Newport Beach City Council
April 23, 2024

Castaways Park, revised conditions of approval, CEQA review, and an additional proposed condition of approval.

In response to Commissioner Langford’s question regarding consistency with the architectural design of the future Back Bay Landing mixed-use project, Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo stated that early discussions for the mixed-use project included a coastal mediterranean architecture, but with possible development changes, staff thought the proposed design of the pump station would fit in better with the future project.

In response to Secretary Harris’ question regarding status of litigation , Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated that the court had a limited order, the addendum was completed and certified this summer, the case is closed, and both parties have agreed to terminate the litigation.

The Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications.

Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.

Mike Dorman, Director of Engineering of OCSD, used a presentation to review the Bay Bridge pump station replacement, OCSD mission and service area, Newport Beach pump stations , project overview, existing Bay Bridge pump station, reasons for the project, microtunneling section, new pump station design, and pump station cut section rendering and access . He agreed to the recommended conditions.

In response to Commissioner Langford’s question, Mr. Dorman confirmed that the station will be at the same capacity as it is now.

In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s questions, Mr. Dorman clarified that the primary site access is a permanent easement and assumed that the roadway will be used jointly with the Bayside Village Marina during construction and then be integrated into the Back Bay Landing plan.

In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s inquiry, Harmik Aghanian with Arcadis and design consultant for OCSD, explained the background of the access road and stated that they have past renderings from PC-9. Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo stated that PC-9 contains conceptual plans included for exhibits and a coastal architectural theme and the City has not received revised designs from the Back Bay Landing team.

In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s suggestion to add a depression in the sidewalk (noted on page 177) to help with the transition, Mr. Aghanian stated that the minimum sidewalk is 8-1/2 feet at the driveway entrance and beyond 10 feet to the east side to accommodate chemical delivery trucks.

In response to Secretary Harris’ questions, Mr. Dorman stated that t hey have the rights to the property and will be going to court to determine the value of the property, the easement was granted with the eminent domain cas e, and they are willing to make building color changes to match a neighboring design. He reviewed the process to determine the location.

John Erskine, Nossaman LLP partner and representative of the property owners, stated a wonderful working relationship with staff and noted efforts to negotiate a willing seller/purchaser acquisition with the OC San District, having learned a lot from the depositions collected from the four project managers, the challenges of the project, and having tried to work proactively with the OC San District.

He relayed that the eminent domain case will go to a jury trial in July and the problems with the project size.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FB7E1031-6092-4360-8FB9-D97AFC201580 13-98
312
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2024

Michael Gelfand, representing the ownership of the Bayside Village Marina and Back Bay Landing project, noted the impact of the project, suggested the proposal be rejected and recreated by OSCD with community input, traced the project history, and noted alternatives.

Jim Mosher reviewed the proposed project design diagrammed on page 177 and made suggestions.

Julie Sheffield expressed concern about the access road on Bayside Drive, the impact from the number of trucks, and hours of operation.

Mr. Dorman noted the daily truck traffic on the access road and thought the pump station is properly sized to meet the demand.

Traffic Engineer Sommers noted a rolled curb in the plans to address an abrupt driveway drop off and beneficial access off Bayside Drive.

Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo noted that staff worked with OCSD to review many design options, make changes, and justify sizing and indicated that staff believes that OSCD did the best they could to select an architectural theme not knowing what the neighboring mixed-use project will look like in the future.

In response to Commissioner Langford’s inquiry, Mr. Gelfand suggested that the exterior façade be changed in the future to match his project and expressed concern for the project footprint, setbacks, easement through the middle of the property, and size. He thought that there was not enough room to add a parking lot behind the easement.

Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Lowrey expressed confusion for the status of the condemnation litigation. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill deferred the issue to the applicant but conveyed that she thought they have the right of possession, and the squabble is over the value.

Commissioner Langford expressed concern for the architectural impact with the future Back Bay Landing project.

Chair Ellmore r eminded the Commissioners to address the matter based on the merits of the application.

Commissioner Harris relayed that although the project has made its way through the courts, he does not think it is ideal.

Commissioner Lowrey expressed an increased comfort with the project ’s merits if the matter is settled by a judge.

Vice Chair Rosene expressed concern for the project size, location, and thoughtfulness.

Chair Ellmore noted future surrounding development is unknown and the Commission needs to focus on the application presented, expressed concern for the size and location , trusted staff’s recommendation, and did not find a reason to not approve the project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: FB7E1031-6092-4360-8FB9-D97AFC201580 13-99
313
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2024

Motion made by Secretary Harris and seconded by Chair Ellmore to approve the item with a condition, modification, or inclusion that would state that staff can require the applicant to modify the exterior aesthetics in the future to match surrounding development.

AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Rosene, and Salene
NOES: Langford, Lowrey
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSED: Barto

VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS

ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

None

ITEM NO. 5 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR

MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED

ON A FUTURE AGENDA

Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo announced that the Airport Land Use Commission found two residential projects proposed for the John Wayne Airport area inconsistent and staff will schedule a public hearing with the City Council on February 13 to discuss a potential override. Furthermore, he noted that the February 8 Planning Commission meeting is cancelled, and the February 22 meeting has scheduled a variance and coastal development permit for a new single-family home, and one consent item to formally adopt a resolution for a reasonable accommodation request for the keeping of chickens.

ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES

Secretary Harris requested an excused absence on February 22.

IX. ADJOURNMENT – With no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Chair Ellmore at 7:09 p.m.

The agenda for the January 18, 2024, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, January 11, 2024, at 5:35 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City’s website on Thursday, January 11, 2024, at 5:32 p.m.

_______________________________
Curtis Ellmore, Chair

_______________________________
Tristan Harris, Secretary
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB7E1031-6092-4360-8FB9-D97AFC201580 13-100
314
January 18, 2024, Planning Commission Item 3 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:

Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).

Item No. 3. BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION (PA2023-0076)
General comments:

Unless I am dreaming, those who followed OCSD’s public outreach regarding this project some years ago were left with the impression the pump station was to be replaced by a new one in the northeast corner of the PC-9 property, near Bayside Drive, adjacent to the mobile homes, where it would be much less intrusive.

It is a surprise to find the replacement will be going in an expanded version of the current location. It is an even bigger surprise to find no mention or explanation of the change.1 The staff report extols the aesthetics of the project, including the “coastal architectural theme” and building façades that “avoid long, continuous blank walls.” Yet to my taste, the aesthetics are terrible. First, I would think darker earth tones, somewhat like the present building, would be less intrusive than off-white. Second, whatever the architecture, the renderings in Figures 4 and 5 show it will be largely hidden behind the kind of “long, blank walls” the façades seek to avoid.

To me, they create the impression of a secretive government installation or a prison yard.

What is the purpose of these property-defining walls along Coast Highway? It would not seem to be sound mitigation, since the only they protect is the highway. Wouldn’t an openwork metal security fence be adequate and far more aesthetically pleasing (as this example from CMSD)? Or is there really something OCSD doesn’t want prying eyes to see? 1 What seems to be the EIR for construction using the present “Adjacent Pump Station” alternative layout option was apparently approved by the OCSD Board as Item 8 on February 24, 2021.

Planning Commission - January 18, 2024
Item No. 3b - Additional Materials Received
OCSD Bay Bridge Pump Station (PA2023-0076)
13-101
315
January 18, 2023, PC agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 Comments regarding the proposed resolution:

square-foot pump station.” It is hard to believe the existing buildings occupy 4,800 sf if the entire parcel is only 4,875 sf. The existing concrete apron along PCH, alone, appears to represent more than 1,000 sf of unoccupied area. This appears to be a reference to the size of the existing lot, not the station.

acquiring an additional 9,713 square feet of land from the adjacent property at 100 Bayside Drive, which is the site of the future Back Bay Landing Mixed-Use Village”) does not match the definition of “Property” in Statement 1.1 on the preceding page. According to the prior definition, and presumably throughout the resolution, “Property” is used to mean the full 14,592 square foot. development area, not just the former parcel.

Pages 3 of 26 (and 19 of 26): Statement 1.2 refers to OCSD’s EIR. The link to it provided in Exhibit “B” is to the Final EIR, which is mostly just comment letters, responses to them and the mitigation monitoring plan. What most people would think of as the “real” EIR is the Draft EIR, more specifically the 2020 Recirculated EIR. A better link would be to the OC San’s Bay Bridge Pump Station Project CEQA Documents page, which includes that and more. The Draft EIR appears to have analyzed the impacts of replacing the existing station with one in the northeast corner of the Bayside Village Marina (PC-9) property. Wouldn’t the aesthetic impacts at that location be quite different from the ones from placing it directly adjacent to a designated Coastal View Road?2 Isn’t this new expanded location also blocking what was designated as a possible alternative ingress/egress point to PC-9 from PCH?

achieves the same purpose as the required 10 feet, or why the low height profile of the vegetation is a plus (generally, one would want higher vegetation to screen the walls, which already block views). I am particularly concerned about the project’s impact on the public sidewalk, which is well used by a mix of pedestrians and cyclists (it is “bicycle legal” as far as I know).

some subtle difference between a required finding that “The development shall not be incompatible with …” compared to “The development shall be compatible with …”?

Crystal Cove” Is that correct? I thought the flow all went the other way (also note, “wastewater” is one word).
(I have not reviewed the rest of the resolution)

2 On a quick glance, it looks like the various OCSD EIR’s rely on the City approval process to mitigate aesthetic impacts.

Planning Commission - January 18, 2024
Item No. 3b - Additional Materials Received
OCSD Bay Bridge Pump Station (PA2023-0076)
13-102
316

62469533.v1
January 17, 2024

Chair Curtis Ellmore and Planning Commissioners
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 3
January 18, 2024: OCSD Bay Bridge Pump Station (PA 2023-0076) Dear Chair Ellmore and Planning Commissioners:

Our firm represents Bayside Marina Village, LLC (“Bayside” or “BVM”), the owners and developers of Back Bay Landing, located at 300 East Coast Highway in Newport Beach.

The Back Bay Landing project, on 7+ acres and approved unanimously by the Planning Commission and City Council in 2016, surrounds the existing OC San’s 4,800 square foot Bay Bridge Pump Station (“BBPS”) on three sides and will be directly and irreparably adversely affected by the proposed BBPS expansion both in the short-term, during the ill-defined 4-6 year demolition, excavation and construction period, and in the long term.

Because neither BVM, its long-time Project Manager, R. Gordon Craig, or this firm received timely notice,1 the bulk of our comments and explanation of the reasons for our opposition to the proposed BBPS project will need to be presented to you at the Thursday, January 18 hearing on this matter.

In brief summary, your Staff Report fails to adequately disclose the multiple defects in the design of this massive and unnecessary industrial facility that will occupy the very threshold and entryway to Upper Newport Bay and dominate the scenic heart of Newport Harbor.

We say “unnecessary” because OC San had (and has) other alternative locations including potential locations immediately adjacent to and on either side of the East Coast Highway harbor bridge, and as has been done in other sewage pump station projects across the country and worldwide, could’ve been downsized, and/or utilized more subterranean construction, etc.
1 Apparently notices were mailed to a former Los Angeles address of the owner’s management company and hand delivered to the Bayside Village Mobilehome Park; BVM’s only actual notice was a posting on ECH observed by BVM representatives this recent Monday.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
18101 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92612
T 949.833.7800
F 949.833.7878
John P. Erskine
D 949.477.7633
[email protected]
Admitted only in California
Refer To File # 400244-0001 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
[email protected]
Planning Commission - January 18, 2024
Item No. 3b - Additional Materials Received
OCSD Bay Bridge Pump Station (PA2023-0076)
13-103
317

January 17, 2024

62469533.v1
As set forth previously by prior commenters on the various EIRs (there were 3-4 versions of the EIR) and the various and ever-expanding Project Descriptions, the BBPS is inconsistent with the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan, the Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan (“PCDP”), does not protect LCP-mandated coastal views, and does not comply with the PCDP’s Architectural Theme or Required Façade Treatment conditions (see section 10, Back Bay Landing PCDP, page 26). Contrary to Planning Staff’s assertions (page 9) in the Staff Report, we do not believe the proposed expanded, 22-foot high pump station is either “aesthetically pleasing as a stand-alone development,” appropriate for this central Newport Harbor coastal location, or visually/architecturally compatible with the Back bay Landing PCDP.

Finally, both the Staff Report and the Addendum -- prepared in response to the Superior Court ruling in BVM v. OCSD, fails to set forth additional environmental impacts that have only recently come to light, as many of the submittals for the Site Development Review and Coastal Development Permit post-date the preparation of the Addendum.

Thank you for your attention to our input on this matter; we urge the Commission to reject the current submittals and deny the Site Development Review and CDP unless revised and conditioned to be compatible with the City Back Bay Landing mixed-use coastal and Coastal Commission approved village.

Sincerely,

John P. Erskine
Nossaman LLP

JPE:dlf

Planning Commission - January 18, 2024
Item No. 3b - Additional Materials Received
OCSD Bay Bridge Pump Station (PA2023-0076)
13-104
318

Attachment F
Appellant’s Appeal Application January 31, 2024
13-105
319
13-106
320
13-107
321
13-108
322

Attachment G
Staff Response to Appellant Letter
13-109
323
Attachment G- Staff Reponses to Appellant Appeal Letter

1. Contrary to the Planning Commission's January 18, 2024 discussion, and based on misleading and unsupported testimony from OC San, the eminent domain process does not prevent the City Council from assessing all of the impacts of the OC San's project, and rejecting it, or selecting an alternative location.

Response: As the City Council will conduct a de-novo hearing, its review authority is not bound by the Planning Commission’s decision or limited to the issues raised on appeal or at the Planning Commission. The eminent domain matter, in and of itself, does not prevent the City Council from assessing the project in accordance with City codes and standards. After condu cting a public hearing and taking in all public comments including staff’s presentation and staff report and related documents, the City Council may vote to deny the project if it determines the project is not meeting one or more of the required findings for a major site development review application and coastal development permit. If the City Council denies the application, the applicant may submit a new application with an alternative design or location.

2. The expanded Bay Bridge Pump Station (“BBPS”) is too massive, too tall, and is an unnecessary industrial type facility that can easily be located in a less conspicuous site elsewhere on BVM’s property (e.g., immediately adjacent to and on either side of and partly underneath the East Coast Highway Bridge).

Response: Staff has conducted a thorough evaluation of the project and determined that its size and height conform to the development standards and the findings both in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D) and Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2024 -002 (Attachment C) support the conclusion. While there may be alternative locations available within the property site, the project as proposed has met the applicable development standards of the Newport Bea ch Municipal Code (NBMC). Staff believes that the additional size of the proposed station is necessary to meet current OCSD functional requirements and to accommodate the addition of a new odor control. There is no odor control facility in the existing station. Per Section IV (B) (Development Standards – Permitted Height of Structures) of PC-9, the maximum building height within Planning Area 1 shall not exceed 30 feet for flat roofs and 35 f eet for sloped roofs. The proposed electrical and generator building features a sloped roof design with parapet walls which is 22 feet. The proposed odor control building features a flat roof design with parapet walls which is 15.5 feet. Additionally, the proposed height of the building accounts for the raised floor necessary for flood and coastal hazard protection, electrical and mechanical equipment for station operation, and screening for rooftop HVAC equipment. The height appears to be the minimum necessary for proper functionality of the station.

3. The BBPS expansion, as proposed, will triple its current size (4,800 to 14,500 sf), and as stated by prior commenters on the three prior versions of the BBPS EIR is inconsistent with City’s and Coastal Commission’s unanimously approved Coastal 13-110
324
Land Use Plan, the Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan (“PCDP”), and key provisions of the California Coastal Act. T he BBPS expansion does not protect LCP-mandated coastal view corridors from Coast Highway towards Upper Newport Bay and Castaway’s Bluffs, and is not in compliance with the City’s General Plan scenic highway policies, and does not comply with the requirements or the intent of the Back Bay Landing PCDP’s Architectural Provisions (Section 10, page 26 Back Bay Landing PCDP), that the pump station essentially be camouflaged, and incorporated within the overall BBL development.

Response: The Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D) and Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2024 -002 (Attachment C) support the required findings demonstrating that the project is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan.

Additionally, the findings for determining consistency with the PCDP (PC-9) are incorporated in the findings for Major Site Development Review. As stated above, the staff analysis, with its supporting facts demonstrates that the project meets the findings and is consistent with the PC-9.

The appellant cl aims the project does not protect LCP -mandated coastal view corridors from Coast Highway towards Upper Newport Bay and Castaway’s Bluffs.

However, Facts 5 and 6 of Finding “C” listed in Planning Commission Resolution No.

PC2024-002 (Attachment B) provide supporting statements that the project meets the finding requiring consideration of public views through the site. Fact #6 states that the project is designed to maintain the six view corridors identified by the PC-9 and Exhibit 13 of the PC-9, which the Coastal Commission has certified. Furthermore, staff provides a thorough analysis of the public views on pages 13 and 14 in the Planning Commission Staff report (Attachment C), demonstrating project’s compliance with said findings. Staff continues to assert that the project conforms to the coastal view corridors from Coast Highway towards Upper Newport Bay and Castaway’s Bluffs.

The appellant also claims that the project is not in compliance with the City’s General Plan scenic highway policies. Policies NR20.3 (Public Views) of the General Plan’s Natural Resources Element require that view corridors from certain roadway segments, including various sections of the Coast Highway, including the segment adjacent to the project site, be protected, and enhanced. As discussed above, the project conforms to the standards in the PC-9 which is consistent with the General Plan policies in addition to the Local Coastal Plan. Landscaping is proposed along the East Coast Highway frontage, which helps reduce the massing of the property walls. The landscape buffer also enhances the appearance of the public right -of- way so that the Project does not appear walled off from public viewsheds.

The appellant states that the project does not comply with the requirements or the intent of the PC-9 Architectural Provisions. PC-9 contains a provision stating that “should the OCSD facility be relocated and/or reconstructed, the architectural design of the structure be compatible with the architectural design of the Back Bay Landing 13-111
325
development and design standards…” At the time PC-9 was adopted by the City Council and certified by the California Coastal Commission, it was assumed the Pump Station reconstruction would likely occur after the development of the Back Bay Landing mixed-use project. The fact that the Pump Station is now proposed to be reconstructed first and there is no currently proposed or approved Back Bay Landing mixed-use project to compare the proposed architecture of the Pump Station to complicates matters. Furthermore, PC-9 does not mandate a particular architectural style, but it merely stipulates that development be designed with a “coastal architectural theme” with the intent that no particular historically specific or rigid architectural style be selected for the project. PC-9 simply requires that the mixed-use project “follow principles of quality design and exhibit a high level of architectural standards and be compatible with the surrounding area, sensitive to scale, proportion and identify.” The proposed Pump Station design incorporates a modern design with a cantilevered roof overhang and an integration of materials and details inspired by the surrounding coastal context. The buildings avoid long, continuous blank walls with a simple façade composition of a base and top separated by different colors. There is a mixture of heights and roof types (sloping and flat) to create visual interest , as well as provide rhythm, dynamic building forms, and shadows. To resolve the concern about the Pump Station design’s potential inconsistency with the future and undetermined design of the Back Bay Landing mixed-use project, Condition No. 31 of Planning Commission Resolution No.

PC2024-002 (Attachment B) requires that the applicant make future alterations to the exterior façade to the satisfaction of the Community Deve lopment Director for consistency and compatibility with the architecture of a future approved Back Bay Landing mixed-use project.

4. Staff and Applicant failed to adequately address or explain why the alternate site south of the ECH bridge - .62 acres owned by BVM – is not superior to the expanded site north of ECH. This southern alternative avoids numerous operational and aesthetic issues, and poses far less construction risks, including minimizing sub - surface microtunneling (boring of a 6-7 foot wide tunnel) beneath ECH.

Response: The applicant’s letter in response to the Appellant mentions that the alternative site was discussed in the EIR, and that the alternative site was not chosen for other reasons including space needs, vulnerability to flooding and other factors listed in the applicant’s response letter (Attachment H). Although discussions have occurred between staff and the Applicant regarding alterative locations, staff is not in the position to mandate construction of the project at one particular location over another. As the applicant ultimately presented the proposed a project, it was staff’s responsibility to evaluate the project, as proposed, based on City’s General Plan, Zoning, Local Coastal Plan and the PCDP. Furthermore, with regards to the EIR, the City is not the Lead Agency but a Responsible Agency and it has limited authority compared to the Lead Agency (OCSD). A Responsible Agency may require changes in a project to lessen or avoid only the effects, either direct or indirect, of that part of the project which the agency (the City) will be called on to carry out or approve.

13-112
326

5. Contrary to Planning Staff’s assertions (page 9) in the January 18 Planning Commission Staff Report, the proposed expanded, 22 -foot high pump station is neither “aesthetically pleasing as a stand-alone development,” appropriate for this central Newport Harbor coastal location, or “visually/architecturally compatible with the Back Bay Landing PCDP”.

Response: The matter related to aesthetics and architectural compatibility were discussed during the January 18, 2024, Planning Commission hearing. To ensure aesthetic quality, the Planning C ommission imposed a condition of approval (discussed earlier) requiring future alterations to the exterior facade of the project for consistency and compatibility with the architecture of a future Back Bay Landing mixed-use project. Furthermore, the Project emphasizes clean lines, simplicity and avoids excessive ornamentation which will easily facilitate future facade modifications so the buildings would be consistent with the architectural style of the future Back Bay Landing mixed-use village.

6. Despite OC San’s multiple assertions that any further delay or rejection of their Site Development Review submittal will risk sewage spills in the harbor, there has been no evidence provided that the recently (2014) refurbished and mechanically upgraded BBPS facility cannot continue to function safely for the balance of this decade. In fact OC San has not even received a complete, filed CDP application with the California Coastal Commission for the new 30 -inch force mains that must be microtunneled from a 54-foot deep launch pit near Bayside and Coast Highway and traverse Under ECH and under the Newport Harbor Channel. Likewise they have no approval from Caltrans for proposed access to and from East Coast Highway.

Response: Staff works with applicants to find solutions that achieve the applicant’s desired project while at the same time, ensuring that the applicant’s project conforms with the City’s vision and objectives as articulated in the General Plan, Zoning, and various other policy documents. Staff does not believe it is in a position to dispute OCSD’S assertion that the facility in its current form (primarily age of the infrastructure) poses a risk of sewage spill and that the project is necessary in part to negate the chance of sewage spills. Staff’s responsibility is to provide recommendations as to whether or not a project conforms with the City standards (General Plan, Local Coastal Program, zoning, etc.). According to OC SD’s Asset Management Plan, which is a tactical document that captures OCSD’s structure maintenance plans and capital improvement plan implementation on an annual basis for all its facilities, indicates the subject Bay Bridge Pump Station has less than five years of useful life. Based on the Asset Management Plan, the current pump station needs to be replaced to safeguard against sewage spills. Furthermore, the trial court’s ruling on Bayside Village Marina LLC v Orange County Sanitation District recognizes the “sever risk to the environment that would be posed by the outdated pumping station and force mains failing and spilling raw sewage into Newport Bay (page 16 of the ruling) (Attachment H).
13-113
327

7. The recirculated EIR, and subsequent evidence obtained in depositions in the pending Eminent Domain case (OCSD v. BVM, case no. 30-2022-01251890-CU-EI- CXC) of four different BBPS Project Managers, indicates that this massively disruptive OC San project will be under construction, with upwards of 1,200 truck trips on Coast Highway, Bayside and Dover per year for 4-5 years+. There is no need for the City to rush the approvals of this ill -advised, risky and poorly management project while the City Council works with OC San and BVM to identify an alternative location and design of the project.

Response: It’s recognized that the project will involve truck trips due to the construction phase including grading, excavation, dredging, etc. There will be lane closures, additional truck trips through the neighborhood and other construction related activities as disclosed in the EIR. It is staff’s opinion that the expected disruption resulting from the project does not justify the delay or denial of the project.

Even if the project would occur at an alternative location, favored by the appellant, the level of disruption would not be any less as the project would still involve construction, grading, excavation, dredging, truck trips, etc.

Although not related to construction related truck trips, the frequency of truck trips to the site and the type of trucks during the operation of the new facility will not be different than the current level of truck trips. According to OCSD’s Project Resolution of Necessity, service vehicles will be limited to 15 trips on a weekly basis that will use the access easement from. The Final EIR also discloses this matter and stats “the project would require up to 15 maintenance vehicle trips per week for periodic maintenance and inspections by OCSD staff, and no new vehicle maintenance trips would be required as a result of the proposed project. No new employees would need to be hired as part of the project.” The primary access to the site will be primarily from an agreed shared access easement from Bayside Drive. Access from East Coast Highway will serve as the secondary access. The use of the easement access will increase the safety for OCSD operations and maintenance. 13-114
328

Attachment H
Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Appeal February 14, 2024

13-115
329

350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213-576-1000 | Fax: 213-576-1100
Matthew Wickersham Direct Dial: 213-576-1185 Email: [email protected]

Alston & Bird LLP www.alston.com
Atlanta | Beijing | Brussels | Charlotte | Dallas | London | Los Angeles | New York | Raleigh | San Francisco | Sili con Valley | Washington, D.C.

February 14, 2024

Mayor Joe Stapleton and City Councilmembers
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Orange County Sanitation District’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station – Major Site Development Review and Coastal Development Permit (PA-2023-0076) – 250 E. Coast Highway
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
On behalf of Orange County Sanitation District (“OC San”), this letter responds to the January 31, 2024 ap peal (“Appeal”) by Bayside Village Marina (“ BVM”) of the Planning Commission’s approval of OC San’s Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Main Replacement Project (“Project”). BVM’s Appeal ignores several key points:
• BVM seeks to delay a Project that will, when complete, offer Newport Beach a significant benefit by substantially reducing the risk of a potentially catastrophic sewage spill into Newport Bay. The Bay Bridge Pump Station (“BBPS”) treats over half of the se wage generated by Newport Beach —on average 4.2 million gallons of sewage flow s through the BBPS every day. However, the BBPS is nearly 60 years old, has no odor control, and needs to be revamped to meet modern standards for construction, electrical equipm ent, and maintenance. The completion of the Project will give Newport Beach a state-of-the-art modern Pump Station. • OC San has spent many years trying to engage with BVM regarding the location and design of this Project. These negotiations resulted in OC San changing the location and scope of the Project to suit the most recent location offered by BVM.1 OC San invested precious time in these negotiations, and significant resources and expertise into developing an Environmental Impact Report for the Project, which was approved by OC San in March 2021 (the “EIR”).

1 The December 16, 2022 trial court ruling in the CEQA litigation describes some of the many steps taken by OCSD to accommodate any concerns raised by BVM about the location of the expanded pump station. (Exhibit A [12/16/22 Ruling] at pp. 2-3.) 13-116
330
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

• Despite these changes, BVM filed litigation challenging the EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). On December 16, 2022, Judge William Claster of the Orange County Superior Court issued a ruling denying all of the challenges brought by BVM, except for a minor issue concerning the location of construction staging areas. The trial court held that “[b]ecause the issues with construction staging are both severable and appear to be readily correctable, and given the overriding need for the Project, OCSD will not be required to withdraw its approvals for the Project and certifica tion of the EIR.” (Exhibit A [12/16/22 Ruling] at p. 16 , emphasis added .) “ In order to avoid unnecessary delay that increases the risk of a sewage spill, the District may continue to seek the necessary permits from the City, Coastal Commission, etc. to move forward with the Project, and it may continue to pursue the companion eminent domain action.” (Id. at p. 17, emphasis added.)
• BVM did not file an appeal to the trial court’s CEQA ruling. It did not file a challenge to the revisions prepared by OC San in response to the trial court’s limited finding of deficiencies. Instead, BVM stipulated that OC San had complied with the trial court’s writ of mandate and that its CEQA case should be dismissed. (Exhibit B [8/23/2023 Stip & Order].)
• As a result o f the resolved CEQA litigation, BVM has lost or waived all of its challenges to the environmental review conducted by OC San for the Project.

Despite stipulating that OC San has complied with the trial court’s writ of mandate and that its CEQA case should be dismissed , BVM raises many of the same environmental challenges that it raised in the CEQA litigation again here, in its appeal. This is improper.
• The City is a responsible agency under CEQA, and in reviewing the Project , the final EIR prepared by OC San is “conclusively presumed to comply with CEQA.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15231.)
• In the pending eminent domain lawsuit, BVM has withdrawn the deposit of “probable compensation” provided by OC San. (Exhibit C [9/14/23 Stipulation and 9/15/23 Order of Withdrawing Deposit].) This withdrawal has the legal effect of “waiv[ing] all rights to dispute the taking other than the right to challenge the amount of just compensation.” ( Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist. v.

Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 648, 653; see also Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1255.260.) The only legal issue remaining to BVM concerns the amount of just compensation that must be paid to BVM for the small portion of its property needed for the expanded pump station.

In sum, the environmental issues raised by the Appeal have already been resolved and BVM is in no position to raise waived, untimely and/or previously resolved objections concerning the characteristics of the Project. However, to the extent that the Council has independent concerns about the topics raised by the Appeal, OC San provides the following 13-117
331
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

information below in response to each of the topics raised in the Appeal, and OC San would be happy to provide any further information desired by the Council:
• BVM Appeal Topic #1: Contrary to the Planning Commission's January 18, 2024 discussion, and based on misleading and unsupported testimony from OC San, the eminent domain process does not prevent the City Council from assessing all of the impacts of the OC S an's project, and rejecting it, or selecting an alternative location.

OC San Response #1: As discussed above, the objections raised by the Appeal must be considered in the context of BVM’s litigation history, particularly to the extent that it has waived its right to challenge the location of the Project as part of the eminent domain litigation. Further, as to the environmental objections raised by the Appeal, as a responsible agency under CEQA, the City has a limited role in reviewing the environm ental analysis that is now final and has been already approved by the Orange County Superior Court. To the extent that there are additional impacts within the purview of the City (for example, on aesthetic issues), the condition of approval already adopted by the City regarding future aesthetic modifications to the Project fully address any such issues. • BVM Appeal Topic #2: The expanded Bay Bridge Pump Station (“BBPS”) is too massive, too tall, and is an unnecessary industrial type facility that can eas ily be located in a less conspicuous site elsewhere on BVM’s property (e.g., immediately adjacent to and on either side of and partly underneath the East Coast Highway Bridge)
OC San Response #2: The trial court already rejected BVM’s argument that the critical infrastructure that BVM seeks to delay is a “too massive” and “unnecessary” facility that should be situated elsewhere. (Exhibit A [12/16/22 Ruling] at pp. 8-9.) Indeed, the EIR devoted nearly 40 pages to painstaking analysis comparing alternative locations and configurations with the current Project, before applying its expertise in going forward with the current Project.

Indeed, the reasons for going forward with the Project are compelling and supported by substantial evidence. BVM’s comparison of the proposed Project to the nearly 60-year- old Station is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The proposed Bay Bridge Pump Station is an essential critical facility that has been designed to minimize the footprint while meeting the modern-day functional requirements of the facility . Functionality takes into consideration the current codes and the safety, reliability, and maintainability of the mechanical, electrical and control system of the pump sta tion for long -term continued operability. A majority of the pump station mechanical equipment will be below grade (below ground level). The new pump station has a larger underground footprint to meet current industry hydraulic standards, unlike the existing pump that was constructed nearly 60 years ago. The above-grade structures include an electrical building, generator building, and odor control structure. The electrical building is designed in accordance with the National Electrical Code (NEC), except that the distance between 480 -volt electrical 13-118
332
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

equipment is six feet (per OC San’s standards) instead of four feet (per the NEC) for safety reasons as it provides an electrician with the proper working clearance to verify the equipment is properly de -energized. This safety feature only increases the depth of the building by four feet. The designed electrical equipment also includes additional reliability and redundancy, which offers additional environmental protection by preventing a sewage spill flowing from a single point of failure. The standby generator maintains pump station operation during a utility power failure, like the existing pump station. Additionally, new Odor Control facilities are being provided to meet OC San’s high standards to minimize impacts to surrounding neighbors. This new feature, not present in the current Station, accounts for a significant portion of the larger footprint.

Figures 1, 2, and 3 depict the lay out of the above grade facilities, specifically, electrical room, generator room, and odor control structure, respectively. The size of the buildings has been optimized to house the required equipment to maintain pump station functionality.

Figure 1 – Electrical Room Layout

13-119
333
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

Figure 2 – Generator Room Layout

Figure 3 – Odor Control Structure

The Project’s size and footprint are consistent with the footprint of similar, modern Pump Stations. The Bay Bridge Pump Station’s proposed building size is comparable to OC San’s Bitter Point Pump Station (5904 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach) constructed 13-120
334
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

approximately 12 years ago. Table 1 lists the sizes of the buildings. Bitter Point Pump Station does not have an odor control facility since there are no current or future known developments in the vicinity of the Bitter Point Pump Station.

Table 1 – Above Grade Building Square Footage Comparison

Bitter Point Pump Station Proposed Bay Bridge Pump
Station
Electrical 1,300 1,600
Generator 800 700
Odor Control N/A 1,800
Building Height:

The height of the Project is relatively modest. The top of the electrical building (tallest building on the site) is designed to be at Elevation 36.00, which is 23.75 feet above adjacent grade. This is only about 66% of the maximum height above adjacent grade allowed by the City in this area. The City’s Planned Community (PC -9) allows building heights to a maximum of 35 feet above adjacent grade at the location of the pump station height zone (Zone PA). Further, the height of the Project considers the preliminary design information provided by BVM of its planned Back Bay Landing development. BVM anticipated that its development will include a building situated behind the Project which will be much taller than the electrical building. The electrical building was designed t o unobtrusively stand in the shadow of the taller , planned BVM building if BVM ever proceeds with the development.

The pump station height is also driven by the following safety and environmental factors:
• Building raised to protect from tsunami caused flooding; • Electrical and mechanical equipment required for the pump station operation; and • Roof parapet to screen the roof-mounted HVAC equipment.

Figure 4 illustrates a cross section of the electrical building with the electrical panels, HVAC equipment both inside the building and roof, and the parapet. HVAC is required to cool critical electrical equipment and prevent corrosion from the coastal environment. 13-121
335
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

Figure 4 – Generator Room Layout

BVM Appeal Topic #3: The BBPS expansion, as proposed, will triple its current size (4,800 to 14,500 sf), and as stated by prior commenters on the three prior versions of the BBPS EIR is inconsistent with City’s and Coastal Commission’s unanimously approved Coastal Land Use Plan, the Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan (“PCDP”), and key provisions of the California Coastal Act. The BBPS expansion does not protect LCP-mandated coastal view corridors from Coast Highway towards Upper Newport Bay and Castaway’s Bluffs, and is not in compliance with the City’s General Plan scenic highway policies, and does not comply with the requirements or the intent of the Back Bay Landing PCDP’s Architectural Provisions (Section 10, page 26 Back Bay Landing PCDP), that the pump station essentially be camouflaged, and incorporated within the overall BBL development.

OC San Response #3: The trial court in the resolved CEQA litigation specifically rejected BVM’s claims that the Project is inconsistent with the PCDP, the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act. (Exhibit A [12/16/22 Ruling] at pp. 10-14.) Indeed, the EIR had a lengthy 25 -page provision-by-provision discussion of the Project’s compliance with these various land use plans. As shown by the trial court’s ruling, BVM’s arguments of inconsistency ultimately depend on its skewed legal interpretation of the plans’ provisions. The trial court held that BVM’s arguments were not accurate or reasonable and instead that the EIR’s analysis was supported by substantial evidence. The trial court’s ruling on the proper legal interpretation controls here.

Regardless, the Planning Commission staff report showed that the Project does not obstruct the public view corridors identified in PC -9, the Coast View Roads identified in the CLUP, or any Public Viewpoint. The Staff Report also described how the Project was designed in an aesthetic sense to be visually consistent with any future Back Bay Landing mixed-use village . Notably, while the almost 60 -year-old Pump Station needs to be 13-122
336
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

revamped in the near term, it is substantially unclear when, or even if, Bayside will propose a project-level design for a mixed -use village, what that d esign will look like, or indeed whether the project will ever be built in any form. Further, and in any event, the Planning Commission added a condition providing for future alterations to the exterior façade of the Project for consistency and compatibility with the architecture of any future-approved Back Bay Landing project. This condition allows the City to reap the safety and environmental benefits of the Project now, while allowing for aesthetic modifications in the future if the Back Bay Landing project is ever developed.

Lastly, to the extent BVM complains about the larger foot size of the Project as compared to the almost 60-year-old existing Pump Station, OC San addressed this apples- to-oranges comparison in OC San Response #2.
• BVM Appeal Topic #4: Staff and Applicant failed to adequately address or explain why the alternate site south of the ECH bridge - .62 acres owned by BVM – is not superior to the expanded site north of ECH. This southern alternative avoids numerous operational and aesthetic issues, and poses far less construction risks, including minimizing sub-surface microtunneling (boring of a 6-7 foot wide tunnel) beneath ECH.

OC San Response #4: OC San evaluated the southern alternative in the EIR as part of the CEQA process. As part of the CEQA litigation, the trial court has determined that the EIR’s discussion of alternatives fully complied with CEQA, and that BVM’s arguments to the contrary were incorrect. (Exhibit A [12/16/22 Ruling] at pp. 8-10.) The southern alternative had several safety and environmental issues including the lack of space for a backup generator and odor control facility. The southern site is also more vulnerable to flooding, has additional environmental concerns, involves multiple property owners, and constrains any future Caltrans bridge improvements. Further, the southern site would have required the construction of a new connection to the OC San gravity sewer system. The gravity sewer would still need to be microtunneled under East Coast Highway.
• BVM Appeal Topic #5: Contrary to Planning Staff’s assertions (page 9) in the January 18 Planning Commission Staff Report, the proposed expanded, 2 2-foot high pump station is neither “aesthetically pleasing as a stand -alone development,” appropriate for this central Newport Harbor coastal location, or “visually/architecturally compatible with the Back Bay Landing PCDP” OC San Response #5: The Project is aesthetically designed to be non-descript and to blend into the Back Bay Landing development (if such development ever gets of f the ground).

