Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal_PA2022-0180CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 22, 2023 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) ▪Limited Term Permit SITE LOCATION: 94 Hartford Drive [NH] APPELANT: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita APPLICANT: WSP USA OWNER: Bayridge Park Homeowners Association PLANNER: Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner 949-644-3212, jtran@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s March 2, 2023, decision to approve a limited term permit for the construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system. The system consists of an underground pipe network (approximately 2,400 linear ft.), 13 soil gas extraction wells, and a 240-square-foot remediation treatment building for a term of approximately 12 months. A limited term permit allows a 3.2-foot separation distance between the treatment system building and nearest residential structure where the required separation is 8 feet between buildings and to allow the treatment system building to encroach into the 5-foot front setback per the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards. This item was continued from the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION 1)Conduct a de novo public hearing; 2)Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 1 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, June 22, 2023 Page 2 3)Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-023 denying the appeal and upholding and affirming the Zoning Administrator’s Approval of a Limited Term Permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system filed as PA202-0180 (Attachment No. PC 1). DISCUSSION May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Hearing The Planning Commission considered this item at a public hearing held on May 18, 2023. For reference, the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment No. PC 2, which includes a detailed project description, project plans, overview of the appeal, alternatives analysis, and public outreach efforts. At the hearing, the Planning Commission received a detailed presentation from staff and the applicant, including an update to the proposed location of the proposed treatment system building needed to avoid impacts to an underground City water line. Five members of the public expressed their concerns with the proposed location of the treatment system building. The draft minutes from this hearing are provided as Attachment No. PC 3. In summary, the Planning Commission discussion focused on the following two primary concerns: •Safety: Safety concerns with the proposed treatment system building located 3feet from the resident at 94 Hartford Drive were expressed. The proximity will meet building and safety standards and the applicant has managed to reposition the vent as far from 94 Hartford as possible. The applicant also provided information detailing the soil vapor remediation process and the monitoring steps that will be followed to ensure the system will be operated in accordance with the permit requirements set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). In staff’s opinion, concerns about the safety of the treatment system are misplaced and delaying the system’s installation further is more concerning given the potential health implications for a larger number of homes in the community. •Alternative Locations: The applicant and the Homeowners Association (HOA) board considered different locations, but they seemed to focus more on parking spaces lost and costs rather than avoiding the impact to residents at 94 Hartford. Most Commissioners seemed to view the applicant's reasons for dismissing alternative locations as impractical to be insufficient. Staff believes the alternative analysis and the discussion during the May 18 Planning Commission Hearing did not adequately address the infeasibilities of the alternative locations. Regrettably, no representative from the Homeowners Association (HOA) was present at the meeting to communicate the complex decision to approve the building location that was presented. 3 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, June 22, 2023 Page 3 Ultimately, the Planning Commission continued the item and directed the applicant and the appellant to further discuss the alternative locations with the HOA board. Revised Location of Treatment System Building As explained at the May 18, 2023, hearing, the applicant located a water main underneath the footprint of the proposed location of the treatment system building. Due to this water main, the location of the treatment system building required to be shifted north approximately 8.5 feet from the proposed location that was approved during the Zoning Administrator Hearing held on March 2, 2023. The relocation maintains a 3-foot separation from the resident at 94 Hartford Drive. The revised plans illustrating the revised location is included as Attachment No. PC 4. The relocation was reviewed and approved by Public Works and two new Conditions of Approval were presented as follows and have incorporated into the attached draft resolution: o Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit and enter into an encroachment agreement and approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office for the installation of the treatment system building. o The building foundation shall be constructed only of a slab and shall not be constructed with stem walls or deepened footings. Applicants Response to Planning Commission and Public Comments To assist the Planning Commission with their discussion, the applicant has prepared a thorough Response to Comments document that includes a summary response to the main concerns raised by the appellants at the hearing. The document also includes detailed responses to all comments and questions raised by the public, including residents of the Bayridge Park community, and by the Planning Commission (Attachment No. PC 5). The response provided from the applicant further explains the safety in the design of the soil vapor extraction system and the stringent air quality standards dictated and permitted by SCAQMD. The response also provides a supplemental discussion of alternative locations explaining that the proposed location is the best choice to allow for remediation work that quickly addresses vapor intrusion in the community. Additionally, the applicant has met with HOA representatives and the President of the HOA will be available at the June 22nd hearing to explain why the proposed location is the most appropriate for the treatment system building. SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water Board") has required Ford to address the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil before it becomes a more significant issue. After discussions with the applicant and Water Board staff, City staff is convinced a treatment system is not only necessary, but also urgently needed to protect residents’ health and property values. Additionally, the extensive alternatives considered 4 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, June 22, 2023 Page 4 suggest a thoughtful process where the HOA decided what is in the best interest of the overall community. Simply put, the proposed building location impacts fewer residents, and the building is temporary. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission may deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in a resolution for denial. Should the Commission believe an alternative site is more suitable for the proposed facility, then the Commission can deny the application without prejudice to allow the applicant to pursue an identified alternative location. An alternative location cannot be approved at this meeting and a new application will need to be submitted in accordance with NBMC Sections 20.54.080 (Resubmittals). PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of the public hearing held on May 18, 2023, for this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways), including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. At the May 18, 2023, public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to a date certain to June 22, 2023, so no additional notice is required. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: ____________________________ Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner JM/jt Submitted by: Attachments: PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval PC 2 May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report PC 3 Draft May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Minutes PC 4 Revised Treatment System Building Plans PC 5 Response to Comments dated June 8, 2023 PC 6 Public Correspondences 5 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE6 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval 7 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8 RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-023 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR’S APPROVAL OF A LIMITED TERM PERMIT FOR A SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM LOCATED AT 94 HARTFORD DRIVE [NH] (PA2022-0180) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by WSP USA (“Applicant”), in regard to the property located adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive, and legally described Lot 4 of Tract No. 12164 (“Property”) requesting approval of a limited term permit. 2. The Property is located within the area that was formerly the Ford Aeronutronic facility operated by Ford Motor Company from 1957 to 1993. The primary operation of the facility consisted of aerospace and electronic research, development, and production. As part of on-site operations and as common practice at the time, volatile organic compounds (“VOC”) were used to clean the metal parts of the operating equipment. The facility was demolished between 1993 and 1996 and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water Board”), the leading regulatory agency for the former Ford Aeronutronic facility and related off-site areas, has overseen remediation work to address the environmental impacts of the facility operations. Remedial technologies such as bioremediation, excavation, disposal of soils & groundwater, and soil vapor treatment systems were used. 3. The site was subsequently rezoned and redeveloped for residential purposes in the 1990s and ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions continues. Although remediation actions were previously conducted, the Water Board has determined that further remediation is necessary due to more stringent regulatory standards and advances in equipment sensitivity and detection limits. 4. The Applicant is proposing the construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system consisting of a 20-foot width by 12-foot depth by 10-foot height treatment system building, an underground pipe network (approximately 2,400 linear ft.), and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation for a term of approximately 12 months. A limited term permit is requested to allow a 3.2-foot separation distance between the treatment system building and the nearest residential structure where the required separation is 8 feet between buildings and to allow the treatment system building to encroach into the 5-foot front setback per the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards (“Project”). 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 2 of 13 5. The Property is designated Multiple Residential (RM) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC-24) Zoning District. 6. The Property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required. 7. A public hearing was originally scheduled on January 26, 2023. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”). The Zoning Administrator continued the item to the meeting of March 2, 2023. 8. A public hearing was held on March 2, 2023. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the NBMC. Evidence both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Zoning Administrator at this hearing. 9. The Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. ZA2023-010 approving Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). 10. On March 14, 2023, Ms. Amy Santella and Mr. Kevin Solomita filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision objecting to the location of the soil vapor extraction and treatment system building due to safety concerns from the proximity to the residents. 11. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2023, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. The Planning Commission continued the meeting to June 22, 2023. 12. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2023, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15330/Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), under Section 15308/Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and under Section 15303/Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 3 of 13 Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Class 30 exemption allows minor cleanup actions taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous waste or substance which are small or medium removal actions costing $1 million or less. The cleanup action shall not require the onsite use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit, or the relocation of residences or businesses. The action shall not involve the potential release into the air of VOC as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25123.6, except for small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems which have been permitted by the local Air Quality Management District (“AQMD”). The cleanup action must be consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements such as off-site disposal, and air quality rules, and approved by the regulatory body with jurisdiction over the site. 3. The Project is consistent with the intent of the Class 30 exemption for minor cleanup actions as it proposes to mitigate the presence of VOC in the soil without the use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit. The Project will not relocate any residences or businesses. Coordination with the Water Board has commenced and a permit for the release of VOC into the air in small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems will be obtained. The Project is consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements and is approved by the Water Board. 4. The Class 8 exemption allows actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. 5. The Project has been mandated by the Water Board as part of the required ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions of the former Ford Facility. The Project will remediate the existence of VOC observed in the soil in order to protect the environment as well as the residents of the community. No construction activities or relaxation of standards that would cause environmental degradation are proposed and the Project is consistent with the intent of the Class 8 exemption. 6. The Class 3 exemption allows the construction of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. 7. The Project proposes the construction of a small 240-square-foot treatment system building for the purpose of soil vapor remediation. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system is intended to remediate the presence of VOCs for the residents in the Bayridge Park community. 8. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not applicable. The Project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 4 of 13 concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.52.040(G) (Limited Term Permits) of the NBMC, the following findings, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The operation of the limited duration uses at the location proposed and within the period specified would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor 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 requested limited duration use; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The treatment system building will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive, along Country Club Drive, outside of common residential areas of the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association. The building will be visually hidden from residents’ sight as much as possible. The building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive. A new xeriscape landscape will be planted in and around the new treatment system building, which will help soften the visual impact of the structure. 2. An Acoustical Engineering Analysis was prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group dated February 8, 2023. The predicted noise level in the Acoustical Engineering Analysis at the exterior of the treatment system building and adjacent residences of 92 and 96 Hartford Drive on the Property is 48.8 dBA which is consistent with the allowable exterior noise standards of 55 dBA from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and 50 dBA from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am in the NBMC. The predicted noise level at 61 Hillsdale Drive, the nearest off-site residence, is calculated to be 34.9 dBA. Therefore, the treatment system building is expected to meet the requirements of the City’s regulations for both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property. 3. To minimize impacts to the community and adjacent residences from noise and construction, Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring the treatment system building to be constructed off-site and an acoustic audit of the unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation. The intent of the off-site acoustic audit is to ensure it complies with the City’s noise standards prior to transportation to the building site. After installation of the treatment system building on-site, a subsequent acoustic audit will be required to be conducted to further ensure the building complies with the City’s noise standards. 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 5 of 13 4. The wall of the treatment system building adjacent to the building at 94 Hartford Drive will be constructed with a two (2)-hour fire rated wall in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) and Building Division standards and policies. Construction plans will be reviewed for compliance with the CBC and Building Division before building permit issuance. 5. The building will be secured to the concrete pad with anchors chosen for the earthquake risk parameters of the City of Newport Beach area. The treatment system building will additionally be secured with a monitoring system that will safely shut down the system in the event of an earthquake or other unforeseen natural disasters and an operations manager will be alerted of the shutdown. The treatment system will be monitored and inspected for potential damages prior to restart. 6. The treatment system is designed to meet the standards of AQMD for the release of VOCs into the air at a level that is protective of the health of the community. The treatment system will incorporate two (2) granular activated carbon filters that will remove VOCs in the soil before the air is discharged from the treatment system. As stated by the Applicant, total VOC concentration will be measured using a real-time monitor at least once a day for the first seven (7) days of operation to confirm the system is operating as designed and within permit specifications which are set to be protective of public health. Subsequent monitoring will continue weekly, or more frequently as required by AQMD. All findings will be reported to the Water Board and will be made available to the public. Laboratory samples will be collected and analyzed on a frequency required by AQMD to confirm the efficacy of the granular activated carbon filter vessels and the treatment system overall. 7. The treatment system includes multiple redundancies to ensure concentrations of organic compounds released from the exhaust stack, if any, are below the AQMD emission limits. These emission limits are based on risk calculations that consider the most sensitive populations, including infants and young children. As stated by the Applicant, the vapors emitted are not acutely toxic. However, concentrations higher than the screening levels are currently being detected in the indoor of many homes in the Bayridge Park community and can cause effects over time which constitutes an urgency to implement remediation methods in the community. Finding: B. The subject lot is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the limited duration use without material detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the lot; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Property is within Planning Area 8 (Attached Residential) of the PC-24 Zoning District, which is approximately 12 acres in size. The proposed building will be located adjacent to the residence of 94 Hartford Drive and Country Club Road and will not negatively impact on-site vehicular circulation. 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 6 of 13 2. As conditioned, the treatment system building will require an acoustic audit prior to transportation of the building onto the Property and after installation on-site to ensure it meets the allowable exterior noise standards of the NBMC. 3. The treatment system will be located within a new prefabricated building, which is 20 feet by 12 feet and 240 square feet in size. The building is 10-feet 2-inches to the top of the roof and 13-feet 5-inches to the top of the air exhaust. The existing dwelling is two (2)-stories and the proposed treatment system building will be visually hidden from the residents of the Bayridge Park community as much as possible. 4. The treatment system building will be located on private property and will not impact pedestrian or vehicular access along Country Club Drive. 5. Given its location, the treatment system building will be most visible to the adjacent residents of 94 Hartford Drive and to the residents of the One Ford Road community that takes access from Country Club Drive. As designed and conditioned, the treatment system building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive and landscaped with new xeriscape plantings to help soften the visual impacts from the adjacent private street. 6. Locations along Bison Avenue, a public right-of-way, were considered for the Project; however, the area was determined to not provide adequate space for the placement of the building. Significant grading into the slope would be required to install the building and the construction of new retaining walls would be needed to not impact the structural integrity of the existing retaining walls surrounding the Bayridge Park community. Given that this is a temporary project, this alternative was deemed infeasible. 7. Additional locations along Country Club Drive were considered providing a greater separation from 94 Hartford Drive. Unfortunately, the landscape parkway was either too narrow to accommodate the facility or too steep, requiring significant grading that would impact the condition of the Bayridge Park community and structural integrity of the existing retaining walls surrounding the community. 8. Alternative locations were considered within the Bayridge Park community within landscaped areas that provided adequate building separation from residents. These areas would require significant removal of existing trees within the community and the placement of the treatment system building will cause a disruption to existing drainage and creek beds. Additionally, placement of the treatment system building in these areas will create heavy visual impacts within the community and remove much needed parking for the residents. 9. In total, seven (7) options were considered for the location of the soil vapor extraction system where the factors included: disruption to the neighborhood, proximity to homes, impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, and power connection complexity. These factors were reviewed on a scale from low, medium, high, to infeasible. Six (6) of the options encountered infeasibilities due to either impact on parking, permitting 14 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 7 of 13 complexity, implementation complexity, or power connection complexity. Due to these infeasibilities, the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected. Finding: C. The subject lot is adequately served by streets or highways having sufficient width and improvements to accommodate the kind and quantity of traffic that the limited duration use would or could reasonably be expected to generate; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed treatment system building will be located adjacent to an existing private street, which is an entryway into the One Ford Road community. The building location is within an existing sloped and landscaped area that will not interfere with any circulation drive aisles. 2. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system will require ongoing on-site monitoring and maintenance that will consist of one (1) or two (2) field staff visiting the site approximately once a month to collect samples and perform maintenance as needed. No large commercial vehicles are required for monthly monitoring and maintenance and no impact or increase in traffic is expected. 3. Carbon changeouts that require a vacuum truck and one (1) truck trailer and boom lift attachment parked on Country Club Drive are to take place two (2) times per year for four (4) to six (6) hours at a time. This routine maintenance has a low frequency and will not completely obstruct the traffic circulation on Country Club Drive. Country Club Drive is a private street in a private community and is not subject to additional permits from Public Works. The Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association and One Ford Road Homeowner’s Association will be notified at least seven (7) days before maintenance. Finding: D. Adequate temporary parking to accommodate vehicular traffic to be generated by the limited duration use would be available either on-site or at alternate locations acceptable to the Planning Commission; and Fact in Support of Finding: 1. Planning Area 8 of the PC-24 Zoning District requires a minimum of two (2) guest parking spaces per cluster unit development where cluster unit development is defined as a combination or arrangement of attached or detached dwellings and their accessory structures on contiguous or related building sites. As conditioned, field staff performing on- site monitoring and maintenance will utilize the on-site guest parking spaces within the Bayridge Park Community during monthly visits. 2. Fact 3 in support of finding C is incorporated here by reference. 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 8 of 13 Finding: E. The limited duration use is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the Municipal Code, and other City regulations. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The limited term permit would allow the limited duration use to deviate from setback requirements and building separation requirements of the PC-24 Zoning District pursuant to Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The temporary (one [1]-year duration) treatment system building is conditioned to comply with all other applicable provisions of the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other City regulations. 