Buena Park City Council
April 22, 2025

General Plan Annual Report
6650 Beach Boulevard | P.O. Box 5009 | Buena Park, CA | 90622-5009 | [714] 562-3611 BuenaPark.com and timely manner in the event of an
emergency or disaster.

SAF-9
Encourage use of Low Impact
Development (LID) methods that capture
and treat water on-site, therefore, reducing
flows to storm drain system.

On-going
The Planning Division and Public Works
Department coordinate review of Water
Quality Management Plans (WQMP) as
part of the design review process to
ensure that new and substantially altered
developments have sufficient storm water
containment and treatment plans
consistent with County and State Laws.

SAF-11 Regularly update the City’s Hazardous
Waste Management Plan.

InProgress
Coordinate and supply assistance to
Public Works Department and OC Fire
Authority in the implementation of the
plan. Participate in training and provide
logistical support in emergency situations.

SAF-13
Continue to conduct periodic inspections of
all businesses using or storing hazardous
materials to ensure safe practices and
improve communications with business
personnel.

On-going
OCFA conducts annual site inspections of
businesses to ensure safe storage of any
hazardous materials and ensure
functioning fire safety systems.

SAF-14
Adopt targets to reduce the volume and
toxicity of hazardous waste committed to
land disposal.

Not yet
started
SAF-18
Develop programs that inform and educate
the community about potential risks,
resources, roles, and responsibilities for
addressing safety.

InprogressThe City is currently updating the Safety
Element of the General Plan.

N-1
Review the City’s existing codes and
ordinances and determine how they should
be modified to comprehensively address
various noise sources, land use types, and
compatibility issues.

On-going
The Planning Division regularly reviews
Title 19 of the Buena Park Municipal Code
for opportunities to improve standards
related to noise and includes noise
mitigation measures in conditions of
approval for development projects.

N-2 Develop noise performance standards for
mixed-use development. Complete
The HIO and updated Community Design
Element of the General Plan include noise
performance standards for mixed-use
development.

N-10
Develop and maintain a Noise Mitigation
Guide that includes information regarding
City noise regulations and programs.

Not yet
started
N-11
Create and maintain an inventory of
existing noise levels and noise complaints
within the City. Update the inventory every
two years to monitor changes in the City’s
noise environment and the effectiveness of
noise mitigation.

Not yet
started
ED-1
Complete a market analysis every few
years, to re-assess the economic stability of
the City’s activity centers and from which to
identify opportunities for improving a
regional draw.

Not yet
started
ED-2 Regularly survey existing merchants as
part of a City-wide business retention
InProgress

General Plan Annual Report
6650 Beach Boulevard | P.O. Box 5009 | Buena Park, CA | 90622-5009 | [714] 562-3611 BuenaPark.com program, to assess their annual sales,
constraints on performance, and overall
satisfaction within the City.

ED-3
Create and implement a marketing
/branding action plan for the Entertainment
Zone, including Buena Park Mall.

On-going
The City completed efforts regarding
branding and marketing of the
Entertainment Corridor through the EZone efforts and continues to look for opportunities to update the Entertainment
Corridor Specific Plan.

ED-4
Develop City-wide marketing programs that
promote “shop local” incentives for
residents to utilize businesses located
within the City.

Inprogress
The Economic Development Department
partners with the SBDC on business
assistance events and outreach.

ED-7 Promote establishment of high-end retail
and restaurants within the City. On-going
The Economic Development Department
regularly communicates with the
commercial broker community on
potential sites within the City. The City
regularly attends the International
Conference of Shopping Centers to
promote locations for new commercial
development.

ED-8
Develop comprehensive strategy to market
the Auto Center to new dealerships and
retain existing dealerships.

Not yet
started
ED-9
Develop a city wide strategy to retain
industrial business and promote the City to
potential industrial users.

Not yet
started
ED-10
Provide low-interest property rehabilitation
loans to Buena Park businesses through
Economic Development Department
programs.

Complete
The City Council approved the
Commercial Façade Improvement
Program in 2024 which provides grant
funding for businesses along commercial
corridors to make façade and other site
improvements.

ED-11
Provide rehabilitation assistance in
targeted commercial districts to enable the
upgrading of commercial properties
Complete
The City Council approved the
Commercial Façade Improvement
Program in 2024 which provides grant
funding for businesses along commercial
corridors to make façade and other site
improvements.

ED-12 Develop and implement programs to attract
new regional office users On-going
The Economic Development Department
regularly communicates with the
commercial broker community on
potential sites within the City. The City
regularly attends the International
Conference of Shopping Centers to
promote locations for new commercial
development.

ED-13
Develop programs that encourage small
businesses seeking expansion or new
startup businesses to utilize incubator
spaces within the City.

On-going
ED-14
Develop programs that encourage homebased businesses seeking expansion or new, small size, startup businesses to
utilize incubator spaces within the City.

On-going
The City allows home-based businesses
and cottage industries within single-family
residences subject to compliance with
Zoning Code.

General Plan Annual Report
6650 Beach Boulevard | P.O. Box 5009 | Buena Park, CA | 90622-5009 | [714] 562-3611 BuenaPark.com EJ-1
Inventory and map existing public facilities
in order to determine any deficiencies in
levels of service and identify particular
areas where public improvements,
services, and facilities are needed.

Complete
The Community Services Department
completed the Citywide Parks Master
Plan in 2024.

EJ-2
Prioritize environmental justice needs when
formulating and adopting the City’s budget
and Capital Improvement Plan.

On-going
EJ-4
Seek funding to develop and implement
urban heat island reduction plans and
projects in vulnerable neighborhoods.

InProgress
The City is in progress of developing its
first Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
(CAAP). The projected completion date
for this document is July 2025.

EJ-5
At public meetings and outreach events
provide appropriate language services,
childcare, and options for live or delayed
online participation.

On-going Translation services provided in both
Spanish and Korean.

EJ-8
Include the results of public outreach with
decision-makers to help inform their
decision making process.

On-going
Planning Commission and City Council
agenda reports include information about
public outreach conducted for the specific
project and program.

EJ-9
Seek grant funding for plans and projects to
strengthen resilience in vulnerable
neighborhoods.

On-going
The City is exploring several grant
opportunities and partnerships that are
focused on improving civic engagement
and resiliency in disadvantaged
neighborhoods.

EJ-10
Collaborate with governmental and nongovernmental agencies to increase social networks and website updates to distribute
information on climate change and other
threats to vulnerable populations. Include
information on actions people can take to
reduce exposure and increase resiliency.

On-going
The City is exploring partnerships with
non-profit organizations and community
groups on multiple health and
sustainability issues including expansion
of the City’s smoking prohibition and
improving civic engagement.

EJ-11 Seek grant funding to prepare a safe routes
to schools plan for the City.

Inprogress
Safe Routes to School analysis is
included within the Citywide Active
Transportation Plan that is currently
underway.

Jurisdiction Buena Park
Reporting Year 2024
Housing Element Planning Period 6th Cycle
Current Year
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 1
Non-Deed
Restricted 12
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 15
16 44
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
Single-family Attached 186 0 3
Single-family Detached 3 0 1
2 to 4 units per structure 0 0 0
5+ units per structure 0 15 27
Accessory Dwelling Unit 69 29 41
Mobile/Manufactured Home 0 0 0
Total 258 44 72
Infill Housing Developments and Infill Units Permitted # of Projects Units 32 44
0 0
116
300
300
0 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Total Housing Applications Submitted:

Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received:

Total Housing Units Approved:

Total Housing Units Disapproved:

Total Units
Housing Applications Summary
Use of SB 423 Streamlining Provisions - Applications
Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income Above Moderate
Indicated as Infill
Not Indicated as Infill
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
0 0
Income Rental Ownership Total
Very Low 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0
Moderate 0 0 0
Above Moderate 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
Streamlining Provisions Used - Permitted Units # of Projects Units SB 9 (2021) - Duplex in SF Zone 0 0
SB 9 (2021) - Residential Lot Split 0 0
AB 2011 (2022) 0 0
SB 6 (2022) 0 0
SB 423 (2023) 0 0
Ministerial and Discretionary Applications # of Units
Ministerial 113 120
Discretionary 3 180
Density Bonus Applications and Units Permitted
Number of Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 3 Number of Units in Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 180 Number of Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 1
Number of Units in Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 5 Housing Element Programs Implemented and Sites Rezoned Count 15 0
Programs Implemented
Sites Rezoned to Accommodate the RHNA
Units Constructed - SB 423 Streamlining Permits
Number of SB 423 Streamlining Applications Approved
Number of SB 423 Streamlining Applications
Jurisdiction Buena Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining
2 3 01/04/1900 6 7 8 9
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted
(see
instructions)
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total

PROPOSED
Units by
Project
Total

APPROVED
Units by
project
Total

DISAPPROVE
D Units by
Project
Please select
state
streamlining
provision/s the
application
was submitted
pursuant to.

Did the
housing
development
application
seek
incentives or
concessions
pursuant to
Government
Code section
65915?
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 29 3 50 17 38 163 300 300 0 7054327 8622 CHERRY
CIR ADU-24-107 ADU R
12/10/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
7047253 7638
LANTANA DR ADU-24-106 ADU R
12/05/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
7034317 8333

CARNATION
DR
ADU-24-108
ADU R
12/23/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
6943125 8002 SAN
MIGUEL CIR ADU-24-104 ADU R
12/03/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
13510210 7824 ADAMS
WAY ADU-24-100 ADU R
11/25/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
6935507 6161 SAN
LORENZO DR ADU-24-99 ADU R
11/26/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
26360212 6876
HOUSTON ST ADU-24-98 ADU R
11/14/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
13513305 8732
WESTERN AVE ADU-24-95
ADU R
12/05/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
6941117 8102 SAN
HELICE CIR ADU-24-96 ADU R
11/13/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
28911210 5310

KENWOOD
AVE
ADU-24-94
ADU R
10/28/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
27621326 7641 9TH ST ADU-24-101 ADU R 11/26/2024 1 1 1 NONE No 6624217 6041

DARLINGTON
AVE
ADU-24-90
ADU R
10/15/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
6935412 8001 SAN
LEON CIR ADU-24-88 ADU R
10/15/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
6950204 6882 SAN
PACO CIR ADU-24-93 ADU R
10/24/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
27629103 7532 10TH ST ADU-24-86 ADU R 10/24/2024 1 1 1 NONE No 27625408 6651 DEL
ROSA RD ADU-24-91 ADU R
10/15/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
28025201 5350

ROCKLEDGE
DR
ADU-24-92
ADU R
10/23/2024
2 2 2 NONE No
27626203 6602

HIGHLAND
AVE
ADU-24-87
ADU R
10/08/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
13615118 7425 EL
PRADO WAY ADU-24-85 ADU R
10/02/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
6619122 5822 INDIANA
ST ADU-24-84 ADU R
10/01/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
27624114 6722 VAL
VERDE AVE ADU-24-89 ADU R
10/08/2024
2 2 2 NONE No
26337102 7798 LA MESA
WAY ADU-24-82 ADU R
09/24/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
7069211 8442 HANDEL
DR ADU-24-83 ADU R
10/03/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
28905308 8371 FOX
HILLS AVE ADU-24-80 ADU R
09/18/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
26322215 5906
TRINIDAD WAY ADU-24-79
ADU R
09/17/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
28903302 4841 ST
ANDREWS ADU-24-78 ADU R
09/12/2024
1 1 1 NONE No
Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
1 5
Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes Density Bo Applica
10 Housing Development Applications Submitted
26353117 6885

SHOSHONEE
WAY
ADU-24-77
ADU
R
09/17/2024
11 1 NONE No
26349213 7575 KNOTT
AVE ADU-24-76 ADU
R
09/11/2024
111 NONE No
26349204 6918 NAOMI
AVE ADU-24-75 ADU
R
09/19/2024
111 NONE No
27624114 6722 VAL
VERDE AVE ADU-24-74 ADU
R
10/08/2024
222 NONE No
13520320 8823
JOHNSON CIR ADU-24-73 ADU
R
09/24/2024
111 NONE No
6940226 8012 SAN
HACIENDA CIR ADU-24-72
ADUR
08/21/2024
111 NONE No
28027102 5651

ROCKLEDGE
DR
ADU-24-102
ADUR
12/03/2024
111 NONE No
Jurisdiction Buena Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 10/15/2029
Table A2
Streamlining Infill
Housing without
Financial Assistance or
Deed Restrictions
Term of
Affordability or
Deed Restriction
Notes
2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Prior APN+ Current APN Street
Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit
Category

(SFA,SFD,2
to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Entitlement
Date
Approved
# of Units
issued
Entitlements
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Building
Permits Date
Issued
# of Units
Issued Building
Permits
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
(see instructions)
Date Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates
of
Occupancy
or other
forms of
readiness
How many
of the units
were
Extremely
Low
Income?
Please select
the state
streamlining
provision the
project was

APPROVED
pursuant to.
(may select
multiple)
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance
Programs for
Each
Development
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
Deed
Restriction
Type
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
For units affordable
without financial
assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how
the locality determined
the units were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of
Affordability or
Deed Restriction
(years) (if affordable
in perpetuity enter
1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Destr
oyed Units
Demolished
or
Destroyed
Units
Demolished
/Destroyed
Units
Owner or
Renter
Total Density Bonus
Applied to the Project
(Percentage Increase
in Total Allowable Units
or Total Maximum
Allowable Residential
Gross Floor Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions,
Waivers, or Other
Modifications
Given to the
Project (Excluding
Parking Waivers
or Parking
Reductions)
List the
incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding
Parking
Waivers or
Parking
Modifications)
Did the project
receive a reduction
or waiver of
parking standards?
(Y/N)
Notes+
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 2 4 35 24 22 171 258 0 0 1 12 0 15 16 44 0 29 0 12 0 0 43 72 24 0 066-251-29 6172 Beach Unit
B B-21-608 2 to 4 R 1 02/19/2018 1 1 09/28/2021 1 1 09/11/2023 1 NONE Y 066-251-29 6172 Beach Unit
A B-21-607 2 to 4 R 1 02/19/2018 1 1 09/28/2021 1 1 09/11/2023 1 NONE Y 066-182-12 7831 ARTESIA
BLVD B-20-173 SFD O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 09/28/2021 1 1 04/05/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7370 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-378 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/20/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7372 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-378 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/20/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7376 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-378 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/20/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7378 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-378 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/20/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7380 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-378 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/20/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7382 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-378 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/20/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7386 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-378 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/17/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7387 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-373 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/17/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7389 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-373 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/17/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7391 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-373 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/17/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7395 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-373 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/17/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7397 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-373 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/17/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7401 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-373 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/17/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7405 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-22-373 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 04/18/2022 1 1 04/17/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7422 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-21-1186 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 10/28/2021 1 1 05/25/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7426 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-21-1186 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 10/28/2021 1 1 05/25/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7428 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-21-1186 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 10/28/2021 1 1 05/25/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7430 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-21-1186 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 10/28/2021 1 1 05/25/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7432 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-21-1186 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 10/28/2021 1 1 05/25/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7436 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-21-1186 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 10/28/2021 1 1 05/25/2023 1 NONE Y 135-152-52 7438 Royal St Jasmine Walk B-21-1186 SFA O 1 10/28/2020 1 1 10/28/2021 1 1 05/25/2023 1 NONE Y 066-281-07
5081

MCCOMBER RD
Unit B
B-22-940 ADU R
0 0 1 12/18/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-441-26 6724 BERRY
AVE Unit B B-22-1553 ADU R 0 1 02/02/2023 1 1 06/08/2023 1 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 276-291-04 7542 10TH ST
Unit B B-22-282 ADU R 0 0 1 01/09/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 136-203-10 7700 EL CANEY
DR Unit B B-22-271 ADU R 0 0 1 01/24/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 260-083-11 6089 SAN
ROLANDO Unit B B-22-1521 ADU R 0 0 1 03/28/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 070-691-14 6443 VERDI DR
Unit B B-22-726 ADU R 0 0 1 04/26/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 134-232-03
9665 MOUNT

BARNARD DR
Unit B
B-22-562 ADU R
0 0 1 05/24/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
260-035-05
6340 SAN

FRANCISCO DR
Unit B
B-22-1509 ADU R
0 1 01/19/2023 1 1 05/24/2023 1 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis
276-261-14 6661 HIGHLAND
AVE Unit B B-22-1649 ADU R 0 1 02/21/2023 1 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 135-191-01 7227 MONROE
Unit B B-23-62 ADU R 0 1 03/20/2023 1 1 07/06/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 263-471-17 7537 BRADLEY
DR Unit B B-22-937 ADU R 0 1 02/22/2023 1 1 08/16/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 070-382-06 8434 PHLOX DR
Unit B B-22-952 ADU R 0 0 1 08/21/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 066-270-67 8362 4TH ST
Unit B B-22-1161 ADU R 0 0 1 08/21/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 066-192-25 8111 TAYLOR ST
Unit B B-22-465 ADU R 0 0 1 08/24/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 070-442-19 8620 HEMLOCK
WAY Unit B B-23-538 ADU R 0 1 06/05/2023 1 1 09/20/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 262-482-03
5804 LOS
INDIOS CIR Unit
B
B-22-1000 ADU R
0 0 1 10/02/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-243-30 6071 MARSHALL
AVE Unit B B-22-1262 ADU R 0 1 05/31/2023 1 1 10/12/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 276-272-04 6702 HIGHLAND
AVE Unit B B-22-1653 ADU R 0 1 03/16/2023 1 1 10/17/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 070-581-30 8469 MERCURY
DR Unit B B-22-1297 ADU R 0 1 02/15/2023 1 1 10/17/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 070-441-08 8176 DALE ST
Unit B B-22-616 ADU R 0 0 1 11/01/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 136-152-19
7389 EL
VERANO DR Unit
B
B-22-1484 ADU R
0 1 02/08/2023 1 1 11/01/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis
070-662-11 8404 MONTANA
AVE Unit B B-22-1042 ADU R 0 0 1 11/02/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 066-135-09 7601 Franklin
Unit 48 B-23-486 ADU R 0 1 06/07/2023 1 1 11/13/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 066-135-09 7601 Franklin
Unit 47 B-23-485 ADU R 0 1 06/07/2023 1 1 11/13/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 066-292-35 7731 Park
Mccomber Unit B B-22-77 ADU R 0 0 1 11/28/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 135-144-23 8666 Fillmore
Unit B B-21-838 ADU R 0 0 1 01/18/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 070-071-55 7142 Stanton
Unit B B-22-667 ADU R 0 0 1 07/11/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 066-192-26 8101 Taylor Unit
B B-22-26 ADU R 0 0 1 05/01/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 066-244-14 6031 Stanton
Unit B B-22-4 ADU R 0 0 1 04/11/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 066-260-02 8122 4th St Unit B B-21-1354 ADU R 0 0 1 06/30/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis
289-064-06 5270 Somerset
Unit B B-22-443 ADU R 0 0 1 11/29/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 070-321-06 8061 Poinsettia
Unit B B-22-460 ADU R 0 0 1 01/27/2023 1 NONE Y SCAG Regional ADU affordability analysis 070-712-52 8923
Orangethorpe
Magnolia
Townhomes B-20-882 SFA O 0 0 1 08/29/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 8927
Orangethorpe
Magnolia
Townhomes B-20-882 SFA O 0 0 1 08/29/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 8931
Orangethorpe
Magnolia
Townhomes B-20-882 SFA O 0 0 1 08/29/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 8933
Orangethorpe
Magnolia
Townhomes B-20-882 SFA O 0 0 1 08/29/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 8937
Orangethorpe
Magnolia
Townhomes B-20-882 SFA O 0 0 1 08/29/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6960 Sagebrush Magnolia
Townhomes B-19-10951 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6968 Sagebrush Magnolia
Townhomes B-19-10951 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6972 Sagebrush Magnolia
Townhomes B-19-10951 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6982 Sagebrush Magnolia
Townhomes B-19-10951 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6959 Crimson Magnolia
Townhomes B-21-314 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6965 Crimson Magnolia
Townhomes B-21-314 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6971 Crimson Magnolia
Townhomes B-21-314 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6979 Crimson Magnolia
Townhomes B-21-314 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6983 Crimson Magnolia
Townhomes B-21-314 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6989 Crimson Magnolia
Townhomes B-21-314 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6991 Crimson Magnolia
Townhomes B-21-314 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
070-712-52 6995 Crimson Magnolia
Townhomes B-21-314 SFA O 0 0 1 02/24/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8890 Los
Coyotes Ct 100
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-842 5+ O 0 0 1 10/24/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8890 Los
Coyotes Ct 110
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-842 5+ O 0 0 1 10/24/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8890 Los
Coyotes Ct 120
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-842 5+ O 0 0 1 10/24/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8890 Los
Coyotes Ct 130
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-842 5+ O 0 0 1 10/24/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8890 Los
Coyotes Ct 200
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-842 5+ O 0 0 1 10/24/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8890 Los
Coyotes Ct 210
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-842 5+ O 0 0 1 10/24/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8890 Los
Coyotes Ct 300
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-842 5+ O 0 0 1 10/24/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8890 Los
Coyotes Ct 310
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-842 5+ O 0 0 1 10/24/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 100
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 110
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 120
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 130
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 200
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 210
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 220
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 230
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 250
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 260
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 300
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 310
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 320
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 330
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 400
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 410
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 420
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8892 Los
Coyotes Ct 430
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-844 5+ O 0 0 1 07/03/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 100
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 110
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 120
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 130
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 200
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 210
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 220
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 230
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 250
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 260
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 300
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 310
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 320
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 330
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 400
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 410
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 420
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8896 Los
Coyotes Ct 430
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-845 5+ O 0 0 1 03/09/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 100
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 110
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 120
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 130
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 200
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 210
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 220
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 230
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 250
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 260
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 300
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 310
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 320
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 330
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 400
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 410
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 420
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+ O 0 0 1 06/22/2023 1 NONE Y
Density Bonus
1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 4 7 10
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Housing with Financial Assistance
and/or Deed Restrictions Project Identifier Demolished/Destroyed Units Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Jurisdiction Buena Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 10/15/2029
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
280-201-22 8900 Los
Coyotes Ct 430
Los Coyotes
Condominiums B-20-847 5+
O
0 01 06/22/2023
1 NONE
Y
13519250 7101 LINCOLN
AVE
7101 Lincoln
Apartments DA-22-1 5+
R00 550000 11/14/2023
55 00 NONEY Other DB Deed restriction required 27.1%
0 Other No
Project is entitled.

Financing is still
underway
070-511-01 8150 LA PALMA Village at Buena
Park DA-21-2 5+
R
00 59
0 1170 1000 06/27/2023 1176
00 NONE
Y Other Other Development Agreement
070-511-01 8150 LA PALMA Village at Buena
Park DA-21-2 SFA
O
00 0000 126 06/27/2023 12600 NONE
Y Other Other Development Agreement
26359319 7242 Valley View
St SP-22-9 2 to 4
O2 09/08/2023
2 00 NONEY
263-612-12
6701 BERRY
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-1235 ADUR
0 1 02/21/2023101 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-243-24
6101 MARSHALL
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-22-1327 ADUR
0 1 01/17/2023101 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-484-31
8382

CALIFORNIA ST,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-22-1371 ADUR
0 1 03/06/2023101 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-220-20
8261 4TH ST,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-22-1461 ADUR
0 1 08/22/2023101 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-152-19
7389 EL

VERANO DR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-22-1484 ADUR
0 1 02/08/2023101 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-263-12
6672 ROSTRATA
AVE, Unit #B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-22-1513 ADUR
0 1 05/16/2023100 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-201-16
7671 EL CHACO
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-1567 ADUR
0 1 02/28/2023100 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
260-032-17
8777 SAN RIO
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-1637 ADUR
0 1 09/25/2023100 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
134-071-08
9195 VIA VISTA
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-1638 ADUR
0 1 05/17/2023100 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
069-351-02
8012 VALLEY
VIEW ST, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-1640 ADUR
0 1 03/02/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-151-22
7556 EL PRADO
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-1648 ADUR
0 1 03/01/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-272-04
6702 HIGHLAND
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-22-1653 ADUR
0 1 03/16/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-492-07
6946 NAOMI AVE,
Unit Unit #B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-774 ADUR
0 1 04/05/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
289-122-08
5231 BUCK HILL
AVE, Unit #B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-22-879 ADUR
0 1 07/19/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-471-17
7537 BRADLEY
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-937 ADUR
0 1 02/22/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
069-691-07
6636 SAN

HAROLDO WAY,
Unit #B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-22-961 ADUR
0 1 06/27/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-244-23
6061 STANTON
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-1002 ADUR
0 1 09/21/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-244-27
6021 STANTON
AVE, Unit #B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-1095 ADUR
0 1 12/13/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-142-57
7662 EL ROVIA
CIR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1134 ADUR
0 1 11/29/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-121-41
7353 EL

DORADO DR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-23-117 ADUR
0 1 06/12/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
277-071-18
6162 KINGMAN
AVE, Unit #B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-1263 ADUR
0 1 11/28/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-431-33
6901 THELMA
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1288 ADUR
0 1 12/12/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-131-14
5671 KINGMAN
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-1296 ADUR
0 1 11/17/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
134-292-21
10032 BERNICE
CIR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1305 ADUR
0 1 12/04/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-311-45
7984 ORCHID
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1344 ADUR
0 1 12/12/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
12/21/1970
6311 INDIANA
ST, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-1493 ADUR
0 1 12/20/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-282-40
6642 KINGMAN
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-314 ADUR
0 1 07/17/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
289-031-01
4751 ST
ANDREWS, Unit

B, BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-349 ADUR
0 1 05/19/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-361-70
7977 SAN
RAFAEL DR, Unit

B, BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-368 ADUR
0 1 10/03/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
260-031-04
8779 HOFFMAN,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-473 ADUR
0 1 05/01/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-331-21
8494

POINSETTIA DR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-23-513 ADUR
0 1 09/21/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-046-03
8142

CALIFORNIA ST,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-700 ADUR
0 1 10/31/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-334-03
8470

PORTULACA
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-716 ADUR
0 1 10/18/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-262-02
6592 HIGHLAND
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-779 ADUR
0 1 08/03/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-441-26
6724 BERRY
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-1553 ADUR
0 1 02/02/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
289-073-14
5422

LOCKHAVEN
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-22-1622 ADUR
0 1 04/27/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-213-19
6482

FULLERTON
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-744 ADUR
0 1 10/12/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-312-10
7836 PINCHOT
COURT, Unit #B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-22-1157 ADUR
0 1 11/13/202310 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
135-152-52
7001 Monarch
Avenue, Buena
Park CA 90621
Monarch Walk B-23-535 SFDO
0 1 07/18/202310 NONEY
135-152-52
7002 Monarch
Avenue, Buena
Park CA 90621
Monarch Walk B-23-533 SFDO
0 1 07/21/2023
10 NONEY
260-042-07
6435 SAN
HARCO CIR, Unit

B, BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-842 ADUR1 07/10/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
289-012-21
4660 ST
ANDREWS, Unit

C, BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-648 ADUR1 05/07/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
289-073-14
5422

LOCKHAVEN
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-375 ADUR
0 01 10/29/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-243-06
7819 GARDENIA
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-169 ADUR
0 01 12/02/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-392-15
7908 HOLDER
ST, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-10 ADUR
0 01 12/19/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-271-18
6691 HIGHLAND
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-1549 ADUR
0 01 10/07/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-312-28
7901 11TH ST,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-1543 ADUR
0 01 07/01/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-351-16
6042 LA CANADA
CIR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1520 ADUR
0 01 09/23/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-301-04
8559 BLUEBELL
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1516 ADUR
0 01 09/05/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-012-21
6311 INDIANA
ST, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-1493 ADUR
0 01 07/22/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
277-101-16
5941

FULLERTON
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-1483 ADUR
0 01 08/21/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-543-14
8697 KENDOR
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1360 ADUR
0 01 07/02/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-311-45
7984 ORCHID
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1344 ADUR
0 01 07/18/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
134-292-21
10032 BERNICE
CIR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1305 ADUR
0 01 10/17/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
277-071-18
6162 KINGMAN
AVE, Unit #B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-1263 ADUR
0 01 04/29/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
27637103
7522 MELROSE
ST, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-1259 ADUR
0 01 09/03/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
069-502-09
6841 SAN DIEGO
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1230 ADUR
0 01 06/05/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-470-04
8581

HILLCREST RD,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-1204 ADUR
0 01 06/24/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-562-06
7080 EAGLE DR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-23-1193 ADUR
0 01 06/25/202411 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-142-57
7662 EL ROVIA
CIR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1134 ADUR
0 01 11/26/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-475-09
6178 CLARK
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1026 ADUR
0 01 08/20/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-263-24
7922 ASTER
CIR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-1008 ADUR
0 01 04/29/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-244-23
6061 STANTON
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-1002 ADUR
0 01 02/23/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
289-102-23
8601 LINKS RD,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-993 ADUR
0 01 09/26/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-142-31
7330 EL

REDONDO CIR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-23-953 ADUR
0 01 10/30/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
135-204-36
8855

BUCHANAN CIR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-23-797 ADUR
0 01 08/27/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-262-02
6592 HIGHLAND
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-779 ADUR
0 01 02/06/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
Jurisdiction Buena Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 10/15/2029
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
070-334-03
8470

PORTULACA
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-716 ADUR
0 01 03/12/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
260-031-04
8779 HOFFMAN,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-23-473 ADUR
0 01 06/13/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
289-031-01
4751 ST
ANDREWS, Unit

B, BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-23-349 ADUR
0 01 04/02/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-151-22
7556 EL PRADO
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-1648 ADUR
0 01 03/19/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1389 SFAO5 11/12/2024
5 00 NONEY
134-071-08
9195 VIA VISTA
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-1638 ADUR
0 01 04/04/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-201-16
7671 EL CHACO
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-1567 ADUR
0 01 08/22/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-220-20
8261 4TH ST,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-22-1461 ADUR
0 01 06/18/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-484-31
8382

CALIFORNIA ST,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-22-1371 ADUR
0 01 02/06/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-243-24
6101 MARSHALL
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-22-1327 ADUR
0 01 02/26/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-612-12
6701 BERRY
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-1235 ADUR
0 01 01/23/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1297 SFAO14 11/12/2024
5 00 NONEY Other DB 45 1.0%
8 On-Site
Improvements,
Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
289-122-08
5231 BUCK HILL
AVE, Unit #B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-22-879 ADUR
0 01 02/21/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-431-38
6851 THELMA
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-867 ADUR
0 01 06/10/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-386-09
7957 PRIMROSE
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-22-261 ADUR
0 01 01/09/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
134-347-06
10293 CLAUDIA
AVE, Unit #B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-21-455 ADUR
0 01 10/15/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-273-09
6731 BURNHAM
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-55 ADUR
0 01 11/25/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
135-204-36
8855

BUCHANAN CIR,
Unit C, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-23-798 ADUR
0 01 08/27/20241 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-382-33
7001 MONARCH

AVENUE, BUENA
PARK, CA 90621
B-23-535 SFAO
0 01 04/11/20241 NONEY
276-382-33
7005 MONARCH

AVE, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-535 SFAO1 04/11/2024 NONEY
276-382-33
7015 MONARCH

AVE, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-535 SFAO1 04/11/2024 NONEY
276-382-33
7019 MONARCH

AVE, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-535 SFAO1 04/11/2024 NONEY
276-382-33
7002 MONARCH

AVENUE, BUENA
PARK, CA 90621
B-23-533 SFAO
0 01 04/11/20241 NONEY
276-382-33
7006 MONARCH

AVENUE, BUENA
PARK, CA 90621
B-23-533 SFAO1 04/11/2024 NONEY
276-382-33
7016 MONARCH

AVENUE, BUENA
PARK, CA 90621
B-23-533 SFAO1 04/11/2024 NONEY
276-382-33
7020 MONARCH

AVENUE, BUENA
PARK, CA 90621
B-23-533 SFAO1 04/11/2024 NONEY
276-382-33
7108 VICEROY

WAY, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-531 SFAO
0 01 03/22/20241 NONEY
276-382-33
7112 VICEROY

WAY, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-531 SFAO1 03/22/2024 NONEY
276-382-33
7114 VICEROY

WAY, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-531 SFAO1 03/22/2024 NONEY
276-382-33
7118 VICEROY

WAY, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-531 SFAO1 03/22/2024 NONEY
276-382-33
7124 VICEROY

WAY, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-531 SFAO1 03/22/2024 NONEY
276-382-33
7128 VICEROY

WAY, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-531 SFAO1 03/22/2024 NONEY
276-382-33
7132 VICEROY

WAY, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-23-531 SFAO1 03/22/2024 NONEY
6624301
6002

DARLINGTON

AVE, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-22-104 SFDO
0 01 01/31/20241 NONEY
27622132
7341 9TH ST,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-20-570 5+R
0 06 06/18/20246 NONEY
6611145
7411 ARTESIA

BLVD, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-19-10134 5+R
0 0 21 03/08/2024 21 NONEY
070-501-01 8030 Dale CU-24-1 SFAO2 12 79 11/12/2024
93 00 NONEY Other DB 45 1.0%
8 Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
069-402-26
8012 SAN

HACIENDA CIR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-1507 ADUR1 10/15/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-262-03
6602 HIGHLAND
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-1500 ADUR1 11/25/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-492-13
7575 KNOTT
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1495 ADUR1 12/03/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-230-54
8232 ARTESIA
BLVD, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-1490 ADUR1 03/19/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
135-142-01
7254 FILLMORE
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1456 ADUR1 07/03/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
069-302-46
6301

CRESCENT AVE,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-1434 ADUR1 11/13/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-262-09
6662 HIGHLAND
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-1397 ADUR1 07/25/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-485-13
8381

CALIFORNIA ST,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-1316 ADUR1 09/12/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-303-20
7971

BELLFLOWER
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1293 ADUR1 10/07/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-332-10
8404

POINSETTIA DR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-1269 ADUR1 10/16/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-174-05
5782 MARSHALL
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-1230 ADUR1 09/26/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-361-75
6211 LA PALMA,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-1222 ADUR1 09/03/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-531-17
6885

SHOSHONEE
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1219 ADUR1 09/23/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-093-18
7166 EL VIENTO
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1182 ADUR1 09/26/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-143-19
5542 KINGMAN
AVE, Unit C,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-1165 ADUR1 06/12/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-143-19
5542 KINGMAN
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-1164 ADUR1 07/02/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-372-14
7880 LA

CASTANA WAY,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-1146 ADUR1 08/14/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
262-163-46
5917 LOS
ALAMOS ST, Unit

B, BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1125 ADUR1 05/08/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
069-515-07
6912 SAN DIEGO
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1123 ADUR
0 1 12/05/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-241-48
7052 9TH ST,
Unit C, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-1112 ADUR1 08/15/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-241-48
7052 9TH ST,
Unit #B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-1111 ADUR1 08/15/2024
1 00 NONE
Y SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-093-21
7130 EL VIENTO
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1106 ADUR1 09/05/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-362-16
8169 CLOVER
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1073 ADUR1 12/14/2023
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-085-20
7141 EL

VERANO DR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-1028 ADUR1 08/21/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-521-20
7333

CHEROKEE CIR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-1023 ADUR
0 1 11/14/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-542-13
8651 BEL AIR
ST, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-980 ADUR1 06/17/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-371-19
7712 MELROSE
ST, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-946 ADUR
0 1 12/18/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-213-6
7551 PERU CIR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-942 ADUR1 06/08/2023
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-071-13
7149 EL CERRO,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-936 ADUR
0 1 12/12/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-220-32
6050 INDIANA
ST, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-891 ADUR
0 1 09/26/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
134-116-06
6715 VIA

RIVIERA WAY,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-890 ADUR1 05/23/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-174-02
5752 MARSHALL
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-863 ADUR1 06/28/2024
1 1 09/25/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
277-044-09
6412 MARSHALL
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-859 ADUR1 06/12/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-543-29
8602 CHERRY
CIR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-845 ADUR1 04/03/2024
1 1 11/21/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
069-524-05
6952 SAN

JOAQUIN CIR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-834 ADUR1 03/06/2024
1 1 11/04/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-220-34
6040 INDIANA
ST, Unit C,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-799 ADUR1 05/31/2024
1 1 10/31/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-264-11
6652 BURNHAM
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-701 ADUR1 03/04/2024
1 1 10/22/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
Jurisdiction Buena Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 10/15/2029
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
136-142-27
7282 EL

REDONDO CIR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-692 ADUR1 10/25/2023
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-262-21
7352 9TH ST,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-685 ADUR1 03/21/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-322-05
8050

POINSETTIA DR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-655 ADUR1 05/28/2024
1 1 10/10/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
289-21-30
5291 FAIRVIEW,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-635 ADUR1 03/13/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
134-193-26
6680 SEQUOIA
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-619 ADUR1 04/03/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-093-01
7224 EL

VERANO DR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-530 ADUR1 04/05/2024
1 1 09/24/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
280-265-02
8902 VESTAVIA,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-524 ADUR1 04/25/2024
1 1 11/26/2024
10 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
135-032-18
7224 SANTA

CATALINA CIR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-515 ADUR1 02/26/2024
1 1 11/04/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-183-27
5932

DARLINGTON
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-461 ADUR1 02/05/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
289-085-02
5462

BURLINGAME
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-452 ADUR1 03/20/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-322-12
7821 MELROSE
ST, Unit #B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-439 ADUR1 01/29/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
135-032-34
7212 SANTA
LUCIA CIR, Unit

B, BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-361 ADUR1 02/05/2024
1 1 07/09/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-111-31
7432 FRANKLIN
ST, Unit C,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-299 ADUR1 06/08/2023
1 1 12/05/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
136-121-23
7353 EL

LUCERO CIR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-225 ADUR1 02/06/2024
1 1 05/08/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-273-12
6701 BURNHAM
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-213 ADUR1 01/24/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-431-49
6933 THELMA
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-192 ADUR1 01/18/2024
1 1 07/30/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-202-09
7635 MEXICO
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-154 ADUR1 09/13/2023
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
135-144-17
8744 FILLMORE
DR, Unit C,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-129 ADUR1 10/31/2023
1 1 07/08/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
135-144-17
8744 FILLMORE
DR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-130 ADUR1 10/31/2023
1 1 07/08/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-220-42
8242 ARTESIA
BLVD, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-95 ADUR1 12/14/2023
1 1 08/15/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
28914222
5105 FAIRVIEW,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-88 ADU
R1 10/23/2023
1 1 12/19/202410 NONE
Y SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-232-13
5815 EQUADOR
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1517 ADUR1 10/08/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-602-10
6862 HOUSTON
ST, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1469 ADUR1 07/22/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
135-142-01
7254 FILLMORE
DR, Unit C,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1457 ADUR1 07/03/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
289-053-08
8371 FOX HILLS
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-1454 ADUR1 11/04/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-222-15
5906 TRINIDAD
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1450 ADUR1 11/14/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-371-02
7798 LA MESA
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1427 ADUR1 11/04/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1411 SFAO14 11/12/2024
5 00 NONEY Other DB 45 1.0%
8 Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1403 SFAO14 11/12/2024
5 00 NONEY Other DB 45 1.0%
8 Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1402 SFAO14 11/12/2024
5 00 NONEY Other DB 45 1.0%
8 Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
135-203-20
8823 JOHNSON
CIR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1375 ADUR1 10/07/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
289-033-02
4841 ST
ANDREWS, Unit

B, BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-1330 ADUR1 10/24/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1298 SFAO5 11/12/2024
5 00 NONEY
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1266 SFAO4 11/12/2024
4 00 NONEY
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1246 SFAO 10 11/12/2024
10 00 NONEY
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1245 SFAO34 11/12/2024
7 00 NONEY Other DB 45 1.0%
8 Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1233 SFA
O8 11/12/2024
8 00 NONEY
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1232 SFAO44 11/12/2024
8 00 NONEY Other DB 45 1.0%
8 Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1231 SFAO26 11/12/2024
8 00 NONEY Other DB 45 1.0%
8 Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1217 SFAO17 11/12/2024
8 00 NONEY Other DB 45 1.0%
8 Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
070-485-11
8361

CALIFORNIA ST,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-1166 ADUR1 09/09/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
06936201
6592 SAN DIEGO

DR, BUENA
PARK, CA 90620
B-24-1131 SFDO1 06/06/2024
1 00 NONEY
134-345-01
6276 MARCELLA
WAY, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-1067 ADUR1 07/11/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
06611132
5891 WESTERN

AVE, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-1016 SFDO1 07/03/2024
1 00 NONEY
066-191-02
8005 FRANKLIN
ST, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-981 ADUR1 07/10/2024
1 1 10/15/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-230-54
8232 ARTESIA
BLVD, Unit C,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-872 ADUR1 03/19/2024
1 1 08/29/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-264-23
6635 WESTERN,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-781 ADUR1 07/10/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-264-23
6635 WESTERN,
Unit A, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-780 SFDO1 07/10/2024
1 00 SB 9 (2021) -
Duplex in SF Zone
Y
276-212-08
7561 9TH ST,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90621
B-24-765 ADUR1 05/30/2024
1 00 NONE
Y SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-141-08
5591 WESTERN
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-657 ADUR1 05/21/2024
1 1 12/12/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
260-032-17
8777 SAN RIO
DR, Unit C,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-606 ADUR1 05/07/2024
1 1 10/10/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
134-072-05
6837 VIA NORTE
CIR, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-604 ADUR1 05/17/2024
1 1 08/22/202410 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
277-043-15
6361 MARSHALL
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-596 ADUR1 04/19/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
263-492-07
6946 NAOMI AVE,
Unit #B, BUENA
PARK, CA 90620
B-24-503 ADUR1 06/07/2022
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
066-183-27
5932

DARLINGTON
AVE, Unit C,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-462 ADUR1 02/05/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
134-212-19
6675 MOUNT

SHASTA CIR,
Unit B, BUENA
PARK CA 90620
B-24-459 ADUR1 01/29/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
276-322-12
7821 MELROSE
ST, Unit #C,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-440 ADUR1 01/29/2024
1 00 NONEY SCAG Regional ADU
affordability analysis
262-503-17
8637 VALLEY
VIEW ST, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
B-24-395 ADUR1 03/14/2024
1 1 08/15/202410 NONEY
276-272-11
6751 ROSTRATA
AVE, Unit B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
B-24-294 ADUR1 02/27/2024
1 1 07/11/202410 NONEY
000-000-00
7692 9TH ST,
Unit BLDG C,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
The Nines B-24-93 5+O
0 5 05/24/202450 NONEY
000-000-00
7692 9TH ST,
Unit BLDG B,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
The Nines B-24-92 5+O
0 5 10/30/202450 NONEY
000-000-00
7692 9TH ST,
Unit BLDG A,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90621
The Nines B-24-78 5+O
0 14 10/30/202450 NONEY DB 11.0%
2 Development
Standards
Modification
No
070-501-01
8030 DALE ST.,

BUENA PARK,
CA 90620
Trellis B-24-1412 SFAO 10 11/12/2024
10 00 NONEY
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
Jurisdiction Buena Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 10/15/2029
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
Jurisdiction Buena Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 10/15/2029
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
City of Buena Park
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report
G. APPROVAL OF ANTI-TOBACCO AND VAPING WATER BILL INSERT Meeting
Tuesday, April 22, 2025, 5:00 PM
Agenda Group
CONSENT CALENDAR Item: 4G.

Prepared By
Eddie Fenton, Assistant City Manager/Director of Human
Resources
Approved By
Aaron France, City Manager
Presented By
Jessica Fewer, Senior Management Analyst

RECOMMENDED ACTION
1) Approve an anti-tobacco and anti-vaping water bill insert.

PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council previously approved two other tobacco grant-sponsored water bill inserts in 2023 and 2024.

DISCUSSION
The City is in its third year of the 2022 California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program. As part of the marketing component of this grant, staff has created a water bill insert to convey the dangers of smoking and vaping, especially in teens and youth. This water bill insert will be included in all bills sent out from May to July 2025.

BUDGET IMPACT
The cost of the water bill insert will be approximately $1,800. A total of $1,700 is available from the California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant for this water bill insert. America On Track will provide the additional $100 to cover the cost of the project.

Attachments
Bitter Truth water bill insert.pdf

City of Buena Park
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report
A. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH ONYX PAVING COMPANY FOR THE 2024-2025 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT Meeting
Tuesday, April 22, 2025, 5:00 PM
Agenda Group
NEW BUSINESS Item: 5A.

Prepared By
Mina Mikhael, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Approved By
Aaron France, City Manager
Presented By
Jason Tran, Assistant Engineer

RECOMMENDED ACTION
1) Adopt a resolution approving the plans and specifications for the 2024-2025 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project; 2) Award a contract to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $1,133,000; 3) Authorize contingency funds in the amount of  $115,000 in the same purchase order; 4) Authorize construction engineering in the amount of $60,000; 5) Authorize a purchase order for The Solis Group in the amount of $4,140 for administration of the Community Workforce Agreement (CWA); 6) Authorize contingency funds in the amount of $1,380 for the CWA administration; 7) Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to make any necessary, non-monetary changes to the contract; and, 8) Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the contract.

PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTION
None.

DISCUSSION
Cities undertake annual pavement rehabilitation projects to ensure the safety, functionality, and longevity of road infrastructure. These projects address issues such as cracks, potholes, and surface wear, preventing them from worsening and reducing the need for costly emergency repairs. Well-maintained roads contribute to better roadway conditions, for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Additionally, roads enhance public satisfaction, improve the overall quality of life for residents, and boost the reputation of a city.

The 2024-2025 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project will include removing and replacing street pavement, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, cross gutters, curb ramps, striping, and traffic loops in the area near Stanton Avenue and Crescent Avenue. Work limits include Maple Drive, Mulberry Avenue, Mango Way, Lime Circle, Larch Circle, Locust Drive, Linden Circle, Lemon Circle, Grand Avenue Frontage Road, Adams Way, Jackson Way, and the alley parallel to Mulberry Avenue.

The project was advertised for competitive bids on March 27, 2025. Five (5) bids were received and publicly opened on April 10, 2025. Bid amounts ranged from $1,133,000 to $1,234,435. The lowest, responsible bid was determined to have been submitted by Onyx Paving Company, Inc. of Anaheim, CA, in the amount of $1,133,000.

This contractor possesses the required license and has completed similar projects for other cities such as Dana Point, Eastvale, and Arcadia. Staff recommends awarding the contract to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $1,133,000, approving contingency funds in the amount of $115,000, and authorizing construction engineering funds in the amount of $60,000. Construction is scheduled to begin in June 2025 and be completed in July 2025.

BUDGET IMPACT
Total cost for the project is in the amount of $1,313,520. Below is an itemized budget breakdown:

Construction Contract: $1,133,000
Construction Contingency: $115,000
Construction Engineering: $60,000
Community Workforce Agreement Administration: $4,140
Community Workforce Agreement Administration Contingency: $1,380 This project is budgeted in the FY2024-2025 CIP budget, and will be funded by the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Fund (Account No. 24-9806-590004). This account has sufficient funds available for this project.

Attachments
Att 1 of 6 - Resolution.pdf
Att 2 of 6 - Location Map.pdf
Att 3 of 6 - Bid Summary.pdf
Att 4 of 6 - Bid Result.pdf
Att 5 of 6 - Contract.pdf
Att 6 of 6 - CWA Proposal (1).pdf
RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BUENA PARK, CALIFORNIA APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR 2024-2025 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT IN SAID CITY.

WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Buena Park to construct certain improvements in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared specifications and plans for the construction of certain improvement(s).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the specifications and plans presented by the City be and are hereby approved as the specifications and plans for:
2024-2025 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of _______________ _____ by the following called vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
I, Adria M. Jimenez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Buena Park, California, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Buena Park, held this _____ day of ________________ _____.
______________________________________
City Clerk
322 2870 2864 2860 2854
325
321 2850
3181
405
332 328 324
3123 3119 3115 3111 3107 3103 3177 3173 3169 3165 3161 3155 3151 3147 3143 3139 3135 3131 3127 328 24-25 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION DRAWN BY:

DATE:

E:\Projects\Street\Active\Annual Pavement Rehabilitation 2024-2025\Exhibits\Location Map\CAD\Exhibits\Annual Pavement Rehab.dwg

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
EXHIBIT NO.

N

PROJECT LOCATION MAP B
AH
MARCH 2025
LEGEND

PROJECT
AREA

LINDEN CIR

LEMON CIR

CRESCENT AVE MANGO WY MAPLE DR

LIME CIR

LARCH CIR LOCUST DR ALLEY

ADAMS WY STANTON AVE MULBERRY AVE STANTON AVE

CRESCENT AVE

ADAMS WY

JACKSON WY

JACKSON WY GRAND AVE

BEACH BLVD
Item Approx. Unit Description Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No Quantity Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount 1 1 LS Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP/BMP) $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $9,994.00 $9,994.00 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,198.80 $10,198.80 2 1 LS
Traffic control including computerized message
signs, construction information signs, and steel
plates
$130,500.00 $130,500.00 $88,000.00 $88,000.00 $105,116.00 $105,116.00 $198,000.00 $198,000.00 $112,000.00 $112,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $126,723.20 $126,723.20 3 325500 SF Cold Mill and Remove 2-inch of Existing AC
Pavement $0.40 $130,200.00 $0.30 $97,650.00 $0.39 $126,945.00 $0.35 $113,925.00 $0.46 $149,730.00 $0.60 $195,300.00 $0.38 $123,690.00 4 4000 TONS
Construct 2-inch thick asphalt concrete surface
course, type III C3 PG 70-10 (1/2" rock) with
aramid fiber reinforcement
$130.00 $520,000.00 $138.00 $552,000.00 $134.00 $536,000.00 $130.00 $520,000.00 $121.00 $484,000.00 $130.00 $520,000.00 $130.60 $522,400.00 5 23000 SF Prepare road and install rubber polymer modified slurry (RPMS) Type I $1.22 $28,060.00 $1.15 $26,450.00 $0.79 $18,170.00 $0.75 $17,250.00 $1.20 $27,600.00 $0.60 $13,800.00 $1.02 $23,506.00 6 100 TONS Optional - Asphalt Concrete Leveling course
type D2 Mix (Dense fine) PG 64-10 $130.00 $13,000.00 $192.00 $19,200.00 $125.00 $12,500.00 $174.00 $17,400.00 $184.00 $18,400.00 $125.00 $12,500.00 $161.00 $16,100.00 7 100 CY Optional - Over Excavation (Unsuitable Area) $100.00 $10,000.00 $300.00 $30,000.00 $98.70 $9,870.00 $245.00 $24,500.00 $466.00 $46,600.00 $150.00 $15,000.00 $241.94 $24,194.00 8 2 EA Adjust water manhole frame and cover to grade $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,260.00 $2,520.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,452.00 $2,904.00 9 2 EA Adjust Water Valve and Cover to Grade per City
Std. 518 $850.00 $1,700.00 $1,600.00 $3,200.00 $1,260.00 $2,520.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,142.00 $2,284.00 10 1 EA Adjust existing City water meter box to grade $850.00 $850.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,050.00 $1,050.00 $900.00 $900.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,140.00 $1,140.00 11 43 EA
Remove and Install a New Composite Frame &
Cover to grade per City Standard No. 505 &
Specification Section 500.
$2,750.00 $118,250.00 $3,300.00 $141,900.00 $3,220.00 $138,460.00 $2,300.00 $98,900.00 $2,600.00 $111,800.00 $3,000.00 $129,000.00 $2,834.00 $121,862.00 12 1 EA Adjust Existing City Sewer Manhole Frame and
Cover to grade $900.00 $900.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,260.00 $1,260.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,232.00 $1,232.00 13 4 EA Adjust Existing City sewer clean out to grade $900.00 $3,600.00 $1,400.00 $5,600.00 $1,260.00 $5,040.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,112.00 $4,448.00 14 4 EA Adjust existing City storm drain manhole frame
and cover $900.00 $3,600.00 $1,600.00 $6,400.00 $1,260.00 $5,040.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,232.00 $4,928.00 15 1 EA Adjust existing gas anode box $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,260.00 $1,260.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,392.00 $1,392.00 16 5 EA Reset Benchmark/Survey Monument $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,100.00 $10,500.00 $840.00 $4,200.00 $800.00 $4,000.00 $1,990.00 $9,950.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,346.00 $6,730.00 17 2100 SF
Remove existing and construct 4-inch thick PCC
sidewalk per City of Buena Park Standard Plan
208
$14.00 $29,400.00 $15.00 $31,500.00 $14.00 $29,400.00 $22.00 $46,200.00 $14.00 $29,400.00 $17.50 $36,750.00 $15.80 $33,180.00 18 700 LF Remove existing and construct curb and gutter per City of Buena Park Standard Plan 202
$88.00 $61,600.00 $59.00 $41,300.00 $84.00 $58,800.00 $124.00 $86,800.00 $79.00 $55,300.00 $100.00 $70,000.00 $86.80 $60,760.00 19 180 SF
Remove existing and construct driveway
approach panel per City of Buena Park Standard
Plan 209
$33.00 $5,940.00 $29.00 $5,220.00 $31.00 $5,580.00 $32.00 $5,760.00 $23.00 $4,140.00 $100.00 $18,000.00 $29.60 $5,328.00 20 2 EA
Remove existing and construct concrete cross
gutter per City of Buena Park Standard Plan 105.