This issue was addressed at the January 18, 2024 meeting.

During the Planning Commission meeting on January 1 8, 2024, Planning Commissioner Langford asked BVM’s Michael Gelfand if he agreed with the architectural 13-123
337
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

theme of what is being presented and if it would match whatever the future intentions of what his future project would look like since he was the direct neighbor that was affected the most. The original plan was coastal Mediterranean. Mr. Gelfand stated that this is certainly what they had in mind, but the reality is that OC San is kind of a shell. If and when he moves forward, he would propose to OC San that the exterior façade be changed to match. His main concern is not the actual design from an aesthetic standpoint. It is the footprint, setbacks, easement through the middle of the property, and the size along PCH. (1/18/24 Transcript at 58:45 -60:00.) Ironically, BVM has already conceded these points in its eminent domain litigation and has lost its challenges, as part of the CEQA litigation, to the environmental review conducted for the Project.

In the aftermath of the January 18, 2024 meeting, recognizing that Newport Beach could secure the safety and environmental benefits of a state-of-the-art Pump Station now, while securing aesthetic harmonization with a potential Back Bay Landing project later in the event the Back Pay project proceeds, the Commission adopted a condition providing for future alterations to the exterior façade of the Project for consistency and compatibility with the architecture of any future-approved Back Bay Landing project.

Lastly, as to the appropriateness of the Newport Harbor coastal location, this issue was looked at detail in the EIR, and reviewed and affirmed in Court as part of the CEQA litigation. Whatever BVM’s objection, it is, respectfully, of no moment in the face of OC San’s court -approved application of its expertise in selecting the location and characteristics of the Project.
• BVM Appeal Topic #6: Despite OC San’s multiple assertions that any further delay or rejection of their Site Development Review submittal will risk sewage spills in the harbor, there has been no evidence provided that the recently (2014) refurbished and mechanically upgraded BBPS facility cannot continue to function safely for the balance of this decade. In fact OC San has not even received a complete, filed CDP application with the California Coastal Commission for the new 30-inch force mains that must be microtunneled from a 54-foot deep launch pit near Bayside and Coast Highway and traverse Under ECH and under the Newport Harbor Channel. Likewise they have no approval from Caltrans for proposed access to and from East Coast Highway.

OC San Response #6: There is no reasonable basis by which BVM can dispute OC San’s determination that an upgraded BBPS facility is necessary. As the trial court found in the CEQA litigation, the “ record contains evidence that the current pump station is deteriorating and does not meet current standards for construction, electrical equipment, or maintenance… The record also contains evidence that failure of the system could result in the release of sewage into Newport Bay. ” (Exhibit A [12/16/22 Ruling] at p. 14.) California law, specifically Section 30231 of the Coastal Act imposes a mandatory policy for protecting Newport Beach’s water quality (it “shall be maintained ”). In accord, OC San is an agency solely tasked with ensuring the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater for approximately 2.6 million people in central and northwest Orange County. 13-124
338
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

It is odd that BVM believes that it is in any position to question OC San’s court-approved technical determination that this Project needs to move forward post haste.

Even more puzzling, BVM has already conceded this point. In a joint status conference statement recently filed in the eminent domain action, BVM agreed that it has waived any dispute as to the public use and necessity for the Project: “The parties agree that the public use and necessity for project and acquisition are no longer at issue in this case, leaving the amount of compensation due as the sole remaining issue.” (Exhibit D [1/31/24 Joint Statement] at pp. 4-5; see also id. at p. 3 [“BVM having now waived all its challenges and objections to OC San's right to acquire the Property Interests…”].) Of specific note, the statement ma de by BVM that the BBPS facility was refurbished and mechanically upgraded in 2014 is not accurate. In 2014, OC San added a pump to increase reliability in the pump station and provide a backup pump for wet weather conditions. But this was a stop gap sol ution that allows OC San the time to complete the Project on the current schedule. It was not undertaken to enable the further delay that BVM effectively seeks with the Appeal.

The timely completion of the Project is important. Safe and reliable infrastructure is essential to providing industry-leading wastewater collection and management. OC San manages asset reliability, mitigates risk, and ensures the quality of our delivered services.

OC San captures facility condition information in our Asset Manag ement Plan which can be found online Document Central | Orange County Sanitation District (ocsan.gov) . The 2023 Asset Management Plan identifies Bay Bridge Pump Station as having a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of less than 5 years as shown in the table below:
13-125
339
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

This finding aligns with previous asset management plans and the schedule for the current pump station and force main replacement project. Now is the time to implement this Project to address the critical major assets that need to be replaced.

Next, the statement made by BVM that OC San has not even received a complete, filed CDP application with the California Coastal Commission is inaccurate. On January 24, 2024, OC San received notification from the California Coastal Commission that they have filed our application as complete. Indeed, as is the case with other necessary approvals, the fact that OC San did not file a California Coastal Commission application sooner is the direct result of BVM’s ultimately meritless CEQA challenge to the project.

But for that, Newport Beach would be closer to reaping the benefits of a state-of-the-art Pump Station.
13-126
340
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

Lastly, OC San has been working cooperatively with Caltrans and believe we have a path forward to obtain an encroachment permit.
• BVM Appeal Topic #7: The recirculated EIR, and subsequent evidence obtained in depositions in the pending Eminent Domain case (OCSD v. BVM, case no. 30-2022-01251890-CU-EI-CXC) of four different BBPS Project Managers, indicates that this massively disruptive OC San project will be under construction, with upwards of 1,200 truck trips on Coast Highway, Bayside and Dover per year for 4-5 years+. There is no need for the City to rush the approvals of this ill-advised, risky and poorly management project while the City Council works with OC San and BVM to identify an alternative location and design of the project.

OC San Response #7: OC San has articulated the environmental and safety reasons as to why it is important that the Project proceed according to schedule without any further delays in Response #6. Likewise, BVM’s substance-free categorization of the project as “ill-advised” and “risky” stands in contrast to the thorough analysis found in the EIR, which was affirmed by the trial court in the CEQA litigation.

In any event, BVM has waived its right to challenge the location of the proposed expansion. BVM has already withdrawn a deposit of over $4.3 million of taxpayer dollars that is entirely dependent on OC San’s ability to obtain BVM’s property at the specific location at issue here in this approval. BVM was not required to withdraw this money. It could have retained its right to challenge OC San’s right to acquire property at this location.

It did not. It is far too late for BVM to now ask for an alternative location.

As to the disruption caused by the construction of the Project, the number of truck trips will ebb and flow with the stage of project construction . The Recirculated Environmental Impact Report identifies the average number of truck trips to the site during the significant construction periods:
• Demolition Activities -- 10 average trucks per day
• Grading Activities – 25 average trucks per day
• Building Construction – 16 average trucks per day
• Installation of Force Mains – 28 trips per day
• Gravity Sewer Improvements – 23 trips per day
Given the state of the existing Pump Station, construction in the near te rm is necessary.

The sooner the Project proceeds, the sooner construction will finish. In the aftermath, 13-127
341
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station February 14, 2024

Newport Beach will benefit from a state-of-the-art Pump Station which will protect the environment, wildlife, and the health of Newport Beach residents for decades.

Sincerely,

Matt Wickersham
13-128
342

EXHIBIT A
[OCSD Response to 1/31/24 Appeal]

13-129
343

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

MINUTE ORDER
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: William Claster

COUNTY OF ORANGE

CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER
DATE: 12/16/2022 DEPT: CX104TIME: 02:16:00 PM
CLERK: G. Hernandez
REPORTER/ERM: None
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: . None
CASE INIT.DATE: 04/01/2021CASE NO: 30-2021-01194238-CU-WM-CXC CASE TITLE: BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA, LLC vs. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION

DISTRICT
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Writ of Mandate EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: 73909236
EVENT TYPE: Under Submission Ruling

APPEARANCES

RE PETITIONER'S WRIT OF MANDATE

There are no appearances by any party.

The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 12/14/2022 and having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now issues its ruling. The Court's ruling is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Court orders clerk to give notice.

MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 12/16/2022
DEPT: CX104 Calendar No.

13-130
344
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 1

Petitioner Bayside Village Marina LLC (Bayside) seeks a writ of mandate compelling Respondent Orange County Sanitation District (“OCSD” or the “District”) to vacate and set aside its approval of (1) the OCSD’s Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains (“BBPS”) replacement project (“Project”) located on East Coast Highway in Newport Beach, and (2) the certification of the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (“REIR”) for the Project. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS a limited writ as set forth below.

I. B ACKGROUND

Bayside is the owner of 31.4 acres of property located at East Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach, California between Newport Channel and Bayside Drive. (ROA 25, First Amended Verified Petition (Petition), ¶ 9; AR230.) Approximately 24 acres of Bayside’s property are developed with mobile homes, and the remaining seven acres contain an outdoor storage space of RVs and small boats, parking and restrooms facilities for the Bayside Marina, a kayak rental and launch facility, parking and access to Pearson’s Port seafood market, and marine service equipment storage under the Coast Highway Bridge (“BVM Property”). (AR230, 011290.)

The seven acres are being developed as the “Back Bay Landing” Project, which is a mixed-use development that will be implemented pursuant to the Newport Beach- and Coastal Commission-approved Back Bay Planned Community Development Plan (“PCDP”). It will have a boat storage facility, retail stores and recreational marine-related facilities and residential units. (AR226, 230, 3274, 7539-97; Petition, ¶ 9.) Bayside is also the developer of this Back Bay project. (Petition, ¶ 9.)

OCSD owns and operates the BBPS, which is located at 300 East Coast Highway in Newport Beach, just east of the Newport Bay Channel. (ROA 103, Opp., p. 8; AR186.) BBPS transports sewage or wastewater through pipelines to OCSD’s 13-131
345
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 2

sewage treatment plant in Huntington Beach and is a piece of critical infrastructures that conveys 50-60% of the total wastewater flow generated in Newport Beach. (ROA 103, Opp., p. 8; AR186.) BBPS is located on the southern boundary of Bayside’s property, is surrounded on three sides by that property, and is adjacent to the Back Bay Landing Project. (AR230, 3206.)

The District’s Project involves the construction of a new, larger pump station extending 100 feet to the west of the existing pump station and the installation of new force mains. (AR186 and 237.) The new pump station facilities will include a pump station, generator and odor control facilities. (AR186, 230.)

Planning on the Project started in 2013. (AR3206.) Since the Bayside Property, and particularly the Back Bay Landing Project, surrounds the Project, from 2014-2016, Bayside and OCSD exchanged information and worked together to discuss alternatives for the Project. (See e.g., AR3206, 6371-72, 7040-43,7090, 7324, 7342-43, 15667, 16128-131.)

In June 2017, OCSD published a draft EIR that analyzed a version of the Project involving the demolition of the existing facility, construction of a new and larger facility adjacent to Bayside Drive and installation of force main improvements beneath the Newport Bay Channel north of the Bay Bridge. (AR236, AR9383-84.) The District never presented the 2017 Final EIR to its Board of Directors for approval due to conflicts with the planned development of the Back Bay Landing Project. (AR236, AR1501-1506.)

In July 2019, OCSD published a recirculated EIR with three alternatives for the Project. (AR236, AR11613-14.) During the public comment period, there were concerns regarding the three conceptual site plans, including confusion about one of the alternatives known as the South Pump Station. (AR236.) OCSD did not present the 2019 EIR to the OCSD Board.
13-132
346
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 3

Instead, OCSD decided to select one conceptual site plan and construction method and update the EIR in its entirety. (AR236.) The concept chosen and analyzed in the 2020 recirculated EIR (REIR) is the Adjacent Pump Station, which is essentially the South Pump Station alternative in the 2019 REIR. (AR237.)

The Final EIR (FEIR) was published in January 2021 and approved on March 1, 2021. (AR1-3.)

II. OVER

VIEW OF CEQA PROCESS

“CEQA is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment. [Citation.]” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112.) It applies to “discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(a).) “In enacting CEQA, the Legislature declared its intention that all public agencies responsible for regulating activities affecting the environment give prime consideration to preventing environmental damage when carrying out their duties. [Citations.] CEQA is to be interpreted ‘to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ [Citation.]” (Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 112.)

An EIR, which has been described as “the heart of CEQA” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564), “is required for any project that a public agency proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. [Citations.] An EIR must describe the proposed project and its environmental setting, state the objectives sought to be achieved, identify and analyze the significant effects on the environment, state how those impacts can be mitigated or avoided, and identify and analyze alternatives to the project, 13-133
347
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 4

among other requirements. [Citations.]” (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 465-66 (Ballona).)

Once a draft EIR is prepared, the public must be notified, and the draft and all documents it references must be made available for public review and comment. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21091(a), 21092; CEQA Guidelines, § 15087. 1) The
public agency acting as the lead agency then prepares a final EIR, which must include comments received from the public and from other agencies concerning the draft EIR, responses to those comments, and any revisions to the draft EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15088, 15132; Ballona, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 466.)

III. P

ROJEC T DESCRIPTION

A. O verview

Bayside asserts that the EIR description of the Project and its environmental setting is “inaccurate and unstable.” “The fundamental goal of an EIR is to inform decision makers and the public of any significant adverse effects a project is likely to have on the physical environment. [Citations.] To make such an assessment, an EIR must delineate environmental conditions prevailing absent the project, defining a baseline against which predicted effects can be described and quantified. [Citation.]” (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Ca1.4th 439, 447.) This generally includes providing “a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective.” (Id., at p. 448; see CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a).)

1 References to the CEQA Guidelines are to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. 13-134
348
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 5

“Without accurate and complete information pertaining to the setting of the project and surrounding uses, it cannot be found that the [EIR] adequately investigated and discussed the environmental impacts of the development project.” (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 729 (San Joaquin Raptor).) Thus, [i]f the description of the environmental setting of the project site and surrounding area is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, the EIR does not comply with CEQA.” (Cadiz Land Co. v.

Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 87.)

B . Failure to Identify Neighboring Commercial Operations

Bayside contends that repeated use of the phrase “RV Storage facility” obscures “the site’s coastal-dependent, visitor serving uses.” (Pet. Supp. Br. at p. 16.) Indeed, a number of businesses on the west side of the Project site (e.g., Southwind Kayaks, Gondola Adventures) are not mentioned by name anywhere in any EIR.

While it is true that these businesses are not referenced by name and that the site is referred to as an RV Storage facility (presumably since RVs are stored near where the actual construction will take place), those references do not create an inaccurate picture of the Project. In fact, the EIR refers to these businesses on the west side of the Project as “commercial” or “commercial recreation marine uses” in a number of places. (AR230, 234, 260, 392, 436.) The businesses also are listed on Table 3-1 under “General Commercial.“ (AR235.)

The fact that the site is called an RV Storage facility is not misleading when considering the EIR as a whole. The above-cited references to commercial activity and the various maps/photos of the Project site overcome this alleged shortcoming.
13-135
349
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 6

A related purported flaw in the EIR’s Project description is the failure to address the potential adverse physical impacts Project construction would have on these businesses. On the contrary, such analysis is found at AR 473-482 regarding noise and vibrations during construction, and at AR 302-305 with respect to air quality.

In terms of traffic, the EIR makes clear that access to the Project site will be shared via Bayside Drive by construction vehicles and users of the commercial facilities. As to the added construction and operational traffic, the EIR addresses these issues at AR499 and in Impact Statement TRA-4.

C. C
onstruction Staging Area Description

Bayside contends that the Project description is inaccurate and, indeed, is an “unstable moving target” by virtue of the failure to describe and evaluate a construction staging area. The Court agrees. The 2020 REIR includes several references to construction staging. Page 3-11 states: “Portions of the adjacent private property (currently a RV storage area) and Lower Castaways Park could be temporarily utilized for construction staging, if these areas are available during construction of the proposed project.” (AR241.) Then, in response to a letter from the City of Newport Beach stating that the Lower Castaways would not be available (AR1120), the 2021 FEIR noted: “Should Lower Castaways not be available, construction staging would occur within other proposed areas of disturbance (as identified in the project boundary shown on 2020 Recirculated Draft EIR Exhibit 3-4).” (AR1127.)

Exhibit 3-4 is a Proposed Conceptual Site Plan that shows the areas (highlighted in yellow) where the proposed project construction will take place as well as the Lower Castaways. (AR238.) A virtually identical site plan (also highlighted in yellow) is found at Exhibit 3-6 which is entitled Adjacent Pump Station Work Areas. (AR243.) According to OCSD’s supplemental brief, based on the unavailability of the Lower Castaways, “the construction staging will occur 13-136
350
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 7

somewhere in this Adjacent Pump Station Work Area.” (OCSD Supp. Br. at p. 12.) Based on this statement, the District argues in its supplemental brief that it satisfied CEQA since the EIR “considered all potential impacts that could occur in the Adjacent Area.”

However, based on a review of Exhibits 3-4 and 3-6, it is unclear whether creating a staging area in the limited designated space is even possible. With the exception of the Lower Castaways, the Coast Highway and the Newport channel, it appears that the areas highlighted in yellow are where virtually all of the construction actually will take place. Certainly, no specific location with adequate square footage is identified, nor is there any analysis as to whether Mitigation Measures AES-1 and TRA-1 would apply to any area other than the Lower Castaways.

Perhaps a more significant problem with the statements in both the FEIR and supplemental brief about an alternative site in the project area is that they may well be inaccurate. Indeed, TRA-1 tends to contradict OCSD’s supplemental brief by virtue of acknowledging that future staging areas may be located off-site:
“[construction drawings shall] identify any and all construction staging or material storage sites located outside of the project site.” (AR206 [emphasis added].)

Compounding this problem, counsel for the District told the Court at an earlier hearing that the lowest responsible bidder on the Project will have complete discretion to decide where staging will occur and how many staging sites will be necessary. (August 4, 2022 Transcript at pp. 11-12.) Importantly, by not limiting that comment to sites within the yellow-highlighted boundaries of Exhibits 3-4 or 3-6, the District appears to acknowledge that staging sites not identified in either the REIR or FEIR might be utilized. Given that uncertainty, Bayside’s argument regarding a lack of a complete, accurate and stable project description has merit.

More specifically, the District’s argument (OCSD Supp. Br. at p. 12) that the EIR considered all environmental impacts (biological, noise, aesthetics, etc.) in the 13-137
351
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 8

Adjacent Area fails to account for any potential impacts that might occur if the construction staging area occurs elsewhere. Without identifying the area or areas where staging will occur, the public is left in the dark about whether that staging will have any effects on the environment at location(s) yet to be identified.

Counsel’s statement that the lowest responsible bidder will have complete discretion with regard to construction staging also renders the mitigation measures of AES-1 toothless. AES-1 purports to minimize aesthetic impacts of construction by requiring the District’s Director of Engineering to personally approve construction staging areas, transport routes, etc. before grading or demolition permits are issued. To the extent AES-1 actually imposes enforceable standards (which the Court questions), it cannot be reconciled with the vesting of complete discretion in the lowest responsible bidder.

IV. C

ONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a).)

The EIR identified five alternatives to the Project to analyze in detail: the “no project” scenario, the “adjacent project/microtunneling” scenario, the “original 13-138
352
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 9

northeast pump station with horizontal directional drilling” scenario, the “rehabilitate in place with microtunneling” scenario, and the “pump station south relocation with microtunneling” scenario. (AR539-540.) Nearly 40 pages of analysis are devoted to comparing each of these alternatives to the Project. (AR540-578.)

Bayside does not challenge the analysis presented. Rather, it faults the EIR for failing to discuss two additional alternatives: the “Expand-in-Place” scenario and alternative alignments for the dual force mains south of East Coast Highway.

“Courts will defer to an agency’s selection of alternatives unless the petitioners (1) demonstrate that the chosen alternatives are “ ‘ “manifestly unreasonable and ... do not contribute to a reasonable range of alternatives,” ’ ” and (2) submit evidence showing the rejected alternative was both “feasible” and “adequate,” because it was capable of attaining most of the basic objectives of the project, taking into account site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, and other relevant factors. [Citation.]” (South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 345.)

The Court assumes for the sake of argument that the “Expand-in-Place” scenario and the alternative alignments for the dual force mains are both feasible and adequate. That is, the Court assumes Bayside has met the second prong of its burden.

However, Bayside fails to meet the first prong of its burden. “The ‘key issue’ is whether the range of alternatives discussed fosters informed decisionmaking and public participation. [Citation.]” (Cherry Valley Pass Acres & Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (190 Cal.App.4th 316, 354.) Bayside complains that two alternatives were not considered, but it identifies no authority holding that the failure to consider a specific alternative or alternatives automatically renders the range of 13-139
353
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 10

alternatives considered “manifestly unreasonable” or insufficient to “foster informed decisionmaking.” (Compare id., at p. 355 [“Though one or more of these 328 imaginable alternatives may have represented the optimum number of residences that could have profitably been built while minimizing the agricultural impacts of the project to the fullest extent possible, the range of alternatives discussed in the EIR was sufficient to foster informed decisionmaking on this very question.”].)

V. I

NCONSISTENCIES WITH P LANS

A. O verview

Bayside contends the EIR is fatally flawed because it fails to disclose the Project’s inconsistencies with the PCDP, the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (“LCP”), and the Coastal Act.

An EIR must discuss “any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans and regional plan.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d).) This includes inconsistencies with the Coastal Act. (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1233.) A determination of consistency “comes to this [C]ourt with a strong presumption of regularity. [Citation.] To overcome that presumption, an abuse of discretion must be shown. [Citations.] An abuse of discretion is established only if the city council has not proceeded in a manner required by law, its decision is not supported by findings, or the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. [Citation].” (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 717.) “It is, emphatically, not the role of the courts to micro-manage these development decisions. Our function is simply to decide whether the city officials considered the applicable policies and the extent to which the proposed project conforms with those policies, whether the city officials made appropriate 13-140
354
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 11

findings on this issue, and whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence.” (Id., at pp. 719-20 [emphasis in original].) In addition, Bayside’s opening brief suggests the EIR is inadequate to the extent it fails to explain why the District found the Project consistent with applicable plans. (Pet. Opening Br. at p. 19, lines 6-8.) Because EIRs need only evaluate inconsistencies with plans, no analysis is required if the project is consistent with plans. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 632 [citing City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 918-19].) Insofar as Bayside argues the explanation of consistency is inadequate (as opposed to arguing the finding of consistency is an abuse of discretion), this challenge fails.

B . PCDP Inconsistency

The PCDP contains zoning regulations that dictate acceptable land uses in each “Planning Area” it covers. It is undisputed that both the current pump station and the new pump station to be built as part of the Project are in Planning Area 1.

According to the PCDP, “Wastewater Pump Station” is a permitted land use in Planning Area 1. (AR7615.)

Bayside nevertheless contends the Project is inconsistent with the PCDP. It argues that the PCDP “identifies the existence of the BBPS, however, only at its current size and location, not the expanded size and altered location contemplated by the Final EIR.” (Pet. Opening Br. at p. 18.) The claimed inconsistency apparently arises from conceptual drawings attached to the PCDP (for parking plans, public spaces, etc.) that show the BBPS in its current location in the context of the larger planning area. (See AR7650-7663.) That is, as the Court understands the argument, because the conceptual drawings show the current BBPS, any deviation is an inconsistency.

13-141
355
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 12

As the District points out in opposition, the PCDP imposes specific numeric limits on the square footage of commercial, residential, marina, and dry dock use in Planning Area 1, but not wastewater pump use. (AR7612.) The conceptual drawings do not on their face appear to limit the size or the location of the pumping station, only to show it in relation to other then-existing uses for planning purposes. The only explicit limitation placed on a wastewater pump station by the PCDP is that it must be in Planning Area 1. As to Bayside’s contention that AR7549 allows the pump station also to be in Planning Area 2 (a contention that the Court will accept even though it does not appear that AR7549 is in the record filed with the Court), that fact does not establish PCDP inconsistency. Accordingly, the Court cannot say the finding of consistency is unsupported by substantial evidence.

C. L
CP Consistency

Bayside contends the Project is inconsistent with policy 2.1.9 of the LCP because that policy “mandate[s] protection and expansion of coastal-dependent over commercial/industrial uses.” (Pet.’s Opening Br. at p. 17.) As the District points out, nothing in policy 2.1.9 or its associated sub-policies discusses the relative priority of coastal-dependent uses vis-à-vis utility uses like the Project. (Furthermore, it appears the only hard-and-fast priority is that coastal-dependent uses are prioritized over residential uses, not over commercial/industrial uses.

See policy 2.1.9-1, at AR11289.)

In any event, the City correctly notes that relative priority matters only if the Back Bay Landing development and the Project are a zero-sum game in terms of developed square footage. Under the PCDP, square footage for a wastewater pump station does not count against commercial, residential, marina, or dry dock square footage. (See AR7612.) The Court cannot say the finding of consistency is unsupported by substantial evidence.

13-142
356
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 13

D. C oastal Act Consistency

Bayside contends the Project is inconsistent with multiple sections of the Coastal Act, in particular Pub. Resources Code §§ 30213, 30221, 30222, 30224, and 30253(e), and policy 3.2.1-1 of the LCP, which similarly requires protection of coastal recreation opportunities.

The Court agrees with the District that § 30222 is inapplicable. On its face, that statute prioritizes “visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation . . . over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.” Again, the Project is a utility use, not one of the categories enumerated in this statute.

Of the remaining provisions, the only one discussed in any detail in Bayside’s briefing (opening, reply, or supplemental) is § 30253(e) of the Coastal Act. The remainder are simply referred to in laundry lists without discussion of any particular alleged inconsistencies. Because Bayside bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, the Court finds the failure to specifically discuss §§ 30123, 30221, and 30224 of the Coastal Act, as well as policy 3.2.1-1 of the LCP, means Bayside has not shown an abuse of discretion in the District’s finding of consistency.

As to § 30253(e), it provides: “New development shall . . . [w]here appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational use.” “Where appropriate” is an important qualifier here, as the District flags a competing provision of the Coastal Act, § 30231, which provides: “The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored 13-143
357
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 14

through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment . . . .”

The administrative record contains evidence that the current pump station is deteriorating and does not meet current standards for construction, electrical equipment, or maintenance. (AR187.) The record also contains evidence that failure of the system could result in the release of sewage into Newport Bay. (AR187, 245.) Section 30231 of the Coastal Act imposes a mandatory policy for protecting water quality (it “shall be maintained”), while § 30253(e) only imposes a duty to protect recreational use “where appropriate.” On this record, the Court cannot say the District lacked substantial evidence to conclude its duties under § 30231 prevailed over its duties under § 30253(e), and thereby to conclude the Project is consistent with the Coastal Act. Put another way, Bayside must show the District abused its discretion in finding the “where appropriate” qualifier in § 30253(e) inapplicable here, and it has not met its burden to do so.

VI. A

DEQUACY OF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

Bayside contends the District’s response to comments prior to certification of the FEIR is inadequate. The Court agrees with the District that Bayside failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on this issue. “[T]he time for complaining about the inadequacy of [the District’s] responses was when the issue was before the agency and any alleged deficiency could be explained or corrected.” (Towards Responsibility in Planning v. City Council (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 671, 682.) Bayside points to nothing in the record indicating that the alleged inadequacy of the District’s responses was raised at the administrative stage. As a result, this challenge is barred.

Bayside responds that the foregoing statement from Towards Responsibility is dictum unnecessary to the holding. This is true enough, as the Court of Appeal in that case found the agency’s response to comments adequate on the merits. But 13-144
358
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 15

“[t]o say that dicta are not controlling [citation] does not mean that they are to be ignored; on the contrary, dicta are often followed.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (6th ed. 2022) Appeal § 532.) And while Bayside cites a number of cases on page 21 of its supplemental brief holding that inadequate responses to comments may render an EIR defective, none of those cases discusses the effect of the challenger’s failure to raise the inadequacy issue before the agency.

VII. R

EMEDIES AND CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Bayside’s petition is GRANTED on the ground that the description of the construction staging area is inadequate, and for the related reason that AES-1 is a toothless mitigation measure as a result.

Bayside asks the Court to set aside the District’s Project approvals and EIR certification. Public Resources Code § 21168.9 gives the Court discretion to fashion a narrower remedy. “The 1993 amendments to section 21168.9 expanded the trial court’s authority and ‘expressly authorized the court to fashion a remedy that permits some part of the project to go forward while an agency seeks to remedy its CEQA violations. In other words, the issuance of a writ need not always halt all work on a project.’ [Citation.]” (San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc. V.

Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1104- 1105.) “The choice of a lesser remedy involves the trial court’s consideration of equitable principles.” (Id., at p. 1104.)

As discussed above, Bayside’s challenge is largely unsuccessful. And the vast majority of Bayside’s challenge has little, if anything, to do with construction staging issues. The Court therefore finds the remainder of the Project severable from the construction staging issues. The Court further finds severance will not prejudice full and complete compliance with CEQA, because the remainder of the Project is CEQA-compliant. (Pub. Resources Code § 21168.9(b).) 13-145
359
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 16

In considering equitable principles to fashion a remedy, the Court is especially mindful of the severe risk to the environment that would be posed by the outdated pumping station and force mains failing and spilling raw sewage into Newport Bay. Furthermore, as explained in the District’s filings in the companion eminent domain case, permitting from the relevant authorities is expected to take 9-12 months, with construction not starting for another six months after that. (See OC Superior Court case no. 2022-01251890, ROA 92, at pp. 2-3.) Based on representations made at the hearing, it appears that the City will not allow the permitting process to start without OCSD approval of the Project and its certification of the EIR. Of course, stalling that already lengthy process increases the risk of the very sewage spill the Project seeks to prevent.

Because the issues with construction staging are both severable and appear to be readily correctable, and given the overriding need for the Project, OCSD will not be required to withdraw its approvals for the Project and certification of the EIR.

As explained by the court in Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.

App. 4
th 260, 287-88:

In our view, a reasonable, commonsense reading of section 21168. 9 plainly forecloses plaintiffs' assertion that a trial court must mandate a public agency decertify the EIR and void all related project approvals in every instance where the court finds an EIR violates CEQA. Such a rigid requirement directly conflicts with the “in part” language in section 21168.9, subdivision (a)(1), which specifically allows a court to direct its mandates to parts of determinations, parts of findings, or parts of decisions. Such a rigid requirement also conflicts with the language in section 21168. 9, subdivision (b), limiting the court's mandates to only those necessary to achieve CEQA compliance and, if the court makes specified findings, to only “that portion of a determination, finding, or decision” violating CEQA. (Italics added.)

13-146
360
BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC v. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 21- 1194238
Ruling Page 17

Accordingly, the Court will impose the limited remedy of requiring OCSD to bring the EIR into CEQA compliance with respect to the construction staging issue and the related question of the enforceability of AES-1. Because the District’s CEQA noncompliance involves construction issues, this means no construction or other physical activity may take place at the Project site until the District is in compliance with CEQA. Whether bringing the EIR into compliance can be accomplished via a supplemental EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15163) or an addendum (CEQA Guidelines § 15164) will be left to OCSD to decide.

Note that the Court’s order includes only these mandates, which are necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code § 21168.9(b).) In order to avoid unnecessary delay that increases the risk of a sewage spill, the District may continue to seek the necessary permits from the City, Coastal Commission, etc. to move forward with the Project, and it may continue to pursue the companion eminent domain action.

Bayside shall prepare a proposed order in accordance with this ruling and provide it to OCSD for comments before submitting it to the Court. 13-147
361

EXHIBIT B
[OCSD Response to 1/31/24 Appeal]

13-148
362

Fee Exempt Per Gov. Code § 6103
1 WOODRUFF & SMART, APC
BRADLEY R. HOGIN - State Bar No. 140372
2 [email protected]
RICIA R. HAGER - State Bar No. 234052
3 [email protected]
555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200
4 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670
Telephone: (714) 558-7000
5 Facsimile: (714) 835-7787
6 Attorneys for Respondent ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT et. al. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 This stipulation is entered into between the parties through their respective counsel as 23 follows:
24 RECITALS
25 WHEREAS, on February 7, 2023, the Court entered a Peremptory Writ of Mandate in 26 this matter;
27 WHEREAS, on July 27, 2023, Respondent Orange County Sanitation District timely 28 filed a Return on the Peremptory Writ of Mandate (the “Return”); 1 STIPULATION DISCHARGING THE PREEMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND DISMI SSING THE CASE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1786198.1

WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN
& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA

BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA, LLC,
Petitioner,
v.

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT; ORANGE COUNTY

SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD OF
DIRECTORS; AND DOES 1-25,

INCLUSIVE,
Respondents.

CASE NO.: 30-2021-01194238

ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM

CLASTER
DEPARTMENT: CX104

STIPULATION DISCHARGING THE

PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
AND DISMISSING THE CASE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
HEARING DATES PENDING:

Type: Hearing on Writ Return
Date: November 3, 2023
Time: 10:30 a.m.

Dept: CX104
DATE ACTION FILED: April 19, 2021
TRIAL DATE: None

Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 08/28/2023 03:49:00 PM. 30-2021-01194238-CU-WM-CXC - ROA # 226 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By G. Hernandez, Deputy Clerk. 13-149
363

1 WHEREAS, Petitioners previously requested, and the Court set, a hearing on the 2 Return for November 3, 2023;
3 WHEREAS, the parties now agree that the Peremptory Writ of Mandate should be 4 discharged;
5 WHEREAS, the parties agree the hearing set for November 3, 2023 should be 6 vacated; and
7 WHEREAS, the parties agree that the case should be dismissed. 8 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED:
9 1. The Peremptory Writ of Mandate should be discharged. 10 2. The November 3, 2023, hearing date should be vacated. 11 3. This case should be dismissed.
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 2
STIPULATION DISCHARGING THE PREEMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND DISMISSING THE CASE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1786198.1

WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN
& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
DATED: August 28, 2023 WOODRUFF & SMART, APC

By:/s/ Bradley R. Hogin
BRADLEY R. HOGIN
RICIA R. HAGER
Attorneys for Respondents ORANGE COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT and ORANGE

COUNTY SANITATION BOARD OF

DIRECTORS
DATED: August 24, 2023 NOSSAMAN LLP

By:

JOHN P. ERSKINE
JOHN J. FLYNN III
Attorney for Petitioner BAYSIDE VILLAGE

MARINA, LLC

13-150
364

1 [PROPOSED] ORDER
2 The parties having entered into a written stipulation and good cause appearing 3 therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4 1. The Peremptory Writ of Mandate issued in this case on February 7, 2023 is 5 hereby discharged.
6 2. The hearing on the Return on the Peremptory Writ of Mandate set for 7 November 3, 2023, is hereby vacated.
8 3. This case is dismissed.
9 10 DATED: 08/28/2023
12 HON. WILLIAM CLASTER
13 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 1
STIPULATION DISCHARGING THE PREEMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND DISMISSING THE CASE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1786198.1

WOODRUFF & SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
13-151
365

EXHIBIT C
[OCSD Response to 1/31/24 Appeal]

13-152
366

1 STIPULATION FOR ORDER RE WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSIT OF PROBABLE COMPENSATION 1789574.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF & SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
Fee Exempt Per Gov. Code § 6103

WOODRUFF & SMART, APC
GARY C. WEISBERG - State Bar No. 132092
[email protected]
MICHAEL L. D'ANGELO -
State Bar No. 186882
[email protected]

ELIZABETH VALADEZ -
State Bar No. 216235
[email protected]
555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670
Telephone: (714) 558-7000
Facsimile: (714) 835-7787

Attorneys for
Plaintiff ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, a public entity

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT,
a public entity,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA, LLC, a
California limited liability company; LAGUNA
BEACH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a
public entity; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive;
and ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING

AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 30-2022-01251890-CU-EI-CXC
[Related to: 30-2021-01194238-CU-EI-CXC
Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County
Sanitation District, et al.]

ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM CLASTER
DEPARTMENT: CX-104

STIPULATION FOR ORDER RE

WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSIT OF
PROBABLE COMPENSATION;
[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON

[Assessor Parcel No. 440-132-60]

HEARING DATES PENDING:

Status Conference
Date: February 7, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept: CX104

Trial Readiness Conference
Date: May 10, 2024
Time: 1:30 p.m.

Dept: CX104

Trial
Date: May 20, 2024
Time: 9:00 a.m.

Dept: CX104

DATE ACTION FILED: March 25, 2022
TRIAL DATE: May 20, 2024
Electronically Received by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 09/14/2023 03:17:11 PM. 30-2022-01251890-CU-EI-CXC - ROA # 159 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By eClerk, Deputy Clerk. 11196161
13-153
367

2 STIPULATION FOR ORDER RE WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSIT OF PROBABLE COMPENSATION 1789574.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF & SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
Plaintiff Orange County Sanitation District (“Plaintiff” or “OC San”) and Defendant Bayside Village Marina LLC, a California limited liability company (“Defendant” or “Bayside”) (individually, “Party,” and collectively, “Parties”), through their counsel of record, stipulate to Bayside’s withdrawal of the deposit of probable just compensation from the California State Treasurer in the sum of Four Million Three Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Eighteen Dollars and Zero Cents ($4,379,518.00) (“Condemnation Deposit”), with reference to the following facts:

A. On March 25, 2022, OCTA filed its complaint in eminent domain seeking to acquire certain property interests within portions of Assessor Parcel No. 440-132 -60 (the "Property"). The interests in the Subject Property sought to be acquired include one partial fee acquisition (Parcel 5- 67-01), a permanent non-exclusive access easement (Parcel 5-67 -02), a temporary road easement (Parcel 5-67-03), three temporary construction easements (Parcels 5-67-04, 5-67 -05, and 5-67 -06), and two permanent sewer easements (Parcels 5-67 -07 and 5-67 -08) (collectively, the “Property Interests”).