3. The treatment system building is conditioned to comply with all applicable provisions of the City’s allowable exterior noise level. Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring an acoustic audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation, and a subsequent audit after installation. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. This Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), under Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby upholds the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180), subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with City Clerk by the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 16 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 9 of 13 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE , 2023. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY:_________________________ Curtis Ellmore, Chair BY:_________________________ Sarah Klaustermeier, Secretary 17 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 10 of 13 EXHIBIT “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 2. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be caused the revocation of this limited term permit. 4. This Limited Term Permit may be modified or revoked by the Zoning Administrator if determined that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained are detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained to constitute a public nuisance. 5. This Limited Term Permit shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of final issuance of the building permit unless an extension of up to one (1) additional period of 12 months is granted by the Zoning Administrator in compliance with Section 20.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions) of the Zoning Code. A letter requesting the extension shall be submitted to the Planning Division no later than thirty (30) days before the expiration date of this permit. 6. Upon completion of this soil remediation project, the applicant is required to obtain a demolition permit from the City’s Building Division and the site shall be returned to its former conditions prior to construction. 7. The treatment system building shall be designed with a gable roof and provide siding painted to match colors that are architecturally compatible with surrounding residential units. 8. Maintenance vehicles shall utilize residential guest spaces within the Bayridge Park community with approval from the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association when working at the soil vapor extraction system and treatment facility. 9. Maintenance requiring large commercial vehicles shall be permitted to park on Country Club Road no more than two (2) times per calendar year unless otherwise required for health and safety. The applicant shall notify the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association and the One Ford Road Homeowner’s Association in writing at least seven (7) days before performing maintenance. 18 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 11 of 13 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the A/C unit serving 94 Hartford shall be relocated so that it does not interfere with the building separation between the prefabricated building and the residential unit. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project plans shall be modified to demonstrate that any disturbed landscape areas shall be replanted with water-efficient landscaping by Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscaping). 12. Prior to the issuance of a final building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Permit to Construct (P/C) from the South Coast Quality Air Management District. 13. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in the area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require additional review from the Planning Division and may require an amendment to this Limited Term Permit or the processing of a new Limited Term Permit. 14. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “A” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall demonstrate the restoration of surrounding landscaping to provide further screening for the treatment system building. 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 17. The treatment system unit shall be constructed off-site and prior to the transportation of the prefabricated treatment system unit to the project site and after installation of the structure, an acoustic audit shall be performed to ensure that the noise level observed at the exterior of the structure meets the allowable exterior noise standards of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The results of the acoustic audit shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to final inspection of the building permit. 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 12 of 13 18. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: Between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 19. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner, or leasing agent. 20. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 21. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 22. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits or authorization from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The project shall be designed, implemented, operated, and maintained in accordance with said permits or authorization from both agencies. 23. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorney’s fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s approval of Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation including, but not limited to, Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Page 13 of 13 upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Fire Department 24. A three (3)-foot wide walkway shall be provided on at least one (1) side of the lot from Country Club Drive for Fire Department access. Building Division 25. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City’s Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. 26. A list of “good housekeeping” practices will be incorporated into the long-term post- construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Division 27. All exhaust air shall terminate outside of the treatment system building in accordance with the requirements of California Mechanical Code 502.0. 28. Discharged liquid waste or sewage shall be connected properly to the drainage system of the premises in accordance with the requirements pursuant to California Plumbing Code, Chapter 7. 29. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall ensure the location of the exhaust is adequately sited away from any residential building openings. Public Works Division 30. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit and enter into an encroachment agreement and approved as to form by the CityAttorney’s Office for the installation of the treatment system building. 31. The building foundation shall be constructed only of a slab and shall not be constructed with stem walls or deepened footings. 21 Attachment No. PC 2 May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report 22 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 18, 2023 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) ▪ Limited Term Permit SITE LOCATION: 94 Hartford Drive [NH] APPELANT: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita APPLICANT: WSP USA OWNER: Bayridge Park Homeowners Association PLANNER: Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner 949-644-3212, jtran@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s March 2, 2023, decision to approve a limited term permit for the construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system. The system consists of an underground pipe network (approximately 2,400 linear ft), 13 soil gas extraction wells, and a 240 square foot remediation treatment building for a term of approximately 12 months. A limited term permit allows a 3.2-foot separation distance between the treatment system building and nearest residential structure where the required separation is 8 feet between buildings and to allow the treatment system building to encroach into the 5-foot front setback per the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a de novo public hearing; 2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-023 denying the appeal and upholding and affirming the Zoning Administrator’s Approval of a Limited Term Permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system filed as PA202-0180 (Attachment No. PC 1). 123 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE224 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 2 VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN ZONING LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Multiple Residential (RM) Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC-24) Multi-Family Residential NORTH RM PC-24 Multi-Family Residential SOUTH Single Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) PC-24 Single-Unit Residential EAST RM PC-24 Multi-Family Residential WEST RM PC-24 Multi-Family Residential Subject Property 325 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting and Background The project site is located within the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association (HOA) community. This community is located within the area that was the former Ford Aeronutronic facility, north of the approximate location of the former facility building as shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1 – Former Ford Aeronutronic Property Vicinity Map From 1957 to 1993, Ford Motor Company operated the Ford Aeronutronic facility on approximately 200 acres bound by Bison Avenue to the north, MacArthur Boulevard to the east, Ford Road to the south, and Jamboree Road to the west. The primary operation of the facility consisted of aerospace and electronic research, development, and production. As part of on-site operations and as common practice at the time, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were used to clean the metal parts of the operating equipment. The facility was demolished between 1993 and 1996 and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water Board”) oversaw site cleanup and Bayridge Park HOA Subject Property 426 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 4 remediation to address the environmental impacts of past facility operations. Bioremediation, excavation, disposal of soils & groundwater, and soil vapor treatment systems have been used both on and off site. Ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions has continued since the site was redeveloped for residential purposes in the 1990s. The level of VOCs found during the continued monitoring were at levels below the Water Board’s environmental screening levels. However, in 2016, the Water Board’s environmental screening levels were updated due to advances in equipment sensitivity and detection limits and to comply with more stringent regulatory standards. Due to the update, the level of VOCs found in 2016 and continuing today were determined to be above the screening levels warranting action. The existing buildings do not have a vapor barrier designed to address VOCs and the Water Board has determined that the VOCs detected in soil gas could potentially intrude through cracks in building foundations and impact the indoor air quality. Indoor air sampling was conducted within the Bayridge Park community and they determined the need to install a soil vapor extraction and remediation system to mitigate vapor intrusion. The applicant is working on behalf of Ford at the direction of the Water Board. Project Description The soil vapor extraction (SVE) and treatment system, as described in a Remedial Design and Implementation Plan and approved by the Water Board on January 28, 2022, consists of 13 vapor extraction wells, 2,400 feet of piping, and a treatment system housed in a prefabricated steel building with a floor area of 240 square feet. A vacuum pump (also known as a “blower”) will extract vapor from the soil through the wells and deliver it to the treatment system where granular activated carbon removes the VOCs and then clean vapor is discharged into the atmosphere. Coordination with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has commenced and a permit for the release of VOCs into the air in small-scale in situ SVE and treatment systems will be obtained. The treatment system building will house the treatment system, which is comprised of four vacuum pumps, one heat exchanger, associated carbon vessels, holding tanks, and pumps. The treatment system building would provide a separation from the adjacent residential structure ranging from 3-feet to 4-feet 6-inches, where the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards require a minimum separation of 8 feet between structures. The building would also encroach approximately 5 feet into the required 5-foot front setback adjacent to Country Club Drive. The location of the treatment system within the 10-foot tall prefabricated steel building will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it has been identified as the most feasible and least impactful location (See Alternative Locations Studied section). 527 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 5 The location is also adjacent to Country Club Drive and will not encroach on or obstruct the public utility easement or easement for emergency and security ingress and egress. The location will not obstruct any windows or doors of the residence of 94 Hartford Drive. The separation between structures ranges from 3 feet to 4 feet 6 inches and no venting will be located on the side facing the residence at 94 Hartford Drive. An existing air conditioning compressor located between the existing residence and the proposed treatment system will be relocated to allow for the placement of the treatment system building. Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision A noticed public hearing was held on March 2, 2023, online via Zoom. During the hearing, the applicant provided a presentation to discuss the various components of the project including: project background, community outreach and concerns, an alternative locations analysis map, safety, timeframe, and remediation. Three members of the public spoke in opposition to the selected location of the treatment system building. After considering all public comments and findings, both written and oral, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. ZA2023-010 approving Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). The minutes from this hearing are attached as Attachment No. PC 5. Appeal of the Zoning Administrator Decision On March 14, 2023, Ms. Amy Santella and Mr. Kevin Solomita filed a timely appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision citing safety concerns related to the location of the SVE and treatment system building and its proximity to the residents. The appeal cited six factors of concern: location, timeframe, safety, quality of life, air quality monitoring, and home values (Attachment No. PC 2). The appellants own and reside at 94 Hartford Drive. On April 7, 2023, the applicant provided a written response to the appeal that addressed the concerns outlined in the Appellant’s letter (Attachment No. PC 3). The response from the applicant addressed the six factors that were cited by the appellant and included examples of SVE systems within Orange County that are on commercial properties. The applicant explains that SVE systems are not unsafe for residential properties, but that most SVE systems are on commercial properties since contamination typically stems from commercial or industrial uses. The applicant also included an example of a SVE system on a residential property in Marina, California. The detection of residual VOCs in the soil gas have potential to cause harm to the residents of the Bayridge Park community where soil gas may move through the building’s foundations and impact the indoor air quality of these homes. The proposed treatment system building will use a SVE and treatment system to remediate the presence of VOCs found in this residential development. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030(C)(3) (Conduct of Hearing), a public hearing on an appeal is conducted “de novo,” meaning that it is a new hearing. The prior decision of the Zoning 628 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 6 Administrator to approve Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) has no force or effect. The Planning Commission is not bound by the Zoning Administrator’s prior decision. DISCUSSION General Plan The subject property is categorized as Multiple Residential (RM) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The RM land use category is intended to provide primarily for multi- family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The parcel is comprised of attached cluster unit developments as well as attached and detached single unit dwellings. The proposed treatment system building is located near a detached dwelling unit. The proposed SVE system is considered temporary and an accessory use to the primary function as a residential community. Zoning Code The property is designated as Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC- 24) Zoning District. This Planned Community was designated for residential development and for the expansion of Research and Development uses of the former Ford Aeronutronic Facility. Since the demolition of the facility, the Planned Community now provides for residential and ancillary uses only. The proposed temporary treatment system building is ancillary in use to the entire Bayridge Park HOA community and serves to provide a remediation method for the presence of VOCs. Area 8 of the PC-24 Zoning District requires a minimum front yard setback of 5 feet from the back of sidewalk and a minimum of 8 feet separation from any primary residential structures. Pursuant to Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits), a limited term permit allows limited duration uses that might not meet the development or use standards of the applicable zoning district, but may otherwise be acceptable because of their temporary or limited nature. The purpose of the limited term permit is to allow the treatment system building to be located in the front setback and within 3.2-feet of the nearest residential structure due to the limited duration of the treatment system building. The use of the SVE and treatment system is ancillary to the residential uses as it is intended to remediate the presence of VOCs for the health and safety of the residents. Limited Term Permit Findings In accordance with Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), the Planning Commission must also make the following findings for approval of a LTP: 1. The operation of the requested limited duration use at the location proposed and within the time period specified would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a 729 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 7 hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the requested limited duration use; 2. The subject lot is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the limited duration use without material detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the lot; 3. The subject lot is adequately served by streets or highways having sufficient width and improvements to accommodate the kind and quantity of traffic that the limited duration use would or could reasonably be expected to generate; 4. Adequate temporary parking to accommodate vehicular traffic to be generated by the limited duration use would be available either on-site or at alternate locations acceptable to the Zoning Administrator; and 5. The limited duration use is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the Municipal Code, and other City regulations. The treatment system building is proposed to operate for a one-year duration to remediate the presence of VOCs in the community. If conditions warrant, the system can be extended one additional year. Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added to ensure the treatment system building will meet the allowable exterior noise levels of the NBMC to minimize any nuisances for the residents of the community. A permit from AQMD is required for the emission of vapors from the treatment system and the treatment system building is required to be reviewed by the Building Division, Life Safety Services Division (Fire Department), and Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Division to ensure the system will not endanger, jeopardize, or create a hazard to the health, interest, safety, and welfare of the public. Seven locations were considered for the treatment system building that are analyzed in the Alternative Locations Studied section and in Attachment No. PC 7. The alternative locations analysis determined that the subject location was the most feasible due to the impacts on parking, significant grading, and voltage drops in power connection for the alternative locations. Throughout the duration of the limited term permit, field staff will visit the site approximately once a month for monitoring and maintenance of the system and will utilize the guest parking spaces available on-site as conditioned. Additionally, maintenance requiring large commercial vehicles will be performed approximately two times during the year. During visits for monitoring and maintenance, the Bayridge Park HOA and One Ford Road HOA will be notified in writing at least seven days before performing maintenance. The NBMC allows the deviations from the setback requirement and separation from building requirements of the PC-24 Zoning District with approval of a Limited Term Permit. 830 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 8 Staff believes that facts exist in support of each finding, which are detailed in the attached draft Resolution for approval (Attachment No. PC 1). Aesthetics Given its location, the treatment system building will be most visible to the adjacent residents of 94 Hartford Drive and to the residents of the One Ford Road community that takes access from Country Club Drive. As designed and conditioned, the treatment system building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive and landscaped with new xeriscape plantings to help soften the visual impacts from the adjacent private street. Noise Impact An Acoustical Engineering Analysis was prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group updated February 8, 2023. The predicted noise level in the Acoustical Engineering Analysis at the exterior of the treatment system building and adjacent residences of 92 and 96 Hartford Drive on the property is 48.8 dBA which is consistent with the allowable exterior noise standards of 55 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. in Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) of the NBMC. The predicted noise level at 61 Hillsdale Drive, the nearest off-site residence, is calculated to be 34.9 dBA. Therefore, the treatment system building is expected to meet the requirements of the City’s regulations for both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property (Attachment No. PC 6). The Acoustical Engineering Analysis includes an Addendum dated February 10, 2023, to address a concern raised regarding the potential conflict between the recommendation to provide an airtight construction at all exterior walls and the treatment system building utilizing venting louvers. The Addendum addresses the discrepancy and clarifies that in the context of the acoustical analysis, “airtight” refers to the sealing of joints between the building and penetrations, such as between the building and louvers. Such seals will be provided in the structure. The treatment system building will incorporate venting louvers for weather protection. The interior design of the building will incorporate the use of sound foam and sound blankets to be installed to create a sound deadening plenum to eliminate the line of sight for sound to escape through the venting louvers. To ensure compliance with the City’s noise standards, Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring an acoustic audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation, and a subsequent audit after installation. The treatment system building will be built and tested off-site, including the installation of sound deadening methods to decrease the exterior noise levels from the treatment system. The building will be tested off-site to meet the allowable exterior noise standards per the NBMC and will not be transported to the site for installation until the sound level is less than or equal to 50 dBA at all points 3-feet from 931 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 9 the building, including at the louvers. After installation of the prefabricated building, testing will be conducted to ensure the building continues to meet the required noise standard. Alternative Locations Studied The applicant has prepared an exhibit illustrating alternative locations that were considered but rejected either due to community opposition or site infeasibility. In total, seven options were considered, including alternative locations at the Bayridge Community, along the Bison Avenue landscape parkway, and additional locations along the Country Club Drive parkway. The factors considered included: disruption to the neighborhood, proximity to homes, impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, and power connection complexity. These factors were reviewed on a scale from low, medium, high, and infeasible. Six of the options encountered infeasibilities due to either impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, or power connection complexity that are summarized in Attachment No. PC 7. Due to these considerations, the location of the proposed treatment building adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected. Public Outreach Overall Outreach The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ford, and the applicant WSP has conducted an extensive outreach program since 2018 that spanned 11 residential communities and eight commercial properties. The public outreach targeted specific communities within the project area, including Bayridge Park (Attachment B of Attachment No. PC 8). The project-wide outreach included: • Fact sheets distributed via US mail to over 1,800 addresses and to a project email list with over 300 emails. • Work notices notifying communities of upcoming work for soil vapor extraction and testing as directed by the Water Board. • Signed access agreements to allow testing to measure contaminants found in indoor air. • Several websites detailing the project overview and frequently asked questions, a project YouTube page hosting all recordings of community meetings since November 2020, and availability of key technical and community outreach documents on the Water Board website. Bayridge Park Outreach 1032 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 10 Specific activities were conducted with the Bayridge Park community