Adjust to grade as needed during construction.

Match existing flow line/provide continuous flow
line
$15,500.00 $31,000.00 $22,000.00 $44,000.00 $28,000.00 $56,000.00 $24,000.00 $48,000.00 $22,000.00 $44,000.00 $30,000.00 $60,000.00 $22,300.00 $44,600.00 21 5 EA Remove existing tree and restore parkway $3,500.00 $17,500.00 $3,000.00 $15,000.00 $1,760.00 $8,800.00 $1,700.00 $8,500.00 $2,900.00 $14,500.00 $7,000.00 $35,000.00 $2,572.00 $12,860.00 22 1 LS Optional - Retain arborist to evaluate tree health $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,020.00 $2,020.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $2,204.00 $2,204.00 23 1 LS Install traffic striping, markers, and markings $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $3,675.00 $3,675.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,835.00 $3,835.00 24 1 EA Install Type D Traffic Loop Detectors Per
Caltrans STD Plan ES-5B $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,390.00 $1,390.00

BASE BID
Hardy and Harper Excel Paving
24-25 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT
Project No. 512 - Bid No. 2025-11
Bid Summary
Bid Opening: April 10, 2025 - 2:00 P.M.

Onyx Paving Company All American Asphalt RJ Noble Company Engineer's Estimate Average PAGE 1 OF 2
Item Approx. Unit Description Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No Quantity Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount

BASE BID
Onyx Paving Company All American Asphalt RJ Noble Company Engineer's Estimate Average Hardy and Harper Excel Paving 25 1 EA Install Type E Traffic Loop Detectors Per
Caltrans STD Plan ES-5B $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,320.00 $1,320.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,384.00 $1,384.00 BID AMOUNT $1,133,000.00 $1,142,320.00 $1,147,000.00 $1,234,435.00 $1,139,610.00 $1,200,350.00 PAGE 2 OF 2
Company Name Bid Amount
1 Onyx Paving Company, Inc. 1,133,000.00 $
2 RJ Noble Company 1,142,320.00 $
3 Hardy and Harper, Inc. 1,147,000.00 $
4 Excel Paving 1,234,435.00 $
5 All American Asphalt 1,139,610.00 $
City of Buena Park

BID RESULTS
24-25 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT
Project No. 512
Bid No. 2025-11
Bid Opening: 04/10/2025- 2:00 P.M.

CONTRACT
C-1

CONTRACT

CITY OF BUENA PARK CONTRACT FOR
24-25 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
“Project”
Project Number: 512
Bid Number: 2025-11
This CONTRACT (“Contract”) is made and entered this ________ day of _____________, 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF BUENA PARK, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and [CONTRACTOR], a [LEGAL DESIGNATION / FORM OF ENTITY] (“Contractor”).

Contractor’s California State Contractor’s license number is ___________. The Contractor and the City are sometimes referred to herein collectively as the “Parties” and singularly as “Party.” In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Contract Documents. The Contract Documents consist of the following, each of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:

A. This Contract;
B. The Notice Inviting Bids for the above-referenced project (“Project”), dated ________________;
C. The Instructions to Bidders for the Project, dated ______________________; D. Contractor’s Bid for the Project, dated ______ (including documentation accompanying the Bid and any post-Bid documentation submitted before the Notice of Award);
E. The Contractor’s Bonds for the Bid and the Project;
F. The final working drawings, plans, and specifications for the Project as approved by the City, and dated ________________ (“Plans and Specifications”).

G. The City of Buena Park’s Standard Specifications for Public Works Projects, Latest Edition;
H. The City of Buena Park’s Special Provisions for Public Works Projects, Latest Edition;
I. Any and all permits from regulatory agencies with jurisdiction issued for the Project; and
J. Any addenda or change orders for the Project approved by the City subsequent to the Effective Date of this Contract.

2. Scope of Services. Contractor shall perform all Work necessary to complete, in a good and workmanlike manner, a public works project identified in the title of this Contract above (the “Project”), as such Project and the Work to be performed by Contractor is further are described in the Contract Documents.

3. Compensation. In consideration for Contractor’s performance of the Work required to complete the Project hereunder, City shall pay Contractor a total NOT-TO-EXCEED amount of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE THOUSAND dollars ($1,133,00.00) in C-2
accordance with the prices as submitted in the Bid (“Compensation”). The Compensation shall be the total and complete such payable by the City for any and all costs, direct or indirect, of the Contractor for provision of the Work and completion of the Project, including but not limited to general and supplementary conditions, performance and payment bonds, Contractor fee for construction, and Contractor overhead and profit, and any other items of costs, accounting, or expense relating to or arising therefrom. Compensation shall under no circumstances be increased except via a formal change order approved by the City; and only if such overruns result of additional scope from the City, as opposed to price overruns, delays, errors, or omissions.

4. Term of Contract: The Contractor agrees to complete the work to City’s satisfaction within THIRTY (30) WORKING DAYS from the date of written notice to proceed. The Contractor further agrees to the assessment of liquidated damages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500) for each calendar day the work remains incomplete beyond the expiration of the completion date. The City may deduct the amount thereof from any monies due or that may become due the Contractor under this Contract.

5. Incorporation by Reference. All of the following documents are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Workers’ Compensation Certificate of Insurance, Additional Insured Endorsement (Comprehensive General Liability), Additional Insured Endorsement (Automobile Liability), and Additional Insured Endorsement (Excess Liability).

6. Insurance: The Contractor shall not commence work under this Contract until it has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies acceptable to City nor shall the Contractor allow any subcontractor to commence work on a subcontract until all insurance required of its subcontractor has been obtained. The Contractor shall take out and maintain at all times during the life of this contract the following policies of insurance:

A. Compensation Insurance.

1. Before beginning work, the Contractor shall furnish to the City a certificate of insurance as proof that it has taken out full compensation insurance for all persons whom the Contractor may employ directly or through subcontractors in carrying out the work specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect during the period covered by this Contract. Further such policy of insurance shall provide that the insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents.

2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code, every Contractor shall secure the payment of compensation to his employees.

Contractor, prior to commencing work, shall sign and file with the City, a certification as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker’s compensation or to undertake self insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.” B. General Insurance Requirements

1. Types of Coverage. Contractor shall maintain the following insurance coverage C-3
throughout the term of this Contract, and upon request Contractor shall show City evidence of such coverage, which may include visual inspection of all policies, copies of declarations page, endorsements signed by an authorized representative of the underwriting company, or certificates of insurance. Insurance coverage shall be provided in the following form:
a. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage occurrence form number CG 00 01 11 85 or 88.
b. Automobile Liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 06 92 covering “Any Auto” (Symbol 1).
c. Workers Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability insurance.

2. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain insurance coverage limits no less than:
a. General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit, and shall contain specified language creating a duty to defend against any suit seeking damages. b. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
c. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles and/or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either:
the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, elected officials, employees, agents, and volunteers; or, the Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.

D. Other Insurance Provisions. The Contractor and City further agree as follows:

1. All insurance coverage and limits provided pursuant to this Contract shall apply to the full extent of the policies involved, available or applicable. Nothing contained in this Contract or any other agreement relating to the City or its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage. Nothing contained in this Section is to be construed as affecting or altering the legal status of the parties to this Contract.

2. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only and is not intended by any party to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type.

3. For any claims related to this Project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary to any other similar insurance. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained C-4
by the City, its officers, employees or volunteers, shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it.

4. The City, its officers, elected officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor and with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor's insurance, or as a separate owner's policy.

5. For purposes of insurance coverage only, this Contract will be deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards, performance of this Contract.

6. All general or auto liability insurance coverage provided pursuant to this Contract, or any other agreements pertaining to the performance of this Contract, shall not prohibit Contractor, and Contractor's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Contractor waives its right of subrogation against City.

7. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Contract does not comply with these requirements or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Contractor.

8. Contractor shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring during the term of this Contract have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Such proof will be furnished within 72 hours of the expiration of the coverages.

9. Any actual or alleged failure on the part of City or any other additional insured under these requirements to obtain proof of insurance required under this Contract in no way waives any right or remedy of City or any additional insured, in this or any other regard.

10. All insurance coverage shall contain a provision that prohibits cancellation, modification or lapse without thirty (30) days' prior written notice from insurer to the City. Contractor agrees to require its insurer to modify the certificates of insurance to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, and to delete the word "endeavor" with regard to any notice provisions.
11 All insurance coverage shall include a severability of interests clause substantially similar to the following: "The insurance afforded by this policy applies separately to each insured against whom a claim or suit is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limit of the insurer's liability."

12. All insurance coverage shall contain a clause substantially in the following words:
"It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy shall not be canceled nor materially changed except upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City of Buena Park of such cancellation or material change as evidence by a return receipt for a registered letter."
C-5

13. All insurance coverage shall cover the operations of the Contractor pursuant to the terms of this Contract.

14. Contractor agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Contractor that includes City as a defendant. City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.

15. In the event of any loss that is not insured due to the failure of Contractor to comply with these requirements, Contractor agrees to be personally responsible for any and all losses, claims, suits, damages, defense obligations and liability of any kind attributed to City, or City's employees, or any of the additional insureds as a result of such failure.

16. Coverage will not be limited to the specific location or individual or entity designated as the address of the Project.

17. Contractor agrees not to attempt to avoid its defense and indemnity obligations to City and its employees, agents, officials and servants by using as a defense Contractor's statutory immunity under workers' compensation and similar statutes.

18. Contractor agrees to require all parties or subcontractors, including architects or others, with which it enters into contracts or hires pursuant to or related in any way with the performance of this Contract, to provide insurance covering the operations contracted for and naming as additional insureds all parties to this Contract.

Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided as required here.

Contractor agrees that no contract, standard form or otherwise, used by any party in any way connected with this Contract, or contracts Contractor enters into on behalf of City, will reserve the right to charge back to City the cost of insurance required by this or any other agreement.

E. Acceptability of Insurers. Coverage shall be written by insurers with a current A.M.

Best's rating of no less than "A:VIII," and be admitted to conduct business in the State of California by the Department of Insurance.

F. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with evidence of the insurance required by this Section, satisfactory to City, consisting of original certificates of insurance and amendatory endorsements, and an additional insured endorsement at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 20 10 11 85. The endorsements should be on forms provided by the City or on other than the City's forms or a separate owner’s policy, provided those forms or policies are approved by the City, and amended to conform to the City's requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time. Contractor agrees to provide complete certified copies of policies to City within 10 days of City's request for said copies.

G. Subcontractors. Contractor shall include all subcontractors or any other party involved in the Project by Contractor as insured under its policies or shall require subcontractors or any other party involved in the Project by Contractor to carry the same insurance as C-6
required herein. Contractor agrees to obtain certificates evidencing such coverage and make reasonable efforts to ensure that such coverage is provided as required here.

Contractor agrees to require that no contract used by any subcontractor, or contracts Contractor enters into on behalf of City, will reserve the right to charge back to City the cost of insurance required by this Contract. Contractor agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors or others with whom Contractor contracts with on behalf of City and all certificates of insurance obtained in compliance with this paragraph will be submitted to City or review. Failure of City to request copies of such documents will not impose and liability on City, or its employees.

7. Indemnitifcation.

A. Contractor and City agree that City, its employees, officers, agents and elected officials should, to the extent permitted by law, be fully protected from any loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost, expense, attorneys fees, litigation costs, defense costs, court costs or any other cost arising out of or in any way related to the performance of this Contract.

Contractor acknowledges that CITY would not have entered into this Contract in the absence of the commitment of Contractor to indemnify and protect City as set forth here.

B. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected officials, employees, agents, volunteers and officers (“Indemnitees”), from any and all liabilities, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, stop notices, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, actual attorneys fees incurred by City, court costs, interest, defense costs including expert witness fees and any other costs or expenses of any kind whatsoever without restriction or limitation incurred in relation to, as a consequence of, arising out of or in any way attributable actually, allegedly or impliedly, in whole or in part to the Contractor’s performance of this Contract. All obligations under this provision are to be paid by Contractor as they are incurred by the City.

C. Without affecting the rights of City under any provision of this Contract or this section, Contractor shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City as set forth above for liability attributable to the sole fault of City, provided such fault is determined by agreement between the parties or the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. This exception will apply only in instances where the City is shown to have been solely at fault and not in instances where Contractor is solely or partially at fault or in instances where City 's fault accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved. In those instances, the obligation of Contractor will be all-inclusive and City will be indemnified for all liability incurred, even though a percentage of the liability is attributable to the conduct of the City.

D. Contractor acknowledges that its obligation pursuant to this section extends to liability attributable to City, if that liability is other than the sole fault of City. Contractor has no obligation under this Contract for liability proven in a court of competent jurisdiction or by written agreement between the parties to be the sole fault of City.

E. The obligations of Contractor under this or any other provision of this Contract will not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. Contractor expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to the Indemnitees.

The Contractor’s indemnity obligation set forth in this section shall not be limited by the limits of any policies of insurance required or provided by the Contractor pursuant to this C-7
Contract.

8. Antitrust Claims. In entering into this Contract, Contractor offers and agrees to assign to City all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq.) arising from purchases of goods, services, or materials pursuant to the Contract.

This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City tenders final payment to Contractor without further acknowledgment by the parties.

9. Prevailing Wages. City and Contractor acknowledge that the Project is a public work to which prevailing wages apply.

10. Community Workforce Agreement. The City and contractor acknowledge that the project is covered by a Community Workforce Agreement between the City and the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council and the Signatory Craft Councils and Local Unions (the “CWA”). Contractor agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the CWA.

11. Titles. The titles used in this Contract are for convenience only and shall in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Contract or any part of it.

12. Authority. Any person executing this Contract on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she has the power and authority to execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor and has the power and authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

13. Entire Agreement; Modification. This Contract, including the Contract Documents and any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Contractor. Each Party to this Contract acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements, oral or otherwise, have been made by any Party, or anyone acting on behalf of any Party, which are not embodied herein. This Contract supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Contract may not be modified or amended, nor any provision or breach waived, except in a writing signed by both parties that expressly refers to this Contract.

14. Exhibits; Precedence. All documents referenced as exhibits in this Contract are hereby incorporated into this Contract by this reference. In the event of any inconsistency between the express provisions of this Contract and any provision of an exhibit, the provisions of this Contract, then the City’s invitation for bids, if any, shall prevail.

15. Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in counterpart originals, duplicate originals, or both, each of which is deemed to be an original for all purposes.

C-8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Contract the day and year first above written.

CITY OF BUENA PARK
By:

City Manager
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: By:

City Clerk City Attorney
Dated:
(For City Clerk) (“CONTRACTOR”)
By:

By:

Headquarters
3452 E Foothill Blvd / Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91107 USA
P 626 685 6989
F 626 685 6985
Pasadena / Dallas / Las Vegas / Oakland / San Diego thesolisgroup.com April 15, 2025
Jason Tran, P.E.

Assistant Engineer
City of Buena Park
6650 Beach Boulevard
Buena Park, CA 90621
Re: Proposal for CWA Administration Services for the
24-25 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project
Dear Jason Tran:

The Solís Group (TSG) is pleased to submit this cost proposal to provide CWA administration services required for the above referenced project. The work scope for this assignment is based on our proposal dated June 3, 2022. Our cost proposal based on information provided by the City is summarized below.

Project Description Construction
Value
Duration
(including closeout)
Monthly
Fee
Life of Project
Cost Estimate
24-25 Annual Pavement
Rehabilitation Project $ 1,200,000 3 $ 1,380 $ 4,140
TOTAL COST $ 4,140
If actual construction (including punch list) and closeout extends beyond the planned duration, we will examine the need for additional budget.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City. If you have any questions regarding this cost proposal, please contact the undersigned. Please send Notice-to-Proceed to Sabrina Cristi, Accounting Assistant, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Gonzalo Armijos
Vice President of Business Development
City of Buena Park
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report
B. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2024 WATER MASTER PLAN
Meeting
Tuesday, April 22, 2025, 5:00 PM
Agenda Group
NEW BUSINESS Item: 5B.

Prepared By
Mina Mikhael, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Approved By
Aaron France, City Manager
Presented By
Jason Tran, Assistant Engineer

RECOMMENDED ACTION
1) Adopt a resolution approving the 2024 Water Master Plan.

PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTION
On September 26, 2023, City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Stetson Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $400,000 for creation of the 2024 Water Master Plan project.

DISCUSSION
The City of Buena Park (City) maintains and operates its own water system through the Public Works Department.

The City’s service area encompasses approximately 10.4-square miles and services a population of over 82,000 residents through over 19,000 service connections. The City meets its demand of approximately 13,000 acre-feet of water per year through a combination of local groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin as well as purchased water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The City’s distribution system conveys the demand through roughly 220 miles of underground pipeline.  The distribution system includes one (1) storage reservoir capable of holding over 20 million gallons of water, eight (8) active groundwater wells with a combined production capacity of 14,900 gallons per minute, one (1) booster pumping station, 13 pressure regulating stations, and four (4) import water connections.

The City prioritizes the performance and reliability of its water system through the ongoing implementation of the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which focuses on upgrading pipelines, facilities, and other infrastructure. In close coordination with our operations program, which is responsible for maintaining and operating the system on a daily basis, these efforts support better efficiency, system resiliency, and long-term reliability. Updating the Water Master Plan also allows us to regularly re-evaluate the system and equip our team with a structured road map to guide essential improvements. These include the rehabilitation of groundwater wells used for water extraction and the upgrading of key pipeline segments to meet current and future demand in our growing community.

The purpose of the Water Master Plan is to understand the current water supply and demand. It aims to identify possible efficiencies and promote best practices for managing water supply, improving water use efficiency, and conserving water. The Water Master Plan will also serve as a basis for reviewing the water demands for new developments at an earlier stage of the process and strategically enhancing water systems at locations where new developments are anticipated through the Buena Park Housing Element The City’s previous Water Master Plan was developed in 2019; however, it is important that this document is updated periodically to incorporate changing conditions in order to remain useful, relevant, and accurate.

The 2024 Water Master Plan provides a road map for planning and development of the City’s water system and includes:

A summary of current regulations to meet anticipated water quality and conservation mandates.

An inventory of existing and planned future water system facilities An analysis of the existing water system based on condition assessments, hydraulic modeling, and planned developments
A Capital Improvement Program for pipeline and water facility improvements to enhance operations and overall system reliability
A water system operations plan for operating and maintaining the water system in compliance with drinking water standards and routine reporting requirements
The Water Master Plan will be used as a guideline for the City to prioritize its water CIP projects over the next several years and to operate and maintain its water system, identify improvements and deficiencies.

BUDGET IMPACT
There is no budget impact associated with the adoption of this resolution.

Attachments
Att 1 of 3 - Resolution.pdf
Water System Master Plan (reduced).pdf
Att 3 of 3 Appendix A to G.pdf.pdf
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BUENA PARK ADOPTING THE 2024 WATER MASTER PLAN IN SAID CITY.

WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Buena Park to implement a water master plan; and
WHEREAS, Stetson Engineers, Inc. has prepared a water master plan for assessing and evaluating the City’s water system.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the documents presented by the City be and are hereby approved as the:
2024 WATER MASTER PLAN
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April 2025, by the following called vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS
_______________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
City Clerk
I, Adria M. Jimenez, MMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Buena Park held this 22nd day of April 2025.
_______________________________________
City Clerk

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………...1
ES.1 Goal and Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1 ES.2 Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 1 ES.3 Land Use and Known Planned Developments.................................................................. 3 ES.4 Projected Population ......................................................................................................... 3 ES.5 Existing Water System...................................................................................................... 4 ES.6 Existing and Future Water Demands ................................................................................ 7 ES.7 Water Supplies, Water Quality, and Treatment Needs ..................................................... 9 ES.8 Existing and Future Water System Evaluation ............................................................... 12 ES.8.1 Water Supply Capacity Analysis.............................................................................. 12 ES.8.2 Storage Capacity Analysis ....................................................................................... 13 ES.8.3 Booster Pump Station Capacity Analysis................................................................. 13 ES.8.4 Remaining Service Life Analysis............................................................................. 14 ES.8.5 Energy Efficiency Analysis...................................................................................... 15 ES.8.6 Reservoir Condition Assessment Based on Reservoir Inspection Reports.............. 15 ES.8.7 Distribution System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis................................................. 16 ES.8.8 Pipeline Replacement and Rehabilitation Needs ..................................................... 16 ES.8.9 Water System Recommendations............................................................................. 17 ES.8.10 Capital Improvement Program............................................................................... 22 Chapter 1 – Introduction ........................................................................................................... 23

1.1 Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................................... 23

1.2 Service Area........................................................................................................................ 24

1.3 Report Organization............................................................................................................ 25 Chapter 2 – Study Area, Land Use, and Population ............................................................... 28

2.1 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 28

2.2 Climate............................................................................................................................... 29

2.3 Population .......................................................................................................................... 31

2.3.1 Historical and Existing Population ............................................................................. 31

2.3.2 Projected Population ................................................................................................... 31

2.4 Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 33

2.4.1 Existing Land Use....................................................................................................... 33

2.4.2 Future Land Use.......................................................................................................... 36

2.4.3 Planned Major Developments..................................................................................... 38 ii
Chapter 3 – Existing Water System .......................................................................................... 41

3.1 Water System Facilities..................................................................................................... 41

3.1.1 Existing Groundwater Wells........................................................................................ 43

3.1.2 Existing Storage Reservoirs........................................................................................ 53

3.1.3 Existing Booster Pump Stations.................................................................................. 54

3.1.4 Existing MWD Connections for Imported Water....................................................... 55

3.1.5 Existing Emergency Interconnections ........................................................................ 56

3.1.6 Existing Pressure Regulating Stations........................................................................ 57

3.1.7 Existing Pipelines........................................................................................................ 58

3.2 Water System Schematic ................................................................................................... 64 Chapter 4 – Water Demands ..................................................................................................... 66

4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 66

4.2 Historical Water Consumption (Sales) .............................................................................. 67

4.3 Historical Potable Water Supply/Production..................................................................... 70

4.4 System Water Losses......................................................................................................... 72

4.5 Peaking Factors.................................................................................................................. 73

4.6 Future Water Demand Projection ...................................................................................... 75

4.6.1 Water Demand Factors................................................................................................ 75

4.6.2 Water Demand Projections for Known Planned Developments................................. 76

4.6.3 Future System-Wide Water Demand Projections....................................................... 78

4.7 Peak Potable Water Demands............................................................................................ 79

4.8 Water Demands by Pressure Zones ................................................................................... 79

4.9 Water Conservation Effects on Water Demand................................................................. 82

4.10 Recycled Water Demands................................................................................................ 84 Chapter 5 – Existing Water Supplies, Water Quality, and Treatment.................................. 85

5.1 Existing Water Supply Sources and Treatment ................................................................. 85

5.1.1 Orange County Groundwater Basin............................................................................ 86

5.1.2 NPL Sites and LUST Sites.......................................................................................... 89

5.2 Water Quality Regulations, Water Quality Conditions, and Treatment Needs ................. 93

5.2.1 Title 22 Drinking Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations and Monitoring Results ............................................................................................................................................... 93

5.2.2 Federal Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule................................................... 97

5.2.3 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (D/DBPR)......................................... 98

5.2.4 Radionuclide Rule....................................................................................................... 99

5.2.5 Revised Total Coliform Rule .................................................................................... 100

5.2.6 Groundwater Rule ..................................................................................................... 100 iii

5.2.7 Arsenic Rule.............................................................................................................. 101

5.2.8 Lead and Copper Rule............................................................................................... 101

5.2.9 Lead Service Line Inventory..................................................................................... 102

5.2.10 School Lead Testing................................................................................................ 102

5.2.11 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ........................................................................................... 103

5.2.12 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Treatment Needs...................... 104

5.2.13 Microplastics........................................................................................................... 107

5.2.14 Public Notification of Drinking Water Quality....................................................... 108

5.3 Summary of Water Quality Requirements....................................................................... 109 Chapter 6 – Performance and Design Criteria ...................................................................... 110

6.1 Summary of Performance Criteria for Existing System Evaluation................................ 110

6.2 Descriptions of Performance Criteria .............................................................................. 111

6.2.1 System Pressure ........................................................................................................ 111

6.2.2 Fire Flow Requirements............................................................................................ 111

6.2.3 Pipeline Velocities and Head Loss............................................................................ 112

6.2.4 Water Supply Capacity ............................................................................................. 113

6.2.5 Reservoir Storage Capacity....................................................................................... 114

6.2.6 Booster Pumping Capacity........................................................................................ 117

6.3 Design Criteria for New or Expanded Systems............................................................... 118 Chapter 7 – Existing System Evaluation ................................................................................ 120

7.1 Water Supply Capacity Analysis ..................................................................................... 120

7.2 Storage Capacity Analysis............................................................................................... 123

7.3 Booster Pump Station Capacity Analysis ........................................................................ 125

7.4 Remaining Service Life Analysis.................................................................................... 127

7.4.1 Remaining Service Life – Well Casing .................................................................... 128

7.4.2 Remaining Service Life – Well Pumps and Booster Pumps..................................... 129

7.4.3 Remaining Service Life – Reservoirs....................................................................... 131

7.4.4 Summary of Remaining Service Life Analysis ........................................................ 132

7.5 Energy Efficiency Analysis ............................................................................................. 133

7.6 Reservoir Condition Assessment Based on Reservoir Inspection Reports...................... 136

7.7 Existing Distribution System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis........................................... 138

7.7.1 System Pressures....................................................................................................... 138

7.7.2 Pipeline Velocities and Head Loss............................................................................ 138

7.7.3 Fire Flows ................................................................................................................. 145

7.7.4 Hydraulic Deficiency Improvements........................................................................ 145

7.8 Pipeline Replacement and Rehabilitation Program ......................................................... 149 iv

7.8.1 Analysis of Historical Leak Records......................................................................... 149

7.8.2 Risk-Based Analysis to Identify the Most At-Risk Water Mains............................. 152

7.8.3 Recommendations for Water Main Replacement and Scheduling ........................... 162

7.9 Summary of Improvements.............................................................................................. 167 Chapter 8 – Future System Evaluation................................................................................... 170

8.1 Future Water Supply Capacity Analysis.......................................................................... 170

8.2 Future Storage Capacity Analysis.................................................................................... 174

8.3 Future Booster Pump Station Capacity Analysis............................................................. 177

8.4 Future Distribution System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis ............................................. 180

8.5 Summary of Improvements ............................................................................................. 187 Chapter 9 – Water System Operations and Reporting Plan................................................. 189

9.1 Routine Operational Procedures...................................................................................... 189

9.2 Non-Routine Operational Activities................................................................................ 192

9.3 Routine Reporting Requirements..................................................................................... 193 Chapter 10 – Capital Improvement Plan................................................................................ 194

10.1 Cost Estimating Assumptions........................................................................................ 194

10.1.1 Cost Estimating Accuracy....................................................................................... 194

10.1.2 Capital Cost Development ...................................................................................... 195

10.1.3 CIP Phasing............................................................................................................. 197

10.2 Water System CIP and Estimated Costs........................................................................ 197

10.3 Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................................. 202 APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Listings of Regulated Constituents and Current Primary and Secondary MCLs Appendix B: Drinking Water Notification Levels (NLs) and Response Levels (RLs) Appendix C: The Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) Appendix D: 2023 Peak Park Well Preliminary Engineering Design Report and 2022 Feasibility Study
Appendix E: Documentation of Water System Hydraulic Model Appendix F: Pipe Slopes and Pipes Close to Key Water Sources, Critical Buildings/Customers, Major Roads, Freeways, Railroads, and Environmental Sensitive Lands/Parks Appendix G: Mapbook of Proposed Pipeline Projects for Near-Term (2025-2029) Replacement v

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.1 Peak Potable Water Demands..................................................................................... 8 Table 2.1 Current Number of Service Connections in the Study Area........................................ 28 Table 2.2 Climate Characteristics................................................................................................ 29 Table 2.3 Historical and Existing Population in the Service Area .............................................. 31 Table 2.4 Service Area Population Projections ........................................................................... 32 Table 2.5 Land Use Designation.................................................................................................. 35 Table 2.6 Summary of Land Uses (acre) ..................................................................................... 36 Table 2.7 Planned Major Developments...................................................................................... 39 Table 3.1 Overview of Water Infrastructure Facilities in the City’s Water System.................... 41 Table 3.2 Active Groundwater Wells Data.................................................................................. 44 Table 3.3 Storage Reservoir......................................................................................................... 53 Table 3.4 Rosecrans Booster Station ........................................................................................... 54 Table 3.5 MWD Connections for Imported Water...................................................................... 55 Table 3.6 Emergency Interconnections........................................................................................ 56 Table 3.7 List of Pressure Regulating Stations............................................................................ 57 Table 3.8 Active Pipeline Length (Miles) vs. Size ...................................................................... 60 Table 3.9 Active Pipeline Length (Miles) vs. Material ............................................................... 61 Table 3.10 Active Pipeline Length (Miles) vs. Age .................................................................... 63 Table 4.1 Historical Annual Consumption of Potable Water (AFY)........................................... 68 Table 4.2 Historical Annual Supply of Potable Water (AFY)..................................................... 70 Table 4.3 Monthly Peaking Factors............................................................................................. 74 Table 4.4 Water Demand Factors Estimated Based on the 2023 Data ........................................ 76 Table 4.5 Water Demand Projections for Known Developments................................................ 77 Table 4.6 Future System-Wide Water Demand Projections........................................................ 78 Table 4.7 Peak Potable Water Demands (MGD)......................................................................... 79 Table 4.8 Existing Water Demands by Pressure Zones............................................................... 80 Table 4.9 Future (2030) Water Demands by Pressure Zones...................................................... 81 Table 4.10 Future (2045) Water Demands by Pressure Zones.................................................... 81 Table 5.1 Summary of Existing Treatment Facilities at Each Well ............................................ 85 Table 5.2 Management Actions Based on Changes in Groundwater Storage ............................. 88 Table 5.3 Summary of Water Quality Monitoring Results of the City’s Groundwater Wells (Maximum Concentrations for 2017 – 2024 Samples)................................................ 95 Table 5.4 Summary of Water Quality Regulatory Requirements.............................................. 109 Table 6.1 Summary of Performance and Design Criteria for the City’s Water Distribution System........................................................................................................................ 119 vi
Table 7.1 Water Supply Capacity Analysis – Existing Demand Conditions............................. 122 Table 7.2 Reservoir Storage Capacity Analysis (MG) – Existing Demand Conditions............ 124 Table 7.3 Booster Station Capacity Analysis – Existing Demand Conditions.......................... 126 Table 7.4 Initial Estimated Service Life for Water System Facilities ....................................... 127 Table 7.5 Remaining Service Life – Well Casings (Years)....................................................... 129 Table 7.6 Remaining Service Life – Well Pumps (Years)......................................................... 130 Table 7.7 Remaining Service Life – Booster Pumps (Years).................................................... 131 Table 7.8 Remaining Service Life – Concrete Reservoir (Years) ............................................. 132 Table 7.9 Well Pump Efficiencies and Potential Energy Savings............................................. 134 Table 7.10 Booster Pump Efficiencies and Potential Energy Savings ...................................... 135 Table 7.11 Summary of Reservoir Inspection Report ............................................................... 137 Table 7.12 Typical Lifespan and Average Lifetime of Different Pipe Material ....................... 154 Table 7.13 Criteria and Weightings for LoF Scoring ............................................................... 155 Table 7.14 Pipeline Overall Likelihood of Failure (LoF) Distribution ..................................... 155 Table 7.15 Criteria and Weightings for CoF Scoring............................................................... 158 Table 7.16 Pipeline Overall Consequence of Failure (CoF) Distribution ................................. 158 Table 7.17 Pipeline Overall Business Risk Exposure (BRE) Distribution................................ 160 Table 7.18a Summary of Proposed Pipeline Replacement Projects over the Next 5 Years...... 164 Table 7.18b Proposed Additional Pipeline Improvement Projects over the Next 5 Years........ 164 Table 8.1a Water Supply Capacity Analysis – Future (2030) Demand Conditions.................. 172 Table 8.1b Water Supply Capacity Analysis – Future (2045) Demand Conditions.................. 173 Table 8.2a Storage Capacity Analysis – Future (2030) Demand Conditions............................ 175 Table 8.2b Storage Capacity Analysis – Future (2045) Demand Conditions............................ 176 Table 8.3a Booster Station Capacity Analysis – Future (2030) Demand Conditions ............... 178 Table 8.3b Booster Station Capacity Analysis – Future (2045) Demand Conditions............... 179 Table 9.1 Frequency and Tasks for Routine Operational Procedures ....................................... 189 Table 9.2 Summary of Regulatory Reporting Requirements.................................................... 193 Table 10.1 Unit Construction Costs – Water Pipelines ............................................................. 196 Table 10.2a Planning Level Cost Estimates for the Proposed Near-Term (2025-2029) Water Main Replacement Projects in 2024 Dollars......................................................... 199 Table 10.2b Planning Level Cost Estimates for the Proposed Near-Term Additional Water Main Improvement Projects in 2024 Dollars.................................................................. 199 Table 10.3 Planning Level Cost Estimates for Other Water Facility CIP Projects in the NearTerm in 2024 Dollars ............................................................................................ 200 Table 10.4 Planning Level Cost Estimates for Long-Term (2030-2045) Water Main and Water Facility CIP Projects in Both 2024 Dollars and Future Mid-Year (2038) Dollars.. 201 vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES.1 Historical and Projected Population .......................................................................... 4 Figure ES.2 Existing Water System Facilities and Pressure Zones............................................... 6 Figure ES.3 2023 System-Wide Annual Consumption Breakdown by Customer Class............... 7 Figure ES.4 System-Wide Historical Annual Potable Water Supply by Water Source ................ 9 Figure 1.1 City of Buena Park Water System Service Area and Neighboring Cities.................. 27 Figure 2.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 2.2 Historical and Projected Population ........................................................................... 33 Figure 2.3 General Land Use Plan............................................................................................... 37 Figure 2.4 Locations of Planned Major Developments............................................................... 40 Figure 3.1 Existing System Facilities and Pressure Zones.......................................................... 42 Figure 3.2 Locations of Active Water Mains with Unknown Size, Material, or Age ................. 59 Figure 3.3 Active Pipeline Length vs. Size.................................................................................. 60 Figure 3.4 Active Pipeline Length vs. Material........................................................................... 61 Figure 3.5 System Pipe Materials Distribution............................................................................ 62 Figure 3.6 Active Pipeline Length vs. Age.................................................................................. 63 Figure 3.7 System Schematic....................................................................................................... 65 Figure 4.1 Historical Annual Water Consumption ...................................................................... 67 Figure 4.2 2023 Annual Water Consumption Breakdown by Customer Class ........................... 69 Figure 4.3 Historical Annual Potable Water Supply by Water Source........................................ 71 Figure 4.4 Historical Monthly Water Supply .............................................................................. 72 Figure 5.1 The City’s System Service Area, OC Basin, and NPL and LUST Sites.................... 92 Figure 7.1 Existing System Hydraulic Model Pressure Results – ADD Conditions................. 140 Figure 7.2 Existing System Hydraulic Model Pressure Results – MDD Conditions ................ 141 Figure 7.3 Existing System Hydraulic Model Pressure Results – PHD Conditions.................. 142 Figure 7.4 Existing System Hydraulic Model Pipeline Velocity Results – PHD Conditions... 143 Figure 7.5 Existing System Hydraulic Model Pipeline Headloss Results – PHD Conditions .. 144 Figure 7.6 Required Fire Flows................................................................................................. 146 Figure 7.7 Existing System Hydraulic Model Available Fire Flow Results – MDD Conditions with Residual Pressure at 20 psi .............................................................................. 147 Figure 7.8 Identified Pipes for Hydraulic Deficiency Improvement ......................................... 148 Figure 7.9 Historical Annual Number of Leaks (2017-2023).................................................... 150 Figure 7.10 Locations of Historical Leaks (2017-2023)............................................................ 151 Figure 7.11 Risk Matrix............................................................................................................. 152 viii
Figure 7.12 Likelihood and Consequence of Failure Parameters.............................................. 153 Figure 7.13 Pipeline Likelihood of Failure (LoF)..................................................................... 156 Figure 7.14 Pipeline Consequence of Failure (CoF)................................................................. 159 Figure 7.15 Pipeline Business Risk Exposure (BRE) ............................................................... 161 Figure 7.16 BRE Pipes and Hydraulic Deficiency Improvement Pipes.................................... 165 Figure 7.17 Proposed Water Main CIP Projects in the Next 5 Years (2025-2029) and City Streets under the 2024-2028 Paving Moratorium ................................................. 166 Figure 8.1 Future (2030) System Hydraulic Model Pressure Results – ADD Conditions........ 181 Figure 8.2 Future (2030) System Hydraulic Model Pressure Results – MDD Conditions........ 182 Figure 8.3 Future (2030) System Hydraulic Model Pressure Results – PHD Conditions......... 183 Figure 8.4 Future (2030) System Hydraulic Model Pipeline Velocity Results – PHD Conditions ..................................................................................................................................................... 184 Figure 8.5 Future (2030) System Hydraulic Model Pipeline Headloss Results – PHD Conditions ..................................................................................................................................................... 185 Figure 8.6 Future (2030) System Hydraulic Model Available Fire Flow Results – MDD Conditions with Residual Pressure at 20 psi............................................................ 186 ix

ABBREVIATIONS
1,1-DCE 1,1-dchloroethylene
1,2-DCA 1,2-dichloroethane
ACP asbestos-cement pipe
ADD average day demand
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AL Action Level
AMI Automated metering infrastructure
AMR Automated meter reading
As Arsenic
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BAT Best available technologies
BMP Best Management Practices
BRE Business Risk Exposure
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cf Cubic feet
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System CIP Cast Iron Pipe
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
cis-1,2-DCE cis 1,2-dichloroethylene
COC Contaminants of Concern
CoF Consequence of Failure
Cr VI Hexavalent Chromium
CTC Carbon tetrachloride
D/DBP Rule Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproduct Rule DBP disinfection byproducts
DIP ductile iron pipe
DLR Detection limit for the purpose of reporting
DWSAP Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection
Program
x
EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution System
ETo Reference evapotranspiration
F Fahrenheit
fps feet per second
ft feet
ft-msl feet above mean sea level
GAC granular activated carbon
gpcd gallons per capita day
gpd/ac gallons per day per acre
gpm gallons per minute
GIS geographic information systems
HAA5 Five Haloacetic Acids
HAL Health Advisory Level
HRS Hazard Ranking System
Hypo Sodium Hypochlorite
IE ion exchange
kW kilowatt
LoF Likelihood of Failure
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MDD maximum day demand
MG million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
mg/l milligrams/liter
mi mile
MIB Methylisoborneol
Mn Manganese
MRDLs Maximum residual disinfection levels
MRDLGs MRGL goals
msl mean sea level
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
NaOCl Sodium Hypochlorite
NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine
NL Notification Level
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
xi
NPL National Priorities List
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OM&M Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring
OC Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin
OCWD Orange County Water District
pCi/l Picocuries per liter
PF Peaking Factor
PFOA Perfluorooctanoice acid
PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonate
PHD peak hour demand
PHG Public Health Goal
PN Public Notification
PRS Pressure regulating station
PS Pump Station
psi Pounds per square inch
PSV Pressure sustaining valve
PRV Pressure reducing valve
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
psi Pounds per square inch
RAA Running annual average
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TDS Total dissolved solids
TOC Total organic carbon
TTHM Total trihalomethanes
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VOCs Volatile organic compounds
WSMP Water System Master Plan
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Buena Park (City) has retained Stetson Engineers Inc. (Stetson) to prepare its 2024 Water System Master Plan (WSMP) for its potable water distribution system. This WSMP identifies water system deficiencies and the necessary improvement projects for the City’s potable water system for both the near-term (0 to 5 years) and the long-term (6 to 20 years). This Executive Summary presents the key findings of this WSMP.

ES.1 Goal and Purpose
The goal of this WSMP is to provide a roadmap for the planning and development of water system facilities within the City’s water service area within the near-term (0 to 5 years; 2025-2029) and long-term (6 to 20 years; 2030-2045) planning horizons.

The objectives of this WSMP are:

1. Summarize current regulations to meet anticipated water quality and water conservation mandates.

2. Develop an inventory of existing system water facilities.

3. Identify planned major developments within the City’s service area that will significantly affect local water demands of the service area.

4. Identify the existing, near-term (through the year 2029), and long-term (year 2030 through 2045) potable water demands and peaking factors, with the projected future system-wide water demands consistent with City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan with consideration of potential new residential housing developments per state mandate.

5. Evaluate potable water supply sources, water quality conditions, and treatment needs.

6. Define performance and design criteria for evaluating the existing potable water system and sizing facilities for replacement and new development.

7. Identify deficiencies in the existing potable water system under existing, near-term, and long-term conditions based on condition assessments, hydraulic modeling, capacity analysis, remaining service life analysis, and energy efficiency analysis.

8. Develop a pipeline replacement program to better serve the existing and future customers based on a proactive planning approach that includes a risk-based assessment.

9. Prepare a water system operations plan that describes all the activities needed to properly operate and maintain the water system in compliance with all drinking water standards, including routine reporting requirements.

10. Prepare a phased Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) including cost estimates that considers sound financial management, risk management, and rate stability, as well as a summary of potential funding sources.

ES.2 Service Area
The City’s water system service area boundary is shown in Figure 1.1. The City’s service area includes the entire City, excluding four small areas that are served by neighboring agencies 2 (including the City of Anaheim, the City of Fullerton, and Suburban Water Systems). The City’s service area also includes the following two small regions that are outside the City limits: (1) a small pocket in the City of Anaheim, and (2) a small area in the City of La Mirada.

The City’s service area encompasses an area of approximately 10.4 square miles and is located in northwest Orange County. The service area has a current population of about 82,450 and there are about 19,538 service connections consisting of residential (single-family and multi-family), commercial, institutional, industrial, and landscape irrigation land uses.

The City meets its water demands (about 13,000 acre-feet per year on average) through a combination of local groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin and treated, imported water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and delivered through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The City works together with two primary agencies, Orange County Water District (OCWD) and MWDOC, to ensure safe and reliable water supply and continued water supply during periods of drought and shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP) provided by MWD and delivered through MWDOC. Over the past 12 years, the City has averaged about 80% groundwater production and about 20% purchased imported water to meet its water demands. As discussed below, the City has increased groundwater production in recent years pursuant to the 2018 Rosecrans Booster Pump Station Project Loan Agreement.

When the Orange County Groundwater Basin is operating at normal levels (i.e., within 475,000 acre-feet of maximum capacity), hydrostatic gradients create up to 20,000 acre-feet of annual subsurface outflow across the Orange/Los Angeles County line into the Los Angeles County Groundwater Basin. To help minimize groundwater formation losses from the Orange County Groundwater Basin into the Los Angeles County Groundwater Basin, the City entered into an agreement with OCWD in 2018 to utilize the rebuilt/upgraded Rosecrans Booster Pump Station to produce up to 100% of its total water supply needs from the Orange County Groundwater Basin.

Under this 20-year agreement, known as the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station Project Loan Agreement dated April 12, 2018 (2018 Agreement), the City must make all efforts to produce 100% of its water supply needs from the Orange County Groundwater Basin unless it is contractually obligated by MWD to participate in its Conjunctive Use Storage Program. In return, OCWD provided the City with a 20-year zero-interest loan to complete the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station upgrade and will reimburse the City for additional pumping costs. The Rosecrans Booster Pump Station upgrade was completed in 2019.

The 2018 Agreement provided financial incentives to the City to increase local groundwater utilization. Following the completion of the City’s Rosecrans Booster Pump Station upgrade in 2019, the City’s average use of local groundwater supplies significantly increased from about 76 percent (from 2012 to 2019) to about 90 percent (from 2020 to 2023) of the City’s total water supply.

There is currently no recycled water use within the City’s service area. 3 ES.3 Land Use and Known Planned Developments
The 2019 General Plan land use categories for the City obtained from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are grouped into ten (10) categories. The distribution of land use is illustrated in Figure 2.3. The City’s service area is almost built out with predominantly single and multi-family residential units and some commercial, institutional, and industrial establishments. Moving forward, the City will continue planning for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations and future planned developments including the addition of apartment units and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as the means of affordable housing.

Within the City’s service area, there are eleven (11) known planned major developments that are estimated to create an additional 1,822 residential units (including 1,697 apartment units and 125 single-family units), 139,600 square feet commercial spaces, and 140 hotel rooms (planned by Hilton Home2 Suites). These planned major developments are shown in Figure 2.4.

The additional 1,822 residential units planned by the current known developments would be included in the City’s total of 8,919 units per state mandate as part of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update that was approved by the City Council in January 2022. Pursuant to the California State Housing Law, every jurisdiction (including the City of Buena Park) is required to plan for its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation in the Housing Element of its General Plan. RHNA is a representation of future housing needs for all income levels in a jurisdiction. The City’s RHNA allocation for the 2021 to 2029 period is 8,919 units. This allocation includes 2,119 units for very low-income households, 1,343 units for low-income households, 1,573 units for moderate-income households, and 3,884 units for above moderate-income households. The City must identify adequate sites and establish policies and programs that will accommodate the estimated growth, however the City is not obligated to produce, construct, or develop these allocated units. Although it is not anticipated all 8,919 units will be developed within the City by 2029, this WSMP estimates approximately 1,822 units will be constructed within the City by 2030, and conservatively assumes an additional 7,097 units will be constructed by 2045 (for a total of 8,919 new units by 2045).

The current known developments and the assumed future additional housing units under the state mandate were incorporated into the population and water demand projections.

ES.4 Projected Population
Population in the City’s service area is expected to increase due to the state housing mandate.

Population projections were developed as part of the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) as well as from the estimated population resulting from potential new residential housing developments under the state mandate. The population projections for the service area are shown in Figure ES.1.

In the population projection resulting from potential new residential housing developments under the state mandate, each RHNA housing unit is assumed to have 3 people on average. This assumption would be reasonable since the City has an average of about 3.5 people per dwelling 4 unit based on the City’s current population of 82,450 and current 23,120 housing units (including 16,078 single-family residential units and 7,042 multi-family residential units). The number of people per RHNA unit is expected to be lower than the City’s current average number since the RHNA units would mainly be multi-family apartment units.

As shown in Figure ES.1, the population is projected to reach about 111,548 by the year 2045.

This equates to a total population increase of 29,525, which is a 36.0 percent increase from the 2020 population of 82,023. The average annual growth rate between 2020 and 2045 is projected to be about 1.2 percent per year.

Figure ES.1 Historical and Projected Population
1) Population data source for 2005 - 2015: 2019 Master Plan. 2) Population data source for 2020 - 2045: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and the estimated population resulting from potential new residential housing developments.

ES.5 Existing Water System
The City’s water distribution system includes an array of water infrastructure facilities, including 8 groundwater wells, 1 storage reservoir (Rosecrans Reservoir), 1 booster pump station (Rosecrans Booster Pump Station), 4 connections with MWD for imported water, 3 emergency interconnections, and 13 pressure regulating stations (see Figure ES.2). These facilities are located 60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population Projected Population
Historical Population
5 throughout the distribution system to move and store water in order to serve the demands in the system. Additional details regarding the City’s water infrastructure facilities are provided in Chapter 3. As recommended in the City’s “Water Well Siting Feasibility Study”, prepared in 2022 by Brady, the City is planning to construct a new groundwater well at Peak Park with a capacity of 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm) to 3,000 gpm. This well will be constructed in 2026.

To accommodate the variation in the service area elevations, the City’s water system consists of five (5) primary pressure zones, including one (1) open pressure zone (Zone 1-241 or Lower Zone) and four (4) closed pressure zones (Zones 2-385, 3a-325, 3b-285, and 3c-262) which are collectively referred to as the Upper Zones. The boundaries of the pressure zones are illustrated in Figure ES.2. The pressure zone numbers represent the targeted hydraulic grades in feet (i.e., the sum of the pressure head and elevation head). For example, Zone 1-241 represents that the target hydraulic grade in Zone 1 (Lower Zone) is 241 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The Lower Zone is an open zone since it has a gravity storage reservoir (Rosecrans Reservoir) providing the hydraulic grade for the zone (241 ft MSL). The upper zones are all closed zones without any gravity storage reservoir.

The City’s water distribution system consists of approximately 220.66 miles of pipeline ranging from 2 to 36 inches in diameter. The majority of the system pipelines are 6 and 8 inches in diameter, comprising about 171.32 miles (or 78 percent) of the 220.66 total miles of pipeline.

Pipe materials in the City’s water distribution system include asbestos cement pipe (ACP), cast iron pipe (CIP), cement mortar lined steel (CML), cement mortar lined and coated steel (CMLC), ductile iron pipe (DIP), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The majority of the City’s pipelines are made of ACP, which equates to 191.01 miles or 87 percent of the total miles of pipeline.

The oldest pipelines in the City’s system were installed in the 1940s. The majority of the pipelines were installed from 1950 to 1970 (54 to 74 years ago), which equates to 183.42 miles or 83 percent of the total miles of pipeline.

City of Anaheim served
by City of Buena Park
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Fullerton
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Anaheim
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
City of La Mirada
served by City
of Buena Park
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
Zone 1-241
Zone
3c-262
Zone 2-385
Zone 3b-285
Zone 3a-325
Los
Angeles County
Orange County
Boisseranc Well
Linden Well
Smith-Murphy Well
Holder Well
Knott Well
Ball Well
Freeway Well
Caballero Well
OC-16
OC-31
OC-24
OC-25
PRS2
PRS1
PRS4
PRS5
PRS6
PRS3
PRS7 PRS8
PRS9 PRS10
PRS11
PRS13
PRS12
Rosecrans Reservoir
Rosecrans Booster Pump Station
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: SystemFacilities

EXISTING FACILITIES AND PRESSURE ZONES

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Booster Pump Station
Pressure Regulating Station
Reservoir
Imported Water Connection
Emergency Interconnection
Well
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Served by Buena Park
Served by Another Agency
Pressure Zones
Zone 1-241
Zone 2-385
Zone 3a-325
Zone 3b-285
Zone 3c-262
Ü
Figure ES.2
7 ES.6 Existing and Future Water Demands
The City’s existing potable water demand was defined as the 12-year historical average potable water production from 2012 through 2023, which is about 13,258 acre-feet per year (AFY). Using water production (rather than consumption) to define water demand inherently accounts for system water losses. System water losses need to be accounted for as part of water supply planning.

To depict the different uses within the service area, a breakdown of the year 2023 potable water consumption by customer class is presented in Figure ES.3 below. As shown in the figure, the majority of demands in the City’s service area are from residential accounts, or about 62% of the total demand (including single family and multi-family accounts).