B. Bayside is the owner of the Property.

C. On or about April 4, 2022 , OC San deposited with the California State Treasurer's Office the Condemnation Deposit as the probable amount of compensation that would be awarded herein pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.010, subdivision (a).

D. No portion of the Condemnation Deposit has been withdrawn by any party hereto.

E. Defendant Laguna Beach County Water District disclaimed its interest in the Condemnation Deposit via a disclaimer filed with the Court on August 29, 2022.

F. The Parties wish to enter into this stipulation to allow Bayside to immediately withdraw the entirety of the Condemnation Deposit.

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED , by and between OC San and Bayside, as follows:

1. The statements set forth above are incorporated herein through this reference.

2. No other parties have an interest in the Property Interests or in the Condemnation Deposit.
13-154
368

3 STIPULATION FOR ORDER RE WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSIT OF PROBABLE COMPENSATION 1789574.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF & SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA

3. OC San shall receive a credit in the full amount of the Condemnation Deposit against any judgement entered against it at trial, by stipulated judgment or upon the execution of an out-of- court settlement agreement between the Parties.

4. If the amount awarded by judgement in favor of Bayside and against OC San is less than the full amount of the Condemnation Deposit, Bayside shall issue payment in the excess amount to OC San within 45 days of entry of judgment.

5. Bayside is entitled to the immediate release of the Condemnation Deposit.

6. The Court may enter an Order in the form attached hereto authorizing and directing the California State Treasur er to issue payment as follows: A check in the amount of Four Million Three Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Eighteen Dollars and Zero Cents ($4,379,518.00) made payable to “Bayside Village Marina LLC” and mailed to: Brad B. Kuhn, Esq., NOSSAMAN LLP, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800, Irvine, CA 92612.

7. This Stipulation may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original, but all of which shall constitute one Stipulation.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, AGREED AND REQUESTED.

Dated: September 14, 2023 WOODRUFF & SMART, APC

By: /s/ Elizabeth Valadez

GARY WEISBERG
MICHAEL L. D’ANGELO

ELIZABETH VALADEZ
Attorney for Plaintiff Orange County Sanitation District

Dated: September 14, 2023 NOSSAMAN LLP
BRADFORD B. KUHN

By: /s/ Bradford B. Kuhn
JOHN P. ERSKINE
BRADFORD B. KUHN
Attorney for Defendant Bayside Village Marina LLC
13-155
369

1 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S WITHDRAWAL OF PROBABLE COMPENSATION ON DEPOSIT 1789602.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

FirmName1_1 ,
FirmLegalStatus1_1

WOODRUFF & SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
Fee Exempt Per Gov. Code § 6103

WOODRUFF & SMART, APC
GARY C. WEISBERG - State Bar No. 132092
[email protected]
MICHAEL L. D'ANGELO - State Bar No. 186882
[email protected]
ELIZABETH VALADEZ - State Bar No. 216235
[email protected]
555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670
Telephone: (714) 558-7000
Facsimile: (714) 835-7787

Attorneys for Plaintiff ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, a public entity

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT,
a public entity,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA, LLC, a
California limited liability company; LAGUNA
BEACH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a
public entity; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive;
and ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING

AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 30-2022-01251890-CU-EI-CXC
[Related to: 30-2021-01194238-CU-EI-CXC
Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County
Sanitation District, et al.]

ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM CLASTER
DEPARTMENT: CX-104

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S

WITHDRAWAL OF PROBABLE

COMPENSATION ON DEPOSIT WITH THE

STATE TREASURER
[Assessor Parcel No. 440-132-60]

HEARING DATES PENDING:

Status Conference
Date: February 7, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept: CX104

Trial Readiness Conference
Date: May 10, 2024
Time: 1:30 p.m.

Dept: CX104

Trial
Date: May 20, 2024
Time: 9:00 a.m.

Dept: CX104

DATE ACTION FILED: March 25, 2022
TRIAL DATE: May 20, 2024
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 09/15/2023 09:34:00 AM. 30-2022-01251890-CU-EI-CXC - ROA # 164 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By G. Hernandez, Deputy Clerk. 13-156
370

2 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S WITHDRAWAL OF PROBABLE COMPENSATION ON DEPOSIT 1789602.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

FirmName1_1 ,
FirmLegalStatus1_1

WOODRUFF & SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
The Court having considered the stipulation entered into by Plaintiff Orange County Sanitation District (“Plaintiff” or “OC San”) and Defendant Bayside Village Marina LLC, a California limited liability company (“Defendant” or “Bayside”) (individually, “Party,” and collectively, “Parties”),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDICATED AS FOLLOWS:

1. No other parties have an interest in the Property Interests or in the probable compensation on deposit with the California State Treasure r in the sum of Four Million Three Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Eighteen Dollar s and Zero Cents ($4,379,518.00) (“Condemnation Deposit”).

2. OC San shall receive a credit in the full amount of the Condemnation Deposit against any judgement entered against it at trial, by stipulated judgment or upon the execution of an out -of- court settlement agreement between the Parties.

3. If the amount awarded by judgement in favor of Bayside and against OC San is less than the full amount of the Condemnation Deposit, Bayside shall issue payment in the excess amount to OC San within 45 days of entry of judgment.

4. Bayside is entitled to the immediate release of the Condemnation Deposit.

5. The California State Treasurer is hereby authorized, directed and ordere d to issue payment as follows: A check in the amount of Four Million Three Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Eighteen Dollars and Zero Cents ($4,379,518.00) made payable to “Bayside Village Marina LLC” and mailed to Brad B. Kuhn, Esq., NOSSAMAN LLP, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800, Irvine, CA 92612.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 09/15/2023 By:

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM CLASTER
Judge of the Superior Court

13-157
371

EXHIBIT D
[OCSD Response to 1/31/24 Appeal]
13-158
372

1 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1801457.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF & SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
Fee Exempt Per Gov. Code § 6103 WOODRUFF & SMART, APC
GARY C. WEISBERG - State Bar No. 132092
[email protected]
MICHAEL L. D'ANGELO - State Bar No. 186882
[email protected]
ELIZABETH VALADEZ - State Bar No. 216235
[email protected]
555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670
Telephone: (714) 558-7000
Facsimile: (714) 835-7787

Attorneys for Plaintiff ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, a public entity

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, COMPLEX JUSTICE CENTER

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT, a public entity,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA, LLC, a
California limited liability company;

LAGUNA BEACH COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT, a public entity; DOES 1 through
100, inclusive; and ALL PERSONS

UNKNOWN CLAIMING AN INTEREST

IN THE PROPERTY,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 30-2022-01251890-CU-EI-CXC
(Related to 30-2021-01194238-CU-EI-CXC
Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange
County Sanitation District, et al.)

ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM CLASTER
DEPARTMENT: CX-101

JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE

STATEMENT

[Assessor Parcel No. 440-132-60]

HEARING DATES PENDING:

Type: Status Conference
Date: February 7, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.

Type: Trial Readiness Conference
Date: August 2, 2024
Time: 1:30 p.m.

Type: Trial
Date: August 12, 2024
Time: 9:00 a.m.

DATE ACTION FILED: March 25, 2022

Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 01/31/2024 11:14:00 AM. 30-2022-01251890-CU-EI-CXC - ROA # 175 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By E. efilinguser, Deputy Clerk. 13-159
373

2 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1801457.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF & SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
Plaintiff ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, a public entity ("OC San") and BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA, LLC, a California limited liability company (“BVM” or “Bayside”) submit the following Joint Status Conference Statement.

1. INTRODUCTION
In this eminent domain action, OC San is acquiring permanent and temporary property interests in real property located at 100 N. Bayside Drive and 100 E. Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach, California (the "Property"). The property interests being acquired consist of a partial fee interest (Parcel 5-67-01), a permanent non-exclusive access easement (Parcel 5-67-02), a temporary road easement (Parcel 5-67-03), temporary construction easements (Parcels 5-67-04, -05, and -06), and permanent utility easements (Parcels 5-67-07 and -08) (collectively, the “Property Interests”). The Property Interests are being acquired for the construction of the Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project (the "Project").

BVM is the fee owner of the Property. Laguna Beach County Water District ("LBCWD") was also named as a defendant in this action as an easement holder in the Property but has disclaimed all interest to compensation in the action.

OC San contends the Project is needed to rehabilitate or replace aging infrastructure facilities that are vital for the delivery and processing of sewer wastewater in Newport Beach and surrounding areas. OC San further contends that the Project will bring the facility and its component parts to current design and reliability standards to ensure continuous service to the community and prevent sewage spills, to improve odor control, and to improve public safety.

According to OC San, the Project includes demolition of the existing pump station building and construction of a new pump station, including a modernized pump station, generator, and odor control station and two new force mains under the Newport Harbor Channel. BVM is no longer contesting OC San’s right to acquire the Property Interests or to build the Project in this eminent domain action, reserving only the issue of just compensation under the applicable Eminent Domain Law.
13-160
374

3 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1801457.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF & SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA

2. PROCEDURAL STATUS OF CASE
OC San filed its Complaint in Eminent Domain on March 25, 2022, and BVM filed its Answer to the complaint on May 9, 2022. On August 29, 2022, a disclaimer of interest by LBCWD was filed with the Court. There are no other claims being brought by OC San, and there are no crossclaims. Presently, no additional parties are anticipated to be added to the action.

OC San’s deposit of its estimate of probable compensation pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.010(a) was made with the California State Treasurer on April 4, 2022. OC San subsequently filed a motion for pre-judgment possession of the Property Interests, which motion was granted on January 3, 2023, subject to the terms of the Court’s order.

In the course of these proceedings, BVM agreed to allow OC San temporary access to the property at-issue to conduct preliminary testing and analysis necessary to process permit applications with the City of Newport Beach, the California Coastal Commission, and other regulatory agencies. That work was completed on June 5, 2023 (though there is some continuing periodic work associated with measuring ground water levels). OC San’s efforts to secure the various permits from the regulatory agencies to build the Project is ongoing, and is incomplete as of this date.

This case was deemed related to Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, etc., et al. , Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238- CU-EI-CXC (“Related Case”). However, as described below, the writ of mandate in the Related Case was discharged and that case dismissed by stipulated order dated August 8, 2023.

3. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
BVM having now waived all its challenges and objections to OC San's right to acquire the Property Interests, the only remaining issues in this proceeding pertain to the amount of just compensation owing for such acquisition. BVM seeks reimbursement for its independent appraisal, compensation for the property sought to be taken, compensation for the temporary and permanent injury to the remainder of the property, compensation for damage to its fixtures, 13-161
375

4 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1801457.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF & SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
equipment and improvements pertaining to the realty, compensation for mitigation costs, compensation for pre-condemnation damages, and all other amounts as are just and proper.

BVM originally asserted a “loss of business” claim but subsequently waived that claim in verified responses to written discovery.

As to BVM’s claim for purported pre-condemnation damages, OC San contends that entitlement to those damages must be determined by the Court in advance of the jury trial.

4. STATUS OF DISCOVERY
The parties have exchanged written discovery and tens of thousands of pages of documents in response to requests for production of documents. OC San also obtained documents from the City of Newport Beach and the California Coastal Commission through requests under the California Public Records Act. Additionally, the depositions of four different witnesses as designated “persons most qualified” at OC San have been completed.

OC San has issued business records subpoenas to various third-party witnesses identified in documents produced by Bayside, and recently served notice of the deposition of the person(s) most qualified of Bayside.

Bayside has taken persons most qualified depositions of OC San and intends to take additional depositions of OC San project management, and serve additional written discovery, primarily to address issues the deponents could not address.

5. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The parties participated in two private mediations in hopes of resolving the compensation and related issues. The mediations were not successful. However, the parties are amenable to participate in further mediation efforts after they have an opportunity to complete discovery and engage in informal discussions regarding their respective contentions.

6. DESCRIPTION OF CORE LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES IN THE CASE The typical condemnation trial has two phases: the prima facie phase and the valuation phase. In the prima facie phase of the trial, the condemning agency establishes the public use and necessity for the project and acquisition. In the valuation phase, a jury determines the value of the property interests being acquired and the resulting damages (if any). The parties 13-162
376
5 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1801457.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF & SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
agree that the public use and necessity for project and acquisition are no longer at issue in this case, leaving t he amoun t of compensat ion d ue a s th e sol e remaining issue . O C San also contends that entitlement to pre-condemnation damag es must be determin ed by the Court in advance of the jury trial.

7. CONCLUSI ON
The parties request that the Court continue the status conference considering the recent continuance of the trial date from May 20, 2024, to August 12, 2024.

DATED: January 31, 2024 WOODRUFF & SMART, APC
By:

GARY C. WEISBERG
MICHAEL L. D'ANGELO

ELIZABETH VALADEZ
Attorneys for Plaintiff ORANGE COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT, a public entity
DATED: January 31, 2024 NOSSAMAN LLP
By:

BRADFORD B. KUHN
JOHN P. ERSKINE
Attorneys for Defendant BAYSIDE VILLAGE
MARINA, LLC, a California limited liability company
13-163
377

Attachment I
Coastal Hazards Report
13-164
378
Memo

SUBJECT PROJECT
Coastal Hazards Analysis Bay Bridge Pump Station
Replacement Project (5-67)

TO DATE
Orange County Sanitation District October 2023
Introduction
This memorandum summarizes the analysis for coastal hazards for the Bay Bridge Pump Station (BBPS) Replacement Project, Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) proposes to replace the existing BBPS with a new pump station and force main infrastructure. The existing BBPS is over 50 years old, outdated, and no longer meets structural, electrical, and maintenance standards. The Project includes replacing the existing pump station and force mains with a new pump station, replacement force mains, a new electrical building, a new emergency generator building, and an odor control structure.

The new pump station will include a trench-type wet well and a dry well for housing the pumps, motors, and other mechanical equipment. As shown on Figure 1, the pump station site also includes an electrical building, a generator building, and an odor control structure. The proposed electrical building includes the electrical equipment, instrumentation, control equipment, and restroom. The electrical building has a finished floor elevation of 15.50 feet NAVD88 and is elevated from the grade level. The entrance to the underground pump station dry well is also elevated to the same elevation of the electrical building finished floor at 15.5 feet NVAD88. The generator room finished floor is 14.17 feet NAVD88 and the generator will be mounted on a 2-ft-high belly fuel tank. The odor control structure finished floor is 14.00 feet NAVD88. The new force main will be installed beneath the Newport Bay Channel and would not be affected by coastal processes and is not included in the analysis.

This memorandum summarizes the potential impacts on the BBPS resulting from anticipated sea level rise, coastal geologic instability, and flooding per the requirements of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan Policies LUPs 2.8.1-1, 2.8.-2 and 2.8.1-4 and per Section 30253 of the Coastal Act.

Site Characteristics and Land Use
The Project site is located within a fully developed and urbanized area north of East Coast Highway. The existing BBPS is approximately 4,800 square feet, occupied by a single-story pump station building. The perimeter of the pump station building is surrounded by concrete masonry walls on all sides with two entrance gates. The existing facility is located on a parcel that is surrounded to the north, east, and west by a recreational vehicle storage area.

Seven acres of the site are planned for a mixed-use development. Surrounding land uses include residential, commercial, and commercial recreational marine uses. Within the vicinity of the Project, East Coast Highway, also known as State Route 1 is a 7 to 8 lane roadway including a bridge that crosses the Newport Bay Channel.

Bayside Drive is located to the east of the Project and is a 4 lane, designated secondary road.

Sea Level Rise Evaluation and Flooding
Several analyses have been conducted to understand the potential for anticipated Sea Level Rise (SLR) to impact the BBPS and whether the facility is at risk.

In 2019, OC San prepared the Resiliency Study SP-152 (Resiliency Study) which examined the potential climate change impact, including SLR on OC San facilities throughout its service area. The Resiliency Study used SLR projections from the Rising Seas Report and California’s Fourth Assessment (Hall 2018) as representing the state 13-165
379
Orange County Sanitation District
Coastal Hazard Analysis
October 2022
www.arcadis.com
Coastal Hazards Analysis
2/4
of science for SLR for the Orange County area. Relying on Hall 2018, OC San used SLR increases of 1.54 feet for 2050 and 3.71 feet for the year 2070 (Hazen 2019) to determine the potential risk of SLR in 2050 and 2070.

Using the 2050 and 2070 projections, the Resiliency study did not identify the BBPS site as having a significant risk associated with SLR in Year 2050 or 2070 (Hazen 2019).

The design also considers the most conservative SLR reference from the State of California’s Sea Level Rise Guidance (California Ocean Protection Council 2018) and Critical Infrastructure at Risk: Sea Level Rise Planning Guidance for California’s Coastal Zone (California Coastal Commission 2021). According to the State of California’s Sea Level Rise Guidance (California Ocean Protection Council 2018), the H++ scenario SLR for Los Angeles are 2.6 feet by 2050, 6.4 feet by 2080, and 9.9 feet by 2100. According to the State Sea-Level Rise Guidance, under the H++ SLR scenario, 2.7 feet of SLR can be expected by 2050, 6.6 feet by 2080, and 10.2 feet by 2100 (California Coastal Commission 2021). The life expectancy of the new pump station will be around 50 years and the 6.6 feet SLR of Year 2080 based on California Coastal Commission 2021 will be used for evaluation.

The SLR is evaluated based on the mean high water (MHW). The MHW is 4.50 feet NAVD88 for Newport Beach Bay Per NOAA Tides & Currents. The Our Coast Our Future (OCOF) map with projection of 6.6-ft SLR above MHW is shown on Figure 2. A portion of the existing site is shown inundated based on the 2080 SLR of 6.6-ft SLR Above MHW (11.10 feet NAVD88). The BBPS design took a conservative approach of designing to a minimum floor elevation of 14.00 feet NAVD88 as shown on Figure 1. Using this minimum floor elevation, construction of the new BBPS would avoid SLR impacts for the anticipated life of the facility.

Per comments received from the City of Newport Beach on August 3, 2023, a maximum bay water elevation of

7.7 feet NVAD88 was evaluated for SLR. The 6.6-ft SLR above the maximum bay water elevation leads to 14.3 ft NVAD88 elevation. The electrical room and the entrance to the underground pump station are at 15.5 ft NVAD88, hence, the electrical equipment and underground pump station will be protected from SLR. The generator room finished floor is 14.17 feet NAVD88, however, the generator will be mounted on a 2-ft-high belly fuel tank and the generator panels will be mounted 3.5 ft above finished floor. Therefore, the generator and panels will be located higher than 14.3 ft NVAD88 elevation and protected from SLR.

The odor control area finished floor is at 14 ft NVAD88. The liquid odor control is not critical process for the facility, however, measures have been incorporated to protect from SLR. For example, the foul air fan and carbon scrubber will be mounted on equipment pads and the equipment will be higher than SLR elevation of 14.3 ft NVAD88. In addition, flood barrier/shield can be used for odor control area pedestrian door and temporary measures such as sand bags can be used for roll up gate. Waterproofing admixtures such as Dry-Block or Eucon Blocktite systems will be used for the odor control area structure block walls to protect the facilities from flooding.

Per the discussion above, the BBPS critical process will be protected from SLR based on either MHW or maximum bay water level elevation.

Flooding & Tsunami
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2019 FIRM map, the Project is not located within the 100 year flood hazard zones (Figure 3). As analyzed in the 2020 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (Michael Baker International 2020), less than significant impacts are anticipated in the event of the 100- year flood.

The Project site is located within the designated tsunami zone (California Department of Conservation 2022).

During design of the BBPS, the engineers used the American Society of Civil Engineer’s (ASCE) Tsunami Design 13-166
380
Orange County Sanitation District
Coastal Hazard Analysis
October 2022
www.arcadis.com
Coastal Hazards Analysis
3/4
Zone (TDZ) to determine the Maximum Considered Tsunami (MCT). In the event of a tsunami, the Project site could be expected to see some minor flooding and the run up elevation at the Project site is 7.24 feet above MHW or 11.74 feet NAVD88 (Figure 4 and 5). Figure 4 shows that in the event of tsunami, the parking areas may be expected to see minor flooding. However, because the minimum floor elevation of the new BBPS would be 14.00 feet NAVD88, the new facilities would not be subjected to inundation.

Furthermore, onsite drainage is routed to the BBPS. The pump station is designed to operate even if the site is inundated. Therefore, the risk of flooding the pump station is minimal.

Ground Improvements and Shoring
The Project site is located in an area of potential liquefaction. To mitigate the potential for liquefaction, static settlement, and differential settlement, the new pump station will be excavated over 35 feet deep such that the impacts from liquefaction are not anticipated. The ground improvement plan for the overall pump station site can be referenced to the Geotechnical Design Report enclosed in the permitting package. Deep excavation will require shoring and design is exploring several techniques including, but not limited to slurry diaphragm wall, secant pile wall shoring, solid sheet pile wall, or a combination of shoring techniques.

Erosion and Shoreline Loss
The location of the BBPS is located within a developed area and is not located at the shoreline or at the bank of the Newport Bay Channel. The Project site is not subject to erosion and shoreline loss. The BBPS would not be subjected to erosion or shoreline loss as a result of waves or wave run up. The Project does not include, and does not require shoreline protection.

Summary and Conclusion
The BBPS Project has been analyzed with regards to postal coastal hazards, including SLR, flooding, tsunami, and geologic stability. The new BBPS will be located in a developed area, including the location of the existing BBPS. The new BBPS is designed to ensure that the facilities would not be subjected to the SLR and tsunami impacts.

13-167
381
Orange County Sanitation District
Coastal Hazard Analysis
October 2022
www.arcadis.com
Coastal Hazards Analysis
4/4
References:

Michael Baker International. 2020. Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project (Project No. 5-67) 2020 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report. May 2020.

Arcadis. 2022. Preliminary Design Report Project No. 5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station Replacement.

California Coastal Commission. 2021. Critical Infrastructure at Risk: Sea Level Rise Planning Guidance for California’s Coastal Zone. Final Adopted Guidance. November 17, 2021.

California Department of Conservation. 2022. Orange County Tsunami Hazard Areas. Website located at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/orange. Retrieved June 17, 2022 California Ocean Protection Council. 2018. State of California’s Sea Level Rise Guidance. March 14, 2018.

Hall, Alex, Neil Berg, Katharine Reich. (University of California, Los Angeles). 2018. Los Angeles Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2018-007 Hazen. 2019. Climate Resiliency Study. Final Report. SP-152. November 27, 2019.

Our Coast Our Future Mapping Tool. 2022. Website located at: https://ourcoastourfuture.org/ retrieved June 10, 2022
NOAA Tides & Currents Datums for Newport Beach. Website located at:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datums.html?datum=NAVD88&units=0&epoch=0&id=9410580&name=NEWPO RT+BEACH%2C+NEWPORT+BAY+ENTRANCE&state=CA retrieved August 22, 2023

Enc. [Enclosures]
13-168
382

Attachment J
Public View Analysis

13-169
383
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
23456789 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY)
6/6/2023 4:38:13 PM
BIM 360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt A9001

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - 01
302

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ

EXISTING PUMP STATION

PROPOSED NEW PUMP STATION

EAST COAST HIGHWAY VIEW CORRIDORS

PER BACK BAY LANDING PLANNED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PC-9)
VIEW CORRIDOR IDENTIFIED IN 2014
VIEW CORRIDOR IDENTIFIED IN 2016

VIEW CORRIDOR COMPARISON
THE PROPOSED NEW PUMP STATION MAINTAINED THE VIEW CORRIDOR IDENTIFIED IN 2014. THE FUTURE COASTAL PUBLIC VIEW TOWER AND BLUFF IS UNOBSTRUCTED ON THE VIEW CORRIDOR. IN RESPECT TO THE BACK BAY LANDING DEVELOPMENT, A LANDSCAPE SETBACK IS PROVIDED IN FRONT OF PCH PERIMETER WALL. THE BUILDING MASSING AND MATERIALS ARE ADDRESSED TO INTEGRATE WITH SURROUNDING SITE CONTEXT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

NOTES: THIS DRAWING CONTAINS COLOR DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS
AND/OR COLOR RENDERINGS. SEE THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF
THIS SHEET FOR MAXIMUM CLARITY.

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
1 LCP RESUBMITTAL 06/2023
1 13-170
384
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
23456789 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY)
6/6/2023 4:38:46 PM
BIM 360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt A9002

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - 02
302

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
V1
V2
V3 V4 V5
V6

EXISTING
NOTES: THIS DRAWING CONTAINS COLOR DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS
AND/OR COLOR RENDERINGS. SEE THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF
THIS SHEET FOR MAXIMUM CLARITY.

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
1 LCP RESUBMITTAL 06/2023
V1 - VIEW FROM NORTH OF CASTAWAYS PARK V2 - VIEW FROM SOUTH OF CASTAWAYS PARK V3 - VIEW FROM WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

PROPOSED

EXISTING

PROPOSED

EXISTING

PROPOSED
1 13-171
385
V1
V2
V3 V4 V5
V6
NOTES: THIS DRAWING CONTAINS COLOR DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS
AND/OR COLOR RENDERINGS. SEE THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF
THIS SHEET FOR MAXIMUM CLARITY.

SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
23456789 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY)
6/6/2023 4:39:19 PM
BIM 360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt A9003

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - 03
302
Designer
Author
Checker
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
1 LCP RESUBMITTAL 06/2023
V4 - VIEW FROM EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY V5 - VIEW FROM COAST HIGHWAY & N BAYSIDE DR V6 - VIEW FROM N BAYSIDE DR

EXISTING

PROPOSED

EXISTING

PROPOSED

EXISTING

PROPOSED
1 13-172
386

Attachment K
Applicant’s Project Description
13-173
387
Bay Bridge Pump Station Replacement
Project No. 5-67
Project Description and Justification (Updated November 2023) Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater pump stations and Newport Force Main (NFM) network along the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in the City of Newport Beach (City), California. The network conveys wastewater to the Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment facility in Huntington Beach. The existing Bay Bridge Pump Station (BBPS) conveys approximately half the wastewater flow generated in the City and the wastewater will eventually be treated at OC San Plant No.2. The locations of the existing and proposed pump stations are shown on Figure ES-1 and Figure ES-2.

The existing BBPS was constructed in 1966 (Project No. 5-12) and upgraded in 1995 with new pumps, piping and ventilation modifications, structural upgrades, architectural revisions, and a standby generator (Project 5-33). In 2014, another pump was added for increased capacity and reliability (under Project 5- 60). The existing BBPS has been over 50 years and requires replacement.

The Bay Bridge Pump Station Replacement Project (Project 5-67) includes the replacement of both the pump station and the associated force mains. The work includes demolition of the existing pump station building, construction of a new underground pump room (approximately. 2,500 sf), and above grade facilities consisting of an electrical room, an odor control facility, and a generator room (three buildings; totaling approximately 3,630 sf). The new dual force main alignment is approximately 1,300 linear feet and is located adjacent to the existing force mains.

The following section provides justification and response to findings in accordance with the City’s August 3, 2023 request:
a. Site Development Review (20.52.080.F):

Finings and Decision. The review Authority may approve or conditionally approve a site development review application, only after first finding that the proposed development is:

1. Allowed within the subject zoning district
A wastewater pump station is allowed within the subject zoning district per Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan (PC-9), Planning Area as identified in Table 2, Permitted Uses under Section III.

2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in subsection (C)(2)(C) of [Site Development Reviews 20.52.080]
i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, and applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure The project compliances with the General Plan, Newport Beach Municipal Zoning Code, Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan (PC-9), and California Building Code.
13-174
388
Bay Bridge Pump Station Replacement
Project No. 5-67
ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design.

The overall layout of structures on the site is dictated by phased construction and service vehicle maneuvering requirements. The structures have been split into two to allow for construction of new pump station before replacing the old one with odor control facility, and allow service vehicle to maneuver between the two. The structures are efficiently arranged on a small site to meet minimum clearances. To create a harmonious relationship of the structures, the design applies an integrated approach and creates a cohesive identity to the split building structures and perimeter walls around the site. With break-down massing, coastal architecture features, and nature inspired materials, the project blends into nearby commercial context and coastal environment with good design strategies and compatible aesthetic qualities.
iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent development and public areas
The structure design recognizes the light nature of many modern beach structures with cantilevered roof overhang in low profile, simple building façade composition of base and top, and dynamic integration of materials and details inspired by coastal context. The structure is designed with minimum size and height by functional and security requirement, minimizing visual impact and maximizing unobstructed public views through the site. The building employs light materials at the building tops and heavier materials for the base to break down its scale.

Features such as roof overhang, awning canopy and window headers create shadows and details on building façade that recognizes the breezes and sun that characterize the ocean setting. These architectural devices also blend well into the commercial mixed-use context around the site. Inspired by the coastal bluffs nearby, the bulk of perimeter wall has been broken down into layered and stacked format with a mix of stone and stucco in sandy colors. Together with native plants proposed along the sidewalk, it turns an otherwise passive uniform perimeter wall into a positive interface with pedestrians and surrounding public areas. iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrians and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces The project is normally unoccupied and not intended to be accessible by the public except regular maintenance crew and vehicles. The proposed accesses are dictated by minimum service vehicle requirements that can be safely used. Sidewalks will be restored to ADA compliant width following project completion. 13-175
389
Bay Bridge Pump Station Replacement
Project No. 5-67
v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plants and irrigation materials
All plants are low water drought tolerant plants once established. The following palette will be used:

Open space is maintained between the structures to allow maintenance access, facilitate phased construction, and preserve views. Open spaces will not be open to the public.
vi. The protection of significant views from public right-of-way and compliance with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection).

The structure is designed with minimum size and height by functional and security requirement, to minimize visual impact and maximize unobstructed public views through the site. The structure does not obstruct the public view corridors identified in PC-9. Visual Impact Analysis figures have been prepared and included in the application submittal.

3. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development.

The project provides essential infrastructure to the community and contributes to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City. Strict measures have been implemented to mitigate odors and noise from the site. For odors, an odor control facility for both liquid and vapor phase treatment is included. For noise, equipment with lower noise is specified and generally located away from the property line. The standby generator (highest noise producer onsite) has been enclosed in a building with sound attenuation panels. 13-176
390
Bay Bridge Pump Station Replacement
Project No. 5-67
b. Back Bay Landing Site Development Review (PC 9 Section VII, Letter C)

1. The development shall be in compliance with the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan, including design guidelines, and any other applicable plan or criteria related to the development The project compliances with the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan (PC-9).

2. The development shall not be incompatible with the character of the neighboring uses and surrounding sites;
The development provides essential infrastructure to adjacent neighborhood and aesthetically compatible with the neighboring uses by applying coastal building features and nature inspired materials.

3. The development shall be sited and designed to maximize the aesthetic quality of the project as viewed from surrounding roadways, properties, and waterfront, with special consideration given to providing a variety of building heights, massing, and architectural treatments to provide public views through the site;
The structure design recognizes the light nature of many modern beach structures with cantilevered roof overhang in low profile, simple building façade composition of base and top, and dynamic integration of materials and details inspired by coastal context. The structure is designed with minimum size and height by functional and security requirement, minimizing visual impact and maximizing unobstructed public views through the site. The building employs light materials at the building tops and heavier materials for the base to break down its scale. Features such as roof overhang, awning canopy and window headers create shadows and details on building façade that recognizes the breezes and sun that characterize the ocean setting. These architectural devices also blend well into the commercial mixed-use context around the site. Inspired by the coastal bluffs nearby, the bulk of perimeter wall has been broken down into layered and stacked format with a mix of stone and stucco in sandy colors. Together with the native plants proposed along the sidewalk, it turns an otherwise passive uniform perimeter wall into a positive interface with pedestrians and surrounding public areas.

4. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, landscaping and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development;
The overall layout of structures on the site is dictated by phased construction and service vehicle maneuvering requirements. The structures have been split into two to allow for construction of new pump station before replacing the old one with odor control facility, and allow service vehicle to maneuver between the two. The structures are efficiently arranged on a tight site to meet minimum clearances.
13-177
391
Bay Bridge Pump Station Replacement
Project No. 5-67

5. The development shall not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development.

The project provides essential infrastructure to the community and contributes to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City. Strict measures have been implemented to mitigate odors and noise from the site. For odors, an odor control facility for both liquid and vapor phase treatment is included. For noise, equipment with lower noise is specified and generally located away from the property line. The standby generator (highest noise producer onsite) has been enclosed in a building with sound attenuation panels. c. Coastal Development Permit (21.52.015.F)
F. Findings and Decision. The review authority may approve or conditionally approve a coastal development permit application, only after first finding that the proposed development:

1. Conforms to all applicable section of the certified Local Coastal Program See discussion in Sections ‘a’ and ‘b’ above on Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development zoning requirements.

2. Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter of the Coastal Act if the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone.

The project conforms with the public access. The project is NOT located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone.

The following discussion is specific to the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan:

Land Use Policies for Back Bay Landing Area – Section 2.1.9 of the LCP identifies Back Bay Landing land use requirements (Policies 2.1.9-1 thru 2.1-9-5). The policy requires coastal-dependent, coastal-related and visitor-serving development. The project architecture is coastal inspired and it serves visitors as well as residents of the City by providing an essential utility.

The Policy also requires public bayfront access, particularly for pedestrians. The project includes a shared access easement to allow public access but also availability for maintenance vehicles to enter and exit the pump station site.

Hazards Analysis – Section 2.8.1 of the LCP identifies hazards and implements policies to reduce the potential risks to life and property. The project has evaluated the various hazards and integrated mitigation measures as follows:
13-178
392
Bay Bridge Pump Station Replacement
Project No. 5-67
(1) tsunami inundation, sea level rise, and flooding – all critical facilities will be constructed at elevation 15.5 to mitigate flooding. See Coastal Hazards Analysis memo dated October 2023 included with these responses; (2) geologic and seismic – the facility is designed based on California Building Code, 2019 Edition, specifically Risk Category IV, Site Class D, Seismic Design Category D.

Additionally, liquifiable soils are being mitigated by this project by ground improvements; (3) fire – facilities are constructed with noncombustible material (concrete, masonry, aluminum, steel)
Shoreline Access – Section 3.1.1 of the LCP requires developments not interfere with the public’s right to access the sea (waterway) and maintenance of public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline. This project maintains a continuous access to the waterway throughout construction and has no impact to public access to the waterway once construction is completed. 13-179
393

Attachment L
Applicant’s Letter Regarding Vehicle Access dated March 22, 2024 13-180
394

350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213-576-1000 | Fax: 213-576-1100
Matthew Wickersham Direct Dial: 213-576-1185 Email: [email protected]

Alston & Bird LLP www.alston.com
Atlanta | Beijing | Brussels | Charlotte | Dallas | London | Los Angeles | New York | Raleigh | San Francisco | Silicon Valley | Washington, D.C.

March 22, 2024

Mayor Joe Stapleton and City Councilmembers
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Orange County Sanitation District’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station – Major Site Development Review and Coastal Development Permit (PA-2023-0076) – 250 E. Coast Highway
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
On behalf of Orange County Sanitation District (“ OC San”), we submit this letter in further response to the January 31, 2024 appeal (“Appeal”) by Bayside Village Marina (“BVM”) of the Planning Commission’s approval of OC San’s Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Main Replacement Project (“Project”). We understand that BVM has requested more information regarding the trucks and vehicles that will be using the access easement and Pacific Coast Highway entry as part of the Project.

OC San has already provided BVM with detailed information on this topic .

Attachment A to this letter contains excerpted portions of the transcript for the recent deposition of Don Stokes, maintenance manager for OC San, taken on December 13, 2023.

During this deposition, Mr. Stokes confirmed the available information on the size, number and frequency of vehicle traffic expected for the Project. OC San previously referred to this testimony in its responses to BVM’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories, excerpts of which are attached here as Attachment B1.

We also wanted to note that a shared access roadway was encouraged by BVM as part of their prior discussions with OC San for this Project. In providing comments on OC San’s Draft Environmental Impact Report, BVM’s consultant emphasized that BVM’s future construction project “can accommodate the minimum turning radius of the largest [OC San] truck needed” and that OC San’s trucks could use either the existing driveway

1 OC San also referred to its 2020 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report, which identified the anticipated vehicles to be used during Project construction. Relevant excerpts are included as Attachment F. The full document is available at the link below:
https://www.ocsan.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/29830/637346458079100000. 13-181
395
OCSD’s Response to Appeal of OC San Bay Bridge Pump Station March 22, 2024

on East Coast Highway or a shared access easement route , in order to access the pump station. Attached as Attachment C is the relevant excerpt from these September 5, 2019 comments. Also attached as Attachment D is a December 17, 2019 email from BVM’s consultant that noted “our proposed ‘shared access’ roadway.” We are happy to provide any additional information that may be needed on this issue, but again these are all issues that have been repeatedly discussed with OC San and BVM. As conceded by BVM, it has waived its right to challenge the location of OC San’s Project and the shared acces s roadway when it withdrew the deposit of probable compensation submitted by OC San . (Attached as Attachment E are relevant portions of BVM’s February 27, 2023 responses to interrogatories from OC San.) As shown by the court documents previously provided to the City, BVM can no longer dispute that OC San has the legal right to take physical possession of the acqu isition area, which includes a permanent non -exclusive access easement. T he proposed location and layout of the permanent easement is moveable at BVM’s discretion as indicated in the legal description in the Resolution of Necessity. And once physical possession is taken by OC San, that easement provides OC San with the legal right to use the easement for both construction vehicles for the Project’s construction and maintenance vehicles for the Project’s subsequent operation. BVM has waived its right to challenge this use, and has in fact already received compensation for this use. Instead, the remaining legal issues concern whether the value of the access easement and any alleged damages resulting from the use of the easement exceed the amount already paid by OC San.

While BVM is still disputing the amount of compensation that it should be paid for a small portion of its property, that should not affect the City of Newport Beach’s approval of this critically important project.