to bring awareness to the proposed clean-up plan and allow for the community to voice concerns regarding the project. The outreach for the community included: • A 30-day public comment period held by the Water Board from June 7 to July 9, 2021, that described the site and environmental conditions, possible remediation technologies, and the selection of the SVE and treatment system as the preferred method of remediation. Prior to the public comment period, a postcard was mailed to the community on May 12, 2021, and a fact sheet was distributed via US mail and email on June 3, 2021. During the virtual public meeting on June 10, 2021, the community voiced concerns about the concept plans for the five soil vapor treatment system buildings shown in Attachment No. PC 8. The raised concerns were regarding the impact to the community from construction activities, parking reduction, and visual impacts. • Due to the concerns raised from the community, it was decided, in coordination with the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association and residents, that the treatment system was reduced to one larger treatment system building located outside of the common areas of the Bayridge Park community. The community was notified of these changes to the concept plans in August 2021 via distribution of a Response to Comments from the Water Board. • In October 2021, the residents of the Bayridge Park community were notified via US mail and email from the HOA representative for a meeting to be held to provide additional information on the design of the SVE and treatment system. On November 4, 2021, an in-person meeting was held at the Bayridge Park community where 13 residents were in attendance. Continued concerns were expressed regarding the design of the project and the overall level of impact to the community. • Since conceptualizing alternative locations for the treatment system building, seven potential locations were considered where six (of the seven locations included infeasible impacts for various reasons previously discussed. • Since August 2022, monthly emails have been sent to over 170 residents of the community to inform residents of the work completed, upcoming work, anticipated impacts, and upcoming community meetings. • A Zoning Administrator Hearing with the City of Newport Beach for this project was scheduled to be held on January 26, 2023 and a public notice was posted on-site and mailed to all residences within a 300-foot radius of the construction site on January 13, 2023. The public notice was also published in the Daily Pilot on January 14, 2023. In anticipation of the Zoning Administrator Hearing, a pre- construction meeting with the community was held on January 18, 2023, to provide 1133 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 11 more information on the construction of the SVE system. Residents were notified of the meeting via US mail and email in November 2022 and a subsequent notification was sent via US mail and email in January 2023 of a relocation of the pre-construction meeting. Sixteen residents attended the meeting with similar concerns regarding the construction inconveniences and location of the treatment system building. • Substantial public correspondences with concerns from the community were received from January 24 to January 26, 2023, (Attachment A of Attachment No. PC 8) and in order to adequately address these public correspondences, the applicant requested a continuance from the scheduled January 26, 2023, Zoning Administrator Hearing. A “Response to Comments” was prepared by Ford and WSP dated February 10, 2023, to address the concerns raised from the public correspondences (Attachment No. PC 8). Ford and WSP has attempted to work individually with the residents who submitted public correspondences to the project to resolve concerns prior to the construction of the system. To date, the residents have declined to engage in conversation with the applicant and a summary of the outreach conducted is seen in Attachment C and D of Attachment No. PC 8. One Ford Road Homeowners Association Outreach Due to the placement of the treatment system building that is adjacent to Country Club Drive, the One Ford Road Homeowners Association was contacted since the community’s entrance is accessed along Country Club Drive. On December 9, 2022, an email was sent to the HOA outlining the construction activities that will impact access along Country Club Drive and the approximate timeline for these construction activities. The One Ford Road Homeowners Association will be notified in writing at least seven days prior to construction activities and flagmen/cones will be utilized to help traffic safely navigate past the construction activities (Attachment No. PC 9). SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES The Water Board has required Ford to address the VOCs in the soil before it becomes a significant issue. The proposed system is necessary to protect residents and the extensive alternatives considered suggest the proposed project is the least impactful to the overall community. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission may deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in a resolution for denial. Should the Commission believe an alternative site is more suitable for the proposed facility, then the Commission can deny the application without prejudice to allow the applicant to pursue an identified alternative location. An alternative location cannot be approved at this meeting and a new application will need to be submitted in accordance with NBMC Sections 20.54.080 (Resubmittals). 1234 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 12 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances) and under Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The Class 30 exemption allows minor cleanup actions taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous waste or substance which are small or medium removal actions costing $1 million or less. The cleanup action shall not require the onsite use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit, or the relocation of residences or businesses. The action shall not involve the potential release into the air of volatile organic compounds as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25123.6, except for small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems which have been permitted by the local Air Quality Management District. The cleanup action must be consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements such as off-site disposal, and air quality rules, and approved by the regulatory body with jurisdiction over the site. The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system is consistent with the intent of the Class 30 exemption for minor cleanup actions as it proposes to mitigate the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil without the use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit. The project will not relocate any residences or businesses. The system will be regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and emissions from the treatment system will meet applicable standards. The estimated valuation of the project will not exceed $1 million. The project is consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements and is approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Class 8 exemption allows actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system for soil vapor remediation has been mandated by the State of California Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will remediate the existence of volatile organic compounds observed in the soil in order to protect the environment as well as the residents of the community. No construction activities or relaxation of standards that would cause environmental degradation are proposed and the project is consistent with the intent of the Class 8 exemption. 1335 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 13 The Class 3 exemption allows the construction of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. The Project proposes the construction of a small 240-square-foot treatment system building for the purpose of soil vapor remediation. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system is intended to remediate the presence of VOCs for the residents in the Bayridge Park community. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not applicable. The project location will not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways), including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: ____________________________ Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner JM/jt Submitted by: Attachments: PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval PC 2 Appeal Form PC 3 Applicant’s Response to Appeal PC 4 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 PC 5 Zoning Administrator Minutes from March 2, 2023 PC 6 Acoustical Engineering Analysis and Addendum PC 7 Alternative Location Analysis 1436 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 14 PC 8 Applicant’s Response to Comments and Public Outreach Overview PC 9 Outreach to the One Ford Road Community PC 10 Project Plans 1537 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE1638 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval 1739 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE1840 Resolution No. PC2023-023 is not available at the time this went to publishing. The Resolution will be provided at a later time. 1941 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2042 Attachment No. PC 2 Appeal Form 2143 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2244 2345 2446 2547 2648 2749 2850 2951 3052 3153 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE3254 Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant’s Response to Appeal 3355 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE3456 RESPONSE TO APPEAL BAYRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY OBJECTIONS PROJECT FILE NO. PA2022-0180 Former Ford Aeronutronics Property, Newport Beach, CA April 7, 2023 The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is requiring Ford Motor Company (Ford) to safely remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in soil from historical aerospace research operations at the Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility. As part of this process, WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (WSP), as environmental consultants for Ford, submitted an application for a limited term permit for the construction of a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system to the City of Newport Beach. SVE systems are a common engineering technology used to remove chemicals from soil and numerous SVE systems operate safely and efficiently in residential areas throughout the United States. A City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Hearing (Hearing) for this project was held on March 2, 2023 and details for the project were made available for public comment as Agenda Item No.2 (02_Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation_PA2022-0180 (newportbeachca.gov)). The project was approved, but during the 10-day appeal period that followed the Hearing, one appeal was filed by residents of the Bayridge Park Community. This letter provides responses to the concerns issued by the Appellants. The concerns will be addressed in the upcoming Planning Commission Hearing on May 18, 2023. In addition, Ford/WSP has been working individually with the residents who submitted public correspondences to resolve concerns prior to the construction of the system. Comments from the Appellants have been reprinted in italics. The responses, clarifications, and formatting added by WSP is not in italics. Some comments provided by the appellants have been combined based on similarities between bullet points provided in the original letter that were better answered together. The original letter is attached for reference as Attachment 1. APPELLANTS INFORMATION: AMY SANTELLA AND KEVIN SOLOMITA Comment (General): We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit to clean up the hazardous waste in the soil and groundwater from the former Ford Aeronutronics facility. We are not asking to stop the remediation; we are asking to change the location based on the safety of our child. Our concerns were not adequately addressed at the public hearing. We have not received ANY of the data that we have requested to show the SAFETY of the soil vapor extraction unit to be within 3 FEET of our home with our child. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. The unit is proposed to be THREE FEET away from our home, violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. The location is arbitrary and capricious and was not the original proposal by Ford/WSP. It was stated multiple times in community meetings, the original project summary, and by the Newport Beach City Assistant Planner that the original proposal of 5-6 smaller extraction units were turned down by the HOA/Board due to loss of parking spots. 3557 It is absolutely unacceptable and appalling to have parking be valued over safety. As previously stated, NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. Without this data, it is unacceptable to ask us to be the guinea pigs of this major operation. How in good conscience can Ford/WSP, The Water Board, and the city grant a hazardous waste clean-up unit 3 feet from a home with a child? Per the South Coast Air Quality Management District, "all basin residents have the right to live and work in an environment of clean air, free of airborne health threats," and the "government is obligated to protect public health." It was never even disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive, violating the 8-foot separation distance UNTIL the Public Notice for the permit application was posted. Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the public notice is unacceptable and did not provide enough time for residents to be fully aware of the entire impact of the system. We sent in our original objections prior to the January 26th public hearing. To date, we have not received any responses in writing sent directly to us and instead, found the responses buried in the city website archives. Please see below additional objections and data we are requesting and have a right to receive. After discussion with Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, we have a right to the requested data, and she would be asking questions like us. Comment 1.1: The original project summary/zoning administrator staff report posted on the city website was changed after our objections were received. Prior to the January 26th meeting, the document stated: "The treatment system will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it has been identified as the most feasible location to reduce the visual impact from surrounding residents." Response to Comment 1.1: When substantial public comments were received before the January 26, 2023, Zoning Administration Hearing, WSP/Ford requested a continuance for the hearing to March 2, 2023 to address comments and provide additional information to support the responses. An Alternative Location Analysis and response to comments were provided to the City of Newport Beach, which was added to the zoning administrator staff report for the project. Comment 1.2: This statement shows the primary reason was for aesthetics and this original document did not mention that other locations studied were not feasible. Multiple community outreach meetings by Ford/WSP stated that other locations could not be used due to parking. After our objections were received, the new amended project summary for March 2nd includes alternative locations studied and states "Due to these infeasibilities the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected." The Newport Beach City Assistant Planner confirmed on 2/23/23 via phone call that other locations were rejected by the HOA/Board due to parking spots. 3658 Response to Comment 1.2: The Alternative Location Analysis includes the following criteria: disruption to neighborhood, proximity to homes, impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, and power connection proximity. None of the alternatives were determined to be infeasible due to aesthetic concerns, rather by community concerns voiced early in the design process or engineering concerns (which included space constraints). Lessening community impacts to the greatest degree possible was a guiding factor in designing the Water Board-required SVE system. Ford representatives worked closely with the Bayridge Homeowners Association (HOA) and community members to select this location and presented it to the community for review and comment through both fact sheets and at two separate community meetings held at Bayridge Park on November 4, 2021, and January 18, 2023. Fact sheets and meeting invitations were provided to all Bayridge Park owners and occupants. WSP is confident this system, as designed, will operate safely, quietly, and effectively. Comment 1.3: It was never disclosed at the Bayridge pre-construction meeting that the structure was 3 feet from a home, violating the setback distance. Per discussion with the Newport Beach City Fire Marshal, this is unique and unusual that a structure like this would be so close to a home. There is significant risk involved with having the structure in such proximity to a home. There is no buffer zone if any of the electrical equipment malfunctions, a fire starts insides, there is a natural disaster, etc. The Fire Marshal also stated that there is usually some leniency with "temporary permits." This is, again, unacceptable to overlook safety due to something being "temporary" (for a minimum of 3 years). Stated earlier, it was never disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive violating the 8-foot separation distance UNTIL the Public Notice for the permit application was posted. Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the public notice is unacceptable and did not provide enough time for residents to be fully aware of the entire impact of the system. Response to Comment 1.3: The location and construction of the SVE treatment system complies with all local and state building and fire safety codes. The SVE treatment system building is designed to meet the fire-rating criteria of the California Building Code for a building of this classification at a 3-foot separation from an existing residential building. The 8-foot setback developmental standard was set forth in a 1979 document (PC-24 - Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) that provided standards to follow during the development of the community and is more stringent than the requirements of local and state building and fire codes. A Limited Term Permit is a common process that the City uses to evaluate the if it is appropriate to approve a project that has elements that vary from the development standards. The City Zoning Administrator approved the project during the Public Hearing on March 2, 2023 and concurred that the construction of the treatment system was an acceptable variance from the developmental standards. The location has been reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. The building is designed to meet the fire-rating criteria of the California Building Code for a building of this classification at a 3-foot separation from an existing residential building. There is 3759 no leniency in the California Building Code requirements regardless of the expected lifetime of the building. Comment 1.4: The location of the exhaust was changed in renderings and pointed out by the Zoning Administrator during the public hearing. We are requesting that this be verified and looked at again. A window is missing on the plan. Response to Comment 1.4: The location of the exhaust was updated during the design process with the building manufacturers and is accurate on the rendering shown during the public hearing. The exhaust is located approximately 20 feet from the window on the back side of 94 Hartford. The rendering did not show the window on the side of the building near the fire lane because the window is farther over than the rendering shows, but the distance is approximately 30 feet from the stack. The Treatment System Building Elevation drawing, Attachment 2, has been updated to show distance to both windows. The California Mechanical Code requires environmental air duct exhausts to terminate not less than 3 feet from openings to the building. Comment 1.5: We are requesting an external consultant who is not employed by Ford/WSP review the original plans that did not include having the system 3 feet from our home to determine these infeasibilities objectively. Response to Comment 1.5: WSP designed this SVE system with community safety in mind and to carefully balance the need to conduct this work while minimizing impacts to the community. This included evaluating multiple locations to place the SVE treatment system, and after performing the analysis, this is the selected location. The location has been reviewed by objective third parties, including the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board that operates for the protection of human health and the environment, and the City of Newport Beach. If you would like to hire an external consultant to re-evaluate, we would support that process by meeting with them to explain the details of the Alternative Location Analysis. SECTION 2: TIMEFRAME Comment 2.1: The Newport Beach City Assistant Planner confirmed via phone call on 2/23/23 that the 3-foot setback separation difference can possibly be exempt due to the nature of a temporary permit vs. a permanent structure. We strongly object that the city grants a temporary permit that disregards the setback distances and overlooks safety. Regarding a temporary permit of 12 months, it was stated multiple times in community meetings that this unit will be in place for 1 year. However, at the 2/22/23 community meeting, it was stated that there will be ~1+ year of remediation implementation and then "~2+ years" of monitoring to determine if additional remediation is needed. Per Ken Connor, Professional Engineer WSP, at 2/22/23 meeting: the system will be on "for a year, then turn it off, then maybe turn it back on later." This shows this unit will be 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive for an UNKNOWN period, but a minimum of 3 years, further extending the time of exposure to all safety risks listed below. This is not transparent for what we were told of being in place for 1 year and then removed. Furthermore, it is impossible to quantify the amount of hazardous 3860 waste in the ground and how much additional remediation will be needed after this treatment starts. It was stated at the 2/22/23 meeting by Jessica Law: "in historical remediations, we've seen at other sites, we cleaned up, got their good bill of health, and we come back later, and concentrations increased." Although she also states they have confidence in this remediation, there is no guarantee. 2/22/23 Jessica Law also stated: "It is still important to confirm, because assumptions can be wrong, and so from the regulatory perspective, we don't like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we want them always confirmed with analytical data." Ford/WSP cannot say definitively that this will last "1 year." Response to Comment 2.1: WSP anticipates that once the system is operational, remediation can be completed within a year. This schedule is based on the results of mass removal seen during the three-week SVE Pilot Study in 2020 compared to the amount of mass estimated to in the subsurface (Final Feasibility Study dated 8/23/21) and current trends of soil gas concentrations in the area. Investigations, including soil vapor, groundwater, and indoor air sampling, have been ongoing since 2018 in Bayridge Park to aid in determining the location and quantifying the amount of organic chemicals in the ground. Once remedial goals are met or concentrations entering the treatment system have reached the point of diminishing returns, WSP will recommend decommissioning the system. Decommissioning and removal will require Water Board approval. It should be noted that the organic chemicals that are being remediated by this system are not classified as hazardous waste. SECTION 3: SAFETY Comment 3.1: We requested data on the health effects of the proximity of electromagnetic fields of the system, specifically relating to child development, as we live at our home with our infant son. At the pre-construction meeting, it was stated that this ~240 square foot structure will be "packed" with equipment to maximize the area of the shed. All this electrical and engineering equipment will emit electromagnetic fields and radiation. The response from Ford/WSP is the top Google search if you type in "EMF and health." (Response from Ford/WSP below): "The World Health Organization has studied the relationship between electromagnetic fields and human health extensively and concluded: "Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields." The response from Ford/WSP above does not include anything specific regarding child development that we asked for. Please refer to the following studies that dispute the WHO's claim and specifically address major concerns with child development- associating cancer in children since children have developing nervous systems and their skull thickness is less than an adult, increasing the risk of radiation penetration. 3961 From the World Health Organization: "Concerns have been expressed that exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields at power frequencies (50/60 Hz) could lead to an increased incidence of cancer in children and other adverse health effects. The evidence comes primarily from residential epidemiological studies. These studies suggest that children exposed to ELF magnetic fields have an associated increased risk of leukemia." (Rl) From the National Library of Medicine/Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics: "A developing child's brain is vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation. The developing nervous system is more conductive and absorbs more electromagnetic energies than those of adults [±]. Therefore, different standards are required to protect children." "The skull thickness of adults is approximately 2 mm. However, the skull thickness of a 5- year- old child is approximately 0.5 mm and 1 mm in 10 years [39]. Therefore, radiation penetration is larger in children than in adults [39,40]. As a child's head diameter is smaller, the energy- absorbing "hot spots," the most sensitive parts of RF, are more pronounced [41]. Several engineering strategies to avoid the hazard of RF do not consider a child's head specificity [6]." (R2) From Cancer.gov: "Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to non-ionizing EMFs and risk of cancer in children (13-15). Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children." (R3) From American Academy of Pediatrics: The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields: "Consistent epidemiologic evidence of an association between childhood leukemia and exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields has led to their classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a "possible human carcinogen." Concerns about the potential vulnerability of children to radio frequency (RF) fields have been raised because of the potentially greater susceptibility of their developing nervous systems; in addition, their brain tissue is more conductive, RF penetration is greater relative to head size" (R4) Response to Comment 3.1: Many appliances and equipment in and around our homes produce EMFs. This is also true of the electrical equipment that will operate inside of the SVE treatment system building. Once directly outside of the building, the intensity of the EMFs will be reduced greatly because the SVE treatment building will be constructed from steel, which is a recommended EMF shielding material. The intensity continues to drop sharply the farther away you are from the source. Every time you double the distance from the source, you lower the amount of radiation by four times. This is known as the inverse-square law. That is to say the intensity at one inch away from the blower versus 36 inches away from the blower is a 99% reduction, further reducing any potential exposure. 4062 Comment 3.2: In addition, per Jessica Law 2/22/23 meeting: "assumptions can be wrong, and so from the regulatory perspective, we don't like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we want them always confirmed with analytical data." We are in turn, asking for data, not assumptions of the safety of the proximity of this unit. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. It was stated by Ken Connor, Professional Engineer at 2/22/23 meeting: this is "tried and true technology." Please provide data that shows that these systems have been within 3 feet of homes for 12 months or longer. We requested this information before and did not receive anything. Response to Comment 3.2: Soil vapor extraction systems are a common way to treat organic chemical vapors found in soil and operate safely, efficiently, and quietly at locations throughout the United States. The system planned for Bayridge Park is a top-of-the-line system designed to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (Air District) permit requirements, which are set at levels protective of the health of even the most sensitive individuals (e.g. immunocompromised individuals, seniors, children). Here are a few examples of SVE systems, of similar size and visible to the public, that are currently in operation in Orange County. These examples are in commercial areas, not because SVE systems are unsafe in residential neighborhoods, but because most contamination stems from industrial/commercial operations. As Jessica mentioned, the design of the system at Bayridge Park has included additional noise abatement and aesthetic enhancements because it is planned for a residential area. So, please keep that in mind if you choose to see one of these systems. • Sunny Fresh Cleaners #5 (GT ID: T10000017533), located at 2547 Eastbluff Drive, Irvine, CA: Former dry cleaner site that is currently a boutique yoga fitness studio. The site is located within Eastbluff Village Center retail shopping center that also includes a Ralph’s grocery store, a Bank of America branch, and the Eastbluff Medical Walk-in and Urgent Care Center. This SVE system is located behind the boutique yoga fitness studio building, about 500 feet from residences, and across the street from tennis courts. The SVE system includes a blower and two carbon tanks, similar in size to the system's design at Bayridge Park. • Campus Cleaners (GT ID: SLT8R0703954), located at 4515-A Campus Avenue, Irvine, CA: Former dry cleaner site located within Campus Drive shopping center, which is now a retail shopping center that includes Great Clips and several restaurants. This SVE system is next to one of the commercial buildings about 100 feet from residences. The location of the SVE System (Site 1 SVE System) is shown on Figure 2 of this report: 3Q22 Remedial Progress Report. The SVE system includes a blower and two carbon tanks, similar in size to the system's design at Bayridge Park. 4163 Here is another example of an SVE system that was not in Orange County, but was in a residential neighborhood in an area of California with similar regulatory requirements. • Former Ford Ord (GT ID: DOD100196800), located in Marina, CA: Former carbon tetrachloride storage area within the former military base, which is now a residential development. The SVE system operated out of an unused garage in 2004. Photos of the SVE System are included in Appendix G this report: docs.fortordcleanup.com - /ar_pdfs/AR-OUCTP-0011.1/Volume_I-RI/. The SVE system includes a blower and two carbon tanks, although the carbon tanks are twice the size of the system design for Bayridge Park. Comment 3.3: We are also requesting data again that shows the efficacy of a larger unit. It was stated that the proposed unit was determined through 3-D computer modeling. Please provide real life examples of a unit of this size and within 3 feet of a home, size of the remediation zone, number of wells, and how long the system was in place. We would also like to see comparable areas of remediation and how long the SVE systems were in place. Response to Comment 3.3: The soil vapor extraction rate at each well, which is a rate based on known factors about the specific site conditions, such as soil type, groundwater table elevation, and data from the successful small scale pilot test, would be the same when using the 5 smaller SVE treatment units or the one larger SVE treatment unit. Computer modeling is considered an important tool in SVE design by the Army Corps of Engineers and is explained in detail in their Engineer Manual on SVE and Bioventing1. The modeling software used by a third- party expert, Mutch Associates, to interpret the data for this site is called ModFlow, which is used industry-wide for modelling the transport of groundwater and soil gas through the subsurface. The model is calibrated with site-specific, pilot test data and is the most effective way to predict the performance of the SVE technology at this specific location. Additional information about the model and the results are presented in the 2021 Remedial Design and Implementation Plan – Parcel 10 (available at https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov /esi/uploads/geo_report/4708529472/SL188023848.PDF) SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE Comment 4.1: The hazardous waste unit directly next to our home will greatly impact our quality of life. We previously stated that our air conditioner will need to be relocated, which we did not agree to; as well as our home containing the original windows, 30+ years old, further increasing the noise impact. A response from Ford below: “Ford has contacted the person who made this comment in an attempt to address this concern. This will include covering the cost for the installation of a state-of the-art air 1 United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing – Engineer Manual. June 3. 4264 conditioner and having plans in place for temporary relocation, if needed. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation." We should not have to temporarily relocate from the home that we OWN and pay taxes to live here. This response shows that there is an issue acknowledged by Ford/WSP with the proximity and we would need to relocate. Response to Comment 4.1: This system was designed with community safety in mind and to carefully balance the need to conduct this work while minimizing impacts to the community. This SVE system is not a “hazardous waste unit”– it is a temporary remediation system to extract and clean up low levels of organic chemicals found in the soil and soil vapor to achieve cleanup goals, as directed by the Water Board. There are no hazardous wastes that are handled/processed/treated or generated by the SVE remediation system. We understand that this will be a temporary disruption for this resident and that is why Ford is willing to discuss options (i.e., new windows, temporary relocation, or other mitigation) to lessen this disruption. Ford/WSP will continue to attempt to contact the person(s) who made these comments to address this concern. Comment 4.2: Per 2/22/23 meeting: Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff, Associate Engineer WSP: "Based on feedback, a lot of people commented and called that design was too intrusive to neighbors' homes and livelihoods, and asked if we could reconsider and redesigned. Worked with the HOA/Board to reduce the number of wells, feet of piping, and number of containers. The {original} containers were too impactful, ugly, disruptive." The current design disrupts our home and livelihood and is intrusive to our home. Response to Comment 4.2: The draft FS/RAP proposed an SVE system with 27 wells and 5 treatment systems. The public was notified of this proposed SVE system through a public comment period held from June 7 – July 9, 2021, a fact sheet announcing the comment period, which was distributed prior to the start of the comment period, and a public meeting held on June 10, 2021. Public comments received during the meeting and in subsequent emails did not support the proposed plan of 5 treatment buildings. After multiple additional rounds of design document review and public comment, and in consultation with the Bayridge Park HOA, the treatment systems were reduced to one and the location selected to house that larger system was outside of 94 Hartford Drive. This process continues to balance the need to conduct this work to provide long-term protection of public health and the environment, while minimizing impacts to the community. The system has been designed to operate safely, efficiently, and quietly in a residential area and will be regularly maintained and monitored to ensure it is operating as planned. 4365 SECTION 5: AIR QUALITY MONITORING General: We expressed concern that there is no real-time/ continuous monitoring to ensure the air quality levels are acceptable for a home with an infant inside. This is essential for the entire duration of the project. Ford Response 2.6: In accordance with the Air District Permit, total VOC concentration will be measured using a real-time monitor (such as a photoionization detector) at least once a day for the first seven days of operation to confirm the system is operating as designed and within permit specifications which are set to be protective of public health. Following the first seven days, monitoring will continue weekly or more frequently if required by the Air District. In addition to the real-time monitoring, analytical sampling will be conducted at least once a month and analyzed by an independent laboratory in accordance with the Air Districts Rule 304. Samples will be analyzed for specific VOCs to verify compliance with the permit and reported to the Air District. All data will also be reported to the Water Board and be available to the public on the State Water Boards document repository geotracker.ca.gov. Comment 5.1: This response only shows that real-time monitoring will occur ONCE a day for the first seven days; after it will be weekly or more frequently if required. We confirmed with Jessica Law that the photoionization detector stated above is NOT "lab quality." This confirms that there is no real-time monitoring that accurately shows the total VOC concentration emitted 3 feet from our home. Response to Comment 5.1: The monitoring schedule for the system planned for Bayridge Park is designed to meet Air District permit requirements, which are set at levels protective of the health including sensitive populations (e.g., infants and children). The Air District requires the use of an approved organic vapor analyzer that meets EPA Method 21 requirements, such as a photoionization detector (PID), to collect instantaneous data of organic compound concentrations at the inlet to the treatment system, between the two granular activated carbon (GAC) filter vessels, and at the exhaust stack. There are two in-line GAC filter vessels to provide a safety factor. If concentrations of organic compounds are detected at 50% of the discharge limits between the two GAC filters, the carbon media will be replaced. The SVE treatment system includes multiple redundancies to ensure concentrations of organic compounds entering the system are treated and not being emitted through the exhaust stack at concentrations over the effluent limits, which is located more than 15 feet from any residential windows. Per the California Mechanical Code, the required distance of an environmental exhaust from a building opening is 3 feet. There will be laboratory samples collected and analyzed on a frequency required by the Air Permit and outlined in the Operation and Maintenance Manual to confirm the efficacy of the GAC treatment and the system overall. The Operation and Maintenance Plan will be available on geotracker.ca.gov before the SVE system is commissioned for operation. 4466 Comment 5.2: We understand that it can be remotely shut off; however, the above response from Ford/WSP states that there is NO continuous air quality monitoring. If an activated carbon filter fails, toxic vapors can be expelled within 3 feet of our home prior to remote shut off. This is unacceptable to be this close to homes if there is no continuous air quality monitoring of VOCs. Response to Comment 5.2: The SVE treatment system includes multiple redundancies to ensure concentrations of organic compounds released from the exhaust stack, if any, are below the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District (Air District) emission limits. The Air District emission limits are based on risk calculations that consider the most sensitive populations, including infants and young children. The main redundancy is there are two in-line GAC filter vessels that adsorb the organic compounds, and the carbon media will be replaced with virgin carbon when concentrations of organic compounds are detected in the first vessel. The vapors are not acutely toxic, however concentrations higher than the screening levels are being detected in the indoor air of many homes in the Bayridge Park community and can cause health effects over time, which is why the treatment system implementation is urgent. Comment 5.3: In addition, Ford/WSP response has changed from each meeting, showing discrepancies about this concern. At the January pre-construction meeting, it was stated there is no continuous monitoring. At the 2/22/23 meeting it was stated yes, there is continuous monitoring. Now their response in writing show no continuous monitoring again. At 2/22/23 meeting, Jessica Law stated she understands the concerns regarding continuous air quality monitoring and stated a third-party engineer could possibly provide this, but not for the entire duration, due to cost. This was confirmed on a phone call on 2/27/23. Again, this is unacceptable to have residents exposed to possible VOCs emitted 3 feet from our home with NO CONTINUOUS monitoring. Response to Comment 5.3: The frequency of sampling will align with the Air District permit requirements, however Ford/WSP will base the schedule of replacing the GAC with clean media on the detections at the midstream sampling point. The system will be turned off as soon as there is a detection in the midstream at 50% of the inlet concentration until a carbon changeout is scheduled. This proactive carbon changeout approach is done out of an abundance of caution to ensure compliance with the Air District permit is met at all times. Comment 5.4: Per South Coast Air Quality Management District: "Air contaminants pose health risks to those that are exposed to them. Students, along with the elderly, pregnant women, and persons with existing health problems, are particularly susceptible to health effects from toxic emissions that may occur from certain types of sources. These emissions sources may emit compounds that can cause a variety of health effects, including neurological, respiratory, and developmental effects as well as cancer. Several studies have shown that risk decreases dramatically with increased distance from sources of emissions. "In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires public notice if "a facility applies to permit a new or modified emission source located within 1,000 feet from the outer boundary of a school." Children are known to be more susceptible to 4567 health effects from emissions. If schools have protections within 1,000 feet due to risks for children, how can this be placed THREE feet from our home with an infant? Response to Comment 5.4: The South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District (Air District) sets their Permits to Operate emission limits, which are required for this project, based on risk calculations that are designed to protect the most sensitive populations, including infants and young children. The measurements to confirm compliance with these emission limits are collected before the air is diluted with the ambient air outside of the treatment system, which is the most conservative location to measure effluent concentrations. The Air District has the right to deny or revoke the Permit to Operate if there is any concern about the efficacy of the air pollution control equipment. The Air District’s notification process is required of any construction within 1,000 feet of a school. That is just notification to keep families who attend the school (but may live further away) informed. The Air District can still grant a Permit to Operate to projects within 1,000 feet of a school as long as emissions limits will be met. SECTION 6: HOME VALUES Comment 6.1: After discussion with a California Real Estate Broker: our home value would be "destroyed" when we disclose there is a hazmat treatment facility directly outside of our main living area window. There would also be no possible way to quantify the loss due to this unique and unfortunate situation. Response to Comment 6.1: This SVE treatment system is not a hazmat treatment facility. This project does not handle, generate, treat or transport any hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Ford/WSP has and will continue to add steps into this project to lessen community impacts during construction and operation of the SVE system. Comment 6.2: Our view from our main living area window would change from a 50-70-year-old pine tree that birds and squirrels frequent, to a 20'x12'x10' shed/hazmat treatment facility, in addition to workers that will need to come in and out to maintain the facility. Response to Comment 6.2: Ford/WSP has adjusted the planned aesthetic design based on feedback from the community to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive and landscaped with new xeriscape plantings to help soften the visual impacts from the adjacent private street. The pine tree removal was suggested by a professional arborist and will be replaced by healthy landscaping. Staff will be quiet and courteous during their operation and maintenance visits. WSP will work directly with impacted residents by providing a notice of work at least one week in advance of larger maintenance activities (i.e. carbon changeouts, decommissioning) that will happen at a lower frequency. Comment 6.3: Even if this structure is "temporary," there is no way of predicting if we will need to sell or rent out our home in the upcoming 3+ years that the structure will be in place (1+ 4668 year running, ~2+ years monitoring per the reports); nor should we have to explain ourselves to Ford/WSP on whether or not we plan to move or rent out the home that we OWN. We would need to disclose a soil vapor extraction unit is 3 feet away from our home that is cleaning out hazardous waste. What other homes have ever had a soil vapor extraction unit 3 feet away!? No one will buy our home for fair market value with this structure adjacent to our window. Response to Comment 6.3: The Water Board, Ford and WSP have been conducting community outreach since the beginning of this project in 2018 and have provided a variety of information on environmental investigation and future remediation. During this time, several individuals expressed concern about declining home sale prices. To date, there has not been a decline in home sales or sale prices. Ford will work directly with any Bayridge Park resident to fairly address any real property diminution resulting from the operation of this system should they decide to put their home on the market during the time the soil vapor treatment system is actively operating. One of the primary goals, along with the protection of public health, is to achieve the remediation goals and obtain site closure from the Water Board, which will negate the future need for notification for home buyers. 4769 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4870 Attachment No. PC 4 Adopted Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 4971 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE5072 RESOLUTION NO. ZA2023-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LIMITED TERM PERMIT FOR A SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM LOCATED AT 94 HARTFORD DRIVE [NH] (PA2022-0180). THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Emily Miller of WSP USA, in regards to the property located adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive, and legally described Lot 4 of Tract No. 12164 requesting approval of a Limited Term Permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system. The applicant requests a limited term permit for the construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system for a term of 12 months. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system will consist of a 20-foot width by 12-foot depth by 10-foot height treatment system building, an underground pipe network (approximately 2,400 linear ft), and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation. The project requests a 3.2-foot separation distance where the required separation is 8 feet between buildings and encroachment in the 5-foot front setback per the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards. 2. The subject property is designated Multiple Residential (RM) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC24) Zoning District. 3. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 4. A public hearing was originally scheduled on January 26, 2023, online via Zoom. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). The Zoning Administrator indicated that the matter would not be considered at that time and was continued to the meeting of March 2, 2023. 5. A public hearing was held on March 2, 2023, online via Zoom. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Zoning Administrator at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances) and under Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the 5173 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Page 2 of 11 01-17-23 Environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Class 30 exemption allows minor cleanup actions taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous waste or substance which are small or medium removal actions costing $1 million or less. The cleanup action shall not require the onsite use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit, or the relocation of residences or businesses. The action shall not involve the potential release into the air of volatile organic compounds as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25123.6, except for small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems which have been permitted by the local Air Quality Management District. The cleanup action must be consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements such as off-site disposal, and air quality rules, and approved by the regulatory body with jurisdiction over the site. 3. The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system is consistent with the intent of the Class 30 exemption for minor cleanup actions as it proposes to mitigate the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil without the use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit. The project will not relocate any residences or businesses. Coordination with the South Coast Quality Air Management District (SCQAMD) has commenced and a permit for the release of volatile organic compounds into the air in small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems will be obtained. The project is consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements and is approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. SCQAMD, as the lead agency, will adopt this CEQA exemption with their authorization of the project scope. 4. The Class 8 exemption allows actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. 5. The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system for soil vapor remediation has been mandated by the State of California Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the required ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions of the former Ford Facility. The project will remediate the existence of volatile organic compounds observed in the soil in order to protect the environment as well as the residents of the community. No construction activities or relaxation of standards that would cause environmental degradation are proposed and the project is consistent with the intent of the Class 8 exemption. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: 5274 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Page 3 of 11 01-17-23 Finding: A. The operation of the limited duration uses at the location proposed and within the period specified would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor 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 requested limited duration use; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The treatment system building will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive, along Country Club Drive, outside of common residential areas of the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association. The building will be visually hidden from residents’ sight as much as possible. The building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive. A new xeriscape landscape will be planted in and around the new treatment system building, which will help soften the visual impact of the structure. 2. An Acoustical Engineering Analysis was prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group dated February 8, 2023. The predicted noise level in the Acoustical Engineering Analysis at the exterior of the treatment system building and adjacent residences of 92 and 96 Hartford Drive on the property is 48.8 dBA which is consistent with the allowable exterior noise standards of 55 dBA from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and 50 dBA from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The predicted noise level at 61 Hillsdale Drive, the nearest off-site residence, is calculated to be 34.9 dBA. Therefore, the treatment system building is expected to meet the requirements of the City’s regulations for both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property. To ensure compliance with the City’s noise standards, Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring an acoustic audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation, and a subsequent audit after installation. 