Figure ES.3 2023 System-Wide Annual Consumption Breakdown by Customer Class Seasonal and daily variations in potable water demands are typically expressed in peaking factors relative to the average day demand (ADD). As described in Chapter 4, historical monthly demand data was analyzed to determine the following peaking factors for the analysis of the City’s water system under various demand conditions:
• Maximum Month Demand peaking factor: 1.27
• Minimum Month Demand peaking factor: 0.72
• Maximum Day Demand (MDD) peaking factor: 1.6
• Peak Hour Demand (PHD) peaking factor: 2.4
Single-Family, 46%
Multi-family, 16%
Commercial/ Institutional,
29%
Industrial, 0%
Landscape Irrigation,
9%
Other, 0%
2023 Water Use Breakdown by Customer Class
Single-Family Multi-family Commercial/ Institutional Industrial Landscape Irrigation Other 8 The maximum month demand typically occurs between July and September when temperatures are high and weather is dry, while the minimum month demand typically occurs between December and March when temperatures are lower and the weather is wet. The recommended peaking factors of 1.27 and 0.72 for the maximum and minimum month demand conditions, respectively were derived based on the City’s historical monthly production data for the system.

The MDD peaking factor represents the ratio of the largest daily demand observed in one year to the ADD for the same year. The City’s maximum day demand data for 2023 shows the MDD peaking factor at about 1.4 (MDD to ADD ratio). This MDD peaking factor is much lower than the MDD peaking factor of about 1.9 (1.27×1.5) derived based on the maximum monthly peaking factor of 1.27 and a minimum MDD to ADD ratio of 1.5 during the maximum month as described in Title 22, Section 64554 of the California Code of Regulations. Considering the MDD peaking factor of 1.4 was estimated based on only one year data (2023), a MDD peaking of 1.6, which is the average of 1.4 and 1.9, was adopted for this WSMP.

The PHD peaking factor of 2.4 was estimated based on a the minimum PHD to MDD ratio of 1.5 in Title 22, Section 64554 of the California Code of Regulations.

Table ES.1 below is a summary of existing and projected annual and peak potable water demands.

The projected annual water demands for 2025 – 2045 are based on demands projected in the City’s 2020 UWMP as well as from the estimated 1,822 new residential units by 2030 and an additional 7,097 residential units by 2045 as discussed in Section ES.3. The additional residential units between 2030 and 2045 were estimated by linear interpolation.

Table ES.1 Peak Potable Water Demands
Existing 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Annual Demand (AFY) 13,258 14,303 14,056 14,744 15,458 16,146 Average Day Demand (MGD) 11.8 12.8 12.5 13.2 13.8 14.4
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 18.9 20.4 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.1
Peak Hour Demand (MGD) 28.4 30.6 30.1 31.6 33.1 34.6
Notes:
1) Existing annual demand: see Table 4.2 for the average annual water supply over the period of 2012 - 2023. 2) Source of projected annual demands for 2025 – 2045: see Table 4.5. 3) Maximum Day Demand = 1.6 x ADD; Peak Hour Demand = 2.4 x ADD. 9 ES.7 Water Supplies, Water Quality, and Treatment Needs The City’s water system currently derives its water supply from eight (8) active groundwater wells from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and from imported treated water purchased from MWD through MWDOC. Figure ES.4 below shows the system-wide historical annual potable water supply by water source. As shown in the figure, after 2019, the amount of imported water was significantly reduced and the City used the least amount of imported water in 2023. This is attributed to the rebuilt/upgraded Rosecrans Booster Pump Station (that was completed in 2019) and the 2018 Agreement which requires the City to achieve up to a 100% local water supply goal.

The higher imported water use in 2019 was due to the City shutting down four (4) groundwater wells for repairs and maintenance during that year.

Figure ES.4 System-Wide Historical Annual Potable Water Supply by Water Source The Orange County Groundwater Basin has known water quality issues including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), TDS, nitrates, aesthetics (including taste, odor, and color), and other potential contaminants (MTBE, VOC, NDMA, and 1,4-Dioxane). PFAS compounds are a group of thousands of manmade chemicals that includes PFOA and PFOS. PFAS compounds were once commonly used in many products including, among many others, stain- and water-repellent fabrics, nonstick products (e.g., Teflon), polishes, waxes, paints, cleaning products, and firefighting foams. Beginning in the summer of 2019, the State Water Resources Control Board - 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Water Production (AFY) Calendar Year
Historical Annual Water Supply by Source
Pumped Groundwater
Purchased Water
10 Division of Drinking Water (DDW) began requiring testing for PFAS compounds in some groundwater production wells in the Basin area.

Figure 5.1 shows the City’s service area, the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) hazardous waste sites placed on the National Priority List (NPL) and the leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites under the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker system. The City’s system service area and facilities are located near several NPL sites associated with groundwater contamination and there are numerous LUST sites within the service area. These NPL and LUST sites could be a significant cause of water quality issues. As a result of contamination, the City’s system currently has several wells with water quality concerns.

In general, manganese has been somewhat present citywide, with the western/southwestern City wells generally showing the highest concentrations. PFAS has been present in the east side of the City (e.g., Linden Well). There is a thermal zone at the north end of the City.

Below is a summary of water quality conditions at each well, including a summary of contaminants with maximum contaminant level (MCL), secondary MCL, and notification level (NL) concerns:

Ball Well
• Manganese was previously detected above the Secondary MCL (50 ug/L) in 2017, however, concentrations have remained at approximately half of the Secondary MCL over the past several years. The City has indicated that manganese detected in the southern portion of the distribution system (south of Ball Road) needs to be flushed out about twice per year.
• Conductivity (or specific conductance) has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL. Secondary MCLs are an enforceable standard that applies to cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. Conductivity is a measure of a solution’s ability to conduct electricity, and therefore a measure of the water’s ionic activity and content. It can be used as a measure of total dissolved solids (TDS).

Boisseranc Well
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL.

Caballero Well
• Manganese has recently been detected above the Secondary MCL. Compliance with the Secondary MCL is based on a running average of four quarterly samples. The City has conducted two quarters of sampling in the first half of 2024 (with manganese detections of 55 ug/L and 54 ug/L). The City should continue to closely monitor manganese concentrations at the Caballero Well and consider installing manganese treatment if necessary.
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL. • Odor has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL. 11 Freeway Well
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL.

Holder Well
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL.

Knott Well
• Manganese has previously been detected above half of the Secondary MCL, however, concentrations of manganese have decreased to below half of the Secondary MCL over the past several years
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL Linden Well
• PFAS contamination has been detected at levels above the recently established Federal MCL. The City will need to complete initial monitoring by 2027 and implement a solution (e.g. treatment) by 2029 to reduce PFAS contamination if monitoring shows that concentrations exceed the MCL. A further discussion is provided in Section 5.2.12. • Gross Alpha has been detected above half of the MCL in 2023. The City should continue to monitor concentrations to determine if they are increasing. • TDS has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL (upper limit). • Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL.

Smith-Murphy Well
• Arsenic has been detected above half of the MCL. The City should continue to monitor concentrations to determine if they are increasing.
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL.

As noted above, the Ball Well and the Caballero Well may need treatment for manganese removal.

Greensand filtration is a widely used treatment method for manganese removal.

Also noted above, PFAS contamination at the Linden Well has been detected at levels above the recently established Federal MCL. The City is currently planning to modify the Linden Well (through installation of a well casing liner and a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD)) to limit groundwater production to a lower level of the aquifer where PFAS contamination is not present.

If PFAS treatment is required, granular activated carbon (GAC) and ion exchange treatment facilities are the most suitable methods for PFAS treatment of large volumes of water such as from the City’s Linden Well. If necessary, it is recommended the City consider employing ion exchange treatment at the Linden Well due to its smaller footprint, lower capital costs, and ability to possibly accommodate a wider range of PFAS contaminants.
12 ES.8 Existing and Future Water System Evaluation
The performance criteria used in the existing and future system evaluations to develop the City’s capital improvement projects are described in Chapter 6. The water system evaluation consists of the following elements:
• Water Supply Capacity Analysis
• Storage Capacity Analysis
• Booster Station Capacity Analysis
• Remaining Service Life Analysis
• Energy Efficiency Analysis
• Reservoir Condition Assessment Based on Reservoir Inspection Reports • Distribution System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis
• Pipeline Replacement and Rehabilitation (R&R) Needs (Including Risk-Based Analysis) ES.8.1 Water Supply Capacity Analysis
A water supply capacity analysis was conducted by comparing the existing and future water demands with the existing firm supply capacity in each pressure zone. The firm supply capacity is defined as the total treated supply capacity with the largest well or supply source out of service in each pressure zone. Pursuit to the 2018 Agreement, the City must make all efforts to produce up to 100% of its water supply needs from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. In an effort to satisfy the City’s obligations with OCWD, this WSMP only considered the groundwater wells in the water supply capacity analysis. This consideration is consistent with the analysis discussed in the City’s “Water Well Siting Feasibility Study”, prepared in 2022 by Brady, which recommended the construction of a new groundwater well at Peak Park.

The firm supply capacity analysis indicates that both the Lower and Upper Zones have inadequate groundwater well supply capacity with deficit numbers under existing MDD conditions summarized below:
• Lower Zone: deficit: -2,465 gpm
• Upper Zones: deficit: -1,853 gpm
The City’s distribution system currently includes eight (8) groundwater wells. All the groundwater wells except the Smith-Murphy Well are located in the Lower Zone 1-241 and are the primary source of water for the Lower Zone. Although the Smith-Murphy Well is located in the Zone 3b285, this well has no direct connections with the Upper Zones. The Smith-Murphy Well discharge line connects with the dedicated 36-inch diameter transmission line from the Rosecrans Reservoir to the Lower Zone. Through this connection, the Smith-Murphy Well is able to serve the Lower Zone 1-241 and is also able to provide a source of water supply for the Rosecrans Reservoir under certain hydraulic conditions. For the purpose of this WSMP, the Smith-Murphy Well was included in the Upper Zones for the water supply capacity analysis.

Water supply improvements are recommended to address the existing and future system deficiencies. With the addition of these improvements, the water supply capacity would be 13 adequate to meet existing and future (year 2045) water demands. The recommended water supply capacity improvements are summarized in Section ES7.9 and are discussed in further detail in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8.

As recommended in the 2022 Water Well Siting Feasibility Study prepared by Brady, the City is planning to construct a new groundwater well at the Peak Park with a capacity of 2,500 gpm to 3,000 gpm. This well will be located in the Lower Zone and would adequately resolve the deficiency of 2,465 gpm in firm supply capacity for the Lower Zone under existing MDD conditions. The 2022 Peak Park Well Feasibility Study also considered a potential future need to construct a reservoir and booster pumping station near the proposed well to store, pump and possibly treat water, if needed. If manganese were a concern in the proposed new well, the City would consider building a reservoir (approximately 2 MG) as part of the well project, specifically to hold and “sequester” well water until the manganese has dissipated.

It should be noted, the City performed a separate study in 2022 which suggested a new well in the Upper Zone may not be feasible because the Upper Zone overlies a geothermal zone with heated water. In addition, the City has indicated there are other limitations in the Upper Zone including a lack of space available for a new groundwater well, the presence of groundwater contamination to the east from the former Raytheon site in the City of Fullerton, the presence of a former dump site at the Los Coyotes Country Club Golf Course, and the presence of former oil wells located north of Rosecrans Avenue. A new well in the Upper Zone to mitigate the firm supply deficiency would need to be located in the vicinity of the BNSF railroad tracks at the southern part of the Upper Zone.

ES.8.2 Storage Capacity Analysis
The City’s water system has one storage reservoir, the Rosecrans Reservoir. This reservoir has an operating capacity of 20.0 MG and provides water by gravity directly to the Lower Zone via a dedicated 36-inch diameter transmission pipeline. It also provides suction to the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station which is able to pump water from the reservoir into the Upper Zones.

The storage capacity analysis indicates the Rosecrans Reservoir has adequate storage capacity under both existing and future (2045) MDD conditions. The storage capacity surplus numbers under existing MDD conditions are summarized below:
• Lower Zone: surplus of 13.13 MG
• Upper Zones: surplus of 2.13 MG
ES.8.3 Booster Pump Station Capacity Analysis
The City’s water system has one booster pump station, the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station that serves the Upper Zones.

The booster pump station analysis in this WSMP utilized the firm pumping capacity within each pressure zone, which means that the largest booster pump unit was excluded in every pressure 14 zone. The analysis was conducted under both existing and future (2045) MDD conditions. The booster pumping capacity analysis demonstrates that the Rosecrans Booster Station has adequate pumping capacity for the Upper Zones under both existing and future MDD conditions. The firm pumping capacity deficit/surplus numbers under existing MDD conditions are summarized below:
• Lower Zone: deficit: -11,298 gpm
• Upper Zones: surplus: 2,034 gpm
The Lower Zone does not have any existing booster station. However, the groundwater wells in the Lower Zone directly discharge to the distribution system and would have similar functions as booster stations. As long as the existing groundwater wells together with the recommended new wells have adequate production capacity to meet the MDD, there would be no need for booster stations in the Lower Zone unless the groundwater wells are not able to provide adequate pressures and/or fire flows. As a result, there are no new booster pumps recommended in this WSMP.

ES.8.4 Remaining Service Life Analysis
A remaining service life analysis was conducted for wells, booster pumps, and reservoirs. The remaining service life analysis was based on a methodology developed by the California Public Utilities Commission and relies on “Iowa Curves”, or Survivor Curves, to determine the remaining service life of equipment that has been in operation (discussed further in Section 7.4). Below is a summary of the results of the remaining service life analysis. • The well pumps for the Caballero Well, Freeway Well, Holder Well, and Knott Well have previously exceeded remaining service life estimates. In addition, the well pump at the Smith-Murphy Well has an estimated remaining service life of less than five years. It is recommended the City perform further evaluation to determine if replacement or refurbishment of these well pumps is necessary in the near future in order to increase the remaining service life. Replacement consists of replacing the existing pump and/or motor.

Refurbishment activities include motor repairs, rebuilding of the motor, head shaft installation, trimming the pump impellers, and re-setting of bowl depth (to prevent pumping of air or sand).
• The well casings for the Caballero Well, Freeway Well, Holder Well, Knott Well, and Smith-Murphy Well have an estimated remaining service life of five to ten years. It is recommended the City perform further evaluation to determine if replacement or rehabilitation of these well casings is necessary in the future in order to increase the remaining service life. Replacement would consist of drilling a new well. Several maintenance and rehabilitation techniques can maintain or restore the well casing effectiveness including redevelopment (sand pumping, swabbing, air lift pumping, and surging and backwashing), chemical redevelopment (acid treatment and dispersing agents), mechanical redevelopment (wire brushing and high-pressure water jetting), screen cleaning (vibratory explosives), structural repairs (liners, complete relining, and screen replacement), and well deepening.
15 • The well pumps for the Ball Well and Boisseranc Well have an estimated remaining service life of five to ten years.
• The Rosecrans Booster Station was recently upgraded in 2019, and the booster bumps have a remaining service life of at least 20 years.
• The concrete Rosecrans reservoir has a remaining service life projection of at least 19 years.

ES.8.5 Energy Efficiency Analysis
An energy efficiency analysis was conducted to identify pumps that are operating at a low efficiency and to determine if replacement of the pump may reduce energy costs such that the energy savings offset the cost of replacing the pump. The Southern California Edison (SCE) energy efficiency tests performed in 2024 were used for this analysis.

The recent SCE energy efficiency pump tests conducted in February 2024 identified both the Ball Well and Knott Well pumps as “inefficient”. A cost evaluation was prepared in this WSMP which estimated the present worth of the annual energy cost savings (estimated by SCE) over 25 years (the typical life span of a pump) at a 5% interest rate. The cost evaluation compared the estimated cost to replace or refurbish the well pump with the estimated present worth of the annual proposed energy cost savings to determine if it is economical. The cost evaluation found that although both the Ball Well and Knott Well pumps have been identified as inefficient, replacement or refurbishment of these pumps currently does not appear to be economical.

ES.8.6 Reservoir Condition Assessment Based on Reservoir Inspection Reports The City’s distribution system facilities include one storage reservoir, the Rosecrans Reservoir, which is a concrete reservoir that is completely buried.

Dive/Corr Inc. (Dive/Corr) periodically prepares inspection reports for the Rosecrans Reservoir.

The most recent inspection of the Rosecrans Reservoir during August 2022 indicated that there were no notable changes observed since the previous inspection conducted in July 2014. Dive/Corr installed new sacrificial anodes to replace previously depleted anodes. Dive/Corr also recommended the City monitor the under-drain (if present) bi-annually and after any notable seismic event. It should be noted the Rosecrans was previously seismically retrofitted and the side walls and columns have positive reinforced connections to the top and bottom slabs.

Pursuant to Dive/Corr’s recommendations, the City should perform re-inspections of the Rosecrans Reservoir every three (3) years to determine any significant changes to reservoir conditions.

The City may consider preparing a comprehensive reservoir analysis report. The report would include structural and seismic evaluations based on applicable standards and guidelines (including from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Occupation Safety and Health 16 Administration (OSHA), and the American Concrete Institute (ACI)). The report would provide various safety and structural retrofit recommendations to comply with current AWWA guidelines.

ES.8.7 Distribution System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis
The hydraulic distribution system analysis includes three main hydraulic components that were analyzed with a hydraulic model developed and calibrated in InfoWater Pro (by Autodesk/Innovyze) modeling software. These components include: (1) distribution system pressures; (2) pipeline velocities and head loss; and (3) fire flow capability.

Based on the hydraulic modeling analysis, it was concluded that the City’s water distribution system does not have high pressure (above 120 psi) or low pressure (below 40 psi) problems based on the pressure criteria shown in Table 6.1. It should be noted that although the hydraulic modeling indicated that the existing system does not have pressure deficiencies based on the pressure criteria shown in Table 6.1, the City would like to install individual VFDs at the Linden Well, Caballero Well, Holder Well, Freeway Well, and Knott Well. The City prefers to install VFDs in order to lower water system distribution pressures from above 70 psi (currently) to about 62 psi, pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water (DDW) recommendations.

The hydraulic modeling results indicated there were pipeline velocity and head loss deficiencies for a few pipelines under PHD conditions. Most of these deficiencies are addressed with enlarged pipe sizes.

The hydraulic modeling results also indicated fire flow capacity constraints in various locations under MDD plus fire flow conditions. The fire flow deficiencies at critical locations that have an areal problem (not isolated locations) are addressed with enlarged pipe sizes.

ES.8.8 Pipeline Replacement and Rehabilitation Needs
The City’s water distribution system had a total of 57 water main leaks over the past 7 years (from 2017 to 2023). This equates to an average annual break rate of about 4 breaks per 100 miles (57 ÷ 220.66 ÷ 7 × 100) per year. This annual break rate is well below the average annual rate of 11 to 14 breaks per 100 miles in the United States (Source: Utah State University Buried Structures Laboratory, 2018: Water Main Break Rates in the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study).

However, with pipeline aging in the future, water main breaks may become more frequent. It is recommended that the City take proactive pipeline replacement actions to avoid/minimize incidental water main breaks, including implementation of the prioritized water main replacement and rehabilitation program discussed below.

A “risk-based analysis” was performed to identify the most at-risk water mains and to develop a prioritized water main replacement and rehabilitation (R&R) program. The risk analysis is determined by the “business risk exposure” (BRE). The BRE is a numerical score based on the product (i.e. multiplication) of the pipeline’s “likelihood of failure” (LoF) score and the “consequence of failure” (CoF) score for various categories. The LoF is evaluated based on the 17 pipe age and material, leak history1, and pressure of each pipeline segment, while the CoF is evaluated based on the financial, social, and environmental impact of pipeline failure that considers the pipe size, slope, and proximity to key water sources, major roadways, railroads, significant customers such as hospitals, and environmental sensitive areas. The BRE scores are classified into five risk categories (low, medium-low, medium, medium-high, and high).

The risk-based analysis did not identify high risk pipelines, however, the risk-based analysis identified medium-high and medium risk pipelines with a total length of about 0.08 miles and

17.92 miles, respectively. The ages of these identified medium-high and medium risk pipelines range from 46 to 75 years with an average age of 62 years, indicating the results are reasonable.

These identified medium-high and medium risk pipelines can be used to assist in determining the pipelines necessary for replacement over the next 5 years and thereafter as part of the water main R&R program.

This WSMP identified 10 pipeline projects for replacement or improvement in the near-term (2025 to 2029). Three pipeline replacement projects (Projects #1, #2, and #3) are identified based on the hydraulic analysis and the risk-based analysis. These three pipeline replacement projects have a total length of about 2.0 miles, representing a recommended annual replacement rate of about 0.4 miles per year over the next 5 years. Projects #4 and #5 are additionally proposed by the City’s operations team for pipeline replacement to improve operations and maintenance accessibility along Artesia Blvd between Knott Ave and Dale St. In addition, the City’s operations team also proposed additional 5 smaller pipeline improvement projects (Projects #6 through #10). The details and locations for each of these 10 pipeline projects are shown in Appendix G.

ES.8.9 Water System Recommendations
The WSMP recommendations identified in Chapter 5, Chapter 7, and Chapter 8 are summarized below. Detailed cost estimates for each of these recommendations are included in the Capital Improvement Plan, which is provided in Chapter 10.

Existing System Improvements
Based on the existing system analysis, the following improvements are proposed for the near term (calendar years 2025 through 2029):
• Water Supply Capacity Improvements
- Construct the new Peak Park Well in the Lower Zone with a capacity of 2,500 gpm to 3,000 gpm as planned by the City. Note that the City also considered a potential future need to construct a reservoir and booster pumping station near the proposed new well to store, pump and possibly treat water, if needed. If manganese were a concern in the proposed new well, the City would consider building a reservoir (approximately 2 MG) 1 The City has noted that a majority of historical pipeline breaks was due to tree root intrusions. Replacement of pipelines may not necessarily prevent the tree root intrusion problems from reoccurring. 18 as part of the well project, specifically to hold and “sequester” well water until the manganese has dissipated.
- Construct a new well in the Upper Zone near the Rosecrans Reservoir with a capacity of 1,900 gpm. The new well should be designed so it can connect and provide a source of water supply for the reservoir, substituting the imported water supply from OC-25 to achieve the local water supply goals. In addition, the new well should also be able to directly discharge to the Upper Zones to allow the Rosecrans Reservoir to be taken out of service during repairs.

As noted previously, the City performed a study in 2022 which suggested a new well in the Upper Zone may not be feasible because the Upper Zone overlies a geothermal zone with heated water. In addition, the City has indicated there are other limitations in the Upper Zone including a lack of space available for a new groundwater well, the presence of groundwater contamination to the east from the former Raytheon site in the City of Fullerton, the presence of a former dump site at the Los Coyotes Country Club Golf Course, and the presence of former oil wells located north of Rosecrans Avenue.

A new well in the Upper Zone would need to be located in the vicinity of the BNSF railroad tracks at the southern part of the Upper Zone. • Storage Improvements
- No improvements identified except a future reservoir near the Peak Park Well as mentioned above, if needed.
• Booster Pump Station Improvements
- No improvements identified except a future booster pump station near the Peak Park Well as mentioned above, if needed.
• Water Quality & Treatment Improvements
- Closely monitor manganese concentrations at the Ball Well and consider installing manganese treatment if necessary.
- Closely monitor manganese concentrations at the Caballero Well and consider installing manganese treatment if necessary.
- Complete initial monitoring of PFAS by 2027 at the Linden Well and implement a treatment solution by 2029 to reduce PFAS contamination if monitoring shows that concentrations exceed the MCL. The City plans to modify the Linden Well (through installation of a well casing liner and a VFD) to limit groundwater production to a lower level of the aquifer where PFAS contamination is not present. 19 - Install a chlorine disinfection station at the Smith-Murphy Well site because it appears the mineralized water from the well is reducing chlorine levels in the City’s distribution system.
• Pressure Improvements
- Install individual VFDs at the Linden Well, Caballero Well, Holder Well, Freeway Well, and Knott Well. The City prefers to install VFDs in order to lower water system distribution pressures from above 70 psi (currently) to about 62 psi, pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water recommendations. • Pipeline Velocity and Head Loss Improvements
- No improvements recommended.
• Fire Flow Improvements
- Replace the pipeline with a larger pipe size for the pipeline project #1 (descriptions and locations are provided in Appendix G).
• Energy Efficiency Improvements
- Continue to perform periodic refurbishment (or rehabilitation) of well pumps to proactively preserve the service life and pump efficiency, including at the Caballero, Freeway, and Knott Wells in the near future.
• Remaining Service Life Improvements
- Wells casing: perform further evaluation to determine if replacement or rehabilitation of well casings (Caballero Well, Freeway Well, Holder Well, Knott Well, and SmithMurphy Well) is necessary in the near future in order to increase the remaining service life. Replacement would consist of drilling a new well. Several maintenance and rehabilitation techniques can maintain or restore the well casing effectiveness including redevelopment (sand pumping, swabbing, air lift pumping, and surging and backwashing), chemical redevelopment (acid treatment and dispersing agents), mechanical redevelopment (wire brushing and high-pressure water jetting), screen cleaning (vibratory explosives), structural repairs (liners, complete relining, and screen replacement), and well deepening.
- Wells pumps: perform further evaluation to determine if replacement or refurbishment of well pumps (Caballero Well, Freeway Well, and Knott Well that were installed in 1964) is necessary in the near future in order to increase the remaining service life.

Replacement consists of replacing the existing pump and/or motor. Refurbishment activities include motor repairs, rebuilding of the motor, head shaft installation, trimming the pump impellers, and re-setting of bowl depth (to prevent pumping of air or sand).
20 • Pipeline R&R Program
- Replace or improve the pipelines for the proposed 10 pipeline projects in the near-term (2025-2029) CIP phase.
- Continue to replace pipelines in the long-term (2030-2045) CIP phase at an annual rate of about 0.4 miles per year. The remaining medium-high/medium risk category pipelines and head loss and fire flow deficiency pipelines can be scheduled earlier. Fire flow tests will need to be performed to confirm fire flow deficiencies prior to scheduling.
• Other Improvements
- Install a permanent noise enclosure for the Boisseranc Well (instead of the existing temporary semi-enclosure made of corrugated metal panels and metal pipes), because this well is located in the middle of Boisseranc Park.
- Install a permanent noise enclosure for the Smith-Murphy Well (instead of the existing temporary semi-enclosure made of corrugated metal panels and PVC pipes), because this well is located in the middle of Friendship Park (formerly named Smith-Murphy Park) and near a school.
- Install a second pressure regulating station from Zone 3b-285 to Zone 3c-262 to provide operational redundancy.
- Add a cellular system as backup for the SCADA operations, in addition to the existing radio system.
- Improve ventilation of well pump houses.
- Update City water distribution system GIS database.

Future System Improvements
Based on the future system analysis, the following improvements are proposed for the long term (calendar years 2030 through 2045):
• Water Supply Capacity Improvements
- Install a new well in the Lower Zone with a capacity of 2,300 gpm to meet the future (2045) MDD. This new well would be in addition to the two new wells (including the Peak Park Well) recommended as part of the existing system improvements. 21 • Storage Improvements
- No improvements identified.
• Booster Pump Station Improvements
- No improvements identified.
• Water Quality & Treatment Improvements
- Continue to closely monitor manganese concentrations at the Ball Well and consider installing manganese treatment if necessary.
- Continue to closely monitor manganese concentrations at the Caballero Well and consider installing manganese treatment if necessary.
- Continue to closely monitor PFAS concentrations at the Linden Well and implement a treatment solution if necessary.
• Pressure Improvements
- No improvements identified.
• Pipeline Velocity and Head Loss Improvements
- No improvements identified.
• Fire Flow Improvements
- No improvements recommended.
• Energy Efficiency Improvements
- Continue to perform periodic refurbishment (or rehabilitation) of well pumps to proactively preserve the service life and pump efficiency. • Pipeline R&R Program
- Continue to replace pipelines in the long-term (2030-2045) CIP phase at an annual rate of about 0.4 miles per year. The remaining medium-high/medium risk category pipelines and head loss and fire flow deficiency pipelines that were not scheduled in the near-term (2025-2029) phase CIP should be reviewed and evaluated annually and can be scheduled earlier in the long-term CIP phase.
22 ES.8.10 Capital Improvement Program
The recommended capital improvement plan (CIP) presents improvement projects based on the water system evaluations described in Chapter 5, Chapters 7, and 8 of this WSMP, as well as improvements already planned by the City. The CIP is divided into the following two phases:
• Near-term phase: Calendar years 2025 through 2029
• Long-term phase: Calendar years 2030 through 2045
The recommended CIP of this WSMP provides a roadmap to address existing and future system capacity deficiencies, accommodate the projected water demand increases, and implement the necessary rehabilitation and replacement projects for aging infrastructure. The near-term water system CIP with estimated planning level costs is summarized in Tables 10.2a, 10.2b, and 10.3 in Chapter 10, and the long-term water system CIP with estimated planning level costs is summarized in Table 10.4.
23 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
The City of Buena Park (City) has retained Stetson Engineers Inc. (Stetson) to prepare its 2024 Water System Master Plan (2024 WSMP) for its potable water distribution system. This WSMP evaluates the performance and condition of the City’s water system under existing and future conditions and provides the City with a strategic roadmap that identifies the necessary improvements, both near term (0 to 5 years) and long term (6 to 20 years), required to ensure reliable and high-quality service to customers. This chapter presents the goals, objectives, and organization of this WSMP.

1.1 Goals and Objectives
The goal of this WSMP is to provide a roadmap for the planning and development of water system facilities within the City’s water service area within the short-term (0 to 5 years) and long-term (6 to 20 years) planning horizons.

The objectives of this WSMP are:

1. Summarize current regulations to meet anticipated water quality and water conservation mandates.

2. Develop an inventory of existing system water facilities.

3. Identify planned major developments within the City’s service area that will significantly affect local water demands of the service area.

4. Identify the existing, near-term (through the year 2029), and long-term (year 2030 through 2045) potable water demands and peaking factors, with the projected future system-wide water demands consistent with the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan with consideration of potential new residential housing developments per state mandate.

5. Evaluate potable water supply sources and water quality conditions and treatment needs.

6. Define performance and design criteria for evaluating the existing potable water system and sizing facilities for replacement and new development.

7. Identify deficiencies in the existing potable water system under existing, near-term, and long-term conditions based on condition assessment, hydraulic modeling, capacity analysis, remaining service life analysis, and energy efficiency analysis.

8. Develop a pipeline replacement program to better serve the existing and future customers based on a proactive planning approach that includes a risk-based assessment.

9. Prepare a water system operations plan that describes all the activities needed to properly operate and maintain the water system in compliance with all drinking water standards, including routine reporting requirements.

10. Prepare a phased CIP including costs that considers sound financial management, risk management, and rate stability, as well as a summary of potential funding sources. 24 1.2 Service Area
The City is located in northwest Orange County and is bounded by the Cities of La Palma and Cerritos to the west, the City of La Mirada to the north, the Cities of Fullerton and Anaheim to the east, and the Cities of Anaheim and Cypress to the south. The City's water service area includes the Buena Park city limits excluding four small areas, which are within the City limits but served by the City of Fullerton, the City of Anaheim, and Suburban Water Systems. In addition, the City provides service to two locations that are outside the city limits: one area is in the City of Anaheim and the other is in the City of La Mirada. The service area boundary and neighboring cities are depicted in Figure 1.1. The City’s service area is approximately 10.4 square miles.

The City is almost built out with predominantly single and multi-family residential units and some commercial and industrial establishments. Moving forward, the City will continue planning for its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and future planned developments including the addition of apartment units and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as the means of affordable housing. The City’s service area has a current population of about 82,450 and consists of residential (single-family and multi-family), commercial, institutional, industrial, and landscape irrigation land uses.

The City meets its water demands (about 13,000 acre-feet per year on average) through a combination of local groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin and supplemental imported water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and delivered through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The City works together with two primary agencies, Orange County Water District (OCWD) and MWDOC, to ensure safe and reliable water supply and continued water supply during periods of drought and shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP) provided by MWD and delivered through MWDOC.

When the Orange County Groundwater Basin is operating at normal levels (i.e., within 475,000 acre-feet of maximum capacity), hydrostatic gradients create up to 20,000 acre-feet of annual subsurface outflow across the Orange/Los Angeles County line into the Los Angeles County Groundwater Basin. To help minimize groundwater formation losses from the Orange County Groundwater Basin into the Los Angeles County Groundwater Basin, the City entered into an agreement with OCWD in 2018 to utilize the rebuilt/upgraded Rosecrans Booster Pump Station to produce up to 100% of its total water supply needs from the Orange County Groundwater Basin.

Under this 20-year agreement, known as the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station Project Loan Agreement dated April 12, 2018, the City must make all efforts to produce 100% of its water supply needs from the Orange County Groundwater Basin unless it is contractually obligated by MWD to participate in its Conjunctive Use Storage Program. In return, OCWD provided the City with a 20-year zero-interest loan to complete the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station upgrade and will reimburse the City for additional pumping costs. The Rosecrans Booster Pump Station upgrade was completed in 2019.

The 2018 Agreement provided financial incentives to the City to increase local groundwater utilization. Following the completion of the City’s Rosecrans Booster Pump Station upgrade in 25 2019, the City’s average use of groundwater supplies significantly increased from about 76 percent (from 2012 to 2019) to about 90 percent (from 2020 to 2023) of the City’s total water supply.

There is currently no recycled water use within the City’s service area.

1.3 Report Organization
The WSMP has been organized into ten (10) chapters including an executive summary and several appendices that provide supporting documentation for the information presented in the report. The subjects discussed in each chapter are briefly described below:
• Executive Summary presents the key findings of this WSMP. • Chapter 1 – Introduction presents the project goals and objectives, the service area, and organization of this WSMP.
• Chapter 2 – Study Area, Land Use, and Population presents a discussion of the land use classifications in the service area, current number of service connections, current population, and projected populations for the planning period of this WSMP. • Chapter 3 – Existing Potable Water System describes the existing water distribution system and facilities. This chapter includes a detailed inventory of groundwater wells, storage reservoirs, booster pump stations, MWD connections for imported water, emergency interconnections, pressure regulating stations, and distribution system pipes (pipe length, age, and materials). In addition, system maps and system schematics of the existing water system are included.
• Chapter 4 – Water Demand summarizes the existing water demands, production, and peaking factors for the potable water systems. This chapter also provides a summary of the system-wide water demand projections (consistent with the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan) and projections for the planned developments. In addition, this chapter discusses water conservation measures and recycled water use. • Chapter 5 – Existing Water Supplies, Water Quality, and Treatment summarizes the existing water supply sources and available capacities of existing water supply facilities.

This chapter also discusses water quality conditions based on the monitoring results of specific constituents and the existing water treatment needs to meet water quality standards.

A summary table of water quality regulatory requirements is also provided in this Chapter. • Chapter 6 – Performance and Design Criteria presents the performance criteria for evaluating the adequacy of the existing potable water system and design criteria for sizing facilities for replacement and new development. Supporting justifications for the recommended performance and design criteria are provided in this chapter. The criteria described in this chapter are used to identify existing system deficiencies and to size future improvements and expansions.
26 • Chapter 7 – Existing System Evaluation presents the findings and results of the capacity analyses for water supply, storage, and pumping, and hydraulic modeling analysis for the existing system under various demand conditions. This chapter also summarizes the results of the remaining service life analysis for water supply, storage, and pumping facilities, and the results of energy efficiency analysis based on SCE energy efficiency pump test data for well pumps and booster pumps. This chapter concludes with the proposed improvements to resolve the identified deficiencies based on existing demand conditions. • Chapter 8 – Future System Evaluation presents the findings and results of the capacity analyses for water supply, storage, and pumping , and hydraulic modeling analysis to meet the projected future (year 2045) water demands described in Chapter 4. This chapter concludes with the proposed improvements that are required to meet the performance and design criteria based on future demand conditions.
• Chapter 9 – Water System Operations Plan describes all the activities needed to properly operate and maintain the water system in compliance with all drinking water standards. The plan describes routine operational procedures (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly tasks) for each component of the system such as routine inspection, operation and maintenance, monitoring and reporting, and record keeping. The plan also describes non-routine activities such as positive analytical results, responses to complaints, and emergency operational practices. A summary table of routine reporting requirements is also provided in this Chapter.
• Chapter 10 – Capital Improvement Plan presents a phased CIP with planning level cost estimates for the City’s water distribution system. This CIP plan incorporates the recommended projects identified in the existing system analysis (Chapter 7) and the future system analysis (Chapter 8), as well as the City’s already planned improvement projects.

A summary of potential funding sources is also provided in this Chapter.

Buena Park
Cerritos
La Mirada
Norwalk
Santa Fe
Springs
Anaheim
Cypress
Fullerton
La Palma
Stanton
City of Anaheim served
by City of Buena Park
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Fullerton
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Anaheim
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
City of La Mirada
served by City
of Buena Park
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
Los
Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: ServiceArea_CityBounds

WATER SERVICE AREA AND CITY BOUNDARIES

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Service Area Boundary
City Boundary
County Boundary
Served by Buena Park
Served by Another Agency
Ü
Figure 1.1
28 CHAPTER 2 – STUDY AREA, LAND USE, AND POPULATION
This Chapter presents a description of the study area of this WSMP including land use and population. The study area, climate, and population are discussed first, followed by a discussion of land use and planned developments. Details presented in this Chapter regarding new developments and population projections form the basis for the City’s water demand projections presented in Chapter 4 (Water Demands).

2.1 Study Area
The study area of this WSMP is the City’s water system service area (see Figure 2.1). The City’s water service area includes the entire City, excluding four small areas that are served by neighboring agencies (including the City of Anaheim, the City of Fullerton, and Suburban Water Systems). The City’s service area also includes the following two small regions that are outside the City limits: (1) a small pocket in the City of Anaheim, and (2) a small area in the City of La Mirada. The City’s water service area varies in elevation from 42 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the southern portion of the City to 250 feet msl in the northeastern corner of the City (near Ralph B Clark Regional Park).

The study area has a current combined population of about 82,450 and there are about 19,538 service connections consisting of residential (single-family and multi-family), commercial, institutional, industrial, and landscape irrigation land uses. Table 2.1 below is a summary of current service connections.

Table 2.1 Current Number of Service Connections in the Study Area Customer Class Number of Service
Connections
Single-family Residential 16,865
Multi-family Residential 696
Commercial/Institutional 1,073
Industrial 0
Landscape Irrigation 440
Other 464
Total 19,538
29 2.2 Climate
The service area is characterized by a hot and dry climate heavily influenced by the Santa Ana winds. Summers are hot and dry, while winters are cool with an average precipitation of approximately 13.9 inches per year as measured at the City of Anaheim’s weather station from 1989 to 2023. The region receives little precipitation with most of the annual precipitation occurring during the period from December through March. Monthly average temperatures ranged from 58.9 °F in December to 76.7 °F in August with an annual average temperature at 67.2 °F.

Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is the quantity of moisture that is transpired by a reference plant, such as an irrigated grass lawn, and evaporated from soil. ETo is important to water resource management for the City’s water system because irrigation requirements relate directly to ETo.

Irrigators who are working to achieve maximum efficiency need to apply enough water to meet the plant's ETo demand. As shown in Table 2.2, monthly average ETo for the City’s service area is estimated to range from as low as 2.1 inches in December to 6.5 inches in July. This seasonal variation impacts outdoor water demands, which peak in the summer months. Annual ETo was

50.7 inches per year as measured at the CIMIS, Irvine Station (#75). Monthly average ETo rates, rainfall, and temperature are summarized in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Climate Characteristics
Month Average Rainfall(1)
(inches)
Average
Temperature(1)
(degrees F)
Average ETo(2)
(inches)
January 3.1 59.4 2.4
February 3.1 59.8 2.7
March 1.9 62.0 3.8
April 0.7 64.7 4.8
May 0.6 67.4 5.3
June 0.1 71.2 5.8
July 0.1 75.7 6.5
August 0.1 76.7 6.3
September 0.2 75.5 4.8
October 0.6 70.7 3.7
November 0.9 64.6 2.7
December 2.3 58.9 2.1
Annual 13.9 67.2 50.7
Notes:
(1) Source: Western Regional Climate Center, Anaheim Station, Period of record from 1989 to 2023. https://wrcc.dri.edu/ (2) Source: California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS), Irvine Station (#75), Period of record January 2001 - December 2023. https://cimis.water.ca.gov/
Buena Park
City of Anaheim served
by City of Buena Park
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Fullerton
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Anaheim
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
City of La Mirada
served by City
of Buena Park
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
Los
Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: StudyArea

STUDY AREA

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Served by Buena Park
Served by Another Agency
Ü
Figure 2.1
31 2.3 Population
This section describes the current population within the City’s service area as well as projected populations throughout the planning period to the year 2045.

2.3.1 Historical and Existing Population
Historical and existing population data for the City’s service area are presented in Table 2.3 and depicted on Figure 2.2. As shown in Table 2.3, the total population within the City’s service area was 82,023 as of 2020 utilizing the Traffic Analysis Zone data documented in the City’s UWMP.

The population increase of 3,404 from 2005 to 2020 equates to an average annual population growth rate of about 0.3 percent.

Table 2.3 Historical and Existing Population in the Service Area Year Projected Service Area
Population
Percent Growth over
Previous 5 Years
2005 78,619 -
2010 80,520 2.4%
2015 82,943 3.0%
2020 82,023 -1.1%
Note:
1) Source for the 2005, 2010, and 2015 population: 2019 Water Master Plan (AKM, 2019). 2) Source for the 2020 population: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (Arcadis, 2021).

2.3.2 Projected Population
Population in the City’s service area is expected to increase due to the state housing mandate.

Population projections were developed as part of the 2020 UWMP as well as from the estimated population resulting from potential new residential housing developments under the state housing mandate. The population projections for the service area are summarized in Table 2.4 and are graphically shown in Figure 2.2. Projected populations in the City’s service area developed in the City’s 2020 UWMP were based on growth rate projections obtained from data provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The data provided by SCAG was based on their “The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy of the SCAG", dated September 2020, and incorporates demographic trends, existing land use, general plan land use policies, and input and projections through the year 2045 from the Department of Finance (DOF) and the U.S. Census Bureau for counties, cities, and unincorporated areas within Southern California.

Pursuant to the California State Housing Law, every jurisdiction (including the City of Buena Park) is required to plan for its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation in the 32 Housing Element of its General Plan. RHNA is a representation of future housing needs for all income levels in a jurisdiction.

The City’s RHNA allocation for the 2021 to 2029 period is 8,919 units. This allocation includes 2,119 units for very low-income households, 1,343 units for low-income households, 1,573 units for moderate-income households, and 3,884 units for above moderate-income households. The City must identify adequate sites and establish policies and programs that will accommodate the estimated growth, however the City is not obligated to produce, construct, or develop these allocated units. Although it is not anticipated all 8,919 units will be developed within the City by 2029, this WSMP estimates approximately 1,822 units will be constructed within the City by 2030, and conservatively assumes an additional 7,097 units will be constructed by 2045 (for a total of 8,919 new units by 2045). The 8,919 new residential units are estimated to result in an additional population of 26,757 by 2045 based on an assumed 3 people per unit. A further discussion of potential new residential developments (including the planned 1,822 units) within the City is provided in Section 2.4.3.

As shown in Table 2.4, the population is projected to reach about 111,548 by the year 2045. This equates to a total population increase of 29,525, which is a 36.0 percent increase from the 2020 population of 82,023. The average annual growth rate between 2020 and 2045 is projected to be about 1.2 percent per year.

Table 2.4 Service Area Population Projections
Year
2020 UWMP
Projected Service
Area
Population
Projected
Additional
Housing Units
Based on the
Housing
Element Update
Projected
Additional
Population
Based on the
Housing
Element
Update
Adjusted
Population
Projection
Percent
Growth
over
Previous 5
Years
2020 (Existing) 82,023 - - 82,023 -
2025 84,791 - - 84,791 3.4%
2030 88,073 1,822 5,466 90,257 6.4%
2035 90,495 4,188 12,564 97,355 7.9%
2040 92,053 6,554 19,662 104,453 7.3%
2045 92,644 8,919 26,757 111,548 6.8%
Notes: It is assumed that each RHNA unit has 3 people on average. A linear interpolation was assumed for the potential new housing units from 2030 to 2045.
33 Figure 2.2 Historical and Projected Population

2.4 Land Use
Adequately estimating the water use from various land use types is important in sizing and maintaining effective water system facilities. Land use information is an integral component in determining the amount of water use within the City’s service area. The type of land use in an area will affect the volume of water use. The City’s General Plan guides development within a city’s planning boundary and provides land use projections.

2.4.1 Existing Land Use
The City’s 2019 General Plan land use data was obtained from SCAG2. This data classifies land use within the City’s service area into a number of zoning/land use codes. For the purpose of this WSMP, these land use codes were grouped into 10 categories, which are summarized in Table 2.5. 2 For more information about SCAG land use category definitions, visit the following websites:
• https://scag-spm-documentation.readthedocs.io/en/latest/scag_lu_codes/ • https://scag-spm-documentation.readthedocs.io/en/latest/scag_lu_codes_description/ 60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population Projected Population
Historical Population
34 Figure 2.3 illustrates the distribution of land use within the study area. Land use in the service area is predominantly residential with the exceptions of a significant industrial complex in the northwest portion of the service area and the commercial area in the vicinity of the Knott’s Berry Farm amusement park in the southeast. Table 2.6 provides a summary of land uses in the service area.

Below is a brief description of residential land use based on the definitions from SCAG. The residential category includes areas of single family residences, multi-family dwellings, and mobile homes. Also included is a mixed residential category that consists of two or more of the aforementioned groups. The units per acre can be used as an indicator of relative density. • Single Family Residential: Single family residential areas are typically made up of detached dwellings, where each structure houses a single family. Single family residential is further classified into the following three categories based on density. o High Density Single Family Residential: This category contains single family detached residential units with a unit density of 9 or more units per acre. o Medium Density Single Family Residential: This category contains single family detached residential units with a unit density of 3 to 8 units per acre. o Low Density Single Family Residential: This category contains single family detached residential units with a unit density of 2 or less units per acre. • Multi-Family Residential: Multi-family residential areas are attached residences, apartments, condominiums, and townhouses.
• Mixed Residential: This category includes areas where there is a combination of single family detached and multi-family dwellings of any type occurring together. Typically these are located in older neighborhoods, where duplexes, triplexes, and apartment buildings occur among single family houses.
35 Table 2.5 Land Use Designation
Grouped Land Use Category Land Use
Abbreviation SCAG Land Use Category
Single-Family Residential SFR Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential MFR Multi-Family Residential
Commercial C
General Commercial
Retail and Commercial and
Services
Institutional/Public Facilities IN
Public Facilities
Education – K-12
Transportation
Utility Facilities
Industrial ID
General Industrial
Light Industrial
Light Manufacturing, Assembly,
and Heavy
Industrial/Manufacturing
Mixed Use MU Mixed Commercial and Industrial
Mixed Residential and Commercial
Open Space and Recreation OSR
Open Space and Recreation
Undevelopable or Protected Land
Local Parks and Recreation
Agriculture AG Agriculture
Utilities UTL Transportation, Communications,
and Utilities
Vacant/Unknown VU Vacant or Unknown
36 Table 2.6 Summary of Land Uses (acre)
Grouped Land Use Category Acreage
Single-Family Residential 2,368.1
Multi-Family Residential 435.2
Commercial 893.0
Institutional/Public Facilities 284.7
Industrial 579.3
Open Space and Recreation 390.3
Agriculture 39.3
Utilities and ROW 69.9
Water 25.9
Vacant/Unknown 1,603.0
Total (acre) 6,688.7
Total (square mile) 10.4

2.4.2 Future Land Use
The City’s water system service area is almost built out with predominantly single and multifamily residential units and some commercial, institutional, and industrial areas. Moving forward, the City of Buena Park will continue planning based on its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations pursuant to the California State Housing Law and future planned developments including addition of apartment units and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as the means of affordable housing.

Future land use includes the development of vacant or underdeveloped areas not defined by already known or planned developments, which are referred to as infill. It is assumed that development, redevelopment, and infill will occur based on the land use designations as depicted in Figure 2.3.

Los
Angeles County
Orange County
ID
C
C
ID
C
OSR
IN
MFR
MFR
MFR
IN
C
IN C
C
OSR
IN
C
C
IN
C
MFR
OSR
C
IN OSR
IN
IN
C
ID
VU
ID
C
IN
MFR
ID
OSR IN
IN
C
OSR
C
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: Landuse

LAND USE IN WATER SERVICE AREA

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Agriculture (AG)
Commercial (C)
Industrial (ID)
Institutional (IN)
Multi-Family Residential (MFR)
Single-Family Residential (SFR)
Open Space and Recreation (OSR)
Water (W)
Utilities (UTL)
Vacant/Unknown (VU)
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 2.3
38 2.4.3 Planned Major Developments
Within the City’s service area, there are multiple planned major developments which are mostly apartment buildings. The number of units and size of the planned major developments are summarized in Table 2.7, while the locations of the developments are shown on Figure 2.4. These planned major developments as of September 2024 can be found at the following City website (under “Major Projects and Developments”):
https://www.buenapark.com/city_departments/community_development/planning_division/keyn ote_projects.php
As shown in Table 2.7, the planned major developments are estimated to result in the addition of approximately 1,697 apartment units and 125 single-family homes in the City’s service area, totaling 1,822 units. These planned major developments are assumed to be constructed by 2030.

This available list the City currently has is of planned major developments. The construction of these planned developments would be included in the City’s total of 8,919 housing units per state mandate as part of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update that was approved by the City Council in January 2022. The housing element identified several sites that can be redeveloped with 8,919 new housing units. It is conservatively assumed that the additional housing units under the state mandate will be constructed by 2045. The currently available planned major developments and the future additional housing units under the state mandate were incorporated into the population and water demand projections.
39 Table 2.7 Planned Major Developments
Project Location Project Size Status
Craig Homes Project 7862 Craig Avenue • 12 apartment units City Council Approved 3/12/24
8030 Dale Street
Redevelopment 8030 Dale Street • 93 townhomes
Planning Commission
Public Hearing on
August 28, 2024
Village at Buena Park 8150 La Palma
Avenue
• 1,176 apartment units;
• 126 townhomes
City Council approved
on June 27, 2023
7101 Lincoln Ave.

Apartments
7101 Lincoln
Avenue • 55 apartment units City Council approved 10/10/23 Orchard View Gardens 8300 Valley View
Road
• 66 apartment units;
• 3,000 sf community
center
Building Plan Check
Yamaha International
Headquarters
6722 Orangethorpe
Ave
• 97,000 sf office/
maintenance facility Building Plan Check
Los Coyotes Country Club
Development Plan
8888 Los Coyotes
Drive
• 125 luxury golf courseoriented dwelling units
• 2 lighted tennis courts
Under Construction
8281 Page Street
Residential Development 8281 Page Street • 54 residential townhomes
City Council Approved
6/26/2018
M+D Properties
Residential/Commercial
Mixed Use Development
6555 Beach Blvd • 34-unit apartment &
commercial mixed use Under Construction
OnBeach Phase II 5742 Beach Blvd
• 81 Apartment Units
• 39,600 sf commercial
space
Community meeting on
June 3, 2024
Hilton Home 2 Suites 7860 Beach Blvd • 140 Hotel Rooms City Council Approved 3/26/24
Total
• 1,697 apartment units
• 125 single-family units
• 139,600 sf commercial
space
• 140 hotel rooms
City of Anaheim served
by City of Buena Park
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Fullerton
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Anaheim
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
City of La Mirada
served by City
of Buena Park
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
7101 LINCOLN AVE, WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT
8030 DALE STREET REDEVELOPMENT
8281 PAGE STREET RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

CRAIG APARMENTS PROJECT

THE LOS COYOTES COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT
M+D PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

ORCHARD VIEW GARDENS

VILLAGE AT BUENA PARK

YAMAHA INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS

ONBEACH PHASE II
HILTON HOME 2 SUITES
Los A
ngeles County
Orange
County Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: MajorProjects

MAJOR PROJECTS

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
City Border
Water Main
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 2.4
41 CHAPTER 3 – EXISTING WATER SYSTEM
This Chapter presents an overview of the City existing potable water distribution system, water supplies, and storage facilities as of December 31, 2023. Facilities installed in 2024 and facilities proposed based on the evaluations in this WSMP are considered as future system facilities.