Sincerely,

Matt Wickersham

Attachments
13-182
396

ATTACHMENT A

13-183
397
13-184
398

·1· · · · SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
·2· · ·FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE-CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
·3
·4· ·ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION,· · ·)
· · ·DISTRICT, a public entity,· · )
·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· · · · · · · ·Plaintiff,· · · · · )
·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · · ) Case No.
·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) 30-2022-01251890-
· · ·BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA, LLC,· ) CU-EI-CXC
·8· ·a California Limited Liability)
· · ·Company; LAGUNA BEACH COUNTY· )
·9· ·WATER DISTRICT, a Public· · · )
· · ·Entity; DOES 1 through 100,· ·)
10· ·inclusive; and all persons· · )
· · ·unknown claiming an interest· )
11· ·in the property,· · · · · · · )
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
12· · · · · · ·Defendants.· · · · ·)
· · ·______________________________)
13· ·AND ALL RELATED CASES.· · · · )
· · ·______________________________)
14 15· · VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGABLE 16· · · · · · · · · · · · DON STOKES
17 · · ·Date and time:· · · Wednesday, December 13, 2023 18· · · · · · · · · · · ·1:24 p.m.
19 · · ·Location:· · · · · ·18101 Von Karman Avenue
20· · · · · · · · · · · ·Suite 1800
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Irvine, California
21 22· ·Reporter:· · · · · ·Tammi L. Lee, CSR
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Certificate No. 11034
23· · · · · · · · · · · ·Job No. 10132830
24 25

·1
·2
·3· · · · SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
·4· · ·FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE-CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
·5
·6· ·ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION,· · ·)
· · ·DISTRICT, a public entity,· · )
·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· · · · · · · ·Plaintiff,· · · · · )
·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · · ) Case No.
·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) 30-2022-01251890-
· · ·BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA, LLC,· ) CU-EI-CXC
10· ·a California Limited Liability)
· · ·Company; LAGUNA BEACH COUNTY· )
11· ·WATER DISTRICT, a Public· · · )
· · ·Entity; DOES 1 through 100,· ·)
12· ·inclusive; and all persons· · )
· · ·unknown claiming an interest· )
13· ·in the property,· · · · · · · )
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
14· · · · · · ·Defendants.· · · · ·)
· · ·______________________________)
15· ·AND ALL RELATED CASES.· · · · )
· · ·______________________________)
16 17· · · · · · ·Videotaped deposition of Person Most
18· ·Knowledgable Don Stokes, taken before Tammi L. Lee, 19· ·CSR, a certified shorthand reporter for the State of 20· ·California, CSR #11034, with principal office in the 21· ·County of Orange, commencing on Wednesday, December 22· ·13, 2023, at 1:24 p.m., at 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 23· ·Suite 1800, Irvine, California.
24 25

·1· ·APPEARANCES:
·2
· · ·For Plaintiff:
·3
· · · · · · · ·WOODRUFF & SMART, APC
·4· · · · · · ·BY: GARY C. WEISBERG, ESQ.
· · · · · · · ·555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200
·5· · · · · · ·Costa Mesa, California 92626-7670
· · · · · · · ·(714) 558-7000
·6· · · · · · ·[email protected]
·7· ·For Defendant Bayside Village Marina, LLC:
·8· · · · · · ·NOSSAMAN LLP
· · · · · · · ·BY:· BRADFORD B. KUHN, ESQ.
·9· · · · · · ·18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
· · · · · · · ·Irvine, California 92612
10· · · · · · ·(949) 833-7800
· · · · · · · ·[email protected]
11 12
13 · · ·ALSO PRESENT: LEANN EMMOTT, VIDEOGRAPHER
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X
·2· ·Examination By:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page ·3· ·MR. KUHN· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 ·4
·5· · · · · · · · · · · · EXHIBITS
·6· ·Exhibit· · · · · · ·Description· · · · · · · · ·Page ·7· ·Exhibit 24· DM5 Structural and Architectural· · · 14 · · · · · · · · ·Workshop document
·8· ·Exhibit 25· E-mail dated 8/10/23 w/attachment· · ·39 · · ·Exhibit 26· Letter dated 7/5/23 w/attachments· · ·52 ·9· ·Exhibit 27· Complaint in Eminent Domain· · · · · ·58 · · ·Exhibit 28· E-mail dated 12/29/21· · · · · · · · ·70 10 11
12 13· · · · · · · · ·INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
14· · · · · · · · · · · · ·(None.)
15 16
17 18
19· · · · · · · · · REQUESTED INFORMATION
20· · · · · · · · · · · · ·(None.)
21 22
23 24
25 13-185
399

·1· · · · · · · · · ·IRVINE, CALIFORNIA
·2· · · · ·WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2023, 1:24 P.M.
·3
·4· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are now on the
·5· ·record.· Today's date is December 13th, 2023, and
·6· ·the time is 1:24 p.m. Pacific.· This is the video
·7· ·deposition of Don Stokes PMK being taken in the
·8· ·matter of "Orange County Sanitation District vs.
·9· ·Bayside Village Marina, LLC, et al." on behalf of
10· ·the defendant pending in the Superior Court of the 11· ·State of California, County of Orange, Case No.
12· ·30-2022-01251890-CU-EI-CXC.
13· · · · · · ·This video -- this deposition is taking
14· ·place at 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800,
15· ·Irvine, California 92612.· My name is Leann Emmott 16· ·appearing for Aptus Court Reporting located at 401 17· ·West A Street, Suite 1680, San Diego, California
18· ·92101.· I am the official videographer, and this is 19· ·the only authorized video recording of the
20· ·deposition.· The audio and video recording will take 21· ·place at all times unless all counsel agree to go
22· ·off the record.
23· · · · · · ·Will counsel please identify yourselves
24· ·and state whom you represent starting with the
25· ·noticing attorney?

·1· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· Brad Kuhn, Nossaman, LLP, on
·2· ·behalf of the defendant Bayside Village Marina.
·3· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· Good afternoon.· I'm Gary ·4· ·Weisberg on -- with Woodruff & Smart on behalf of
·5· ·Orange County Sanitation District.
·6· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The court reporter
·7· ·today is Tammi Lee, and she may now swear in the
·8· ·deponent.
·9
10· · · · · · · · · · · ·DON STOKES,
11· ·called as a witness, and having been first duly
12· ·sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
13 14· · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Will you raise your right 15· ·hand, please?
16· · · · · · ·Do you state or affirm under penalty of
17· ·perjury that the testimony you are about to give in 18· ·the cause now pending shall be the truth, the whole 19· ·truth, and nothing but the truth?
20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I do.
21· · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Thank you.
22· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· You left out Mr. Spradlin,
23· ·Gary.
24· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· Oh, Mr. Spradlin is no
25· ·longer -- he retired.

·1· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· So you don't even go by
·2· ·Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart?
·3· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· Well, we can have this
·4· ·discussion off the record, but, yeah, it's --
·5· ·there's a -- he thought maybe he wanted to continue ·6· ·to practice law in some capacity, and apparently
·7· ·there's a state bar rule that you can't have your
·8· ·name on --
·9· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· Ah.
10· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· -- a firm when you are
11· ·still practicing even in a temporary or, you know, a 12· ·part-time capacity, so...
13· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· Got it.· Sorry for the
14· ·distraction.
15 16· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
17 18· ·BY MR. KUHN:
19· · · · Q· · Good afternoon, Mr. Stokes.· Thank you for 20· ·being here.· I understand you are currently employed 21· ·by Orange County Sanitation District?
22· · · · A· · That is correct.
23· · · · Q· · And what is your job title?
24· · · · A· · Maintenance manager.
25· · · · Q· · And what are your current job duties or

·1· ·your role at OC San?
·2· · · · A· · So my responsibility is overseeing our
·3· ·wastewater collection system, which is basically the ·4· ·regional collection system for North and Central
·5· ·Orange County, which goes all the way up to,
·6· ·basically, L.A. border and down to the Crystal Cove ·7· ·area.
·8· · · · Q· · And so do you oversee the maintenance and ·9· ·operations of all of OC San's pump stations?
10· · · · A· · I do.
11· · · · Q· · Okay.· And how long have you been in that 12· ·role?
13· · · · A· · It's been four and a half years.
14· · · · Q· · And have you held other positions at OC
15· ·San?
16· · · · A· · I have.
17· · · · Q· · And what are those other positions?
18· · · · A· · Prior to that was maintenance
19· ·superintendent with the responsibility of running
20· ·the treatment plants, prior to that was maintenance 21· ·supervisor with a sub work group, and then prior to 22· ·that was as an electrician in the field.
23· · · · Q· · And do you report to anybody at OC San?
24· · · · A· · I report to the director of operations and 25· ·maintenance Reaz Moinuddin.
13-186
400

·1· · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· I'm sorry.· What was the
·2· ·name?
·3· ·BY MR. KUHN:
·4· · · · Q· · Do you want to spell it if you can?
·5· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· Do you know how to spell
·6· ·it?
·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· M-o-i-n-u-d-i-n.· I'm ·8· ·not sure if there's two Ds in there or one D.
·9· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· He's not going to ask you, 10· ·so I'm going to.· Just try to slow down your cadence 11· ·a little bit.
12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.
13· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· If you talk too fast, it's 14· ·real hard for the court reporter to take down what 15· ·you say, so --
16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Will do.
17· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· -- I know it's kind of -- 18· ·we develop natural cadences in life, but if you
19· ·could just try to slow it down a little bit --
20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
21· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· -- that would be great.
22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.
23· ·BY MR. KUHN:
24· · · · Q· · Yeah.· To make things easier today, it's 25· ·helpful to let me finish my question, and I'll do

·1· ·the same for you with your answer.
·2· · · · · · ·I understand you're being designated today ·3· ·by OC San as the person most knowledgeable on the
·4· ·operations and maintenance of the existing Bay
·5· ·Bridge Pump Station along with the proposed new Bay ·6· ·Bridge Pump Station; is that correct?
·7· · · · A· · That is correct.
·8· · · · Q· · Any other topics you're aware of that
·9· ·you're being designated as the person most
10· ·knowledgeable?
11· · · · A· · Not that I'm aware of.
12· · · · Q· · Do you currently oversee the operations
13· ·and maintenance of the existing Bay Bridge Pump
14· ·Station?
15· · · · A· · Indirectly, yes.· In my capacity I oversee 16· ·the staff that do.
17· · · · Q· · And who is directly responsible for the
18· ·Bay Bridge Pump Station?
19· · · · A· · There would be no direct person as it is a 20· ·departmental responsibility, and I oversee that
21· ·department.
22· · · · Q· · And what's the department that oversees
23· ·the Bay Bridge Pump Station?
24· · · · A· · It is the collection system operations and 25· ·maintenance.

·1· · · · Q· · And will the same be true with respect to ·2· ·your overall oversight and then the collections
·3· ·system operations and maintenance direct role with ·4· ·respect to the future Bay Bridge Pump Station?
·5· · · · A· · That is correct.
·6· · · · Q· · Can you describe for me generally what -- ·7· ·what your role is with respect to operations and
·8· ·maintenance of OC San's pump stations?
·9· · · · A· · So I'm designated as what's known as the 10· ·legally responsible official for our wastewater
11· ·collection system, which would be all the pump
12· ·stations.· And I have staff that report to me, and 13· ·staff are tasked with various roles and
14· ·responsibilities.· And maybe you can restate the
15· ·question.· I started to kind of go off on a tangent 16· ·in my mind there, so...
17· · · · Q· · I'm looking for your role generally as it 18· ·pertains to operations and maintenance of pump
19· ·stations, and I understand you kind of have a -- an 20· ·overall review of all of them --
21· · · · A· · Uh-huh.
22· · · · Q· · -- and then, obviously, oversight of the 23· ·staff that -- that works on them directly; is that 24· ·fair?
25· · · · A· · That is fair.

·1· · · · Q· · And when you use the term "legally
·2· ·responsibly official," what does -- what does that ·3· ·mean?
·4· · · · A· · So, basically, within the State of
·5· ·California when it comes to sewer collection system, ·6· ·somebody has to be designated a legally responsible ·7· ·official who oversees a wastewater collection
·8· ·system.
·9· · · · Q· · What is -- what is the significance of
10· ·that role or that title?
11· · · · A· · It means I have competency and I'm trained 12· ·and I know what to do in case we have any type of an 13· ·issue and also that I have the competency to operate 14· ·and maintain the systems.
15· · · · Q· · And what kind of issues could arise on a 16· ·pump station that would require a legally
17· ·responsible official?
18· · · · A· · Any type of sewer spill that would happen 19· ·anywhere in any collection system within the state 20· ·would have to have somebody in a legally responsible 21· ·official capacity to be able to certify a report
22· ·back to the State.
23· · · · Q· · Has OC San had sewer spills in the past? 24· · · · A· · Yes.
25· · · · Q· · How many?
13-187
401

·1· · · · A· · I couldn't tell you an exact number right ·2· ·now, but I can tell you they're extremely low.
·3· · · · Q· · Do you have an estimate of how many sewer ·4· ·spills OC San has had over the last five years?
·5· · · · A· · Maybe less than a dozen.
·6· · · · Q· · And were you the legally responsible
·7· ·official on all of those sewer spills?
·8· · · · A· · No.
·9· · · · Q· · Who would have been the legal -- legally 10· ·responsible official for those?
11· · · · A· · Depending on the time frame, it would have 12· ·been my predecessor or myself.
13· · · · Q· · And how many sewer spills have taken place 14· ·while you have been the legally responsible official 15· ·for OC San's pump stations?
16· · · · A· · Less than six.
17· · · · Q· · And you've been the legally responsible
18· ·official for OC San for the last four or so years; 19· ·is that right?
20· · · · A· · Since stepping into this role about four 21· ·and a half years ago.
22· · · · Q· · Have there been any spills or leaks at the 23· ·Bay Bridge Pump Station that you're aware of?
24· · · · A· · Not during my tenure.
25· · · · Q· · What about prior to your tenure?

·1· · · · A· · Not that I can recall.
·2· · · · Q· · Let's briefly touch base on the existing ·3· ·Bay Bridge Pump Station facility.
·4· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· I'll mark as Exhibit 24 a
·5· ·photograph Bates labeled OC San 060706.
·6· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 24 was marked for identification ·7· ·and is attached hereto.)
·8· ·BY MR. KUHN:
·9· · · · Q· · Does this photograph -- and I'll represent 10· ·that it was a -- an image taken from OC San's design 11· ·workshop for the Bay Bridge Pump Station Project,
12· ·and I think it's dated September 13th, 2021.
13· · · · · · ·Do you recognize the -- this photograph as 14· ·being a generally accurate depiction of what the
15· ·pump station currently looks like?
16· · · · A· · I do recognize it, and it does appear to 17· ·be accurate.
18· · · · Q· · It looks like in this photograph the pump 19· ·station is accessed directly off of Pacific Coast
20· ·Highway.· It appears to be a curb cut there; is that 21· ·correct?
22· · · · A· · That's correct.
23· · · · Q· · And is that the only access point for the 24· ·existing Bay Bridge Pump Station facility?
25· · · · A· · It is for the existing pump station, yes.

·1· · · · Q· · And so for any maintenance or operations ·2· ·that need to take place at the existing facility all ·3· ·the access for those activities comes off of PCH; is ·4· ·that fair?
·5· · · · A· · That is a fair statement.
·6· · · · Q· · So OC San does not use any of the Bayside ·7· ·Village Marina property for any operations,
·8· ·maintenance, access whatsoever; is that correct?
·9· · · · A· · To the best of my knowledge, that's
10· ·correct.
11· · · · Q· · What kind of vehicles does OC San use
12· ·currently when it's undertaking operations or
13· ·maintenance of the existing pump station facility? 14· · · · A· · Various, depending on the task, it could 15· ·be a light-duty truck like a Ford F-150, it could be 16· ·a little bit of a heavier-duty truck like a Ford
17· ·F-250 with kind of, like, mechanic toolboxes on the 18· ·back and a heavier-duty truck known as a combination 19· ·sewer cleaning vehicle, which sizewise is analogous 20· ·to a trash truck and also a mobile crane with a
21· ·15-ton capacity.
22· · · · Q· · And all the vehicles that you just listed, 23· ·they all would access the existing pump station from 24· ·the curb cut out at Coast Highway; is that correct? 25· · · · A· · That is correct.

·1· · · · Q· · How many vehicles can access or park on
·2· ·the property or on the pump station site at one
·3· ·time?
·4· · · · A· · Perhaps one to two.
·5· · · · Q· · And when vehicles enter and leave the
·6· ·station, do they -- they pull up and then back out, ·7· ·or do they back in?· How does that work?
·8· · · · A· · Depending on the vehicle, they may pull
·9· ·onto the curb and back into that little alcove area 10· ·or park parallel to the curb as close to that
11· ·boundary wall that faces PCH.· And for the larger
12· ·vehicles it requires a traffic control setup that
13· ·would take that No. 4 lane closest to the curb.
14· · · · Q· · So, essentially, you would have to get
15· ·approvals or you would close down a lane of traffic 16· ·for the larger vehicles?
17· · · · A· · It does require approvals, yes.
18· · · · Q· · And do you have any sense of how often OC 19· ·San accesses the current pump station facility?
20· · · · A· · Depending on the task, it could be daily, 21· ·multiple times a week for something as simple as
22· ·just a quick check, quarterly for some of the
23· ·heavier-duty maintenance, and even once a month for 24· ·some of the in-between tasks that come up.
25· · · · Q· · Do you have any estimate of the frequency 13-188
402

·1· ·of access at the station currently?
·2· · · · A· · At least daily.
·3· · · · Q· · And so the -- the combo sewer cleaning -- ·4· ·you know, the ones the size of a trash truck or the ·5· ·ones with mobile cranes, are those less frequent,
·6· ·the ones that would occur maybe monthly?
·7· · · · A· · Less frequent, likely a quarterly basis. ·8· · · · Q· · Are there ever situations where you need ·9· ·to have more than two trucks or vehicles at the site 10· ·at one time?
11· · · · A· · There are situations.· It could be a task 12· ·that is not going as planned and requires additional 13· ·support, something such as removing a pump and staff 14· ·can't get it out with equipment they have, so they 15· ·need to summons additional support, or it could be 16· ·an emergency situation in which we had equipment
17· ·failure that's beyond any plan or any control.
18· · · · Q· · And if you have more than two vehicles at 19· ·a time, where would those vehicles park to access
20· ·the existing pump station?
21· · · · A· · The existing pump station would be in
22· ·the -- the cut out there for the bus stop
23· ·temporarily, if that's a short duration.· Otherwise, 24· ·it requires taking that lane of traffic to provide 25· ·safe access for those vehicles to park.

·1· · · · Q· · You had mentioned some activities
·2· ·involving pump removal.· How often does that occur? ·3· · · · A· · At the current station, at least annually. ·4· · · · Q· · And with the proposed future station, does ·5· ·that frequency increase or decrease or stay the
·6· ·same?
·7· · · · A· · I would anticipate the same.
·8· · · · Q· · You also mentioned emergency situations. ·9· ·Can you give me examples of what you would consider 10· ·to be an emergency situation at the existing
11· ·facility?
12· · · · A· · A long-duration power outage, structural 13· ·failure of piping systems, blockage from debris
14· ·coming in from the sewer system, and potentially
15· ·component failure, all things that could happen even 16· ·with the best maintenance plans.
17· · · · Q· · Are there any other emergency situations 18· ·you could think of?
19· · · · A· · Not to the best of my knowledge.
20· · · · Q· · And how frequently does OC San have
21· ·long-duration power outages, structural failures,
22· ·blockage, or component failures at its other
23· ·existing pump stations?
24· · · · A· · Very, very rarely.· We have a planned
25· ·maintenance approach to ensure those things don't

·1· ·happen.· The things that are beyond our control are ·2· ·long-duration power outages.· They are very
·3· ·infrequent.
·4· · · · Q· · Can you give me any sort of estimate of
·5· ·how often you've had some sort of emergency
·6· ·situation over the last four years at one of your
·7· ·pump stations?
·8· · · · A· · I can use this station as an example here. ·9· ·We did have some isolation valve failures that did 10· ·not result in any loss of the water coming in, and 11· ·we did not have a sewer spill.· But this
12· ·necessitated a contract service mobilizing within 24 13· ·hours to get out and repair it.· And, again, within 14· ·my tenure of the last four and a half years, that's 15· ·the best I can recollect at this station.
16· · · · Q· · And what about the other -- are there 15 17· ·stations under your -- under your supervision?
18· · · · A· · That is correct.· We have 15 stations.
19· · · · Q· · And do you have an estimate of how often 20· ·you've had emergency situations at your other 14
21· ·stations?
22· · · · A· · Potentially once per year.
23· · · · Q· · Do you mean one emergency situation per
24· ·year per station or once per year for all 15?
25· · · · A· · Once per year for all 15.

·1· · · · Q· · Do you have a sense of how many workers or ·2· ·employees or contractors for OC San could be on the ·3· ·site at one time?
·4· · · · A· · You can have a single vehicle,
·5· ·single-staffer there on a daily basis, and for some ·6· ·of the larger tasks, like I explained, you could
·7· ·have four to six people there.
·8· · · · Q· · Are there any types of large equipment or ·9· ·parts or things that need to be brought onto the
10· ·pump station site?
11· · · · A· · Yes.· We have the large pumps that
12· ·actually convey the wastewater.· Those would be
13· ·moving around the other crane and the larger pieces 14· ·of equipment.· We also have some temporary equipment 15· ·that's brought on site to facilitate maintenance and 16· ·testing of electrical systems.
17· · · · Q· · And so when you bring in a crane, is that 18· ·something that -- that comes in on the, I guess,
19· ·mobile crane type of vehicle, the one that you
20· ·mentioned was a 15-ton capacity?
21· · · · A· · Think of, basically, a flatbed ten-wheeled 22· ·truck with a crane pivoting from the center of it. 23· · · · Q· · Do you have any estimate of the dimensions 24· ·of that truck as far as length and height?
25· · · · A· · I couldn't tell you off the top of my
13-189
403

·1· ·head.· I could use the analogy of maybe a standard ·2· ·ten-wheel dump truck that would hold about 15 tons ·3· ·of dirt.
·4· · · · Q· · Do you know if there are any height
·5· ·clearance requirements to use that sort of crane?
·6· · · · A· · With any crane there is always height
·7· ·requirements that the operator must know to make
·8· ·sure they steer clear of power lines and anything
·9· ·else that is a risk.· But to drive the vehicle down 10· ·the road, it has standard clearances that, again, to 11· ·use the analogy of a trash truck, would be the
12· ·clearance.
13· · · · Q· · Can you help me just understand the basics 14· ·of the equipment and the facilities at the existing 15· ·pump station that's currently there?
16· · · · A· · I can.· I guess it might help if I explain 17· ·kind of like what the intent of the station is,
18· ·right?· So in a sewer system we desire to have
19· ·gravity be our friend.· In a place where we have to 20· ·move water uphill, we have to rely on a pump
21· ·station.· So using this as the example, this pump
22· ·station has what's known as a wet well, basically a 23· ·big swimming pool, if you will, collects the water, 24· ·has piping systems that dip into it kind of like a 25· ·straw, the pumping systems suck that water up, push

·1· ·it through the piping system and discharge it at a ·2· ·higher point for gravity to take over.· And,
·3· ·obviously, we have to have some ventilation,
·4· ·electrical systems to make sure all that can happen. ·5· · · · Q· · So you have a wet well at the existing
·6· ·facility, and then you have the pressurized or
·7· ·gravity-pushed force mains that go to that wet well; ·8· ·is that right?
·9· · · · A· · So the gravity sewer system terminates at 10· ·a wet well, and then the pumping systems withdraw
11· ·from that wet well and, essentially, hydraulically 12· ·lift it up into the pipes just like a water hose,
13· ·only it's pressurized, and then at a different point 14· ·discharges that wastewater into another gravity
15· ·system to continue on down the system.
16· · · · Q· · So the gravity -- just to make sure I
17· ·understand, the gravity force mains push the water 18· ·into the wet well, the wet well then treats the -- 19· ·the sewer or water through the pumps, and then where 20· ·does water then go?
21· · · · A· · So the gravity pipeline terminates at the 22· ·well.· It's non-pressurized.· And all the pumps are 23· ·doing is sucking that water out, pushing it into a 24· ·pipeline which is then low pressure to another point 25· ·elsewhere away from the station.· So if we look at

·1· ·this picture here, there's a gravity system that
·2· ·comes into that pump station that you can't see and ·3· ·there is piping that leaves and goes to a different ·4· ·area to discharge that water at a different point. ·5· · · · Q· · And do you have any understanding of where ·6· ·the pipes are that come into the station and where ·7· ·they are that leave the station?
·8· · · · A· · Yes.
·9· · · · Q· · Can you describe those for me?
10· · · · A· · So with any sewer system, it may be of
11· ·different types of material, depending on the
12· ·construction.· In this case it's likely vitrified
13· ·clay pipe that comes in under the PCH area here and 14· ·terminates in the station.· And then the pressurized 15· ·pipes known as the force mains leave the station and 16· ·then come across the street and go into the parking 17· ·lot and discharge on the other side of the bay.
18· · · · Q· · How long has the existing pump station
19· ·been operational?
20· · · · A· · I believe it was built in the '60s.
21· · · · Q· · And do the pipelines that you mentioned
22· ·both that feed into the station and that leave the 23· ·station -- do those require maintenance or service 24· ·or replacement?
25· · · · A· · Yes, they do.

·1· · · · Q· · And how do you currently service or
·2· ·maintain those?
·3· · · · A· · On the gravity systems leading in to the ·4· ·pump station we have manhole access points out in
·5· ·the public right of way, and crews would access that ·6· ·to go in and use a high-pressure water system to
·7· ·flush it out and then move on to the next segments. ·8· ·And on the force main side the mains really consist ·9· ·of assessments which are done at pre-determined
10· ·access points.
11· · · · Q· · And where are the access points for the
12· ·existing force mains?
13· · · · A· · At the pump station itself and then across 14· ·the bay at the discharge for the force mains.
15· · · · Q· · And does anything that we've talked about 16· ·as far as the -- the maintenance or the operations 17· ·of the pump station changed between what currently 18· ·exists and what's proposed for the Bay Bridge Pump 19· ·Station?
20· · · · A· · Generally speaking, it would be the same 21· ·approach, but different vintages of equipment
22· ·require different types of tasks.· But in the grand 23· ·scheme of things, not much.
24· · · · Q· · And so what is it with the proposed new
25· ·pump station that would change?
13-190
404

·1· · · · A· · With the new pump station we will have
·2· ·different code requirements that dictate the way
·3· ·it's constructed.· It requires us to access things a ·4· ·little bit differently.· We'll still require having ·5· ·equipment on site closer to it being able to
·6· ·actually get in and perform some of the tasks that ·7· ·we struggle to do now.· Also, depending on the
·8· ·manufacturer of the equipment, there might be some ·9· ·different tasks that must be performed at different 10· ·intervals and may require different equipment.
11· · · · Q· · So let's -- let's go through each of those 12· ·real quickly.· You mentioned there are certain tasks 13· ·that you struggle with right now.· Can you describe 14· ·some of those?
15· · · · A· · Getting real good access into the pump
16· ·station to clean the wet well we have to use this
17· ·combination sewer cleaning vehicle.· Again, it's
18· ·analogous to a trash truck.· It has a high-pressure 19· ·water system and a vacuum system.· It needs to,
20· ·basically, kind of be right on top of the opening. 21· ·They're designed to kind of like be on top of a
22· ·manhole in the street, if you will.· The challenge 23· ·is getting that vehicle into that station now.· It 24· ·requires the traffic control setup and a little bit 25· ·of an elaborate method of extra pipes and vacuum

·1· ·hoses for staff to use.
·2· · · · Q· · And so with the new design pump station
·3· ·and the new access points that will -- that issue
·4· ·will be alleviated?
·5· · · · A· · It's a major safety issue to have traffic ·6· ·control staff running around, so to get them into
·7· ·the actual work area without having to deploy all
·8· ·that would make it a safer more efficient approach. ·9· · · · Q· · Can you remind me how often that vacuum
10· ·truck would come service the facility right now?
11· · · · A· · It's profiled to be quarterly, just like 12· ·our other locations.
13· · · · Q· · Does that service frequency of quarterly 14· ·change with the new pump station?
15· · · · A· · I don't anticipate it doing that.
16· · · · Q· · You had mentioned some activities would be 17· ·at different intervals.· Can you describe what those 18· ·activities would be for me?
19· · · · A· · Sure.· It could be something as simple as 20· ·a general walk-around inspection.· It could be a
21· ·weekly thing, equipment inspection.· It could be
22· ·monthly.· Equipment adjustment and repair could be 23· ·monthly.· Could be quarterly.· Intense testing of
24· ·electrical systems could be semiannual.· Could be
25· ·annually.· And pump replacement could be annually.

·1· · · · Q· · So those items that you just mentioned,
·2· ·does the frequency change at all between the
·3· ·existing pump station and the proposed new pump
·4· ·station?
·5· · · · A· · I don't anticipate it changing, unless
·6· ·conditions dictate change, and that would be no
·7· ·different at any of our stations.
·8· · · · Q· · Okay.· What do you mean when you say
·9· ·"conditions dictate change"?
10· · · · A· · So within our sewer systems if we see a
11· ·lot of grit and debris and stuff that we don't
12· ·normally see within a sewer system, we might have to 13· ·get out and clean things more often, inspect things 14· ·more often, but it's not anticipated that we would 15· ·see that under normal operation.
16· · · · Q· · Is there any reason why the potential
17· ·frequency would change based on the existing pump
18· ·station versus -- versus the proposed new pump
19· ·station?
20· · · · A· · It would only be as a matter of site
21· ·conditions changing, which would be, again, back to, 22· ·you know, if we saw stuff coming into the sewer
23· ·system that is not anticipated, it's more of an
24· ·anomalous thing than it is an expected thing.
25· · · · Q· · Do you have any reason to believe today

·1· ·that there would be any need for an increased
·2· ·frequency with the new station compared to the old ·3· ·station?
·4· · · · A· · I do not.
·5· · · · Q· · You mentioned that the type of equipment ·6· ·may also change between the existing facility and
·7· ·the new facility.· Can you describe what equipment ·8· ·changes you're referring to?
·9· · · · A· · To clarify, the type of equipment may
10· ·change depending on the task.· So a routine walk
11· ·through would be something like the light-duty Ford 12· ·F-150 truck.· Replacing a pump would require the
13· ·crane and similar support vehicles.· So depending on 14· ·the nature of the task would change the types of
15· ·vehicles that would be present at any given time.
16· · · · Q· · And, again, do you envision any changes in 17· ·the type of equipment or frequency of use of
18· ·equipment between the existing pump station and the 19· ·new minimum station?
20· · · · A· · I do not.
21· · · · Q· · How often did you say the -- the crane is 22· ·currently utilized?
23· · · · A· · Depends on some of the tasks that would
24· ·require it.· At this time we're seeing it about
25· ·annually to semi-annually.
13-191
405

·1· · · · Q· · And you don't expect that annual to
·2· ·semi-annual use of the crane to change with the new ·3· ·pump station?
·4· · · · A· · I do not, and I want to clarify.· That
·5· ·crane, it's annual usage is tied to each individual ·6· ·pump.· So if we have one pump, we would see it once ·7· ·per year.· If we have three pumps, three times per ·8· ·year.
·9· · · · Q· · And how many pumps are there at the
10· ·existing pump station facility?
11· · · · A· · Five.
12· · · · Q· · And how many pumps are proposed at the new 13· ·pump station facility?
14· · · · A· · I believe it's the same.· It could have an 15· ·additional one there.
16· · · · Q· · And so when you mentioned that the crane 17· ·is used annually to semi-annually per pump, does
18· ·that mean that you would expect the crane to be used 19· ·approximately five times per year or potentially ten 20· ·times per year per facility?
21· · · · A· · That would be a correct statement.
22· · · · Q· · Is it the same with the vacuum truck, or 23· ·is that just a quarterly use?
24· · · · A· · That's less because that's only for
25· ·cleaning the wet well system, which would be

·1· ·quarterly.
·2· · · · Q· · Do you know how tall the existing pump
·3· ·station facility is?
·4· · · · A· · I could take a guess, but I don't recall ·5· ·off the top of my head.
·6· · · · Q· · Roughly one-story building, though?
·7· · · · A· · One story, maybe a story and a half.
·8· · · · Q· · And is there currently a roof structure on ·9· ·top of the -- the equipment and facilities at the
10· ·existing pump station?
11· · · · A· · Help me understand what you mean by roof 12· ·structure.
13· · · · Q· · A cover on top of the actual buildings.
14· · · · A· · There is, and you can see it here in this 15· ·picture.· There's a parapet that goes around a flat 16· ·roof type of structure.
17· · · · Q· · So is the current facility an open-air
18· ·facility where the equipment is actually exposed to 19· ·the open air?
20· · · · A· · It's ventilated with atmospheric air.
21· · · · Q· · Do you know if that changes with the
22· ·proposed new pump station?
23· · · · A· · From my understanding, it does.
24· · · · Q· · How does it change?
25· · · · A· · It conditions the air before bringing it

·1· ·to the control room and the electrical rooms as a
·2· ·matter of best practice to mitigate any issues with ·3· ·the salt air being so close to the coast.
·4· · · · Q· · When you say "it conditions the air," what ·5· ·does that involve?
·6· · · · A· · Heating and cooling.
·7· · · · Q· · So the existing facility does not have any ·8· ·sort of temperature regulation of the air?
·9· · · · A· · That's correct.
10· · · · Q· · And the new facility will have a
11· ·temperature regulation of the air that comes into
12· ·the facility?
13· · · · A· · That's correct.
14· · · · Q· · Does that involve an air conditioner? A 15· ·heater?· A generator?· What's involved in that?
16· · · · A· · A traditional commercial heating,
17· ·ventilated, and air conditioning unit, as they are 18· ·termed HVAC, and I believe roof-mounted.
19· · · · Q· · Do you know how tall the proposed new pump 20· ·station is going to be?
21· · · · A· · I believe about the same.
22· · · · Q· · But the new pump station will have an HVAC 23· ·unit mounted on the roof of the structure; is that 24· ·correct?
25· · · · A· · From what I can recall, I believe that to

·1· ·be correct.
·2· · · · Q· · Do you have any sense of the noise that
·3· ·the HVAC unit would generate for the type of use
·4· ·that we're talking about?
·5· · · · A· · I don't think it would be any louder than ·6· ·the current equipment there because this current
·7· ·station has a ventilation fan that makes about the ·8· ·same amount of noise.
·9· · · · Q· · Can you generally describe for me how
10· ·often parts or equipment are replaced or repaired at 11· ·the existing pump station?
12· · · · A· · Depending on what the part or component
13· ·would be.· It could be changing a light bulb once a 14· ·month.· It could be replacing a sensor quarterly.
15· ·When I say a sensor, a small component maybe the
16· ·size of my water bottle here.· Replacing a pump
17· ·annually, replacing air filters monthly for the HVAC 18· ·system.
19· · · · Q· · And do you anticipate the frequency of
20· ·replacements or repairs changing at all with the new 21· ·pump station?
22· · · · A· · I do not.
23· · · · Q· · Has OC San ever done any noise readings or 24· ·monitoring at the existing station?
25· · · · A· · The only noise readings that I'm aware of 13-192
406

·1· ·Think of milk of magnesia when you have an upset
·2· ·stomach.· It's essentially the same thing in a
·3· ·little bit stronger concentration.· And calcium
·4· ·nitrate, which is a clear liquid, again,
·5· ·nonhazardous.
·6· · · · Q· · And how frequently are those chemicals
·7· ·brought to and from the existing pump station?
·8· · · · A· · Depending on the dosage rates into the
·9· ·system, it could be monthly.· It could be less than 10· ·that.
11· · · · Q· · Do you have any estimate for the existing 12· ·pump station of how often chemicals are brought on? 13· · · · A· · It's on track to be about monthly.
14· · · · Q· · Does the frequency of bringing chemicals 15· ·on and off to the pump station change with the new 16· ·pump station?
17· · · · A· · I do not anticipate any change at all.
18· · · · Q· · Will the chemicals be brought to the new 19· ·pump station through the Bayside Village Marina
20· ·property?
21· · · · A· · I believe they will be brought onto the
22· ·new pump station via Pacific Coast Highway, emptied 23· ·into the on-site tanks, and then an empty truck will 24· ·traverse through the property through the
25· ·pre-determined exit route.

·1· · · · Q· · So once the new pump station is
·2· ·constructed, it will still be accessed via PCH for ·3· ·purposes of delivering chemicals?
·4· · · · A· · I would imagine so.· Based on the size of ·5· ·that vehicle and what I've seen in the proposed
·6· ·layout, that is one path.
·7· · · · Q· · But you don't know for sure?
·8· · · · A· · I don't know for sure.
·9· · · · Q· · So there's a possibility that OC San could 10· ·be bringing chemicals across the Bayside Village
11· ·Marina property for the new pump station?
12· · · · A· · I would not anticipate it, but I don't
13· ·know for certain at this point, no.
14· · · · Q· · Who would know that?
15· · · · A· · Somebody on my team would be able to work 16· ·with the project team.
17· · · · Q· · Do you have anyone in particular?
18· · · · A· · That reports to me?
19· · · · Q· · That would have an understanding of
20· ·whether chemicals will be brought on Bayside Village 21· ·Marina's property.
22· · · · A· · I would have to go back to the project
23· ·team.
24· · · · Q· · Is there someone in particular that you
25· ·would -- you would reach out to or ask?