3. To minimize impacts to the community from noise and construction, the treatment system building will be conditioned to be constructed off-site. The acoustic audit of the prefabricated building will be conducted off-site to ensure it complies with the City’s noise standards prior to transportation of the treatment system building to the building site. After installation of the treatment system building on-site, a subsequent acoustic audit will be conducted to further ensure the building complies with the City’s noise standards. 4. The wall of the treatment system building adjacent to the building at 94 Hartford Drive will be constructed with a two (2)-hour fire rated wall in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) and Building Division standards and policies. Construction plans will be reviewed for compliance with the CBC and Building Division before building permit issuance. 5375 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Page 4 of 11 01-17-23 5. The building will be secured to the concrete pad with anchors chosen for the earthquake risk parameters of the City of Newport Beach area. The treatment system building will additionally be secured with a monitoring system that will safely shut down the system in the event of an earthquake or other unforeseen natural disasters and an operations manager will be alerted of the shutdown. The treatment system will be monitored and inspected for potential damages prior to restart. 6. The treatment system is designed to meet the standards of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for the release of VOCs into the air at a level that is protective of the health of the community. The treatment system will incorporate two (2) granular activated carbon filters that will remove VOCs in the soil before the air is discharged from the treatment system. Continuous monitoring will be conducted as required by SCAQMD and findings will be reported to SCAQMD and the Water Board and will be made available to the public. Finding: B. The subject lot is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the limited duration use without material detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the lot; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject lot is within Planning Area 8 (Attached Residential) of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community, which is approximately 12 acres in size. The proposed building will be located adjacent to the residence of 94 Hartford Drive and Country Club Road and will not negatively impact on-site vehicular circulation. 2. As conditioned, the treatment system building will require an acoustic audit prior to transportation of the building onto the property and after installation on-site to ensure it meets the allowable exterior noise standards of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. The treatment system will be located within a new prefabricated building, which is 20 feet by 12 feet and 240 square feet in size. The building is 10-feet 2-inches to the top of the roof and 13-feet 5-inches to the top of the air exhaust. The existing dwelling is two (2)-stories and the proposed treatment system building will be visually hidden from the residents of the Bayridge Park community as much as possible. 4. The treatment system building will be located on private property and will not impact pedestrian or vehicular access along Country Club Drive. 5. Given its location, the treatment system building will be most visible to the adjacent residents of 94 Hartford Drive and to the residents of the One Ford Road community that takes access from Country Club Drive. As designed and conditioned, the treatment system building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units 5476 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Page 5 of 11 01-17-23 along Hartford Drive and landscaped with new xeriscape plantings to help soften the visual impacts from the adjacent private street. 6. Locations along Bison Avenue, a public right-of-way, were considered for the project; however, the area was determined to not provide adequate space for the placement of the building. Significant grading into the slope would be required to install the building and the construction of new retaining walls would be needed to not impact the structural integrity of the existing retaining walls surrounding the Bayridge Park community. Given that this is a temporary project, this alternative was deemed infeasible. 7. Additional locations along Country Club Drive were considered providing a greater separation from 94 Hartford Drive. Unfortunately, the landscape parkway was either too narrow to accommodate the facility or too steep, requiring significant grading that would impact the condition of the Bayridge Park community and structural integrity of the existing retaining walls surrounding the community. 8. Alternative locations were considered within the Bayridge Park community within landscaped areas that provided adequate building separation from residents. These areas would require significant removal of existing trees within the community and the placement of the treatment system building will cause a disruption to existing drainage and creek beds. Additionally, placement of the treatment system building in these areas will create heavy visual impacts within the community and remove much needed parking for the residents. 9. In total, seven (7) options were considered for the location of the soil vapor extraction system where the factors included: disruption to the neighborhood, proximity to homes, impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, and power connection complexity. These factors were reviewed on a scale from low, medium, high, to infeasible. Six (6) of the options encountered infeasibilities due to either impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, or power connection complexity. Due to these infeasibilities, the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected. Finding: C. The subject lot is adequately served by streets or highways having sufficient width and improvements to accommodate the kind and quantity of traffic that the limited duration use would or could reasonably be expected to generate; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed treatment system building will be located adjacent to an existing private street, which is an entryway into the One Ford Road community. The building location is within an existing sloped and landscaped area that will not interfere with any circulation drive aisles. 5577 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Page 6 of 11 01-17-23 2. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system will require ongoing on-site monitoring and maintenance that will consist of one (1) or two (2) field staff visiting the site approximately once a month to collect samples and perform maintenance as needed. No large commercial vehicles are required for monthly monitoring and maintenance and no impact or increase in traffic is expected. 3. Carbon changeouts that require a vacuum truck and one (1) truck trailer and boom lift attachment parked on Country Club Drive are to take place two (2) times per year for 4 to 6 hours at a time. This routine maintenance has a low frequency and will not completely obstruct the traffic circulation on Country Club Drive. Country Club Drive is a private street in a private community and is not subject to additional permits from Public Works. The Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association and One Ford Road Homeowner’s Association will be notified at least seven (7) days before maintenance. Finding: D. Adequate temporary parking to accommodate vehicular traffic to be generated by the limited duration use would be available either on-site or at alternate locations acceptable to the Zoning Administrator; and Fact in Support of Finding: 1. Planning Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community requires a minimum of two (2) guest parking spaces per cluster unit development where cluster unit development is defined as a combination or arrangement of attached or detached dwellings and their accessory structures on contiguous or related building sites. As conditioned, field staff performing on-site monitoring and maintenance will utilize the on-site guest parking spaces within the Bayridge Park Community during monthly visits. Finding: E. The limited duration use is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the Municipal Code, and other City regulations. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The limited term permit would allow the limited duration use to deviate from setback requirements and building separation requirements of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC24) Zoning District pursuant to Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The temporary (one [1]-year duration) treatment system building is conditioned to comply with all other applicable provisions of the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other City regulations. 5678 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Page 7 of 11 01-17-23 3. The treatment system building is conditioned to comply with all applicable provisions of the City’s allowable exterior noise level. Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring an acoustic audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation, and a subsequent audit after installation. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances) and Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180), subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the Community Development Director by the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2023. 5779 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Page 8 of 11 01-17-23 EXHIBIT “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be caused the revocation of this limited term permit. 4. This Limited Term Permit may be modified or revoked by the Zoning Administrator if determined that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained are detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained to constitute a public nuisance. 5. This Limited Term Permit shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of final issuance of the building permit unless an extension of up to one (1) additional period of 12 months is granted by the Zoning Administrator in compliance with Section 20.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions) of the Zoning Code. A letter requesting the extension shall be submitted to the Planning Division no later than thirty (30) days before the expiration date of this permit. 6. Upon completion of this soil remediation project, the applicant is required to obtain a demolition permit from the City’s Building Division and the site shall be returned to its former conditions prior to construction. 7. The treatment system building shall be designed with a gable roof and provide siding painted to match colors that are architecturally compatible with surrounding residential units. 8. Maintenance vehicles shall utilize residential guest spaces within the Bayridge Park community with approval from the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association when working at the soil vapor extraction system and treatment facility. 9. Maintenance requiring large commercial vehicles shall be permitted to park on Country Club Road no more than two (2) times per calendar year unless otherwise required for health and safety. The applicant shall notify the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association and the One Ford Road Homeowner’s Association in writing at least seven (7) days before performing maintenance. 5880 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Page 9 of 11 01-17-23 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the A/C unit serving 94 Hartford shall be relocated so that it does not interfere with the building separation between the prefabricated building and the residential unit. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project plans shall be modified to demonstrate that any disturbed landscape areas shall be replanted with water-efficient landscaping by Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscaping). 12. Prior to the issuance of a final building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Permit to Construct (P/C) from the South Coast Quality Air Management District. 13. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in the area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require additional review from the Planning Division and may require an amendment to this Limited Term Permit or the processing of a new Limited Term Permit. 14. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “A” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall demonstrate the restoration of surrounding landscaping to provide further screening for the treatment system building. 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 17. The treatment system unit shall be constructed off-site and prior to the transportation of the prefabricated treatment system unit to the project site and after installation of the structure, an acoustic audit shall be performed to ensure that the noise level observed at the exterior of the structure meets the allowable exterior noise standards of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The results of the acoustic audit shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to final inspection of the building permit. 5981 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Page 10 of 11 01-17-23 18. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: Between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 19. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner, or leasing agent. 20. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 21. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 22. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorney’s fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s approval of Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation including, but not limited to, Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 6082 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Page 11 of 11 01-17-23 Fire Department 23. A three (3)-foot wide walkway shall be provided on at least one (1) side of the lot from Country Club Drive for Fire Department access. Building Division 24. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City’s Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. 25. A list of “good housekeeping” practices will be incorporated into the long-term post- construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Division 26. All exhaust air shall terminate outside of the treatment system building in accordance with the requirements of California Mechanical Code 502.0. 27. Discharged liquid waste or sewage shall be connected properly to the drainage system of the premises in accordance with the requirements pursuant to California Plumbing Code, Chapter 7. 28. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall ensure the location of the exhaust is adequately sited away from any residential building openings. 6183 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE6284 Attachment No. PC 5 March 2, 2023, Zoning Administrator Minutes 6385 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE6486 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH ZOOM THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2023 REGULAR MEETING – 10:00 A.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. Staff Present (Remote): Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Zoning Administrator Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner David Keely, Senior Civil Engineer II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2023 Action: Approved IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 Spanos Residence Coastal Development Permit (PA2022-0214) Site Location: 2761 Bay Shore Drive Council District 6 Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that this project is to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new 1,977-square-foot two-story single-family residence with a 669-square-foot garage and 617-square-foot upper exterior terrace. She noted that the project includes a pool, 2,311 square feet of landscaped area, hardscape walls, and drainage facilities. Furthermore, she indicated that the property is within the R-1 Zoning district and RSD General Plan category and complies with all development standards, does not involve a change in land use, density, or intensity that results in an increased demand for public access. In addition, she relayed that the property is approximately 155 feet from Newport Bay and separated from the water by Bay Shore Drive and a row of existing residential development. Ms. Tran noted that the project site is not located adjacent to a coastal view road, public viewpoint, public beach, or public accessway as identified in the Coastal Land Use Plan and the proposed development is consistent with the existing neighborhood and does not have the potential to visually impact the community from public views. She stated that the project is conditioned to provide a final landscape plan as part of the approval for the final building permits and staff recommends the approval of this application. Zoning Administrator Zdeba clarified that while the project location is near Coast Highway, a coastal view road, it is in a segment that does not have a coastal view. He added that the community was developed in 1941, as a private gated community prior to the Coastal Act. Zoning Administrator Zdeba opened the public hearing. Tony Weiland, applicant, stated that he reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all the required conditions, noted the project is consistent with the neighborhood, smaller in size than the existing residence, set back 47 feet from the street, has no visual impact and improves views for neighbors, and the materials will match the existing neighboring house owned by the same owners. In response to Zoning Administrator Zdeba’s question, Mr. Weiland confirmed that although the house is owned in common with the neighboring house, there will be no improvements across the lot line and no formal merging of the lots. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, Zoning Administrator Zdeba closed the public hearing. 6587 Zoning Administrator Zdeba noted the project is compatible with the allowable development envelope in the Bay Shores community, meets all the findings, is consistent with the Class 3 exemption, and the exemptions to the Class 3 exemption do not apply. He approved the project subject to the conditions in Exhibit “A.” Action: Approved ITEM NO. 3 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) Site Location: 94 Hartford Drive Council District 4 Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner, provided a project description stating that the request is to allow a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) and treatment system for a 12-month term within the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association. The project would consist of approximately 2,400 linear feet of underground piping, 13 extraction wells, and a 12-foot by 10-foot treatment system building. The Limited Term Permit allows for a deviation from select development standards. She noted that the proposed location is adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive and Country Club Drive, the project proposes a three-foot separation between the building and an encroachment into the five-foot setback. The treatment system will use a blower to extract vapor from the soil through wells, and pipes will deliver the extracted vapors to the treatment system where granular activated carbon will remove the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and discharge clean vapor. She noted that the applicant is conditioned to obtain a permit from the South Coast Quality Air Management District (SCAQMD) for the release of treated vapors. She reviewed the remediation efforts of the former Ford Aeronutronic facility once located at the project site, including an overview of residential use rezoning, additional VOC remediation mandates by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board, the Acoustical Engineering Analysis, measures to reduce exterior noise, Newport Beach Municipal Code maximum allowable exterior noise levels, and measures to satisfy compliance with noise standards. Furthermore, Ms. Tran relayed an Alternative Location Analysis and six factors used to select the project site, public meetings by the applicant on November 4, 2021, and January 18, 2023, extensive public outreach by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ford, and WSP to those impacted from the remediation, project conditions that soften community impact, and Demolition Permit requirements upon completion of the soil remediation project. Before opening the public hearing, Zoning Administrator Zdeba clarified that public comments are not to be used for questions and answers. He encouraged speakers to provide a list of all comments, concerns, and questions. He asked speakers to limit comments to four minutes and emphasized his interest in hearing thoughts and concerns on this matter. Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff, WSP Project Manager, whose company is responsible for the environmental investigation and clean up associated with Ford former Aeronutronic facility, introduced the team, used a presentation to review the project background, human health impacts, project description, community engagement and concerns, and system safety. Jessica Law, the Case Manager from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, used the presentation to review the vapor intrusion health risks, investigation, short-term solutions, and SVE system, and displayed a map outlining the investigation and remediation areas. Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff continued the presentation to relay the details of the Bayridge Park SVE System, project community outreach, community concerns, alternative location analysis map, location summary, parking impacts, location decision, system safety for air quality, safety in design, safety for electromagnetic fields, and SVE is a proven technology, and, lastly, the quality of life relative to noise and aesthetics and timeframe for remediation. In response to Zoning Administrator Zdeba’s question, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff confirmed four alternative locations were explored and three more locations at the City’s request, that parking is a high priority for the HOA and the community based on feedback, and that the construction timeline would extend an additional six months to a year for the project if the parking area in the northwestern part of Bayridge Park is used to accommodate additional piping and trenching. At the request of Zoning Administrator Zdeba, Senior Civil Engineer Keely provided traffic safety information that deemed site five on Bison Avenue infeasible and confirmed that the Public Works Director is aware of the potential location and not supportive of site five for the reasons he outlined. 6688 In response to Zoning Administrator Zdeba’s questions, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff confirmed that site six lacked space on the southern portion of Country Club Drive and the northern portion has a grade difference and slope challenges. She thought the $1 million cost evaluation for the Class 30 exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is appropriate and stated with confidence that the project meets the exemption. Furthermore, she indicated that the project information phone line is a good contact method for the community and her willingness to share her cell phone number for questions or concerns. Emily Miller, WSP, clarified that the building plans will be updated to match the actual vent location. Ms. Law noted that facilities are typically located closest to the extraction well and have had no complaints. Zoning Administrator Zdeba invited the public to speak. Amy Santella noted a list of six main categories of concern that she submitted in writing. She identified there is a window on her unit that is missing from the plan and requested a continuance to have the distance of the missed window measured to meet the requirement prior to granting a permit. She objected to the project location and asked for it to be changed for the safety of her child. She requested that an external consultant review the infeasibilities, noted no real-time monitoring to show the total VOC concentration emitted from the building three feet from her home, suggested a longer project time frame and confirming assumptions with analytical data, requested data regarding safety and child and infant development, and asked the City to protect the well-being of her family and ensure the distance requirements. Leslie Pratt concurred with Ms. Santella, shared her medical background and concerns, and asked to be treated fairly. Lee Healy expressed concern for quality of life, noted the source of parking issues, inquired about an alternate location, and requested information about the closest open active SVE system. Seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, Zoning Administrator Zdeba encouraged the applicant to address any concerns or questions raised. In response to public comment, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff relayed that the northeast location was part of the analysis and deemed infeasible with HOA and public input and nearest SVE system is in the Newport North Shopping Center. Ms. Law noted that the SVE system at the Newport North Shopping Center is managed by the local oversight program, uses a chain link fence, and may not have noise dampening. In response to Zoning Administrator Zdeba’s inquires, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff and Ms. Miller concurred that the California Building Code for a SVE discharge is a minimum of three feet and the distance of the proposed building exceeds this and offers protection in any direction and agreed to provide an update. Ms. Law confirmed that agencies conduct substantial and significant SVE monitoring, reiterated the importance of getting this facility online, elaborated on the remediation timeline and health safety factors, and indicated that the soil gas plume would be contained. Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff noted that the understanding of who is impacted could change if the remaining 40 percent of the homes were sampled. Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff of WSP stated that she had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all the required conditions. Furthermore, she agreed to a possible additional condition by the Zoning Administrator that would require the exhaust vent location be fully compliant with all codes and regulations, including distances from windows or other openings. Zoning Administrator Zdeba closed the public hearing. Zoning Administrator Zdeba related to and expressed empathy for those who spoke. He stated that this is a difficult situation and reiterated the importance of finding an expeditious solution given the health concerns and regulatory agencies’ directives. He indicated that, although the building is roughly three feet from the residential unit, it would be fully compliant with all building and safety, and fire code requirements. He noted that monitoring tools have become more sensitive for a better reading of data with more science behind the potential impacts to health, and that the regulatory agencies involved would be closely monitoring the facility for safety and compliance. He clarified the 12-month temporary limited term permit would become effective at the issuance 6789 of the final building permit with the option, not a guarantee, of requesting a 12-month extension. He added that the Limited Term Permit could be revoked if the operation constituted a nuisance and that an additional public hearing and approval would be necessary if the project required more time than two years. Zoning Administrator Zdeba highlighted the conditions of approval, including the additional condition regarding adequate separation of the vent from the window, walked through facts to support all the findings, and found the project to be exempt under Class 30 and Class 8 of CEQA. He approved the submitted project as the best option given the practical difficulties at alternative locations, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit “A.” Zoning Administrator Zdeba informed the public that the decision is appealable to the Planning Commission within 14 calendar days, as outlined in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Action: Approved V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None VI. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 11:20 a.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on February 23, 2023, at 4:30 p.m. 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 February 23, 2023, at 4:30 p.m. 6890 Attachment No. PC 6 Acoustical Engineering Analysis and Addendum 6991 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE7092 7193 7294 7395 7496 7597 7698 7799 78100 79101 80102 81103 82104 83105 84106 85107 86108 87109 88110 89111 90112 91113 92114 93115 94116 95117 96118 97119 98120 99121 100122 101123 102124 103125 104126 105127 106128 107129 108130 109131 110132 111133 112134 113135 114136 115137 116138 117139 118140 119141 120142 121143 122144 123145 124146 125147 126148 127149 128150 129151 130152 131153 132154 133155 134156 135157 136158 137159 138160 139161 140162 141163 142164 143165 144166 Attachment No. PC 7 Alternative Locations Analysis 145167 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE146168 147169 148170 149171 150172 151173 152174 153175 View from intersection of Bison Ave and Country Club Drive looking west along Bison Ave ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS—BISON AVENUE ALONG BISON AVE •Locations on Bison Ave not feasible to meet required ROW setbacks •Would require significant grading and potentially impact stability of existing retaining walls. •Moratorium along Bison for any trenching work. •Access from a major thoroughfare 154176 155177 156178 157179 158180 159181 160182 Attachment No. PC 8 Response to Comments and Public Outreach Overview 161183 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE162184 163185 164186 165187 166188 167189 168190 169191 170192 171193 172194 173195 174196 175197 176198 177199 178200 179201 180202 181203 182204 183205 184206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 201223 202224 REVISIONSNEWPORT BEACH, CAFORMER FORD AERONUTRONIC PROPERTYGUIDA SURVEYING INC.EMAIL: GSICORP @ GUIDASURVEYING.COMIRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618(949) 777-2000 FAX (949) 777-20509241 IRVINE BOULEVARD, SUITE 100AT RFEOOCALIFFPROSTESSIONALLAND V E ONIASUR RY DATE: 10/26/2021 DATE: 11/12/2021 FIELD: JG OFFICE PROJECT NO: 0121-02376 FILE: 0119-02173_TOPO.dwg DRAWN: S.H CHECKED: G.ASOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM203225 Fax: 951-280-9746Phone: 951-280-9960 www.calvada.comToll Free: 800-CALVADA (3"1)*$4$"-& '&&5 TREATMENT SYSTEM SITE 204226 205227 206228 207229 208230 209231 210232 211233 212234 213235 214236 215237 216238 217 239 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING ELEVATIONSFORMER FORD AERONUTRONIC PROPERTYNEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIAC-9 3/30/2023 11DATENO.DSGNDRREVISIONCHKAPVDBYAPVD123456 A B C D VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ONORIGINAL DRAWING.1"0 DATE PROJ DWG SHEET THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF AMEC, INCLUDING ALL PATENTED AND PATENTABLE FEATURES, AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND ITS USE IS CONDITIONED UPON THE USERS AGREEMENT NOT TOREPRODUCE THE DRAWING, IN WHOLE OR PART, NOR THE MATERIAL DESCRIBED THEREON, NOR THE USE OF THE DRAWING FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN WRITING BY AMEC.FILE NAME: C:\Users\dave.oshea\Wood PLC\FORD-Newport - Documents\General\14 CAD\CIV\22_0207_p10sve\shts\C-09.dwg PLOT DATE: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 PLOT TIME: 1:49 PM OF 8620397107DRAWING STATUS60% DESIGNSOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEMFORMER FORD AERONUTRONIC PROPERTYNEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIAEL +200.0 1" = 4' EX. FIRE LANE EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGNEW CONSTRUCTION 04FEET EXISTING GATE SIDE ELEVATION LOOKING WEST FROM COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE FRONT ELEVATION LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE EXISTING FIRE LANE 94 HARTFORD DR.94 HARTFORD DR.96 HARTFORD DR. C-12C-1290%4.5 ft 3.0 ft 11.4 ft1111.4 4 ftft114ft SECOND STORY WINDOWAIR EXHAUST 13.1 ft 10.8 ft 19.5 ft18.8 ft 17.1 ft SECOND STORY WINDOW 8.5 ft 218240 219241 220242 221243 222244 PBSPBSPBS223245 H K 224246 H K 225 247 H K 226248 H K 227 249 H K 228 250 Attachment No. PC 3 Draft May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Minutes 251 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE252 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 Page 2 of 6 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 AERONUTRONIC FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION APPEAL (PA2022-0180) Site Location: Near 94 Hartford Drive Summary: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s March 2, 2023, decision to approve a limited term permit for the construction and operation of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system. The project includes construction of a 20-foot wide by 12-foot deep by 10-foot-high treatment system building, an underground pipe network of approximately 2,400 linear feet, and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation. The applicant is requesting a limited term permit to operate the soil vapor extraction and treatment system for a term of approximately 12 months. A limited term permit is requested to allow a 3.2-foot separation between the treatment system building and nearest residential structure where the required separation is 8 feet between buildings, and to allow the treatment system building to encroach into the 5-foot front setback. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a de novo public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-023 denying the appeal and upholding and affirming the Zoning Administrator’s Approval of a Limited Term Permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system filed as PA202-0180 (Attachment No. PC 1). Commissioner Lowrey recused himself from Item No. 2 due to the project’s proximity to his home. Assistant Planner Tran used a presentation to review the appeal of the Aeronutronic Ford soil vapor remediation limited term permit, former Ford Facility map and background, vicinity map, project description, soil vapor extraction (SVE) and treatment system diagram, treatment system building location and design, Zoning Administrator action, appeal, water main and relocation of the treatment system building, alternative location considerations, concerns for timeframe, safety, quality of life, air quality monitoring, and home values, condition of approval, and recommended actions. In response to Commissioner Harris’ questions, Senior Civil Engineer Keely noted that the moratorium on Bison Avenue was issued by the City, lasts five years, and trenching in the public right-of-way would require extensive reconstruction of the street. Assistant Planner Tran indicated that the applicant and Homeowners’ Association (HOA) agreed on the proposed location. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the applicant would need to request an extension in writing to extend the Limited Term Permit and the Community Development Director can issue an extension for up to one year. Commissioner Harris asked if a representative for the HOA was in attendance, and no one responded. In response to Commissioner Langford’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated that the HOA has the authority to file the permit. In response to Commissioner Rosene’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted that the Reginal Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has been working with Ford to remediate the site prior to the start of construction, Ford has met the standards, a methodology and threshold change, Ford’s clean- 253 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 Page 3 of 6 up responsibility, the necessity of the permit to install the system and protect the residents, the testing efficiency, and volatile organic compound (VOC) level changes. He directed the questions to the RWQCB representative for greater clarity. Except for Vice Chair Rosene who disclosed a phone call with the appellant, all Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing. Daniella Hamann-Nazaroff of WSP, environmental consultant for Ford Motor Company, introduced the team and used a presentation to review the remediation area map, background, and human health factors. Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) case manager, summarized the impact on human health from exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE), exceedance levels detected in the subject area, support for active remediation, and diminishing rates. Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff continued the presentation to explain the project description and Bayridge Park SVE system, community engagement and concerns, and location analysis, alternatives, and decision. She reviewed the system safety for air quality, design, and electromagnetic fields, noted the SVE proven technology, and relayed factors for quality of life relative to noise and aesthetics, an anticipated one-year remediation period, and a summary. Lastly, she agreed to the conditions of approval. In response to Commissioner Barto’s request, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff explained the working relationship between the applicant and the HOA and confirmed the HOA’s agreement on the remediation location. In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s inquiry, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff noted that the ground water concentration levels are low and attenuating naturally, there are no plans for active remediation of the ground water, the water flow paths from the former Ford facility, and the reasons for the project site location. In response to Commissioner Harris’ question, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff explained the push back from the HOA and community regarding taking away parking spots on Hartford Drive, the clean-up stages, and an intermittent pulse option at the end of the initial clean-up period. In response to Commissioner Barto’s question, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff relayed the process for soil vapor filtering and measuring the intake, middle, and effluent vapor levels to ensure permit discharge limits and public safety are being met. She noted an expectation of clean, breathable air emitted and explained the monitoring process. In response to Commissioner Langford’s question, Emily Miller of WSP, noted the flow rate coming into the blowers, a slowdown as it goes through the system and exits the stack, and no problem with exterior noise levels. Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff thought the stack flow speed at the exit would be less than what a dryer emits. In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s inquiry, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff reported that noise suppression has been thought through very thoroughly to minimize the impact and WSP guarantees that the system meets noise requirements and is as quiet or more than the average dishwasher. Amy Santella, the appellant, 94 Hartford Drive, objected to the location of the SVE system three feet from her family home and asked for the location to be changed for the safety of her family. Kevin Santella, the appellant, 94 Hartford Drive, reviewed site location options one, three, and four and urged the Planning Commission to deny the request and have Ford adequately review the infeasibilities. In response to Commissioner Langford’s question, Mr. and Mrs. Santella confirmed that they are currently residing at 94 Hartford Drive. In response to Chair Ellmore’s inquiry, Ms. Santella noted conversations with the HOA, having shared the appeal letters with the HOA board by email with no correspondence in return, being told by the HOA that they 254 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 Page 4 of 6 should move if they are not happy with the SVE location, and not ever being formally notified by the HOA of the project or the three-feet distance from their home. Larry Cano, 92 Hartford Drive, noted other locations for the SVE system, threat to human health, parking alternatives, and concern for his safety. Jim Mosher noted the option of the Zoning Administrator to refer the matter to the Planning Commission given the item is controversial, clarified that the focus of the appeal is for the SVE location, expressed interest in how long it would take for the vapor to be remedied by ground water disbursement, questioned the distance of the SVE to the neighboring building and alternative site locations, and thought the northwest corner option was dismissed too easily. Leslie Pratt, 96 Hartford Drive, reviewed her medical history and addressed her concerns for health, parking issues, and decreased property value. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated that comment letters from Mr. Cano and Lee Healy were received and incorporated in the public comments for the record. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the Zoning Administrator could have referred the matter to the Planning Commission, but it is unusual to do so, and he sees no flaw in the application process. Ms. Santella stated that if the item is not going to be denied, then she is requesting a continuance of the item to review the new location due to the short notice provided of the location change and proximity and impact to their home. Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing. Chair Ellmore stated that the Planning Commission will be making a decision on the land use and opine on the permit given the parameters they have as a body. In response to Commissioner Barto’s questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained the new SVE location distance to 94 Hartford Drive and the street and that it is located on a private street. Vice Chair Rosene expressed his disappointment that no HOA representative attended the meeting, inquired about the possibility of the RWQCB overruling the HOA to select a more viable spot, and thought the infeasibility claim was centered around financial issues, the SVE should be located elsewhere, and the remediation needs to begin. He was not supportive of the application and thought the appellant had a strong argument. Commissioner Klaustermeier concurred with Vice Chair Rosene and did not support the application. Commissioner Harris concurred with Vice Chair Rosene, noted the 8-foot change at the end and the impact and concern for the slope on Bison Avenue, and expressed interest in sending the matter back to the HOA or the County to dictate the location. Commissioner Langford thought that as the applicant and fee landowner, the HOA has the rights to direct the process and project location, disagreed with the HOA not attending the meeting, believed the remediation needs to get done, and noted that he is usually supportive of private property rights and wished he knew more about what the HOA has done to help the matter and that the HOA should do the hard work instead of forcing the Planning Commission to decide. Chair Ellmore thought that this matter is between the HOA and the appellant, expressed confusion for the parking issues, noted an increased property value after the clean-up, indicated that the remediation needs to get done, and relayed not being prepared to make a motion either way. 255 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Assistant City Attorney Summerhill notified the Commission that a tie vote would be equivalent to the lower body’s decision being approved and offered an option to continue the item until the next meeting. Motion made by Chair Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Harris to continue the item to the June 22, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, and implored the applicant and the appellant to talk with the HOA and ask them to return to the Planning Commission with the reason(s) why alternate locations are not plausible. AYES: Ellmore, Barto, Harris, Klaustermeier, and Rosene NOES: Langford RECUSED: Lowrey ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 3 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION - NOISE-RELATED AMENDMENTS (PA2022-0201) Site Locations: Various sites in the Newport Beach Airport Area bounded by Campus Drive, Jamboree Road, and Route 73, including portions of the Newport Beach Golf Course on Irvine Avenue, the YMCA on University Drive, and several sites in the Santa Ana Heights area. Summary: Amendments to Newport Beach General Plan Land Use and Noise Elements, Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards (PC-11), and the Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan (PC-60) to allow residential units identified by the certified 2021-2029 6th Cycle Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element to be located within the 65 dBA to 70 dBA CNEL noise contour areas specified by the 2008 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan, and as illustrated in the attached Noise Contours and Housing Opportunity Sites Map. Recommended Action: 1. None. This item has been removed from the agenda. 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 Deputy Community Development Director Campbell announced that the City Council approved the timeshare and fractional home ownership code amendment and commercial parking rate amendment, and a second reading of both amendments will take place at the June 23 City Council meeting. He relayed that the General Plan Advisory Committee and General Plan Update Steering Committee meetings are canceled for June 7 due to a conflict with the Corona del Mar Residents Association annual meeting and are tentatively rescheduled for June 12. Furthermore, he noted that the public hearing notice for this meeting was issued before the approved start time change and reflected a 6:30 p.m. start time and future Planning Commission meetings will start at 6:00 p.m. Lastly, he announced that the Planning Commission meeting on June 8 is cancelled and the next meeting on June 22 will include an agenda item for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180). ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES 256 Attachment No. PC 4 Revised Treatment System Building Plans 257 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE258 8622397107ENM Former Ford Aeronutronic PropertyNewport Beach, California P10 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDINGCONCEPTUAL RENDERINGPLAN VIEW 1Feet 0510 5/17/2023 E AC UNIT ICV ICV ICV ICV ICV ICV GRASS Ø20'' ICV ICV BAYRIDGE PARK PROPERTY BOUNDARY 94 HARTFORD DRIVE ACCESS GATE NORMALLY CLOSED FIRE LANE LANDSCAPED AREA CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN PATH EASEMENT BOUNDARY AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 12164 96 HARTFORD DRIVE EASEMENT BOUNDARY ASSHOWN ON TRACT MAP 12164 WATER MAIN LOCATED ON 5/3/2023 RELOCATED AC UNIT GRAVEL EROSION PROTECTION GRASSCRETE SURFACING FUTURE PAD LOCATION ORIGINAL PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION 4.5 ftSECOND FLOOR WINDOW TREE REMOVAL TBD BY ARBORIST EFFLUENT STACK ADJUSTED BUILDING LOCATION 16'-3" 3.8 ft 15 . 6 f t 28.8 f t 3.0 ft259 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE260 Attachment No. PC 5 Response to Comments dated June 8, 2023 261 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE262 WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. 555 12th Street, Suite 215 Oakland, California 94607 USA T: 1-510-663-4100 F: 1-833-778-3465 www.wsp.com June 8, 2023 Project 862239710.01.1B City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Response to Comments Ford Motor Company’s Application for a Limited Term Permit for the Building that Will House a Soil Vapor Extraction System Dear Planning Commissioners: WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (WSP) appreciates the opportunity to provide the attached Response to Comments (Attachment 1) on behalf of Ford Motor Company which address issues raised at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. We recognize residents at 94 Hartford Drive have appealed the approval of this Limited Term Permit due to concerns and perceptions about the safety of the Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVE system) which has been designed to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found underground. Additionally, two more individuals located at 92 and 96 Hartford Drive have also expressed objections to the proposed location of the system. Ford’s project team, the Bayridge Park HOA President, and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff have offered to meet with these residents individually and/or collectively multiple times to address their concerns. Unfortunately, these residents have declined our offers to meet and work collaboratively to find common ground. While we understand the perceptions and concerns of these three of the 168 Bayridge Park households regarding the safety and location of this system, we see approval of this permit as a necessary and straightforward process. This is because we are simply seeking an exemption to the 8-foot setback to allow the treatment system building to be built and occupy the land for a one to two-year period per the terms of the permit. The building will then be dismantled and removed. This location meets all the requirements of the California Building Code and the property owner, the Bayridge Park HOA, has agreed to this location. This project will also be permitted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (Air District) which will thoroughly evaluate and address the safety issues referenced by the appellant. We recognize that each Planning Commissioner is responsible for making sound decisions that serve their constituents and promote and enhance the well-being of residents, visitors, property owners, and businesses of the City of Newport Beach. To help each commissioner make an informed decision, we offer the following summary which responds to five general themes cited by the appellants at the May 18th meeting: 263 City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 2 1. “The health and safety of the appellants at 94 Hartford (and nearby residents) is being compromised because of parking spaces usage (per the HOA’s priority).” Answer: False. The time delays involving the additional permitting that would be needed to place the treatment unit building in any of the parking space areas would significantly increase the potential health related risks of Bayridge Park residents that are currently experiencing vapor intrusion in their homes, and, if the soil vapor plume moves because of lack of treatment, those additional residents who could have vapor intrusion in the future. Currently, the residents in and near 94 Hartford are some of the safest individuals in the area because they reside on the second floor and they have a garage (open frequently) ventilated space below them; in this way, there is not a completed pathway for vapor intrusion. For these area residents, the only elevated risk from the soil vapor occurs when vapor intrusion is a completed pathway from underneath the building slab and builds in concentration inside a home over time. If the soil vapor daylights to open air outside the building, the soil vapor concentrations are so low that this does not pose an inhalation risk. Therefore, using the parking spaces would actually increase the risk to the appellants and to those currently experiencing vapor intrusion. The location was not chosen because parking spaces were not available; the location was chosen because it was the area that could be used the fastest and would be the safest for all involved. 2. “The health and safety of appellants is being compromised in order to address the health and safety of those affected by soil vapor intrusion elsewhere.” Answer: The health and safety of all residents is of the utmost importance for this project. The installation and operation of the treatment unit building is essential to the protection of those individuals who are experiencing vapor intrusion. Any further delays potentially could cause more risk to those individuals. Because of the designs of the SVE, the treatment train, the building and the release of treated air, each step further dilutes and treats the soil vapor to sufficient levels that reduce risk to levels acceptable by EPA. The appellants are actually in one of the safest locations in Bayridge Park because they live in an area that does not exhibit vapor intrusion, their building construction is such that vapor intrusion is highly unlikely to happen, and the SVE and treatment unit building has many safety factors built in for their protection. 3. “Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) is not a safe operation and is only transporting the risk from one area and placing the same risk at 94 Hartford.” Answer: False. SVE is a commonly used remediation technique to treat VOCs by all California Air Board Districts and is a permitted activity across all of the Air Districts. In this instance, we chose air treatment by carbon for trapping VOCs for offsite disposal because it did not involve heating or flames which would increase the chances of a safety hazard. Every aspect of the SVE system and treatment dilutes and/or reduces the concentration of soil vapor throughout the system. The treated air that is exhausted from the treatment unit building will meet all Air Board standards which are very stringent and protective of human health. 