3.1 Water System Facilities
The City’s distribution system includes an array of water infrastructure facilities, including groundwater wells, storage reservoirs, booster pump stations, MWD connections for imported water, pressure regulating stations, and water main pipelines. These facilities are located throughout the distribution system to move and store water in order to serve the system’s water demands in the system. Figure 3.1 shows the existing water system facilities and pressure zones, and Table 3.1 provides an overview of the existing water system facilities.

To accommodate the variations in the service area elevations, the City’s water system consists of five (5) primary pressure zones, one (1) open pressure zone (Zone 1-241 or Lower Zone) and four (4) closed pressure zones (Zones 2-385, 3a-325, 3b-285, and 3c-262, which are collectively referred to as the Upper Zones). The boundaries of the pressure zones are illustrated on Figure 3.1.

The pressure zone number represents the targeted hydraulic grade in feet (i.e., the sum of the pressure head and elevation head). For example, Zone 1-241 represents that the target hydraulic grade in Zone 1 (Lower Zone) is 241 feet MSL.

Table 3.1 Overview of Water Infrastructure Facilities in the City’s Water System Facility Type Facility
Groundwater Wells
8 wells: Ball, Boisseranc, Caballero, Freeway,
Holder, Knott, Linden, Smith-Murphy.

An additional well (Peak Park Well) is
anticipated to be completed by 2026
Storage Reservoirs 1 reservoir: Rosecrans Reservoir
Booster Stations 1 booster station: Rosecrans Booster Station MWD Connections for Imported Water 4 connections: OC-16, OC-24, OC-25, OC-31 Emergency Interconnections 3
Pressure Regulating Stations 13
Water Mains 220.66 miles
City of Anaheim served
by City of Buena Park
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Fullerton
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Anaheim
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
City of La Mirada
served by City
of Buena Park
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
Zone 1-241
Zone
3c-262
Zone 2-385
Zone 3b-285
Zone 3a-325
Los
Angeles County
Orange County
Boisseranc Well
Linden Well
Smith-Murphy Well
Holder Well
Knott Well
Ball Well
Freeway Well
Caballero Well
OC-16
OC-31
OC-24
OC-25
PRS2
PRS1
PRS4
PRS5
PRS6
PRS3
PRS7 PRS8
PRS9 PRS10
PRS11
PRS13
PRS12
Rosecrans Reservoir
Rosecrans Booster Pump Station
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: SystemFacilities

EXISTING FACILITIES AND PRESSURE ZONES

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Booster Pump Station
Pressure Regulating Station
Reservoir
Imported Water Connection
Emergency Interconnection
Well
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Served by Buena Park
Served by Another Agency
Pressure Zones
Zone 1-241
Zone 2-385
Zone 3a-325
Zone 3b-285
Zone 3c-262
Ü
Figure 3.1
43 3.1.1 Existing Groundwater Wells
There are eight (8) active wells within the City’s water system. All wells deliver water to Zone 1- 241. Well information is provided in Table 3.2, including address, year drilled, depth, screened intervals, capacity, groundwater depth, and horsepower (HP). The location of each well is shown in Figure 3.1.

All of the City’s eight wells are located inside security fencing or walls, and intrusion alarms are present on all facilities. Well sites with a disinfection system include one or more sodium hypochlorite tanks. Well sites are monitored and controlled by the City’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The City’s SCADA operations are currently based on a radio system, however, the City prefers to have a cellular system as backup.

Three (3) of the City’s active wells (including the Boisseranc Well, Smith-Murphy Well, and Ball Well) are equipped with a VFD which is used to ramp down pump speed and production.

Pursuant to discussion with City staff, the State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water has recommended the City operate its water system distribution pressures between 50 psi to 70 psi. As a result, the City prefers to install VFDs at the remaining well sites in order to be able to lower water system distribution pressures from above 70 psi (currently) to about 62 psi.

It is recommended the City install individual VFDs at each of the remaining well sites, including the Linden Well, Caballero Well, Holder Well, Freeway Well, and Knott Well.

As shown in Figure 3.1, all the groundwater wells except the Smith-Murphy Well are located in the Lower Zone 1-241 and are the primary source of water for the Lower Zone. Although the Smith-Murphy Well is located in Zone 3b-285, this well has no direct connections with the Upper Zones. The Smith-Murphy Well discharge line connects with the dedicated 36-inch diameter transmission line from the Rosecrans Reservoir to the Lower Zone. Through this connection, the Smith-Murphy Well is able to serve the Lower Zone 1-241 and also able to provide a source of water supply for the Rosecrans Reservoir under certain hydraulic conditions. The Smith-Murphy Well has high water temperature (about 78 °F) in addition to sanding issues in the past. The sanding issue was found to be directly related to holes that developed in the well casing. A thin layer (a few millimeters in depth at most) of silt on the floor of the Rosecrans Reservoir was observed throughout the reservoir. The source of this very fine silt/sand is believed to be from the SmithMurphy Well which was known to pump sand in the past. The Smith-Murphy Well was recently relined and therefore, the City does not foresee any issues with sanding at this well in the future.

In general, the City primarily pumps water from the Boisseranc, Linden, and Holder Wells. The Smith-Murphy and Ball wells are typically operated during high demand periods or in an emergency situation. The Smith-Murphy Well is not used under normal system demand conditions because the well produces naturally warm water (approximately 78°F) and the water is mineralized (which appears to reduce chlorine levels in the City’s distribution system). In general, the City only operates the Smith-Murphy Well when feasible and when the City blends down the water when draining the Rosecrans Reservoir to the system. The City’s remaining wells are operated based on water levels at the Rosecrans Reservoir. Wells located at a lower ground elevation are operated first when reservoir water levels are low, and wells located at a higher ground elevation are the first to be shut off when reservoir water levels are high.

The following subsections provide additional descriptions for each well site.

Table 3.2 Active Groundwater Wells Data
Well Name Location Year
Drilled
Year
Rehabili
tated
Ground
Elevation
(ft MSL)
Total
Depth
(ft)
Screen Interval (ft)
Hydropn
-eumatic
Tank
(Y/N)
Design
Capacity
(gpm)
Current
Available
Capacity
(gpm)
Static
GW
Depth
(ft)
Pumping
GW
Depth
(ft)
HP
Ball*
6000 Ball Rd
(Larwin Park) 1995 - 50 870 260 to 870 N 3,000 2,681
(1,250) 37.6 103.4 350
Boisseranc 7520 Dale St
(Boisseranc Park)
1995 2022 89 1,375
475 to 495; 505 to 520;
635 to 665; 675 to 695;
770 to 810; 845 to 875;
940 to 970; 1,010 to
1,090; 1,100 to 1,120;
1,130 to 1,150; 1,205 to
1,275; and 1,325 to 1,355
N 3,000 2,406 143.2 350
Caballero
6490 Caballero Blvd
(Buena Park
Navigation Center)
1964 - 58 1,020 260 to 1,020 Y 1,500 1,688 54.5 149.7 200 Freeway
(Northwest
Intersection of 91
Fwy and Knott Ave)
1964 - 68 1,000 260 to 1,000 Y 1,500 950 68.4 191.5 200 Holder 9120 Holder St 1964 - 57 1,000 250 to 1,000 Y 1,500 1,237 53.2 170.1 150 Knott
(Southwest
Intersection of 8th St
and Knott Ave)
1964 - 62 1,000 260 to 1,000 Y 1,500 1,302 57.5 137.5 200 Linden 8246 Linden Circle 2005 2019 86 1,220
470 to 495; 505 to 525;
775 to 790; 815 to 830;
905 to 925; 960 to 995;
1,075 to 1,090; 1,155 to
1,165; and 1,185 to 1,200
N 3,000 2,625 159.2 350
SmithMurphy
5290 Cameron Dr
(Friendship Park)
1978 2019 114 1,038 308 to 1,038 Y 2,000 847 40.7 77.7 150 Notes:
* The Ball Well was constructed in 1995 and had a design capacity of 3,000 gpm. This well currently is capable of producing approximately 2,681 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. However, the well pump is oversized, and a variable frequency drive (VFD) is used/forced to ramp down pump speed and production to about 1,200 – 1,300 gpm in order to avoid over pressurizing the system in the immediate vicinity of the well. The 1,250 gpm in the parentheses represents the actual operating capacity of the Ball Well. • Well locations based on Well Completion Reports and Orange County GIS Open Data Portal (https://www.ocgis.com/ocpw/landrecords/). • Year drilled, depth, and screened interval information obtained from Well Completion Reports. • Current capacity, static GW depth, and pumping GW depth based on SCE energy efficiency tests conducted between January 2024 and February 2024. 45 Boisseranc Well
The Boisseranc Well is located in the middle of Boisseranc Park. The well enclosure is temporary and is made of corrugated metal panels (and metal pipes) and is partially exposed. The well site includes a disinfection system. The well site is surrounded by a chain link fence.

The Boisseranc Well was constructed in 1995 and had a design capacity of 3,000 gpm. The well was rehabilitated in 2022. The well currently produces approximately 2,400 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. The well pump is driven by a 3-phase, 350 HP variable frequency drive electric motor.

The Boisseranc Well is manually controlled via SCADA.
• Typically, the City operates the Boisseranc Well and Linden Well as the primary water supply source to Zone 1-241.
• Both the Boisseranc and Linden Wells are usually running full time. • The Boisseranc Well includes a VFD which is used to ramp down pump speed and production.
• The City primarily pumps from the Boisseranc, Linden, and Holder Wells as part of the 2018 Agreement (discussed in Section 1.2) to prevent the flow of groundwater out of the Orange County Groundwater Basin into the Los Angeles County Groundwater Basin. • The City’s OC-31 imported water connection and the Boisseranc Well cannot be operated at the same time (due to increased pressure / head concerns).

In case of a loss of power, a quick connection for a portable generator is provided on-site, along with a manual transfer switch. City staff can typically deliver a generator to the site within two hours during working hours, and within four-hours all other times.

The City rehabilitated the Boisseranc Well in 2022. Rehabilitation improvements included wire brushing the well casing, fixing the discharge head, replacing the aged electrical motor, and installing the VFD.

During a November 2023 site visit, City staff indicated because the well is located in a park, a permanent noise enclosure is needed for the well (instead of the existing semi-enclosure made of corrugated metal panels and metal pipes).

Boisseranc Well Site
46 Linden Well
The Linden Well is located in a residential area. The well, discharge piping, electrical and control equipment, and disinfection system are all located within a masonry building. The well site is surrounded by a block wall fence and wrought iron gate.

Linden Well was constructed in 2006 and had a design capacity of 3,000 gpm. The well was rehabilitated in 2019. The well currently produces approximately 2,630 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. This pump is driven by a General Electric 350 HP constant speed electric motor.

The Linden Well is manually controlled via SCADA.
• Typically, the City operates the Linden Well or Boisseranc Well as the primary water supply source to Zone 1-241.
• Both the Linden and Boisseranc Wells are usually running full time. • The City primarily pumps from the Boisseranc, Linden, and Holder Wells as part of the 2018 Agreement (discussed in Section 1.2) to prevent the flow of groundwater out of the Basin into a different basin.
• The City’s OC-31 imported water connection and the Boisseranc Well cannot be operated at the same time (due to increased pressure / head concerns) In case of a loss of commercial power, a portable generator connection is provided on-site, along with a manual transfer switch. City staff can typically deliver a generator to the site and power the well within two hours during working hours, and within four hours at other times. However, due to the site layout, the City would need two (2) lengths of power cables in order to connect the portable generator.

The City rehabilitated the Linden Well in 2019. Rehabilitation improvements included wire brushing the well casing, pump bowl replacements, and well pump repairs.

During a November 2023 site visit, the Linden Well was observed to potentially have vibration issues. In addition, City staff indicated the Linden Well may have water quality issues associated with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. There is limited space available at the eastern end of the well site to install a treatment system. The system could potentially be installed below grade to mitigate any impacts to the nearby residents. A further discussion regarding PFAS contamination is provided in Section 5.2.12.

Linden Well Site
47 Caballero Well
The Caballero Well is located at the south end of the Buena Park Navigation Center site. The well enclosure is temporary and is made of corrugated metal panels (and metal pipes) and is partially exposed. The well site includes an emergency generator, disinfection station, and a hydropneumatic tank. The well site is surrounded by a chain link fence.

The Caballero Well was constructed in 1964 and had a design capacity of 1,500 gpm. The well currently produces approximately 1,690 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. The well pump is driven by a 200 HP constant speed electric motor.

The Caballero Well is automatically controlled via SCADA. The well pump is set to turn on when Rosecrans Reservoir level falls below 19.5 feet and turn off when the reservoir level exceeds 25.0 feet.

Water produced from the Caballero Well is routed through the 10,000-gallon hydropneumatic tank to attenuate surges in pressure that can occur when the well pump turns on and off. An air compressor housed in the control cabinet is used to maintain air pressure over the water in the tank (operated based on water level in the tank).

In case of a loss of power, a 4-kilowatt (kW), diesel fueled emergency generator and an automatic transfer switch are provided on-site.

During a November 2023 site visit, City staff indicated the Caballero Well has manganese issues.

Caballero Well Site
48 Holder Well
The Holder Well is located in a residential area adjacent to Orange County Fire Authority Station

63. The well enclosure is temporary and is made of corrugated metal panels (and metal pipes) and is partially exposed. The well site includes an emergency generator and a hydropneumatic tank.

The well site is surrounded by a block wall and wrought iron gate.

The Holder Well was constructed in 1964 and had a design capacity of 1,500 gpm. The well currently produces approximately 1,240 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. The well pump is driven by a U.S. Electric 150 HP constant speed electric motor.

The Holder Well is automatically controlled via SCADA.
• The well pump is set to turn on when Rosecrans Reservoir level falls below 19.0 feet and turn off when the reservoir level exceeds 24.5 feet.
• The City primarily pumps from the Boisseranc, Linden, and Holder Wells as part of the 2018 Agreement (discussed in Section 1.2) to prevent the flow of groundwater out of the Basin into a different basin.

Water produced from the Holder Well is routed through the 10,000-gallon hydropneumatic tank to attenuate surges in pressure that can occur when the well pump turns on and off. An air compressor housed in the control cabinet is used to maintain air pressure over the water in the tank (operated based on water level in the tank).

In case of a loss of power, a 4-kW, diesel fueled emergency generator and an automatic transfer switch are provided on-site. There is on-site disinfection.

Holder Well Site (Google)
49 Freeway Well
The Freeway Well is located at the northwest intersection of the 91 Freeway and Knott Avenue.

The well enclosure is temporary and is made of corrugated metal panels (and metal pipes) and is partially exposed. The well site includes an emergency generator and a hydropneumatic tank. The well site is surrounded by a chain link fence.

The Freeway Well was constructed in 1964 and had a design capacity of 1,500 gpm. This well currently produces approximately 950 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. The well pump is driven by a U.S. Electric 200 HP constant speed electric motor.

The Freeway Well is automatically controlled via SCADA. The well pump is set to turn on when Rosecrans Reservoir level falls below 18.5 feet and turn off when the reservoir level exceeds 24.0 feet.

Water produced from the Freeway Well is routed through the 10,000-gallon hydropneumatic tank to attenuate surges in pressure that can occur when the well pump turns on and off. An air compressor housed in the control cabinet is used to maintain air pressure over the water in the tank (operated based on water level in the tank).

An air compressor housed in the control cabinet is used to maintain air pressure over the water in the tank (operated based on water level in the tank).

In case of a loss of power, a 4-kW, diesel fueled emergency generator and an automatic transfer switch are provided on-site. There is on-site disinfection.

During a November 2023 site visit, City staff indicated the Freeway Well has minor sanding issues.

Freeway Well Site (Google)
50 Knott Well
The Knott Well is located in an industrial area. The well enclosure is temporary and is made of corrugated metal panels (and metal pipes) and is partially exposed. The well site is surrounded by a chain link fence.

The Knott Well was constructed in 1964 and had a design capacity of 1,500 gpm. This well currently produces approximately 1,300 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. The well pump is driven by a General Electric 200 HP constant speed electric motor.

The Knott Well is automatically controlled via SCADA. The well pump is set to turn on when Rosecrans Reservoir level falls below 18.0 feet and turn off when the reservoir level exceeds 23.5 feet.

Discharge from Knott Well is routed through a 10,000-gallon hydropneumatic tank to attenuate the surges in pressure that occur when the well pump turns on and off. An air compressor housed in the control cabinet is used to maintain air pressure over the water in the tank (operated based on water level in the tank).

In case of a loss of power, a 4-kW, diesel fueled emergency generator and an automatic transfer switch are provided on-site. There is on-site disinfection.

During a November 2023 site visit, City staff has indicated the Knott Well has minor sanding and manganese issues.

Knott Well Site (Google)
51 Smith-Murphy Well
The Smith-Murphy Well is located in Friendship Park (formerly named Smith-Murphy Park). The well enclosure is temporary and is made of corrugated metal panels (and PVC pipes) and is partially exposed. The well site includes a hydropneumatic tank. The well site is surrounded by a chain link fence.

The Smith Murphy Well was constructed in 1978 and had a design capacity of 2,000 gpm. The well was rehabilitated in 2019. This well currently produces about 850 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. The well pump is driven by a U.S. Electric 200 HP constant speed electric motor.

The Smith-Murphy Well can be manually activated via SCADA during high demand periods or in an emergency situation.
• The Smith-Murphy Well includes a VFD which is used to ramp down pump speed and production to between 800 gpm and 900 gpm.
• Additional capacity is available, however there are sanding issues as production is increased.
• The Smith-Murphy Well is not used under normal system demand conditions because the well produces naturally warm water (approximately 78 °F). The water is mineralized which appears to reduce chlorine levels in the City’s distribution system.

Discharge from the Smith-Murphy well is routed through a 3,000-gallon hydropneumatic tank to attenuate the surges in pressure that occur when the well pump turns on and off.

This well site does not have a backup power source or the necessary connections to utilize a portable generator. There is no on-site disinfection.

The City rehabilitated the Smith-Murphy Well in 2019. Rehabilitation improvements included wire brushing the casing, installation of a full casing liner, and well pump replacement.

During a November 2023 site visit, City staff indicated that a chlorine disinfection station is needed at the Smith-Murphy well site because it appears the mineralized water from the well is reducing chlorine levels in the City’s distribution system. In addition, because the well is located in a park, a permanent noise enclosure is needed for the well (instead of the existing semi-enclosure made of corrugated metal panels and PVC pipes).

Smith-Murphy Well Site
52 Ball Well
The Ball Well is located in a commercial area at 6100 Ball Road, adjacent to Larwin Park. The well site is surrounded by a chain link fence for security.

The Ball Well was constructed in 1995 and had a design capacity of 3,000 gpm. This well currently is capable of producing approximately 2,681 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. However, the well pump is oversized and a variable frequency drive (VFD) is used to ramp down pump speed and production to between 1,200 gpm and 1,300 gpm in order to avoid overpressurizing the system in the immediate vicinity of the well. The well pump is driven by a U.S. Electric 350 HP electric motor. There is on-site disinfection.

The Ball Well can be manually activated via SCADA.
• The Ball Well includes a VFD which is used to ramp down pump speed and production to between 1,200 gpm and 1,300 gpm in order to avoid high pressures in the system in the immediate vicinity of the well.
• The City does not typically operate the Ball Well under normal system demand conditions because the well pump must operate at low efficiency in order to reduce output enough to maintain appropriate system pressures.
• The City operates the Ball Well during high demand periods or in an emergency In case of a loss of commercial power, a portable generator connection is provided on-site, along with a manual transfer switch.

During a November 2023 site visit, the City indicated the existing VFD was burnt out, however a new VFD has since been installed. The City also indicated that the well experiences manganese issues and that treatment may be required.

Ball Well Site (2019 Master Plan)
53 3.1.2 Existing Storage Reservoirs
The City’s water system has one storage reservoir, the Rosecrans Reservoir. This reservoir is located north of Rosecrans Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard. It is a buried concrete reservoir that was constructed in 1964. The reservoir has an operating capacity of 20.0 million gallons (MG) and provides water by gravity directly to the Lower Zone 1-241 via a dedicated 36-inch transmission pipeline. It also provides suction to the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station which can pump water from the reservoir into the Upper Zones. The water source of the reservoir is mainly from the imported water connection OC-25. The Simth-Murphy Well also provides a source of water supply for the reservoir under certain hydraulic conditions.

Per the original construction plans, the reservoir is 25 feet in height and is rectangular with dimensions of 458 feet long by 278 feet wide in the top portion. The bottom portion is trapezoidal.

At its lowest point, the bottom elevation is 218 feet. The high water level is set at 241 feet.

Table 3.3 is a summary of the City’s existing water storage reservoir.

Table 3.3 Storage Reservoir
Storage
Tank Name
Tank
Material
Operating
Capacity
(MG)
Construction
Year
Gravity/
Pumped?
Ground
Elevation
(ft-msl)
Size
Tank
Height
(ft)
Overflow
Height
(ft)
Rosecrans
Reservoir Concrete 20.0 1964
Gravity to
Lower Zone;
Pumped to
Upper Zones
243 458' x 278' 25 22.83
Rosecrans Reservoir Location (Google)
54 3.1.3 Existing Booster Pump Stations
The City’s water system includes one booster pump station, the Rosecrans Booster Station. This booster station takes suction from the Rosecrans Reservoir and provides water to the Upper Zones as needed. This booster station was upgraded in 2019.

The Rosecrans Booster Station has five (5) booster pumps. Details of the Rosecrans Booster Station pumps are summarized in Table 3.4. The booster station has a combined design capacity of 8,500 gpm and a combined available capacity of 7,371 gpm based on SCE energy efficiency pump tests conducted on May 24, 2022.

The City typically operates either Booster 2 or Booster 3 for a capacity of about 1,000 gpm. If additional capacity is required, the City operates Booster 1 (500 gpm) for a total capacity of about 1,500 gpm. If further capacity is required, the City operates the remaining Booster 2 or Booster 3 for a total capacity of 2,500 gpm. Boosters 4 and 5 are used only for fire flow purposes. Because these booster pumps each have a capacity of about 3,000 gpm, Booster 4 and Booster 5 are not run at the same time. The maximum discharge from the Booster Station is about 5,000 gpm.

The Rosecrans Booster Station includes a 4,000-gallon surge tank, a permanent on-site standby generator, and a packaged on-site disinfection system with up to a 0.8% solution of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) capable of producing 160 pounds per day (ppd). The hypochlorite storage tank is 2,000 gallons.

Table 3.4 Rosecrans Booster Station
Booster
Name Type Power (HP)
Year
Installed/
Replaced
Design
Capacity
(gpm)
Available
Capacity
(gpm)
Ground
Elevation
(ft-msl)
Water
Source
Area
Served
Booster 1 VT 30 2019 500 459
235 Rosecrans
Reservoir
Upper
Zones
Booster 2 VT 50 2019 1,000 961
Booster 3 VT 50 2019 1,000 897
Booster 4 VT 150 2019 3,000 2,557
Booster 5 VT 150 2019 3,000 2,497
Total 8,500 7,371
Note: The available capacity is based on the 5/24/2022 SCE pump test.

Rosecrans Booster Pump Station
55 3.1.4 Existing MWD Connections for Imported Water
The City maintains four (4) MWD connections for imported water (OC-16, OC-24, OC-25, and OC-31). The locations and details of these connections are provided in Table 3.5. Each connection can be controlled via output flow or pressure. Table 3.5 describes the primary control mode for each connection. Each connection also has a 6-inch pressure relief valve. The MWD pressure is about 200 psi and the City pressure is about 80 to 90 psi after the pressure relief valve.

The capacities of the four MWD connections are 15 cfs (6,732 gpm), 4 cfs (1,795 gpm), 15 cfs (6,732 gpm), and 10 cfs (4,488 gpm), respectively, with a combined total capacity of 44 cfs or 19,749 gpm.

The OC-25 connection is the primary source of water for the City’s Upper Zones (Zone 2-385, 3a325, 3b-285, and 3c-262) and can supply water to the Rosecrans Reservoir. The Upper Zones are closed zones and the control at OC-25 is manually regulated. The remaining imported water connections are maintained as additional sources of water for the Lower Zone 1-241. The City’s wells are the primary source of water for the Lower Zone.

Table 3.5 MWD Connections for Imported Water
MWD No. Location Area Served Capacity
(cfs)
Capacity
(gpm)
Primary Control
Type
OC-16 Crescent Ave. & Dale St. Zone 1-241 15 6,732
Pressure
Reducing and
Manual (Flow)
OC-24 Artesia Blvd. & Dale St. Zone 1-241 4 1,795
Pressure
Reducing and
Manual (Flow)
OC-25 Lincolnshire Ave. & St.

Andrews Ave.

Zone 2-385
Zone 3a-325
Zone 3b-285
Zone 3c-262
15 6,732
Pressure
Reducing and
Rate of Flow
Control
OC-31 Kass Dr. & Dale St. Zone 1-241 10 4,488
Pressure
Reducing and
Manual (Flow)
Total 44 19,749
56 3.1.5 Existing Emergency Interconnections
Table 3.6 is a summary of the City’s existing three (3) emergency interconnections. Two emergency interconnections were installed in recent years. The emergency interconnection with the City of La Palma was installed in 2021 by the City of La Palma and the emergency interconnection (and a PRV) with the City of Fullerton was installed in 2024 by the City of Buena Park.

The City of Cypress water system is managed by Golden State Water Company (GSWC). GSWC has an emergency interconnection with the City of Buena Park which was installed in 1998. It is located approximately 235 feet east of Valley View on Lincoln Ave. There is approximately 95 feet of 8-inch DIP running across Lincoln Ave from the vault containing an 8” combined pressure reducing & pressure sustaining valve and 8” meter.

Table 3.6 Emergency Interconnections
Neighboring Agency Location Installation
Year Direction
City of La Palma Walker St and Thelma Ave 2021 Two-way
City of Fullerton 6935 Magnolia Ave 2024 To Fullerton
GSWC 235 ft east of Valley View St
on Lincoln Ave 1998 To Cypress
GSWC: Golden State Water Company.
57 3.1.6 Existing Pressure Regulating Stations
Pressure regulating stations allow distribution systems to transfer water from higher pressure zones to lower pressure zones without exceeding the allowable pressures in the lower zones.

The City’s system includes thirteen (13) pressure regulating stations (PRS) that convey water from a higher pressure zone to lower pressure zone. All stations are a combination of pressure reducing and pressure sustaining valves. The pressure sustaining valve establishes a minimum pressure on the upstream side of the PRS. The pressure reducing valve establishes a maximum pressure on the downstream side of the PRS. Some of the PRS have a second valve that allows more flexibility in matching the demands of the lower zone. The details of each PRS are shown in Table 3.7.

Zone 3a-325 is provided with water via PRS 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, which also act as pressure relief for Zone 2-385. Zone 3b-285 is provided with water via PRS 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13, which also act as pressure relief from Zone 3a-325. Zone 3c-262 is provided with water via PRS 12.

As shown in Table 3.7, there is only one PRS (PRS 12) with only one valve that connects Zone 3b-285 and Zone 3c-262. It is recommended that a second PRS from Zone 3b-285 to Zone 3c-262 is installed to provide operational redundancy.

Table 3.7 List of Pressure Regulating Stations
PRS
ID Location Upstream Zone
Downstream
Zone
Valve
Size
Second
Valve
Size
Upstream
Pressure
Setting
(psi)
Downstream
Pressure
Setting (psi)
1 Los Coyotes & Buena
Tierra 2-385 3a-325 6" 2” 86 60
2 8371 Bonnie Brae 2-385 3a-325 4" 2” 85 60
3 4706 St. Andrews 3a-325 3b-285 6" 2” 85 67
4 8431 Ridglea @ Sunny
Brook 2-385 3a-325 4" 2” 86 62
5 4943 St. Andrews 2-385 3a-325 4" 2” 90 65
6 8790 Los Coyotes 2-385 3a-325 8” 2” 90 61
7 5131 Fox Hills @
Ridglea 3a-325 3b-285 6” - 86 71
8 8371 Country Club 3a-325 3b-285 6" - 80 63
9 8521 Deepdale 3a-325 3b-285 6" - 83 65
10 8521 Deepdale 3a-325 3b-285 6" 2” 84 65
11 5351 Emerywood 3a-325 3b-285 6" - 80 61
12 Malvern & Beach 3b-285 3c-262 8" - 90 74
13 5651 Rockledge 3a-325 3b-285 4" 2” 85 74
58 3.1.7 Existing Pipelines
The City’s existing water main Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layer (provided by the City on January 31, 2024) consists of approximately 239.44 miles of pipelines, of which 220.66 miles are active water mains owned by the City, 13.95 miles are abandoned, 4.16 miles are owned by MWD, and 0.67 mile is owned by the Suburban Water Systems. This WSMP only analyzed the 220.66 miles of active water mains owned by the City.

Of the 220.66 miles of active water mains owned by the City, the sizes of about 1.8 percent of the pipes are not known, the materials of about 2.2 percent of the pipes are not known, and the installation dates of about 13.1 percent of the pipes are not known. Figure 3.2 shows the locations of pipelines with unknown sizes, materials, and/or ages based on the City’s existing GIS database.

The City’s existing water main inventory was first updated by locating the water mains with unknown sizes/materials/ages and filling these data gaps. The updated GIS database was used for the distribution system hydraulic modeling (see Section 7.7) and for the risk-based assessment (see Section 7.8.2) to identify the most at-risk water mains and prioritize them for replacement.

The updated GIS database for the active water mains included the following additional attribute columns to indicate the updates/edits:
• MAT_Update – “y” if material was missing and was updated. • DIA_Upate – “y” if diameter was missing and was updated. • YR_Update – “y” if installation year was missing and was updated.

The missing data gaps were filled mainly based on materials, diameters, and/or installation dates of similar pipes in the immediate vicinity. In some cases the as-built drawings were used to fill the data gaps. The filled data were then checked to determine if appropriate data was attributed to the pipes (including whether appropriate material was generally used for a given installation year or whether the pipeline diameter was appropriate for the material.) A breakdown of pipelines by diameter, material type, and pipe age in the existing GIS database and the updated GIS database is presented in Tables 3.8 through 3.10, while this data is graphically depicted on Figures 3.3, 3.4, and 3.6.

The City’s water distribution system consists of approximately 220.66 miles of pipeline ranging from 2 to 36 inches in diameter. As shown in Table 3.8 and Figure 3.3, the majority of the system pipelines are 6 and 8 inches in diameter, comprising about 171.32 miles (or 78 percent) of the 220.66 total miles of pipeline.

Pipe materials in the City’s water distribution system include asbestos cement pipe (ACP), cast iron pipe (CIP), cement mortar lined steel (CML), cement mortar lined and coated steel (CMLC), ductile iron pipe (DIP), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). As shown in Table 3.9 and Figure 3.4, the majority of the pipelines are made of asbestos-cement pipe (ACP), which equates to 191.01 miles or 87 percent of the total miles of pipeline. Figure 3.5 shows the spatial distribution of pipeline materials.

The oldest pipelines in the City’s system were installed in the 1940s. As shown in Table 3.10 and Figure 3.6, the majority of the pipelines were installed from 1950 to 1970 (54 to 74 years ago), which equates to 183.42 miles or 83 percent of the total miles of pipeline.

City of Anaheim served
by City of Buena Park
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Fullerton
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Anaheim
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
City of La Mirada
served by City
of Buena Park
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
Los
Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: PipeAgeMatSize

LOCATIONS OF ACTIVE WATER MAINS

WITH UNKNOWN SIZE, MATERIAL, OR AGE

IN THE CITY'S GIS DATABASE
CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA 0 0.5 1
Miles
Unknown Material
Unknown Diameter
Unknown Age
Water Line
City Border
Served by Buena Park
Served by Another
Agency
Service Area
Boundary
County Boundary
Pressure Zones
Zone 1-241
Zone 2-385
Zone 3a-325
Zone 3b-285
Zone 3c-262
Ü
Figure 3.2
60 Table 3.8 Active Pipeline Length (Miles) vs. Size
Pipe Size Existing GIS
Database
Updated GIS
Database
2" 0.01 0.01
3" 0.00 0.00
4" 8.37 8.37
5" 0.35 0.35
6" 87.78 89.80
8" 80.07 81.52
10" 14.19 14.64
12" 9.73 9.73
14" 5.09 5.09
16" 5.42 5.42
18" 0.45 0.45
20" 1.48 1.48
24" 0.82 0.82
30" 1.15 1.15
36" 1.84 1.84
Unknown 3.92 -
Total 220.66 220.66
Figure 3.3 Active Pipeline Length vs. Size

0.01 0.00

8.37 0.35

89.80 81.52

14.64 9.73

5.09 5.42

0.45 1.48 0.82 1.15 1.84
-
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 24" 30" 36" UNK Pipeline Length (mile) Pipe Size
Pipeline Length vs. Size
City's Existing GIS Database
Stetson's Updated GIS Database
61 Table 3.9 Active Pipeline Length (Miles) vs. Material Material Existing GIS
Database
Updated GIS
Database
ACP 185.66 191.01
CIP 1.12 1.12
CML 4.27 4.30
CMLC 0.01 9.32
CMP 0.03 -
CONC 3.08 -
DIP 14.37 14.53
PVC 0.38 0.38
STL 6.93 -
Unknown 4.79 -
Total 220.66 220.66
Note: No more steel pipelines.

Figure 3.4 Active Pipeline Length vs. Material
191.01

1.12 4.30

9.32 14.53

0.38 0
50 100
150
200
250
ACP CIP CML CMLC CMP CONC DIP PVC STL UNK Pipeline Length (mile) Pipe Material
Pipeline Length vs. Material
City's Existing GIS Database
Stetson's Updated GIS Database
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: System_Pipe_Materials

SYSTEM PIPE MATERIALS

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
ACP
CIP
CML
CMLC
DIP
PVC
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 3.5
63 Table 3.10 Active Pipeline Length (Miles) vs. Age
Installation Year Existing GIS
Database
Updated GIS
Database
1940-1949 0.34 0.53
1950-1959 93.72 97.99
1960-1969 69.47 85.43
1970-1979 14.20 18.82
1980-1989 5.87 6.36
1990-1999 4.21 6.65
2000-2009 3.31 3.31
2010-2019 0.61 1.04
2020-2023 - 0.52
Unknown 28.94 -
Total 220.66 220.66
Figure 3.6 Active Pipeline Length vs. Age

0.53 97.99

85.43 18.82

6.36 6.65

3.31 1.04 0.52
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2019 2020-2023 UNK Pipeline Length (mile) Installation Year
Pipeline Length vs. Age
City's Existing GIS Database
Stetson's Updated GIS Database
64 3.2 Water System Schematic
Figure 3.7 shows the City’s water system schematic. The existing major facilities and available capacities are shown in the schematic (including eight groundwater wells, four imported water connections, the Rosecrans Reservoir, and the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station).

The Rosecrans Booster Pump Station was upgraded in 2019. To help minimize groundwater formation losses from the Orange County Groundwater Basin into Los Angeles County, the City entered into an agreement with OCWD to utilize the rebuilt/upgraded Rosecrans Booster Pump Station to produce up to 100% of its total water supply needs from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Under this 20-year agreement, known as the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station Project Loan Agreement dated April 12, 2018, the City must make all efforts to produce 100% of its water supply needs from the Orange County Groundwater Basin unless it is contractually obligated by MWD to participate in its Conjunctive Use Storage Program. In return, OCWD provided the City with a 20-year zero-interest loan to complete the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station and will reimburse the City for additional pumping costs.

Pursuant to the 2018 Loan Agreement, the City primarily produces water from its groundwater wells. However, during the summer months when demands are greater, the City will also use imported water from its MWD connections as necessary.

Currently the water source of the Rosecrans Reservoir is primarily from groundwater produced from the Lower Zone during low demand times. The Rosecrans Reservoir then provides water by gravity directly to the Lower Zone. The reservoir also provides supply to the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station which pumps water from the reservoir into the Upper Zones. The imported water connection OC-25 also provides water supply to the Upper Zones.

The City has indicated there are electrical issues at the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station during the summer months including power interruptions and voltage spikes from Southern California Edison. As a result, the City will turn off booster pumps during peak summer months and rely on imported water supplies from OC-25 to meet Upper Zone demands.

To achieve the 100% local water supply goal, there is a need for the City to provide an additional local source of water from the Lower Zone to fill the Rosecrans Reservoir and cycle the reservoir and to meet the water demands in both in the Lower Zone and the Upper Zones.

66 CHAPTER 4 – WATER DEMANDS

4.1 Introduction
Evaluation of current water demands and projections of future demands are necessary to assess the adequacy of existing water supply and distribution facilities. This section presents historical production and consumption data, current water use, and projected water requirements to the year 2045. This section also describes seasonal and maximum day peaking factors.

Water utilities, including the City, must be able to supply water at quantities that fluctuate over a wide range. Yearly, monthly, daily, and hourly variations in water use occur, with higher use during dry years and in hot months. Also, water use typically follows a diurnal pattern, being low at night and peaking in the early morning and late afternoon. The water demands which are most important to the hydraulic design and operation of a water treatment plant and distribution system include average day demand, maximum day demand, and maximum (or peak) hour demand.

Minimum day demand usage is becoming increasingly significant relative to water quality issues in the distribution system. In addition, seasonal peak demand is important in the evaluation of water supply requirements.

The average day demand (ADD) is the total annual water use divided by the number of days in the year. The ADD is used primarily as a basis for estimating maximum day and peak hour demands.

The ADD is also normally used to estimate future revenues and operating costs.

The maximum day demand (MDD) is the maximum quantity of water used on any one day of the year. The MDD is used to size water supply facilities, treatment facilities, and pumping stations.

The water supply facilities must be adequate to supply water at the MDD.

The peak hour demand (PHD) is the peak rate at which water is required during any one hour of the year. Since minimum distribution system water pressures are usually experienced during PHD, the sizes and locations of distribution facilities are generally determined on the basis of this condition. PHDs are partially met through the use of strategically located system storage. The use of system storage minimizes the required capacity of transmission mains and permits a more uniform and economical operation of the water supply, treatment, and pumping facilities.

The minimum day demand is the minimum quantity of water used on any one day. It is commonly used as a basis for evaluating the maximum water age in the distribution system.

Seasonal peak demand is the average use during prolonged periods of high demand in the summer months. Seasonal peak water requirements are used to evaluate the ability of the groundwater wells to yield an adequate amount of water during extended high demand periods. 67 4.2 Historical Water Consumption (Sales)
Water demand consists of water that leaves the distribution system through metered (i.e. water use customers) and unmetered connections (such as fire hydrants). Additional unmetered flows contributing to water demands include maintenance (e.g., fire service maintenance) flushing, reservoir cleaning, leaks at pipe joints, or main breaks. Additionally, for new developments where private on-site fire hydrants are required to be protected by a double check detector assembly (DCDA), the fire services are required to be metered to account for both authorized and unauthorized water use.

The City reports annual water consumption (sales) based on water delivered to metered customers.

The historical water consumptions over the past 12 years (from 2012 to 2023) are provided in Table 4.1 by customer use type and in units of acre-feet per year (AFY). Figure 4.1 shows the historical total annual water consumptions.

As shown in Figure 4.1, the total annual potable water consumption over the past 12 years ranged from 10,465 AFY to 13,736 AFY, with an average of about 12,286 AFY.

Figure 4.1 Historical Annual Water Consumption
13,601 13,636 13,736
11,279
10,891
11,625
12,799
13,206
12,215 12,299
11,684
10,465
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Annuual Water Consumption (AFY) Calendar Year
Historical Annual Water Consumption
68 Table 4.1 Historical Annual Consumption of Potable Water (AFY) Year
SingleFamily
Residential
MultiFamily
Residential
Commercial/
Institutional Industrial Landscape Irrigation Other Total 2012 6,300 2,122 3,695 261 1,186 37 13,601
2013 6,385 2,161 3,600 214 1,241 35 13,636
2014 6,332 2,172 3,771 193 1,235 33 13,736
2015 5,063 1,900 3,491 0 790 35 11,279
2016 4,931 1,871 3,265 0 824 0 10,891
2017 5,333 1,865 3,439 0 988 0 11,625
2018 6,213 1,893 3,583 0 1,103 7 12,799
2019 5,601 2,181 4,300 0 1,124 0 13,206
2020 5,850 2,020 3,244 0 1,094 7 12,215
2021 5,717 1,935 3,489 0 1,154 4 12,299
2022 5,335 1,857 3,384 0 1,100 8 11,684
2023 4,840 1,699 3,031 0 890 6 10,465
Avg 5,658 1,973 3,524 56 1,061 14 12,286
To depict the different water uses within the service area, a breakdown of the year 2023 potable water consumption by customer class is presented graphically in Figure 4.2. As shown in Figure

4.2, residential consumption accounted for the majority (single-family 46 percent and multi-family 16 percent) of the total demand for the year 2023. Commercial/institutional was the next largest consumer category, representing 29 percent. Water used for industrial and other purposes was relatively small.
69 Figure 4.2 2023 Annual Water Consumption Breakdown by Customer Class Single-Family, 46%
Multi-family, 16%
Commercial/ Institutional,
29%
Industrial, 0%
Landscape Irrigation,
9%
Other, 0%
2023 Water Use Breakdown by Customer Class
Single-Family Multi-family Commercial/ Institutional Industrial Landscape Irrigation Other 70 4.3 Historical Potable Water Supply/Production
The City’s water system currently produces its water supply from eight (8) active groundwater wells from the Orange County Groundwater Basin and from imported water purchases purchased from MWD) and delivered through MWDOC. Historical monthly and annual water production data was provided by the City for the years 2012 through 2023. The annual total water production and purchases are summarized in Table 4.2. The average historical annual groundwater production and imported water purchase was 10,617 AFY and 2,641 AFY, respectively, totaling 13,258 AFY.

Table 4.2 Historical Annual Supply of Potable Water (AFY) Calendar
Year
Pumped
Groundwater
Purchased
Water Total
2012 8,875 5,670 14,545
2013 11,270 4,033 15,303
2014 12,149 2,393 14,542
2015 10,007 2,314 12,321
2016 11,064 1,065 12,129
2017 9,051 3,976 13,027
2018 11,226 2,306 13,532
2019 8,346 4,526 12,872
2020 11,909 1,254 13,163
2021 11,221 1,896 13,117
2022 11,503 1,423 12,926
2023 10,787 831 11,618
Avg 10,617 2,641 13,258
Avg (%) 80.1% 19.9% 100.0%
Figure 4.3 shows the City’s historical annual potable water supply by water source. There has been a decrease in total production and purchase over the past 12 years, from a high of 15,303 AFY in 2013 to a low of 11,618 AFY in 2023. These reductions are attributed to a very conscientious water conservation effort by the City and its customers in response to California’s recent multi-year droughts.

Figure 4.3 shows that after 2019, the amount of imported water was significantly reduced and the City used the least amount of imported water in 2023. This is attributed to the City rebuilt/upgraded Rosecrans Booster Pump Station that was completed in 2019 as well as the 2018 Agreement in 71 which the City must make all efforts to produce up to 100% of its water supply needs from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The higher imported water use in 2019 was due to the City shutting down four (4) groundwater wells for repairs and maintenance during that year.

The 2018 Agreement has provided financial incentives to the City to increase groundwater utilization from the Basin. Following the completion of the City’s Rosecrans Booster Pump Station project in 2019, the City’s average use of groundwater supplies has significantly increased from approximately 76 percent (from 2012 to 2019) to 90 percent (from 2020 to 2023) of the City’s total water supply.

Figure 4.3 Historical Annual Potable Water Supply by Water Source Seasonal variations in potable water supplies are depicted in Figure 4.4. As shown in Figure 4.4, water demands are historically highest from June through October, when temperatures are the highest, and lowest from December through March, when temperatures are lowest. The observed seasonal variation can be used to calculate monthly peaking factors, including peaking factors for maximum month demand and minimum month demand conditions. 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Water Production (AFY) Calendar Year
Historical Annual Water Supply by Source
Pumped Groundwater
Purchased Water
72 Figure 4.4 Historical Monthly Water Supply

4.4 System Water Losses
System water losses are the difference between the actual volume of water treated and delivered into the distribution system (i.e., water production) and the actual metered consumption by customers. System water losses may be identified as real water losses (e.g., leaks and main failures) and apparent water losses (e.g., customer meter inaccuracies, systematic data handling errors in customer billing systems, and unauthorized consumption). The City uses the American Water Works Association (AWWA) method to annually evaluate its distribution system losses.

Over the past 12 years (2012 through 2023), the average annual water supply was 13,258 AFY and the average annual water consumption was 12,286 AFY. The historical average annual water loss is 972 AFY or about 7%.
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800 Monthly Production (AF)
Month
Historical Monthly Water Production
73 4.5 Peaking Factors
Peaking Factors (PFs) are typically used to determine the water demands for conditions other than Average Day Demands (ADD) conditions. Peaking factors account for fluctuations in demands on a seasonal or hourly basis. For example, during hot summer days, water use is typically higher than on a cold winter day due to increased irrigation demands.

Common PFs include factors for Maximum Day Demands (MDD), Minimum Day Demands, Peak Hour Demands (PHD), and maximum and minimum month demands. PFs are determined using the water system demands for a selected period and dividing the quantity by the ADD. The MDD factor, for example, is determined by comparing the water demands for the day of the year with the highest daily water demand to the ADD. The peaking factors determined in this report include:
• Monthly Peaking Factors
• Daily Peaking Factors
• Hourly Peaking Factors
These PFs not only reflect a different time scale, but are often calculated using different data sources. The data used to establish these are discussed below.

Monthly Peaking Factors
Monthly PFs represent the seasonal demand variation on a monthly basis, such as the maximum and minimum month demand factors. These peaking factors can be established using monthly production summaries or historical billing data. The monthly peaking factors are summarized in Table 4.3 and are calculated based on monthly water supply data. As shown in Table 4.3, the maximum month demand typically occurs between July and September when temperatures are high, while the minimum month demand typically occurs between December and March when temperatures are lower. The recommended peaking factors for the maximum and minimum month demand conditions based on the City’s historical production data are 1.27 and 0.72, respectively for the system.

Daily Peaking Factors
The MDD PF represents the ratio of the largest daily demand observed in one year to the ADD for the same year. This factor can then be applied to the ADD of future planning years to project MDD. The estimated MDD is commonly used to establish water supply, storage, and pumping capacity requirements.

The City provided the maximum day demand data for 2023. The data shows that the MDD peaking factor was about 1.4 (MDD to ADD ratio). This MDD peaking factor is much lower than the MDD peaking factor (about 1.9 (1.27×1.5)) derived based on the maximum monthly peaking factor of

1.27 and a minimum MDD to ADD ratio of 1.5 during the maximum month as described in Title 22, Section 64554 of the California Code of Regulations. Considering the MDD peaking factor of 74 1.4 was estimated based on only one year data (2023), a MDD peaking of 1.6, which is the average of 1.4 and 1.9, was adopted for this WSMP. This is similar to the MDD peaking factor used in the City’s 2019 Master Plan.

Hourly Peaking Factor
Given the estimated MDD peaking factor of 1.6, it is estimated the peak hour demand (PHD) peaking factor is 2.4 based on the minimum PHD to MDD ratio of 1.5 in Title 22, Section 64554 of the California Code of Regulations.

Table 4.3 Monthly Peaking Factors
Maximum Month Demand Minimum Month Demand
Year
Annual
Production
(AFY)
Average
Monthly
Production
(AF/month)
Maximum
Month
Production
(AF/month)
Maximum
Month PF
Minimum
Month
Production
(AF/month)
Minimum
Month PF
2012 14,545 1,212 1,577 Aug 1.30 844 Dec 0.70
2013 15,303 1,275 1,547 Jul 1.21 900 Feb 0.71
2014 14,542 1,212 1,553 Jul 1.28 833 Dec 0.69
2015 12,321 1,027 1,220 Aug 1.19 842 Feb 0.82
2016 12,129 1,011 1,313 Aug 1.30 746 Jan 0.74
2017 13,027 1,086 1,434 Jul 1.32 671 Feb 0.62
2018 13,532 1,128 1,422 Jul 1.26 853 Mar 0.76
2019 12,872 1,073 1,394 Jul 1.30 663 Feb 0.62
2020 13,163 1,097 1,412 Aug 1.29 819 Mar 0.75
2021 13,117 1,093 1,356 Jul 1.24 790 Feb 0.72
2022 12,926 1,077 1,342 Aug 1.25 859 Dec 0.80
2023 11,618 968 1,305 Jul 1.35 672 Mar 0.69
Avg 1.27 0.72
75 4.6 Future Water Demand Projection
The projection of future water demands includes forecasting water demand for the entire system and for planned specific new developments. The future system-wide water demands in five-year increments through year 2045 were obtained from the City’s 2020 UWMP as well as from the estimated water demands associated with potential new residential housing developments discussed in Section 2.3.2 and Section 2.4.3. The future water demand for a planned specific new development was estimated using a land use-based demand forecasting methodology. The land use-based demand forecasting for a specific new development was based on calculated water demand factors (WDF) by land use types and planned residential land uses in dwelling units (DU) or planned non-residential land uses in acres.

4.6.1 Water Demand Factors
A WDF is defined as the estimated amount of water usage per dwelling unit for residential land uses or per area for non-residential land uses. WDFs are typically expressed in gallons per day per DU (gpd/DU) or per acre (gpd/ac). These factors are used to estimate the ADD for planned developments by multiplying the WDF with the total number of dwelling units for residential land use or the total number of acres for a non-residential land use category. WDFs were developed using the year 2023 water consumption data and the General Plan land use data within the City’s service area. These WDFs were also used to project water demands for planned developments where land-use details are known at this time.

Based on the examination of the land use types in the planned developments in the City’s service area and the water consumption category data, WDFs were estimated for the following land use categories: single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial/institutional, industrial, and landscape irrigation. Existing vacant lands were identified and excluded from the WDF estimation.

Most of the planned developments consist of apartment buildings with planned numbers of apartment units (see Table 2.7). To estimate the WDF for each apartment unit, there is a need to estimate the existing number of multi-family residential units in the City’s service area. Based on information developed by SCAG, the following assumptions were used to estimate the existing number of multi-family residential units in the City’s service area:
• Mobile Homes and Trailer Parks: 6 units per acre (SCAG range: 6). • Multi-Family Residential 1 (Mid Rise): 14 units per acre (SCAG range: 10 to 18). • Multi-Family Residential 2 (High Rise): 20 units per acre (SCAG range: 19 or more).

The City’s service area has 103 acres of mobile homes and trailer parks, 34 acres of mid-rise multifamily residential buildings, and 297 acres of high-rise multi-family residential buildings. Based on the above assumptions, the total existing number of multi-family residential units is estimated to be 7,042 units. The 2020 UWMP estimated that the total number of non-single family residential units was 10,704, including duplex, triplex, apartment, condo, townhouse, mobile home, as well 76 as yachts, houseboats, recreational vehicles, and vans if they are primary place of residence. This indicates that the estimated existing 7,042 multi-family residential units is reasonable.

The estimated WDFs are presented in Table 4.4. These WDFs can be used to estimate water demands for future developments. Note that the land use data shows that the City’s service area has 16,078 single-family residential parcels. This number is a little smaller than the existing total number of single-family residential connections (16,865) shown in Table 2.1. The reason for this is that some single-family parcels may have two or more connections. Table 4.4 also provides WDFs considering the amount of water production necessary to meet the demands as well as the average 7% of water system losses discussed in Section 4.4.