·1· · · · A· · Probably one of the folks that you've
·2· ·already deposed, either Andrew Brown or Cindy Murra. ·3· · · · Q· · And do you have a sense of the volume of ·4· ·the chemicals that are brought to the existing pump ·5· ·station?
·6· · · · A· · If I recall correctly, it's about 6,000
·7· ·gallons, and that is 3,000 gallons of each chemical ·8· ·on a monthly basis.
·9· · · · Q· · And would that volume change at all with 10· ·the proposed new pump station?
11· · · · A· · I do not anticipate that changing at all. 12· · · · Q· · So the increased size of it with the new 13· ·equipment doesn't require additional chemical usage? 14· · · · A· · It does not because it's all determined by 15· ·the flow rates in the sewer system.
16· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· I'm mark as Exhibit 25 a
17· ·document Bates labeled OC San 096970 and 096971.· It 18· ·appears to be an e-mail dated August 10th, 2023.· It 19· ·appears to attach monthly collection odor
20· ·performance report for July of 2023.
21· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 25 was marked for identification 22· ·and is attached hereto.)
23· ·BY MR. KUHN:
24· · · · Q· · Have you seen monthly reports like this? 25· · · · A· · Yes, I have.

·1· · · · Q· · Any reason to believe that this monthly
·2· ·report for the Bay Bridge Pump Station is
·3· ·inaccurate?
·4· · · · A· · No.· It looks to be accurate to me.
·5· · · · Q· · And so if I understand this correctly, the ·6· ·total monthly usage on a per-gallon basis for
·7· ·magnesium hydroxide at Bay Bridge Pump Station is
·8· ·about 9200 gallons?
·9· · · · A· · From what I see on this report, that looks 10· ·to be correct.
11· · · · Q· · And the calcium nitrate is about 4500
12· ·gallons, at least in July 2023?
13· · · · A· · From what I see here, yes.
14· · · · Q· · And if I go down further, there's a
15· ·monthly sampling and monitoring data chart for --
16· ·for Bayside Drive.· Can you explain to me what the 17· ·vapor peak and mean numbers refer to?
18· · · · A· · So the numbers that are listed under the 19· ·peak column are what I spoke about earlier,
20· ·concentrations of hydrogen sulfide gas.· So this is 21· ·the rotten-egg-smelling gas.· And peak would be what 22· ·was measured in a 30-day period as one of the
23· ·highest levels.· And mean being in that middle
24· ·threshold of that -- what that vapor reading was.
25· · · · Q· · And so if it had a high peak number, like, 13-193
407

·1· ·facilities, and also temporary and permanent access ·2· ·areas?
·3· · · · A· · From what I can recall when reviewing the ·4· ·design, yes, this looks to be accurate.
·5· · · · Q· · And is it correct, then, that for future ·6· ·access purposes associated with the new pump
·7· ·station, OC San will primarily be coming in off
·8· ·Bayside Drive driving through the Bayside Village
·9· ·Marina property in order to get access to the new
10· ·pump station?
11· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· Objection; lacks
12· ·foundation, calls for speculation, assumes facts.
13· · · · · · ·You can answer.
14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I would anticipate most of 15· ·the entrance would come off of Coast Highway, and
16· ·the egress would be through the pre-determined path 17· ·to get to Bayside Drive.
18· ·BY MR. KUHN:
19· · · · Q· · And what's that understanding based on?
20· · · · A· · Just standard traffic flow, turning
21· ·radiuses of vehicles, access off of Bayside Drive. 22· · · · Q· · So why is there a need to have two points 23· ·of ingress and egress to the future pump station?
24· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· Objection; that's
25· ·irrelevant to the extent that public use and

·1· ·necessity is not an issue in the case.
·2· · · · · · ·You can answer.
·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Because there may be times ·4· ·where equipment is staged near the access point off ·5· ·of Coast Highway, and they would need to access the ·6· ·station through the Bayside Drive entrance.
·7· ·BY MR. KUHN:
·8· · · · Q· · So for purposes of your overseeing the
·9· ·future maintenance of this facility, you're not
10· ·envisioning OC San using as its regular point of
11· ·ingress the access point off Bayside Drive?
12· · · · A· · No.· I would say it would be a regular
13· ·point of access.· It would just have a lower
14· ·frequency of access than the Coast Highway side.
15· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· His question asked about
16· ·ingress.· You answered him about access.
17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So meaning they would --
18· ·they would access the pump station from both routes. 19· ·Ingress into the pump station I would say is still 20· ·coming through Bayside Drive but at a less overall 21· ·frequency than ingress to the station from Coast
22· ·Highway.
23· ·BY MR. KUHN:
24· · · · Q· · And I know you're not particularly being 25· ·designated on construction, but do you have an

·1· ·understanding, is this the same route that OC San
·2· ·intends to use during construction of the new pump ·3· ·station?
·4· · · · A· · I'm not real familiar with that.
·5· · · · Q· · Okay.· Would OC San need to use the
·6· ·entrance off Bayside Drive and drive through the
·7· ·Bayside Village Marina property for its passenger
·8· ·vehicles and service trucks?
·9· · · · A· · Depending on traffic conditions on Coast 10· ·Highway, that may very well dictate that.
11· · · · Q· · And would OC San potentially need to use 12· ·the Bayside Drive entrance and driving through
13· ·Bayside Village Marina's property for its tanker
14· ·trucks?
15· · · · A· · I would anticipate not.· I would
16· ·anticipate that the access would come through the
17· ·Coast Highway as far as an ingress into the station. 18· · · · Q· · But you would envision OC San using
19· ·that -- that access drive aisle through Bayside
20· ·Village Marina's property for egress for tanker
21· ·trucks?
22· · · · A· · That could be a potential route, yes.
23· · · · Q· · And what about vacuum trucks?· Would
24· ·vacuum trucks use the -- the Bayside Drive access
25· ·point and drive in and out of Bayside Village

·1· ·Marina's property through that access road?
·2· · · · A· · Yes, I would anticipate them using both
·3· ·points of entry into the pump station, depending on ·4· ·the area within the pump station they need to place ·5· ·that piece of equipment.
·6· · · · Q· · And what about the Vactor trucks?· Is
·7· ·that --
·8· · · · A· · That's a combination vacuum sewer-cleaning ·9· ·thing.· Vactor is a name brand.
10· · · · Q· · Okay.· So the vacuum trucks would be using 11· ·the Bayside Drive entrance and driving through
12· ·Bayside Village Marina's property both ingress and 13· ·egress?
14· · · · A· · I would say that's a correct statement.
15· · · · Q· · And what about the bucket trucks?· Would 16· ·the bucket trucks be using the Bayside Drive access 17· ·point driving through Bayside's property for ingress 18· ·and egress?
19· · · · A· · I'm not sure what we're referring to for a 20· ·bucket truck.
21· · · · Q· · Or the -- the cranes.
22· · · · A· · Okay.· The crane would use both points of 23· ·entry as well, depending on where they have to stage 24· ·that crane to maneuver equipment.
25· · · · Q· · Is there a chance that OC San would be
13-194
408

·1· ·staging the cranes within the access easement area ·2· ·when it's undertaking maintenance activities?
·3· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· Objection; incomplete
·4· ·hypothetical, calls for speculation, lacks
·5· ·foundation.
·6· · · · · · ·You can answer.
·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I do not anticipate that
·8· ·happening.
·9· ·BY MR. KUHN:
10· · · · Q· · So if -- if OC San is using the cranes,
11· ·crane trucks, for maintenance at the facility, those 12· ·trucks would be stationed within the pump station
13· ·site itself?
14· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· Same objections.
15· · · · · · ·You can answer.
16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I would anticipate that to 17· ·be a true statement, all within the pump station
18· ·confines.
19· ·BY MR. KUHN:
20· · · · Q· · Are there any trucks or any vehicles that 21· ·you would envision using the access road for parking 22· ·or staging?
23· · · · A· · I do not anticipate that happening at all. 24· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· Gary, do you know if Patrick
25· ·marked the complaint in eminent domain as an

·1· ·exhibit?
·2· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· I don't believe he did.
·3· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· Okay.· Let's do that as 27.
·4· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 27 was marked for identification ·5· ·and is attached hereto.)
·6· · · · · · ·(Interruption in proceedings by the
·7· ·reporter.)
·8· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· Do you need me to talk
·9· ·louder?
10· · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Nope.
11· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· Just me.
12· · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· And the witness.
13· ·BY MR. KUHN:
14· · · · Q· · Have you seen this complaint in eminent
15· ·domain?
16· · · · A· · Yes, I have.
17· · · · Q· · Are you familiar with the permanent road 18· ·easement that's attached as Exhibit B to the
19· ·complaint?
20· · · · A· · As much as I would understand based on the 21· ·Exhibit -- previous Exhibit 26 we were looking at as 22· ·far as a pathway through the property, that's kind 23· ·of how I understand it to be.
24· · · · Q· · And do you have any familiarity or did you 25· ·have any input as to the terms of the access

·1· ·easement?
·2· · · · A· · Could you clarify what terms you're
·3· ·referring to?
·4· · · · Q· · So if you turn to Exhibit B to the
·5· ·complaint, in addition to the --
·6· · · · A· · It's right here.
·7· · · · Q· · -- legal description and the plat map that ·8· ·describes the location and the location of the
·9· ·access easement --
10· · · · A· · Uh-huh.
11· · · · Q· · -- in front of that is a set of what I
12· ·call easement terms --
13· · · · A· · Okay.
14· · · · Q· · -- the language that governs the use of
15· ·that access easement.· Did you have -- have you seen 16· ·that before?
17· · · · A· · Yes, I have seen it because a copy was
18· ·provided to me by Mr. Gary Weisberg.
19· · · · Q· · Did you ever have any inputs into the
20· ·terms or conditions of OC San's access easement?
21· · · · A· · I was consulted generally as to what type 22· ·of access frequency our vehicles would need to
23· ·operate and maintain the pump station during the
24· ·process of designing the project very early on in
25· ·the phase.· From what I can remember, that was quite

·1· ·a while ago.
·2· · · · Q· · Do you understand that the access easement ·3· ·can be utilized by OC San, its employees, agents,
·4· ·representatives, contractors?
·5· · · · A· · My understanding, yes, it is that which I ·6· ·would entail to be business purposes.
·7· · · · Q· · And you understand the access easement is ·8· ·for ingress and egress purposes?
·9· · · · A· · Yes, I do.
10· · · · Q· · Is it your understanding that the easement 11· ·prevents the property owner Bayside Village Marina 12· ·from making any use of that area that would impede 13· ·OC San's ability to access its pump station with all 14· ·the types of trucks and vehicles we just discussed? 15· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· Objection; the document
16· ·speaks for itself.
17· · · · · · ·You can answer.
18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I would say I understand
19· ·that just based on the terminology of an easement. 20· ·BY MR. KUHN:
21· · · · Q· · So, for example, Bayside can't construct 22· ·improvements or buildings or aboveground structures 23· ·within that access easement; is that fair?
24· · · · A· · I would say that's fair because that would 25· ·prevent the access.
13-195
409

·1· ·or the depth of material or anything like that with ·2· ·respect to access roads?
·3· · · · A· · I would imagine we would call upon some
·4· ·type of standard that's used to construct public
·5· ·rights of way and typical roads designed for the
·6· ·equipment that it needs to support.
·7· · · · Q· · I don't want you to speculate, though.
·8· ·Is -- do you -- are you aware of any standards that ·9· ·OC San requires?
10· · · · A· · For access roads I do not recall if there 11· ·are anything cited.
12· · · · Q· · Has OC San ever received any claims or
13· ·requests for restoration or repair of access roads 14· ·that it utilizes?
15· · · · A· · Not that I can recall.
16· · · · Q· · Do you have any understanding of why there 17· ·appears to be a setback or a gap between the access 18· ·road on Bayside Village Marina's property in the
19· ·pump station?
20· · · · A· · I do not know of one.
21· · · · Q· · Are there particular turning radius
22· ·requirements that Bayside Village Marina is going to 23· ·be required to maintain for purposes of ensuring OC 24· ·San's access?
25· · · · A· · From my understanding, the turning

·1· ·radiuses of the equipment we use is what was used to ·2· ·determine the access needs of this path.
·3· · · · Q· · Do you know, is there some sort of program ·4· ·that was utilized to determine the turning radiuses ·5· ·that would be required?
·6· · · · A· · Actual measurements of the vehicles
·7· ·themselves.
·8· · · · Q· · And what are the size of the vehicles that ·9· ·were utilized for determining turning radius
10· ·requirements?
11· · · · A· · The largest vehicle that we would need to 12· ·access that, and, again, that would be that -- that 13· ·combination sewer cleaning vehicle or the Vactor,
14· ·the vacuum truck.
15· · · · Q· · And you said that was a ten-wheeler?
16· · · · A· · It's ten wheels, and it has what's called 17· ·a tandem axle that drops down, but for analogous
18· ·purposes a trash truck is probably the best.
19· · · · Q· · Do you know if there are any sight line or 20· ·visibility requirements that OC San is going to be 21· ·required to maintain for purposes of OC San to
22· ·secure access to its pump station?
23· · · · A· · Could you elaborate a little bit more?
24· ·Are you -- are we referring to -- back to the access 25· ·road?

·1· · · · Q· · Correct.
·2· · · · A· · I would say it would just be what is
·3· ·required for the driver to be able to safely
·4· ·traverse that path and make sure that there are no ·5· ·pedestrians or anybody else that could be in an area ·6· ·and be harmed.
·7· · · · Q· · So, for example, do you have any
·8· ·understanding of whether or not Bayside Village
·9· ·Marina could put way-finding signs or trees or other 10· ·large landscaping within immediately adjacent to the 11· ·access road?
12· · · · A· · My understanding would be if it did not
13· ·cause a safety issue, that that would not be
14· ·something that would be of concern.
15· · · · Q· · Are there certain standards that would be 16· ·utilized to determine whether or not there's a
17· ·safety issue for sight line visibility?
18· · · · A· · Not that I'm aware of.
19· · · · · · ·MR. WEISBERG:· Brad, when you get a
20· ·chance, can we take a break?
21· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· Sure.· Let's -- let's take a
22· ·break.· Go off the record.
23· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The time is 2:51 p.m. 24· ·We are off the record.
25· · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

·1· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are on the record. ·2· ·This is media two.· The time is 2:54 p.m.· Go ahead. ·3· ·BY MR. KUHN:
·4· · · · Q· · Do you know if OC San has any setback
·5· ·requirements for purposes of maintaining its access ·6· ·routes to the pump station?
·7· · · · A· · My understanding is the easement route is ·8· ·the entirety of the setback.
·9· · · · Q· · So, in other words, the property owner
10· ·could build the building up to the access road
11· ·limit?
12· · · · A· · As long as we have those property lines
13· ·defined maintained, that would be my understanding. 14· · · · Q· · And would your larger trucks, your -- your 15· ·Vactor, would they have mirrors or anything that
16· ·would hit a building if it was built up right up to 17· ·the edge of the -- of the access easement line?
18· · · · A· · Part of determining the width is assuming 19· ·that those are the lines, the exact lines that we
20· ·have to stay within.
21· · · · Q· · And once the pump station is operational, 22· ·is it your understanding that OC San can only use
23· ·the access easement 15 vehicle trips per week,
24· ·except in the cases of emergency?
25· · · · A· · That is my understanding.
13-196
410

·1· · · · Q· · Is a vehicle trip in and out, or is a
·2· ·vehicle trip just in or just out?
·3· · · · A· · For the purposes of a vehicle trip, I
·4· ·would assume in and out.
·5· · · · Q· · So, in other words, OC San can use the
·6· ·access route 15 times in and 15 times out per week; ·7· ·is that fair?
·8· · · · A· · That's fair.
·9· · · · Q· · And if multiple vehicles are needed for a 10· ·single service, each one of those vehicles would
11· ·count as a vehicle trip?
12· · · · A· · I would say yes.
13· · · · Q· · How is the 15 vehicle trips determined?
14· · · · A· · Frequency of access to the station
15· ·currently in operation based on the tasks that are 16· ·performed by staff and routine operations.
17· · · · Q· · And it has this qualifier language that it 18· ·can go over 15 in cases of emergency, and I think we 19· ·covered a number of emergency situations earlier
20· ·today.· Is it fair, to your understanding, OC San
21· ·can use the access road more frequently in cases of 22· ·an emergency?
23· · · · A· · That would be a fair statement.
24· · · · Q· · And in cases of emergency there are no
25· ·limitations on the number of vehicle trips OC San

·1· ·can utilize the access easement, right?
·2· · · · A· · In case of an emergency, that would be
·3· ·correct.
·4· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· Let's mark as Exhibit 28 a
·5· ·document Bates labeled OC San 050671 through 050673. ·6· ·It's an e-mail chain starting at the top December
·7· ·29, 2021, between Valerie Ratto and Raul Cuellar,
·8· ·C-u-e-l-l-a-r.
·9· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 28 was marked for identification 10· ·and is attached hereto.)
11· ·BY MR. KUHN:
12· · · · Q· · Mr. Stokes, it appears you were in this
13· ·e-mail chain earlier as well.
14· · · · · · ·Have you seen this e-mail?
15· · · · A· · From what I can recall, yes, I do remember 16· ·interacting with this team.
17· · · · Q· · Who is -- who is Valerie Ratto?
18· · · · A· · She is an engineering supervisor within
19· ·our design team, construction design team.
20· · · · Q· · And who is Raul Cuellar?
21· · · · A· · He would be my counterpart at the
22· ·management level within that same team.
23· · · · Q· · And this e-mail appears to refer to the
24· ·number of vehicle trips per week for -- for service 25· ·of the proposed new pump station; is that fair?

·1· · · · A· · That's fair.· This is a representative
·2· ·example.
·3· · · · Q· · Any reason to disagree with the numbers
·4· ·identified on this e-mail for the number of vehicle ·5· ·trips per week?
·6· · · · A· · Yes, because this is a representative
·7· ·example, and there are times where we would exceed ·8· ·this for corrective maintenance intervals.· So
·9· ·that's why we went with the worst-case scenario of 10· ·15 trips.· In other words, if everything was great 11· ·in a planned world, this would be the bare minimum. 12· · · · Q· · So the -- the bare minimum that you would 13· ·envision for maintenance purposes would be one
14· ·vacuum truck and two service trucks per week, one
15· ·tanker and one service truck per week for chemical 16· ·delivery and wet well vacuum service?
17· · · · A· · When we average them out, yes.· So these 18· ·are representatives examples pulled from on page 2, 19· ·which is a screen shot of the typical maintenance
20· ·tasks associated with the current pump station.
21· · · · Q· · So there would be certain weeks where you 22· ·have more than one vacuum truck per week or more
23· ·than one tanker per week, and then you'll have some 24· ·weeks where you won't have any; is that correct?
25· · · · A· · That would be a correct statement.

·1· · · · Q· · And how long did some of these activities ·2· ·identified in here typically take?· How long would ·3· ·OC San be on the pump station property for chemical ·4· ·delivery?
·5· · · · A· · Could be two to four hours typically.
·6· · · · Q· · What about for the wet well vacuum?
·7· · · · A· · With any of these given tasks, it could be ·8· ·anywhere from a half a day to a full day, and a day ·9· ·would be about eight hours.
10· · · · Q· · So for chemical delivery, wet well vacuum, 11· ·force main flush, daily pump station check, those
12· ·could be anywhere from four to eight hours,
13· ·generally?
14· · · · A· · Correct.
15· · · · Q· · And looking at that chart on page 2, it
16· ·says "daily pump station run."· Is that suggesting 17· ·that OC San would be driving through the Bayside
18· ·Village Marina property every day?
19· · · · A· · That would be a correct assumption.
20· · · · Q· · If I'm doing math correctly, if we have 15 21· ·trips per week times 52 weeks of the year, are we
22· ·talking about nearly 800 trips per year that OC San 23· ·would be using the Bayside Village Marina property 24· ·for access?
25· · · · A· · If we get to the -- the upper limit there, 13-197
411

·1· ·that's probably pretty close without breaking out
·2· ·the calculator.
·3· · · · Q· · Are the trucks and -- and tankers and
·4· ·vacuum trucks, are those diesel operational?
·5· · · · A· · My understanding is the tanker trucks are ·6· ·diesel.· The vacuum trucks may be diesel, may be
·7· ·compressed natural gas, depending on the unit used. ·8· ·The remainder of the vehicles would be gasoline.
·9· · · · Q· · Do you have any sense of the noise
10· ·activity or noise level from the maintenance
11· ·activities from the vacuum trucks, from the tanker 12· ·trucks, from the wet well vacuum or force mains
13· ·flushed, anything like that?
14· · · · A· · The vacuum truck would exhibit a similar 15· ·noise level as a trash truck when it's in operation. 16· ·The tanker truck I would say would be no different 17· ·than it sounds like for that vehicle driving down
18· ·the road at ten miles per hour.
19· · · · Q· · And I'm not familiar with the noise of a 20· ·tanker truck.· Is it similar to a trash truck?
21· · · · A· · Think about, I guess, a truck idling at a 22· ·red light.· There's no excessive noise coming off it 23· ·unless there's something wrong with it.
24· · · · Q· · Is the force main flushing particularly
25· ·noisy?

·1· · · · A· · No.
·2· · · · Q· · Is the wet well vacuuming particularly
·3· ·noisy?
·4· · · · A· · That would be probably one of the noisier ·5· ·operations, which would sound like that trash truck ·6· ·emptying the garbage.
·7· · · · Q· · And that could happen roughly once a week? ·8· · · · A· · In the current location, yes.· In the new ·9· ·design it's not anticipated to be any more frequent. 10· ·In fact, it's anticipated to be less frequent.
11· · · · Q· · But for purposes of -- of your
12· ·estimations, we've -- we've estimated one wet well 13· ·vacuum per week; is that fair?
14· · · · A· · That is -- that is fair.
15· · · · Q· · Have you ever had any situations where any 16· ·chemicals spilled from any of your -- your trucks
17· ·doing chemical delivery?
18· · · · A· · Not that I can recall.
19· · · · Q· · Have you had other situations where waste 20· ·has -- has leaked either from the facilities
21· ·themselves or from trucks or anything like that?
22· · · · A· · We have had situations at other pump
23· ·stations where we've had a catastrophic failure and 24· ·we've had the sewage leak out.
25· · · · Q· · How often does that happen?

·1· · · · A· · It's happened once during my tenure.
·2· · · · Q· · And what facility was that?
·3· · · · A· · That was at our Main Street Pump Station ·4· ·in Irvine.
·5· · · · Q· · And what was the ramification of that?
·6· ·What happened?
·7· · · · A· · So we had a pipe corrode and basically
·8· ·leak, and sewage left the property and flowed down ·9· ·the gutter and was eventually stopped and recovered 10· ·to the best of our ability from the local stormdrain 11· ·system.
12· · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· The local storm.
13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Stormdrain system.
14· · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Thank you.
15· ·BY MR. KUHN:
16· · · · Q· · Are there any other future plans for
17· ·expansion of the pump station that you're aware of? 18· · · · A· · Not that I'm aware of.
19· · · · · · ·MR. KUHN:· Let's go off the record.
20· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The time is 3:07 p.m. 21· ·We are off the record.
22 23· · · · · · ·(Deposition concluded at 3:07 p.m.
24· ·Declaration under penalty of perjury on the
25· ·following page hereof.)

·1· ·STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
·2· ·COUNTY OF ORANGE· · )· SS:
·3
·4· · · · · · ·I, Tammi L. Lee, do hereby certify:
·5· · · · · · ·That I am a duly qualified Certified
·6· ·Shorthand Reporter, in and for the State of
·7· ·California, holder of certificate number 11034,
·8· ·which is in full force and effect and that I am
·9· ·authorized to administer oaths and affirmations;
10· · · · · · ·That the foregoing deposition of the
11· ·herein named witness was taken before me at the time 12· ·and place herein set forth;
13· · · · · · ·That prior to being examined, the witness 14· ·named in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn or 15· ·affirmed by me to testify the truth, the whole
16· ·truth, and nothing but the truth;
17· · · · · · ·That the testimony of the witness and all 18· ·objections made at the time of the examination were 19· ·recorded stenographically by me and were thereafter 20· ·transcribed under my direction and supervision;
21· · · · · · ·That the foregoing pages contain a full, 22· ·true, and accurate record of the proceedings and the 23· ·testimony to the best of my skill and ability;
24 25
13-198
412

·1· · · · · · ·I further certify that I am not a relative ·2· ·or employee or attorney or counsel of any of the
·3· ·parties, nor am I a relative or employee of such
·4· ·attorney or counsel, nor am I financially interested ·5· ·in the outcome of this action.
·6
·7· · · · · · ·IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my ·8· ·name this 21st day of December,
·9· ·2023.
10 11
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·_____________________________
12· · · · · · · · · · · ·TAMMI L. LEE, CSR NO. 11034
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25

·1· · · · · · ·DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
·2· ·Case Name: Orange County Sanitation District vs.
· · · · · · · · Bayside Village Marina
·3· ·Date of Deposition: 12/13/2023
·4· ·Job No.: 10132830
·5
·6· · · · · · · · ·I, DON STOKES, hereby certify
·7· ·under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of ·8· ·________________ that the foregoing is true and correct. ·9· · · · · · · · ·Executed this ______ day of
10· ·__________________, 2023, at ____________________. 11 12
13· · · · · · · · · · · · ·_________________________________ 14· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·DON STOKES
15 16· ·NOTARIZATION (If Required)
17· ·State of ________________
18· ·County of _______________
19· ·Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on 20· ·this _____ day of ____________, 20__,
21· ·by________________________,· · proved to me on the 22· ·basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person
23· ·who appeared before me.
24· ·Signature: ______________________________ (Seal)
25

·1· ·DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET
·2· ·Case Name: Orange County Sanitation District vs.
· · · · · · · · Bayside Village Marina
· · ·Name of Witness: Don Stokes
·3· ·Date of Deposition: 12/13/2023
· · ·Job No.: 10132830
·4· ·Reason Codes:· 1. To clarify the record.
· · · · · · · · · · 2. To conform to the facts.
·5· · · · · · · · · 3. To correct transcription errors. ·6· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
·7· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ ·8· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
·9· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 10· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
11· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 12· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
13· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 14· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
15· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 16· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
17· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 18· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
19· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 20· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
21· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 22· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
23· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 24· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
25· ·From _______________________ to ________________________

·1· ·DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET
·2· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
·3· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ ·4· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
·5· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ ·6· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
·7· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ ·8· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
·9· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 10· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
11· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 12· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
13· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 14· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
15· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 16· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
17· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 18· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
19· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 20· ·Page _____ Line ______ Reason ______
21· ·From _______________________ to ________________________ 22· ·_______ Subject to the above changes, I certify that the · · · · · · ·transcript is true and correct
23· ·_______ No changes have been made. I certify that the · · · · · · ·transcript· is true and correct.
24 · · · · · · · · · ·_____________________________________ 25· · · · · · · · · · · · · DON STOKES
13-199
413

ATTACHMENT B

13-200
414

1 PLAINTIFF OC SAN’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT BAYSIDE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO 1816902.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
Fee Exempt Per Gov. Code § 6103 WOODRUFF & SMART, APC
GARY C. WEISBERG - State Bar No. 132092
[email protected]
MICHAEL L. D'ANGELO - State Bar No. 186882
[email protected]
ELIZABETH VALADEZ - State Bar No. 216235
[email protected]
555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670
Telephone: (714) 558-7000
Facsimile: (714) 835-7787

Attorneys for Plaintiff ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, a public entity

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, COMPLEX JUSTICE CENTER

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT,
a public entity,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA, LLC, a
California limited liability company; LAGUNA
BEACH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a
public entity; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive;
and ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING

AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 30-2022-01251890-CU-EI-CXC

Related tof: 30-2021-01194238-CU-EI-CXC
Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County
Sanitation District, et al.

ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE

HONORABLE WILLIAM CLASTER
DEPARTMENT: CX-101

PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY

SANITATION DISTRICT'S RESPONSES

TO DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE

MARINA, LLC'S SPECIAL

INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

[Assessor Parcel No. 440-132-60]

HEARING DATES PENDING:

Type: Status Conference
Date: May 22, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.

Type: Trial Readiness Conference
Date: August 2, 2024
Time: 1:30 p.m.

Type: Trial
Date: August 12, 2024
Time: 9:00 a.m.

DATE ACTION FILED: March 25, 2022
13-201
415

2 PLAINTIFF OC SAN’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT BAYSIDE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO 1816902.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA, LLC, a California limited liability company
RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT, a public entity
SET NO.: TWO (2)
Plaintiff ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, a public entity ("OC San" or "Responding Party"), pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, et seq., hereby responds to the special interrogatories, set two, propounded by defendant BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Bayside" or "Propounding Party") as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each answer is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, and admissibility, and any and all other objections and grounds that would require the exclusion of any statement herein if the Interrogatories were asked of, or any statements contained herein were made by, a witness present and testifying in court, all of which objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.

Responding Party has not yet completed its investigation or discovery of the facts surrounding the above-captioned matter. The responses contained herein are based only upon such information, belief, and documents as are presently available to and specifically known to Responding Party. The responses contained herein will disclose only that information which is subject to these limitations.

As discovery proceeds, witnesses, facts, and evidence may be discovered that are not set forth herein but which may have been responsive to a request. Facts and evidence now known may be imperfectly understood, or the relevance or consequence of such facts and evidence may be imperfectly understood. Accordingly, such facts and evidence may, in good faith, not be included in the following responses.

It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research, and analysis will supply additional facts or add new meaning to the known facts, as well as establish entirely new 13-202
416

3 PLAINTIFF OC SAN’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT BAYSIDE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO 1816902.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from, the responses herein set forth. The following responses are given without prejudice to Responding Party's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts, witnesses, or documents that Responding Party may later recall. Responding Party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all answers herein as additional facts are ascertained, analysis is made, and legal research is completed. The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as is presently known but should in no way be to the prejudice of Responding Party in relation to further discovery, research, or analysis.

Responding Party assumes no obligation to voluntarily supplement or amend these responses to reflect the discovery of witnesses, facts, and evidence following the serving of these responses. In addition, because some of these responses may have been ascertained by counsel or investigators for Responding Party, it may not have personal knowledge of the same.

RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

IDENTIFY (as used herein, "IDENTIFY" means, with respect to a vehicle, to state the make and model) each type of VEHICLE (as used herein, "VEHICLE" means anything used for transporting people or goods or conducting services, including but not limited to, a car, van, truck, or tanker) that will traverse the ACCESS ROAD (as used herein, "ACCESS ROAD" refers to the permanent non-exclusive access easement described and depicted in Exhibit "B" of the Complaint on file in this action) to enter or exit the BBPS (as used herein, "BBPS" means Bay Bridge Pump Station and related force mains) in connection with YOUR (as used herein "YOU," "YOUR," and "YOURS" means plaintiff Orange County Sanitation District and its employees, agents, representatives, contractors, successors, assigns and anyone else acting on its behalf) construction, use, and operation of the BBPS.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

OC San objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, vague and ambiguous. OC San further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that an 13-203
417

4 PLAINTIFF OC SAN’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT BAYSIDE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO 1816902.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
answer would necessitate the preparation or making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary from documents that are equally available to and/or already within the possession of the propounding party or that OC San already has otherwise agreed to produce to the propounding party.

The burden or expense of preparing or making such a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary would be substantially the same for the party propounding this interrogatory as for OC San. OC San further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. OC San further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is impermissibly compound. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, OC San responds as follows:

OC San
avails itself of the rights set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260 and refers propounding party to the 2020 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report, which identifies the anticipated vehicles to be used during the construction of the project.

OC San further refers propounding party to the testimony of Don Stokes given at his deposition in this case on December 13, 2023, during which vehicles anticipated to be used during the use and operation of the Bay Bridge Pump Station are identified. More specific information regarding vehicles that will be used during the construction of the project will be determined after the issuance of a contract to the contractor that will be responsible for the construction of the subject project.

Discovery and investigation continue.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

State all facts regarding the specifications for each VEHICLE identified in Special Interrogatory No. 33, including but not limited to, the length, width, height, weight, inside and outside turning radius of, and material to be hauled by each VEHICLE.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

OC San objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, vague and ambiguous. OC San further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that an answer would necessitate the preparation or making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary from documents that are equally available to and/or already within the possession of the propounding party or that OC San already has otherwise agreed to produce to the propounding party. 13-204
418

5 PLAINTIFF OC SAN’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT BAYSIDE’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO 1816902.1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

WOODRUFF& SMART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA
The burden or expense of preparing or making such a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary would be substantially the same for the party propounding this interrogatory as for OC San. OC San further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. OC San further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is impermissibly compound. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, OC San responds as follows:

OC San
avails itself of the rights set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260 and refers propounding party to the 2020 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report, which identifies the anticipated vehicles to be used during the construction of the project.

OC San further refers propounding party to the testimony of Don Stokes given at his deposition in this case on December 13, 2023, during which vehicles anticipated to be used during the use and operation of the Bay Bridge Pump Station are identified. More specific information regarding vehicles that will be used during the construction of the project will be determined after the issuance of a contract to the contractor that will be responsible for the construction of the subject project.

Discovery and investigation continue.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:

Describe in detail YOUR obligations and responsibilities to maintain the ACCESS ROAD throughout YOUR construction, use, and operation of the BBPS.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:

OC San objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, vague and ambiguous. OC San further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it may be deemed to seek information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and other applicable privileges. OC San further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that an answer would necessitate the preparation or making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary from documents that are equally available to and/or already within the possession of the propounding party or that OC San already has otherwise agreed to produce to the propounding party. The burden or expense of preparing or making such a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary would be substantially the same for the party propounding 13-205
419
13-206
420

ATTACHMENT C

13-207
421
13-208
422
13-209
423
13-210
424

ATTACHMENT D

13-211
425
13-212
426

ATTACHMENT E
13-213
427
- 1 -
DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
61345301.v1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

NOSSAMAN LLP
BRADFORD B. KUHN (SBN 245866)
[email protected]
JOHN P. ERSKINE (SBN 084994)
[email protected]
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 949.833.7800
Facsimile: 949.833.7878
Defendant Bayside Village Marina LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION

DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC, A

CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY; LAGUNA BEACH COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY;
DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE; AND

ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING AN

INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY,
Defendants.
______________________________________

AND ALL RELATED CASES
Case No: 30-2022-01251890-CU-EI-CXC
[Related Case No.: 30-2021-01194238]
Assigned for all purposes to:

Hon. William Claster, Dept. CX-104

DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE
MARINA LLC’S RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT’S SPECIAL

INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
Date Action Filed: March 25, 2022
Trial Date: None

13-214
428
- 2 -
DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
61345301.v1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC
SET NO.: ONE
Defendant Bayside Village Marina LLC (“Defendant”) hereby responds and objects, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210, et seq., to the first set of special interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff Orange County Sanitation District (“Plaintiff”).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Defendant has not yet completed its investigation or discovery of the facts surrounding the above-captioned matter. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such information, belief, and documents as are presently available to and specifically known to Defendant. The responses contained herein will disclose only that information which is subject to the above-described limitations.

As discovery proceeds, witnesses, facts, and evidence may be discovered that are not set forth herein but which may have been responsive to an interrogatory. Facts and evidence now known may be imperfectly understood, or the relevance or consequence of such facts and evidence may be imperfectly understood. Accordingly, such facts and evidence may, in good faith, not be included in the following responses.

It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply additional facts or add new meaning to the known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from, the responses herein set forth.

The following responses are given without prejudice to Defendant's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts, witnesses, or documents that Defendant may later recall. Defendant accordingly reserves the right to change any and all answers herein as additional facts are ascertained, analysis is made, and legal research is completed. The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as is presently 13-215
429
- 24 -
DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
61345301.v1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
or summary would be substantially the same for the Plaintiff as for Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant responds as follows:

April 11, 2018 Offer and Appraisal;
December 10, 2020 Offer;
June 1, 2021 Notice of Decision to Appraise;
September 7, 2021 Offer to Purchase; and
January 26, 2022 Resolution of Necessity.

Defendant elects to further respond to this interrogatory pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 and identifies the Administrative Record created and lodged with the Court in the matter of Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238, and previously produced by Plaintiff, in this action, in response to Defendant’s first set of requests for production of documents (OCSAN 000001 – 037435), as the source from which the information responsive to this interrogatory may be obtained.

