish surface elevations at cleanouts, manholes and grade breaks, location and elevation of all adjacent or crossing underground facilities, sufficient horizontal controls to permit the system to be located in the field, and any other information which may be required to adequately check, construct and inspect the system.

A. The size of all sewers shall be designed based on the following desirable engineering considerations, peak rate of flow with a minimum velocity of 2 fps, a minimum depth of flow of 1 inch and a maximum ratio of depth of flow to the diameter of pipe of 0.75. In addition, the minimum sizes shall be used:

a. Mains:
• Residential development: 6" min .
• Commercial development: 6" min.
• Industrial development: 4" min.

c. Laterals:
• 4" min. when serving 1 thru 6 living units in a single building, • 6" min. when serving more than 6 living units in a single building or more than one (1) building.

B. Cleanouts may be provided in lieu of manholes at a maximum spacing of 100 feet. They shall also be provided at vertical grade break of more than one-half percent (1/2%) or for horizontal deflection angle of more than forty five (45) degrees. All cleanouts shall be brought to finished grade.

Standard manholes may be required when deemed necessary by the City Engineer.

C. Add note to each sheet:

APPROVED ONLY FOR INSPECTION OF WORKMANSHIP AND

MATERIALS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

EAMPSS Appendix G

Sewer Design Manual Page 8 of 11 April 2008

Exhibit A

EAMPSS Appendix G

Sewer Design Manual Page 9 of 11 April 2008

EAMPSS Appendix G

Sewer Design Manual Page 10 of 11 April 2008

EAMPSS Appendix G

Sewer Design Manual Page 11 of 11 April 2008

EAMPSS Appendix G

Anaheim City CouncilMay 16, 2023

Anaheim City Council
May 16, 2023