Table 4.4 Water Demand Factors Estimated Based on the 2023 Data Land Use Type
Number of Dwelling Units
(Residential) or acreage
(Non-Residential)
2023
Water Use
(AFY)
Calculated
WDF
Calculated WDF
with Consideration
of 7% Water Loss
Single-Family
Residential 16,078 DU 4,840 269 gpd/DU 290 gpd/DU
Multi-Family
Residential 7,042 DU 1,699 215 gpd/DU 230 gpd/DU
Commercial/Institutional 1,156 ac 3,031 2,341 gpd/ac 2,520 gpd/ac Industrial 531 ac 0 - -
Landscape Irrigation 393 ac 890 2,021 gpd/ac 2,170 gpd/ac

4.6.2 Water Demand Projections for Known Planned Developments The planned new developments that could potentially increase water demands within the City were previously identified and described in Chapter 2. The estimated water demand for each planned new development within the City’s service area along with the development size are presented in Table 4.5. The City’s water demands are anticipated to increase by approximately 515 AFY from the 11 planned new developments. Due to the uncertainty of when the planned developments will be completed, assumptions were made based on the development’s current progress. All the planned developments are assumed to be completed by 2030.

All the planned major developments are located in the Pressure Zone 1-241 except for the Los Coyotes Country Club Development Plan which is in the Pressure Zone 2-385. So, the estimated new demand of 515 AFY includes about 474 AFY in the Lower Zone and 41 AFY in the Zone 2- 385.
77 Table 4.5 Water Demand Projections for Known Developments Project Location Project Size WDF
Estimated
Water
Demand
(AFY)
Craig Homes Project 7862 Craig
Ave • 12 apartment units 230 gpd/DU 3.1
8030 Dale Street
Redevelopment 8030 Dale St • 93 Townhomes 230 gpd/DU 24.0 Village at Buena Park 8150 La
Palma Ave
• 1,176 apartment units;
• 126 townhomes 230 gpd/DU 335.4
7101 Lincoln Ave.

Apartments
7101 Lincoln
Ave • 55 apartment units 230 gpd/DU 14.2
Orchard View Gardens 8300 Valley
View Rd
• 66 apartment units;
• 3,000 sf community center
230 gpd/DU;
2,520 gpd/ac 17.2
Yamaha International
Headquarters
6722
Orangethorpe
Ave
• 97,000 sf office/ maintenance
facility 2,520 gpd/ac 6.3
Los Coyotes Country
Club Development Plan
8888 Los
Coyotes Dr
• 125 luxury golf courseoriented dwelling units
• 2 lighted tennis courts
290 gpd/DU 40.6
8281 Page Street
Residential Development 8281 Page St • 54 residential townhomes 230 gpd/DU 13.9 M+D Properties
Residential/Commercial
Mixed Use Development
6555 Beach
Blvd
• 34-unit apartment &
commercial mixed use 230 gpd/DU 8.8
OnBeach Phase II 5742 Beach
Blvd
• 81 Apartment Units
• 39,600 sf commercial space
230 gpd/DU;
2,520 gpd/ac 23.4
Hilton Home-2 Suites 7860 Beach
Blvd • 140 Hotel Rooms 180 gpd/Room 28.2
Total
• 1,697 apartment units
• 125 single-family units
• 139,600 sf commercial space
• 140 hotel rooms
230 gpd/DU;
290 gpd/DU;
2,520 gpd/ac;
180 gpd/Room
515
78 4.6.3 Future System-Wide Water Demand Projections
Future system-wide water demand projections were obtained from the City’s 2020 UWMP, which uses the water demand projection methodology illustrated in the diagram below (refer to the 2020 UWMP for more detailed information on the methodology).

Diagram of the Water Demand Projection Methodology Used in the 2020 UWMP Future system-wide water demand projections within the City also factored in the estimated water demands associated with potential new residential housing developments discussed in Section

2.3.2 and Section 2.4.3. The total water demand projections for the City’s service area are presented in Table 4.6. As shown in Table 4.6, the City system’s water demands are projected to increase from 11,618 AFY in 2023 to 14,056 AFY by the year 2030, and 16,146 AFY by the year 2045. The projected water demands for 2045 would be less certain than the projected water demands for 2030 because the projected total RHNA allocation of 8,919 residential units by 2045 may be too conservative and not achievable.

Table 4.6 Future System-Wide Water Demand Projections
Year
2020 UWMP
Projected
Demand
(AFY)
New RHNA
Residential
Units
Additional
Demand of
New RHNA
Units
(AFY)
Adjusted
Demand
Projection
(AFY)
2023 (actual) 11,618 - - 11,618
2025 14,303 - - 14,303
2030 13,541 1,822 515 14,056
2035 13,665 4,188 1,079 14,744
2040 13,769 6,554 1,689 15,458
2045 13,848 8,919 2,298 16,146

Note: Each new RHNA residential unit is assumed to have a water demand of 230 gpd/DU. 79 4.7 Peak Potable Water Demands
Peak water demands are normally estimated using peaking factors relative to the ADD. As analyzed in Section 4.5, the peaking factors in the system for peak month demands, MDDs, and PHDs were estimated to be approximately 1.27, 1.6, and 2.4, respectively.

Table 4.7 shows the estimated peak potable water demands for the system. The existing ADD, MDD, and PHD were approximately 11.8 MGD, 18.9 MGD, and 28.4 MGD, respectively. The projected ADD, MDD, and PHD by the year 2045 are approximately 14.4 MGD, 23.1 MGD, and

34.6 MGD, respectively.

Table 4.7 Peak Potable Water Demands (MGD)
Existing 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Annual Demand (AFY) 13,258 14,303 14,056 14,744 15,458 16,146 Average Day Demand (MGD) 11.8 12.8 12.5 13.2 13.8 14.4
Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 18.9 20.4 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.1
Peak Hour Demand (MGD) 28.4 30.6 30.1 31.6 33.1 34.6
Notes:
1) Existing annual demand: see Table 4.2 for the average annual water supply over the period of 2012-2023. 2) Maximum Day Demand = 1.6 x ADD.
3) Peak Hour Demand = 2.4 x ADD.

4.8 Water Demands by Pressure Zones
Table 4.8 presents the existing ADD, MDD, and PHD in each pressure zone. The ADD demands for each of the pressure zones were derived using the allocated base water demand in the hydraulic model (discussed in Section 7.4) for the year 2023 from the land use-based method and the pressure zone boundaries, and then scaled proportionately to match the historical average annual production (13,258 AFY). The MDD was calculated using the daily peaking factor of 1.6 and the PHD was calculated using the hourly peaking factor of 2.4, as described in Section 4.5.

As shown in Table 4.8, the City’s existing ADD is approximately 8,219 gpm or 11.8 MGD, the MDD is about 13,151 gpm or 18.9 MGD, and the PHD is about 19,727 gpm or 28.4 MGD. The majority of the City’s existing water demands are located in Pressure Zone 1-241, which has an existing ADD of about 10.2 MGD, or 85.9% of the total ADD. 80 Using the existing demand distributions by pressure zones (see Table 4.8) as a baseline, the future (year 2030; total 14,056 AF) demands by pressure zones are derived from the following two steps:
1) Allocate the estimated demands for the planned major developments (see Table 4.5) to the respective pressure zones.
2) Allocate the remaining additional demand (the demand increase from existing to the year 2030 minus the demands for the planned major developments; 14,056 - 13,258 - 515 = 283 AF) to the Lower Zone. This allocation assumes that all the future RHNA residential units will be located in the Lower Zone.

Similarly, the allocation of the projected 2045 water demands (16,146 AF) assumes the allocation of all future RHNA residential will be located in the Lower Zone.

Table 4.9 presents the future (2030) ADD, MDD, and PHD in each pressure zone.

Table 4.10 presents the future (2045) ADD, MDD, and PHD in each pressure zone.

Table 4.8 Existing Water Demands by Pressure Zones
Existing
Annual
Demand
(AF)
ADD
(gpm)
ADD
(MGD)
MDD
(gpm)
MDD
(MGD)
PHD
(gpm)
PHD
(MGD)
Percent
Lower
Zone
Zone 1-241 11,390 7,061 10.2 11,298 16.3 16,947 24.4 85.9% Subtotal 11,390 7,061 10.2 11,298 16.3 16,947 24.4 85.9% Upper
Zones
Zone 2-385 585 363 0.5 581 0.8 871 1.3 4.4%
Zone 3a-325 259 161 0.2 257 0.4 385 0.6 2.0%
Zone 3b-285 816 506 0.7 809 1.2 1,214 1.7 6.2%
Zone 3c-262 208 129 0.2 206 0.3 309 0.4 1.6%
Subtotal 1,868 1,158 1.7 1,853 2.7 2,780 4.0 14.1%
Total 13,258 8,219 11.8 13,151 18.9 19,727 28.4 100.0%
ADD: Average Day Demand; MDD: Maximum Day Demand; PHD: Peak Hour Demand.

MDD = ADD × 1.6; PHD = ADD × 2.4.
81 Table 4.9 Future (2030) Water Demands by Pressure Zones Existing
Annual
Demand
(AF)
Estimated
New
Demand
for Known
Devts.
(AF)
Future
(2030)
Annual
Demand
(AF)
ADD
(gpm)
ADD
(MGD)
MDD
(gpm)
MDD
(MGD)
PHD
(gpm)
PHD
(MGD)
Percent
Lower
Zone
Zone 1-241 11,390 474 12,147 7,531 10.8 12,049 17.4 18,074 26.0 88.0% Subtotal 11,390 474 12,147 7,531 10.8 12,049 17.4 18,074 26.0 86.7% Upper
Zones
Zone 2-385 585 41 626 388 0.6 621 0.9 931 1.3 4.3%
Zone 3a-325 259 - 259 161 0.2 257 0.4 385 0.6 2.0%
Zone 3b-285 816 - 816 506 0.7 809 1.2 1,214 1.7 5.7%
Zone 3c-262 208 - 208 129 0.2 206 0.3 309 0.4 1.3%
Subtotal 1,868 41 1,909 1,184 1.7 1,894 2.7 2,840 4.1 13.3% Total 13,258 515 14,056 8,715 12.5 13,943 20.1 20,914 30.1 100.0% Table 4.10 Future (2045) Water Demands by Pressure Zones Existing
Annual
Demand
(AF)
Estimated
New
Demand
for Known
Devts.
(AF)
Future
(2045)
Annual
Demand
(AF)
ADD
(gpm)
ADD
(MGD)
MDD
(gpm)
MDD
(MGD)
PHD
(gpm)
PHD
(MGD)
Percent
Lower
Zone
Zone 1-241 11,390 474 14,237 8,826 12.7 14,122 20.3 21,183 30.5 88.0% Subtotal 11,390 474 14,237 8,826 12.7 14,122 20.3 21,183 30.5 88.0% Upper
Zones
Zone 2-385 585 41 626 388 0.6 621 0.9 931 1.3 3.9%
Zone 3a-325 259 - 259 161 0.2 257 0.4 385 0.6 1.6%
Zone 3b-285 816 - 816 506 0.7 809 1.2 1,214 1.7 5.1%
Zone 3c-262 208 - 208 129 0.2 206 0.3 309 0.4 1.3%
Subtotal 1,868 41 1,909 1,184 1.7 1,894 2.7 2,840 4.1 12.0% Total 13,258 515 16,146 10,010 14.4 16,016 23.1 24,023 34.6 100.0% 82 4.9 Water Conservation Effects on Water Demand
Water conservation is the most cost-effective and environmentally sound way to reduce water demands. Saving water also saves energy by reducing the energy required to operate groundwater pumps and booster pump stations.

Water conservation has always been an important focus at the City. The City works closely with MWDOC to promote regional efficiency by participating in the regional water savings programs, leveraging MWDOC local program assistance, and applying the findings of MWDOC’s research and evaluation efforts. The City’s actual per capita use of 126 gpcd in 2023 is significantly less than the per capita water use target established in SB X7-7 (158 gpcd), indicating the effectiveness of water savings resulting from conservation programs in the City’s service area.

The City’s Public Works Department includes a water loss specialist who oversees the City’s water conservation program and is responsible for program coordination, expansion, and outreach.

Sources of funding for the City’s water conservation program include the Water Conservation Participation Agreement with MWDOC to provide City residents and businesses with rebates on a variety of water saving devices and for the turf removal program.

The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), adopted in June 2021, provides the steps and water shortage response actions the City will take during times of water shortage conditions.

The WSCP includes water shortage response actions for each of the six standard water shortage levels that correspond to water shortage percentages ranging from 10% to greater than 50%. The City’s WSCP establishes permanent and temporary water conservation standards intended to alter behavior related to water use efficiency related to:
• Limits on Watering Hours
• Limit on Watering Duration
• No Excessive Water Flow or Runoff
• No Washing Down Hard or Paved Surfaces
• Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions
• Re-circulating Water Required for Water Fountains and Decorative Water Features • Limits on Washing Vehicles
• Drinking Water Served Upon Request Only
• Commercial Lodging Establishments Must Provide Option to Not Launder Linen Daily • No Installation of Single Pass Cooling Systems
• No Installation of Non-re-circulating in Commercial Car Wash and Laundry Systems • Restaurants Required to Use Water Conserving Dish Wash Spray Valves • Commercial Car Wash Systems
The City currently also performs the conservation measures discussed below to reduce demand for water in its service area.
83 Metering: The City understands that meters are an important component of effective water measurement and management. The City is fully metered and customers are billed according to volume of water use. The City currently tests and replaces meters as needed and is in the process of developing a citywide meter replacement project. All of the City meters were replaced between 2017 and 2019 and the City transitioned all meters to automated metering infrastructure (AMI) technology.

In addition, since 2015 the City has enforced the 2015 Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance which includes requirements for a service meter dedicated to landscape for non-residential irrigated landscapes of 1,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. and residential irrigated landscapes of 5,000 sq. ft. or greater.

Conservation Pricing: The City implements a tiered conservation pricing rate structure for residential and non-residential customers. The City’s current water rates structure is tiered to promote water conservation by customers. Residential customers are billed on an inclining block rate structure, with a fixed service charge based on meter size to encourage water conservation and discourage waste.

Public Education and Outreach: The City’s public education and outreach program is administered by MWDOC, its wholesale supplier. MWDOC develops, coordinates, and delivers a substantial number of public information, education, and outreach programs aimed at elevating water agency and consumer awareness and understanding of current water issues as well as efficient water use and water-saving practices, sound policy, and water reliability investments that are in the best interest of the region. These efforts encourage good water stewardship that benefit all City residents, businesses, and industries across all demographics.

The City promotes water conservation through public information programs that offer brochures, posters, activity booklets, public outreach displays, oral presentations, and workshops to inform the public of conservation efforts. The City raises awareness through paid advertising, press releases, news ads, and media events.

The City offers education and outreach programs directly to its customers. The City’s staff members attend special assemblies or class presentation opportunities to present water conservation information and collateral materials. The City offers free conservation devices and water audits, a High-Efficiency Toilet delivery program, and a rebate for the purchase and installation of a hot water recirculating pump.

Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss: The City has water conservation literature that alerts customers to be on the lookout for water system leaks and to correct them promptly. The City is available to assist customers in answering questions regarding system leaks or higher than expected water usage and also offers free water audits for customers.

As discussed in Section 4.4, the City’s annual water loss audits identify real water losses (e.g., leaks and main failures) and apparent water losses (e.g., customer meter inaccuracies, systematic data handling errors in customer billing systems, and unauthorized consumption). The City also implements an automated meter reading (AMR) system (as part of its AMI system) which supports 84 conservation efforts through improved meter reading accuracy and allows the City to effectively monitor and manage water supplies.

Fire Hydrant Flushing Program: In an effort to conserve water, fire hydrant flushing is minimized and conducted only on an as-needed basis. Water quality concerns or customer aesthetic complaints may require flushing within a designated area. As a proactive or preventative measure to reduce the potential for bacteriological problems, flushing is performed in areas of the City’s distribution system due to “dead end” mains. The City also flushes new and repaired pipelines.

Landscape Irrigation Program: Landscape ordinances along with irrigation requirements are established by individual city building codes. Upon request, a Customer Service employee will visit the customer’s premises and evaluate the landscape irrigation. Irrigation systems are evaluated for water loss due to runoff, over watering, and the time of day watering takes place.

These audits may reduce water loss and result in lower water bills.

Other Demand Management Measures: OCWD, MWD, and MWDOC provide a variety of financial incentives and rebate programs for water conservation, including:
• High Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebate Program for residential customers • Premium High Efficiency Toilet Rebate Program for residential customers • Multi-Family Premium High Efficiency Toilet Incentive Program • Water Savings Incentive Program for non-residential customers • On-site Retrofit Program
• Device Retrofits

4.10 Recycled Water Demands
There is currently no recycled water use within the City’s service area.

The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to Orange County Sanitation District for treatment and disposal. OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) produces recycled water for indirect potable reuse (IPR) through the replenishment of the OC Basin. The City benefits from this indirect use of recycled water. 85 CHAPTER 5 – EXISTING WATER SUPPLIES, WATER QUALITY, AND TREATMENT This Chapter presents an overview of the City’s potable water supplies, water quality conditions and related water quality regulations, and treatment needs. This Chapter starts with a discussion of current water supply sources, including groundwater, imported water, and interconnections. Water supply quality conditions and treatment needs are also described, including related information on water quality regulations.

5.1 Existing Water Supply Sources and Treatment
The potable water supply sources of the City’s system include groundwater pumped from eight (8) wells in the Orange County Groundwater Basin and imported treated water purchased from MWD through MWDOC. The sources of imported water supplies include water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP) provided by MWD and delivered through MWDOC via four connections to the West Orange County Feeder. The City also has 3 emergency interconnections with the Cities of La Palma, Fullerton, and GSWC (which manages the City of Cypress water system). The emergency interconnection with the City of La Palma was installed in 2021 by the City of La Palma, the emergency interconnection (and a PRV) with the City of Fullerton was installed in 2024 by the City of Buena Park, and the emergency interconnection with GSWC was installed in 1998 by GSWC. These interconnections only serve as emergency water sources and are not used during typical operating conditions. Further descriptions regarding the locations and capacities of the City’s supply sources are provided in Chapter 3. Table 5.1 provides a summary of existing treatment facilities at each of the City’s groundwater well. Only the Smith-Murphy Well does not currently have disinfection treatment.

The upgraded Rosecrans Booster Station is equipped with a packaged on-site disinfection system that manufactures up to a 12% solution of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) capable of producing 160 pounds per day (ppd).

Table 5.1 Summary of Existing Treatment Facilities at Each Well Well Name Existing Treatment Facility
Boisseranc Sodium hypochlorite disinfection
Linden Sodium hypochlorite disinfection
Caballero Sodium hypochlorite disinfection
Holder Sodium hypochlorite disinfection
Freeway Sodium hypochlorite disinfection
Knott Sodium hypochlorite disinfection
Smith-Murphy None
Ball Sodium hypochlorite disinfection
86 5.1.1 Orange County Groundwater Basin
The Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin) is also referred to as the “Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, Basin Number 8-001” pursuant to the California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118. It underlies the northerly half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. The OC Basin, managed by OCWD, covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The OC Basin boundary extends to the Orange CountyLos Angeles Line to the northwest, where groundwater flows across the county line into the Central Groundwater Basin of Los Angeles County. A map of the OC Basin is shown in Figure 5.1. The total thickness of sedimentary rocks in the OC Basin is over 20,000 feet, with only the upper 2,000 to 4,000 feet containing fresh water. The OC Basin’s full volume is approximately 66 million AF.

There are three major aquifer systems that have been subdivided by OCWD; the Shallow Aquifer System, the Principal Aquifer System, and the Deep Aquifer System. These three aquifer systems are hydraulically connected as groundwater is able to flow between each other through intervening aquitards or discontinuities in the aquitards. The Shallow Aquifer system occurs from the surface to approximately 250 feet below ground surface. Most of the groundwater from this aquifer system is pumped by small water systems for industrial and agricultural use. The Principal Aquifer system occurs at depths between 200 and 1,300 feet below ground surface. Over 90% of groundwater production is from wells that are screened within the Principal Aquifer system. Only a minor amount of groundwater is pumped from the Deep Aquifer system, which underlies the Principal Aquifer system and is up to 2,000 feet deep in the center of the OC Basin.

The OC Basin has known water quality issues including PFAS, TDS, nitrates, aesthetics (including taste, odor, and color), and other potential contaminants (MTBE, VOC, NDMA, and 1,4-Dioxane).

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of thousands of manmade chemicals that includes PFOA and PFOS. PFAS compounds were once commonly used in many products including, among many others, stain- and water-repellent fabrics, nonstick products (e.g., Teflon), polishes, waxes, paints, cleaning products, and fire-fighting foams. Beginning in the summer of 2019, the California State Division of Drinking Water (DDW) began requiring testing for PFAS compounds in some groundwater production wells in the OC Basin area.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires that all high and medium priority basins be sustainably managed. As the OC Basin is designated by DWR as a mediumpriority basin, OCWD in collaboration with Irvine Ranch Water District and the City of La Habra developed the “Basin 8-1 Alternative” report, dated January 2017, which is an Alternative to a GSP that is in compliance with SGMA. The Basin 8-1 Alternative was written to provide an analysis of the groundwater basin conditions and demonstrate that the Basin has been able to operate within its sustainable yield for at least the past 10 years without significant decline in groundwater levels, water quality degradation, seawater intrusion, storage reduction, inelastic land subsidence, or depletion of interconnected surface water. 87 Basin Management
The OC Basin is not adjudicated (the assignment of water rights to groundwater producers by a court), however, OCWD provides groundwater management. OCWD was formed in 1933 and its management activities include supplementing the OC Basin with Santa Ana River water, recycled water, and imported water supplies to maintain long-term sustainability. Basin groundwater production is primarily managed through a framework of financial incentives. OCWD has uniformly established the “Basin Production Percentage” (or BPP) for all producers in the OC Basin. The BPP is the percentage of each producer’s water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the OC Basin compared to the producer’s total water supply (including groundwater and imported water supplies). Although there is no legal limit as to how much a producer can pump from the OC Basin, there is a financial disincentive to pump above the BPP, as discussed below. The BPP applies only to OC Basin producers that utilize more than 25 AF of groundwater per water year. Basin producers that use 25 AF or less from the groundwater basin are excluded from the production percentage limitation.

All groundwater pumped by a producer at or below the BPP is assessed a “Replenishment Assessment“ (RA) by OCWD for the purposes of purchasing water for groundwater replenishment. OCWD has set the RA for Water Year 2023-24 (October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024) at $624 per AF. Including energy costs and the RA, OCWD has estimated the cost for purveyors to produce groundwater at or below the BPP to be approximately $720 during Water Year 2023-24 .

Groundwater pumped above the BPP is assessed the RA as well as a “Basin Equity Assessment” (BEA). The BEA is calculated so that the cost of groundwater production is equivalent to the cost of importing potable water supplies. Although production above the BPP is not eliminated, the BEA is set to discourage production above the BPP. For Water Year 2023-24, OCWD has estimated that producers pumping above the set BPP would pay an average BEA rate of $386 per AF (OCWD can set the BEA at a “uniform or non-uniform amount for the producers).

OCWD has also established a “Production Limitation” and “Surcharge” as additional tools to manage groundwater pumping and prevent significant impact to the Basin. Any producers pumping groundwater above the Production Limitation set by OCWD would be required to pay a Surcharge (in addition to any RA and BEA). The Production Limitation is currently set at 100 percent of the producer’s demands within OCWD’s service area, and any pumping at or above total water demands would be subject to the Surcharge. The Surcharge is a penalty used to enforce the Production Limitation and is currently set as $2,000 per AF. The large cost for the Surcharge makes the cost of groundwater significantly higher than the cost of MWD Tier II treated water to discourage and penalize producers from pumping above the Production Limitation (and exporting water outside of OCWD’s service area). OCWD has set a Production Limitation every year since Water Year 2009-10.

The total water demands (met by groundwater and imported water) within OCWD’s service area are typically around 400,000 AFY. OCWD estimates that total groundwater pumping generally needs to be kept in the area of 320,000 AFY in order to obtain sufficient replenishment water and to maintain sustainable operations. Over the past 20 years (from FY 2002-03 through FY 2021- 88 22), annual groundwater production from the OC Basin has ranged from approximately 228,200 AFY to 366,200 AFY, with an average of 285,500 AFY.

OCWD annually establishes the BPP for the following year based on an assessment of groundwater conditions in the Basin, including: Santa Ana River stormflow, natural recharge, Santa Ana River baseflow, Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) supplies, and other imported and recycled water supplies. OCWD has established management guidelines that are used to establish future BPPs, as seen in Table 5.2 below. OCWD can raise or lower the BPP to manage the amount of pumping from the OC Basin within a sustainable range to avoid adverse impacts to the OC Basin. OCWD seeks to maintain some available storage space in the Basin to maximize surface water recharge when such supplies are available, especially in relatively wet years. In addition, OCWD seeks to keep the OC Basin relatively full during wet years (and for as long as possible during years with near-normal recharge) to maximize the amount of groundwater maintained in storage available for future drought conditions. During drought conditions when there is less water available for recharge, OCWD can lower the BPP (to promote less Basin production) to maintain groundwater storage levels. However, a component of OCWD’s BPP policy is to manage the OC Basin so that the BPP will not fluctuate more than 5 percent from year to year.

Table 5.2 Management Actions Based on Changes in Groundwater Storage Over the past 10 years, the BPP has ranged from 72 percent to 85 percent. OCWD has previously anticipated being able to sustain the BPP at 85 percent beginning in 2025 based on modeling of water supplies available for groundwater recharge and water demand forecasts. The primary reasons for a higher projected BPP include the availability of GWRS water supplies and the relatively low overall water demands of approximately 400,000 AFY. For both Water Year 2022- 23 and Water Year 2023-24, OCWD has established the BPP at 85 percent. 2018 Agreement Between OCWD and the City
When the OC Basin is operating at normal levels (i.e., within 475,000 acre-feet of maximum capacity), hydrostatic gradients would create subsurface outflow from the OC Basin across the Orange/Los Angeles County line into the Los Angeles County Groundwater Basin. Pursuant to the “Rosecrans Booster Pump Station Project Loan Agreement” (2018 Agreement) between 89 OCWD and the City, entered as of February 27, 2018, OCWD has estimated that over 20,000 AFY of groundwater supplies escape from the western side of the OC Basin (into Los Angeles County) and that additional groundwater pumping by the City of Buena Park can reduce the lost groundwater by approximately 1,000 AFY.

In order to help minimize groundwater losses from, the City entered into the 2018 Agreement with OCWD to utilize the City’s rebuilt/upgraded Rosecrans Booster Pump Station (completed in 2019) to produce up to 100 percent of the City’s total water supply requirements from the Basin. Under this agreement, the City must use its best efforts to annually produce sufficient groundwater from the Basin to meet 100 percent of its total demands, unless it is contractually obligated to participate in MWD’s Conjunctive Use Storage Program. In return, OCWD provided the City with a 20-year zero-interest loan to complete the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station project and commits to annually considering reducing the Basin Equity Assessment imposed upon the City for pumping above the BPP (by an amount to offset the additional City costs). The 2018 Agreement is set to expire on June 30, 2039.

City Groundwater Production
The City produces from eight (8) groundwater wells in the OC Basin. A further description of these wells is provided in Section 3.1.1. As shown in Table 4.2, the City’s groundwater production from the OC Basin has averaged 10,617 AFY (from 2012 through 2023) and the City’s imported water supply purchases have averaged 2,641 AFY. Historically, approximately 80 percent of the City’s total water supply has been from OC Basin production, and 20 percent has been from imported water purchases.

As discussed previously, the 2018 Agreement has provided financial incentives to the City to increase groundwater utilization from the OC Basin. Following the completion of the City’s Rosecrans Booster Pump Station project in 2019, the City’s average use of groundwater supplies has significantly increased from approximately 76 percent (from 2012 to 2019) to 90 percent (from 2020 to 2023) of the City’s total water supply.

5.1.2 NPL Sites and LUST Sites
Figure 5.1 also shows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) hazardous waste sites placed on the National Priority List (NPL) and the leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites under the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker system. The City’s system service area and facilities are located near several NPL sites associated with groundwater contamination and there are numerous LUST sites within the service area. These NPL and LUST sites could be a significant cause of the water quality concerns in the City’s system.

NPL Sites
The United States federal Superfund law, officially the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), established the federal Superfund program, 90 administered by the USEPA. The program is designed to investigate and clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances. Sites managed under this program are referred to as "Superfund" sites. Sites on the NPL are considered the most highly contaminated and undergo longer-term remedial investigation and remedial action (cleanups). The USEPA seeks to identify parties responsible for hazardous substances releases to the environment (polluters) and either compel them to clean up the sites, or it may undertake the cleanup on its own using the Superfund (a trust fund) and seek to recover those costs from the responsible parties through settlements or other legal means. The Superfund law also authorizes federal natural resource agencies, primarily the USEPA, states and Native American tribes to recover natural resource damages caused by hazardous substances.

On October 17, 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) was signed.

SARA provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools and increased State and community involvement in Superfund activities. SARA also required the EPA to revise the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)3, which ultimately affects the hazardous waste sites placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).

NPL sites are first proposed in the Federal Register. Then, the USEPA accepts public comment on the sites and responds to the comments. If a site meets the necessary criteria, it is listed on the NPL.

Hazardous waste sites can be placed on the NPL through three different mechanisms, the first of which is the HRS score. Second, states and territories are each allowed to nominate one top-priority site regardless of the HRS score. Thirdly, a site can be placed on the NPL if it meets all of the following three criteria:
1) Health advisory from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the United States (a federal public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services);
2) The USEPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and 3) The USEPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use remedial actions than to use emergency removal actions to respond to the site4.

The City’s system service area and facilities are located near several NPL sites associated with groundwater contamination (see Figure 5.1). Groundwater underlying areas of these NPL sites is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including trichloroethylene, 3 The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) is a scoring system used to evaluate potential relative risks to public health and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous wastes at uncontrolled waste sites. The USEPA published the first Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in 1981 and the first National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983. The USEPA and state agencies used the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) to calculate a site score (ranging from 0 to 100) based on the actual or potential release of hazardous substances from a site through air, surface water or groundwater. A score of 28.5 places a site on the NPL, eligible for long-term, remedial action (i.e., cleanup) under the Superfund program. 4 Remedial actions: These are usually long-term response actions. Remedial actions seek to permanently and significantly reduce the risks associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances.

Removal actions: These are typically short-term response actions, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response. Removal actions are classified as: (1) emergency; (2) time-critical; and (3) non-time critical. 91 tetrachloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride. The groundwater is also contaminated with perchlorate, 1,2,3-trichloropropane, 1,4-dioxane, and/or N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

LUST Sites
The Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) program was developed and implemented by the SWRCB-DDW pursuant to Section 11672.60 of the California Health and Safety Code in order to delineate and assess the drinking water supplies of public drinking water systems. DWSAP assessments include:
• Delineation of the area around a drinking water source through which contaminants might move and reach that drinking water supply (see Figure 2.2 for the delineated VOC plumes by the USEPA (2021));
• Inventory of possible contaminating activities (PCAs) that might lead to the release of microbiological or chemical contaminants within the delineated area; and • Determination of the PCAs to which the drinking water source is most vulnerable.

The DWSAP program addresses both groundwater and surface water sources. The groundwater portion of the DWSAP program serves as the SWRCB-DDW's wellhead protection program. The City has completed DWSAP assessments for its existing wells and will continue to submit a DWSAP assessment to SWRCB-DDW before placing a new well into active service.

DWSAP assessments also include identification of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites as part of a PCA. An underground storage tank is defined by law as "any one or combination of tanks, including pipes connected thereto, that is used for the storage of hazardous substances and that is substantially or totally beneath the surface of the ground." The purpose of the California LUST Program is to protect public health and safety and the environment from releases of fuel and other hazardous substances from tanks. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) maintains a database of identified LUST sites, which can be accessed using the geographical information systems (GIS) program called “GeoTracker” (SWRCB, 2018). LUST sites may be classified as either "Open" or "Closed". An Open LUST site has an ongoing investigation and/or remediation of potential contamination. A Closed LUST site has been investigated in the past and has met regulatory cleanup requirements.

According to SWRCB-DDW’s GeoTracker website, there are numerous open LUST sites within the City’s system service area. These open LUST sites are shown in Figure 5.1. These open LUST sites generally have ongoing investigation and/or remediation of potential contamination. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) enforces actions necessary to prevent and remediate contamination from LUST sites.

Los Angeles County
Orange County
MCCOLL

ORANGE COUNTY NORTH BASIN
METRO DIESEL INJECTION WASTE DISPOSAL, INC. Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: Groundwater Basin

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 1 2
Miles
LUST Site - Buena Park
LUST Site
NPL Site
Service Area Boundary
Coastal Plain of Los Angelese Groundwater Basin
Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin
County Boundary
Ü
• NPL sites: U.S.EPA hazardous waste sites placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
• LUST sites: leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites under the California Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) program. LUST sites may be classified as either "Open" or "Closed". An Open LUST site has an ongoing investigation and/or remediation of potential contamination. A Closed LUST site has been investigated in the past and has met regulatory cleanup requirements.

Figure 5.1
System Service Area, OC Basin, and NPL and LUST Sites
93 5.2 Water Quality Regulations, Water Quality Conditions, and Treatment Needs The following section provides relevant water quality regulations, the City’s system groundwater quality conditions, and treatment requirements. The City is committed to continue to monitor and comply with all applicable state and federal regulations that could have material impact on the water system operations and its customers.

5.2.1 Title 22 Drinking Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations and Monitoring Results
Chapter 15 of Title 22 California Code of Regulations (Title 22) “Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations” sets enforceable standards for chemical and bacteriological contaminants in drinking water. A drinking water standard under Title 22 includes a maximum permissible concentration allowed in drinking water, associated monitoring frequencies for potable water sources, best available technologies (BATs) for removing the contaminant from drinking water and public notification mandates in the event of a violation of a standard. The categories of chemical contaminants regulated under Title 22 include radiological chemicals, organic chemicals, and inorganic chemicals. Distribution systems must also be monitored for bacteriological constituents (total coliform and E. Coli) and aesthetic properties of the water (color, odor and turbidity) under Title 22. Other chapters of the California Code of Regulations regulate disinfection residuals (total and free chlorine) and disinfection byproducts (total trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids) in distribution systems and lead and copper at the tap.

There are two categories of drinking water standards in Title 22 (primary and secondary standards):
• A primary drinking water regulation (or primary standard) is a legally enforceable standard that applies to public water systems. Primary standards place an emphasis on the protection of public health and establish a contaminant’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) as close as is technically and economically feasible to its public health goal (PHG). Primary MCLs have been established for constituents for which there are known health effects and for which SWRCB-DDW has evaluated the technical and economic impacts of setting the MCL.
• A secondary drinking water regulation (or secondary standard) is an enforceable standard that applies to cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. Secondary MCLs have been established for certain constituents at levels for which there are no known health effects.

Listings of regulated constituents and current primary MCLs and secondary MCLs are provided in Appendix A.
94 5.2.1.1 Primary Maximum Contaminant Levels
The City is required to monitor for constituents with primary MCLs at its raw water sources at frequencies set forth by SWRCB-DDW. The frequencies are published every three years by SWRCB-DDW and are provided to the City in a tabular form called Vulnerability Assessment tables. The City is required to monitor the Title 22 constituents to determine compliance in accordance with Title 22 and the latest vulnerability tables by SWRCB-DDW.

5.2.1.2 Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels
On May 2, 2006, SWRCB-DDW published a revision to the Secondary Drinking Water Standards in Title 22. These revisions include the removal of the acceptable limit for corrosivity and clarification of the Secondary MCL compliance determination procedure. Currently, constituents with Secondary MCLs must be sampled at least once every three years at all groundwater sources.

5.2.1.3 Notification Levels
Notification Levels (NLs) are health-based advisory levels established by SWRCB-DDW for chemicals in drinking water that lack MCLs. A list of current NLs is provided in Appendix B. If chemicals in drinking water are found at concentrations greater than their NLs, certain requirements and recommendations apply. State law requires timely notification by the public water purveyor to the local governing bodies (e.g., city council, county board of supervisors, or both). SWRCB-DDW also recommends that the public water purveyor inform its customers and consumers about the presence of the contaminant, and about the health concerns associated with exposure to it. The level at which SWRCB-DDW recommends removal of a drinking water source from service is called the "response level" (RL). The RL for a contaminant depends on its toxicological endpoint and has considerably higher concentration than its NL.

5.2.1.4 Water Quality Summary of the City’s Groundwater Wells A summary of the City’s overall groundwater quality monitoring results from 2017 to 2023 samples is provided in Table 5.3. The numbers in the table represent the maximum concentrations for the 2017 to 2024 samples. Wells with low levels of the given contaminant (less than half of the MCL/SMCL/NL5), or wells with no data or values below the detection limit are not shaded. Values near the MCL/SMCL/NL (greater than half of the MCL/SMCL/NL) are shaded in brown, and values above the MCL/SMCL/NL are shaded in red.

In general, manganese has been somewhat present citywide, with the western/southwestern City wells generally showing the highest concentrations. PFAS has been present in the east side of the City (e.g., Linden Well). There is a thermal zone at the north end of the City. 5 MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level.

SMCL: Secondary MCL.

NL: Notification Level.

Contaminant MCL SMCL NL units Ball Boisseranc Caballero Freeway Holder Knott Linden Smith-Murphy 1,1-Dichloroethylene 6 - - ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.4 ND 1,2,3-TCP 0.005 - - ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,4-Dioxane - - 1 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Aluminum 1 0.2 - mg/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Arsenic 10 - - ug/L 4.8 ND 3.7 2.9 2.6 2.6 ND 6.1
Barium 1 - - mg/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Boron - - 1 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 0.11 ND 0.23
Chloride - 250* - mg/L 35.5 50.4 47.2 23.4 40.9 25.4 60.6 45.8 Chromium XI - - - ug/L ND 1.28 ND ND ND ND 1.74 ND
Color - 15 - CU ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 5
Conductivity - 900* - S/m 628 687 665 539 650 572 800 649 CTC 0.5 - - ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Fluoride 2 - - mg/L 0.52 0.49 0.52 0.56 0.53 0.55 0.52 0.93 Gross Alpha 15 - - pCi/L 5.22 6.85 3.28 5.36 7.15 4.17 10.2 1.49 Iron - 0.3 - mg/L ND ND 0.123 ND ND ND ND ND
Manganese - 50 - ug/L 64.8 ND 55 ND ND 44.4 ND ND
MBAS - 0.5 - mg/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
NDMA - - 10 ng/L - - - - - - - -
Nitrate (as N) 10 - - mg/L 1.44 2.28 ND ND 1.61 0.47 3.15 ND Odor - 3 - TON ND ND 2 ND ND ND ND 1
PCE 5 - - ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Perchlorate 6 - - ug/L ND 2.4 ND ND ND ND 2.8 ND
PFBS - - 500 ng/L ND ND ND - ND - ND -
PFHpA - - - ng/L ND ND ND - ND - ND -
PFHxA - - - ng/L ND ND ND - ND - ND -
PFHxS 10 - 3 ng/L ND ND ND - ND - 4.6 -
PFNA 10 - - ng/L ND ND ND - ND - ND -
PFOS 4.0 - 6.5 ng/L ND ND ND - ND - 6.3 -
PFOA 4.0 - 5.1 ng/L ND ND ND - ND - 2.6 -
Combined Radium 5 - - pCi/L 0.261 0.26 0.367 0.166 0.142 0.743 1.16 0.71 Sulfate - 250* - mg/L 78.5 115 83.6 60.7 84.9 74.7 122 76.7 TDS - 1000** - mg/L 404 450 392 338 396 364 528 392
TCE 5 - - ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
TTHM 80 - - ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Turbidity - 5 - NTU 0.1 0.15 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 ND 0.15
Uranium 20 - - pCi/L 3.93 5.68 2.23 5.57 4.97 2.31 7.93 ND Vanadium - - 50 ug/L 1.4 4.3 ND 2.9 3.5 2.1 4.4 ND
above MCL/SMCL/NL *recommended SMCL NOTES
above ½ MCL/SMCL/NL **combined Radium All values maximum reported values for 2017-2024 samples "ND" Not Detected
"-" No Samples Taken
City of Buena Park Wells
Table 5.3 Summary of Water Quality Results of the City's Groundwater Wells (Maximum Concentrations for 2017-2024 Samples)
96 The following is a summary of water quality issues associated with raw water produced from the City’s groundwater wells based on drinking water quality regulations and required monitoring.

Ball Well
• Manganese was previously detected above the Secondary MCL(50 ug/L) in 2017, however, concentrations have remained at approximately half of the Secondary MCL over the past several years. The City has indicated that manganese detected in the southern portion of the distribution system (south of Ball Road) needs to be flushed out about twice per year. • Conductivity (or specific conductance) has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL. Secondary MCLs are an enforceable standard that applies to cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. Conductivity is a measure of a solution’s ability to conduct electricity, and therefore a measure of the water’s ionic activity and content. It can be used as a measure of total dissolved solids (TDS).

Boisseranc Well
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL.

Caballero Well
• Manganese has recently been detected above the Secondary MCL. Compliance with the Secondary MCL is based on a running average of four quarterly samples. The City has conducted two quarters of sampling in the first half of 2024 (with manganese detections of 55 ug/L and 54 ug/L). The City should continue to closely monitoring manganese concentrations at the Caballero Well and consider installing manganese treatment if necessary.
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL. • Odor has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL.

Freeway Well
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL.

Holder Well
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL.

Knott Well
• Manganese has previously been detected above half of the Secondary MCL, however, concentrations of manganese have decreased to below half of the Secondary MCL over the past several years
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL 97 Linden Well
• PFAS contamination has been detected at levels above the recently established Federal MCL. The City will need to complete initial monitoring by 2027 and implement a solution (e.g. treatment) by 2029 to reduce PFAS contamination if monitoring shows that concentrations exceed the MCL. A further discussion is provided in Section 5.2.12. • Gross Alpha has been detected above half of the MCL in 2023. The City should continue to monitor concentrations to determine if they are increasing. • TDS has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL (upper limit). • Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL.

Smith-Murphy Well
• Arsenic has been detected above half of the MCL. The City should continue to monitor concentrations to determine if they are increasing.
• Conductivity has been detected above half of the Secondary MCL.

5.2.2 Federal Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
The 1996 SDWA amendments require the USEPA to issue a new list of no more than 30 new unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems (PWSs) once every five years.

Unregulated contaminants are contaminants that are suspected to be present in drinking water and do not have health-based standards set under the SDWA. The 1996 SDWA Amendments and the amendments by Section 2021 of America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA) provide for:
• Establishing a program to monitor for priority unregulated contaminants in drinking water every five years;
• Monitoring all large systems serving greater than 10,000 people, monitoring all small public water systems serving between 3,300 and 10,000 people, and a representative sample of small public water systems serving fewer than 3,300 people; and • Storing analytical results in a National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD).

The first, second, third, fourth, and fifth UCMRs were published on September 17, 1999, January 4, 2007, May 2, 2012, December 20, 2016, December 27, 2021, respectively. UCMR 5 fulfills a key commitment of the “EPA’s 2019 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan” and requires monitoring of twenty-nine (29) Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances and one (1) metal (lithium). UCMR 5 requires sample collection for the 30 chemical contaminants between 2023 and 2025 using analytical methods developed by EPA and consensus organizations. All samples must be collected at the entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS) and must be analyzed by USEPA approved laboratories for UCMR 5 (see Appendix C). 98 5.2.3 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (D/DBPR)

5.2.3.1 Stage 1 D/DBPR
Disinfection of drinking water is one of the major public health advances from the 20th century; however, the disinfectants themselves can react with naturally-occurring materials in the water to form disinfection byproducts (DBPs) which may pose health risks. Amendments to the SDWA in 1996 require the USEPA to develop rules to reduce DBPs in drinking water.

The USEPA promulgated the Stage 1 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (D/DBPR) on December 16, 1998. SWRCB-DDW adopted the Stage 1 D/DBPR on June 17, 2006. The Stage 1 D/DBPR updates and supersedes the 1979 regulations for total trihalomethanes (TTHM). The Stage 1 D/DBPR applies to all public water systems that add a chemical disinfectant to the drinking water supply. The Stage 1 D/DBPR reduces exposure to three disinfectants and many disinfection byproducts. The rule establishes maximum residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLGs) and maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) for three chemical disinfectants - chlorine, chloramines and chlorine dioxide. The MRDLs are 4 milligrams per liter (mg/l) (as Cl2) for chlorine and chloramines, and 0.8 mg/l (as ClO2) for chlorine dioxide. It also establishes MCL goals and MCLs for the following DBPs: four total trihalomethanes (TTHM), five haloacetic acids (HAA5), chlorite and bromate. Chlorite is monitored only in systems using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant whereas bromate is required to be monitored only in systems using ozone. TTHM and HAA5 monitoring is required by any water system using chlorine as a disinfectant.

Under the Stage 1 D/DBPR, the MCL for TTHM is 0.080 mg/l and the MCL for HAA5 is 0.060 mg/l. The new MCL for TTHM lowers the previous standard of TTHM from 0.10 mg/l to 0.080 mg/l. Compliance is based on the running annual average of the quarterly results. A quarterly result is the average of the results from all of the sampling locations taken that quarter.

5.2.3.2 Stage 2 D/DBPR
The USEPA published the final Stage 2 D/DBPR on January 4, 2006 and the final rule was effective on March 6, 2006. The Stage 2 D/DBPR applies to all public water systems that add a chemical disinfectant to the drinking water supply. The Stage 2 D/DBPR strengthens public health protection for customers of systems that deliver disinfected water by requiring such systems to meet MCLs as an average at each compliance monitoring location (instead of as a system-wide average as in previous rules) for two groups of DBPs, TTHM and HAA5. The rule targets systems with the greatest risk and builds incrementally on existing rules. This regulation will reduce DBP exposure and related health risks, and provide more equitable public health protection.

The major difference between the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule and Stage 2 D/DBP Rule is the compliance calculation of TTHM and HAA5. Stage 1 D/DBPR compliance is based on a systemwide running annual average (RAA), while Stage 2 D/DBPR compliance is based on the running annual average at each location, which is referred to as the locational running annual average (LRAA). Under the Stage 2 D/DBPR, the MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 remain the same as the Stage 1 D/DBPR. 99 SWRCB-DDW adopted the federal Stage 2 D/DBP Rule and the new regulation became effective on June 21, 2012. The State Stage 2 D/DBP Rule contains the provisions of the federal Stage 2 D/DBP Rule and additional State-only requirements.

5.2.3.3 Routine and Reduced Stage 2 D/DBPR Monitoring Requirements The City performs Stage 2 D/DBPR compliance monitoring in accordance with the SWRCBDDW-approved site-specific Stage 2D/DBPR monitoring. The City monitors for TTHM and HAA5 at eight (8) locations throughout the distribution system once every quarter, under the Stage 2 D/DBPR.

5.2.4 Radionuclide Rule
The USEPA promulgated the final drinking water standard for radionuclides on December 7, 2000.

The final rule includes the MCLs and monitoring requirements for gross alpha, radium-226, radium-228, uranium, and beta/photon emitters. The final rule was effective on December 8, 2003.

The State was required to adopt or issue a radionuclide rule that is no less stringent than the final Federal rule. SWRCB-DDW published the final Radionuclide Drinking Water Standards dated January 27, 2006. The State radionuclide rule was effective on June 11, 2006.

Under the radionuclide rule, radium-226 and radium-228 were to be analyzed and reported separately, in addition to gross alpha and uranium analysis. An initial round of four consecutive quarterly samples was to be completed by December 31, 2007. The MCL for gross alpha remains at 15 picocuries per liter (pCi/l) and the MCL for radium-226 and radium-228 remains as 5 pCi/l, as the sum of the two constituents. The MCL for uranium is 20 pCi/l.

Radionuclide monitoring varies depending on the initial results for gross alpha, radium-226, radium-228 and uranium monitoring frequency is based on the initial round of analysis results:
a. If the results are below the detection limit for purposes of reporting (DLR), the monitoring requirement is one sample every nine years;
b. If the results are below or equal to ½ the MCL but above or equal to the DLR, the monitoring requirement is one sample every six years;
c. If the results are above ½ the MCL but below or equal to the MCL, the monitoring requirement is one sample every three years; and d) If the results are over the MCL, the sources have to be monitored quarterly continuously until the running annual average is below the MCL, or the owner must provide treatment at the State’s discretion.

The City completed the initial round of four consecutive quarterly samples at all of its wells and radionuclide monitoring was based on the analyses results (as well as subsequent monitoring). As discussed previously, gross alpha was detected above half of the MCL at the Linden Well in 2023. 100

5.2.5 Revised Total Coliform Rule
In 1989, the USEPA published the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) which became effective in 1990.

The purpose of the TCR is to protect public health by requiring monitoring for the presence of microbial contamination in the drinking water distribution system. On February 13, 2013, the USEPA published the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) which is intended to improve public health protection. The USEPA RTCR became effective on April 1, 2016. Beginning April 1, 2016, all PWSs needed to comply with the SWRCB-DDW existing TCR and the new requirements in the USEPA RTCR, until the SWRCB-DDW completes its revision of the TCR in Title 22.

According to SWRCB-DDW, the revisions include the new Coliform Treatment Technique requirement replacing the Total Coliform MCL, and a new E.coli MCL regulatory limit. The RTCR establishes a “find-and-fix” approach for investigating and correcting causes of coliform problems within the water distribution system.

A water system that exceeds the current Total Coliform MCL must conduct a Level 1 Assessment.

The completed assessment must be submitted to SWRCB-DDW within 30 days of the exceedance.

Public notification (Tier 2) is required within 30 days of the exceedance. The Level 1 Assessment requires the water system to identify a possible cause for the total coliform positive samples and corrective actions taken/needed. Failure to complete the corrective actions is a violation of the Coliform Treatment Technique in the RTCR.

A water system that exceeds the E.coli MCL under the existing Acute Total Coliform MCL conditions in Title 22 must conduct a Level 2 Assessment. The water system must notify SWRCBDDW by the end of the business day to schedule a Level 2 assessment. Public notification (Tier 1) is required within 24 hours of the exceedance. The Level 2 Assessment is performed by SWRCB-DDW. Similar to the Level 1 assessment, the Level 2 Assessment requires the water system to identify a possible cause for the total coliform positive samples and corrective actions taken/needed. Failure to return the assessment or complete the corrective actions is a violation of the Coliform Treatment Technique in the Federal RTCR.

Pursuant to the RTCR, the City’s Bacteriological Sample Siting Plan (BSSP) provides the schedule and all sample sites (including locations for routine and repeat sampling) to conduct required bacteriological monitoring.

5.2.6 Groundwater Rule
On November 8, 2006, the USEPA promulgated the federal Groundwater Rule to provide for increased protection against microbial pathogens in public water systems that use groundwater sources. The major components of the rule include:
• Sanitary survey prepared by SWRCB-DDW every three years, unless the water system provides 4-log inactivation/removal of viruses;
• Triggered source water monitoring when a routine distribution system sample is positive for total coliform, unless the water system provides 4-log inactivation/removal of viruses;
101
• Notification of groundwater wholesaler by a consecutive system within 24 hours of the consecutive system4 being notified of a positive total coliform distribution system sample;
• Triggered source water monitoring by a groundwater wholesaler within 24 hours of being notified by a consecutive system of a positive total coliform distribution system sample;
• Corrective action is required if there is a significant deficiency or groundwater source of fecal contamination (“significant deficiencies” include, but are not limited to, defects in design, operation, or maintenance, or a failure or malfunction of the sources, treatment, storage, or distribution system that SWRCB-DDW determines to be causing, or have potential for causing, the introduction of contamination into the water delivered to consumers.); and
• Monitoring to ensure disinfection treatment achieves 4-log inactivation/removal of viruses, if treatment is required or applied in lieu of performing triggered monitoring.