As discovery is ongoing, Defendant reserves the right to supplement its response as additional discovery and information becomes available.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

State all facts that support YOUR contention that the PROJECT is not "planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the least private injury" as alleged in YOUR ANSWER.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

Subject to Plaintiff complying with the court’s February 7, 2023 Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Judgment in the related case of Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238, Defendant waives its right to take challenge in this eminent domain action, and, as such, no response to this request is required.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
13-216
430
- 25 -
DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
61345301.v1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
IDENTIFY all PERSONS (with the exceptions of your expert witnesses and attorneys) that have knowledge of facts that support YOUR contention that the PROJECT is not "planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the least private injury" as alleged in YOUR ANSWER.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

Subject to Plaintiff complying with the court’s February 7, 2023 Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Judgment in the related case of Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238, Defendant waives its right to take challenge in this eminent domain action, and, as such, no response to this request is required.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that evidence, refer to or relate to YOUR contention that the PROJECT is not "planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the least private injury" as alleged in YOUR ANSWER.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

Subject to Plaintiff complying with the court’s February 7, 2023 Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Judgment in the related case of Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238, Defendant waives its right to take challenge in this eminent domain action, and, as such, no response to this request is required.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

State all facts that support YOUR contention that the acquisition of the PROPERTY INTERESTS is not necessary for the PROJECT as alleged in YOUR ANSWER. ("PROPERTY INTERESTS" refers to the property interests being acquired by OC SAN for the PROJECT as identified in OC SAN's complaint filed in the ACTION.) RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
13-217
431
- 26 -
DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
61345301.v1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Subject to Plaintiff complying with the court’s February 7, 2023 Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Judgment in the related case of Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238, Defendant waives its right to take challenge in this eminent domain action, and, as such, no response to this request is required.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

IDENTIFY all PERSONS (with the exceptions of your expert witnesses and attorneys) that have knowledge of facts that support YOUR contention that the acquisition of the PROPERTY INTERESTS is not necessary for the PROJECT as alleged in YOUR ANSWER.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

Subject to Plaintiff complying with the court’s February 7, 2023 Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Judgment in the related case of Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238, Defendant waives its right to take challenge in this eminent domain action, and, as such, no response to this request is required.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that evidence, refer to or relate to YOUR contention that the acquisition of the PROPERTY INTERESTS is not necessary for the PROJECT as alleged in YOUR ANSWER.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:

Subject to Plaintiff complying with the court’s February 7, 2023 Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Judgment in the related case of Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238, Defendant waives its right to take challenge in this eminent domain action, and, as such, no response to this request is required.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
13-218
432
- 29 -
DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
61345301.v1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Defendant waives its right to take challenge in this eminent domain action, and, as such, no response to this request is required.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that evidence, refer to or relate to YOUR contention that alternative locations have been proposed that are "environmentally superior and less impactful" than the subject location as alleged in YOUR ANSWER.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

Subject to Plaintiff complying with the court’s February 7, 2023 Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Judgment in the related case of Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238, Defendant waives its right to take challenge in this eminent domain action, and, as such, no response to this request is required.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

State all facts that support YOUR contention that the PROJECT is not "planned in the manner that will cause the least private injury" as alleged in YOUR ANSWER.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

Subject to Plaintiff complying with the court’s February 7, 2023 Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Judgment in the related case of Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238, Defendant waives its right to take challenge in this eminent domain action, and, as such, no response to this request is required.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

IDENTIFY all PERSONS (with the exceptions of your expert witnesses and attorneys) that have knowledge of facts that support YOUR contention that the PROJECT is not "planned in the manner that will cause the least private injury" as alleged in YOUR ANSWER.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
13-219
433
- 30 -
DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
61345301.v1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Subject to Plaintiff complying with the court’s February 7, 2023 Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Judgment in the related case of Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238, Defendant waives its right to take challenge in this eminent domain action, and, as such, no response to this request is required.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:

IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that evidence, refer to or relate to YOUR contention that the PROJECT is not "planned in the manner that will cause the least private injury" as alleged in YOUR ANSWER.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:

Subject to Plaintiff complying with the court’s February 7, 2023 Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Judgment in the related case of Bayside Village Marina, LLC v. Orange County Sanitation District, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01194238, Defendant waives its right to take challenge in this eminent domain action, and, as such, no response to this request is required.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36:

State all facts that support YOUR contention that "Plaintiff failed and refused to satisfy its obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act" as alleged in YOUR ANSWER.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it may be deemed to seek information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and other applicable privileges.

Defendant also objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for a legal opinion, expert opinion and/or the unilateral disclosure of expert witness information and/or documents. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant responds as follows:
13-220
434
- 53 -
DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
61345301.v1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
product privilege, and other applicable privileges. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for expert opinion and/or the unilateral disclosure of expert witness information and/or documents.

Dated: February 27, 2023 NOSSAMAN LLP
BRADFORD B. KUHN
JOHN P. ERSKINE
By:

Bradford B. Kuhn
Defendant Bayside Village Marina LLC
13-221
435
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

VERIFICATION
I, Michael Gelfand, declare:

I have read the foregoing DEFENDANT BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA

LLC'S RESPONSE TO ORANGH COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, and know of its contents.

I am the President of Bayside Village Marina LLC, a party to this action. I am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that thef°re8°]ng[:;:ceut:ddocn°:;::tL2LdrdayofFebmay2o23,apca]]f°rn]a -2-
61323934.vl
13-222
436
A

TTACHMENT F
13-223
437
13-224
438

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
2020 RECIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Bay Bridge Pump Station
and Force Mains Replacement Project

State Clearinghouse No. 2016111031

Lead Agency:

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Contact: Mr. Kevin Hadden
Principal Staff Analyst
714.962.2411

Prepared by:

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
Contact: Ms. Kristen Bogue
949.472.3505

August 2020

JN 168975
13-225
439
2020 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report
Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project

Public Review Draft ● August 2020 5.11‐5 Transportation City of Newport Beach SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide
The City SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide (VMT Implementation Guide), dated April 6, 2020, also known as City Council Policy K-3, is used as a reference document to determine the appropriate VMT analysis methodology for projects within the City. According to the VMT Implementation Guide, the framework for completing a CEQA-level VMT transportation analysis for proposed land development projects and transportation projects include the following steps:
a. Screening Criteria under which projects are not required to submit a detailed VMT analysis. b. Significance Thresholds for Land Development projects (Residential, Office, Retail, Other). c. Significance Thresholds for Transportation projects. d. Requirements for projects to mitigate significant and unavoidable impacts.

According to Section 2, Land Development Project Screening, of the VMT Implementation Guide, certain conditions may exist that would presume that a proposed land development project has a less than significant VMT impact. Land development projects that have one or more of the identified attributes may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. Among other attributes, Attribute E states that land use development projects that generate a net increase of 300 or less daily trips, utilizing the most current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual would have a less than significant VMT impact.

5.11.3 IMPACT THRESHOLDS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form used during preparation of this EIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would:
 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities (refer to Impact Statement TRA-1);  Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelin es section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (refer to Impact Statement TRA-4);
 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (refer to Impact Statement TRA-2); and
 Result in inadequate emergency access (refer to Impact Statement TRA-3).

5.11.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
ROADWAY, TRANSIT, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
TRA-1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COULD ADVERSELY IMPACT PLANS

RELATED TO ROADWAY, TRANSIT, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES.
13-226
440
2020 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report
Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project

Public Review Draft ● August 2020 5.11‐6 Transportation Impact Analysis:

Roadway
Short-term increases in vehicle trips on the circul ation system would occur during construction.

Construction-related trips would occur during the 36 months required for demolition, grading, building construction, installation of force mains, and gravity sewer improvements. Traffic would include the transfer of construction equipment/mate rials, construction work trips, and hauling trips for soil. Construction associated with trucks and employees traveling to and from the project site may result in minor increases in vehicles on the circulation system.

Specifically, demolition activities would require a pproximately 10 trips per day (including two haul trips), grading activities would require approximat ely 25 trips per day (including two haul trips), building construction would require a
pproximately 16 trips per day (no haul trips), installation of force mains would require approximately 28 trips per day (no haul trips), and gravity sewer improvements would require approximately 23 trips per day (no haul trips). These nominal increases would be temporary and would cease upon completion of construction.

Further, these construction-related vehicle trips would occur throughout the day, and hauling or transport of oversize load
s would only occur between the non-peak hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1. Thus, construction- related vehicle trips on the roadway circulation system would be less than significant.

Following construction, the proposed project would require a maximum of approximately 15 vehicle trips per week for OCSD staff to perform period ic maintenance, inspections of facilities and equipment, and/or chemical deliveries. However, development of the proposed project would result in no new vehicle trips on the circulation system, since these vehicle trips are currently required for maintenance/inspection of the existing pump station, and because no new employees would need to be hired or visit the site as part of the project.

As such, the project would not result in any long-term
operational impacts on the surrounding roadway network.

Transit, Bicycle, Pedestrian Facilities
Temporary construction-related traffic may disrupt transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic through the project area. During project construction, the following temporary lane closures would be required along Coast Highway to allow for the following construction activities, which may overlap:
 East Coast Highway: Temporary closure of one eastbound lane of traffic to allow for construction of the gravity sewer improvements and temporary closure of one westbound lane of traffic to demolish existing manhole an d abandon the existing 42-inch sewer.

Demolition/abandonment and construction of this gravity line would take approximately 131 non-consecutive days over the project’s 36-month construction period.  West Coast Highway: Temporary closure of one eastbound lane of traffic and bus turnout area to allow for connection of the two force mains to the existing system.

Demolition/abandonment and construction of this gravity line would take approximately 33 consecutive days during the project’s 36-month construction period. 13-227
441
2020 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report
Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project

Public Review Draft ● August 2020 5.11‐7 Transportation These proposed lane closures could temporarily impact transit, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation in the project area. To reduce the potential impacts of construction-related vehicles interacting with pedestrians, bicyclists, and other local traffic, a Construction Management Plan would be required per Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which would implement a va riety of measures to minimize traffic safety impacts. The Construction Management Plan would be required to include, but not be limited to, the following:
 Advanced mailings notifying surrounding property owners of project activities;  Construction signage;
 A construction flagperson, as necessary, to assist in maintaining efficient vehicle travel in both directions;
 Prohibition of construction worker parking along local streets;  Identification of appropriate haul routes to avoid traffic disruptions; and  Limitation of hauling activities to off-peak hours.

Compliance with Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would ensure pedestrian and bicyclist access would remain open, to the greatest extent possible, duri ng construction or re-routed to ensure continued connectivity. While it is unknown at this time which sidewalks and/or bicycle paths may be closed during construction, at least one sidewalk/bicycle path along the roadway would remain open and temporary detours to the open path would be pr ovided with signage and/or direction from a construction flagperson.

Advanced notification to surrounding property owners, a construction flagperson, and construction signage to reroute pede strians and bicyclists around the affected areas would be required during all construction activities. Thus, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the project would not conflict with policies re lated to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, as access would be maintained to the greatest extent possible and no permanent impacts to these facilities would result. In addition, operations of the proposed pump station facility would be similar to the existing pump station, and would not introduce any new land uses that could affect public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel. Impa cts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures:

TRA-1 Prior to initiation of construction activities, engineering drawings and specifications, and/or contractor shop drawings shall be prep ared by the Project Engineer, or designee, and submitted for review and approval by the Orange County Sanitation District, California Department of Transportation (C altrans), and the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. These documents shall, at a minimum, address the following:
 Traffic control protocols shall be specifie d for any lane closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation, including bicycle and pedestrian trails. Disruption to traffic circulation shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Bicycle and pedestrian trails shall remain open, to the greatest extent feasible, during construction or shall be re-routed to ensure continued connectivity. 13-228
442
2020 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report
Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project

Public Review Draft ● August 2020 5.11‐8 Transportation  Bus stop access impacts shall be coordinated with, and approved by, the Orange County Transportation Authority.
 At least one week before any construction ac tivities that would affect travel on nearby roadways, the construction contractor shall notify the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department and Caltrans, as applicable, of construction activities that could impede movement (such as lane closures) along roadways, to allow for planning temporary detours or identifying alternative emergency access routes where appropriate. Surrounding pr operty owners shall also be notified of project activities through advanced mailings.
 Identify construction vehicle haul routes for the delivery of construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.) to the site; necessary traffic controls and detours; and a construction phasing plan for the project to reduce impacts to local streets and plan for traffic control signage and detours along identified haul routes to minimize impacts to existing traffic flow.
 Identify any and all construction staging or material storage sites located outside of the project site.
 Specify the hours during which hauling activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent streets such as traffic control barricades, cones, flaggers, and warning signs.
 Require the contractor to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris, including but not limited, to gravel and dirt resu lting from project construction. The Contractor shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the Orange County Sanitation District, of any project material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent City of Newport Beach and Caltrans streets or areas.  Hauling of oversize loads shall be allowed between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. only, Monday through Friday. No hauling or transport shall be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or Fe deral holidays. Any oversized loads utilizing Coast Highway shall obtain a Caltrans permit for such activities.  Use of local streets shall be prohibited, except when required to provide direct access to the project site and in compliance with the approved project haul routes.  Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall yield to public traffic at all times.  If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and/or gutters along the haul route, the c ontractor shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall restore the damaged property to its original condition.  All construction-related staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on the project site or within additional off-street staging areas previously identified and arranged.
13-229
443
2020 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report
Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project

Public Review Draft ● August 2020 5.11‐9 Transportation  Construction-related lane closures woul d only occur between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. More or less restrictive closure hours may be prescribed by the City.
 Use of a construction flagperson (as deem ed appropriate by the Orange County Sanitation District) to assist in mainta ining efficient vehicle travel in both directions (particularly during peak trav el hours) and use of construction signage and safe detour routes for pedestrian s and bicyclists when travel lanes and sidewalks along Coast Highway are affected.
 The engineering drawings and specifications shall meet standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD).

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

HAZARDOUS DESIGN FEATURES
TRA-2 THE PROJECT COULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO

SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN SURROUNDING
ROADWAYS.

Impact Analysis:

Construction
As stated above, temporary lane closures would be required along Coast Highway to allow for project construction activities. These proposed lane clos ures could result in temporary traffic hazard conditions.

Therefore, to reduce the potential impacts of construction-related vehicles interacting with pedestrians, bicyclists, and other local traffic, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires a Construction Management Plan be developed to implement a variety of measures to minimize traffic safety impacts.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 woul d reduce the project’s temporary construction- related hazards within surrounding roadways and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Operations
Upon completion of construction activities, no perm anent changes to the local circulation system would result, such as hazardous geometric roadway design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections). In addition, the proposed project would not result in any new land uses that would involve incompatible features or equipment that could cause a hazard on roadways in the project area.

Currently, primary site ingress and egress for OCSD maintenance vehicles is provided via a right turn only driveway from East Coast Highway. Maintenance trucks must currently back into oncoming traffic on East Coast Highway to exit the site. Th e project would increase transportation safety by redirecting OCSD vehicles through the Bayside V illage Marina, LLC property via Bayside Drive for primary site access, both ingress and egress, with secondary site access provided via the existing driveway along East Coast Highway. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. 13-230
444
Attachment M
Project Plans
13-231
445

TRANSFORMER

ACCESS HATCH

GENERATOR
ROOM
RAISED

PLATFORM

ELECTRICAL
ROOM

ODOR CONTROL
AREA

PUMP STATION
(BELOW GRADE)

NORTH GATE
24' WIDE SWING GATE

SOUTH GATE
24' WIDE SWING GATE

WEST GATE
18' WIDE CANTILEVER

SLIDING GATE
MANHOLE COVERS, TYP.

SEE STRUCTL DWGS
RAISED

PLATFORM

45.57'

16.23'

9.52'
TOW = 29.33'

PEDESTRIAN GATE
8' HIGH WALL
10' HIGH WALL
8' HIGH WALL

F U T U R E A C C E S S R O A D
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
C
O
A
S
T
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
(E) BUILDING

STRUCTURE

OUTLINE
10' HIGH WALL
8' HIGH WALL
10' HIGH WALL
15' HIGH WALL
15' HIGH WALL
A2001
1 A2001
2 A2001 3
A2001
4173.84'

57.26'

18.00'

4.44'

EXTERIOR WALL

BOUNDARY

SWITCHBOARD
106.32'
133.53'

39.48'

24.00'

43.99'

LANDSCAPE AREA
(SEE LANDSCAPE DWGS)
6' - 5 1/8"

LANDSCAPE AREA
(SEE LANDSCAPE DWGS)
TOW = 24.00'
TOW = 24.00'
TOW = 24.00'
TOW = 24.83'
TOW = 22.83'
TOW = 21.50'
TOW = 21.50'
6' - 10"
23' - 7 5/8"
41' - 7 7/8"
TOW = 21.50'
9 TOW = 24.83'
TOW = 29.33'

5.07'
TOW = 22.83'
TOW = 22.83'
TOW = 29.33'
TOW = 29.33'

SWITCHBOARD

PLATFORM
(REMOVABLE)

RECESSED
KNOXBOX.

LOCATION TO BE

APPROVED BY THE
FIRE DEPT. MOUNT 5'

ABOVE FINISHED
GRADE.

RECESSED
KNOXBOX.

LOCATION TO BE

APPROVED BY THE
FIRE DEPT. MOUNT 5'

ABOVE FINISHED
GRADE.

FDS
APRIL 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
23456789 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY)
6/6/2023 4:38:06 PM
BIM 360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt A1001

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT

SITE PLAN
30259

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
1 LCP RESUBMITTAL 06/2023
1 1
13-232
446
PB
PBPB
PB
CONC.

PCH
CONC.

CB DWY
24W(D)
24W(D)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(D) 24W(D)
21SEW(C)
21SEW(C)
24SD(C)
24SD(C)
24SD(C)
24SD(C)
24SD(C)
24SD(C)
18SD(C)
18SD(C)
18SD(C)
30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 18SD(C)
18SD(C)
CB
CB
30W(D)
30W(D)
30W(D)
30W(D)
30W(D)
30W(D)
30W(D)
30W(D)
30W(D)
30W(D)
30W(D)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)

ST(B) ST(B) ST(B) ST(B) ST(B) ST(B) ST(B) ST(B)
J
J
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)

CTV(B) CTV(B) CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)

CTV(B) CTV(B) CTV(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)

TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) D
S

ELECTRICAL ROOM
FF=15.50

ODOR CONTROL AREA
FF=14.00
121111
14 13
12 13
15 13
1617

GENERATOR ROOM
FF=14.17
OC SAN

PRIVATE

CALTRANS

CALTRANS

PRIVATE PROPERTY

PRIVATE

EXIST OC SAN PS

PROPERY BOUNDARY

PRIVATE PROPERTY
PAD=15.50
FS=11.80
FS=13.75
INV=8.00
FS=13.50
FS=13.50
FS=13.50±
MATCH EX.

FS=13.25±
MATCH EX.

FG=11.65
TW=16.95
MATCH EX.

FG=16.65
PAD=14.00
FS=12.45
FS=12.85
G.B.

FL=12.82
FL=12.98
FL=12.06
FL=12.14
FS=14.00
FS=12.00
FS=11.80
FS=11.50
EX. 18" RCP
INV(S)=8.03
INV(E)=8.53
FS=13.50
FS=13.40
FS=13.50
FS=13.55
FL=13.15
FL=13.05
FS=13.00
FS=13.60
FS=13.15
FS=12.85
FL=12.46
MATCH EX.

FS=13.50
FS=13.30
FS=13.25
FS=13.25
FG=15.00
FS=11.70

PROTECT EXISTING

CATCH BASIN IN PLACE
INV=8.00
FS=14.13
FS=13.55
FS=13.35
FS=12.60
FS=12.30
FL=13.30
2%
1%
2%
FS=13.15
INV(E)=10.50
INV(S)=9.00
INV=10.89±
MATCH EX.

INV=8.00
FS=13.50
FG=14.00
FS=12.00
1%
FS=13.67
FS=13.67
FS=13.67
FL=13.24
MATCH EX.

STORM DRAIN C

PROFILE
6"HDPE (SD)
6"HDPE (SD)
8"HDPE (SD)
5 C5001
5 C3004

STORM DRAIN D
PROFILE6"HDPE (SD)
1/2"CU (POTW)
8"HDPE (SD)
3 C3004

STORM DRAIN B

PROFILE
FL=11.78
8"HDPE (SD)
8"HDPE (SD)

STORM DRAIN E

PROFILE
6"HDPE (SD)
FS=13.96
2 C3003

STORM DRAIN A

PROFILE
2 C3003

STORM DRAIN A

PROFILE

STORM DRAIN A

PROFILE
1 C3003
4 C3004
18"RCP (SD)
14 17 1
2 3
4 3
7 4
18 9
10 5
12 13
16 11
7 19
20 20
21 5
21 21
21 21
1 17
3 7
16 2
9 10
8 16
2 15
16 18
6 FS=13.95
6"HDPE (SD) 6
C3004
6"HDPE (SD)
FS=13.20
FS=11.60

ACCESS ROAD - BY OTHERS
MH-1
N:2172041.06
E:6058631.44
RIM=13.15
INV IN=10.52
INV OUT=10.42
10 CB-1
N:2172025.01
E:6058699.66
RIM=13.20
INV OUT=11.15
FS=13.15
CB-5
N:2171970.24
E:6058615.60
RIM=11.40
INV=9.00
10 CB-2
N:2171966.44
E:6058613.04
RIM=11.50
INV IN=9.73
INV OUT=9.63
13CB-3
N:2171942.25
E:6058705.02
RIM=13.50±
INV(W)=8.78
INV(S)=8.68
CB-6
N:2171952.08
E:6058766.92
RIM=13.25
INV 6-IN(NW)=5.77
INV 6-IN(SW)=6.96
INV 6-IN(N)=7.80
INV 8-IN(S)=2.50
CB-4
N:2172001.70
E:6058721.68
RIM=12.90
INV=8.50
MH-2
N:2171963.84
E:6058740.37
INV (W)=7.50
INV (N)=7.08
INV (E)=6.50
3 C1006
-
M3008
22 22
22 22
22 22
3 C3004

STORM DRAIN B
PROFILE22
FL=13.17
FL=13.12
FL=12.22
FL=11.42
FS=15.46
FS=15.46
23 TYP.
23 TYP.

FS=13.25

C1003
18 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN

ALAN PROCTOR

PRAVEEN YERRA

JESUS LOPEZ
10' 20'0'10'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B
C
D
E
F
MARK DATE APPR.DESCRIPTION
DWG: C:\Users\alan.proctor\ACCDocs\Arcadis\AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station\DS3\AutoCAD\SHEETS\CIVIL\5-67-C1003.dwg DATE: Jan 17, 2023 6:18pm USER: Alan.Proctor
DRAWING NO.
(IF NOT 2"-SCALE ACCORDINGLY)

AT FULL SIZE
LINE IS 2 INCHES

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY:

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT 5-67
298OFSHEET NO.:

Underground Service Alert

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
Call:811
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1 CONSTRUCT 6" AC ON 12" AB ON 95% MAX DENSITY COMPACTED SUBGRADE (PENDING FINAL GEOTECH REPORT).
2 REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING SIDEWALK IN KIND ANY

PORTIONS THAT ARE DAMAGED OR REMOVED DURING
CONSTRUCTION. REPLACE SIDEWALK TO THE NEAREST FULL
SECTION, PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3 CONSTRUCT 9" PCCP ON 12" AB ON 95% MAX DENSITY COMPACTED SUBGRADE (PENDING FINAL GEOTECH REPORT).
4 CONSTRUCT PCC GUTTER PER CONB STD. DET. 140 MODIFIED AS SHOWN ON DETAIL 2 ON SHEET C5005.
5 CONNECT TO BUILDING FLOOR DRAIN SEE SHEET M1101 FOR CONTINUATION.
6 18" RCP (D2000) STORM DRAIN, PLAN AND PROFILE ON DWG C1006. 7 FURNISH AND INSTALL 6" STORM DRAIN CLEAN OUT PER OC SAN STD. DWG S-073 AND S-015.
8 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE COLLAR, REFER TO SPPWC
STANDARD PLAN 380-4.
9 FURNISH AND INSTALL 24" DRAIN BASIN (NYLOPLAST PART # 2812AG OR EQUAL) WITH H-20 RATED SOLID COVER, FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT GRADES.
10 FURNISH AND INSTALL 12" DRAIN BASIN (NYLOPLAST PART # 2812AG OR EQUAL) WITH H-20 RATED STANDARD GRATE INLET.
11 18" RCP STORM DRAIN, PROFILE ON DWG C3003.
12 CONSTRUCT STORM DRAIN MANHOLE JUNCTION STRUCTURE
WITH H-20 RATED SOLID COVER.
13 FURNISH AND INSTALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURE WITH
STANDARD INLET TYPE G1 PER CALTRANS STD. DET. D73.
14 CONSTRUCT 2' WIDE BY 18" HEIGHT RECTANGULAR WALL
OPENING WITH TRASH RACK METAL GRATE.
15 FURNISH AND INSTALL DUCTILE IRON HEEL PROOF, 600 PSI RATED GRATE INLET WIDTH 6.1 INCH.
16 CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE INTERFERING PORTIONS OF
EXISTING SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER AND DRIVEWAY. MATCH
EXISTING ELEVATIONS TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE. CONSTRUCT ROLL CURB AND GUTTER TYPE E PER CALTRANS STD. DET A87A, SEE
DETAIL ON SHEET C5002.
17 UNDERGROUND CONCRETE STRUCTURE, SEE STRUCTURAL
SHEET S1004 FOR CONCRETE ROOF SLAB PLANS.
18 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE PAD, SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS.
19 CONSTRUCT 8"X8" WALL OPENING AT BASE OF WALL.
20 CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL, SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS.
21 CONSTRUCT SCREEN WALL, SEE ARCHITECTURAL
AND STRUCTURAL PLANS.
22 FURNISH AND INSTALL HDPE PIPE (SSPWC 207-18, MIN. PS-50), LENGTH, SIZE, AND SLOPE AS NOTED ON PLAN AND PROFILE.
23 CONSTRUCT BOLLARDS PER OC SAN STD. DET. S-120 AND
S-121. SEE SHEET C1002 FOR BOLLARD LAYOUT AND SPACING.

NOTES:
· GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONS AND COORDINATES ARE PROVIDED

FOR CONTRACTOR'S REFERENCE ONLY, AND REPRESENT THE
DESIGN INTENT. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO LAY

OUT THE SITE SO THAT A SMOOTH AND CONTINUOUS GROUND
SURFACE WITH ADEQUATE DRAINAGE IS PROVIDED.
13-233
447
CONC.

PCH
CB DWY
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(B)
24W(D)
21SEW(C)
42SEW(C) 42SEW(C) 42SEW(C) 42SEW(C
42SEW(C)42SEW(C)42SEW(C)42SEW(C)
42SEW(C)42SEW(C)42SEW(C)42SEW(C)
24SD(C)
24SD(C)
24SD(C)
24SD(C)
24SD(C)
18SD(C)
18SD(C) 18SD(C)
18SD(C)
18SD(C)
18SD(C)
18SD(C)
) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 30SD(C) 18SD(C)SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
24SSFM(D)
7SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) SFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) 27SSFM(D) W(B)
W(B)
W(B)
W(B)
W(B)
W(B)
W(B)
CO
CO
B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)
ST(B)

ST(B) ST(B) ST(B) ST(B) ST(B) ST(B) ST(B) ST(B)
E(B)

E(B)E(B)
E(B)
E(B)
E(B)

E(B) E(B)
W(B)
W(B)
W(B)
W(B)
W(B)
W(B)
T(B)

T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)

T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)

T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B) T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
T(B)
)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)

CTV(B) CTV(B) CTV(B) CTV(B) CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
CTV(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)
TS(B)

TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B) TS(B)

E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) E(D) D
(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D) T(D)
CAB
S
S
S
42SEW(C)
42SEW(C)
42SEW(C)
42SEW(C)
42SEW(C)

CHAINLINK
FENCE
12 12
CONC
CONC
DIRT
DIRT

EXISTING PUMP

STATION

DISCHARGE

VALVE VAULT

METER VAULT
OC SAN

CALTRANS
ASPALT
ASPALT
CONC
CONC
CONC

BACK OF
WALK

CURB AND
GUTTER
12 12
BLOCK

WALL AND

FOOTING

PUMP STATION

WEST WALL

OC SAN PROP

OC SAN PROPOC SAN

PROPERTY

OPEN SPACE
CONC

DISCHARGE PIPING
42" VCP INLET
SEWER

EXIST PUMP (TYP)
ASPALT

12.7 SIDEWALK
1 13.1
TANK
TANK
BLOCK

WALL AND

FOOTING
BLOCK

WALL AND

FOOTING
1 BLOCK

WALL AND

FOOTING
1 ASPALT

ASHPALT
3 3
1 EXISTING OC SAN

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 FENCE

TO PROP BNDY
1 5
47 1
49 48
12 VEGETATION
1 1 CONDUITS
NOTE 3

RIGHT-OF-WAY

BOUNDARY
2 FORCE MAINS
2 JUNCTION BOX
5 47
47 4846
1 1

CHAINLINK FENCE

TO PROP BNDY
1 LIGHT POLE AND

CONDUITS
1 OC SAN PROPERTY

BOUNDARYOC SAN PROPERTY

BOUNDARY OC SAN PROPERTY

BOUNDARY

CHAINLINK
FENCE
1 PRIVATE
OC SAN

PRIVATEOC SAN

OC SANPRIVATE
OC SAN

CALTRANS
OC SAN

CALTRANS
DIRT
1 18" RCP SD

LIGHT POLE AND

CONDUITS
1 LIGHT POLE AND

CONDUITS
1 3

ALL TANK(S)

APPURTENANCES
TANK

NEW TANK

LOCATION
(TYP)
SEE
NOTE 4

FORCE MAINS
SEE NOTE 6
4 1 GATE

CONDUIT
NOTE 5
3 TANK
TANK
2 2
2 1 GATE
ELEC
2 DRIVEWAY

D1001
9 PUMP STATION

SITE DEMOLITION

ALAN PROCTOR

PRAVEEN YERRA

JESUS LOPEZ
A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B
C
D
E
F
MARK DATE APPR.DESCRIPTION
DWG: C:\Users\alan.proctor\ACCDocs\Arcadis\AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station\DS3\AutoCAD\SHEETS\CIVIL\5-67-D1001.dwg DATE: Jan 12, 2023 10:19am USER: Alan.Proctor
DRAWING NO.
(IF NOT 2"-SCALE ACCORDINGLY)

AT FULL SIZE
LINE IS 2 INCHES

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY:

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT 5-67
298OFSHEET NO.:

Underground Service Alert

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
Call:811
ENLARGED PLAN 1
C5105SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
8' 16'0'8'
SCALE: 1" = 8'
46 JOIN TO EXISTING STORM DRAIN. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF INTERFERING PORTIONS.
47 CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY 18" RCP (D2000).
48 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE COLLAR PER SSPWC STD PLAN 380-4. 49 CONSTRUCT TEMP SD INLET PER CALTRANS STD DETAIL D73B TYPE G1. 1 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF
2 PROTECT IN PLACE TEMPORARILY, SEE SEQUENCE OF WORK IN SPECIFICATION 01120 WORK SEQUENCE.
3 RELOCATE
4 PLUG END OF PIPE AND ABANDON FORCE MAINS IN PLACE
5 PROTECT IN PLACE
NOTES:

1. COORDINATE WITH OC SAN FOR RELOCATION OF TANKS, PIPING, AND APPURTENANCES. RELOCATE AND RECONNECT PIPING TO EXISTING PS.

REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHEMICAL TANKS, PIPING AND
APPURTENANCES AFTER NEW PS IS IN OPERATION. CONTACT THE OC

SAN PS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR AND THE ENGINEER FOR WORK COORDINATION (OC SAN MAIN NUMBER 714-962-2411, CONTROL
CENTER NUMBER 714-593-7025).

2. EXISTING PUMP STATION IS OPERATIONAL. ALLOW OC SAN PERSONNEL ACCESS TO PUMP STATION AT ALL TIMES.

3. AT&T OWNS THE PULLBOX AND CONDUITS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE DRAWING. THESE FACILITIES ARE INACTIVE (EMPTY CONDUITS). REMOVE THE CONDUITS (2-4" PVC) THAT INTERFERE WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHAFT. REPLACE CONDUITS WITH MATCHING DIAMETER AND SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONDUITS THAT ARE UL LISTED. SEE DWG C4001 FOR
APPROXIMATE LIMITS.

4. THE EXISTING STORM DRAIN IS TO REMAIN ACTIVE UNTIL CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MANHOLE. CONSTRUCT THE NEW STORM DRAIN PER DRAWING C1003 BEFORE NEW MANHOLE TO MAINTAIN AREA DRAINAGE.

5. THE COMMUNICATION SERVICE (4" PVC) TO THE EXISTING PUMP STATION INTERFERES WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHAFT. REPLACE CONDUIT

AND WIRES/CABLES WITH MATCHING TYPE, DIAMETER, AND SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONDUITS THAT ARE UL LISTED. SEE DWG C4001 FOR
APPROXIMATE LIMITS.

6. EXISTING FORCE MAINS ARE TO BE PLUGGED AND ABANDONED IN

PLACE ONLY AFTER THE NEW PUMP STATION AND THE NEW FORCE MAINS ARE IN OPERATION. ABANDON FORCE MAINS PER SPECIFICATION 02278. ONSITE PORTIONS OF EXISTING FORCE MAINS ARE TO BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF.

DEMOLITION NOTES:
13-234
448
GENERAL DEMOLITION NOTES:

1. THE PLAN IS BASED ON CONTRACT 5-33 "CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO: BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION" AS BUILTS APPROVED ON 1995-03-15. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS.

2. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION SECTIONS 02050 AND 02278.

3. BLIND FLANGE AND CAP ALL EXISTING EXTERIOR PIPE PENETRATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN.

4. ALL PIPING, DUCTWORK, GRATING, STAIRS, RAILING, EQUIPMENT, ELECTRICAL, AND OTHER NON-CONCRETE ITEMS INSIDE OF PUMP STATION AND ABOVE GRADE SHALL BE DEMOLISHED.

5. NOT ALL PIPING, DUCTWORK, GRATING, STAIRS, RAILING, EQUIPMENT, ELECTRICAL, AND OTHER NON-CONCRETE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SHOWN FOR CLARITY.

6. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION 01900, LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES.

7. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL LOOSE AND FLAKING PAINT PRIOR TO ABANDONING THE DRY WELL AREA OF THE PUMP STATION.

8. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURES 7.2 FEET BELOW EXISTING GRADE.

9. AFTER DEMOLITION PER NOTE 4 AND 8, PUMP ROOM, WET WELL, AND INFLUENT PIPE SHALL BE FILLED WITH ONCE SACK SAND-CEMENT SLURRY. PER SPECIFICATION SECTION 02200 UP TO THE TOP SLABS. PIPE SHALL BE FILLED COMPLETELY TO CAP AT OPPOSITE END.

10. CLEANING OF THE EXISTING WET WELL SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
a. DRAINING AND CLEANING OF WET WELL TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO DEMO/BACKFILLING.
b. CONTRACTOR SHALL PUMP ALL REMAINING LIQUID FROM THE WET WELL AND DISPOSE PER SPECIFICATION 02050.
c. REMOVE ALL REMAINING SOLIDS, GRIT, DEBRIS, AND ORGANIC MATERIAL FROM THE WET WELL AND DISPOSE PER SPECIFICATION 02050.
d. POWER WASH WET WELL AND DISPOSE OF PER SPECIFICATION 02050 AFTER CLEANING.
e. SUBMIT CLEANING PROCEDURE TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE ENGINEER.

11. CONTRACTOR IS TO NOTIFY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) OF DISCONNECTION OF POWER TO EXISTING PUMP STATION AND COORDINATE DISCONNECTION WITH SCE.

12. SALVAGE PLC, RACK, AND IO CARDS AND DELIVER TO OC SAN PLANT NO.1.

A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B
C
D
E
F
MARK DATE APPR.DESCRIPTION
DWG: C:\Users\cjennings\ACCDocs\Arcadis\AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station\Project Files\DS3\AutoCAD\SHEETS\DEMO\5-67-D1002.dwg DATE: Jan 12, 2023 10:41am USER: CJennings
DRAWING NO.
(IF NOT 2"-SCALE ACCORDINGLY)

AT FULL SIZE
LINE IS 2 INCHES

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY:

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT 5-67
298OFSHEET NO.:

D1002
10 PUMP STATION
DEMOLITION PLANS 1

ROSHANI, SHRESTHA

HARMIK, AGHANIAN

QIU, XINTONG

MOTOR ROOM DEMOLITION PLAN
SCALE: 3/8"=1'-0"
13-235
449
A
D3002
A
D3001
NOTE 3
NOTE 4
NOTE 5
48" FRMP (SEW)
DEMOLITION NOTES:

1. THE PLAN IS BASED ON CONTRACT 5-33 "CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO: BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION" AS BUILTS APPROVED ON 1995-03-15. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS.

2. THE NO.1 PUMP WAS INSTALLED AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AS-BUILTS APPROVED ON 1995-03-15. ALL PIPING, INSTRUMENT, EQUIPMENT, AND NON-CONCRETE ITEMS FOR THE NO.1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 PUMPS SHALL BE DEMOLISHED.

3. DEMOLISH TO NEW SEWER MANHOLE AS SHOWN ON SHEET C1004.

4. REMOVE PORTIONS INTERFERING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND ONE SACK SAND-CEMENT SLURRY FILL WITH CAP. SEE SHEET D1001.

5. DEMOLISH EXISTING PUMP STATION WALL AS NEEDED TO INSTALL APPROACH PIPE. SEE SHEET C1004 FOR APPROACH PIPE PLAN.

A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B
C
D
E
F
MARK DATE APPR.DESCRIPTION
DWG: C:\Users\cjennings\ACCDocs\Arcadis\AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station\Project Files\DS3\AutoCAD\SHEETS\DEMO\5-67-D1003.dwg DATE: Jan 13, 2023 4:53pm USER: CJennings
DRAWING NO.
(IF NOT 2"-SCALE ACCORDINGLY)

AT FULL SIZE
LINE IS 2 INCHES

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY:

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT 5-67
298OFSHEET NO.:

D1003
11 PUMP STATION
DEMOLITION PLANS 2

ROSHANI, SHRESTHA
HARMIK, AGHANIAN - 08/22

QIU, XINTONG

PUMP ROOM DEMOLITION PLAN
SCALE: 3/8"=1'-0"
13-236
450
NOTE 4
ADJ EL. -5.79'
APPROX. TOP OF APPROACH
PIPE ADJ EL. -0.00'
APPROX. APPROACH
PIPE ADJ INV EL. -4.00'
ADJ EL. 15.19'
ADJ EL. 14.69'
ADJ EL. 7.5'
NOTE 3
DEMOLITION NOTES:

1. THE PLAN IS BASED ON CONTRACT 5-33 "CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO:

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION" AS BUILTS APPROVED ON 1995-03-15. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS.

2. SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR PIPE ROUTING INCLUDING PLAN LOCATION AND ELEVATION AT INTERSECTION WITH WALL.