Under the Groundwater Rule, beginning December 1, 2009, if any sample collected during routine distribution system sampling has a total coliform-positive result, one sample must be collected at each well not receiving 4-log virus inactivation/removal and analyzed for E. coli within 24 hours of receiving the total coliform-positive result. If E. coli is detected, five more repeat samples must be collected from each well that was initially E. coli-positive and tested for E. coli within 24 hours.

SWRCB-DDW has adopted the federal Groundwater Rule which became effective in August 2011. The City will continue to perform compliance monitoring and reporting in accordance with SWRCB-DDW requirements. The City complies with the triggered source monitoring requirements.

5.2.7 Arsenic Rule
On January 22, 2000, the USEPA published the final Arsenic Rule revising the current MCL from

0.050 mg/L to 0.010 mg/L. The revised MCL became effective in January 2006. In April 2004, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) established a PHG for arsenic of 0.000004 mg/L. DDW has adopted the federal MCL for arsenic.

Sampling results indicate that arsenic concentrations have been detected below the MCL of 0.010 mg/l at all of the City’s wells (with the exception of the Boisseranc well where arsenic has not been detected). Tabulated results for arsenic are reported in the annual water quality reports.

5.2.8 Lead and Copper Rule
On January 12, 2000, the USEPA promulgated revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule, previously adopted on December 11, 1995. On October 11, 2003, SWRCB-DDW published final lead and copper Requirements for Drinking Water. The revised rules clarify the lead and copper requirements, but do not substantially modify the requirements from what was previously required. 102
PWSs must monitor for lead and copper at a number of residential taps based on the population served. The required number of lead and copper samples may be reduced depending on the historical results. Compliance is based on the 90th percentile concentration for all samples collected. The Action Level (AL) for lead is 0.015 mg/l and for copper is 1.3 mg/l. The Action Level is the concentration which cannot be exceeded in more than 10 percent of the samples.

The City is required to collect lead and copper samples at a minimum of 30 taps once every three years. The City is in compliance with the lead and copper ALs and will continue to monitor lead and copper levels in its distribution system once every three years.

5.2.9 Lead Service Line Inventory
California Health and Safety code, Section 116885, added by Senate Bill 1398 (2016) and amended by Senate Bill 427 (2017), requires all community water systems to compile an inventory of known lead user service lines in its distribution system by July 1, 2018. The inventory shall include all user service lines that are active and those that are reasonably expected to become active in the future, including any areas for which the content of the service line could not be determined.

A proposed schedule to replace all the known lead user service lines and user service lines constructed of unknown material was required by July 1, 2020.

On January 15, 2021, US EPA issued revisions to federal Lead and Copper Rule aimed to better protect communities and children in elementary schools and childcare facilities from the impacts of lead exposure. Pursuant to the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), water systems must develop an inventory to identify service line materials connected to the public water distribution systems by October 16, 2024. The City is currently on track to complete the required inventory.

Health and Safety Code Section 116885 required that all lead from the water main to the meter be inventoried and replaced. The definition of “user service line” in the California Health and Safety Code includes the service line from the water main to the meter, which is typically the watersystem-owned portion of the line. SWRCB-DDW will continue to collect data on lead goosenecks and required service line replacement plans. Water systems that reported any lead service lines or lead fittings are required to update their inventory annually. A lead gooseneck needs to be replaced according to the approved timeline under Section 116885. The data collected pursuant to Section 116885 can be used to complete a portion of the LCRR inventory requirements, however the LCRR inventory must also include the portion of the service line from the meter to the building inlet, or the customer-owned portion of the total service line. Also, if a lead gooseneck is connected to a galvanized pipe, that service line may need to be included in the water system’s new LCRR tap sampling plan pursuant to 40 CFR section 141.86, subdivision (a)(5).

5.2.10 School Lead Testing
The SWRCB-DDW, in collaboration with the California Department of Education, has initiated testing for lead in drinking water at all public K-12 schools. In early 2017, SWRCB-DDW and Local Primacy Agencies issued amendments to the domestic water supply permits of approximately 1,200 community water systems so that schools that are served by a PWS can 103
request assistance from their PWS to conduct water sampling for lead, and receive technical assistance if an elevated lead sample result is found. On January 1, 2018, California Assembly Bill 746 became effective and required community water system to test lead levels, by July 1, 2019, in drinking water at all California public, K-12 school sites that were constructed before January 1, 2010.

During 2018-2019, fourteen (14) schools in the City’s service area were tested for lead6. There were no schools in the City with any lead action level exceedance (which would require corrective action to be performed)7. No further action was required.

5.2.11 1,2,3-Trichloropropane
In 1999, SWRCB-DDW established a NL of 0.005 ug/l for 1,2,3-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) in drinking water. The NL is at the same concentration as the SWRCB-DDW DLR. Certain requirements and recommendations apply if 1,2,3-TCP is detected above its NL.

In 2009, the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) established the PHG for 1,2,3-TCP at 0.0007 ug/l. The PHG was established by OEHHA for use by SWRCBDDW to establish an MCL. Health and Safety Code Section 116365(a) requires SWRCB-DDW to establish an MCL at a level as close as is technically and economically feasible to the contaminant's PHG. PHGs are contaminant concentrations in drinking water that do not pose a significant risk to health. SWRCB-DDW will have to consider the economic and technical feasibility of treating 1,2,3-TCP-contaminated water to arrive at an MCL that is still protective of public health. In July 2016, SWRCB-DDW held a public workshop to discuss the 1,2,3-TCP MCL development process. During the workshop, SWRCB-DDW announced a preliminary staff recommendation for the 1,2,3-TCP MCL at 0.005 ug/l, which is also the then NL and DLR.

In July 2017, SWRCB-DDW adopted an MCL of 0.005 ug/l for 1,2,3-TCP. The City was required to conduct an initial round of monitoring consisting of four quarterly samples of 1,2,3-TCP for all its wells beginning January 2018. Regulatory compliance for the City is based on the average of four quarters of sampling. If 1,2,3-TCP was not detected during the initial four quarters of sampling, subsequent routine monitoring consists of two quarterly samples in one year during each subsequent 3-year compliance period (with the subsequent periods being from 2020 to 2022 and 2023 to 2025). Concentrations of 1,2,3-TCP were non-detect in all of the City’s wells during the initial round of monitoring as well as the subsequent monitoring period from 2020 to 2022. 6 Results of the school lead testing conducted by the Los Angeles County division are posted by SWRCB-DDW at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=9d17731cae2c4452957fadc5d8ee2d75. 7 All the sampling was taken place within schools. A water system’s responsibility is to determine any lead problems within the school and notify the school. The school’s responsibility would be to fix any lead problems (e.g., replace pipes or shutoff drinking water fountains).
104

5.2.12 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Treatment Needs Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (or PFAS) are a large group of human-made substances that have been used extensively in surface coating and protectant formulations. The four main PFAS contaminants of concern include Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid (PFBS), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) in which SWRCB-DDW has established Notification Levels and Response Levels. In general, the SWRCB-DDW may recommend additional water quality testing be performed if the Notification Levels are exceeded in initial water quality testing. In addition, if Response Levels are exceeded, the SWRCB-DDW requires (pursuant to Assembly Bill 756) the water source be removed from service; installation of treatment; or notification of customers in writing. For PFOA and PFOS only, a quarterly running annual average is used to determine Response Level compliance.

On April 10, 2024, the USEPA established Federal MCLs for six PFAS chemicals including PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), and mixtures containing two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS.

Public water systems are required to monitor for these PFAS and have three years to complete initial monitoring (by 2027), followed by ongoing compliance monitoring. Beginning 2027, water systems must also provide the public with information on the levels of these PFAS in the drinking water. Public water systems have five years (by 2029) to implement solutions that reduce these PFAS if monitoring shows that drinking water levels exceed the MCLs. Beginning in 2029, public water systems that have PFAS in drinking water which violates one or more of the MCLs must take action to reduce levels of these PFAS in their drinking water and must provide notification to the public of the violation.

A summary of the PFAS Notification Levels and Response Levels issued (or being considered/proposed) by SWRCB-DDW, as well as the Federal MCLs recently established by the USEPA, are provided in the tabulation below.
105
PFAS Chemical name
SWRCB-DDW Requirements
Federal MCL
(ng/l or ppt)
Notification
Level
(ng/l or ppt)
Response
Level
(ng/l or ppt)
Date Issued /
Status
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid 5.1 10 6-Feb-20 4.0
PFOS Perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid 6.5 40 6-Feb-20 4.0
PFBS Perfluorobutane
sulfonic acid 500 5000 5-Mar-21
PFHxS Perfluorohexane
sulfonic acid 3 20 31-Oct-22 10
PFHxA Perfluorohexanoic acid -- --
Under
consideration --
PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic acid -- --
Under
consideration --
PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid -- --
Under
consideration 10
PFDA Perfluorodecanoic acid -- --
Under
consideration --
ADONA 4,8-Dioxa-3Hperfluorononanoic acid -- --
Under
consideration --
HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene
oxide dimer acid -- -- -- 10
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS -- -- -- Hazard Index
ng/l = nanograms per liter or parts per trillion (ppt).

On October 31, 2022, SWRCB-DDW issued Monitoring Order (Order DW 2022-0001-DDW8) which directed water systems to perform PFAS monitoring at specified sources (including the City’s Linden Well) which are at risk for potential PFAS contamination due to proximity with other water sources known to have confirmed PFAS detections. The 2022 Monitoring Order included the following conditions:
• Collect quarterly PFAS samples from the sources/wells listed in the Monitoring Order until further notice.
• Report detected results in the water system’s annual Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). • Notify the water system’s governing body within 30 days, if the Notification Level is exceeded.
• Either remove the water source from use, utilize treatment/blending, or provide public notification within 30 days, if the Response Level is exceeded.

PFAS Water Quality Results
Based on the City’s water quality results, PFAS chemicals have been detected at the City’s Linden Well, including the following:
8 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/pfas_ddw_general_order/ 106
• PFOA has been detected at concentrations below the SWRCB’s Notification Level and below the federal MCL.
• PFOS has been detected at concentrations below the SWRCB’s Notification Level, however, concentrations have been detected above the Federal MCL • PFHxS has been detected above the SWRCB’s Notification Level, however, the concentrations are below the Response Level and the Federal MCL PFAS Treatment
Also noted above, certain PFAS chemicals at the Linden Well have been detected at levels above the recently established Federal MCL and action to reduce PFAS concentrations (in particular PFOS) will likely be required by 2029. The City is currently planning to modify the Linden Well (through installation of a well casing liner and a VFD) to limit groundwater production to a lower level of the aquifer where PFAS contamination is not present. However, if PFAS treatment is required the techniques shown to be effective in the removal of PFAS from drinking water include the following:
• Granular activated carbon (GAC)
o Works well on longer-chain PFAS like PFOA and PFOS, but shorter chain PFAS like PFBS and perfluorobutyrate (PFBA) do not adsorb as well. • Powdered activated carbon (PAC)
o Same material as GAC but smaller in size and powder-like. o Because of the small particle size, PAC cannot be used in a flow through bed, but can be added directly to the water and then removed with the other natural particulates in the clarification stage (used this way, PAC in not as efficient or economical as GAC at removing PFAS).
• Ion exchange resin
o Positively charged anion exchange resin has been shown to have a high capacity for many PFAS.
• High pressure membranes (reverse osmosis/nanofiltration) o Extremely effective at removing PFAS.

GAC and ion exchange treatment facilities are the most suitable for PFAS treatment of large volumes of water such as from groundwater wells. Ion exchange treatment typically has a smaller footprint, a lower capital cost, and an ability to possibly accommodate a wider range of PFAS contaminants, however, GAC treatment media is less expensive.

As noted above, PFOS has been detected at the Linden Well at concentrations above the Federal MCL. The City will need to complete initial monitoring by 2027 and implement a solution by 2029 to reduce PFAS contamination if the monitoring shows that concentrations exceed the MCL.

If treatment is necessary, it is recommended the City consider employing ion exchange treatment 107
at the Linden Well due to its smaller footprint, lower capital costs, and ability to possibly accommodate a wider range of PFAS contaminants.

The City has previously indicated the source of the PFAS is coming from the east and that there have been three monitoring wells recently installed along Dale Street to the east of the Linden Well which are drilled into three different aquifer systems. The City should also continue to review any water quality results available from these monitoring wells to determine if certain depths can be blocked off at the Linden Well (e.g., through installation of a packer or liner) to prevent PFAS contamination.

5.2.13 Microplastics
In 2018, the California Legislature adopted a pair of bills that require the State to begin building microplastics management strategies for both drinking water and California’s coastal ocean and estuaries. Senate Bill 1422 requires the California State Water Resources Control Board to develop plans for measuring microplastic particles in drinking water by 2021. Senate Bill 1263 requires the California Ocean Protection Council to adopt and implement a statewide strategy for lessening the ecological risks of microplastics to coastal marine ecosystems. “Microplastics in Drinking Water” are defined as solid polymeric materials9to which chemical additives or other substances may have been added, which are particles which have at least three dimensions that are greater than 1 nm and less than 5,000 micrometers (μm)10. Polymers that are derived in nature that have not been chemically modified (other than by hydrolysis) are excluded.

This definition was adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on June 16, 202011.

It is recommended that the City pay attention to the upcoming specific monitoring and reporting requirements on microplastics.
9 Polymeric material means either (i) a particle of any composition with a continuous polymer surface coating of any thickness, or (ii) a particle of any composition with a polymer content of greater than or equal to 1% by mass. Particle means a minute piece of matter with defined physical boundaries; a defined physical boundary is an interface. Polymer means a substance consisting of molecules characterized by the sequence of one or more types of monomer units. Such molecules must be distributed over a range of molecular weights wherein differences in the molecular weight are primarily attributable to differences in the number of monomer units. A polymer comprises the following: (a) a simple weight majority of molecules containing at least three monomer units which are covalently bound to at least one other monomer unit or other reactant; (b) less than a simple weight majority of molecules of the same molecular weight. Monomer unit means the reacted form of a monomer substance in a polymer. Monomer means a substance which is capable of forming covalent bonds with a sequence of additional like or unlike molecules under the conditions of the relevant polymer-forming reaction used for the particular process. 10 Size-based nomenclature within the dimensions limits include: nanoplastics (1 nm to <100 nm); sub-micron plastics (100 nm to <1 μm); small microplastics (1 μm to < 100 μm); large microplastics (100 μm to <5 mm); mesoplastics (5 mm to <2.5 cm); macroplastics (>2.5 cm).
11 Evidence concerning the toxicity and exposure of humans to microplastics is nascent and rapidly evolving, and the proposed definition of “Microplastics in Drinking Water” is subject to change in response to new information. The definition may also change in response to advances in analytical techniques and/or the standardization of analytical methods. 108

5.2.14 Public Notification of Drinking Water Quality
The City’s water customers are notified of their drinking water quality through an annual Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) and a triennial PHG report. These reports are further discussed below.

5.2.14.1 Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR)
In 1996, Congress amended the SDWA, adding a requirement that water systems deliver to their customers a brief annual water quality report. The CCR must contain the following:
• Water system information, which includes name and telephone number of contact person, information on public participation opportunities, information in Spanish that the report content is important, and information for other non-English speaking populations;
• Source of water and the results of the source water vulnerability assessment; • Summary of data on detected regulated and unregulated contaminants, possible source(s) of each contaminant, and if the water system received any violations; and • Educational information on nitrate, arsenic, lead, radon and cryptosporidium, if applicable.

Based on the SDWA, effective May 26, 2001, the California Health and Safety Code (Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 20, Section 116470) requires every community water system to prepare an annual CCR and deliver the CCR to its customers by July 1st. The City’s annual CCRs are available on its website.

The USEPA issued the final CCR Rule Revisions on May 15, 2024 which requires the preparation of CCRs biannually. Beginning in 2027, the City is required to provide the first CCR by July 1st and the second CCR by December 31st.

5.2.14.2 Public Health Goal Reports
Senate Bill 1307 was enacted on January 1, 1997 and requires water systems serving more than 10,000 service connections that detect one or more contaminants in drinking water exceeding the applicable PHG or the MCL Goals (MCLG) to prepare a written report to inform the public about the safety of the drinking water. The initial PHG report required by Senate Bill 1307 was due on July 1, 1998, and subsequent reports are due every three years thereafter. The latest PHG report for the City was completed in 2022. A new PHG report is scheduled to be completed in July 2025.

In accordance with Section 116470 (c) of the California Health and Safety Code, a public hearing must be held after the PHG reports are completed to receive comments on each water system’s PHG report.
109

5.3 Summary of Water Quality Requirements
A summary of the water quality regulatory requirements discussed in Section 5.2 are provided in Table 5.4 below.

Table 5.4 Summary of Water Quality Regulatory Requirements Name Description Regulatory
Agency
Title 22 Regulated
Constituents
Source water monitoring frequency in accordance with Title 22 and the latest vulnerability tables by SWRCB-DDW. SWRCB-DDW Secondary MCL
Regulations
Sample at least once every three years in accordance with Title 22 and the latest vulnerability tables by SWRCB-DDW. SWRCB-DDW Federal UCMR 5 Sample collection for the 30 chemical contaminants between 2023 and 2025 USEPA
Stage 2 D/DBPR
Rule
Monitors for TTHM and HAA5 at eight (8) locations throughout the distribution system once every quarter USEPA
Radionuclide Rule Perform follow-up monitoring (i.e. every 6 or 9 years) based on initial results. USEPA
Revised Total
Coliform Rule
Monitoring frequency in accordance with the approved
Bacteriological Sample Siting Plan (BSSP).
(City performs monthly)
USEPA
Groundwater Rule
Perform compliance monitoring and reporting in accordance with SWRCB-DDW requirements
(City performs monthly)

USEPA /

SWRCB-DDW
Arsenic Rule Monitor arsenic once every three years. USEPA Lead and Copper
Rule
Monitor lead and copper at a minimum of 30 taps once every three years.

USEPA
Lead Service Line
Inventory /
Develop an inventory to identify service line materials connected to the public water distribution systems by October 16, 2024. USEPA PFAS
Complete initial PFAS monitoring by 2027. Implement solutions by 2029 that reduce PFAS if monitoring shows that drinking water levels exceed the MCLs (Monitored by the County, but the City is responsible for compliance )
USEPA
Microplastics Monitoring frequency in accordance with upcoming requirements. SWRCB-DDW Consumer
Confidence
Reports (CCR)
Prepare an annual CCR and deliver to customers by July 1st.

Beginning in 2027, the City is required to provide the first CCR by July 1st and the second CCR by December 31st.

USEPA
Public Health
Goals (PHGs) Update report every three years; Next report due July 2025 USEPA 110
CHAPTER 6 – PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN CRITERIA
This Chapter presents the criteria to be used to: (1) evaluate the performance of existing potable water system and the associated facilities for identifying existing system deficiencies and to (2) design/size replacement facilities, future improvements, and expansions.

Meeting system requirements for both water quantity and quality depends upon the proper design and performance of water supply facilities, water treatment systems, and distribution facilities (i.e., pipes, storage reservoirs, booster pumps, and regulating valves). In general, the City’s water supply and distribution system must accommodate multiple objectives including the following:
• Water Supply Capacity: Provide adequate water supply capacity with high water quality. • Hydraulic Capacity: Achieve adequate delivery capacity with acceptable pressures and pipeline velocities and head loss.
• Fire Flow: Supply fire flows at recommended levels for both firefighting flow rate and duration.
• Redundancy: Provide adequate backup capacity in case of failure/emergency and/or scheduled maintenance and retrofits.
• Reliability: Maintain the physical condition of the system through pro-active rehabilitation and replacement to minimize unscheduled loss of service. • Energy Efficiency: Provide efficient facilities/operations to save energy and operational cost.
• Development: Accommodate future service area development through system expansion, including development of new communities, infill, and redevelopment.

6.1 Summary of Performance Criteria for Existing System Evaluation Table 6.1 located at the end of this Chapter provides a summary of recommended criteria for evaluating existing system performance and for identifying existing system deficiencies. These criteria are recommended for normal and emergency operating conditions and during the following water demand scenarios:
• Average Day Demand (ADD)
• Peak Hour Demand (PHD)
• Maximum Day Demand (MDD)
• MDD plus Fire Flow (MDD + FF)
The recommended water system performance criteria will be used to evaluate the performance of the City’s existing water system under a range of operating conditions to identify system deficiencies and develop recommended appropriate improvement projects to address the deficiencies. Under each operating condition, the capacities and performance of the water system will be compared to the performance criteria to determine which pipelines or water facilities need to be added, upsized, or replaced. The performance and evaluation criteria for the potable water system include the following categories:
111
• System pressure;
• Fire flow requirements;
• Pipeline velocity and head loss;
• Water supply capacity (e.g., groundwater wells);
• Reservoir storage capacity; and
• Booster pumping capacity.

The recommended performance criteria are mainly based on the standards and guidelines specified in the following documents:
• Existing hydraulic criteria used by the City;
• 2022 City of Buena Park Fire Code (Ordinance No. 1712); • 2022 California Fire Code;
• 2021 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 64554; and • 2017 AWWA Manual 32 (fourth edition), “Computer Modeling of Water Distribution Systems”.

6.2 Descriptions of Performance Criteria
The following sections provide detailed descriptions for the recommended performance criteria summarized in Table 6.1.

6.2.1 System Pressure
Adequate system pressure is a basic indicator of acceptable water system performance. When assessing the adequacy of a system, the first parameter to check is the predicted pressure. There are generally three design pressures that are defined for the system: maximum pressure during the average day demand (ADD), minimum pressure during peak hour demand (PHD), and minimum pressure during maximum day demand (MDD) with fire flow (FF).

The recommended maximum and minimum pressures (120 psi and 40 psi) in Table 6.1 incorporate the pressure criteria provided in the City’s 2019 Water Master Plan.

The recommended minimum pressure of 20 psi during maximum day demand with fire flow in Table 6.1 is a standard practice and is a requirement of the 2022 California Fire Code (CFC).

6.2.2 Fire Flow Requirements
The 2022 City of Buena Park Fire Code (Ordinance No. 1712) sets the minimum fire flow requirements. The 2022 City of Buena Park Fire Code adopts the 2022 CFC and establishes minimum fire flows and durations for individual structures based upon the building material (e.g., 112
combustible, noncombustible), building size, occupancy, as well as whether the structure has an automatic sprinkler system (based on Appendix B of the 2022 CFC12). In general, for one and twofamily dwellings with the first floor area up to 3,600 square feet and without automatic fire sprinkler systems, the 2022 CFC specifies that the minimum fire flow and duration is 1,000 gpm for 1 hour. For structures other than one and two-family dwellings without automatic sprinkler systems13 and constructed with Type V building materials14 (the most common materials), the minimum fire flow requirements range from 1,500 gpm (with 2 hours of duration) for building size less than 3,600 square feet to 8,000 gpm (with 4 hours of duration) for building size greater than 85,101 square feet. Due to the unavailability of data on building sizes, materials and automatic fire sprinkler systems, the recommended fire flow requirements for different land uses presented in Table 6.1 are used in this WSMP. These numbers are generally consistent with the 2022 CFC for the respective mid-size buildings in the City’s system service area with the assumption of no automatic sprinkler systems and Type V building materials. These numbers would be conservative for buildings with automatic sprinkler systems. It is worth noting that the land use types in Table

6.1 are consistent with the City’s customer classes for water meters. This consistency would make the fire flow evaluation feasible for direct comparison between the fire flow requirements and the computed available fire flows when using the developed water system hydraulic model (see Chapters 7 and 8).

6.2.3 Pipeline Velocities and Head Loss
Setting the maximum pipeline velocity criterion is intended to minimize head loss as well as subsequent pumping costs. The criteria for maximum pipeline velocity and head loss are recommended in this WSMP under PHD conditions under both existing and future demand scenarios. For transmission and distribution pipelines, a maximum velocity of 6 feet per second (fps) is recommended under PHD conditions, and a maximum velocity of 10 fps is recommended under MDD plus fire flow conditions. A head loss of 5 ft per 1,000 ft for small pipes (< 16 inches in diameter) and 3 ft per 1,000 ft for large pipes (≥ 16 inches in diameter) are recommended under PHD conditions.

The recommended maximum velocity and head loss in Table 6.1 are general consistent with the 2017 AWWA M32 (fourth edition) guidelines as excerpted below:

In general, a distribution system is considered to have deficient pipe looping or sizing if the following conditions are seen under normal operating conditions:
12 https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CFC2019P1
13 For structures other than one and two-family dwellings with automatic sprinkler systems, the minimum fire flow requirements could be reduced by up to 75% (with no change on fire flow duration), but the reduced fire flow shall not be less than 1,000 gpm for NFPA 13 sprinkler systems or 1,500 gpm for NFPA 13R sprinkler systems (see 2019 CFC sections 903.3.1.1 and 903.3.1.2).

NFPA denotes “National Fire Prevention Association”.
14 There are five types of building materials in the 2019 California Building Code: Type I: all building elements are noncombustible; Type II: all building elements are non-combustible; Type III: exterior walls are noncombustible; Type IV: exterior walls are of noncombustible materials and the interior building elements are of solid wood, laminated wood, heavy timber (HT) or structural composite lumber (SCL) without concealed spaces. Type V: exterior walls and interior walls are of any materials permitted by the 2019 California Building Code.
113
• Velocities greater than 4–6 ft/sec
• Small pipe diameters (less than 16 in.) having head losses greater than 5–7 ft/1,000 ft
• Large pipe diameters (16 in. or greater) having head losses greater than 2–3 ft/1,000 ft
The design of new pipelines should address two basic features: sizing and routing. Pipe size is determined by the maximum flow rate carried, typically either the maximum day plus fire flow condition or the peak hour condition for distribution mains. Typically, either the peak hour flow rate or the maximum storage replenishment rate is the maximum flow for large transmission mains. The pipe size is selected to ensure that velocity and head loss rate, as previously described, are not exceeded.

6.2.4 Water Supply Capacity
The following is an excerpt from the 2021 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, § 64554 on new and existing source capacity:
(a) At all times, a public water system's water source(s) shall have the capacity to meet the system's maximum day demand (MDD).
(1) For systems with 1,000 or more service connections, the system shall be able to meet four hours of peak hourly demand (PHD) with source capacity, storage capacity, and/or emergency source connections.
(2) For systems with less than 1,000 service connections, the system shall have storage capacity equal to or greater than MDD, unless the system can demonstrate that it has an additional source of supply or has an emergency source connection that can meet the MDD requirement.
(3) Both the MDD and PHD requirements shall be met in the system as a whole and in each individual pressure zone.
(b) A system shall estimate MDD and PHD for the water system as a whole (total source capacity and number of service connections) and for each pressure zone within the system (total water supply available from the water sources and interzonal transfers directly supplying the zone and number of service connections within the zone), as follows: … (c) Community water systems using only groundwater shall have a minimum of two approved sources before being granted an initial permit. The system shall be capable of meeting MDD with the highest-capacity source off line.

Pursuant to the 2021 CCR Title 22, the following criteria are recommended for sizing the City’s water supply capacity:

In pressure zones with storage:
• Provide firm supply capacity equal to MDD; meet PHD and fire flow requirement during MDD from a combination of supply sources and storage. (Note: The Title 22 requirement for 4 hours of PHD will be met by the equalization storage which will be discussed in Section 6.2.5.)
114
In pressure zones without storage:
• Provide firm supply capacity equal to PHD or MDD plus fire flow, whichever is greater.

The first criterion is applicable to the City’s system since both the lower and upper pressure zones have storage. The Rosecrans Reservoir provides gravity storage for the Lower Zone and pumped storage for the Upper Zones.

The firm supply capacity in a pressure zone here is defined as the supply capacity with the largest well or water supply source out of service. Using the firm supply capacity in the design is intended to provide redundancy and reliability in case of a breakdown or repair.

Evaluations of the City’s existing and future water supply capacities based on the above criterion are provided in Section 7.1 and Section 8.1.

6.2.5 Reservoir Storage Capacity
The total storage required for a water system is classified into the following three primary components:
• Operational Storage (or Equalization Storage).
• Fire Storage.
• Emergency Storage.

These three components are determined for each separate system to evaluate the ability of the water system to meet the storage criteria. These three storage requirements are discussed in more detail below:
• Operational Storage. Operational or equalization storage is the amount of water required to meet demands in excess of the production and delivery capabilities. It is necessary to coordinate the production rates of water sources and the available storage capacity in a water system to provide a continuous flow of treated water supply to the system. Water systems are often designed to have the capacity to supply the average flow on the day of maximum demand. Water storage is then used to supply water for peak hourly flows that may occur during the day. This equalization storage is continuously replenished throughout the day to maintain water quality. The 2021 CCR, Title 22, § 64554 requires that a large system shall be able to meet four (4) hours of peak hourly demand (PHD) during the MDD with source and storage capacity. Since water supply is designed to meet MDD in pressure zones with storage, water volumes between PHD and MDD must be served from storage.

115
According to the 2017 AWWA M32, “The amount of equalization storage that a community maintains should be determined based on a comparison of production capabilities versus the demands expected on the system. In most communities, this is based on the maximum day condition and the ability to ensure that the equalization storage is sufficient to meet demands that exceed the production capabilities. Equalization storage volume is typically calculated by plotting the hourly diurnal curve for maximum day demands, as shown in the graph below. The area under the diurnal curve but above the average of the hourly demands for the maximum day is the equalization volume required.” Equalization Storage Requirement for Maximum Day Demand Conditions (Source: 2017 AWWA M32 (Fourth Edition))
It is worth noting that the above concept inherently assumes that the system (or pressure zone) has continuous water supply so that the operational or equalization storage can be continuously replenished. If a system does not have continuous water supply (e.g., without groundwater wells), the system should at least have an operational storage of 100% MDD to meet the water supply capacity requirement specified in Title 22.

For the purpose of this WSMP, the following operational storage requirement is recommended:

In pressure zones with continuous water supply:
• Operational storage = 4 hours of PHD.

In pressure zones without continuous water supply:
• Operational storage = 100% MDD.

The first criterion above is applicable to the City’s system since both the Lower and Upper Zones have continuous water supply with groundwater wells. 116
• Fire Flow Storage. Fire storage is the volume of storage water reserved for firefighting.

The fire storage volume is determined by multiplying the required fire flow rate by the required time duration. It is assumed that no more than one fire event would occur in any pressure zone at one time. The 2022 City of Buena Park Fire Code adopts the 2022 California Fire Code, which sets fire flow requirements based upon the building material (combustible or non-combustible), building size, and occupancy to determine the required fire flow and duration (as described in Section 6.2.2). Each pressure zone in the City’s water system includes different sizes of buildings which would need to meet different fire flow requirements as specified in the 2022 CFC. The fire flow storage is normally determined based on the single greatest fire flow requirement (flow and duration) within each pressure zone. For example, if a pressure zone has single family residential, multifamily residential, and commercial uses, the greatest fire flow requirement for commercial use (3,500 gpm and 3 hours duration; see Table 6.1) will be used to determine the required fire storage for the pressure zone. However, considering the high capacity of the City’s MWD connections (total of 19,749 gpm) available in each pressure zone, it is assumed that the need for firefighting storage reserve is waived for the purpose of this WSMP. • Emergency Storage. Emergency storage provides water during emergencies. Emergencies cover a wide range of rare but probable events, such as pipeline failures, equipment failures, power outages, pumping system failures, water treatment plant failures, raw water contamination events, and natural disasters. The volume of water that is needed during an emergency is usually based on the estimated amount of time expected to elapse before the disruptions caused by the emergency are corrected. However, the occurrence and magnitude of emergencies are difficult to predict. California currently does not have a defined requirement for emergency storage.

The 2017 AWWA M32 provides the following guidelines:

The amount of emergency storage is based on an assessment of the risk of failures and the desired degree of system dependability. As an example, a system operator may desire a full day of emergency storage in order to provide enough storage in the event of a system-wide power failure. An assessment must be made as to the type and nature of the emergency condition, including the frequency, intensity, and duration. In general, a vulnerability analysis, as described in AWWA Manual M19 (2001), should be used to determine emergency storage requirements. Some state or provincial regulations indicate the minimum emergency storage required for the community based on the average or maximum daily demands. In addition, water quality should be a part of the equation when determining the amount of emergency storage to provide. The utility may relax its minimum pressure requirements under emergency conditions as long as negative pressures are avoided.

Considering the high capacity of the City’s MWD connections in each pressure zone, it is assumed that the need for an emergency storage is waived for the purpose of this WSMP. 117
Evaluations of the City’s existing and future water storage capacities based on the above criteria are provided in Section 7.2 and Section 8.2.

6.2.6 Booster Pumping Capacity
Typically, a booster pump station consists of multiple pump units, including one spare pump to provide reliability in case of a breakdown or repair. In addition, critical booster pumps may be equipped with emergency power supplies in case of failure of the primary power source.

For the purpose of this WSMP, it is assumed that PHD during a maximum demand day will be delivered from storage tanks by gravity in pressure zones with gravity storage, and fire flows will be supplemented by the high capacity MWD connections and/or emergency interconnections. For pressure zones without gravity storage, PHD will be delivered via booster pumps, and fire flows will be supplemented by the high capacity MWD connections and/or emergency interconnections.

For the system pump station capacity evaluation and sizing, the firm pumping capacity of each pump station was used, which assumes that the largest unit is out of service. The following criteria are recommended:

In pressure zones with gravity storage:
• Provide firm pumping capacity equal to MDD.

In pressure zones without gravity storage:
• Provide firm pumping capacity equal to PHD.

The first criterion is applicable to the Lower Zone since it has gravity storage, and the second criterion is applicable to the Upper Zones since the Upper Zones do not have gravity storage.

Evaluations of the City’s existing and future booster pump capacities based on the above criteria are provided in Section 7.3 and Section 8.3.
118

6.3 Design Criteria for New or Expanded Systems
Table 6.1 also includes a summary of recommended design criteria for new or expanded systems. (i.e., new developments). Because an expanded or new system at a minimum needs to meet the performance criteria for the existing system, the design criteria are generally similar to the performance criteria except for the fire flow requirements and the minimum size for pipeline replacements and new pipes. It is important to note the difference in the criteria for fire flow requirements. For new developments, the fire flow requirements for individual structures specified in the 2022 City of Buena Park Fire Code (which adopts the 2022 California Fire Code)15 or current fire code must be used for facility designs. However, to simplify the evaluation of the adequacy of the existing system to provide fire flows, the performance criteria will only consider a limited number of land use categories. This is due to the limited availability of record documents regarding individual structures in the existing system, including building sizes, materials (e.g., combustible and non-combustible) and whether the buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems.

Compared to the performance criteria, the design criteria also incorporate recommended minimum sizes (8-inches) for pipeline replacement and new water mains. This recommended minimum size aligns with the City’s typical replacement standard.
15 The 2022 City of Buena Park Fire Code adopts the 2022 CFC and establishes minimum fire flows and durations for individual structures based upon the building material (e.g., combustible, noncombustible), building size, occupancy, as well as whether the structure has an automatic sprinkler system (based on Appendix B of the 2022 California Fire Code). In general, for one and twofamily dwellings with the first floor area up to 3,600 square feet and without automatic sprinkler systems, the 2022 California Fire Code specifies that the minimum fire flow and duration is 1,000 gpm for 1 hour. For structures other than one and two-family dwellings without automatic sprinkler systems and constructed with Type V building materials (the most common materials), the minimum fire flow requirements range from 1,500 gpm (with 2 hours duration) for building size less than 3,600 square feet to 8,000 gpm (with 4 hours duration) for building size greater than 85,101 square feet.

Table 6.1 Summary of Performance and Design Criteria for the City of Buena Park Water Distribution System Component Performance Criteria for Existing System Evaluation Design Criteria for New or Expanded Systems Maximum Pressure(1)
ADD 120 psi (desired pressure: 60 - 80 psi) 120 psi (desired pressure: 60 - 80 psi) Minimum Pressure(1)
MDD 40 psi 40 psi
PHD 40 psi 40 psi
MDD + Fire Flow(2) 20 psi 20 psi
Fire Flow Requirements(2)
MDD
Single Family Residential: 1,000 gpm for 1 hour.

The same criteria as in the 2022 City of Buena Park Fire Code (which adopts the 2022 California Fire Code, Appendix B.) (or current fire code) for individual structures.

Multi-Family Residential: 2,500 gpm for 2 hours.

Commercial/ Institutional: 3,500 gpm for 3 hours.

Industrial/ Hospital: 5,000 gpm for 4 hours.

Pipeline Velocity and Head Loss(3)
Maximum Velocity under PHD 6 fps 6 fps
Maximum Velocity under MDD plus Fire Flow 10 fps 10 fps Maximum Head Loss under PHD 5 ft per 1,000 ft for small pipes (< 16”); 3 ft per 1,000 ft for large pipes (≥ 16”) 5 ft per 1,000 ft for small pipes (< 16”); 3 ft per 1,000 ft for large pipes (≥ 16”) Water Supply Capacity(4)
MDD
In pressure zones with storage:
• Provide firm supply capacity (largest well or source out of service) equal to MDD; meet PHD and fire flow requirement from a combination of supply sources and storage.

In pressure zones without storage:
• Provide firm supply capacity equal to PHD or MDD plus fire flow, whichever is greater.

In system with storage:
• Provide firm supply capacity (largest well or source out of service) equal to MDD; meet PHD and fire flow requirement from a combination of supply sources and storage.

In system without storage:
• Provide firm supply capacity equal to PHD or MDD plus fire flow, whichever is greater.

Storage Capacity
Operational Storage(4)
In pressure zones with continuous water supply:
• 4 hours of PHD.

In pressure zones without continuous water supply:
• 100% MDD
In system with continuous water supply:
• 4 hours of PHD
In system without continuous water supply:
• 100% MDD
Fire Storage Waived; Fire flows will be supplemented by the high capacity MWD connections and/or emergency interconnections.

Waived; Fire flows will be supplemented by the high capacity MWD connections and/or emergency interconnections.

Emergency Storage Waived; Emergency flows will be supplemented by the high capacity MWD connections and/or emergency interconnections.

Waived; Emergency flows will be supplemented by the high capacity MWD connections and/or emergency interconnections.

Total water storage capacity Equalization Storage + Fire storage + Emergency Storage Equalization Storage + Fire storage + Emergency Storage Booster Pumping Capacity
MDD
In pressure zones with gravity storage:
• Provide firm pumping capacity (largest pump out of service) equal to MDD.

In pressure zones without gravity storage:
• Provide firm pumping capacity equal to MDD plus fire flow or PHD, whichever is greater.

In system with gravity storage:
• Provide firm pumping capacity (largest pump out of service) equal to MDD.

In system without gravity storage:
• Provide firm pumping capacity equal to MDD plus fire flow or PHD, whichever is greater..

Minimum Size for Pipeline Replacement and New Mains
Minimum Size for Pipeline Replacement and New Mains Not Applicable 8 inches (1) Pressure criteria used by the City.
(2) City of Buena Park Fire Code (2022; Ordinance No. 1713), which adopts California Fire Code (2022). The City of Buena Park Fire Code is the same as the Orange County Fire Code. (3) AWWA, M32 (2017, fourth edition).
(4) California Code of Regulations, Title 22, § 64554 (CCR, 2021). 120
CHAPTER 7 – EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATION
The purpose of this Chapter is to evaluate the City’s existing distribution system under various operating conditions using the performance evaluation criteria described in Chapter 6 and the existing system demands analyzed in Chapter 4. This Chapter presents the existing system evaluation results and improvement projects to address the identified deficiencies.

7.1 Water Supply Capacity Analysis
The City’s potable water distribution system is supplied from groundwater wells producing water from the OC Basin and imported treated surface water purchased from MWD through MWDOC.

A more detailed description of the historical and existing water supplies, as well as the existing groundwater treatment facilities, is described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.

A water supply capacity analysis was conducted for each pressure zone using the supply capacities presented in Table 3.2 of Chapter 3 and the existing demands presented in Table 4.8 of Chapter 4.

Pursuit to the 2018 Agreement, the City must make all efforts to produce 100% of its water supply needs from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. In an effort to satisfy the City’s obligations with OCWD, this WSMP only considered the groundwater wells in the water supply capacity analysis. This consideration is consistent with the analysis discussed in the City’s “Water Well Siting Feasibility Study”, prepared in 2022 by Brady, which recommended the construction of a new groundwater well at Peak Park.

As it is not realistic to assume that all groundwater wells are available at all times due to operational requirements, maintenance needs, temporary outages, water quality changes, and mechanical failures, the firm supply capacity in each pressure zone was used. The firm supply capacity is defined as the total treated supply capacity with the largest well or supply source out of service in a pressure zone. Under this assumption, the adequacy of the existing supply capacity of groundwater wells was evaluated using the recommended performance criteria in Chapter 6 which are summarized below:

In pressure zones with storage:
• Provide firm supply capacity equal to MDD; meet peak hour demand (PHD) and fire flow requirement during MDD from a combination of supply sources and storage16.

In pressure zones without storage:
• Provide firm supply capacity equal to PHD or MDD plus fire flow, whichever is larger. 16 In pressure zones with storage, given the firm supply capacity equal to MDD, the peak hour demand (PHD) and/or fire flow requirement during the MDD will be met by both the water supply facilities and outflow from reservoir storage. The performance criterion here is intended to evaluate if the existing water supply facility have sufficient firm capacity to meet the MDD. If not, additional water supply facilities would be needed. The evaluation here inherently assumes that the reservoir storage has sufficient volume to provide the demand higher than the MDD by gravity and/or pumping. The adequacy of storage capacity and pumping capacity will be analyzed in Section 7.2 and Section 7.3, respectively. 121
Both the Lower Zone and the Upper Zone have storage reservoirs and, therefore, only the first criterion above was applied in the supply capacity analysis.

There are 8 wells in the City’s water system. All wells with the exception of the Smith-Murphy Well are located in the Lower Zone and are the primary source of water supply for the Lower Zone. The Smith-Murphy Well is located in the Zone 3b-285 but has no direct connections with the Upper Zones. The Smith-Murphy Well discharge line connects with the dedicated 36-inch diameter transmission line from the Rosecrans Reservoir to the Lower Zone. Through this connection, the Smith-Murphy Well is able to serve the Lower Zone 1-241 and is also able to provide a source of water supply for the Rosecrans Reservoir under certain hydraulic conditions.

For the purpose of this WSMP, the Smith-Murphy Well is included in the Upper Zones for the water supply capacity analysis.

Table 7.1 shows the results of firm supply capacity analysis under existing MDD conditions with the assumption of the MWD connection out of service. The firm supply capacity analysis indicates that both the Lower and Upper Zones have inadequate groundwater well supply capacity with deficit numbers under existing MDD conditions summarized below:
• Lower Zone: deficit: -2,465 gpm
• Upper Zones: deficit: -1,853 gpm
An additional analysis regarding the City's future water supply capacity conditions is provided in Section 8.1.

Based on the existing system water supply capacity analysis presented in Table 7.1, the following improvements are recommended to address the water supply capacity deficiency under MDD conditions:
• Construct the new Peak Park Well in the Lower Zone with a capacity of 2,500 gpm to 3,000 gpm as planned by the City (refer to Appendix D for the 2023 Peak Park Well Preliminary Engineering Design Report and 2022 Feasibility Study). With this new well, the existing water supply capacity deficit in the Lower Zone would be adequately resolved. Note that the 2022 Peak Park Well Feasibility Study also considered a potential future need to construct a reservoir and booster pumping station near the proposed well to store, pump and possibly treat water, if needed. If manganese were a concern in the proposed new well, the City would consider building a reservoir (approximately 2 MG) as part of the well project, specifically to hold and “sequester” well water until the manganese has dissipated. • Construct a new well in the Upper Zone near the Rosecrans Reservoir with a capacity of 1,900 gpm. This new well should be designed so it can connect and provide a source of water supply for the reservoir, substituting the imported water supply from OC-25 to achieve the 100% local water supply goals. In addition, the new well should also be able to directly discharge to the Upper Zones to allow the Rosecrans Reservoir to be taken out service during repairs.

It should be noted, the City performed a study in 2022 which suggested a new well in the Upper Zone may not be feasible because the Upper Zone overlies a geothermal zone with heated water. 122
In addition , the City has indicated there are other limitations in the Upper Zone including a lack of space available for a new groundwater well, the presence of groundwater contamination to the east from the former Raytheon site in the City of Fullerton, the presence of a former dump site at the Los Coyotes Country Club Golf Course, and the presence of former oil wells located north of Rosecrans Avenue. A new well in the Upper Zone would need to be located in the vicinity of the BNSF railroad tracks at the southern part of the Upper Zone.

Table 7.1 Water Supply Capacity Analysis – Existing Demand Conditions Existing Supply Capacity
Pressure Zone Well Name
Available
Capacity
(gpm)
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)
Existing
MDD
(gpm)
Surplus (+)
or Deficit (-)
(gpm)
Lower Zone
Boisseranc 2,406 2,406
Linden 2,625 Largest Out
Caballero 1,688 1,688
Holder 1,237 1,237
Freeway 950 950
Knott 1,302 1,302
Ball* 1,250 1,250
Subtotal 11,458 8,833 11,298 -2,465
Upper Zones
Smith-Murphy 847 Largest Out
Subtotal 847 0 1,853 -1,853
* Ball Well was constructed in 1995 and had a design capacity of 3,000 gpm. This well currently is capable of producing approximately 2,681 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. However, the well pump is oversized and a variable frequency drive (VFD) is used/forced to ramp down pump speed and production to about 1,200 to 1,300 gpm in order to avoid overpressurizing the system in the immediate vicinity of the well. The 1,250 gpm in the table represents the actual operating capacity.

Notes on existing MDD and PHD (see Table 4.8):
o Lower Zone: MDD: 11,298 gpm (16.3 MGD); PHD: 16,947 gpm (24.4 MGD) o Upper Zones: MDD: 1,853 gpm (2.7 MGD); PHD: 2,780 gpm (4.0 MGD) 123

7.2 Storage Capacity Analysis
The City’s water system has one reservoir, the Rosecrans Reservoir. This reservoir has an operating capacity of 20.0 MG and provides water by gravity directly to the Lower Zone via a dedicated 36-inch diameter transmission pipeline. It also provides suction to the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station which will be able to pump water from the reservoir into the Upper Zones.

This storage analysis evaluates the City’s existing reservoir storage capacities based on the performance evaluation criteria listed in Chapter 6 under existing MDD conditions. These storage criteria include three components, namely operational storage, fire storage, and emergency storage, which are summarized below:

Storage Component Recommended Performance Criteria
Operational Storage:

In pressure zones with continuous water supply
• 4 hours of PHD
In pressure zones without continuous water supply
• 100% MDD
Fire Storage: Waived; Fire flows will be supplemented by the high capacity MWD connections and/or emergency interconnections.

Emergency Storage: Waived; Emergency flows will be supplemented by the high capacity MWD connections and/or emergency interconnections.

Total Storage Required: Operational storage + Fire Storage + Emergency Storage The City’s water system has continuous water supply with groundwater wells in both the Lower and Upper Zones. So, the first criterion above for determining operational storage applies.

The analysis compares the total available and total required storage for each pressure zone and is summarized in Table 7.2. Since the Rosecrans Reservoir can provide water supply to both the Lower and Upper Zones, the existing available storage of the Rosecrans Reservoir was distributed into each pressure zone based on the peak hour demands (PHD) in the zones. The justification for using the PHD to distribute the Rosecrans Reservoir storage volume into each pressure zone is that the operational storage is intended to meet the PHD.

As shown in Table 7.2, the existing storage capacity analysis indicates the system has adequate storage capacity. The storage capacity surplus numbers are summarized below:
• Lower Zone: surplus of 13.13 MG
• Upper Zones: surplus of 2.13 MG
An additional analysis regarding the City’s future water storage capacity conditions is provided in Section 8.2.
124
Table 7.2 Reservoir Storage Capacity Analysis (MG) – Existing Demand Conditions Required Storage
Pressure
Zone
Storage
Tank
Name
Existing
Operating
Capacity*
Equalization
Storage
(4 hours of PHD)
Fire
Storage
Emergency
Storage
Total
Required
Storage
Surplus (+)
or Deficit (-)
Lower
Zone
Rosecrans
Reservoir
(86%)

17.2 Total 17.2 4.07 waived waived 4.07 13.13
Upper
Zones
Rosecrans
Reservoir
(14%)

2.8 Total 2.8 0.67 waived waived 0.67 2.13
*The breakdown of the storage capacity applied to each pressure zone is based on system demand in the Lower Zone (86% of the total City demand) and Upper Zones (14% of the total City demand).

Notes on existing MDD and PHD (see Table 4.8):
o Lower Zone: MDD: 16.3 MGD; PHD: 24.4 MGD
o Upper Zones: MDD: 2.7 MGD; PHD: 4.0 MGD
125

7.3 Booster Pump Station Capacity Analysis
The booster station capacity analysis evaluates the existing pump station capacities based on the performance evaluation criteria listed in Chapter 6. These pump station evaluation criteria differ for zones with and without gravity storage because gravity storage can be utilized to supply daily demand peaks without pumping. Hence, the pump station analysis uses the following criteria:

In pressure zones with gravity storage:
• Provide firm pumping capacity equal to MDD.

In pressure zones without gravity storage:
• Provide firm pumping capacity equal to PHD.

The first criterion is applicable to the Lower Zone since it has gravity storage, and the second criterion is applicable to the Upper Zones since the Upper Zones do not have gravity storage. Using the above criteria assumes that emergency high flow demands such as fire flows will be supplemented by the City’s high capacity MWD connections.

The booster pump station analysis utilized the firm pumping capacity within each pressure zone, which means that the largest booster pump unit was excluded in every pressure zone. The results of the booster pump station capacity analysis are presented in Table 7.3. The evaluation was conducted under existing MDD conditions for each pressure zone. The booster pumping evaluation demonstrates that there is a firm pumping capacity deficit under existing MDD conditions in the Lower Zone and a surplus in the Upper Zones, with deficit/surplus numbers summarized below:
• Lower Zone: deficit: -11,298 gpm
• Upper Zones: surplus: 2,034 gpm
The results indicate that the Rosecrans Booster Station has adequate pumping capacity for the Upper Zones. An additional analysis regarding the City's future booster station capacity conditions is provided in Section 8.3.

The Lower Zone does not have any existing booster stations. However, the 7 groundwater wells in the Lower Zone directly discharge to the distribution system and would have similar functions as booster stations. Given the recommendations in Section 7.1 for groundwater wells, there would be adequate well capacity to meet the existing MDD. There is no need for a booster station in the Lower Zone unless the groundwater wells are not able to provide adequate pressures and/or fire flows. As a result, there are no new booster pumps recommended in this WSMP. The hydraulic adequacy is analyzed through hydraulic modeling and discussed in Section 7.7. 126
Table 7.3 Booster Station Capacity Analysis – Existing Demand Conditions Required Firm Pumping
Capacity
Pressure
Zone
Zone with
Gravity
Storage?
(Y/N)
Booster Name
Existing
Available
Capacity
(gpm)
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)
MDD
(gpm)
PHD
(gpm)
Required
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)
Surplus (+)
or Deficit (-)
(gpm)
Lower
Zone Y
- 0 0
Total 0 0 11,298 16,947 11,298 -11,298
Upper
Zones N
Rosecrans BPS
Booster 1 459 459
Booster 2 961 961
Booster 3 897 897
Booster 4 2,557 Largest out
Booster 5 2,497 2,497
Total 7,371 4,814 1,853 2,780 2,780 2,034
Notes on existing MDD and PHD (see Table 4.8):
o Lower Zone: MDD: 11,298 gpm (16.3 MGD); PHD: 16,947 gpm (24.4 MGD) o Upper Zones: MDD: 1,853 gpm (2.7 MGD); PHD: 2,780 gpm (4.0 MGD) 127

7.4 Remaining Service Life Analysis
The following section provides an analysis to estimate the remaining service life of the City’s water distribution system facilities which are currently operating (including groundwater wells, pumps, and reservoirs). The remaining service life analysis is used as a basis in recommending water system improvements (discussed in Section 7.9) and the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, which is provided in Chapter 10. However, because the analysis is based on average ranges of service life for similar equipment, the City should review the presented recommendations in conjunction with the current conditions of the City’s physical facilities to determine if replacement is necessary.

The projected service life of the City’s facilities varies depending on the equipment type. The California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) “Standard Practice for Determination of Straight-Line Remaining Life Depreciation Accruals”, provides average ranges of equipment service life for different types of utilities, including water systems. These service life ranges are based upon factors such as the future effect of wear and tear, decay, action of the elements, inadequacy, and public requirements. Based upon these CPUC ranges, Stetson has previously developed specific service life estimates for use in valuation projects in southern California. Table

7.4 provides initial service life estimates, developed by Stetson, for the purpose of determining the need to replace the different types of facilities operated by the City.

Table 7.4 Initial Estimated Service Life for Water System Facilities Facility Type Initial Estimated
Service Life (Years)
CPUC Iowa / Survivor
Curve (To Determine
Remaining Life)
Well Casing 40 S1 (40)
Well Pumps 25 S1 (25)
Booster Pumps 25 S1 (25)
Reservoirs - Concrete 50 L1 (50)
The initial service life estimates provided in Table 7.4 are only applied to new equipment. Service life estimates can change once the equipment is actually in operation. The CPUC relies on various “Iowa Curves”, or Survivor Curves, to determine the remaining service life of equipment that has been in operation. The Iowa Curves are based on the age of the facility divided by the initial service life estimate, and applying that percentage to the corresponding survivor curve tables to obtain the percentage of probable life remaining. The percentage of probable life remaining is multiplied by the initial service life estimate to estimate the remaining service life. Iowa Curves are also used to determine the remaining service life of operating equipment that has already exceeded its original estimated service life. For example, a 50-year old well casing has exceeded its initial service life estimate of 40 years. However, if the well casing is currently still in relatively good operating condition, the Iowa Curve analysis will show that the well casing will have an estimated additional 128
9 years of service life remaining. The Iowa Curves have been applied to the City’s facilities to estimate the remaining service life of certain facilities for the purposes of making replacement recommendations.

7.4.1 Remaining Service Life – Well Casing
An important factor in determining the service life of a well casing is the ability of the casing to resist corrosion, which can cause holes to develop in the well casing and cause screen/perforation slot sizes to increase, allowing sand, fines and gravel pack to enter the well. Typically, the area of a well casing most vulnerable to corrosion lies between the static water level and pumping level, due to the alternating wet and dry conditions. Greater than average corrosion occurs in this area for steel casing, which the City’s wells are constructed of. Doubling the wall thickness may extend the life of a well casing four or more times. High-strength low-alloy steel (HSLA) can provide greater corrosion resistance than steel or copper bearing casing. Stainless steel can provide even greater corrosion resistance than copper bearing and HSLA steels (including resistance to hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide and saline water), however at an increased capital cost.

Although a standard method has not been developed to determine the life of a well based on water quality constituents, it is generally accepted that the presence of bicarbonate retards corrosion and chloride accelerates corrosion. Groundwater containing calcium carbonate (alkaline waters), which is present in the City’s wells, tends to encrust, rather than corrode, which promotes well casing longevity. Because encrustation tends to reduce production capacity, it must be removed periodically to restore the production capacity of the well.

Well casings should be inspected with video equipment (i.e., video logging or surveying) whenever the pump is pulled to visually inspect the need for remedial work. Several maintenance and rehabilitation techniques can maintain or restore the well casing effectiveness including redevelopment (sand pumping, swabbing, air lift pumping, and surging and backwashing), chemical redevelopment (acid treatment and dispersing agents), mechanical redevelopment (wire brushing and high-pressure water jetting), screen cleaning (vibratory explosives), structural repairs (liners, complete relining, and screen replacement), and well deepening. The appropriate technique can be determined from the video survey. It should be noted that video logs of the City’s wells are not available.

As discussed previously, the service life for a well casing is estimated to be 40 years. The remaining service life projections for well casings were estimated using the S1 (40) Iowa Curve.

Table 7.5 provides a summary of the remaining service life estimates for the City’s wells.

According to Table 7.5, based on the current life expectancy projections, five well casings (Caballero Well, Freeway Well, Holder Well, Knott Well, and Smith-Murphy Well) have an estimated remaining service life of five to ten years. Rehabilitation of these well casings could maintain their production capacity. Replacement of the remaining casings should be considered in the future if rehabilitation is not practical. Replacement would consist of drilling a new well. All other well casings have an estimated remaining service life of more than 18 years. 129
Table 7.5 Remaining Service Life – Well Casings (Years)

7.4.2 Remaining Service Life – Well Pumps and Booster Pumps A major cause of deterioration in pump performance is damage resulting from cavitation, pumping of air or sand, encrustation, corrosion, rust, normal wear or any combination of these conditions.

Cavitation occurs when gas bubbles in the water collapse under high pressure, which can cause severe vibration of pump components. Air intrusion reduces pump capacity and efficiency due to the volume the air occupies. Sand pumping wears down the impeller, bearings, and pump bowl, making them less efficient. Encrustation can plug the impellers, bowls, and even the pump head.

Corrosion of the impellers, bowls, or column pipe may increase the wear and failure of pump components. Rust on pump components can increase friction losses and decrease operating efficiency.

Refurbishment and replacement are considered maintenance options to increase the service life and efficiency of well or booster pumps (the efficiencies of the City’s well and booster pumps are discussed in Section 7.5). Replacement consists of replacing the existing pump and/or motor.

Refurbishment activities include motor repairs, rebuilding of the motor, head shaft installation, trimming the pump impellers, and re-setting of bowl depth (to prevent pumping of air or sand).

Table 7.6 provides the original installation year for the City’s well pumps. As discussed previously, the service life for well pumps is estimated to be 25 years. The remaining service life projections for well pumps were estimated using the S1 (25) Iowa Curve and the latest refurbishment and/or replacement dates. According to Table 7.6, four well pumps (Caballero Well, Freeway Well, Initial
Service
Life
Estimate2
CPUC
Survivor
Curve2,3
Age
(Percent of
Average
Life)4
Probable
Life
(Percent of
Average
Life)5
Ball 1995 29 40 S1 (40) 73% 117% 47 18
Boisseranc 1995 29 40 S1 (40) 73% 117% 47 18
Caballero 1964 60 40 S1 (40) 150% 164% 66 6
Freeway 1964 60 40 S1 (40) 150% 164% 66 6
Holder 1964 60 40 S1 (40) 150% 164% 66 6
Knott 1964 60 40 S1 (40) 150% 164% 66 6
Linden 2005 19 40 S1 (40) 48% 107% 43 24
Smith-Murphy 1978 46 40 S1 (40) 115% 141% 56 10
Notes
CPUC Data
1 Current age of facility as of the year 2023
2 California Public Utilities Commission's "Standard Practice for Determination of Straight-Line Remaining Life Depreciation Accruals", January 1961 3 Stetson Engineers Inc.
4 Current Age divided by Initial Service Life Estimate
5 Iow a State College Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 125, Table 21 (Percent Surviving and Probable Lives for the 18 Type Curves) 6 Initial Service Life Estimates multiplied by the Probable Life (%) 7 Probable Life less Current Age
Description Year
Installed
Current
Age
(2024)1
Probable
Life6
Remaining
Life7
130
Holder Well, and Knott Well) have previously exceeded remaining service life estimates. It is recommended the City perform further evaluation to determine if replacement or refurbishment of these four well pumps is necessary in the near future in order to increase the remaining service life. The Ball Well pump has an estimated remaining service life of five to ten years. The remaining well pumps for the Boisseranc Well (replaced in 2022), the Linden Well (replaced in 2019), and the Smith-Murphy Well (replaced in 2019) each have a remaining service life estimate of more than 10 years. It is recommended the City periodically replace and refurbish well pumps to maintain adequate service life and efficiency.

Table 7.6 Remaining Service Life – Well Pumps (Years)
It should be noted the City performs periodic refurbishment (or rehabilitation) of its well pumps to proactively preserve the service life and pump efficiency. Rehabilitation activities include replacing the pump, column, and drive shaft, and brushing and cleaning the well screens. As noted above, the City recently replaced the well pumps for the Boisseranc, Linden, and Smith-Murphy Wells. In addition, the City is currently refurbishing the Holder Well (installed in 1964). It is recommended the City continue to perform periodic refurbishment, including at the Caballero, Freeway, and Knott Wells in the near future that were installed in 1964.

Table 7.7 provides the original installation year for the City’s booster pumps. As discussed previously, the service life for booster pumps is estimated to be 25 years. The remaining service life projections for booster pumps were estimated using the S1 (25) Iowa Curve and the latest replacement dates. Because the City recently replaced all of its booster pumps in 2019 at the Rosecrans Booster Station, all booster pumps have a remaining service life estimate of at least 20 years. It is recommended the City continue to periodically replace and refurbish booster pumps to maintain adequate service life and efficiency.

Initial
Service
Life
Estimate2
CPUC
Survivor
Curve2,3
Age
(Percent of
Average
Life)4
Probable
Life (Percent
of Average
Life)5
Ball 1995 29 25 S1 (25) 116% 142% 35 6
Boisseranc 2022 2 25 S1 (25) 8% 100% 25 23
Caballero 1964 60 25 S1 (25) 240% 200% 50 0
Freeway 1964 60 25 S1 (25) 240% 200% 50 0
Holder* 1964 60 25 S1 (25) 240% 200% 50 0
Knott 1964 60 25 S1 (25) 240% 200% 50 0
Linden 2019 5 25 S1 (25) 20% 101% 25 20
Smith-Murphy 2019 5 25 S1 (25) 20% 101% 25 20
Notes
*The Holder Well is currently being rehabilitated w ith a new pump 7 Probable Life less Current Age
1 Current age of facility as of the year 2023
2 California Public Utilities Commission's "Standard Practice for Determination of Straight-Line Remaining Life Depreciation Accruals", January 1961 3 Stetson Engineers Inc.
4 Current Age divided by Initial Service Life Estimate
5 Iow a State College Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 125, Table 21 (Percent Surviving and Probable Lives for the 18 Type Curves) Probable
Life6
Remaining
Life
Description 7
Year
Pump/
Motor
Installed/
Replaced
Current
Age
(2024)1
6 Initial Service Life Estimates multiplied by the Probable Life (%) CPUC Data
131
Table 7.7 Remaining Service Life – Booster Pumps (Years)

7.4.3 Remaining Service Life – Reservoirs
The City owns one concrete reservoir (Rosecrans reservoir) which should periodically be inspected for damage and cracking. Exterior inspections are typically limited to external areas above ground, however, the City’s reservoir is buried underground. Generally, the exterior face of a reservoir, in addition to weathering, is under tension and is more likely to crack. Conversely, the interior face of a reservoir is under compression and is less likely to crack. Reservoir areas covered in dirt may exhibit different cracking tendencies, although cracks cannot be determined unless earthwork is performed or if there is a presence of water leakage. Reservoir cracks can be repaired or resealed to prevent further spreading of cracks and possible water leakage.

As discussed previously, the service life for a concrete reservoir is estimated to be 50 years. The remaining service life projections for the City’s concrete reservoir was estimated using the L1 (50) Iowa Curve. As shown in Table 7.8, the City’s concrete Rosecrans reservoir has a remaining service life projection of at least 19 years.

Initial
Service
Life
Estimate2
CPUC
Survivor
Curve2,3
Age
(Percent of
Average
Life)4
Probable
Life (Percent
of Average
Life)5
Rosecrans Booster Station
Booster 1 2019 5 25 S1 (25) 20% 101% 25 20
Booster 2 2019 5 25 S1 (25) 20% 101% 25 20
Booster 3 2019 5 25 S1 (25) 20% 101% 25 20
Booster 4 2019 5 25 S1 (25) 20% 101% 25 20
Booster 5 2019 5 25 S1 (25) 20% 101% 25 20
Notes
1 Current age of facility as of the year 2023
CPUC Data
Probable
Life6
Remaining
Life
Description 7
Year
Pump/
Motor
Installed
Current
Age
(2024)1
2 California Public Utilities Commission's "Standard Practice for Determination of Straight-Line Remaining Life Depreciation Accruals", January 1961 3 Stetson Engineers Inc.
4 Current Age divided by Initial Service Life Estimate
5 Iow a State College Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 125, Table 21 (Percent Surviving and Probable Lives for the 18 Type Curves) 6 Initial Service Life Estimates multiplied by the Probable Life (%) 7 Probable Life less Current Age
132
Table 7.8 Remaining Service Life – Concrete Reservoir (Years)

7.4.4 Summary of Remaining Service Life Analysis
The listing below provides a summary of the results of the remaining service life analysis. Based on the current life expectancy projections, the casings for several wells have an estimated remaining service life of five to ten years. Replacement of the casings of these wells should be considered in the future if rehabilitation is not practical. Many well pumps have previously exceeded remaining service life estimates and it is recommended the City perform further evaluation to determine if replacement or refurbishment of these well pumps is necessary in the near future in order to increase the remaining service life. • The well pumps for the Caballero Well, Freeway Well, Holder Well, and Knott Well (all installed in 1964) have previously exceeded remaining service life estimates. It is recommended the City perform further evaluation to determine if replacement or refurbishment of these well pumps is necessary in the near future in order to increase the remaining service life. Replacement consists of replacing the existing pump and/or motor.

Refurbishment activities include motor repairs, rebuilding of the motor, head shaft installation, trimming the pump impellers, and re-setting of bowl depth (to prevent pumping of air or sand). The City is currently refurbishing the Holder Well. It is recommended the City continue to perform periodic refurbishment of its well pumps, including at the Caballero, Freeway, and Knott Wells in the near future. • The well casings for the Caballero Well, Freeway Well, Holder Well, Knott Well, and Smith-Murphy Well have an estimated remaining service life of five to ten years. It is recommended the City perform further evaluation to determine if replacement or rehabilitation of these well casings is necessary in the future in order to increase the remaining service life. Replacement would consist of drilling a new well. Several maintenance and rehabilitation techniques can maintain or restore the well casing effectiveness including redevelopment (sand pumping, swabbing, air lift pumping, and surging and backwashing), chemical redevelopment (acid treatment and dispersing agents), mechanical redevelopment (wire brushing and high-pressure water jetting), screen cleaning Initial
Service
Life
Estimate2
CPUC
Survivor
Curve2,3
Age
(Percent of
Average
Life)4
Probable
Life (Percent
of Average
Life)5
Rosecrans Concrete 1964 60 50 L1(50) 120% 157% 79 19
Notes
2 California Public Utilities Commission's "Standard Practice for Determination of Straight-Line Remaining Life Depreciation Accruals", January 1961 3 Stetson Engineers Inc.
4 Current Age divided by Initial Service Life Estimate
5 Iow a State College Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 125, Table 21 (Percent Surviving and Probable Lives for the 18 Type Curves) 6 Initial Service Life Estimates multiplied by the Probable Life (%) 7 Probable Life less Current Age
CPUC Data
Probable
Life6
Remaining
Life
Description Material 7
Year
Installed
Current
Age
(2024)1
1 Current age of facility as of the year 2023
133
(vibratory explosives), structural repairs (liners, complete relining, and screen replacement), and well deepening.
• The Ball Well pump has an estimated remaining service life of five to ten years. • The Rosecrans Booster Station was recently upgraded in 2019 and the booster bumps have a remaining service life of at least 20 years.
• The concrete Rosecrans reservoir has a remaining service life of at least 19 years.

As indicated previously, the remaining service life analysis is used as a basis in recommending water system improvements (discussed in Section 7.9) and the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, which is provided in Chapter 10. However, because the analysis is based on average ranges of service life for similar equipment, the City should review the presented recommendations in conjunction with the current conditions of the City’s physical facilities to determine if replacement or refurbishment is necessary.

7.5 Energy Efficiency Analysis
Groundwater well and booster pumps operate at a range of efficiencies depending on normal operating conditions (head and flow), design point of the pump, the pump’s energy curve, and rate of impeller wear. For those pumps that are operating at a low efficiency, replacement of the pump may reduce energy costs such that the energy savings offset the cost of replacing the pump. The Southern California Edison (SCE) energy efficiency tests were used for this evaluation.

SCE energy efficiency test data is available in recent years for all eight well pumps and all five booster pumps (located at the Rosecrans Booster Pump Station). The pump efficiencies from the SCE tests of the City’s groundwater well and booster pumps are discussed below. The existing annual energy costs as well as the estimated annual energy cost savings with potential improvements are also provided.

Well Pumps
As shown in Table 7.9, well pump efficiencies range between 58.9% to 72.8%. Pump efficiencies are a measure of how much water horsepower is produced by the pumping plant from the input horsepower (Pump Testing and Hydraulic Services Manual”, SCE 2006). SCE typically identify well pumps as either “efficient” or “inefficient”. In addition, SCE analyzes the potential for annual energy savings by improving well pump efficiency for inefficient wells.

Table 7.9 shows that the pumps for the Ball Well and Knott Well had pump efficiencies of 65.1% and 58.9%, respectively, and SCE has identified these well pumps as inefficient. Although the pump efficiency for the Boisseranc Well is 61.1%, SCE does not indicate if the well is operating inefficiently because SCE was not able to conduct the energy efficiency test under industry standards at the test location. However, SCE provided the estimated potential annual energy cost 134
savings based on pump replacements (i.e. improving the pump efficiency) for the three wells, including the Boisseranc Well. Note that the Boisseranc Well was rehabilitated in 2022.

Based on the potential annual cost saving of increasing the pump efficiency identified by SCE, a cost evaluation was performed to determine if replacement of the well pumps for the Ball Well and/or the Knott Well is the most economical way to increase efficiency. Replacement of a pump is assumed to provide 25 years of service life. Refurbishment can also be considered and should generally be applied only to relatively newer pumps. The present worth of the potential annual power cost savings, using a 5% rate of return over the estimated life of the pump, is compared to the typical cost for pump replacement. If the present worth of the potential annual power cost savings is greater than the cost for replacement, it has been assumed that replacement of a well pump is economical. The cost evaluation found that although both the Ball Well and Knott Well pumps have been identified as inefficient, replacement or refurbishment of these pumps currently does not appear to be economical.

As noted in Section 7.4.2, the City performs periodic refurbishment (or rehabilitation) of its well pumps to proactively preserve the service life and pump efficiency. The City is currently refurbishing the Holder Well (installed in 1964). It is recommended the City continue to perform periodic refurbishment, including at the Caballero, Freeway, and Knott Wells in the near future that were installed in 1964.

Table 7.9 Well Pump Efficiencies and Potential Energy Savings Well
SCE
Pump
Test
Date
Existing
Annual
Energy
Use
(kWh)1
Average
Cost
per
kWh1
Existing
Annual
Energy
Cost1
Pump
Efficiency
(Existing)1
Pump
Efficiency
(Proposed)1
Proposed
Annual
Energy
Savings1
Ball 2/7/2024 93,891 $0.88 $82,469 65.1% 69.0% $4,702
Boisseranc 1/17/2024 1,591,926 $0.19 $304,010 61.1% 67.0% $26,882 Caballero 2/8/2024 678,358 $0.20 $135,977 68.9% - -
Freeway 2/8/2024 541,599 $0.19 $103,099 67.4% - -
Holder 2/7/2024 879,806 $0.17 $150,464 72.8% - -
Knott 2/8/2024 357,924 $0.24 $86,374 58.9% 70.0% $13,666 Linden 1/17/2024 2,227,621 $0.17 $367,580 68.0% - -
Smith-Murphy 2/22/2024 16,968 $0.74 $12,574 62.4% 69.0% $1,198 Note:
1 From SCE pump test results
135
Booster Pumps
As shown in Table 7.10, booster pump efficiencies range between 51.0% to 63.9%. The booster pumps for Rosecrans Booster Pumps 2, 3, 4, and 5 had pump efficiencies of 61,9%, 51.0%, 57.5%, and 55.5%, respectively. Although these pump efficiencies are relatively lower, SCE indicated these booster pump efficiencies should be considered approximate due to water measurement inadequacies during the testing. However, SCE estimated the potential annual energy cost savings based on booster pump replacements (i.e. improving the pump efficiency) for the four booster pumps, including Booster Pumps 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Based on the potential annual cost saving of increasing the pump efficiency identified by SCE, a cost evaluation was performed to determine if replacement of Rosecrans Booster Pumps 2, 3, 4, and/or 5 is the most economical way to increase efficiency. Replacement of a pump is assumed to provide 25 years of service life. Refurbishment can also be considered and should generally be applied only to relatively newer pumps. The present worth of the potential annual power cost savings, using a 5% rate of return over the estimated life of the pump, is compared to the typical cost for pump replacement. If the present worth of the potential annual power cost savings is greater than the cost for replacement, it has been assumed that replacement of a well pump is economical. The cost analysis found that replacement of the booster pumps is currently not economical.

Table 7.10 Booster Pump Efficiencies and Potential Energy Savings Booster Pump
SCE
Pump
Test
Date
Existing
Annual
Energy
Use
(kWh)1
Average
Cost
per
kWh1
Existing
Annual
Energy
Cost1
Pump
Efficiency
(Existing)1
Pump
Efficiency
(Proposed)1
Proposed
Annual
Energy
Savings1
Rosecrans BPS
Booster 1 5/24/2022 30,586 $0.19 $5,892 63.9% - -
Booster 2 5/24/2022 75,083 $0.19 $14,465 61.9% 67.0% $1,108 Booster 3 5/24/2022 50,232 $0.19 $9,677 51.0% 67.0% $2,318 Booster 4 5/24/2022 83,609 $0.19 $16,107 57.5% 69.0% $2,678 Booster 5 5/24/2022 34,030 $0.19 $6,556 55.5% 69.0% $1,282 Note:
1 From SCE pump test results
136

7.6 Reservoir Condition Assessment Based on Reservoir Inspection Reports The City’s distribution system facilities include one storage reservoir, the Rosecrans Reservoir, which is a concrete reservoir that is completely buried. The Rosecrans Reservoir should periodically be inspected for damage and cracking. Generally, the exterior face of a reservoir, in addition to weathering, is under tension and is more likely to crack. Conversely, the interior face of a reservoir is under compression and is less likely to crack. Reservoir areas covered in dirt may exhibit different cracking tendencies, although cracks cannot be determined unless earthwork is performed or if there is a presence of water leakage. Reservoir cracks can be repaired or resealed to prevent further spreading of cracks and possible water leakage. Wooden roofing material (if applicable) should be periodically inspected for any physical damage, cracks, rotting, and termites.

Dive/Corr Inc. (Dive/Corr) periodically prepares inspection reports for the Rosecrans Reservoir.

Table 7.11 summarizes the findings from the most recent reservoir inspections for the City. In addition, a summary of Dive/Corr’s recommendations are provided below based on the inspection.

Rosecrans Reservoir
Dive/Corr performed an inspection of the Rosecrans Reservoir during August 2022. Dive/Corr indicated that there were no notable changes observed since the previous inspection conducted in July 2014. Dive/Corr installed new sacrificial anodes to replace previously depleted anodes.

Dive/Corr also recommended the City monitor the under-drain (if present) bi-annually and after any notable seismic event.

Pursuant to Dive/Corr’s recommendations, the City should perform re-inspections of the Rosecrans Reservoir every three (3) years to determine any significant changes to reservoir conditions.

Comprehensive Reservoir Analysis Report
The City may consider preparing a comprehensive reservoir analysis report. The report would include structural and seismic evaluations based on applicable standards and guidelines (including from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the American Concrete Institute (ACI)). The report would provide various safety and structural retrofit recommendations to comply with current AWWA guidelines. 137
Table 7.11 Summary of Reservoir Inspection Report
Rosecrans Reservoir
Inspection Date August 2022
Material Concrete
Exterior Walls Not accessible
Exterior Roof Not accessible
Interior Walls Horizontal cracking to some degree, and lined with white deposits.

No rust, staining, or spalling observed. No signs of leakage Interior Roof Very few tight cracks lined in white are present (but with no rust staining, spalling, or exposed rebar)
Floor Previous repairs are visible but stable. No signs of leakage or seepage.

Columns No signs of rust staining, cracking, spalling, or exposed rebar 138

7.7 Existing Distribution System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis This section presents the results of the hydraulic modeling analysis performed under existing demand conditions using the evaluation criteria described in Chapter 6. The analysis was performed using the developed InfoWater Pro hydraulic model (from Autodesk/Innovyze) of the distribution system (refer to Appendix E for documentation on the model development and calibration). The City’s hydraulic model was prepared based on the water distribution system information from the City’s existing GIS database received in January 2024. It is recommended the City review and update its GIS database prior to future hydraulic modeling and Water Master Plan preparation for improved accuracy. The following subsections present the findings and improvement recommendations from the modeling analysis of system pressures, pipeline velocities/head loss, and fire flows.

7.7.1 System Pressures
System pressures were evaluated for the distribution system under existing demand conditions based on the performance evaluation criteria listed in Table 6.1. The hydraulic model was used for ADD conditions to identify areas with pressures above 120 pounds per square inch (psi) in the system, while PHD and MDD conditions were used to identify areas with pressures below 40 psi in the system, respectively.

The pressure results for the ADD, MDD, and PHD conditions are shown in Figures 7.1, 7.2, and

7.3, respectively. Figure 7.1 shows that the ADD pressures are generally in the range of 60 to 80 psi, and there are no locations with pressures higher than 120 psi (the maximum pressure criterion).

Figure 7.2 shows that there are a few locations in the northern end of the system having MDD pressures lower than 40 psi (the minimum pressure criterion). These locations are along the 36- inch diameter transmission line and are not seen as a major deficiency. The PHD pressures shown in Figure 7.3 are similar to the MDD pressures shown in Figure 7.2.

The hydraulic modeling results indicated that the existing system does not have pressure deficiencies.

7.7.2 Pipeline Velocities and Head Loss
Hydraulic modeling was performed under existing PHD conditions, representing the peak hour of a maximum day. This demand condition is intended to be representative of the water system hydraulics on a typical summer day or high demand day, when the system is stressed and system pressures are the lowest due to high friction losses. The maximum velocity criterion used for this analysis is 6 feet per second (fps), and the maximum head loss criterion used is 5 ft per 1,000 ft for small pipes (< 16”) and 3 ft per 1,000 ft for large pipes (≥ 16”).

The pipe velocity and head loss results under PHD conditions are shown in Figures 7.4 and 7.5, respectively. Figure 7.4 shows that there are 2 pipe segments near the north end of the system having velocities greater than 6 fps (the maximum velocity criterion). Figure 7.5 indicates that 139
there are a few locations with head loss deficiencies. To address the velocity and head loss deficiencies of the pipelines, iterative hydraulic modeling was conducted to identify appropriate replacement pipe sizes.

Los Angeles County
Orange County
The City to perform fire flow tests to
verify these high static pressures.

The City to perform fire
flow tests to verify these
high static pressures.

Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: ModelResults_ADD

HYDRAULIC MODEL PRESSURE RESULTS

ADD CONDITIONS

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
ADD Conditions
<60 psi
60 to 80 psi
80 to 120 psi
>120 psi
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü

EXISTING SYSTEM
Figure 7.1
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: ModelResults_MDD

HYDRAULIC MODEL PRESSURE RESULTS

MDD CONDITIONS

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
MDD Conditions
<40 psi
≥40 psi
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 7.2

EXISTING SYSTEM
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: ModelResults_PHD

HYDRAULIC MODEL PRESSURE RESULTS

PHD CONDITIONS

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
PHD Conditions
<40 psi
≥ 40 psi
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 7.3

EXISTING SYSTEM
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: ModelResults_PHD_Velocity

HYDRAULIC MODEL PIPELINE VELOCITY RESULTS

PHD CONDITIONS

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Velocity
<6 ft/sec
≥6 ft/sec
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 7.4

EXISTING SYSTEM
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: ModelResults_PHD_Headloss

HYDRAULIC MODEL PIPELINE HEAD LOSS RESULTS

PHD CONDITIONS

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Pipe Diameter < 16"
Head loss < 5ft per 1000ft
Head loss ≥ 5ft per 1000ft
Pipe Diameter ≥ 16"
Head loss < 3ft per 1000ft
Head loss ≥ 3ft per 1000ft
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 7.5

EXISTING SYSTEM
145

7.7.3 Fire Flows
A fire flow analysis was conducted with the hydraulic model using the evaluation criteria listed in Table 6.1. Based on the criteria, the existing fire-flow system was evaluated to verify that a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi was met under MDD conditions while maintaining the minimum required fire flows at fire hydrants based on the adjacent land-use category. For this analysis, a fire flow requirement of 1,000 gpm was used for single-family residential areas, 2,500 gpm for multi-family residential areas, and 3,500 gpm was used for commercial and institutional areas, and 5,000 gpm for industrial areas and hospitals. A detailed fire flow requirement breakdown by land use code is provided in Chapter 6, while the spatial distribution is depicted in Figures 7.6 for the system. The areas with deficiencies in fire flow availability at the minimum pressure criterion of 20 psi are shown in Figure 7.7.

As shown in Figures 7.7, the hydraulic modeling indicated there are fire flow capacity constraints in various locations under MDD plus fire flow conditions. The fire flow analysis assumed the same operating facilities as the MDD condition for normal pressure simulations, in which not all wells and booster pumps (and emergency interconnections) were assumed operating. This means that the fire flow results may not represent the best fire flow capability of the system. In an actual fire event, the City would turn on the most appropriate facilities based on the specific location of the fire event.

It should be noted that at the time when the existing facilities were constructed, less stringent fireflow criteria for buildings may have been in place. Hence, this analysis may identify insufficient pipeline conveyance capacity at certain locations based on the applied criteria rather than the construction permit criteria. In addition, the fire flow criteria may be reduced in certain locations that have indoor fire sprinkler systems to meet the automatic sprinkler system demand per California Fire Code B105.3 (CFC, 2022).

7.7.4 Hydraulic Deficiency Improvements
Iterative hydraulic modeling was conducted to identify the required pipe improvement solutions to resolve the identified relatively significant hydraulic deficiencies, including pipeline velocity and head loss deficiencies and fire flow deficiencies. When identifying the replacement pipes, only relatively old pipelines were selected for replacement. Figure 7.8 shows the identified pipes that would need to be replaced with larger pipe sizes to resolve the hydraulic deficiencies. Most of the pipeline velocity and head loss deficiencies are addressed with enlarged pipe sizes. The fire flow deficiencies at critical locations that have an areal problem (not isolated locations) are also addressed with enlarged pipe sizes. The identified pipes for hydraulic deficiency improvement have a total length of 4,579 ft (or 0.87 miles). It should be noted that the enlarged pipe sizes for addressing the velocity or head loss deficiency would also provide improvement to the fire flows.

Although the hydraulic modeling indicated that the existing system does not have pressure deficiencies based on the pressure criteria shown in Table 6.1, the City would like to install individual VFDs at the Linden Well, Caballero Well, Holder Well, Freeway Well, and Knott Well.

The City prefers to install VFDs in order to lower water system distribution pressures from above 70 psi (currently) to about 62 psi, pursuant to DDW recommendations.

Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: ModelResults_ReqFireFlow

REQUIRED FIRE FLOW

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Required Fire Flow
Single Family Residential = 1,000 gpm
Multi-Family Residential = 2,500 gpm
Commercial/Institutional = 3,500 gpm
Industrial/Hospital = 5,000 gpm
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 7.6
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: ModelResults_FireFlow

HYDRAULIC MODEL AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW RESULTS
MDD CONDITIONS WITH RESIDUAL PRESSURE AT 20 PSI

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Percent of Req. Fire Flow
0 to 25%
25 to 50%
50 to 75%
75 to 100%
>100%
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 7.7

EXISTING SYSTEM
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: Hyd_Def_Impr

IDENTIFIED PIPES FOR HYDRAULIC DEFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Deficiency Improvement
Fire Flow
Head Loss
Velocity
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 7.8
149

7.8 Pipeline Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
Aging drinking water mains are facing an increasing number of failures leading to service interruptions, higher operating costs, and non-revenue water loss. Some failures cause much bigger financial or socioeconomic impacts than others. With fiscally tight budgets, water utilities face an uphill battle discerning which pipes in their system need to be replaced and when.

This section first analyzes the historical leak records, and then provides a risk-based analysis to identify the most at-risk water mains and develop a prioritized pipeline rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) program.

7.8.1 Analysis of Historical Leak Records
The foundation of any proactive rehabilitation and replacement program is maintaining accurate and sufficient information and data pertaining to the condition of the existing distribution system.

As described earlier, the City’s existing water distribution system contains approximately 220.66 miles of pipeline in diameters ranging from 2 to 36 inches with the oldest pipelines installed the 1940s. Approximately 78 percent of the water distribution system consists of pipelines between 6 and 8 inches in diameter. The majority of the pipelines are made of asbestos cement pipe (ACP), which equates to 191.01 miles or 87 percent of the total miles of pipeline. In terms of pipe age, the majority of the pipelines were installed from 1950 to 1970 (54 to 74 years ago), which equates to 183.42 miles or 83 percent of the total miles of pipeline.

Figure 7.9 shows the number of historical annual leaks over the past 7 years (from 2017 to 2023).

There was a total of 57 leaks. Figure 7.10 shows the locations of historical leaks.

The total number of 57 leaks in 7 years equates to an average annual break rate of about 4 breaks per 100 miles (57 ÷ 220.66 ÷ 7 × 100) per year. This annual break rate is well below the average annual rate of 11 to 14 breaks per 100 miles in the United States (Source: Utah State University Buried Structures Laboratory, 2018: Water Main Break Rates in the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study). The AC pipes account for 87 percent of the total miles of pipeline in the City system and a majority of the City’s pipelines were installed from 1950 to 1970 (54 to 74 years ago). The low historical break rate may be related to the soil condition that is not corrosive to AC pipes17. However, with pipeline aging in the future, water main breaks may become more frequent.

It is recommended that the City take proactive pipeline replacement actions to avoid/minimize incidental water main breaks, including implementation of the prioritized water main replacement and rehabilitation program discussed in Section 7.8.2 below. 17 Although asbestos cement pipes are relatively corrosion resistant, asbestos cement pipe soil corrosion refers to the degradation and deterioration of asbestos cement pipes when they are buried in soil that contains corrosive elements, such as high levels of acidity or sulfates, which can leach out the calcium from the cement matrix, weakening the pipe and leading to potential leaks or ruptures over time; this is a significant concern as asbestos cement pipes age, making them more susceptible to damage from aggressive soil conditions. 150
Figure 7.9 Historical Annual Number of Leaks (2017-2023) 10 7
5 8 8
12 7
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Number of Leaks
Calendar Year
Historical Annual Number of Leaks
City of Anaheim served
by City of Buena Park
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Fullerton
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Anaheim
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
City of La Mirada
served by City
of Buena Park
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
Los
Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: Leaks_2016_2023

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Leak Repaired
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Locations of Historical Leaks (2017-2023) Ü
Figure 7.10
152

7.8.2 Risk-Based Analysis to Identify the Most At-Risk Water Mains A risk-based analysis was performed to identify the most at-risk water mains and to develop a prioritized water main replacement and rehabilitation (R&R) program. A risk-based analysis uses a traditional framework for risk, determined by the product (i.e. multiplication) of an asset’s (e.g., pipe’s) “likelihood of failure” (LoF) score and the “consequence of failure” (CoF) score. The LoF and CoF for the City’s pipelines are discussed below. As shown in Figure 7.11, the combined risk (called “Business Risk Exposure” or BRE) score ranges from 1 to 25. These risk scores are classified into five risk categories (low, medium-low, medium, medium-high, and high). Figure

7.11 shows that risk of failure increases when either the LoF and/or CoF increases.

The risk-based analysis prepared for the City’s system incorporates both hydraulic model-derived pressure distribution results and other specific priorities to create a logical and systematic approach to addressing water main improvement planning for the water service area. Figure 7.12 shows the parameters the LoF and CoF scoring analysis are based upon. These factors were developed based on industry standards and available data.

As shown in Figure 7.12, the LoF is evaluated based on the pipe age and material, leak history18, pressure of each pipeline segment. The LoF for the City’s pipeline segments are ranked with a score ranging from 1 to 5.

The CoF is evaluated based on the financial, social, and/or environmental impact of pipeline failure that considers the pipeline size, slope, and proximity to key water sources, roadways, railroads, significant customers such as hospitals, and environmentally sensitive areas. Similar to the LoF, the CoF for the City’s pipeline segments are also ranked with a score ranging from 1 to 5.

Figure 7.11 Risk Matrix
18 The City has noted that a majority of historical pipeline breaks was due to tree root intrusions. Replacement of pipelines may not necessarily prevent the tree root intrusions problem from reoccurring.

Likelihood of Failure
(LoF)
(Score 1-5)
Consequence of Failure
(CoF)
(Score 1-5)
Pipe Age/
Material Leak History Pressure Pipe Size Pipe Slope Proximity to Key Water Source,
Arterial Street,
Critical Customer,
Railroad, and
Environmental
Sensitive Area
Figure 7.12 Likelihood and Consequence of Failure Parameters 154

7.8.2.1 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) Analysis
LoF was used as a measure of the likelihood of an event happening at a future point in time that would render a given asset failed (including the end of the asset’s design, physical, service, economic, or useful lifetime). The American Water Works Association’s (AWWA) WeightedCriteria Scoring method (published in the 2019 AWWA Manual – Condition Assessment of Water Mains) was used in the LoF analysis. As shown in Figure 7.12, the LoF is evaluated based on the pipe age and material, leak history, and pressure of each pipeline segment19. The final LoF for City’s pipeline segments are ranked with a score ranging from 1 to 5 (from lower to higher likelihood of failure).

Table 7.12 is a summary of typical lifespans and average lifetimes (i.e., service life) from literature for different pipe materials in the City’s water distribution system. Table 7.13 presents the criteria and percentage weightings for the LoF scoring used in this analysis. The weighting factors were initially based on AWWA criteria and then collaboratively determined with the City. Because the pipelines in the City’s water distribution system include 6 different types of materials (each with different average lifetimes), the criterion for pipe age was based on the percentage ratio of pipe age to the respective average lifetime.

Figure 7.13 shows the LoF analysis results for the system, and Table 7.14 shows the distribution of LoF ranking and pipeline lengths. The results in Table 7.14 indicate that a majority of the system (74.8 percent of the pipelines) have a medium likelihood of failure (LoF score of 3). Given the historical low break rate, this result would be reasonable.

Table 7.12 Typical Lifespan and Average Lifetime of Different Pipe Material Pipe Material Typical Lifespan
(years)
Average Lifetime
(years)
ACP Asbestos Cement Pipe 50 - 80 60
CIP Cast Iron Pipe 50 - 80 60
CML Cement Mortar Lined Steel 30 - 70 50
CMLC Cement Mortar Lined and
Coated Steel 30 - 70 50
DIP Ductile Iron Pipe 50 - 80 60
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride 30 - 50 40
19 Since the risk-based analysis is intended to analyze the relative risks of pipelines in a system and identify the most at-risk pipelines, only the parameters that may have different failure effects among pipelines were selected in the analysis. As discussed in Section 7.8.1, the low historical break rate in the City system may be related to the soil condition that is not corrosive to AC pipes. However, if the soil condition is uniform in the entire service area, it would not have a differential failure effect among pipelines and, thus, was not selected as a parameter in the analysis.
155
Table 7.13 Criteria and Weightings for LoF Scoring
LoF Scoring
Criteria Weight Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score 4 Score 5 % of Pipe Age to
Average Lifetime 40% ≤50% >50% and ≤70%
>70% and
≤85%
>85% and
≤100%
>100%
History of Leaks 40% 0 - - 1 >1
Average Day
Demand Pressure 20% ≤60 psi >60 psi and ≤70 psi
>70 psi and
≤80 psi
>80 psi and
≤90 psi >90 psi
Table 7.14 Pipeline Overall Likelihood of Failure (LoF) Distribution LoF Pipeline Length (mi) % of Total (by Length)
Score 5 High 0.02 0.0%
Score 4 Med-High 2.48 1.1%
Score 3 Medium 164.98 74.8%
Score 2 Med-Low 41.73 18.9%
Score 1 Low 11.44 5.2%
Total 220.66 100%
City of Anaheim served
by City of Buena Park
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Fullerton
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Anaheim
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
City of La Mirada
served by City
of Buena Park
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
Los
Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: LoF_Update2

PIPELINE LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE (LOF)

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Lof Rank
5 (High)
4 (Med High)
3 (Medium)
2 (Med Low)
1 (Low)
Leak Repaired (2016-2023)
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 7.13
157

7.8.2.2 Consequence of Failure (CoF) Analysis
CoF was used as a measure of the direct and indirect costs of a given asset failure. Direct costs are out of pocket expenses incurred by the asset owner such as water loss, repairs, and property damage. Indirect costs are harder to quantify, including costs associated with customer interruption, traffic delays, and public perception. These costs refer to economic, social, and environmental associated consequences. Industry best practices evaluate CoF in terms of the economic, social, and environmental impacts caused by a water main break (typically referred to as a “triple bottom line” analysis approach).

The AWWA’s Weighted-Criteria Scoring method was used in the CoF analysis. As shown in Figure 7.12, the CoF is evaluated based on the financial, social, and environmental impacts of pipeline failure that considers the pipeline size, slope, and proximity to key water sources, major roadways, railroads, significant customers such as hospitals, and environmental sensitive areas.

Appendix F shows the pipe slopes and pipes close to key water sources, critical buildings/customers such as hospitals, major roads, freeways, railroads, and environmentally sensitive areas/parks. The final CoF for the City’s pipeline segments are ranked with a score ranging from 1 to 5 (from lower to higher consequence of failure).

Table 7.15 provides the criteria and weightings for the CoF scoring used in this analysis. The weighting factors were initially based on AWWA criteria and then collaboratively determined with the City. Because the City will use a minimum size of 8 inches for water main replacement or for new water mains, the criterion for pipe diameter used only two scoring categories, one for the existing pipe sizes smaller than or equal to 8 inches that will be replaced with 8-inch pipes (score 4) and the other for replacement sizes larger than 8 inches (score 5). The addition of lower scoring categories (1, 2, 3) would result in a lower CoF score for the to-be replaced small pipelines, which is not appropriate because most of the existing pipe sizes that need to be replaced are smaller than or equal to 8 inches.

Figure 7.14 shows the CoF analysis results for the system, and Table 7.16 shows the distribution of CoF ranking and pipeline lengths. The results in Table 7.16 indicate that 3.0 percent of the pipelines have a high consequence of failure (CoF score of 5) and 6.0 percent of the pipelines have a medium-high consequence of failure (CoF score of 4). A majority of the system (75.6 percent of the pipelines) has a medium-low consequence of failure (LoF score of 2). 158
Table 7.15 Criteria and Weightings for CoF Scoring
CoF Scoring
Triple Bottom Line
Impact Criteria Weight Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score 4 Score 5 Financial: Pipe diameter 40% - - - ≤8” >8”
Financial: Pipe slope 10% ≤10% >10% and
≤20%
>20% and
≤30%
>30% and
≤40% >40%
Financial and Social:

Close to or crossing arterial
street?
50% No
- - -
Yes
Social: Key water source
pipe? - - -
Social: Serving a critical
customer? - - -
Social: Railroad or
freeway crossing? - - -
Environmental: Close to
or crossing environmental
sensitive area?
- - -
Table 7.16 Pipeline Overall Consequence of Failure (CoF) Distribution CoF Pipeline Length (mi) % of Total (by Length)
Score 5 High 6.63 3.0%
Score 4 Med-High 13.19 6.0%
Score 3 Medium 34.00 15.4%
Score 2 Med-Low 166.84 75.6%
Score 1 Low - -
Total 220.66 100%
City of Anaheim served
by City of Buena Park
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Fullerton
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Anaheim
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
City of La Mirada
served by City
of Buena Park
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
Los
Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: CoF_Update2

PIPELINE CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE (COF)

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
CoF Rank
5 (High)
4 (Med High)
3 (Medium)
2 (Med Low)
1 (Low)
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 7.14
160

7.8.2.3 Risk Analysis Results
The combined risk scores (i.e., Business Risk Exposure or BRE) are calculated as the product of CoF and LoF (ranging from 1 to 25). The calculated BRE scores were classified into five risk categories (low, medium-low, medium, medium-high, and high) as shown in the risk matrix in Figure 7.11.

Figure 7.15 shows the BRE analysis results for the system, and Table 7.17 shows the distribution of BRE ranking and pipeline lengths.

The analysis did not identify high risk pipelines. The identified medium-high and medium risk pipelines have a total length of about 0.08 miles and 17.92 miles, respectively. The ages of these identified medium-high and medium risk pipelines range from 46 to 75 years with an average age of 62 years, indicating the results are reasonable.

Table 7.17 Pipeline Overall Business Risk Exposure (BRE) Distribution BRE Pipeline Length (mi) % of Total (by Length)
High -- --
Med-High 0.08 0.0%
Medium 17.92 8.1%
Med-Low 198.64 90.0%
Low 4.02 1.8%
Total 220.66 100%
City of Anaheim served
by City of Buena Park
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Fullerton
City of Buena
Park served by
City of Anaheim
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
City of La Mirada
served by City
of Buena Park
City of Buena Park
served by Suburban
Water Systems
Los
Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: BRE_Update2

PIPELINE BUSINESS RISK EXPOSURE (BRE)

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
BRE Rank
4 (Med High)
3 (Medium)
2 (Med Low)
1 (Low)
Leak Repaired (2016-2023)
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 7.15
162

7.8.3 Recommendations for Water Main Replacement and Scheduling Figure 7.16 shows the pipeline BRE results based on the risk-based assessment and the identified pipelines for hydraulic deficiency improvement based on the hydraulic modeling analysis. The pipeline lengths of the identified medium-high risk, medium risk, and hydraulic deficiency improvements are about 0.08 miles, 17.92 miles, and 0.87 miles, respectively (with little overlapping), totaling 18.87 miles. The City can select these pipes for replacement at its discretion during or after the next 5 years.

The City has budgeted approximately $1.8 million per year for the water system Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the fiscal year 2024-25, or a total of about $9 million over the next 5-year period (2025 to 2029). As part of the annual budget, the City allocates approximately $0.5 million (of the $1.8 million) in order to fund a new groundwater well every 10 years. As noted previously, the City is planning to construct a new groundwater well at Peak Park. The estimated cost to construct the new Peak Park Well is $8 million, however, the City has received $5 million of grant funding from the California Department of Water Resources. It is anticipated the new Peak Park Well will be funded from the grant funding and the previously accumulated annual City water well funding. Considering the cost for other water facility projects (about $0.5 million per year), it was assumed for the purposes of this WSMP that an annual budget of about $0.8 million per year, or $4 million over the next 5 years (out of $9 million), will be allocated for the water main R&R program. It was estimated that an annual budget of $0.8 million can replace approximately 0.4 miles of pipelines, or about 2 miles over the next 5 years.

The 18.87 miles of the pipelines identified above would exceed the target length of about 2 miles for the City’s pipeline R&R program over the next 5 years. Based on a review of these pipelines and the experience of the City’s operations team, five pipeline replacement projects listed in Table

7.18a are selected over the next 5 years. Appendix G shows the details and locations for each of these pipeline replacement projects. Project #1 is intended to improve fire flow deficiencies, and Projects #2 and #3 are selected based on the risk-based analysis with consideration of pipeline replacement for the entire housing tract. These three pipeline projects have a total length of about 2 miles, representing an annual replacement rate of about 0.4 miles per year over the next 5 years.

Projects #4 and #5 are additionally proposed by the City’s operations team for pipeline replacement to improve operations and maintenance accessibility along Artesia Blvd between Knott Ave and Dale St. Table 7.18a also shows the numbers of fire hydrants, valves, and service laterals for replacement associated with these water main replacement projects.

In addition, the City’s operations team also proposed additional 5 smaller pipeline improvement projects which are listed in Table 7.18b. The details and locations for each of these pipeline projects are also shown in Appendix G.

A total of 10 water main replacement or improvement projects are recommended over the next 5 years. Figure 7.17 presents the locations of the proposed 5-year water main CIP projects. Figure

7.17 also shows the City streets under the 2024-2028 Paving Moratorium. All the 10 pipeline projects are not affected by the City’s 2024-2028 Paving Moratorium. Note that Projects #4, #5, and #6 shown in Figure 7.17 are located in close proximity to, but are not affected by the City’s 2024-2028 Paving Moratorium.
163
As discussed in Section 3.1.7, the majority of the City’s distribution system is made of asbestoscement pipe (ACP), which equates to 191.01 miles or 87 percent of the total miles of pipeline. In addition, as discussed in Section 7.8.1, the annual break rate (i.e. leaks) within the City’s distribution system is estimated at about 4 breaks per 100 miles. This annual break rate is well below the average annual rate of 11 to 14 breaks per 100 miles in the United States. Although a majority of the City’s pipelines were installed from 1950 to 1970 (54 to 74 years ago), the City’s experiences indicate that asbestos-cement pipeline has aged relatively well. The City’s asbestoscement pipelines also do not appear to be as susceptible to soil corrosion as other pipelines found in adjacent water systems (i.e. adjacent water systems have experienced higher pipeline break rates) that are made out of different materials. The City should consider these factors prior to replacing its asbestos-cement pipelines.
164
Table 7.18a Summary of Proposed Pipeline Replacement Projects over the Next 5 Years Pipeline
Project
Number
Project Location Project
Description
Project
Length (ft)
Project
Length
(mile)
Number
of
Hydrants
Number
of
Valves
Number
of
Service
Laterals
1 Oslo Cir Fire flow deficiency
improvements 522 0.10 2 5 4
2 Ball Rd. Bernadette
Ave, Belle Ave,
Bernice Cir, Beatrice
Cir Risk-based analysis
improvements
3,601 0.68 8 26 68
3 Mars Dr, Neptune Dr,
Venus, Polaris, Jupiter,
Planetary, Saturn,
Mercury
6,400 1.21 20 54 118
4 (Artesia Blvd Phase 1)
Knott to Beach
Improvements for
operations and
maintenance
accessibility
3,940 0.75 11 34 18
5 (Artesia Blvd Phase 2)
Beach to Dale 3,623 0.69 9 36 32
Total 18,086 3.43 50 155 240
Notes:
(1) Refer to Appendix G for details of each project.
(2) All the pipeline projects listed above are not affected by the City’s 2024-2028 Street Paving Moratorium.

Table 7.18b Proposed Additional Pipeline Improvement Projects over the Next 5 Years No. Project Location Description
6 Malvern Ave at Beach Blvd Pipeline relining and others 7 Atchison Wy to Beach Blvd New pipeline and PRV
8 Lincoln Ave Construct redundancy for nearby tract
9 Valley View St and Lincoln Ave Cut and abandon steel pipe 10 Valley View St and Thelma Ave New pipeline connection; Cut and abandon cast iron pipe
Notes:
(1) Refer to Appendix G for details of each project.
(2) Project #6 includes relining of a 12” diameter, 47 ft long pipeline, repair of a hydrant coupling, and relocation of a PRV.
(3) Project #7 includes constructions of a new 8” diameter, 70 ft long pipeline and a new pressure regulating station to close loop of Zone 3c-262 and Zone 3b-285.
(4) All the pipeline projects listed above are not affected by the City’s 2024-2028 Street Paving Moratorium.

Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: BRE2_FF_Hyd_Def_Impr

BRE PIPES AND

HYDRAULIC DEFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT PIPES

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
BRE Rank
4 (Med High)
3 (Medium)
2 (Low)
Hydraulic Deficiency Improvement
Fire Flow
Head Loss
Velocity
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
This fire flow
improvement may
not be needed after
the City's planned
construction of the
Magnolia Avenue
Emergency
Interconnection with
Fullerton.

Figure 7.16
Los Angeles County
Orange County
#6
#2
#8
#1
#3
#7
#4 #5
#9
#10
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: Update_CIP_Projects_2025-2029 PROPOSED WATER MAIN CIP PROJECTS IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS (2025-2029) AND CITY STREETS UNDER THE 2024-2028 PAVING MORATORIUM

CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
CIP Project Location and No.