3. FF ELEVATION BASED ON AS BUILT DRAWINGS IS 12.80 FT, THE ELEVATION DATUM ADJUSTMENT TO AS BUILT DATUM IS +2.39'.

4. DEMOLISH EXISTING PUMP STATION WALL AS NEEDED TO INSTALL APPROACH PIPE. SEE SHEET C1004.

A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B
C
D
E
F
MARK DATE APPR.DESCRIPTION
DWG: C:\Users\cjennings\ACCDocs\Arcadis\AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station\Project Files\DS3\AutoCAD\SHEETS\DEMO\5-67-D3001.dwg DATE: Jan 12, 2023 10:46am USER: CJennings
DRAWING NO.
(IF NOT 2"-SCALE ACCORDINGLY)

AT FULL SIZE
LINE IS 2 INCHES

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY:

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT 5-67
298OFSHEET NO.:

D3001
12 PUMP STATION
DEMOLITION SECTIONS 1

ROSHANI, SHRESTHA

HARMIK, AGHANIAN

QIU, XINTONG
7'-2"
7'-2"

SECTION A
D1002SCALE: 3/8"=1'-0"
1'-0"
MIN.
1'-0"
MIN.
13-237
451
NOTE 3
ADJ EL. -5.79'
APPROX. TOP OF APPROACH
PIPE ADJ EL. -0.00'
APPROX. APPROACH
PIPE ADJ INV EL. -4.00'
ADJ EL. -7.50'
ADJ EL. -14.59'
ADJ EL. -15.19'
NOTE 2
DEMOLITION NOTES:

1. THE PLAN IS BASED ON CONTRACT 5-33 "CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO: BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION" AS BUILTS APPROVED ON 1995-03-15. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS.

2. FF ELEVATION BASED ON AS BUILT DRAWINGS IS 12.80 FT, THE ELEVATION DATUM ADJUSTMENT TO AS BUILT DATUM IS +2.39'.

3. DEMOLISH EXISTING PUMP STATION WALL AS NEEDED TO INSTALL APPROACH PIPE.

SEE SHEET C1004.

A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B
C
D
E
F
MARK DATE APPR.DESCRIPTION
DWG: C:\Users\cjennings\ACCDocs\Arcadis\AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station\Project Files\DS3\AutoCAD\SHEETS\DEMO\5-67-D3002.dwg DATE: Jan 12, 2023 10:47am USER: CJennings
DRAWING NO.
(IF NOT 2"-SCALE ACCORDINGLY)

AT FULL SIZE
LINE IS 2 INCHES

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY:

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT 5-67
298OFSHEET NO.:

D3002
13 PUMP STATION
DEMOLITION SECTIONS 2

ROSHANI, SHRESTHA

HARMIK, AGHANIAN

QIU, XINTONG

SECTION A
D1002SCALE: 3/8"=1'-0"
7'-2"
7'-2"
1'-0"
MIN.
1'-0"
MIN.
13-238
452
PLAN - VALVE VAULT ABANDONMENT 1
D5101SCALE: NTS

SECTION - VALVE VAULT ABANDONMENT E
D5101SCALE: NTS
E
C5101
12-INCH THICK REINFORCED CONCRETE

SLAB (CLASS C), FINISH TOP SMOOTH

AND FLUSH WITH VAULT WALLS

INFILL EXIST VAULT WITH TRAFFIC RATED STYROFOAM

AFTER ABANDONMENT OF THE EXISTING

FORCE MAINS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

CONSTRUCTION NOTES:CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

DEMOLISHMENT NOTES:
1 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF
2 PLUG END OF PIPE, FILL WITH CLSM.
3 CUT PIPE
4 PROTECT IN PLACE
5 PLUG WALL HOLE WITH CONCRETE, CLASS C.
10 ABANDON EXISTING 24" DUAL SFM IN PLACE. FILL PIPES WITH CLSM AND CAP ENDS. SEE NOTE 2.
28 ABANDON EXISTING FORCE MAIN IN PLACE. FILL PIPES
WITH CLSM AND CAP ENDS.

FOR FORCE MAIN

CONTINUATION SEE
DWG C1101

FOR FORCE MAIN

CONTINUATION SEE
DWG C1101
1 1
1 21
1 1112
4 1 VAULT LID
1 1
2 2
3 1
2 FOR FORCE MAIN

CONTINUATION SEE
DWG C1101

FOR FORCE MAIN

CONTINUATION SEE
DWG C1101

ALL VALVES, PIPING,

AND APPURTENANCES

INSIDE VALVE VAULT
1 2
1 1
1 FOR FORCE MAIN

CONTINUATION SEE
DWG C1101
10 10
28 28
C1101
1 24" VALVE (B)

EXISTING MANHOLE
ABANDON PER DETAIL 2
36-INCH MANHOLE LID,

SAWCUT CONCRETE AROUND

GRADE RING AND REMOVE,

REPLACE PAVEMENT SECTION

WITH CLASS C CONCRETE,

MATCH EXISTING THICKNESS
EXIST 32" HDPE

FORCE MAIN

WITH OUTLET
ABANDONMENT DETAIL 2
D5101NOT TO SCALE

EXIST CONCRETE
BASE

EXISTING GRADE
(CONCRETE)
EXIST 60" DIA

MANHOLE

REMOVE AND DISPOSE

OF GRADE RING(S) AND LID

BACKFILL MH WITH
CLSM
(TYP )
(TYP )
(TYP )
5 (TYP )
4 (TYP )
REBAR #4 DOWELS EMBEDDED 4" MIN

INTO A DRILLED HOLE IN THE EXISTING

VAULT WALL, SET IN EPOXY GROUT
AT EVERY 12"MIN
NOTES:

1. PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE, WOOD AND STEEL RAILINGS, AND NEW WROUGHT IRON FENCING.

2. THE EXISTING DUAL 24" FORCE ARE ACTIVE. PROTECT IN PLACE DURING ALL MICROTUNNELING AND ALL PUMP STATION WORK.

COMPLETE THE INSTALLATION AND ACTIVATION OF THE NEW FORCE MAINS PRIOR TO ABANDONING THE EXISTING FORCE MAINS.

C1101
4 SIGN
1 POSTS
POST 1

EXISTING MANHOLE ABANDON
PER DETAIL 3 SEE DWG C4101
FOR LOCATION (40± FROM

VALVE VAULT)
36-INCH MANHOLE LID

LOCATED ABOVE GRADE
EXIST 32" HDPE

FORCE MAIN

WITH OUTLET
ABANDONMENT DETAIL 3
D5101NOT TO SCALE

EXIST CONCRETE
BASE

EXISTING GRADE
(DIRT)
EXIST 60" DIA

MANHOLE

REMOVE AND DISPOSE TOP
PORTION OF MANHOLE, 4' (MIN)

FROM EXISTING GRADE

BACKFILL MH WITH
CLSM
C4101

BACKFILL WITH MATERIAL PER
SPEC 32910

D5101
14 EXISTING VALVE VAULT

ABANDONMENT DETAILS

ALAN PROCTOR

PRAVEEN YERRA

JESUS LOPEZ
A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B
C
D
E
F
MARK DATE APPR.DESCRIPTION
DWG: C:\Users\alan.proctor\ACCDocs\Arcadis\AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station\DS3\AutoCAD\SHEETS\DEMO\5-67-D5101.dwg DATE: Jan 12, 2023 10:22am USER: Alan.Proctor
DRAWING NO.
(IF NOT 2"-SCALE ACCORDINGLY)

AT FULL SIZE
LINE IS 2 INCHES

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY:

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT 5-67
298OFSHEET NO.:
13-239
453

ABBREVIATIONS GENERAL NOTES
& AND

L ANGLE (RIGHT)

L ANGLE (ACUTE)
@ AT

CL CENTERLINE
AB
AC
AD
AFF
ALT
ALUM
ARC
AU
AV

ANCHOR BOLT

ACOUSTICAL TILE

AREA DRAIN

ABOVE FINISH

FLOOR ALTERNATE

ALUMINUM

ARCHITECTURAL

ASH URN

AUDIO VISUAL
BD
BLDG
BLKG
BM
BNG
BO
BOD
BOT
BR
BRG
BUR
BW
BOARD

BUILDING

BLOCKING

BEAM OR BENCHMARK

BEARING

BOTTOM OF

BOTTOM OF DECK
BOTTOM

BACKER ROD

BRIDGING

BUILT-UP ROOFING

BOTH WAYS
C
CAB
CEM
CG
CIP
CIR
CJ
CLG
cm
CMU
CIK
CONC
CONST
CONT
CORR
CPT
CSK
CT
COURSE

CABINET

CEMENT OR CEMENTITIOUS

CORNER GUARD

CAST-IN-PLACE
CIRCLE

CONTROL JOINT

CEILING

CENTIMETER

CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
COLUMN

CONCRETE

CONSTRUCTION

CONTINUOUS

CORRIDOR
CARPET

COUNTERSINK OR COUNTERSUNK

CERAMIC TILE
D
DBL
DEG
DEM
O
DTL
DF
DIA
DIM
DN
DP
DR
DS
DTL
DW
DWG
DWR

DEPTH OR DEEP
DOUBLE
DEGREE

DEMOLITION
DETAIL

DRINKING

FOUNTAIN

DIAMETER

DIMENSION
DOWN

DAMPPROOFING
DOOR

DOWNSPOUT
DETAIL

DISHWASHER

DRAWING
DRAWER
E
EA
EHB
EHD
EIFS
EJ
EL
ELEC
EQ
EQUI
P ETS
EW
EWC
EXP
EXIST
EXT
EXTD
EAST
EACH

ELECTRIC HAIR BLOWER

ELECTRIC HAND DRYER

EXTERIOR INSULATING FINISH

SYSTEM EXPANSION JOINT

ELEVATION (GRADE)

ELECTRICAL
EQUAL

EQUIPMENT

EXPOSED TO STRUCTURE

EACH WAY

ELECTRIC WATER COOLER

EXPANSION OR EXPOSED

EXISTING

EXTERIOR

EXTRUDED
FD
FE
FEC
FEX
FFA
FFE
FF
FHC
FIN
FLR
FLUO
R FP
FR
FRP
FT
FTC
FTG
FURN
FV
FWC
FPHB

FLOOR DRAIN

FIRE EXTINGUISHER

FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET

FIRE EXTINGUISHER (NO CABINET)

FURNITURE, FIXTURES & ACCESSORIES

FURNITURE, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT

FINISHED FLOOR

FIRE HOSE CABINET
FINISH
FLOOR

FLUORESCENT

FIREPROOFING

FIRE RETARDANT/ FIRE RESISTIVE

FIBERGLASS REINFORCED POLYMER

FOOT/ FEET

FULL TILE COURSE

FOOTING

FURNITURE

FIELD VERIFY

FABRIC WALL COVERING

FREEZE-PROOF HOSE BIBB
A
B
C
D
E
F
GA
GALV
GB
GFRC
GFRG
GL
GND
GR
GYP
GYP BD
GAUGE

GALVANIZED

GRAB BAR

GLASS FIBER REINFORCED

CONCRETE GLASS FIBER

REINFORCED GYPSUM GLASS
GROUND
GRADE
GYPSUM

GYPSUM BOARD
G
H
HB
HC
HD
HBD
HCTLT
HDR
HDW
HDWD
HM
HOR
HPL
HR
HT
HVAC
HIGH

HOSE BIBB

HOLLOW CORE
HOLD

HARDBOARD

HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE TOILET
HEADER

HARDWARE

HARDWOOD

HOLLOW METAL

HORIZONTAL

HIGH PRESSURE LAMINATE
HOUR
HEIGHT

HEATING, VENTILATION & AIR CONDITIONING
ID
IN
INCAN
INSUL
INT

INSIDE DIAMETER
INCH

INCANDESCENT

INSULATION

INTERIOR
JB
JT

JUNCTION BOX
JOINT
KD
KO

KNOCK DOWN

KNOCKOUT
L
LAM
LAV
LB
LF
LLH
LLV
LT
LONG

LAMINATED

LAVATORY

LAG BOLT

LINEAR BOLT OR LINEAR FEET

LONG LEG HORIZONTAL

LONG LEG VERTICAL

LIGHT OR LIGHTING
M
MACH
MAS
MAT'L
MAX
MBH
MBR
MC
MECH
MEMB
MFR
MH
MIN
MIR-F
MIR-G
MLD
MM
MO
MS
MTD
MTG
MTL
METER

MACHINE

MASONRY

MATERIAL

MAXIMUM

MOP AND BROOM HOLDER

MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING

MEDICINE CABINET

MECHANICAL

MEMBRANE

MANUFACTURER

MANHOLE

MINIMUM

MIRROR-FRAMED EDGE

MIRROR-GLASS EDGE

MOULDING

MILLIMETER

MASONRY OPENING

MOP SINK

MOUNTED

MOUNTING
METAL
N
NCO
M NIC
NOM
NPS
NTS
NORTH

NONCOMBUSTIBLE

NOT IN CONTRACT

NOMINAL

NOMINAL PIPE

SIZE NOT TO SCALE
OC
OD
OFCI
OFD
OFOI
OH
OPG
OPP
OPT

ON CENTER

OUTSIDE DIAMETER

OWNER FURNISHED/ CONTRACTOR INSTALLED

OVERFLOW DRAIN

OWNER FURNISHED/ OWNER INSTALLED

OPPOSITE HAND OR OVERHEAD

OPENING

OPPOSITE

OPTION OR OPTIONAL
PC
PCEM
PA
PCF
PL P.

LAM
PLTR
PLBG
PLF
PMR
PNL
PNT
POL
PR
PSF
PSI
PT
PTD
PTD/WR
PTM
PTN
PVC
PVMT
PWD

PRECAST

PORTLAND CEMENT

PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM

POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT

PLATE PLASTIC

LAMINATE

PLASTER

PLUMBING

POUNDS PER LINEAR FOOT

PROTECTED MEMBRANE ROOFING
PANEL

PAINT OR PAINTED

POLISHED
PAIR

POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT

POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
POINT

PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER

PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER/ WASTE

RECEPTACLE PATCH TO MATCH

PARTITION

POLYVINYL CHLORIDE

PAVEMENT

PLYWOOD
QT
QTR
QTY

QUARRY TILE

QUARTER

QUANTITY
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
RA
RCP
RD
RE
REFL
REG
REINF
REQ
RES
REV
RH
RM
RO
ROW
RSF

RADIUS OR RISER

RETURN AIR

REFLECTED CEILING PLAN

ROOF DRAIN

REFER OR REFERENCE

REFLECTED

REGISTER

REINFORCEMENT

REQUIRED

RESILIENT

REVERSE

ROBE HOOK
ROOM

ROUGH OPENING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

RESILIENT SHEET FLOORING
S
SA
SAB
SAN
SB
SC
SCHED
SD
SECT
SF
SFP
SH
SHT
SHTG
SIM
SKLT
SND
SNV
SP
SPEC
SPR
SQ
SR
SR/SC
SS
ST
STA
STC
STD
STL
STOR
STRU
SUSP
SYM
SYN
SYS
SOUTH

SUPPLY AIR

SOUND ATTENUATION BATTS

SANITARY

SPLASH BLOCK

SOLID CORE OR SHOWER CURTAIN

SCHEDULE OR SCHEDULED

SOAP DISPENSER

SECTION

SQUARE FOOT OR SQUARE FEET

SPRAYED FIREPROOFING

SPRINKLER HEAD
SHEET

SHEATHING

SIMILAR

SKYLIGHT

SANITARY NAPKIN DISPOSAL

SANITARY NAPKIN VENDOR

STANDPIPE

SPECIFIED OR SPECIFICATIONS

SINGLE PLY ROOFING
SQUARE

SHOWER ROD

SHOWER ROD/ SHOWER CURTAIN

STAINLESS STEEL

SOAP TRAY

STATION

SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS

STANDARD
STEEL

STORAGE

STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURAL

SUSPENDED OR SUSPENSION
SYMBOL

SYNTHETIC
SYSTEM
T
TB
TBL
T&B
TC
TD
TEL
TERR
T&G
THK
THRU
TLT
TO
TOC
TOD
TOF
TOI
TOJ
TOL
TOP
TOS
TOW
TPH
TR
TS
TTB
TV
TYP

TREAD OR TOP

TOWEL BAR

TOP OF BRICK LEDGE

TOP AND BOTTOM

TOP OF CURB

TRENCH DRAIN

TELEPHONE

TERRAZZO

TONGUE & GROOVE

THICK OR THICKNESS

THROUGH
TOILET
TOP OF

TOP OF CONCRETE

TOP OF DECK

TOP OF FOOTING

TOP OF INSULATION

TOP OF JOIST

TOLERANCE

TOP OF PARAPET

TOP OF STEEL

TOP OF WALL

TOILET PAPER HOLDER

TELEPHONE RECEPTACLE

TOP OF SLAB

TELEPHONE TERMINAL BOARD

TELEVISION

TYPICAL
UCL
ULAY
UNO
UR

UNDER CABINET LIGHT

UNDERLAYMENT

UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
URINAL
VB
VCT
VERT
VP
VS
VT
VWC

VAPOR BARRIER

VINYL COMPOSITION TILE

VERTICAL

VENT PIPE

VENT SHAFT

VINYL TILE

VINYL WALLCOVERING
W
W/
WB
WC
WCOT
WD
WDO
WH
WO
W/O
WP
WR
W/R
WS
WT
WWF

WEST OR WIDE OR WIDTH
WITH

WIND BRACE OR BRACING

WATER CLOSET

WAINSCOT
WOOD
WINDOW

WEEPHOLE

WINDOW OPENING

WITHOUT

WATERPROOFING

WASTE RECEPTACLE

WATER RESISTIVE OR RESISTANT

WEATHERSTRIPPING
WEIGHT

WELDED WIRE FABRIC

YD YARD
R
S
T
U
V
Y
W
= EQUAL
± PLUS OR MINUS
# POUND OR NUMBER
x TIMES
° DEGREES
' FOOT OR FEET
" INCH
- MINUS
+ PLUS

1. DO NOT SCALE THESE DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. IN THE EVENT OF

OMISSION OF NECESSARY DIMENSION(S), THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER.

2. ALL DIMENSIONS ON 1/16", 1/8" & 1/4" SCALE PLANS ARE TO THE FACE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE OR THE OUTSIDE FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

3. ALL MASONRY DIMENSIONS ARE ACTUAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, CONDITIONS, EXISTING CONSTRUCTION AND GRADES AT JOB SITE.

NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS.

4. VERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL WORK AND EQUIPMENT TO BE

INSTALLED OR RELOCATED (WHETHER FURNISHED BY OWNER OR BY CONTRACTOR(S)) BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION PERTAINING TO SAME IS BEGUN. ERRORS AND

OMISSIONS IN THE ROOM, DOOR, WINDOW OR EQUIPMENT SCHEDULES DO NOT

RELIEVE THE CONTRACTORS FROM EXECUTING WORK SHOWN ON DRAWINGS OR DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.

5. VERIFY AND COORDINATE THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL OPENINGS FOR

STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL WORK AND EQUIPMENT WITH ALL TRADES INVOLVED.

6. CEILING HEIGHTS INDICATED ON THE ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE ARE TAKEN FROM THE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. THE SIZE, LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL

MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND STRUCTURAL ITEMS SHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE CEILING CONSTRUCTION IS BEGUN.

7. COORDINATE WITH ALL TRADES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SCHEDULED CEILING HEIGHTS.

VERIFY THAT REQUIRED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CLEARANCES ARE PROVIDED FOR ALL EQUIPMENT ITEMS.

8. INSTALL ALL ITEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN

INSTRUCTIONS, EXCEPT THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS HEREIN, WHERE THE MORE STRINGENT, SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH. NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY CONFLICTS.

9. COORDINATE DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT WITH OWNER. VERIFY

THAT ALL INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AS DESCRIBED ARE MET, INCLUDING ADEQUATE TRAVEL ACCESS FOR EQUIPMENT ITEMS THROUGH THE BUILDING.

SYMBOLS

MATERIAL LEGEND
1 ROOM NAME
101
150 SF

ROOM TAG

W/ AREA

STRUCTURAL GRID - EXISTING

STRUCTURAL GRID - NEW
0 0
1t PARTITION TYPE TAG

DOOR TAG
LIFE SAFETY DOOR TAGDOOR # SIZE
X#

FURNITURE/FIXTURE/

CASEWORK TAG
XX-XX

GLAZING TAG

REVISION DELTA

NOTE NOTE WITH LEADER

KEY NOTE

FINISH/MATERIAL TAG

LEVEL/DATUM ELEVATION MARK
LEVEL
EL 0.00'
1 A101 INTERIOR ELEVATION MARK
1 A101

SIM SECTION MARK
1 A101
SIM

DETAIL SECTION MARK
A101
1 SIM

DETAIL CALLOUT MARK

SPOT ELEVATION - ELEVATION
VIEWS

NORTH ARROW

XX-XX CEILING TAG
XX
0' - 0"
FL-01 FLOOR TAG
?
101
88' - 10"
XX-XX

CEILING TAG W/ HEIGHT
EXTERIOR ELEVATION MARKA101
1 WINDOW TAGMARK
0' - 0" SPOT ELEVATION - PLAN VIEWS
?

LIGHTING TAG
PLUMBING TAGPL-01
L2

SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT TAGXX-XXX

DP DOWN PIPE

RD ROOF DRAIN
FD

FLOOR DRAIN
GROUT

CONCRETE
(SECTION) EARTH
RIGID

INSULATION

STEEL (CUT)

SPANDREL

GLASS (FACE)

ALUMINUM
(CUT)
WOOD
(CUT/FACE)

GYP BDMETAL PANEL
(FACE)

EIFS (CUT)

BATT INSULATION

PORTLAND
CEMENT

PLASTER OR

EIFS (FACE)

CMU (FACE)

CMU (IN PLAN)

NATURAL

STONE FINISH
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY)
1/13/2023 12:32:21 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A0001

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT

ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, &

GENERAL NOTES
29855

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-240
454
USE GROUP:

OCC LOAD:

AREA:

OLF:
1,175 SF
12 F-2

ELECTRICAL ROOM
100
USE GROUP:

OCC LOAD:

AREA:

OLF:
672 SF
7 F-2

GENERATOR ROOM
100USE GROUP:

OCC LOAD:

AREA:

OLF:
170 SF
2 F-2

RESTROOM
100
USE GROUP:

OCC LOAD:

AREA:

OLF:
77 SF
1 F-2

PUMP ROOM
100
TRAVEL DIST. = 23' - 7"

PATH (PUMP)

TOTAL PATH OF TRAVEL
DISTANCE = 139'+90'-7"+
23'-7"= 253'-2" << 300', OK
TRAVEL DIST. = 57' - 4"
PATH1(ELEC)
36"
180
120
EXIT
STAIR 1
36"
0 36"
0"
480
0 96"
EXIT
DOOR 5
0"
7 0"
0"
180
0 36"
EXIT
DOOR 4
0"
3 0"
0"
180
0 36"
EXIT
DOOR 3
0"
6 0"
0"
360
0 72"
EXIT
DOOR 2
0"
6 0"
0"
TRAVEL DIST. = 23' - 0"
PATH2(ELEC)

FE TYPE
ABC

FE TYPE
ABC
FE TYPE ABCUSE GROUP:

OCC LOAD:

AREA:

OLF:
19 SF
1 F-2

STORAGE ROOM
100
(ACTURAL=0)
USE GROUP:

OCC LOAD:

AREA:

OLF:
2,495 SF
25 F-2

PUMP ROOM
100
(ACTURAL=0)
TRAVEL DIST. = 139' - 0"

PATH (PUMP)
36"
180
120
EXIT
STAIR 1
36"
0 36"
0"
USE GROUP:

OCC LOAD:

AREA:

OLF:
1,121 SF
12 F-2

MEZZANINE
100
(ACTURAL=0)
TRAVEL DIST. = 90' - 7"

PATH (PUMP)
36"
180
120
EXIT
STAIR 1
36"
0 36"
0"36"
180
120
EXIT
STAIR 1
36"
0 36"
0"
USE GROUP:

OCC LOAD:

AREA:

OLF:
1,781 SF
18 F-2

ODOR CONTROL
100
TRAVEL DIST. = 91' - 0"

PATH (ODOR)
180
0 36"
EXIT
DOOR 6
0"
0 0"
0"

FE TYPE
ABC

FE TYPE
ABC

FE TYPE
ABC
(ACTURAL=0)

AREA NOTES
- AREA SHOWN ON CRTKL'S DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN CALCULATED

ELECTRONICALLY BASED ON CRTKL'S DESIGN DOCUMENTS, USING THE

APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF APPLICABLE BOMA STANDARDS ACCORDING

TO THIS PROJECT'S USE, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE CLIENT, AND ARE PROVIDED SOLELY AS AN ACCOMMODATION TO THE CLIENT. AS

SUCH, THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE APPROXIMATE
CALCULATIONS. ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF BUILT SPACES MAY VARY

DUE TO A NUMBER OF FACTORS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,

CHANGES DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES, AND VARIATIONS IN THE METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE AREA. CRTKL

ADVISES THE CLIENT TO VERIFY ALL AREAS AND METHODS OF
CALCULATION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION FOR ANY REASON.

EXIT #1
36" 28"
180
44" 42"
146
138
EXIT #

DOOR WIDTH REQUIRED
DOOR CAPACITY: 36"/0.2 =

STAIR WIDTH REQUIRED
STAIR CAPACITY: 44"/0.3 =

ACTUAL USE

DOOR WIDTH

PROVIDED

STAIR WIDTH

PROVIDED

FIRE AND EGRESS KEY

EXIT SIGN PLACEMENT SHALL BE SUCH THAT NO POINT IN AN EXIT ACCESS CORRIDOR OR EXIT PASSAGEWAY IS MORE THAT 100 FEET,

OR THE LISTED VIEWING DISTANCE FROM THE SIGN, WHICHEVER IS LESS, FROM THE NEAREST VISIBLE EXIT SIGN.

EXTERIOR WALLS IN TYPE IIIA BUILDINGS REQUIRED TO HAVE FIRE- RETARDANT TREATED WOOD FRAMING. ALL EXTERIOR BEARING
WALLS TO BE 2 HOUR RATED

TRAVEL DISTANCE FROM ANY POINT TO NEAREST FIRE
EXTINGUISHER SHALL NOT EXCEED 75 FEET (50 FEET IN GARAGE).

FIRE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO

REVISE LOCATION AND QUANTITY OF FIRE EXTINGUISHERS DURING INSPECTION.

EMERGENCY EXIT SIGNS INDICATE FACE OF SIGN AND

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

EGRESS PATH

FIRE EXTINGUISHER
FE

BUILDING CODE DATA

APPLICABLE CODES
2022 NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
CHAPTER 3 - OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION AND USE
F-2 (FACTORY INDUSTRIAL) OCCUPANCY
CHAPTER 4 - SPECIAL DETAILED REQUIREMENTS BASED ON

OCCUPANCY AND USE
CHAPTER 5 - GENERAL BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREAS
BUILDING HEIGHTS:

ALLOWABLE: 55' (NS)
PROPOSED: 23'
NUMBER OF STORIES:

ALLOWABLE: 3 STORIES (NS)
PROPOSED:1 STORY
BUILDING AREAS:

ALLOWABLE: 23,000 SF (NS)
PROPOSED: 1,183 SF + 163 SF + 77 SF + 672 SF = 2,095 SF TABLE 601 FIRE -RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS:

PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME

FLOOR CONSTRUCTION & SECONDARY MEMBERS

ROOF CONSTRUCTION & SECONDARY MEMBERS

BEARING WALLS - INTERIOR
BEARING WALLS - EXTERIOR*

NONBEARING WALLS AND PARTITIONS - EXTERIOR
0-HOUR & TALBE 602*
0-HOUR
0-HOUR
SEE TABLE 602
0-HOUR
CHAPTER 8 - INTERIOR FINISHES

BUILDING ELEMENTS TYPE IIB

NONBEARING WALLS AND PARTITIONS - INTERIOR
0-HOUR
0-HOUR
TABLE 602 FIRE -RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTERIOR WALLS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE:

X < 5
10 ≤ X < 30
5 ≤ X < 10 1-HOUR
1-HOUR
0-HOUR
0-HOUR
FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE = X (FEET) TYPE IIB (F-2)
X ≥ 30
CHAPTER 6 - TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION CLASSIFICATION:

F-2 TYPE IIB
CHAPTER 7 - FIRE AND SMOKE PROTECTION FEATURES
TABLE 705.8 MAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS
X < 5
10 ≤ X < 15
5 ≤ X < 10
FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE = X (FEET) OPENING PROTECTION ALLOWABLE AREA

UP, NS NP
UP, NS 10%
15%UP, NS
15 ≤ X < 20 25%UP, NS
20 ≤ X < 25 45%UP, NS
25 ≤ X < 30 70%UP, NS
X ≥ 30 NO LIMITUP, NS

FLAME-SPREAD CLASSIFICATIONS
CLASS
A
B
C

FLAME-SPREAD INDEX
0-25
TABLE 803.13 INTERIOR WALL AND CEILING FINISH REQUIREMENTS BY OCCUPANCY

INTERIOR EXIT

STAIRWAYS AND
EXIT PASSAGEWAYS*

CORRIDORS &

ENCLOSURE FOR

EXIT ACCESS STAIRS
& RAMPS
26-75
76-200

SMOKE DEVELOPED INDEX
0-450
0-450
0-450

ROOMS AND
ENCLOSED SPACES*
F-2 B C C
GROUP

NON SPRINKLERED
CHAPTER 9 - FIRE PROTECTION AND LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS

BUILDINGS NOT EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM
CHAPTER 10 - MEANS OF EGRESS
NUMBER OF EXITS AND EXIT ACCESS:

PUMP ROOM - 1 REQUIRED AND PROVIDED
ELECTRICAL ROOM - 1 REQUIRED AND 2 PROVIDED
RESTROOM - 1 REQUIRED AND PROVIDED
GENERATOR ROOM - 1 REQUIRED AND PROVIDED
ODOR CONTROL ROOM - 1 REQUIRED AND PROVIDED
EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE:

PER TABLE 1017.2 EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE, OCCUPANCY F-2 SHALL NOT EXCEED 300 FEET WITHOUT SPRINKLER SYSTEM
EXIT DOORS:

SHALL BE OPERABLE FROM INTERIOR
SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND THE CITY OF

NEW PORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODES

PANIC BARS REQUIRED
EXIT LIGHTS:

PER 1013.3 ILLUMINATION, EXIT SIGNS SHALL BE INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED.

CHAPTER 11B - ACCESSIBILITY
PER 11B-203.4 LIMITED ACCESS SPACES, SPACES NOT CUSTOMARILY

OCCUPIED AND ACCESSED ONLY BY LADDERS, CATWALKS, CRAWL SPACES OR

VERY NARROW PASSAGEWAYS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS OR TO BE ON AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE.

BUILDING CODE DATA (CONT.)
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:32:32 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A0002

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT

CODE COMPLIANCE DRAWINGS
29856

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"3

ELECTRICAL & GENERATOR ROOM

GROUND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PUMP STATION FLOOR PLAN AT EL. -22.00 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"2 PUMP STATION MEZZ PLAN AT EL. -5.00 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"4 ODOR CONTROL GROUND FLOOR PLAN
NOTES:

PER CBC 506.1.3, BASEMENTS NEED NOT BE

INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR

AREA OF A BUILDING PROVIDED THE TOTAL

AREA OF SUCH BASEMENTS DOES NOT

EXCEED THE AREA PERMITTED FOR A ONE-
STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE BUILDING.

NOTES:

PER CBC 506.1.3, BASEMENTS NEED NOT BE

INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR

AREA OF A BUILDING PROVIDED THE TOTAL

AREA OF SUCH BASEMENTS DOES NOT

EXCEED THE AREA PERMITTED FOR A ONE-
STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE BUILDING.

NOTES:

ROOFLESS EXTERIOR RATED

FACILITY - NOT INCLUDED IN THE

TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-241
455

TRANSFORMER

ACCESS HATCH

GENERATOR
ROOM
RAISED

PLATFORM

ELECTRICAL
ROOM

ODOR CONTROL
AREA

PUMP STATION
(BELOW GRADE)

NORTH GATE
24' WIDE SWING GATE

SOUTH GATE
24' WIDE SWING GATE

WEST GATE
18' WIDE CANTILEVER

SLIDING GATE
MANHOLE COVERS, TYP.

SEE STRUCTL DWGS
RAISED

PLATFORM

45.57'

16.23'

9.52'
TOW = 29.33'

PEDESTRIAN GATE
8' HIGH WALL
10' HIGH WALL
8' HIGH WALL

F U T U R E A C C E S S R O A D

P A C I F I C

C O A S T H I G H W A Y
(E) BUILDING

STRUCTURE

OUTLINE
10' HIGH WALL
8' HIGH WALL
10' HIGH WALL
15' HIGH WALL
15' HIGH WALL
A2001
1 A2001
2 A2001 3
A2001
4 173.84'

57.26'

18.00'

4.44'

EXTERIOR WALL

BOUNDARY

SWITCHBOARD
106.32'
133.53'

39.48'

24.00'

43.99'

LANDSCAPE AREA
(SEE LANDSCAPE DWGS)
6' - 5 1/8"

LANDSCAPE AREA
(SEE LANDSCAPE DWGS)
TOW = 24.00'
TOW = 24.00'
TOW = 24.00'
TOW = 24.67'
TOW = 23.33'
TOW = 22.00'
TOW = 22.00'
6' - 10"
23' - 7 5/8"
41' - 7 7/8"
TOW = 22.00'
9 TOW = 24.67'
TOW = 29.33'

5.07'
TOW = 23.33'
TOW = 23.33'
TOW = 29.33'
TOW = 29.33'

SWITCHBOARD

PLATFORM
(REMOVABLE)
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:32:34 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A1001

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT

SITE PLAN
29857

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-242
456

1.0%

1.0%
A
1 B C
2 3
A
A3001
3' - 0"
5' - 0 5/8"
16' - 9" 10' - 1"
3' - 0"
15' - 7"
5' - 0"

PUMP ROOM
001

FE TYPE ABC

FE TYPE ABC
SUMP

WET WELL
50' - 0" 30' - 0"
80' - 0"
12' - 6" 34' - 10"
47' - 4"
2' - 0" 76' - 0" 2' - 0"
2' - 0" 8' - 6" 2' - 0" 32' - 10" 2' - 0"
42" H

RAILING W/

HANDRAIL
UP
UP
-15' - 0" FFL

LANDING
A4003
2 CONC. WALL
REFER TO STRUCTL DWGS.

TOW = -21.98'
TOC = -22.32'
4' - 0"
3' - 0"
1' - 0"
TOC = -25.33'
55' - 2"
7' - 10"12' - 0"
4' - 4" 5' - 6" 4' - 4" 5' - 6" 4' - 4" 5' - 6" 4' - 4" 5' - 6" 4' - 4" 5' - 6" 6' - 0" 3' - 6" 1' - 8"
6' - 0" 3' - 10" 6' - 0" 3' - 10" 6' - 0" 3' - 10" 6' - 0" 3' - 10" 6' - 0" 19' - 10"

FRP GRATING FLOOR
42" H RAILING, TYP.

PLATFORM ACCESS LADDER, TYP.

DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:32:35 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A1002

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
PUMP STATION FLOOR PLAN AT EL.
-22.00
29858

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PUMP STATION FLOOR PLAN AT EL. -22.00
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-243
457
A
1 B C
2 3
A
A3001
50' - 0" 30' - 0"
80' - 0"
12' - 6" 34' - 10"
47' - 4"
10' - 6" 49' - 6" 6' - 0" 6' - 1" 3' - 11"
11' - 10"9' - 0"4' - 11"
16' - 10" 8' - 11"
UP DN
4' - 0 3/8" 2' - 2"
R 1' - 1"
R 1' - 1"
2' - 5 1/8"

OPEN TO BELOW
7' - 7 1/2" 12' - 10" 4' - 0" 18' - 4"
8' - 6"WET WELL
14' - 7" 6' - 0"
-5' - 0" FFL
7' - 0"
2' - 0" 76' - 0" 2' - 0"
2' - 0" 8' - 6" 2' - 0" 32' - 10" 2' - 0"
42" RAILING

W/ HANDRAIL
-5' - 0" FFL

MEZZANINE

PLATFORM
002

MEZZANINE

PLATFORM
002

FE TYPE ABC FE TYPE ABC
42" H RAILING W/

HANDRAIL
42" H

RAILING W/

HANDRAIL
3' - 5"3' - 7"
A4003
1 6' - 6" 3' - 11"
0' - 9" FFL
0' - 9" FFL
CONC. BEAMS PER STRUCTL

FRP GRATING
FLOOR

WALL-MOUNTED

HANDRAIL

PLATFORM

SEE STRUCTL

PLATFORM

SEE STRUCTL
20' - 0"

PLATFORM ACCESS
LADDER, TYP.
2' - 9" 15' - 9" 2' - 8" 3' - 0" 2' - 2"
2' - 2"

HVAC DUCTWORK
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:32:36 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A1003

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT

PUMP STATION MEZZANINE PLAN
AT EL. -5.00
29859

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PUMP STATION MEZZANINE PLAN AT EL. -5.00
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-244
458
UP
6 5
4 3
2 1
UP
4 3
2 1
UP
UPUP
A
1 B
A
A3002
A
A3001
A2002
5 A2003 1
A20023
A2003
2 ELECTRICAL ROOM
003

GENERATOR ROOM
005

RESTROOM
004
7' - 7" 2' - 1 1/2" 36' - 0" 11' - 10 1/2" 6' - 0"
14' - 2" FFL
5' - 2"
8 9
1 A3002
B
7 6
10 1 2 3
4 1
2 32' - 0 1/2" 19' - 2"
7' - 7" 50' - 0" 5' - 8"
13' - 6" FFL
26' - 6" 13' - 10" 9' - 8"
21' - 5" 3' - 9" 6" 3' - 9"
RAISED

CONCRETE

PLATFORM
CANOPY
ABOVE
5 4
3 ACOUSTIC PANEL TYP.