Paving Moratorium
Water main
City border
Service area boundary
County boundary
Ü
Figure 7.17
(Note: Projects #4, #5, and #6

are located in close proximity to,
but are not affected by the City’s 2024-2028 Paving Moratorium.) 167

7.9 Summary of Improvements
The WSMP recommendations for existing conditions identified in this chapter are summarized in this section. Detailed cost estimates for each of these recommendations are included in the Capital Improvement Plan, which is provided in Chapter 10. Based on the existing system analysis, the following improvements are proposed:
• Water Supply Capacity Improvements
- Construct the new Peak Park Well in the Lower Zone with a capacity of 2,500 gpm to 3,000 gpm as planned by the City (the City plans to complete the Peak Park Well by 2026). The City also considered a potential future need to construct a reservoir and booster pumping station near the proposed well to store, pump and possibly treat water, if needed. If manganese were a concern in the proposed new well, the City would consider building a reservoir (approximately 2 MG) as part of the well project, specifically to hold and “sequester” well water until the manganese has dissipated. - Install a new well in the Upper Zone near the Rosecrans Reservoir with a capacity of 1,900 gpm. Design this new well connections in a way that it can provide a source of water supply for the reservoir, substituting the imported water supply from OC-25 to achieve the 100% local water supply goal, and it can also directly discharge to the Upper Zones to allow the Rosecrans Reservoir down for repairs.

It should be noted, the City performed a study in 2022 which suggested a new well in the Upper Zone may not be feasible because the Upper Zone overlies a geothermal zone with heated water. In addition, the City has indicated there are other limitations in the Upper Zone including a lack of space available for a new groundwater well, the presence of groundwater contamination to the east from the former Raytheon site in the City of Fullerton, the presence of a former dump site at the Los Coyotes Country Club Golf Course, and the presence of former oil wells located north of Rosecrans Avenue.

A new well in the Upper Zone would need to be located in the vicinity of the BNSF railroad tracks at the southern part of the Upper Zone. • Storage Improvements
- No improvements identified except a future reservoir near the Peak Park Well as mentioned above, if needed.
• Booster Pump Station Improvements
- No improvements identified except a future booster pump station near the Peak Park Well as mentioned above, if needed.
• Water Quality & Treatment Improvements
168
- Closely monitor manganese concentrations at the Ball Well and consider installing manganese treatment if necessary.
- Closely monitor manganese concentrations at the Caballero Well and consider installing manganese treatment if necessary.
- Complete initial monitoring of PFAS by 2027 at the Linden Well and implement a treatment solution by 2029 to reduce PFAS contamination if monitoring shows that concentrations exceed the MCL. The City plans to modify the Linden Well (through installation of a well casing liner and a VFD) to limit groundwater production to a lower level of the aquifer where PFAS contamination is not present. - Install a chlorine disinfection station at the Smith-Murphy Well site because it appears the mineralized water from the well is reducing chlorine levels in the City’s distribution system.
• Pressure Improvements
- Install a variable frequency drive (VFD) at the Linden Well, Caballero Well, Holder Well, Freeway Well, and Knott Well. The City prefers to install VFDs in order to lower water system distribution pressures from above 70 psi (currently) to about 62 psi, pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water recommendations.
• Pipeline Velocity and Head Loss Improvements
- No improvements recommended.
• Fire Flow Improvements
- Replace the pipeline with a larger pipe size for the pipeline project #1 (descriptions and locations are provided in Appendix G).
• Energy Efficiency Improvements
- Continue to perform periodic refurbishment (or rehabilitation) of well pumps to proactively preserve the service life and pump efficiency, including at the Caballero, Freeway, and Knott Wells in the near future.
• Remaining Service Life Improvements
- Wells casing: perform further evaluation to determine if replacement or rehabilitation of well casings (Caballero Well, Freeway Well, Holder Well, Knott Well, and SmithMurphy Well) is necessary in the near future in order to increase the remaining service life. Replacement would consist of drilling a new well. Several maintenance and rehabilitation techniques can maintain or restore the well casing effectiveness including 169
redevelopment (sand pumping, swabbing, air lift pumping, and surging and backwashing), chemical redevelopment (acid treatment and dispersing agents), mechanical redevelopment (wire brushing and high-pressure water jetting), screen cleaning (vibratory explosives), structural repairs (liners, complete relining, and screen replacement), and well deepening.
- Well pumps: perform further evaluation to determine if replacement or refurbishment of well pumps (Caballero Well, Freeway Well, and Knott Well that were installed in 1964) is necessary in the near future in order to increase the remaining service life.

Replacement consists of replacing the existing pump and/or motor. Refurbishment activities include motor repairs, rebuilding of the motor, head shaft installation, trimming the pump impellers, and re-setting of bowl depth (to prevent pumping of air or sand).
• Pipeline R&R Program
- Replace or improve the pipelines for the proposed 10 pipeline projects in the near-term (2025-2029) CIP phase.
- Continue to replace pipelines in the long-term (2030-2045) CIP phase at an annual rate of about 0.4 miles per year. The remaining medium-high/medium risk category pipelines and head loss and fire flow deficiency pipelines can be scheduled earlier. Fire flow tests will need to be performed to confirm fire flow deficiencies prior to scheduling.
• Other Improvements
- Install a permanent noise enclosure for the Boisseranc Well (instead of the existing temporary semi-enclosure made of corrugated metal panels and metal pipes), because this well is located in the middle of Boisseranc Park.
- Install a permanent noise enclosure for the Smith-Murphy Well (instead of the existing temporary semi-enclosure made of corrugated metal panels and PVC pipes), because this well is located in the middle of Smith-Murphy Park and near a school. - Install a second pressure regulating station from Zone 3b-285 to Zone 3c-262 to provide operational redundancy (Note: This recommendation is also included in the pipeline Project #7).
- Add a cellular system as backup for the SCADA operations, in addition to the existing radio system.
- Improve ventilation of well pump houses.
- Update City water distribution system GIS database.
170
CHAPTER 8 – FUTURE SYSTEM EVALUATION
The purpose of this Chapter is to evaluate the existing distribution system with the improvements recommended in Chapter 7 under various operating conditions using the evaluation criteria described in Chapter 6 and the future system water demands identified in Chapter 4. This Chapter is based on the assumption that all of the facility improvements recommended in Chapter 7 are implemented in the distribution system.

This Chapter provides a description of the water supply, storage, and pumping stations capacity needs under future demand conditions by the year 2045, followed by a summary of the findings of the future system hydraulic analysis. This Chapter also provides a summary of the recommended capital improvement projects to address the identified future deficiencies by the year 2045.

8.1 Future Water Supply Capacity Analysis
A future supply capacity analysis was conducted using the projected water demands presented in Chapter 4 (and based on potential new residential units developed within the City associated with RHNA). The future supply capacity analysis assumes that all of the supply and treatment improvements recommended in Chapter 7 are implemented in the distribution system.

As it is not realistic to assume that all supply sources are available at all times due to operational requirements, maintenance needs, temporary outages, water quality changes, and mechanical failures, the firm supply capacity in each pressure zone was used. As discussed in Section 7.1, The firm supply capacity is defined as the total treated supply capacity with the largest well or supply source out of service in a pressure zone. Under this assumption, the adequacy of the existing supply capacity of groundwater wells was evaluated in Chapter 7 using the recommended performance criteria in Chapter 6 which are summarized below:

In pressure zones with storage:
• Provide firm supply capacity equal to MDD; meet peak hour demand (PHD) and fire flow requirement during MDD from a combination of supply sources and storage.

In pressure zones without storage:
• Provide firm supply capacity equal to PHD or MDD plus fire flow, whichever is larger.

Both the Lower Zone and the Upper Zone have storage reservoirs and, therefore, only the first criterion above was applied in the supply capacity analysis.

Given the existing active wells and the recommended water supply capacity improvements in Chapter 7 (including a new 2,500 gpm to 3,000 gpm well at Peak Park to serve the Lower Zone and a new 1,900 gpm well near the Rosecrans Reservoir to serve the Upper Zones), a future (2030) water supply capacity analysis was conducted and is summarized in Table 8.1a, and a future (2045) water supply capacity analysis was conducted and is summarized in Table 8.1b. 171
The analysis result in Table 8.1a shows that there would be a firm supply capacity surplus under future (2030) MDD conditions in the Upper Zones, but a small deficit in the Lower Zone. The firm supply capacity surplus and deficit numbers under future (2030) MDD conditions are summarized below:

By 2030:
• Lower Zone: deficit: -216 gpm
• Upper Zones: surplus: 6 gpm
The analysis result in Table 8.1b shows that there would be a firm supply capacity surplus under future (2045) MDD conditions in the Upper Zones, but a deficit in the Lower Zone. The firm supply capacity surplus and deficit numbers under future (2045) MDD conditions are summarized below:

By 2045:
• Lower Zone: deficit: -2,289 gpm
• Upper Zones: surplus: 6 gpm
Based on the future system firm supply capacity analysis presented in Table 8.1a and Table 8.1b (and incorporating the recommended improvements discussed in Section 7.1 to resolve existing deficiencies), it is further recommended the City install a new well at an appropriate location in the Lower Zone with a capacity of 2,300 gpm to meet the future (2045) MDD.

Table 8.1a Water Supply Capacity Analysis – Future (2030) Demand Conditions Pressure
Zone Well Name
Existing
Available
Capacity
(gpm)
Existing
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)
Future (2030)
MDD
(gpm)
Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
Total Capacity
with Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
(gpm)
Future
Surplus (+)
or Deficit (-)
(gpm)
Lower Zone
Boisseranc 2,406 2,406
Linden 2,625 Largest Out
Caballero 1,688 1,688
Holder 1,237 1,237
Freeway 950 950
Knott 1,302 1,302
Ball* 1,250 1,250
Subtotal 11,458 8,833 12,049
Construct the Cityplanned Peak Park
Well at 3,000 gpm
11,833 -216
Upper Zones
Smith-Murphy 847 Largest Out
Subtotal 847 0 1,894
Install a new well near
Rosecrans Reservoir at
1,900 gpm
1,900 6
* The Ball Well was constructed in 1995 and had a design capacity of 3,000 gpm. This well currently is capable of producing approximately 2,681 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. However, the well pump is oversized and a variable frequency drive (VFD) is used/forced to ramp down pump speed and production to about 1,200 – 1,300 gpm in order to avoid overpressurizing the system in the immediate vicinity of the well. The 1,250 gpm in the table represents the actual operating capacity.

Notes on future (2030) MDD and PHD (see Table 4.9):
o Lower Zone: MDD: 12,049 gpm (17.4 MGD); PHD: 18,074 gpm (26.0 MGD) o Upper Zones: MDD: 1,894 gpm (2.7 MGD); PHD: 2,840 gpm (4.1 MGD) Table 8.1b Water Supply Capacity Analysis – Future (2045) Demand Conditions Pressure
Zone Well Name
Existing
Available
Capacity
(gpm)
Existing
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)
Future (2045)
MDD
(gpm)
Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
Total Capacity
with Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
(gpm)
Future
Surplus (+)
or Deficit (-)
(gpm)
Lower Zone
Boisseranc 2,406 2,406
Linden 2,625 Largest Out
Caballero 1,688 1,688
Holder 1,237 1,237
Freeway 950 950
Knott 1,302 1,302
Ball* 1,250 1,250
Subtotal 11,458 8,833 14,122
Construct the Cityplanned Peak Park
Well at 3,000 gpm
11,833 -2,289
Upper Zones
Smith-Murphy 847 Largest Out
Subtotal 847 0 1,894
Install a new well near
Rosecrans Reservoir at
1,900 gpm
1,900 6
* The Ball Well was constructed in 1995 and had a design capacity of 3,000 gpm. This well currently is capable of producing approximately 2,681 gpm based on the 2024 SCE pump test. However, the well pump is oversized and a variable frequency drive (VFD) is used/forced to ramp down pump speed and production to about 1,200 – 1,300 gpm in order to avoid overpressurizing the system in the immediate vicinity of the well. The 1,250 gpm in the table represents the actual operating capacity.

Notes on future (2045) MDD and PHD (see Table 4.10):
o Lower Zone: MDD: 14,122 gpm (20.3 MGD); PHD: 21,183 gpm (30.5 MGD) o Upper Zones: MDD: 1,894 gpm (2.7 MGD); PHD: 2,840 gpm (4.1 MGD) 174

8.2 Future Storage Capacity Analysis
The storage analysis evaluates the City’s future reservoir storage capacities based on the performance evaluation criteria listed in Chapter 6 under future (2045) MDD conditions. These storage criteria include three components, namely operational storage, fire storage, and emergency storage, which are summarized below:

Storage Component Recommended Performance Criteria
Operational Storage:

In pressure zones with continuous water supply
• 4 hours of PHD
In pressure zones without continuous water supply
• 100% MDD
Fire Storage:

Waived; Fire flows will be supplemented by the high
capacity MWD connections and/or emergency
interconnections.

Emergency Storage:

Waived; Emergency flows will be supplemented by the
high capacity MWD connections and/or emergency
interconnections.

Total Storage Required: Operational storage + Fire Storage + Emergency Storage The City’s system has continuous water supply with groundwater wells in both the Lower and Upper Zones. So, the first criterion above for determining operation storage applies.

The analysis compares the total available and total future required storage for each of the three separate systems under the recommended storage improvement conditions in Chapter 7. A summary of the future system capacity analysis is provided in Table 8.2a for the 2030 MDD condition and in Table 8.2b for the 2045 MDD condition. The storage capacity analysis indicates that both the Lower and Upper Zones would have adequate storage capacity under future (both 2030 and 2045) MDD conditions. The storage capacity surplus numbers are summarized below:

By 2030:
• Lower Zone: surplus of 12.87 MG
• Upper Zones: surplus of 2.12 MG
By 2045:
• Lower Zone: surplus of 12.12 MG
• Upper Zones: surplus of 2.12 MG
As noted in Section 7.2, if manganese were a concern in the proposed new Peak Park well, the City would also consider building a new reservoir (approximately 2 MG) as part of the well project, specifically to hold and “sequester” well water until the manganese has dissipated.

Table 8.2a Reservoir Storage Capacity Analysis (MG) – Future (2030) Demand Conditions Future (2030) Required Storage
Pressure
Zone
Storage
Tank
Name
Existing
Operating
Capacity*
Equalization
Storage
(4 hours of
PHD)
Fire Storage Emergency
Storage Total
Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
Total Capacity
with Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
Future
Surplus (+)
or Deficit (-)
Lower
Zone
Rosecrans
Reservoir
(86%)

17.2 Subtotal 17.2 4.33 waived waived 4.33 None 17.2 12.87 Upper
Zones
Rosecrans
Reservoir
(14%)

2.8 Subtotal 2.8 0.68 waived waived 0.68 None 2.8 2.12
*The breakdown of the storage capacity applied to each pressure zone is based on system demand in the Lower Zone (86% of the total City demand) and Upper Zones (14% of the total City demand).

Notes on future (2030) MDD and PHD (see Table 4.9):
o Lower Zone: MDD: 17.4 MGD; PHD: 26.0 MGD
o Upper Zones: MDD: 2.7 MGD; PHD: 4.1 MGD
Table 8.2b Reservoir Storage Capacity Analysis (MG) – Future (2045) Demand Conditions Future (2045) Required Storage
Pressure
Zone
Storage
Tank
Name
Existing
Operating
Capacity*
Equalization
Storage
(4 hours of
PHD)
Fire Storage Emergency
Storage Total
Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
Total Capacity
with Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
Future
Surplus (+)
or Deficit (-)
Lower
Zone
Rosecrans
Reservoir
(86%)

17.2 Subtotal 17.2 5.08 waived waived 5.08 None 17.2 12.12 Upper
Zones
Rosecrans
Reservoir
(14%)

2.8 Subtotal 2.8 0.68 waived waived 0.68 None 2.8 2.12
*The breakdown of the storage capacity applied to each pressure zone is based on system demand in the Lower Zone (86% of the total City demand) and Upper Zones (14% of the total City demand).

Notes on future (2045) MDD and PHD (see Table 4.10):
o Lower Zone: MDD: 20.3 MGD; PHD: 30.5 MGD
o Upper Zones: MDD: 2.7 MGD; PHD: 4.1 MGD
177

8.3 Future Booster Pump Station Capacity Analysis
The booster pump station analysis evaluates the future pump station capacities based on the performance evaluation criteria listed in Chapter 6. These pump station evaluation criteria differ for zones with and without gravity storage because gravity storage can be utilized to supply daily demand peaks and/or fire flow demands without pumping. Hence, the pump station analysis uses the following criteria:

In pressure zones with gravity storage:
• Provide firm pumping capacity equal to MDD.

In pressure zones without gravity storage:
• Provide firm pumping capacity equal to PHD.

The first criterion is applicable to the Lower Zone since it has gravity storage, and the second criterion is applicable to the Upper Zones since the Upper Zones do not have gravity storage. Using the above criteria assumes that emergency high flow demands such as fire flows will be supplemented by the City’s high capacity MWD connections.

The booster pump station analysis utilized the firm pumping capacity within each pressure zone, which means that the largest booster pump unit was excluded in every pressure zone. The results of the booster pump station capacity analysis are presented in Table 8.3a for the 2030 MDD condition and in Table 8.3b for the 2045 MDD condition. The evaluation was conducted under future (both 2030 and 2045) MDD conditions for each pressure zone. The booster pumping evaluation demonstrates that there is a firm pumping capacity deficit under future MDD conditions in the Lower Zone and a surplus in the Upper Zones (through the Rosecrans Booster Station), with deficit/surplus numbers summarized below:

By 2030:
• Lower Zone: deficit: -12,049 gpm
• Upper Zones: surplus: 1,794 gpm
By 2045:
• Lower Zone: deficit: -14,122 gpm
• Upper Zones: surplus: 1,794 gpm
As discussed in Section 7.3, the existing wells and the recommended new wells in the Lower Zone directly discharge to the distribution system and would have similar functions as booster stations.

As long as there is adequate well capacity to meet the MDD, there is no need for booster stations unless the groundwater wells are not able to provide adequate pressures and/or fire flows. As a result, there are no new booster pumps recommended in this WSMP.

Table 8.3a Booster Station Capacity Analysis – Future (2030) Demand Conditions Future (2030) Required Firm Pumping
Capacity
Pressure
Zone
Zone with
Gravity
Storage?
(Y/N)
Booster Name
Existing
Available
Capacity
(gpm)
Existing
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)
Future
MDD
(gpm)
Future
PHD
(gpm)
Required
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)
Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
Total Capacity
with Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
(gpm)
Future
Surplus (+)
or Deficit (-)
(gpm)
Lower
Zone Y
- 0 0
Subtotal 0 0 12,049 18,074 12,049 None 0 -12,049
Upper
Zones N
Rosecrans BPS
Booster 1 459 459
Booster 2 961 961
Booster 3 897 897
Booster 4 2,557 Largest out
Booster 5 2,497 2,497
Subtotal 7,371 4,814 1,894 2,840 2,840 None 4,814 1,794 Notes on future (2030) MDD and PHD (see Table 4.9):
o Lower Zone: MDD: 12,049 gpm (17.4 MGD); PHD: 18,074 gpm (26.0 MGD) o Upper Zones: MDD: 1,894 gpm (2.7 MGD); PHD: 2,840 gpm (4.1 MGD) Table 8.3b Booster Station Capacity Analysis – Future (2045) Demand Conditions Future (2045) Required Firm Pumping
Capacity
Pressure
Zone
Zone with
Gravity
Storage?
(Y/N)
Booster Name
Existing
Available
Capacity
(gpm)
Existing
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)
Future
MDD
(gpm)
Future
PHD
(gpm)
Required
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)
Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
Total Capacity
with Chapter 7
Recommended
Improvements
(gpm)
Future
Surplus (+)
or Deficit (-)
(gpm)
Lower
Zone Y
- 0 0
Subtotal 0 0 14,122 21,183 14,122 None 0 -14,122
Upper
Zones N
Rosecrans BPS
Booster 1 459 459
Booster 2 961 961
Booster 3 897 897
Booster 4 2,557 Largest out
Booster 5 2,497 2,497
Subtotal 7,371 4,814 1,894 2,840 2,840 None 4,814 1,794 Notes on future (2045) MDD and PHD (see Table 4.10):
o Lower Zone: MDD: 14,122 gpm (20.3 MGD); PHD: 21,183 gpm (30.5 MGD) o Upper Zones: MDD: 1,894 gpm (2.7 MGD); PHD: 2,840 gpm (4.1 MGD) 180

8.4 Future Distribution System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Future distribution system hydraulic modeling analysis was performed under projected future demand conditions using the performance evaluation criteria described in Chapter 6. The analysis was performed using the developed InfoWater Pro hydraulic model (from Autodesk) of the distribution system (refer to Appendix E for documentation on the model development and calibration). Similar to the existing distribution system hydraulic modeling analysis, system pressures, pipeline velocities/head loss, and fire flows were analyzed using the hydraulic model for future (2030) demand conditions. The future (2045) condition was not modeled since the projected water demand that is based on the projected new RHNA residential units of 8,919 by 2045 may be too conservative and not achievable, and their locations are unknown.

To simulate the future (2030) condition, the following changes were made to the existing conditions model:
• Replace the pipelines with identified hydraulic deficiencies with larger sizes that were identified in the existing conditions modeling. Other pipeline projects will be replaced with the same existing pipe size and would not affect the hydraulics. • Add the Peak Park Well and associated pipeline connections. • Add the estimated demands for the known planned 11 developments.

Figures 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 present the model-simulated pressures for the future (2030) ADD, MDD, and PHD conditions, respectively.

Figures 8.4 and 8.5 show the model-simulated pipeline velocity and head loss under the future (2030) PHD condition, respectively.

Figure 8.6 presents the model-simulated fire flows under the future (2030) MDD condition.

Compared to the existing condition pressures shown in Figures 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3, the future (2030) condition pressures shown in Figures 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 are similar without deficiencies.

Compared to the pipeline velocity and head loss under existing conditions shown in Figures 7.4 and 7.5, the pipeline velocity and head loss under future (2030) conditions shown in Figures 8.4 and 8.5 indicate there are no deficiencies anymore in the pipeline velocity and there are less deficiency locations in head loss. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed pipeline projects for addressing existing condition velocity and head loss deficiencies.

Compared to available fire flows under existing conditions shown in Figure 7.7, the available fire flows under future (2030) conditions shown in Figure 8.6 indicate there are less deficiency locations (i.e. fire flows are improved). This demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed pipeline projects for addressing existing condition fire flow deficiencies.

Although the hydraulic modeling shows that the proposed pipeline projects cannot fully resolve the pipeline head loss and available fire flows deficiencies under the future (2030) conditions, no additional pipeline projects are proposed at this time due to the City’s budget constraints.

Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: Future2030_ADD FUTURE 2030

HYDRAULIC MODEL PRESSURE RESULTS

ADD CONDITIONS
CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA 0 0.5 1
Miles
ADD Conditions
<60 psi
60 to 80 psi
80 to 120 psi
>120 psi
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 8.1
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: Future2030_MDD FUTURE 2030

HYDRAULIC MODEL PRESSURE RESULTS

MDD CONDITIONS
CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA 0 0.5 1
Miles
MDD Conditions
<40 psi
≥40 psi
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 8.2
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: Future2030_PHD FUTURE 2030

HYDRAULIC MODEL PRESSURE RESULTS

PHD CONDITIONS
CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA 0 0.5 1
Miles
PHD Conditions
<40 psi
≥ 40 psi
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 8.3
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: Future2030_PHD_Velocity FUTURE 2030

HYDRAULIC MODEL PIPELINE VELOCITY RESULTS

PHD CONDITIONS
CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA 0 0.5 1
Miles
Velocity
<6 ft/sec
≥6 ft/sec
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 8.4
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: Future2030_PHD_Headloss FUTURE 2030

HYDRAULIC MODEL PIPELINE HEAD LOSS RESULTS

PHD CONDITIONS
CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA 0 0.5 1
Miles
Pipe Diameter < 16"
Head loss < 5ft per 1000ft
Head loss ≥ 5ft per 1000ft
Pipe Diameter ≥ 16"
Head loss < 3ft per 1000ft
Head loss ≥ 3ft per 1000ft
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 8.5
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Path: J:\jn2896\CityofBuenaParkMasterPlan.aprx Layout: Future2030_FireFlow FUTURE 2030

HYDRAULIC MODEL AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW RESULTS
MDD CONDITIONS WITH RESIDUAL PRESSURE AT 20 PSI
CITY OF BUENA PARK, CA 0 0.5 1
Miles
Percent of Req. Fire Flow
0 to 25%
25 to 50%
50 to 75%
75 to 100%
>100%
Water Main
City Border
Service Area Boundary
County Boundary
Ü
Figure 8.6
187

8.5 Summary of Improvements
The recommendations for future (year 2045) conditions identified in this chapter are summarized in this section. Detailed cost estimates for each of these recommendations are included in the Capital Improvement Plan, which is included in Chapter 10. Based on the future system analysis, the following improvements are proposed (from calendar years 2030 through 2045):
• Water Supply Capacity Improvements
- Install a new well in the Lower Zone with a capacity of 2,300 gpm to meet the future (2045) MDD.
• Storage Improvements
- No improvements identified.
• Booster Pump Station Improvements
- No improvements identified.
• Water Quality & Treatment Improvements
- Continue to closely monitor manganese concentrations at the Ball Well and consider installing manganese treatment if necessary.
- Continue to closely monitor manganese concentrations at the Caballero Well and consider installing manganese treatment if necessary.
- Continue to closely monitor PFAS concentrations at the Linden Well and implement a treatment solution if necessary.
• Pressure Improvements
- No improvements identified.
• Pipeline Velocity and Head Loss Improvements
- No improvements recommended.
• Fire Flow Improvements
- No improvements recommended.
• Energy Efficiency Improvements
- Continue to perform periodic refurbishment (or rehabilitation) of well pumps to proactively preserve the service life and pump efficiency. 188
• Pipeline R&R Program
- Continue to replace pipelines in the long-term (2030-2045) CIP phase at an annual rate of about 0.4 miles per year. The remaining medium-high/medium risk category pipelines and head loss and fire flow deficiency pipelines that were not scheduled in the near-term (2025-2029) phase CIP should be reviewed and evaluated annually and can be scheduled earlier in the long-term CIP phase.
189
CHAPTER 9 – WATER SYSTEM OPERATIONS AND REPORTING PLAN
This Chapter describes all the activities needed to properly operate and maintain the water system in compliance with all drinking water standards. The plan describes routine operational procedures (daily, monthly, annually, and other various frequency tasks) for each component of the system such as routine inspection, operation and maintenance, monitoring and reporting, and record keeping. The plan describes non-routine activities such as positive analytical results, responses to complaints, and emergency operational practices. The plan also summarizes the reporting requirements the City routinely submits.

9.1 Routine Operational Procedures
Table 9.1 is a summary of frequency and tasks for routine operational procedures which are described in more detail below.

Table 9.1 Frequency and Tasks for Routine Operational Procedures Frequency Tasks
Daily
Inspect wells
Inspect Rosecrans Reservoir and hydropneumatic tanks
Inspect Rosecrans Booster Station
Maintain disinfection systems at all sites
Monthly
Inspect MWD imported water connections
Inspect emergency connections
Annually
Exercise valves (approximately 1,000 valves every 5 years) Flush dead end lines
Perform full inspection of pressure regulating stations Other Various
Frequency Tasks
Based on
Requirements and
Need
Conduct bacteriological monitoring and reporting
Conduct chemical monitoring and reporting
Perform full inspection of Rosecrans Reservoir (once every two years) Rehabilitate pressure regulating stations (every 3 to 5 years) Perform SCE energy efficiency pump tests for all well and booster pumps (once every two years)
Flush the southern portion of the distribution system (south of Ball Road) for manganese management only when Ball Well is running Clean and flush sediment from Rosecrans Reservoir (when performing maintenance)
Flush the western portions of the distribution system where there are water color issues (perform as needed)
Flush sediment from hydropneumatic tanks (perform only when wells are serviced)
190
Daily Routine Operational Procedures
• Visual inspection of wells
o Check leaks, openings, lubricants, electrical hazards, chemical hazards, etc. (record observations and correct problem).
o Check well pumps for proper operations.
• Visual inspection of Rosecrans Reservoir and hydropneumatic tanks o Check the accessible parts of the fully buried Rosecrans Reservoir for cracks and foreign debris from vandalism.
o Check hydropneumatic tanks for any leaks or damage (record observations and repair as needed).
• Visual inspection of Rosecrans Booster Station
o Inspect the site.
o Inspect the pumps looking for things such as vibration, heat, leakage, oil level (record observations and repair as needed).
• Maintain disinfection systems at all sites
o check all plumbing, valves, mechanical and electronic equipment, and chemicals and chemical hazards (record observations and repair as needed), and add disinfectant as needed.

Monthly Routine Operational Procedures
• Inspect MWD imported water connections
o Inspect for leaks and proper functions of pressure relief valves. • Inspect emergency connections
o Inspect emergency connections for leaks and proper functions of control valves.

Annually Routine Operational Procedures
• Exercise valves (approximately 1,000 valves every 5 years) o Exercise valves for proper functions and check for leaks. • Flush dead end lines
o Flush dead end lines to remove sediment and reduce stagnant water. • Full inspection of pressure regulating stations
o Perform full inspection of pressure regulating stations every year (remove cover, replace diaphragm, seat, etc.).
191
Other Various Frequency Tasks Based on Requirements and Need • Bacteriological monitoring and reporting
o Conduct weekly bacteriological monitoring (20 samples a week for 80 samples a month) pursuant to the approved Bacteriological Sample Siting Plan, and report to SWRCB-DDW by the required date following the sample.
o Keep bacteriological results for five years.
o Keep any corrective action for sampling for three years. • Chemical monitoring and reporting
o Conduct chemical monitoring as required by SWRCB-DDW, and submit the results to SWRCB-DDW.
o Keep chemical results for ten years.
o Keep variance and exemptions for five years.
• Full inspection of Rosecrans Reservoir
o Perform full inspection of the reservoir every two years. • SCE energy efficiency pump test
o Perform SCE energy efficiency pump tests every two years for all well pumps and booster station pumps.
• Flush the southern portion of the distribution system (south of Ball Road) for manganese management (only done when operating the Ball Well)
o Flush the southern portion of the distribution system for manganese management. • Clean and flush sediment from Rosecrans Reservoir (when performing maintenance) o Clean and flush sediment from Rosecrans Reservoir, record date cleaned and observations.
• Flush the western portions of the distribution system where there are water color issues (perform as needed).
o Flush the western portions of the distribution system for water color management. • Flush sediment from hydropneumatic tanks (perform only when wells are serviced) o Flush hydropneumatic tanks to remove sediment and keep it from entering the distribution system.
• Rehabilitate pressure regulating stations
o Rehabilitate pressure regulating stations every 3 to 5 years. 192

9.2 Non-Routine Operational Activities
Response to Violations
• Public Notification of violation required
o Notification shall be given as per "Emergency Public Notification" method on record with SWRCB-DDW, or in a manner directed by SWRCB-DDW. See the templates for public notification from the following website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/Notices.ht ml
o State problem and what has been done to correct it.
o Send a copy of the notification to SWRCB-DDW.

Response to Consumer Complaints
• Consumer Complaint Response Procedures
o Record in complaint log (name, address, and nature of the problem). o Investigate the complaint.
o Verify or dismiss the complaint.
o Record the steps taken to address or correct the problem. o Notify complainant of action taken.
o Keep complaint records with corrective action for five years.

Emergency Operational Practices
• Follow the Emergency/Disaster Response Plan to take appropriate actions in the event of a specific emergency.
193

9.3 Routine Reporting Requirements
A summary of the reporting requirements the City routinely submits is provided in Table 9.2 below. The summary represents currently anticipated requirements and is subject to change.

Table 9.2 Summary of Regulatory Reporting Requirements
Frequency Reporting Requirement Due Date Reporting Agency Monthly
Drought and Conservation
Report End of each month SWRCB-DDW
Voluntary Fluoride Recording - SWRCB-DDW
Disinfection Recording - SWRCB-DDW
Water Production Reporting - OCDW
Purchased Water Sales
Payments - MWD
Bi-Annually Self-Invoicing for Produced
Groundwater
January 15th
July 15th OCWD
Annually
Water Loss Audit Report January 1st DWR
Annual Urban Water Use
Objective and Water Use Report January 1st DWR
Annual Inventory Report March 31st SWRCB-DDW
Electronic Annual Report
(Prepared by the City's Finance
Department)
April 31st SWRCB-DDW
Annual Water Supply and
Demand Assessment July 1st DWR
Consumer Confidence Report
(Prepared by the City and MWD)
(Beginning in 2027, due by July
1st and December 31st pursuant to
USEPA)
July 1st DWR
Every Three
Years Public Health Goal Report Beginning in 2025,due by July 1st DWR Every Five
Years
Emergency Response Plan
(Serving between 50,000 and
99,999 people)
December 31st in
years
ending in 0 or 5
USEPA
Risk and Resilience Assessment
(Serving between 50,000 and
99,999 people)
June 30th in years
ending in 1 or 6 USEPA
Urban Water Management Plan July 1st in years
ending in 1 or 6 DWR
194
CHAPTER 10 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
This Chapter presents the recommended capital improvement plan (CIP) for the City’s water distribution system. The proposed CIP presents improvement projects based on the water system evaluations described in Chapters 5, 7, and 8 of this WSMP. The planning horizon of this WSMP is the year 2045. The CIP is divided into two phases; near-term (2025 through 2029) and longterm (2030 through 2045).

This chapter starts with a summary of the cost-estimating assumptions. Subsequently, the water system CIP is presented with a summary of recommendations on project prioritization.

10.1 Cost Estimating Assumptions
The costs presented in this WSMP are estimates developed from bid tabulations and vendor quotes, cost curves, information obtained from previous water supply facility studies, Stetson's experience on other similar projects, RS Means Building Construction Cost Data, and the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI).

The construction costs are representative of system facilities under normal construction conditions and schedules. Costs have been estimated for public works construction.

10.1.1 Cost Estimating Accuracy
The cost estimates presented in the CIP have been prepared for general master-planning purposes and for guidance in project evaluation and implementation. Final costs of a project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, services furnished by others, water quality and/or quantity, system operations, final project scope, implementation schedule, and other variable factors such as preliminary alignment generation, investigation of alternative routings, and detailed utility and topography surveys.

Cost estimates are based on experience and judgment, as well as cost estimates, studies, reports and other pertinent data provided by the City and others. It should be noted that the actual costs and/or quantities realized may vary from the estimates presented herein. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) defines an Order-of-Magnitude Estimate, deemed appropriate for master plan studies, as an approximate estimate made without detailed engineering data. This is considered a planning level 5 estimate. It is normally expected that an estimate of this level would be accurate within plus 50 percent to minus 30 percent. This section presents the assumptions used in developing order-of-magnitude cost estimates for the recommended facilities.

As projects proceed into the preliminary design and design stages, estimates are refined when conditions become known.
195

10.1.2 Capital Cost Development
Capital costs developed for this WSMP include the following various components:
• Baseline construction cost;
• Engineering and design cost;
• Administrative and permitting;
• Construction management, inspection, and testing cost; and • Contingency.

These various cost components used in the development of capital cost estimates are described below.

10.1.2.1 Baseline Construction Cost
The baseline construction cost (labor and materials) is the total estimated construction cost, in dollars, of the proposed improvement projects. Baseline construction costs were estimated based on several methods including: unit costs derived from recent projects constructed by the City for similar project types; unit costs derived from recent lowest qualified bids for different types of facility construction; actual construction cost data from other water systems; and RS Means Building Construction Cost Data.

The unit costs in 2024 dollars were based on the most recent lowest qualified bids for different types of facility construction (including wells, reservoirs, booster stations, water mains, and water quality treatment). The unit costs in 2024 dollars were escalated at 5% per year to account for inflation in the near-term (years 2025 to 2029) based on the average annual increase of the California Construction Cost Index over the past 5 years. The unit costs were also escalated at 5% per year thereafter to account for inflation in the long-term (years 2030 to 2045).

The water main R&R recommendations included in the near-term CIP are based on the unit costs in 2024 dollars shown in Table 10.1 and information obtained from GIS to estimate the replacement length by diameter for each water main project. Note that these unit costs may not include the following costs: mobilization/demobilization, construction staking, potholing, dewatering (City has a high water table), traffic control, etc. These costs were included in the contingency assumption (10%).
196
Table 10.1 Unit Construction Costs – Water Pipelines
Item Unit Construction Cost1
Water Main
6" $225/LF
8" $250/LF
12" $275/LF
16” $380/LF
24” $500/LF
Valves
6” Valve $3,000/EA
8” Valve $4,000/EA
12” Valve $5,000/EA
1” Air Valve $8,000/EA
Fire Hydrant 6” Fire Hydrant $15,000/EA
Water Service Lateral 1” Water Service Lateral $5,000/EA 1 Data Source: Provided by City.

10.1.2.2 Engineering and Design Cost
Engineering and design services associated with new facilities include preliminary investigations and reports, foundation explorations, surveying and staking, and preparation of drawings and specifications.

The cost for engineering and design was estimated at 10% of the baseline construction cost for all water facilities.

10.1.2.3 Construction Management, Inspection, and Testing Cost The cost for construction management and materials sampling/testing/inspection during construction was estimated at 8% of the baseline construction cost for all facilities.

10.1.2.4 Administrative and Permitting Cost
The administrative and permitting cost was estimated at 5% of the baseline construction cost for all facilities. Although the City will do their own permitting, the City will still need to perform administrative work. In addition, there are also SWRCB-DDW and CEQA permits that might need to be conducted.

10.1.2.5 Contingency Cost
Contingency costs should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis because they will vary considerably for each project. Consequently, it is appropriate to allow for uncertainties associated with the preliminary layout of a project, which is typical for master planning projects. Such factors may 197
include unexpected construction conditions, the need for unforeseen mechanical items, and variations in final quantities that can increase project costs for which it is wise to make allowances in preliminary estimates. In addition, contingency costs can account for unknown site conditions such as poor soil and environmental mitigations. To assist the City in making financial decisions for these future construction projects, contingency costs were added to the planning budget.

For the purposes of this WSMP, a contingency of 10% was added to the baseline construction for all facilities and representative of uniform construction conditions and schedules.

10.1.3 CIP Phasing
The proposed capital improvements are prioritized based on their urgency to mitigate existing deficiencies, to address rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) needs, and to accommodate reliable water service for future growth. As previously mentioned, there are two implementation phases within the planning horizon of this WSMP. These phases are:
• Near-term phase: Calendar years 2025 through 2029
• Long-term phase: Calendar years 2030 through 2045
The CIP will need to be revised periodically to evaluate the appropriate project timing based on system needs and available funding. Some near-term projects may need to be postponed until later years than indicated in this WSMP. Future rate adjustments to increase funds, additional contributions from developers, site remediation assistance, and grant funding can potentially accelerate projects to the near-term planning phase.

10.2 Water System CIP and Estimated Costs
The improvement projects included in the water system CIP are a compilation of the recommendations provided in Chapter 5, Chapter 7, and Chapter 8 of this WSMP, which mitigate existing and future system deficiencies, address R&R needs of existing infrastructure, and respond to regulatory, environmental, and water quality concerns. Additionally, projects previously proposed by the City are also included in the CIP.

Table 10.2a provides a summary of the planning level cost estimates for the recommended nearterm (next 5 years) water main replacement projects in 2024 dollars. These projects are described in Table 7.18a with details shown in Appendix G. The estimated total cost for these water main replacement projects in the next 5 years is about $10 million. The subtotal cost for the water main replacement Projects #1, #2, and #3 is about $5.4 million, with the 5-year annual average cost at about $1.1 million per year. This annual average cost will be used to estimate future water main replacement cost at an annual replacement rate of about 0.4 miles per year or about 2.0 miles per 5 years. The water main replacement Projects #1, #2, and #3 have a total length of about 2.0 miles (see Table 7.18a).
198
As discussed in Section 3.1.7, the majority of the City’s distribution system is made of asbestoscement pipe (ACP), which equates to 191.01 miles or 87 percent of the total miles of pipeline. In addition, as discussed in Section 7.8.1, the annual break rate (i.e. leaks) within the City’s distribution system is estimated at about 4 breaks per 100 miles. This annual break rate is well below the average annual rate of 11 to 14 breaks per 100 miles in the United States. Although a majority of the City’s pipelines were installed from 1950 to 1970 (54 to 74 years ago), the City’s experiences indicate that asbestos-cement pipeline has aged relatively well. The City’s asbestoscement pipelines also do not appear to be as susceptible to soil corrosion as other pipelines found in adjacent water systems (i.e. adjacent water systems have experienced higher pipeline break rates) that are made out of different materials. The City should consider these factors prior to replacing its asbestos-cement pipelines.

Table 10.2b provides a summary of the planning level cost estimates for the near-term (next 5 years) additional smaller water main improvement projects in 2024 dollars. These projects are described in Table 7.18b with details also shown in Appendix G. The estimated total cost for these water main improvement projects in the next 5 years is about $0.9 million.

Table 10.3 provides a summary of the planning level cost estimates for other water facility CIP projects (i.e. in addition to water main CIP projects) with priority in the near-term in 2024 dollars.

The projects priority was derived based on discussions with City staff. The total estimated cost for these recommended near-term water facility CIP projects is about $28 million. Note that the water facility CIP Items a2, a3, b, c, and 7 in Table 10.3 could be scheduled during the long-term phase.

Table 10.4 provides a summary of the planning level cost estimates for the long-term (2030-2045) water main and water facility CIP projects in both current (2024) dollars and future mid-year (2038) dollars with an assumed annual inflation factor of 5 percent. The total inflation factor from 2024 to 2038 (representing the mid-year of the long-term 2030-2045) is about 98% (based on a 5% annual inflation rate). For the future water main CIP projects, it is assumed that average annual cost for these water main CIP projects would be based on the $1.1 million per year in 2024 dollars.

The total estimated cost for these recommended long-term water main and water facility CIP projects is about $23.6 million in 2024 dollars and about $46.8 million in 2038 dollars. 199
Table 10.2a Planning Level Cost Estimates for the Proposed Near-Term (2025-2029) Water Main Replacement Projects in 2024 Dollars
Water
Main
Project
Number
Water Main
Construction
Cost
Water
Main Other
Cost (33%)
Water Main
Project Cost
Hydrant
Cost
Valve
Cost
Service
Lateral
Cost
Total
Project
Cost
1 $130,500 $43,100 $173,600 $33,000 $22,000 $22,000 $250,600 2 $909,900 $300,300 $1,210,200 $132,000 $114,400 $374,000 $1,830,600 3 $1,600,000 $528,000 $2,128,000 $330,000 $237,600 $649,000 $3,344,600 4 $1,497,200 $494,100 $1,991,300 $181,500 $149,600 $99,000 $2,421,400 5 $1,376,700 $454,300 $1,831,000 $148,500 $158,400 $176,000 $2,313,900 Total $5,514,300 $1,819,800 $7,334,100 $825,000 $682,000 $1,320,000 $10,161,100 Notes:
1) Refer to Appendix G for details and locations of each project (see also Table 7.18a). 2) The water main other cost (33%) includes engineering and design cost (10%), construction management, inspection, and testing cost (8%), administrative and permitting cost (5%), and contingency (10%). 3) The cost estimate for hydrant, valve, and service lateral also considered 10% contingency. 4) The subtotal cost for Projects #1, #2, and #3 is $5,425,800. The 5-year annual average cost of these three projects is about $1,100,000 per year, representing the annual average cost for water main replacement projects.

Table 10.2b Planning Level Cost Estimates for the Proposed Near-Term Additional Water Main Improvement Projects in 2024 Dollars No. Project Location Description Estimated Cost
in 2024 Dollars
6 Malvern Ave at Beach Blvd Pipeline relining and others $350,000 7 Atchison Wy to Beach New pipeline and PRV $423,300
8 Lincoln Ave Construct redundancy for nearby tract $94,400 9 Valley View St and Lincoln
Ave Cut and abandon steel pipe $10,000
10 Valley View St and Thelma
Ave
New pipeline connection. Cut and
abandon cast iron $23,600
Total $901,300
Notes:
(1) Refer to Appendix G for details and locations of each project (see also Table 7.18b). (2) Project #6 includes relining of a 12” diameter, 47 ft long pipeline, repair of a hydrant coupling, and relocation of a PRV.
(3) Project #7 includes constructions of a new 8” diameter, 70 ft long pipeline and a new pressure regulating station to close loop of Zone 3c-262 and Zone 3b-285. The estimated cost for the new pipeline is about $23,300 and for the new pressure regulating station is about $400,000.
(4) All the pipeline projects listed above are not affected by the City’s 2024-2028 Street Paving Moratorium. 200
Table 10. Planning Level Cost Estimates for Other Water Facility CIP Projects in the Near-Term in 2024 Dollars
Item/
Priority Description Estimated Cost
in 2024 Dollars
a1
Peak Park Well Phase I: Construct the new Peak Park Well in the Lower Zone with a capacity of 2,500 gpm to 3,000 gpm as planned by the City, and construct pipeline connection to Knott Ave.
$8,000,000
a2
Peak Park Well Phase II: Construct a 12-inch pipeline in El Dorado Dr from El Coco Way to El Monte Dr.
$1,000,000
a3
Peak Park Well Phase III: Construct a 12-inch pipeline in El Dorado Dr from El Monte Dr to Western Ave. $1,000,000
b
Construct a new storage reservoir (2 MG) near the Peak Park Well as part of the well project to hold and “sequester” well water for the manganese “dissipation” if manganese were a concern.
$5,300,000
c Construct a new booster station (150 Hp, 3,000 gpm) near the new storage reservoir $2,500,000 1a Install a permanent noise enclosure for the Boisseranc Well (instead of the existing temporary semi-enclosure made of corrugated metal panels and metal pipes). $30,000 1b
Install a permanent noise enclosure for the Smith-Murphy Well (instead of the existing temporary semi-enclosure made of corrugated metal panels and PVC pipes).
$30,000
2 Update City water distribution system GIS database $200,000 3 Modify the Linden Well (through installation of a well casing liner and a VFD) to limit groundwater production to a lower level of the aquifer where PFAS contamination is not present.
$375,000
4 Add a cellular system as backup for the SCADA operations, in addition to the existing radio system. $195,000
5 Install a VFD at the Caballero Well, Holder Well, Freeway Well, and Knott Well to lower water system distribution pressures from above 70 psi (currently) to about 62 psi, pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water recommendations.
$300,000
6 Install a chlorine disinfection station at the Smith-Murphy Well site because it appears the mineralized water from the well is reducing chlorine levels in the City’s distribution system.
$100,000
7 Install a new well in the Upper Zone with a capacity of 1,900 gpm. $8,000,000 8 Refurbish Caballero, Freeway, and Knott Wells $1,050,000 9 Improve ventilation of well pump houses $20,000
Total $28,100,000
1) The City has received $5 million of grant funding from the California Department of Water Resources for the new Peak Park Well. In addition, the City has previously accumulated funds from its annual water well funding ($500,000 per year).
2) The estimated cost for the Peak Park Well Phase I came from the Brady 2022 Feasibility Study and bid documents prepared by PSOMAS. The Phase II and Phase III cost estimates were provided by the City. 3) The construction of the new storage reservoir and new booster station at Peak Park (Items b and c) are dependent on the water quality findings during the construction of the Peak Park Well project. 4) Item 4 assumes $15,000 per site and 13 sites (9 wells, 2 reservoirs, 2 booster stations). The assumed 13 sites include the additional new Peak Park Well, the new reservoir, and the new booster station, in addition to the existing 8 wells, the existing Rosecrans Reservoir, and the existing Rosecrans Booster Station. 5) Items a2, a3, b, c, and 7 could be scheduled in the long-term phase. 3 201
Table 10. Planning Level Cost Estimates for Long-Term (2030-2045) Water Main and Water Facility CIP Projects in Both 2024 Dollars and Future Mid-Year (2038) Dollars Item Estimated Cost
in 2024 Dollars
Estimated Cost in
Future Mid-Year
(2038) Dollars
Water Main Replacement (0.4 miles per year in 16 years) $1,100,000 × 16 = $17,600,000 $34,800,000
Install a new well in the Lower Zone with a capacity of 2,300 gpm to meet the future (2045) MDD $6,000,000 $12,000,000 Total $23,600,000 $46,800,000
Based on an annual inflation factor of 5%, the total inflation factor from 2024 to 2038 (the mid-year of the long-term 2030-2045) is about 98%.
4 202

10.3 Potential Funding Sources
A review of potential funding sources for construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of proposed City facilities and improvements was conducted. The following summary of potential state and local funding sources has been identified:

California Grants Portal
The California Grants Portal is managed and hosted by the California State Library and provides a centralized location to find state grant and loan opportunities. https://www.grants.ca.gov/
https://www.grants.ca.gov/?s&applicant_type_search%5B%5D=public-agency State Water Resources Control Board Financial Assistance Funding – Grants and Loans The Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) administers the SWRCB financial assistance programs. These programs include loan and grant funding for construction of drinking water treatment and distribution systems, water recycling facilities, remediation for underground storage tank releases and groundwater contamination; nonpoint source pollution control projects; and drought support for individual households. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/ Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF)
The DWSRF is a financial assistance program (through the United States Environmental Protection Agency) to help water systems and states to achieve the health protection objectives of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The DWSRF funds a wide range of drinking water infrastructure projects, including the following six (6) categories of projects:
• Treatment: Projects to install or upgrade facilities to improve drinking water quality to comply with SDWA regulations
• Transmission and distribution: Rehabilitation, replacement, or installation of pipes to improve water pressure to safe levels or to prevent contamination caused by leaky or broken pipes
• Source: Rehabilitation of wells or development of eligible sources to replace contaminated sources
• Storage: Installation or upgrade of finished water storage tanks to prevent microbiological contamination from entering the distribution system • Consolidation: Interconnecting two or more water systems 203
• Creation of new systems: Construct a new system to serve homes with contaminated individual wells or consolidate existing systems into a new regional water system
https://www.epa.gov/dwsrf
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/services/funding/SRF.html WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants
WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants (through the Bureau of Reclamation) provide 50/50 cost share funding including projects that seek to conserve and use water more efficiently and contribute to water supply sustainability https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/weeg/
Infrastructure State Revolving Fund
The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) Program (through the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank) is authorized to directly provide low-cost public financing to state and local government entities. ISRF financing is available in amounts ranging from $1 million to $65 million with loan terms for the useful life of the project up to a maximum of 30 years. A few examples of ISRF financed projects include water and wastewater treatment plant upgrades or construction, venue or airport construction or street repair and upgrades.
https://ibank.ca.gov/loans/infrastructure-loans/
Appendix A
Listings of Regulated Constituents and Current Primary and Secondary MCLs Federal and State MCLs—Updated 03/21/18 Page 1 of 4

MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS AND REGULATORY DATES

FOR DRINKING WATER
U.S. EPA VS CALIFORNIA
LAST UPDATED OCTOBER 2018
Contaminant U.S. EPA California
MCL (mg/L) Datea MCL (mg/L) Effective Date
Inorganics
Aluminum 0.05 to 0.2b 1/91 1

0.2b
2/25/89
9/8/94
Antimony 0.006 7/92 0.006 9/8/94
Arsenic 0.05

0.010
eff: 6/24/77
eff: 1/23/06

0.05 0.010
77 11/28/08
Asbestos 7 MFLc 1/91 7 MFLc 9/8/94
Barium 1
2 eff: 6/24/77
1/91
1 77
Beryllium 0.004 7/92 0.004 9/8/94
Cadmium 0.010

0.005
eff: 6/24/77
1/91

0.010

0.005
77 9/8/94
Chromium 0.05

0.1 eff: 6/24/77
1/91

0.05 77
Copper 1.3d 6/91 1b

1.3d
77 12/11/95
Cyanide 0.2 7/92 0.2