WINDOW

OPENING ABOVE
2' - 8"
R.O.
3' - 4"8' - 8"
R.O.
6' - 0"
5' - 5"
5 EQ. TREADS @ 12"
5' - 0" 7' - 7" 3' - 4" 1' - 4"
R.O.
3' - 4" 1' - 4" 3' - 4" 1' - 4"
20' - 0" 4' - 0" 1' - 4" 4' - 0" 1' - 4" 4' - 0" 1' - 4" 4' - 8" 1' - 4" 4' - 8" 3' - 4"
3' - 0" 8' - 0" 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 4" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 6' - 0" 3' - 4"
5' - 10" 2' - 3 1/2"
2' - 4"
1' - 4"
R.O.
6' - 0" 10' - 8"
6' - 0"
HB

FE TYPE ABC

FE TYPE ABC

FE TYPE ABC
6" DIA. CONC. FILLED
BOLLARD TYP.

SEE CIVIL DWGS
WINDOW

OPENING
ABOVE
4' - 6"
6"
RAISED

CONCRETE

PLATFORM
CANOPY
ABOVE
CANOPY
ABOVE

PUMP ROOM STAIR
007

ROOF STAIR
008
WINDOW

OPENING ABOVE
2 43
51' - 2 1/2"
CLR.
2' - 0" 4' - 8"
32' - 0" 6"
5 FD
FD
W1
V1
L1
4' - 1"
L1
L1
W1
V1
FAN
W
W1
W1
W1
W1
3' - 11" 1' - 2"
3 EQ. TREADS @ 12"
3' - 0" 24' - 1"
5' - 0" 1' - 0"
32' - 0 1/2" 19' - 2"
W
W1
W1
7' - 2"
W1

SLIDING GATE
6 42" H REMOVABLE

RAILING

STAIR TO PUMP

ROOM BELOW
12' - 0"

2.1%

STORAGE ROOM
009
15' - 6" FFL
15' - 6" FFL
15' - 6" FFL
4' - 0"A4004
1 2.1%
14 5 7
9 8
6 10
15' - 6" FFL
11 12
13 V2
18' - 0" 8' - 0"

SWITCHBOARD

SPLASH BLOCK

SPLASH BLOCK

SPLASH BLOCK
A4004
7 EXP. JOINT
W1
W
42" H RAILING W/

HANDRAIL
3' - 6"
1' - 5"
EXP. JOINT
14 15
16 DS
DSDS
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE

2.1%
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY)
1/13/2023 12:32:38 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A1004

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT

ELECTRICAL & GENERATOR ROOM

GROUND FLOOR PLAN
29860

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ELECTRICAL & GENERATOR ROOM GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN NOTES (ELECTRICAL &...

Note
Number Note Text
1 CLEANING PANEL - SEE 'E' DRAWINGS
2 FOUL AIR CONTROL PANEL - SEE 'E' DRAWINGS
3 COMB. GAS CALIBRATION PANEL - SEE 'E'

DRAWINGS
4 HVAC DUCT
5 SEAT COVER DISPENSER
6 TOILET PAPER DISPENSER
7 GRAB BAR (NON HC)
8 MIRROR W/ SS FRAME & SHELF
9 TOWEL DISPENSER/ WASTE RECEPTACLE
10 ELEC. WATER HEATER
11 3'-6" X 2'-0" OPERATOR DESK
12 2'-0" X 2'-0" FILE CABINET
13 SOAP DISPENSER
14 PROVIDE BACKING PLATES AT WALL MOUNTED
EQUIPMENT, TYP.
15 MTL STUD WALL ON TOP OF 6" H CONC. CURB
16 SWITCHBOARD PLATFORM TO BE DESIGNED BY

CONTRACTOR (REMOVABLE & PROVIDE LIFTING
EYES)
CONC. PAD
SEE STRUCTL.

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-245
459
UP
A
1 B
2 A
A3002
A
A3001
A2002
5 A2003 1
A20023
A2003
2 METAL ROOF

OVERHANG
ABOVE

METAL ROOF

OVERHANG ABOVE

ROOF PARAPET

METAL CANOPY
BELOW

METAL CANOPY
BELOW

METAL CANOPY
BELOW

ROOF OF

GENERATOR
ROOM

ROOF OF

ELECTRICAL ROOM
2' - 9" 1' - 2"
1' - 2"4' - 1 3/8"

GENERATOR
ROOM FAN. SEE
MECH.

HEAT PUMP
SEE MECH DWGS.

RD RD

RESTROOM FAN EXHAUST
SEE MECH DWGS. ROOF OPENINGS OF

MECH DUCTWORK
SEE MECH DWGS.
7' - 7 5/8" 5' - 7 3/8"3' - 1 1/4"
5' - 10" 2' - 11"
2' - 4"
12' - 8" 18' - 10"
1' - 9"4' - 0"
8" 4' - 8" 4' - 8" 4' - 8" 4' - 8" 8"
10' - 5" 20' - 0" 1' - 8"
1' - 9" 15' - 4"
2' - 0"
1' - 0"

2.1%
8"4' - 8"4' - 8"4' - 8"8"
18' - 9"6"15' - 4"16' - 9"
38' - 2"
RD
DP
7' - 9" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 8' - 5"
52' - 2"
2' - 6"5' - 6"12' - 9"
2' - 9" 11' - 4"
TOS = 31.00'
TOS = 30.83'

2.1%
50' - 0"

DECORATIVE
ANODIZED ALUM.

CANOPY

DECORATIVE
ANODIZED ALUM.

CANOPY

GENERATOR
EXHAUST.

SEE MECH.

RECESSED DOWN LIGHT
UNDER CANOPY SOFFIT, TYP.

SEE 'E' DRAWINGS
16" X 8" S.S. BOX

SCUPPER, BRONZE
16" X 8" S.S. BOX

SCUPPER, BRONZE
2' - 0"
7' - 1" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 7' - 1"
2' - 6"5' - 6"
16" X 8" S.S. BOX

SCUPPER, BRONZE
8" 4' - 8" 4' - 8" 4' - 8" 8"
TYP.
2' - 0"
6"
4' - 0"
4' - 0"
4' - 0"
1' - 0"

METAL ROOF

OVERHANG
ABOVE
2%
ALUM. COMPOSITE
PANELS

METAL STUDS OF
ROOF SCREEN @ 2'
O.C., TYP.
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
RF-01
RF-01
FL-02

ROOF PARAPET

SIDE-MOUNTED RAILING

SIDE-MOUNTED RAILING
TOW = 32.17'
TOW = 32.17'
TOW = 32.17'
TOW = 32.17'
TOW = 32.17'

29.65'

29.50'

30.00'

29.99'
EXP. JOINT
EXP. JOINT

MECH DUCT
SEE MECH DWGS.

PREFAB.

MECH EQUIP

METAL CURB
PREFAB.

MECH EQUIP

METAL CURB
PREFAB.

MECH EQUIP

METAL CURB
EXP. JOINT COVER
2%
4' - 8" 1' - 4"
DRAIN = 29.33' DRAIN = 29.33'
2%
FFL = 29.67'
FFL = 29.71'
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY)
1/13/2023 12:32:39 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A1005

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT

ELECTRICAL & GENERATOR ROOM

ROOF PLAN
29861

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ELECTRICAL & GENERATOR ROOM ROOF PLAN
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-246
460
A
1 B
2 A
A3002
A
A3001
A2002
5 A2003 1
A20023
A2003
2 A3002
B

OPEN TO ROOF OF

GENERATOR ROOM
BELOW

OPEN TO ROOF OF

ELECTRICAL ROOM
BELOW
4' - 4" 6' - 0" 6' - 0" 6' - 0" 6' - 0" 6' - 0" 6' - 0" 6' - 0" 4' - 4" 50' - 8"
3' - 8"4' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"3' - 6"4' - 4"4' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 4" 32' - 9" 19' - 2"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
T/O OVERHANG = 36.00' T/O OVERHANG = 36.00'
T/O OVERHANG = 34.00'
T/O OVERHANG = 35.50' T/O OVERHANG = 35.50'
4' - 4" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 4" 2' - 2" 36' - 8" 11' - 10"
32' - 9" 19' - 2"

SIDE-MOUNTED RAILING

SIDE-MOUNTED RAILING
TOW = 32.17'
TOW = 32.17'
TOW = 32.17'
TOW = 32.17'
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE

ROOF OVERHANG
CLADDED W/ ALUM.

COMPOSITE PANELS

ROOF OVERHANG
CLADDED W/ ALUM.

COMPOSITE PANELS
T/O OVERHANG = 34.00'
T/O OVERHANG = 34.00'
EXP. JOINT
2" MIN.

EXP. JOINT
2" MIN.

DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY)
1/13/2023 12:32:40 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A1006

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT

ELECTRICAL & GENERATOR ROOM

ROOF SCREEN PLAN
29862

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ELECTRICAL & GENERATOR ROOM ROOF SCREEN PLAN
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-247
461
UP UP
A20012
A2004
1 A2004 2
B
A3003
8 7

CIP CONC

CONTAINMENT
WALL

ODOR CONTROL AREA
006

CHEMICAL TANK
(NOT IN CONTRACT)

CHEMICAL TANK
(NOT IN CONTRACT)
32' - 0"3' - 4"4' - 0"
2' - 8" 12' - 0" 30' - 0"
22' - 0"

CMU ON CONCRETE

CONTAINMENT
WALLS
39' - 4"
6"
44' - 8"
19' - 8" 19' - 8"
45' - 4"
39' - 4"
FD
FD
FD
OA OB
O1
O2
A
A3003
X1
A4003
7 FE
TYPE
ABC

TRENCH TRENCH
TOW = 14.00'
TOC = 11.83'
42" HIGH FRP

GUARD RAIL
DRAIN = 13.58'
W1
W1
W1
W1
W1
DRAIN = 11.00'
TOC = 11.33'
DRAIN = 11.00'
TOC = 11.33'
TOC = 14.00'
FFL = 14.00'
W1
W1

14.00'
SLOPE

2.3%

13.96'
TOC = 13.88'
A20012
A2004
1 A2004 2
B
A3003
REMOVABLE ALUM.

LOUVER PANELS
FIXED ALUM.

LOUVER PANELS
8" 4"
R.O.
18' - 6" 4" 18' - 6" 4" 8"
39' - 4"
38' - 0"
ALUM. CANOPY
OA OB
O1
O2
A
A3003
MTL-01
8" 6' - 10" 4" 6' - 10" 4" 6' - 10" 4" 6' - 10" 4"
R.O.
15' - 0" 4" 8"
45' - 4"
TYP.
8"
7' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 7' - 0"
2' - 0"
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:32:42 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A1007

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT

ODOR CONTROL AREA PLANS
29863

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ODOR CONTROL AREA GROUND FLOOR
PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ODOR CONTROL AREA ROOF SCREEN PLAN
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-248
462
A B
ST-01
STU-02
MTL-01 STU-01

SITE GRADING LINE
BEHIND

SITEWALK
PT-02
4' - 0"
18' - 0" 14' - 0" 14' - 0" 18' - 0" 14' - 0" 14' - 0"
STU-02 STU-01 ST-01
2' - 10" 8' - 6"
3' - 6" 4' - 6"
OA OB
9 AVG. SITE LEVEL
EL 13.50'
MTL-01

SWING GATE
PROP. LINE

SITEWALK RAILING
(TO MATCH EXISTING

OR PUBLIC WORK
REQ.)
PROP. LINE
A4005
6 SIM.

STU-01
MTL-01
6' - 10" 4' - 6"

CONTROL
JOINT, TYP.
4" H METAL
COPING, TYP.
1' - 0" 7' - 0"

STUCCO TO

STONE VENEER
TRANSITION, TYP.

TOW = 24.83'
TOW = 22.83' TOW = 21.50' TOW = 21.50'
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
A4005
9 SIM.

ABC

ODOR CONTROL TOW
EL 29.33'
18' - 0" 18' - 0" 18' - 0" 19' - 2"
ST-01 STU-01
STU-02
MTL-01 STU-01
ST-01
4' - 0"6' - 6"4' - 10"8"
MTL-01
10' - 6"
OAOB
AVG. SITE LEVEL
EL 13.50'
19' - 8" 19' - 8" 18' - 5" 18' - 0"
16' - 0"
12' - 10"

SWING GATE
PROP. LINE
PROP. LINE
A4005
5 1' - 6"
4" H METAL
COPING, TYP.

CONTROL
JOINT, TYP.
2" W METAL

REVEAL, BRONZE
MTL-01

CONTROL
JOINT, TYP.
2' - 4"10' - 6"
8" H METAL
COPING
TYP.
4' - 0"

STUCCO TO

STONE VENEER
TRANSITION, TYP.

TOW = 24.00'TOW = 24.00'
1' - 6"
2' - 0"
5' - 0"

RECESSED
KNOXBOX.

LOCATION TO BE

APPROVED BY THE
FIRE DEPT. MOUNT 5'

ABOVE FINISHED
GRADE.

A4005
9 MATERIAL LEGEND ( SEE DETAILS IN MATERIAL SCHEDULE )

CODE DESCRIPTION COLOR
STU-01
ST-01
PT-02
CMU-01
GL-01

STONE VENEER, STACKED STONE
STUCCO

PAINTING

EXPOSED CMU, TAN/ PRECISION

LAMINATED, FRITTED GLAZING

OFF WHITE

LIGHT BROWN
BRONZE
CREAM
BRONZE
STU-02 STUCCO MEDIUM BROWN
MP-01 METAL PANEL, ANODIZED BRONZE
MTL-01 METAL COATING BRONZE

ODOR CONTROL TOW
EL 29.33'
ST-01
MTL-01STU-02
TYP.
4' - 0"
O1O2
AVG. SITE LEVEL
EL 13.50'
PROP. LINE
15' - 10"
3' - 6"11' - 10"8"
3' - 6"
TOW = 29.50' TOW = 29.50'
STU-01
8" H METAL
COPING
4" H METAL
COPING, TYP.
2" W METAL

REVEAL, BRONZE
16' - 4" 14' - 8" 16' - 0" 14' - 8"

CONTROL
JOINT, TYP.

STUCCO TO

STONE VENEER
TRANSITION, TYP.
5' - 0"

RECESSED
KNOXBOX.

LOCATION TO BE

APPROVED BY THE
FIRE DEPT. MOUNT 5'

ABOVE FINISHED
GRADE.
1 2 3
ST-01STU-01ST-01 MTL-01MTL-01 MTL-01
AVG. SITE LEVEL
EL 13.50'

SIDEWALK
2' - 4"10' - 6"
10' - 0"

CANTILEVER SLIDE GATE

SITEWALK RAILING
(TO MATCH EXISTING)
12' - 10"
TOW = 24.00'
TOW = 24.00'
PROP. LINE
1' - 6"8' - 6"
TOW = 24.83'
A4005
7 4" 6' - 3" 34' - 8" 16' - 0" 18' - 0" 1' - 8"

CONTROL
JOINT, TYP.
4" H METAL
COPING, TYP.

STUCCO TO

STONE VENEER
TRANSITION, TYP.

TOW = 22.00'
TOW = 22.00'
FDS
APRIL 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
23456789 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY)
6/6/2023 4:38:11 PM
BIM 360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pump Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt A2001

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT

SITE ELEVATIONS
30266

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE - NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE - WEST ELEVATION
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
1 LCP RESUBMITTAL 06/2023
1 1
1 1
13-249
463

ROOF (ELEC)
EL 30.00'

GROUND (ELEC)
EL 15.50'
123
A
A3001

ROOF (GEN)
EL 29.50'

GROUND (GEN)
EL 14.17'
15' - 4" 6' - 0"
14' - 6" 6' - 0"
1' - 0"
MTL-01
WALL MOUNTED FILL STATIONS.

SEE 'M' DRAWINGS.
1 2
20' - 6"
21' - 4"
6 MP-01
MP-01
STU-01
ST-01
MP-01
MP-01
CMU-01
MTL-01
STU-01
MTL-01
MP-01
?

CONTROL
JOINT, TYP.

MP-01
ST-01

REMOVABLE
PANELS
MTL-01
TYP.
4' - 0"
8' - 0" 8" 1' - 0"
2' - 0" 2' - 8" 11' - 10" 1' - 0" 1' - 2"
MTL-01
PT-02
4" 1' - 0"
CON-01
CONC. SLAB
EDGE
STONE

WATER TABLE
MTL-01

ROOF (ELEC)
EL 30.00'

GROUND (ELEC)
EL 15.50'
A B
A
A3002
6' - 0"14' - 6"3' - 0" 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 3' - 0" 5' - 0"
8"
2' - 8"6' - 0"2' - 8"
CMU-01
MTL-01
MP-01
MP-01 1 2 3 4
20' - 6"
CMU-01
STU-01
GL-01
MTL-01
MP-01
MP-01
MTL-01
STU-01
ST-01
TYP.
6' - 0"
1' - 0"
8"

MATERIAL LEGEND ( SEE DETAILS IN MATERIAL SCHEDULE )

CODE DESCRIPTION COLOR
STU-01
ST-01
PT-02
CMU-01
GL-01

STONE VENEER, STACKED STONE
STUCCO

PAINTING

EXPOSED CMU, TAN/ PRECISION

LAMINATED, FRITTED GLAZING

OFF WHITE

LIGHT BROWN
BRONZE
CREAM
BRONZE
STU-02 STUCCO MEDIUM BROWN
MP-01 METAL PANEL, ANODIZED BRONZE
MTL-01 METAL COATING BRONZE
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:32:52 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A2002

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
BUILDING ELEVATIONS 1
29865

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ELECTRICAL & GENERATOR ROOM - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ELECTRICAL ROOM - SOUTH ELEVATION

LIGHT FIXTURE TO ALIGN
W/ WINDOW O.C., TYP.

SEE ELEC. DWGS.

CONTROL
JOINT, TYP.

BOLLARDS, TYP.

COLOR TO MATCH
PT-01
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-250
464

ROOF (ELEC)
EL 30.00'

GROUND (ELEC)
EL 15.50'
1 2A
A3001

ROOF (GEN)
EL 29.50'

GROUND (GEN)
EL 14.17'
15' - 4" 6' - 0"
8' - 0" 8" 1' - 0"
8" 9' - 0"
PT-02
4' - 0" 11' - 8" 1' - 0" 1' - 4"
2' - 8" 14' - 4"
9 10 5 4 3
14' - 6" 6' - 0"
20' - 6"
21' - 4"
MTL-01
STU-01
MTL-01
MP-01
MTL-01
ST-01
STU-01
MTL-01
MP-01
MP-01
MP-01
16" X 8" S.S. BOX
SCUPPER, BRONZEMTL-01 EXP. JT. COVER
DS
AB A
A3002

ROOF (GEN)
EL 29.50'

GROUND (GEN)
EL 14.17'
15' - 4" 6' - 0"
ST-01 ST-01
4' - 0" 14' - 2"
8" 9' - 0"
MP-01
MP-01
7 86
21' - 4"
16" X 8" S.S. BOX

SCUPPER, BRONZE
MTL-01
MP-01
STU-01
16" X 8" S.S. BOX

SCUPPER, BRONZE
ST-01
MTL-01
TYP.
4' - 0"

DOWNSPOUT &

SPLASH BLOCKDOWNSPOUT &

SPLASH BLOCK

MATERIAL LEGEND ( SEE DETAILS IN MATERIAL SCHEDULE )

CODE DESCRIPTION COLOR
STU-01
ST-01
PT-02
CMU-01
GL-01

STONE VENEER, STACKED STONE
STUCCO

PAINTING

EXPOSED CMU, TAN/ PRECISION

LAMINATED, FRITTED GLAZING

OFF WHITE

LIGHT BROWN
BRONZE
CREAM
BRONZE
STU-02 STUCCO MEDIUM BROWN
MP-01 METAL PANEL, ANODIZED BRONZE
MTL-01 METAL COATING BRONZE
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:32:55 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A2003

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
BUILDING ELEVATIONS 2
29866

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ELECTRICAL & GENERATOR ROOM - WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ELECTRICAL & GENERATOR ROOM - NORTH ELEVATION
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-251
465
B
A3003

ODOR CONTROL

GROUND LEVEL
EL 14.00'

ODOR CONTROL TOW
EL 29.33'
15' - 4"
6"6' - 2"5' - 2"6"3' - 0"
ST-01 ST-01
MTL-01 STU-02 MTL-01
STU-01CMU-01 PT-02
OA OB
8 TYP.
4' - 0"

DECORATIVE
ANODIZED ALUM.

CANOPY

WALL-MOUNTED LIGHT
FIXTURE BEHIND, TYP.

SEE 'E' DRAWINGS.

CONTROL
JOINT, TYP.
2" W METAL

REVEAL, BRONZE
12" H METAL

COPING, BRONZE
TOW = 24.00'
3" H METAL
COPING, TYP.

MTL-01

ODOR CONTROL

GROUND LEVEL
EL 14.00'

ODOR CONTROL TOW
EL 29.33'
15' - 4"
8' - 0"
3' - 0" 6" 11' - 4" 8"
MTL-01 CMU-01
O1 O2
LIGHT FIXTURE.

SEE 'E' DRAWINGS.
7 A
A3003
TYP.
4' - 0"

CONTROL
JOINT, TYP.

MTL-01
STU-02
?
ST-01

STONE WATER
TABLE
2" W METAL

REVEAL, BRONZE
12" H METAL

COPING, BRONZE
MTL-01 CMU-01
3" H METAL
COPING, TYP.
8 A5002
3" H METAL
COPING, TYP.

MATERIAL LEGEND ( SEE DETAILS IN MATERIAL SCHEDULE )

CODE DESCRIPTION COLOR
STU-01
ST-01
PT-02
CMU-01
GL-01

STONE VENEER, STACKED STONE
STUCCO

PAINTING

EXPOSED CMU, TAN/ PRECISION

LAMINATED, FRITTED GLAZING

OFF WHITE

LIGHT BROWN
BRONZE
CREAM
BRONZE
STU-02 STUCCO MEDIUM BROWN
MP-01 METAL PANEL, ANODIZED BRONZE
MTL-01 METAL COATING BRONZE
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:32:59 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A2004

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
BUILDING ELEVATIONS 3
29867

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ODOR CONTROL AREA - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ODOR CONTROL AREA - WEST ELEVATION
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-252
466

ROOF (ELEC)
EL 30.00'

GROUND (ELEC)
EL 15.50'

FOUNDATION LEVEL
EL -22.00'

MEZZANINE LEVEL
EL -5.00'
A B C
A4001
2 14' - 6"20' - 6"17' - 0"
52' - 0"
A4003
3 PLATFORM

PLATFORM
A4003
4 A5001
7 A5001
6 OPENING

FOR DRAIN
9 A5001
MIN. HEADROOM
6' - 8"
2 3/8"
CLR.
2' - 0"

CANTILEVER SILDING

DOOR POCKET

LOW POINT
4' - 0"

STAIR BEHIND
MIN. HEADROOM
6' - 8"

METAL CANOPY

MEZZANINE

PLATFORM
002

PUMP ROOM
001

ROOF STAIR
008

STORAGE ROOM
009

RESTROOM
004

PUMP ROOM STAIR
007
5' - 0"
4' - 1"
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:33:00 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A3001

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
BUILDING SECTIONS 1
29868

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A1002
A PUMP STATION, ELECTRICAL ROOM SECTION1
42" H RAILING
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-253
467

ROOF (ELEC)
EL 30.00'

GROUND (ELEC)
EL 15.50'
1 14' - 6" 6' - 0"
A
A3001
A4001
1 ROOF (GEN)
EL 29.50'

GROUND (GEN)
EL 14.17'
15' - 4" 6' - 0"
CLR.
11' - 8"
CLR.
13' - 6"

WALL MOUNTED
PANELS. SEE 'E'
DRAWINGS.
20' - 6"
21' - 4"
2' - 8" 6' - 0" 2' - 8" 3' - 2" 2' - 2"
A5001
10 A4001
3 ROOF
STAIR
9' - 8" 8' - 4"

ACOUSTIC PANEL
TOW = 32.17'
T/O OVERHANG = 36.00'
T/O OVERHANG = 35.50'
A4005
1 MECH EQUIP.

METAL CURB, TYP.

A5003
6 ELECTRICAL ROOM
003

RESTROOM
004

GENERATOR ROOM
005

ROOF (ELEC)
EL 30.00'

GROUND (ELEC)
EL 15.50'
A BA
A3002
8' - 8"
5 14' - 6"
7' - 4"

ROOF STAIR
BEHIND

PLATFORM

PLATFORM
9 A5001

ELECTRICAL ROOM
003

RESTROOM
004

PUMP ROOM STAIR
007
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:33:01 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A3002

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
BUILDING SECTIONS 2
29869

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A1004
A

ELECTRICAL ROOM & GENERATOR ROOM

SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A1004

B RESTROOM SECTION
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-254
468
A4002
2 ODOR CONTROL

GROUND LEVEL
EL 14.00'

ODOR CONTROL TOW
EL 29.33'
15' - 4"

REMOVABLE ROOF

LOUVERED PANELS
O1O2
7 15' - 4"
A4002
3 11' - 4" FFL
A
A3003
A5002
11 A5002
10 42" H FRP RAILING
TANK

ODOR CONTROL AREA
006
B
A3003

ODOR CONTROL

GROUND LEVEL
EL 14.00'

ODOR CONTROL TOW
EL 29.33'
OA OB
15' - 4"6"

CONTAINMENT AREA BEHIND
A4002
1 A5002
9 42" H FRP RAILING
TANK

PROPERTY LINE

ODOR CONTROL AREA
006
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY)
1/13/2023 12:33:02 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A3003

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
BUILDING SECTIONS 3
29870

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A1007
B ODOR CONTROL AREA SECTION 2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A1007
A ODOR CONTROL AREA SECTION 1
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
13-255
469

ROOF (ELEC)
EL 30.00'

GROUND (ELEC)
EL 15.50'

MECH SCREEN (HIGH)
EL 36.00'
14' - 6" 6' - 0"
4" 1' - 8"
8' - 8" 2' - 8" 5' - 4"
16' - 8" 3' - 10"
3-COAT CEMENT PLASTER

SYSTEM OVER METAL

LATH OVER FLUID-

APPLIED WRB OVER CMU

STONE VENEER OVER

SCRATCH COAT

STONE WATER
TABLE
ALUM. COMPOSITE
PANELS
CONC. SLAB PER

STRUCTL

METAL TUBE PER

STRUCTURAL
A5001
3 A5002
1 A5001
2 A5001
1 RECESSED

CLEANING PANELS
SEE ELEC DWGS.

ALUM. FRAMED

WINDOW W/

LAMIATED GLAZING

PRECAST HEADER

DECORATIVE
ANODIZED ALUM.

CANOPY
2-PLY SBS

MEMBRANE OVER

RIGID INSULATION

OVER METAL DECK
SLOPPED 2% MIN. TO
DRAIN
6"

ELECTRICAL ROOM
003

FALL PROTECTION ANCHOR
SEE STRUCTL.

DRIP

FLASHING

BACKER ROD

ROOF (ELEC)
EL 30.00'

GROUND (ELEC)
EL 15.50'
A
14' - 6"
4' - 0"
2' - 0"
7' - 0"1' - 0"8"8' - 0"
VARIES16' - 8"

ALUMINUM
CANOPY

FRP DOOR

ALUMINUM

COMPOSITE
PANELS
A5001
4 A5001
5 A5002
2 8' - 10"
3' - 8"
2-PLY SBS

MEMBRANE OVER

RIGID INSULATION

OVER METAL DECK
SLOPPED 2% MIN. TO
DRAIN
16" X 8" S.S. BOX

SCUPPER, BRONZE

ROOF OVERHANG
CLADDED W/ ALUM.

COMPOSITE PANELS

ROOF STAIR
008
4' @ LOWEST POINT
VARIES
A5001
6 SIM
3-COAT CEMENT

PLASTER OVER

METAL LATH OVER

FLUID-APPLIED WRB

OVER CMU

ROOF (GEN)
EL 29.50'

GROUND (GEN)
EL 14.17'
A5002
3 15' - 4"

ACOUSTIC PANELS
8" 9' - 0" 6' - 0" 2' - 4"

DECORATIVE
ANODIZED ALUM.

CANOPY
ANODIZED ALUM.

ACOUST. LOUVER
2 PLY SBS SELF-

ADHERED SYSTEM

WITH TOP TRAFFIC
COATING SLOPPED 2%
MIN. TO DRAIN
ALUM. COMPOSITE
PANELS
CONC. BASE W/

PAINT FINISH
3-COAT CEMENT

PLASTER OVER

METAL LATH OVER

FLUID-APPLIED WRB

OVER CMU

GENERATOR ROOM
005
A5001
3 SIM
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:33:03 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A4001

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
WALL SECTIONS 1
29871

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"A3002
1 WALL SECTION A
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"A3001
2 WALL SECTION B
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.

SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"A3002
3 WALL SECTION C
13-256
470

ODOR CONTROL

GROUND LEVEL
EL 14.00'

ODOR CONTROL TOW
EL 29.33'
OA

STONE VENNER OVER

SCRATCH COAT

METAL REVEAL
6' - 10"8' - 0"
A5002
7 A5002
6 STONE WATER

TABLE RETURN
ANODIZED ALUM.

LOUVER PANEL
STU-01
8" H ANODIZED
ALUM. COPING,
BRONZE
3-COAT CEMENT

PLASTER OVER

METAL LATH OVER
CMU
ALUM. OVERHEAD

COILING DOOR

ODOR CONTROL AREA
006
ST-01
A5001
2 SIM

ODOR CONTROL

GROUND LEVEL
EL 14.00'

ODOR CONTROL TOW
EL 29.33'
10"
15' - 4"

STONE VENNER OVER

SCRATCH COAT

STONE WATER TABLE
O2

ANODIZED
ALUM. LOUVER
PANEL, TYP.

DECORATIVE
ANODIZED ALUM.

CANOPY
8" H ANODIZED
ALUM. COPING,
BRONZE
2" W EXTRUDED

ALUMINIUM REVEAL
3-COAT CEMENT

PLASTER OVER

METAL LATH OVER
CMU
A5001
2 SIM
A5002
7 SIM
A5002
4 SIM
2' - 0"
8' - 8" 1' - 0" 5' - 8"
A5002
12 ODOR CONTROL AREA
006

WATER REPELLENT ON
EXPOSED 8X8X16 CMU

BLOCK, TAN/ GROUND

ODOR CONTROL

GROUND LEVEL
EL 14.00'

ODOR CONTROL TOW
EL 29.33'
O1
15' - 4"
A5002
5 CONCRETE WALL

PER STRUCTURAL
ANODIZED ALUM.

LOUVER PANEL,

REMOVABLE
3-COAT CEMENT

PLASTER OVER

METAL LATH OVER
CMU
2" W EXTRUDED

ALUMINIUM REVEAL
A5002
12 ODOR CONTROL AREA
006

WATER REPELLENT ON
EXPOSED 8X8X16 CMU

BLOCK, TAN/ GROUND
A4005
2 STONE VENEER OVER

MORTAR SETTING

BED OVER SCRATCH
COAT
A4005
3 DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:33:04 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A4002

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
WALL SECTIONS 2
29872

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"A3003
1 WALL SECTION D
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.

SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"A3003
2 WALL SECTION E
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"A3003
3 WALL SECTION F
13-257
471
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12
UP
UP
UP
151413121110987654321 363534333231302928272625242322212019181716 17 EQUAL TREADS @ 11" MIN.
15' - 7"

LANDING
5' - 0"
2 1/2"
CLR.
3' - 0"2"
2"
CLR.
3' - 0" 2 1/2"
11 EQUAL TREADS @ 11" MIN.
10' - 1"

LANDING
5' - 0"
3' - 4 1/2"
3' - 4 1/2"

LANDING

TOP-MOUNTED

RAILING

WALL-MOUNTED

RAILING

WALL-MOUNTED

RAILING
5 A4003
SIM
3 A4003
SIM
1 1/2 FRP GRATING LANDING
PROVIDE 1" WIDE NON-SLIP

CONTRASTING MARKING
STRIPE AT NOSING, TYP.

PROVIDE 1" WIDE NON-SLIP

CONTRASTING MARKING
STRIPE AT NOSING, TYP.

SIDE-

MOUNTED

RAILING
FFL = -15.00'
1 1/2" FRP GRATING TREAD
14 EQUAL TREADS @ 11" MIN.
12' - 10"

LANDING
4' - 0"
20 EQUAL TREADS @ 11" MIN.
18' - 4"
CLR.
3' - 0" 2 1/2"
3' - 5"

WALL-MOUNTED HANDRAIL

TOP-MOUNTED HANDRAIL
4 A4003
SIM5
A4003
6 A4003

FRP GRATING
PROVIDE 1" WIDE NON-SLIP

CONTRASTING MARKING STRIPE
AT NOSING, TYP.

FFL = 3.54'
ALUM. CHANNEL

STRINGER

CONCRETE FLOOR
11" 1"
ALUM. GUARDRAIL
ALUM. CHANNEL

STRINGER
1 1/2" FRP

GRATING TREAD
1 1/2" FRP

GRATING FLOOR
GALV. STL. ANGLE

SUPPORT
1 1/2" FRP GRATING

LANDING
42" H ALUM. TOP MOUNTED
3-RAIL GUARDRAIL W/

HANDRAIL
1 1/2" DIA ALUM.

HANDRAIL
1 1/2" DIA ALUM.

GUARDRAILS
2 5/8"

LANDING
3' - 0"
4 EQ. TREADS @ 11" MIN.
3' - 8"
2 1/2"3' - 0"2 1/2"
3' - 5"
8 A4003
9 A4003

FRP GRATING
14' - 0" FFL
CONC. FLOOR PER

STRTCTRL
1 1/2 FRP GRATING

LANDING

FRP STRINGER

FRP STRINGER & TREAD
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES

AT FULL SIZE
(IF NOT 2" - SCALE ACCORDINGLY) 1/13/2023 12:33:06 AM
BIM
360://AUS-30001687-OCSD–5-67 Bay Bridge Pum
p Station/5-67-A-BBPS.rvt
A4003

BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION

REPLACEMENT
ENLARGED STAIR & DETAILS 1
29873

JOHN ERIC CHUNG

RUOTIAN CAI

SIEGFREDO LOPEZ
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"A1002
2 PUMP STATION LEVEL ALUM. STAIR
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"A1003
1 PUMP STATION MEZZ. LEVEL ALUM. STAIR
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A3001
3 ALUM STAIR TYP DETAIL 1
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A3001
4 ALUM STAIR TYP DETAIL 2
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A4003
5 ALUM. STAIR TYP DETAIL 3
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A4003
6 ALUM. STAIR TYP DETAIL 4
MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.

SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"A1007
7 ODOR CONTROL AREA FRP STAIR
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A4003
8 FRP STAIR TO CONC DETAIL
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A4003
9 FRP STAIR LANDING DETAIL
13-258
472
151413121110987654321 25242322212019181716
UP
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
UPUP
A
1 LANDING
4' - 0"
14 EQ. TREADS @ 11" MIN.
12' - 10"

LANDING
4' - 0"
9 EQ. TREADS @ 11" MIN.
8' - 3" 5"

WALL-MOUNTED RAILING
4 A4004
3 A4004
5 A4004 TRAFFIC COATING OVER

SEALD CIP CONCRETE
PROVIDE 1" WIDE NON-SLIP

CONTRASTING MARKING
STRIPE AT NOSING, TYP.

FD
FFL = 24.03'FFL = 15.50'
FFL = 15.50'
DRAIN = 15.42'

EDGE OF
CONC.
2 A4004
SIM
MTL. FLASHING
FFL = 29.71'
9"1' - 0"
9"
REINF. CMU
WALL
3X3

RETROFIT

WATERSTOP,
TYP.

CONC. STAIR LANDING
9"
9"
ALUM. NOSING W/ ABRASIVE

SURFACES AT TOP LANDING AND
AT EACH TREAD, 4" W MIN.

PROVIDE 1" WIDE

NON-SLIP CONTRASTING MARKING

STRIPE AT NOSING

RISER HEIGHT

SLOPE EACH TREAD
1/8" FOR DRAINAGE

CIP CONCRETE STAIR,

REINFORCING PER STRUCTRL
11" 2"
1/2" RADIUS
2-PLY SBS MEMBRANE
STL. ANGLE
MTL. FLASHING ON
SEALANT BED. TURN UP AT

END WALLS

PROTECTION
BD./INSUL. ON

MTL DECK
2 1/2"4"1 1/2"
8"
9"
TREAD SPACING 11" UNO
1/2" RADIUS

ALUMINUM NOSINGS WITH
7" RISER UNO

WIDE MINIMUM
ABRASIVE SURFACES, 4"
#5 TYP.
3 EQ. TREADS @ 11" MIN.
2' - 9"

PLATFORM
12' - 0"
3 EQ. TREADS @ 11" MIN.
2' - 9"
CLR.
4' - 0"

FRP GRATING

TOP MOUNTED
ALUM.

GUARDRAIL
(TYP.)

FRP TREADS W/

NON-SLIP NOSING
(TYP.)
ALUM.

HANDRAIL
(TYP.)

FRP GRATING TREAD
7" MAX.
11"
1/2"
MIN. 12" CHANNEL
ALUM. STRINGER

SIDE MOUNTED

RAILING

FRP GRATING

PLATFROM
12" MIN. PLATFORM

STRUCTURE
MIN. 4"X4" ALUM
POST AND 3/8"

THICK BASE PLATE
3/8" THICK

BASE PLATE

DETAILS AND

CONNECTIONS PER

STAIR MANUFACTURER
2-5/8" Ø A307 BOLTS MIN.
4 EQ. RISER @ 7" MAX.
2' - 0"
42" H ALUM. RAILING

W/ HANDRAIL,

SIDE MOUNTED

FRP STRINGER
MTL-01
PT-02
MAX.
4' - 0"
DS3
JANUARY 2023

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NO.: OF
DRAWING NO.:
1 F
DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5-67
E
D
C
B
A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LINE IS 2 INCHES