264 City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 3 4. “The close proximity of the SVE Treatment Unit Building to 94 Hartford intrinsically increases the risk for the residents near 94 Hartford.” Answer: False. The proximity of the SVE Treatment Unit Building is immaterial to the safety of or the risk to any of the residents. The location of the treated air discharge is the only data point that matters with respect to the health and safety of the residents. To allow for sufficient dispersion of the exhaust, it must be placed at least 13 feet above ground and 14 feet from any window or opening. The completed building will have an exhaust point which meets these criteria and a permit for operation will be secured from the Air District. This, along with the other safety factors mentioned above, will be sufficiently protective of health and safety for the residents at 94 Hartford and their neighbors. The other safety factor (not yet mentioned) is that the exhaust will be pointed toward a road. Much has been stated by the appellants and neighbors regarding “toxins”; the concentrations in the soil vapor do not reach the levels to be considered hazardous or toxic by nature. The SVE and treatment system only reduces those concentrations even further. 5. “The choice of the area behind 94 Hartford was personal in nature reflecting the HOA’s preference for one group over another.” Answer: False. This did not happen during this process. Because of the limited space available, which is typical for most modern developments, the proposed location was selected for purely engineering and practical reasons. If anyone’s safety had been compromised at any level, this project would have been stopped. Here are some other facts that we wish to point out: Safety of SVE systems: When properly designed and operated, SVE systems are safe to site workers and the community including fragile populations which include babies, young children, immunocompromised individuals, and seniors. Treatment of the vapors involves no harmful chemicals being transported to the site or any heat sources involving combustion. VOCs will be entirely contained from extraction to treatment within the treatment system building so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. The treatment system contains multiple engineering redundancies to ensure removal of VOCs prior to discharging clean air. Only clean air that meets stringent air quality standards as dictated and permitted by the Air District will be released. Attachment 2, EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging, provides an explanation of how SVE systems work. Vapor intrusion is occurring: Currently, people in 22 homes are living with concentrations of VOCs in indoor air that can cause health effects over time. If the situation is not addressed as soon as possible, the vapors may spread, and additional homes could be impacted. It is also important to note that indoor impacts have not been detected in the 92, 94, and 96 Hartford Drive residences. Schedule delays: The system has been designed over the past 18 months in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA, the Water Board, the Air District and Southern California Edison. Selecting an alternate location will lead to potential delays of up to two years. This delay could allow vapors to 265 City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 4 spread causing the potential of vapor intrusion occurring in more homes and creating an environmental issue that will take longer to remediate. Location analysis: The selection of this location was performed using the decision-making processes as outlined by EPA for such remediation projects and did not involve any arbitrary steps. Seven locations were studied and six were proven infeasible due to geographical, engineering, parking or schedule constraints. The selected location represents the best choice to allow for SVE remediation work to occur quickly to address vapor intrusion in the community. Parking concerns: Public input to limit impacts to parking was taken into consideration but was not a determining factor in choosing this location. Bayridge Park has extremely limited parking for current residents and just meets the City’s minimum parking requirements. Additionally, WSP and the HOA have an agreement that parking cannot be impacted. Building aesthetic: The treatment system building will be constructed off-site to limit impacts and has been designed to match the character of Bayridge Park. Attachment 3 provides an artist’s rendering of the building. Period of operation: Every effort will be made to keep this effort to a limited time period. Our pilot test and other data give us every indication that this will be limited to 1-2 years, subject to the Water Board’s review and acceptance of attained treatment levels. Bayridge HOA and community support: The Bayridge Park HOA, which represents the 168 homes within the complex, is strongly in support of this location and the plans to remediate soil vapor safely, quickly, and effectively. Public outreach: The Water Board and the Ford project team have executed an extensive outreach program over the past six years. The public was given multiple opportunities to provide input on the location of the treatment system building through public comment periods, community meetings held at Bayridge Park, a website and a toll-free number. Attachment 4 provides an overview of outreach conducted for this project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information and welcome the opportunity to meet with each of you individually to provide further information. Thank you for your dedication and service. Sincerely, WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. Kenn Conner, PE Senior Vice President I/Northern California Hub Office Manager Mike Barnes Vice President - Environmental Scientist Program Manager 266 City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 5 mb/kc/smm https://wsponline.sharepoint.com/sites/wds-bayareadocusafe/ford motor company/newport beach/comm notices-mailings/19_citynb hearing_rtc/2023_06_08/p10 rtcs_wsp_.docx Attachments: Attachment 1 – Responses to Comments Raised at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Attachment 2 – EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging Attachment 3 – Artist’s rendering of treatment building Attachment 4 – Community outreach summary Distribution: City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission Curtis Ellmore, Chair Mark Rosene, Vice Chair Sarah Klaustermeier, Secretary Brady Barto Tristan Harris John Langford Lee Lowrey 267 ATTACHMENT 1 Responses to Comments Raised at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting 268 RESPONSE TO 5/18/23 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/QUESTIONS BAYRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM LIMITED TERM PERMIT APPEAL Former Ford Aeronutronics Property, Newport Beach, CA June 8, 2023 The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is requiring Ford Motor Company (Ford) to safely remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in soil from historical aerospace research operations at the Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility. As part of this process, WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (WSP), as environmental consultants for Ford, applied for a Limited Term Permit for the construction of a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) treatment system building to the City of Newport Beach. SVE systems are a common engineering technology used to remove VOCs from soil vapor (the air in between soil particles) and are regulated for the protection of human health by the Air Quality Management District (Air District). A City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Hearing was held on March 2, 2023, and the Limited Term Permit was approved. The Zoning Administrator’s approval was appealed by the residents of 94 Hartford Drive. The appeal was heard at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting and a continuance was granted to June 22, 2023. The following provides a response to questions and comments raised during the hearing. Planning commissioners that have questions or need more information may contact Jessica Law, Water Board Case Manager, at (951) 782-4381 or Jessica.Law@waterboards.ca.gov or Mike Barnes, WSP Program Manager, at (510) 326-1901 or Michael.Barnes2@wsp.com. TREATMENT BUILDING LOCATION ANALYSIS COMMENT 1: How did you determine [the 94 Hartford Drive location] is the only location that the soil vapor can be mitigated from? RESPONSE: As documented in the Water-Board approved Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan (cleanup plan) for the project, dated August 25, 2021, the SVE treatment system building is located as currently presented in the Limited Term Permit for construction. The only available space of sufficient size along County Club Drive is the current location which is located adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive. At the request of the City, and in response to comments from the community, the Ford project team reviewed options for location of the treatment system and prepared an Alternative Location Analysis, Soil Vapor Extraction System, Bayridge Park (Parcel 10), dated February 15, 2023 and included in the Zoning Administrator’s Staff Report, dated March 2, 2023. The results of this analysis are summarized below. The analysis considered 7 options. These are described and evaluated below relative to the following criteria: • Disruption to neighborhood • Minimize impact to homes and proximity to treatment system • Permitting complexity (including whether permitting could be achieved within Water Board schedules) 269 • Implementation complexity • Power connection complexity • Compliance with HOA access agreement to not impact parking Option 1 - Bayridge Park – 5 small systems in parking spots Originally, five small treatment systems occupying one parking space each were proposed in the Draft FS/RAP. A public comment period was held of the Draft FS/RAP from June 7 to July 9, 2021. Thirteen comments were received related to parking, and all objected to the treatment systems taking up parking spaces and the amount and duration of construction associated with the design. Therefore, in the final FS/RAP, the original design was replaced with one system which would limit impacts to parking and minimize construction duration and impacts. With other delays from utilities and power providers during COVID, this option was made infeasible because any permitting for this option would now delay the project for over 2 years. Option 2 - Bayridge Park – landscaped areas In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed in a landscaped area between homes. This option was not feasible due to inaccessibility for construction equipment, need to remove mature landscaping, and limited access to provide ongoing operation and maintenance activities. Option 3 - Bayridge Park – eastern portion In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed in the eastern portion of the community. This option was not feasible because it violated Ford’s Remediation Agreement with the HOA which stipulates parking cannot be impacted. With other delays from utilities and power providers during COVID, this option was made infeasible because any permitting for this option would now delay the project for over 2 years. Option 4 - Bayridge Park – northwest corner This option requires the placement of larger conduits to carry power and the engineering and construction of which would be extremely complex and may not be possible given the dense network of underground utilities in the streets. Additionally, the permitting process would have to be restarted, adding up to two years to the project schedule. This delay will impact individuals’ who are experiencing vapor intrusion in their homes, will likely allow soil vapor to spread impacting more homes, and will create environmental issues that take longer to remediate. Option 5 - Along Bison Avenue In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed on the south side of Bison Avenue. This option is infeasible for three reasons: 1) the City is concerned about interference of driver site lines along Bison Avenue, 2) construction of the system would take place on Bison Avenue and would impact traffic flow, 3) ongoing access to the treatment system for operation and maintenance activities would also impact traffic flow, and 4) there is a moratorium on construction in Bison Avenue. Option 6 - Along Country Club Drive (portions north and south of 94 Hartford) In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed on the west side of Country Club Drive north or south of the 94 Hartford location. This location is not feasible due to lack of space and/or steep slopes. Option 7 - Country Club Drive – adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive This option, which is presented in the final FS/RAP dated August 25, 2021, most closely satisfies all the criteria. This location has been vetted by the Water Board, the City of Newport Beach Zoning 270 Administration, Ford, WSP, the HOA, and members of the public to gain concurrence and avoid delay in implementation of the selected remedy to remediate soil vapor in Bayridge Park. Residents closest to the location of this option have filed an appeal primarily due to questions about the safety of the SVE system. However, the Limited Term Permit is for the construction of the building. The safe operation of the system is regulated by a permit issued by the Air District. COMMENT 2: The moratorium on Bison. Is that the City’s moratorium or set by another agency? RESPONSE: The City of Newport Beach has placed a five-year moratorium on trenching activities along Bison Avenue because the roads were recently repaved. COMMENT 3: What was the pushback from the HOA on installing the system in the parking spots within the community? RESPONSE: Ford has a Remediation Agreement with the HOA that stipulates parking cannot be impacted. Ultimately, though, this did not factor into the final decision for choosing a location. That decision was solely impacted by the continued delays in permitting that would have lasted another 2 years. Please see the Response to Comment 1 for more details. COMMENT 4: We, the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive, strongly object to the location of our home as the location for the SVE system to clean up the contaminated soil from the former Ford facility. We are not asking to stop the remediation; we are asking to change the location based on the safety of our young toddler and we are expecting a newborn baby. The unit is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. The location is arbitrary and was not the original proposal by Ford/WSP. RESPONSE: The Limited Term Permit being applied for is for a variance to the 8-foot separation-distance to place the treatment system building for one, and maybe, 2 years, if concentration levels are not reduced sufficiently to eliminate vapor intrusion. This location is not arbitrary. It was selected after an extensive review process involving many stakeholders and factoring in several key engineering and institutional constraints. Seven locations were thoroughly evaluated and six of them were not feasible because of geographical, engineering, parking or schedule constraints. Regarding parking, Bayridge Park has extremely limited parking for current residents and just meets the City’s minimum parking requirements. The most important factor at this point is the construction and remediation schedule as this system has been designed over the past two years with input from, and in coordination with the Water Board, the Air District and Southern California Edison (SCE). Selection of an alternate location will add at a minimum two years to the schedule. This schedule delay would be unacceptable because residents in 22 homes are living with concentrations of VOCs that can cause health effects over time. If the situation is not addressed as soon as possible, the vapors will continue to spread and additional homes may be impacted. It is also important to note that indoor impacts have not been detected in the 92, 94, and 96 Hartford residences. The Air District is the primary regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the system is designed and operated in a manner that is fully protective of human health including infants, young children, and immunocompromised individuals. Only air that meets the air quality standards dictated and permitted by the Air District will be discharged from the system. The SVE treatment system has been designed to operate in a residential area and includes multiple engineering redundancies to remove VOCs. There are two vessels which each 271 contain 2,000 pounds of granular activated carbon to adsorb the VOCs. The first vessel is designed to remove VOCs and the second vessel is in place as a redundancy. The granulated activated carbon will be replaced with new carbon when concentrations of VOCs are detected between the main and secondary vessels. COMMENT 5: Regarding the location of the treatment system, the original project document by Ford/WSP did not have an alternative analysis until they received [the objections of the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive]. After they received our objections in January, all of a sudden, they had an alternative analysis that showed all the proposed locations were infeasible except the location by our house. RESPONSE: An alternative analysis had been prepared and was part of the process going back to early 2021. The alternative analysis matrix was prepared from that process and was published later to translate a complex, multi-volume process to a readable context. The selected location is not arbitrary. As with any engineering project of significance, a variety of analyses were conducted including finding the optimal location that meets various requirements including safety, accessibility, ease of construction and minimization of impacts. Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected. COMMENT 6: Out of the seven proposed options, I [the owner of 94 Hartford Drive] wanted to address options one, three and four. Options one and three show the locations are infeasible due to parking. That should be enough! Basically, parking/accessibility is being put forth ahead of safety. Option one shows five small treatment systems in various parking spots while option three shows one larger treatment system that would use several parking spots. To resolve the parking issues, the HOA could implement multiple parking alternatives, such as forcing the residents to park in their garages, have residents park in the temporary vacation parking near Jamboree, or the HOA could assign temporary parking spots since this is going to be a temporary building. RESPONSE: At no point was parking considered to be more important than safety. In fact, if the treatment unit building could not have been located in such a way to meet Air Board codes for height and distance from other openings, then the location would have been unsuitable. Safety has always been the number one priority. Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected and Response to Comment 3 for a discussion on parking concerns. COMMENT 7: Option four would place one larger system in the long-term parking in the northwest corner near Jamboree and Bison, and during the Zoning Administrator meeting, the alternative analysis read that this location could not be used because of timeframe issues and also the power connection complexity. It would increase construction by two months; however, this is the first appeal and we’ve already extended this whole process by five months. RESPONSE: Based on our discussions with SCE, installation of the additional infrastructure required to support operation of an SVE system in the northwest corner is infeasible as it would cause significant delays. This delay would be unacceptable to the Water Board because 22 homes in the Bayridge Park community have indoor air impacts higher than screening levels which can cause health effects over time – any delay increases the possibility of vapors spreading and will take longer to remediate. Additionally, this location would require deeper and larger trenches which would be infeasible to implement given existing underground infrastructure. Please see additional detail in the Response to Comment 1. 272 COMMENT 8: According to the analysis, the two-month extension would be a result of the power connection complexity, since they are routing all the electrical from the location behind our house, at 94 Hartford, and I find it hard to believe that there is only one source of electricity that needs to come from behind our house. There’s electricity all throughout the community so I don’t know why it all has to come from behind our house. RESPONSE: As discussed in Response to Comment 1, getting electrical power to the treatment system is complex due to the available SCE infrastructure in the area. After extensive consultation with SCE for the past 1.5 years to identify a location with a direct connection to 3-phase power, the only feasible location is in the Belcourt Master HOA. This requires a transformer installation and power cables routed through Belcourt Terrace HOA and under Country Club Drive in a horizontally bored conduit, which will enter Bayridge Park at the fire lane adjacent to 94 Hartford. COMMENT 9: At 1 p.m. [May 18, 2023], we, [the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive] were notified by the Assistant City Planner that the proposed treatment building would need to be moved eight feet north of where it was proposed at the Zoning Administrator meeting, making it in direct view of our dining room window and at a more problematic location than it was before. We paid $1750 for this appeal for the location of the building, prior to this change, and per Jenny Tran, this system would be moved because of a water main and since there was a water main there, I would say that location is pretty infeasible as well. RESPONSE: We apologize for the late notice. The water main location as recorded in the City’s records and the location identified by a private utility locator were in conflict, so WSP performed potholing in consultation with the City to physically confirm the water main location on May 2 and 3, 2023. As a result, and in consultation with the City, we adjusted the SVE treatment system building location to allow access to the water main in the event of an emergency while still maintaining compliance with requirements of the California Building Code, the Air District, and avoiding encroachment into the sidewalk. The total height of the treatment system building is lower than the bottom of the second story window of the 94 Hartford residence, so although the roof of the building will be visible if you are looking directly out the window, it will not block the view or the light coming in through that window. COMMENT 10: We were notified on Tuesday [May 16] by Candace, Assistant Vice President of WSP, that the building would be moved four feet to the south towards the water main, further showing we keep receiving conflicting information from Ford and WSP. Since the change affects the location of the exhaust from the treatment system, Ford and WSP should be required to file a completely new permit since this was not presented at the original Zoning Administrator meeting. This is an entirely new decision. This change should be reviewed adequately instead of completely shifting the building 5 hours before this meeting. RESPONSE: We apologize for the confusion and are committed to transparent communications with you and the larger community. The treatment system building is being moved 8 feet to the north from the location presented to the Zoning Administrator on March 2, 2023. This location meets City requirements for access to the water main in case of an emergency and continues to meet the safety requirements of the California Building Code and Air District permit. The focus of the Zoning Administrator/Planning Commission decision is solely on the location of the temporary treatment building as it relates to the City’s aesthetic requirements of being 8 feet away from the nearest building in this community. This is not a requirement for the safety of the health of the community nor for building safety as the system meets the Air District requirements as stated above and the California Building Code requirement of 3 feet of separation from the nearest buildings. The Limited Term Permit has been requested because the treatment system building location does not meet the City’s aesthetic guidelines for this community. Given that the movement of the building to 273 allow for safe access of the water main line still does not affect the health and safety requirements described above, this change is not an entirely new decision but a minor change to allow for access to the water main line. The City of Newport Beach staff has concurred with this decision. COMMENT 11: I am the homeowner at 92 Hartford Drive, and I moved into Bayridge Park in 1987… there are about 7 or 8 parking spaces in the northwest section that would be perfect for this because it would be on the north end of the complex so it would take any exhaust away from residences and dissipate by the time it became a factor for anyone. …If there is a 1% chance that human health can be impacted by machinery, then let’s rethink this. RESPONSE: Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected and Response to Comment 3 for a discussion on parking concerns. COMMENT 12: There is an issue about the three-foot separation. We saw a diagram that was at 3.0 feet and then something at angle moving 8.5 feet and I don’t know how you can be at 3 feet next to the building if you are at an angle and shoving it closer to the building. How is it still the same distance from the building? RESPONSE: The building has been shifted to achieve the 3 feet of separation required in the California Building Code at the closest point between the proposed building and the existing building at 94 Hartford Drive. The building is not parallel with 94 Hartford, but the closest point is 3 feet away and the farthest point is approximately 4.5 feet. COMMENT 13: If the location was moved to the northwest section of the complex, why would the piping have to go the long way around the streets when there is a much shorter connection to the wells diagonally. I think this was dismissed too easily. RESPONSE: Trenching following a direct route to the SVE system is not possible given Bayridge Park’s existing building locations, mature landscaping, underground sewer and water lines, community pool and other features. COMMENT 14: I live at 96 Hartford, which is right next to 94, and I would see this from my living room. I am a two-time cancer survivor and am greater than 85% more likely to get cancer than the rest of the human population. …I have been living at Bayridge since 1991 and I have lived there longer than almost 2/3rds of the community and have been exposed to this for probably 30 years. I have heart and other neuropathic conditions often seen with VOCs in groundwater and soil gas contamination. I agree with everything everyone else has said. The parking reasoning is ridiculous. They started this process a year ago and then they waited a whole year because they changed ownership of WSP. RESPONSE: Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected and Response to Comment 3 for a discussion on parking concerns. The acquisition of Wood by WSP did not play a role in the timing of this project nor did it delay the project; the project team has been actively navigating the extensive permitting process. COMMENT 15: I think the powers that the Water Board has could overrule the HOA and put it in a place that was more viable and the concept of infeasibility in this discussion seems to range around financial issues. A retaining wall doesn’t mean it is infeasible and that is disappointing. I feel this should be somewhere else and I think there are good options, but I would hate to see this dragged out longer because it does need to happen immediately. I would like to hear the Water Board come in and say this is the best location and this is where we want it, but I didn’t hear that. I don’t know how I can feel supportive of this application because I feel this isn’t the right location and the appellant has a strong argument here. 274 RESPONSE: The Water Board requires the installation of the SVE system to remediate soil vapor as soon as feasible. Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected. The Planning Commission decision is solely on the location of the temporary treatment building as it relates to the City’s aesthetic requirements of being 8 feet away from the nearest building in Bayridge Park. The Limited Term Permit has been requested because the treatment system building location does not meet the City’s aesthetic guidelines for this community. The system will only be allowed to operate if the Air District determines it will meet their requirements for the safe discharge of the treated vapors (as described in earlier responses), which will protect those living closest to the treatment building. While we understand this may be a temporary inconvenience to the three nearby residents, it provides the quickest way to address the larger human health threat in the community of potential long-term exposure to VOCs. HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMENT 16: It was mentioned in some of the community letters that the exhaust would be coming out of the effluent stack. How does that exhaust level compare to the exhaust from a water heater or a clean-out vent from a sewer system at a house? Compare this in terms of the constituent concentrations/health risk. RESPONSE: When properly designed and operated, SVE is intrinsically safe to site workers or the community. Treatment of the vapors involves no harmful chemicals that must be transported to the site. VOCs are contained from extraction to treatment so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. Only clean air that meets air quality standards as dictated by the Air District is released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure VOCs have been removed. The Air Permit requires that the maximum discharge concentration is a 99% reduction from the maximum concentration of the vapor entering the system. Water heater exhausts and/or clean-out vents from a sewer system are not permitted discharges. The SVE treatment system building exhaust will be a permitted discharge. The Air District, not the City of Newport Beach, is responsible for ensuring the system is designed and operated so that it is protective of human health. The SVE system will be maintained and monitored in accordance with Air Permit and Water Board requirements. Please refer to Response to Comment 4 for additional detail. COMMENT 17: The monitoring [at the stack] I believe it said it was over the first 7 days of activation. What does the monitoring look like after that initial period? RESPONSE: The monitoring will be conducted daily over the first 7 days of activation to make sure the system is operating as designed. Based on this data, the Air District will determine the frequency of future monitoring to ensure that the system continues operating in a manner that is fully protective of public health. COMMENT 18: So, you are [monitoring before the vapors enter the filters] in between the two filters and at the exhaust. Are you sampling the wells individually and in addition to the system? RESPONSE: Yes, the Water Board requires that we collect samples from the influent, midpoint, and discharge location, and that we monitor the SVE well locations to ensure the treatment system is operating as designed and to determine the effectiveness of the remediation. COMMENT 19: Can you help me figure out if the exhaust is just air slightly coming out or like your dryer at home where it is shooting out or somewhere in between? 275 RESPONSE: The SVE system is designed to have a discharge flow rate of approximately 650 cubic feet per minute (cfm), which has been conditionally approved by the Air District. Typically, a dryer will exhaust around 100 to 200 cfm. COMMENT 20: We, [the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive], are continually assured by Ford and WSP that the SVE system is safe in a residential neighborhood three feet away from our home. Despite this, we have not been able to be provided with any examples of residential treatment systems, let alone three feet away from a home. We were provided with three examples of treatment systems including two commercial drycleaning facilities – one that is 100 feet away and another 500 feet away from residences. We are absolutely appalled that the third example given by WSP, that they are claiming is residential, shows a boarded-up home on a vacant shut down military base. The military base was closed in 1994 due to contamination and the cleanup system took place in 2004. This is not in any way comparable to a residence with a newborn baby and toddler living, breathing and sleeping three feet away 24-hours a day. RESPONSE: Although it is difficult to perceive this at first, the proximity of the treatment unit building is not related to the health and safety of the residents. The discharge point from the building is the only area of concern and will be the point of compliance for the Air Board permit. An example of how close the treatment unit building is to a residence is not a data point gathered by the Air District because the point of compliance is the discharge point. Therefore, as the treatment unit building will meet the criteria to obtain an Air District permit, the appellant needs only to look at the list of other SVE treatment units that have been permitted by the Air District that are part of the public domain to find the example that they seek. SVE systems are one of the most common ways to address soil vapor contamination in residential areas. This system has been designed so that VOCs from underground are contained from extraction to treatment so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. Only clean air that meets air quality standards is released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure VOCs have been removed. The Air District will require that we have an approved permit to operate this system, which will ensure we meet its requirements for safely operating the system in a residential area including the homes closest to the system. COMMENT 21: Despite the Water Board’s need for analytical data, we haven’t been provided with any data to back up the claims they have been telling us. The photoionization detector was confirmed by Jessica Law to not be a lab quality sample. So, although it is a standard way to measure, it’s not lab quality, and the lab samples actually take two to three weeks to come back. RESPONSE: The use of photoionization detectors (PID) in the field to collect real-time data is an industry best practice and will help our project team understand and rapidly respond to changing field conditions. Additional data will be collected and sent to certified laboratories where it will undergo a quality assurance/control process that ensures the data is of the highest quality. The combination of these two approaches – real time data in the field and sending additional samples to a certified lab – meets Air District permit requirements and will provide a robust data set to make informed decisions about the SVE system management. With all of the other safety factors involving the SVE treatment system and its various levels of dilution and treatment, the analytical testing is anticipated to be a confirmatory step for the PID usage onsite. COMMENT 22: No studies have been conducted to show the safety of a SVE system within three feet of a home. There are too many unknowns as reiterated by the fact that no residential SVE units can be shown to us by Ford or WSP. We are being asked to be the guinea pigs when there are clearly other options that can be used. And due to the City indemnification by Ford, there are no consequences to the City of Newport Beach whether they approve this or not. However, we do not know how in good faith and conscience the City can approve this. 276 RESPONSE: The proximity of the SVE treatment unit building is immaterial to the safety of the residents. It is the exhaust location that matters. There are many devices which operate within a home such as a furnace, a refrigerator, an air conditioner compressor (outside), a vacuum cleaner, a dishwasher, a computer, etc., that are not measured by their location, but rather by the exhaust point. The exhaust from the SVE treatment unit will meet the Air Board’s criteria for location, height and concentration. This ensures safety for the residents near 94 Hartford. The Water Board and the Air District are charged with protection of the entire community. While we do not have studies readily available due to the unique nature of the location and design of the SVE system, that does not mean that operating the treatment system in this location is unsafe. As stated before, the VOCs are contained from extraction to treatment and only clean air that meets the Air District’s air quality standards will be released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure all harmful vapors have been removed or destroyed. The system has been designed to meet the Air District requirements to receive a permit to operate. These requirements take into consideration the location of the system in a residential neighborhood and its proximity to homes. Discharge limits are set to be protective of sensitive receptors. Operating the SVE system will allow Ford to remediate soil vapor and reduce the risk of long-term health impacts related to vapor intrusion in this community. With regards to the City’s responsibility under this approval, this Limited Term Permit is only to approve the location of the building as we do not meet the City of Newport Beach development guidelines for this area of an 8-foot separation between buildings. It is purely an aesthetic requirement. COMMENT 23: It was a little surprising in the presentation to hear that the vapor is “not hazardous,” which I heard. I don’t know why the project is going on if it is not hazardous. RESPONSE: The vapors underground are at levels that could be hazardous to public health with continued exposure over time, which is why the Water Board is requiring the construction and operation of the SVE system as soon as possible. During the presentation when the term “non-hazardous” was used, it was in discussion in context of the flammability of the chemicals, e.g., whether they could ignite or explode throughout the extraction and/or treatment process. This is not possible, and this is why they were called “non-hazardous.” The “danger” for this project is the long-term exposure (many hours each day over many years) to vapors which have intruded and concentrated inside the house. If the same vapors were encountered outside of the house in ambient air, there would not be any danger or hazard due to dilution and dispersion. COMMENT 24: If the problem is the chemical in the groundwater and it is not being removed, only vapors from it, apparently the hope is that over time the groundwater will spread out enough, but the problem will still be there, but it will be so spread out that it won’t be affecting anyone. I would be curious how long it would take without this project for the groundwater to spread out to that level. RESPONSE: The concentrations currently present in soil gas are due to historical groundwater concentrations, which were much higher in the past than they are now. The VOCs at elevated concentrations in groundwater migrated upwards into the void spaces in the dry soil above the groundwater. Remedial activities were conducted between 1993 and 1996. In 1996, the former Ford facility received case closure for soil so no more active remediation was required, however the case was transferred to the Water Board for continued assessment and remediation of groundwater. Investigations have been ongoing for both groundwater and soil gas since then, but there was no need 277 for active remediation until soil gas samples collected in 2018 detected VOCs above the revised 2016 Environmental Screening Levels. This project is being conducted to address the movement of VOCs in soil vapor beneath the ground into indoor air inside residential properties. The current concentrations of VOCs in groundwater are lower than their historical maximums; soil vapor remediation has been identified as the method to reduce the potential for vapor intrusion. As discussed previously, indoor air concentrations of VOCs currently exceed screening criteria in 22 homes. The vapors are not acutely toxic, however concentrations higher than the screening levels can cause health effects over time, which is why the treatment system implementation is urgent. The Water Board has approved monitored natural attenuation of groundwater due to the low levels present in groundwater at this time. This means groundwater will continue to be monitored to confirm that VOCs are naturally breaking down and degrading over time. COMMUNITY IMPACTS COMMENT 25: Is there a problem with the noise at the exhaust or is the noisy part of the system inside the treatment area? RESPONSE: Noise is generated by the treatment system and not the discharge piping. This is why the treatment system is entirely contained inside a building with noise dampening features. We will test the building when off-site construction is completed to ensure it meets the City of Newport Beach’s noise requirements and then test the system again when it is installed to ensure it continues to meet those requirements. COMMENT 26: You mention Sunnyfresh Cleaners. I went over and stood there to see what that’s like. What would you determine the noise is at that system? (I understand that’s a commercial system). What does 50 decibels compare to? RESPONSE: The exterior of the treatment system building will meet the City’s noise requirement of 50 decibels. This is like the sound of a household refrigerator when it is in operation. COMMENT 27: No one has mentioned anything about property values. I [the homeowner at 96 Hartford Drive] am 75 years old and have no husband or family members. My condo is my lifetime investment and if I am forced to senior or assisted living there is no guarantee as to when I will need to sell. It is quite predictable that my place and others would be unsellable or rentable with this toxic system right outside my window. …The SVE system outside my condo would basically being destroying my savings account. With all the medical uncertainties, I cannot possibly continue to live here. Simply picking up and leaving comes with a high price. Why should possibly three households of 166 be forced to abandon their homes in the face of these valid concerns. This is a community, we all pay homeowner dues, and should all be treated the same. RESPONSE: Questions related to property values would be better answered by a real estate professional. However, the installation and operation of the SVE system will be treating the underlying environmental issue. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA) AND OUTREACH COMMENT 28: Is there a representative of the HOA in attendance tonight? There are valid points about where this could be relocated, and I find it disappointing that the HOA could not be here tonight. I think that speaks volumes and couldn’t support this. I feel like the HOA could have stepped up and made this work better for everyone. 278 RESPONSE: A representative of the HOA was not available at the May 18 meeting; however, we understand that he will attend the June 22 hearing. COMMENT 29: Who owns the fee [to this land]. Is it the HOA or Ford? Did the HOA grant permission for the remediation to occur and the location of the treatment building? RESPONSE: The HOA owns the land and granted permission for the treatment building to be located there. COMMENT 30: Please explain what the process with the HOA was [to select this location] and the nature of the contractual relationship between the HOA and the remediation team. Did the HOA endorse this location at the end of the process or was it just working together [with the Ford Newport Beach project team]? RESPONSE: Ford/WSP have a Memorandum of Understanding for remediation work to occur which includes the HOA agreement for the design and placement of the SVE system. COMMENT 31: Despite the lovely community outreach, it was never disclosed in writing that the unit was [three feet away from] our home [at 94 Hartford Drive] and it was never disclosed at the Bayridge Park pre-construction meeting as well, so the first time that we were notified as homeowners was when the public notice was staked on our front lawn by the City of Newport Beach. The mailers, the forms, etc. all come standard mail and there was never anything in writing sent formally via certified mail disclosing the location of the system. RESPONSE: Visual renderings were provided at the community meetings in November 2021 and January 2023 that showed the proximity of the proposed treatment building to 94 Hartford Drive. These are also available on Ford’s project website (https://www.fordnbfacts.com/) and the Water Board’s GeoTracker database (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=SL188023848). COMMENT 32: The HOA isn’t here tonight and I, [the resident at 92 Hartford Drive], would love to ask them why they are insisting on this because if this is approved, you’re basically making my house unlivable at 92 Hartford. I can’t live there knowing there is this exhaust that is the emanation point of 13 wells that take these toxins out of the ground and filter them with carbon and now I am supposed to be able to sleep at night? RESPONSE: The Air District issues the permit to operate the SVE system and will only issue the permit if the system can operate safely and in a manner that is fully protective of public health. This system has been designed so that VOCs from underground are contained from extraction to treatment so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. Only clean air that meets Air District’s standards is released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure VOCs have been removed to meet the standards dictated and permitted by the Air District. The Air District will require that we have an approved permit to operate this system, which will ensure we meet its requirements for safely operating the system in a residential area including the homes closest to the system. Please refer to Response to Comment 4 for additional detail on the discharge limits and safety redundancies that are mandated by the Air District. COMMENT 33: I [the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive] have shared all correspondence provided to the City and Planning Commission with the HOA and have received no correspondence back. We were also told by one of the HOA members when we voiced our concerns, especially in regard to our son, that we should move if we are not happy with the treatment location. 279 RESPONSE: Ford and WSP were not present during this conversation and are unable to comment on this. COMMENT 34: The HOA is the one that the appellant should be talking to. They are the ones making the decision and dictating where this should go. …I don’t understand why they couldn’t address some of the parking areas as well. RESPONSE: Ford and WSP have worked closely with the HOA and have provided detailed information to the Bayridge Park community. Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for additional detail on how the location was selected. SCHEDULE COMMENT 35: There was an expectation that this system would only last for one year. …What are our triggers for automatic extensions? What is the confidence level that this will only last for one year versus two or three? [What are the triggers for permit extension, if needed?] RESPONSE: Ford and WSP anticipate the system will operate continuously for one year. At the end of the first year, the Water Board will review the data collected and decide if the system should continue operation, operate intermittently, or shut down. Our goal is to operate under this permit for one year and, if necessary, apply for an extension of the Limited Term Permit for one additional year. COMMENT 36: Worst case this remediation goes three years. If that doesn’t achieve the lower levels that you want, what would be the next step? RESPONSE: A site conceptual model has been created that shows levels and areas of contamination. The model is based on hundreds of samples of soil, soil gas and groundwater collected over the past six years. Based on the site conceptual model and the SVE pilot test, the Water Board and Ford/WSP are confident that SVE will be able to treat the vapors found underneath the community effectively within a one-to-two-year period that is stipulated by the City of Newport Beach’s permit. At the end of the two-year period the treatment system building will be dismantled and removed. If the Water Board requires additional treatment after the two-year period, the Ford project team will work with the agency to determine the best methods to address residual levels of contamination. COMMENT 37: We keep getting different answers from WSP and the Water Board on how long this will be in place. The last time I spoke with WSP it was supposed to be running for six months, today it is a year. At the February 22nd meeting, Kenn Conner the Senior Vice President of WSP, stated the system will be on for a year, then turn it off and maybe turn it back on later. It was also stated at this meeting by Jessica Law at the Water Board that in historical remediations we’ve seen other sites we’ve cleaned up and we come back later, and the concentrations increased. Although Jessica states she has confidence in this remediation, there is no guarantee. Jessica goes on to state it’s still important to confirm because assumptions can be wrong, and from the regulatory perspective, we don’t like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we always want them confirmed with analytical data. RESPONSE: The Limited Term Permit from the City of Newport Beach allows the system to operate for one year and a maximum of two years, at which time the building and treatment system will be dismantled. OVERALL PROJECT COMMENT 38: When this was originally entitled, what was the time frame for mitigation monitoring of the wells? Is this in perpetuity? 280 RESPONSE: The Water Board has required ongoing soil gas and groundwater monitoring since the site was first remediated starting in 1990. The monitoring will continue until no further action levels are reached and the environmental case is closed. It is hard to estimate a timeframe to reach no further action, but we anticipate this will be between 10 and 20 years. COMMENT 39: Are the monitoring wells that are out there currently a part of the original construction? RESPONSE: Beginning in 2018, WSP installed monitoring wells to understand the extent of soil vapor and groundwater plumes and monitor how these are changing over time. These wells will continue to be used during remediation and monitoring. COMMENT 40: In regard to the testing, not only did the testing become more efficient, but the VOCs levels also changed. Is that correct? RESPONSE: Yes, the scientific understanding of how VOCs can affect public health has changed since the 1990s which led to the environmental screening levels used by the Water Board to become more conservative, or health protective, than when the original testing was done. Our scientific instruments used to test these VOCs have also become more efficient and are able to detect VOCs at lower levels than was possible in the 1990s. COMMENT 41: You mentioned this is just soil vapor remediation, but you didn’t touch on the groundwater, which I believe is [impacted] at 50 feet? RESPONSE: The Water Board has approved monitored natural attenuation of groundwater due to the low levels present in groundwater at this time. This means groundwater will continue to be monitored to confirm that VOCs are naturally breaking down and degrading over time. COMMENT 42: Does groundwater travel southwesterly? RESPONSE: The former Ford facility is at the high point, so groundwater travels north towards Bonita Creek and south towards the Big Canyon Arroyo. COMMENT 43: When you did test you determined [this part of Bayridge Park] is the location that is the most impacted? RESPONSE: Yes, our recent testing has found that the past remediation was quite effective in the location of the former Ford facility, what is now One Ford Road. However, the remediation was limited to on-site areas and off-site remediation activities were not required at that time. Bayridge Park and Belcourt Terrace are located immediately north of the former Facility, and we see higher impacts here because no remediation was historically completed here. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENT 44: The Zoning Administrator has the discretion to refer items that come to him to you for an original hearing and the Zoning Administrator meetings are held in the morning via Zoom. It is very convenient for the applicants, but it is not very convenient for the people trying to interact and express their concerns on the items before him. So, it was unusual that this was not referred to you given it was known as a controversial issue. After more than a decade of attending Zoning Administrator meetings, this is the first one I ever saw where the applicant had a half hour, 45-minute presentation to explain something that would not be controversial enough to be approved by one person, the Zoning Administrator. 281 RESPONSE: Ford and WSP took this time to explain the scientific complexity of this project to allow the Zoning Administrator to have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. However, we do not see this permit approval as controversial. The Zoning Administrator, and now the Planning Commission, are ultimately deciding if the building can be placed closer than the 8 feet of separation required of buildings in this area under the City’s development guidelines. This is a purely aesthetic requirement as this location meets the requirements of the California Building Code, and the Air District oversees the safety of the operation of the system. So, the City’s purview is limited to deciding on whether to allow this building to be constructed even though it does not meet the aesthetic design guidelines of the neighborhood. COMMENT 45: Although the only thing before you is the location of this treatment system building, the wells and the piping under the streets do not currently exist. That is all part of the project to come. Apparently, you are not weighing in on that. RESPONSE: The location of the wells and the piping under the streets are being designed in accordance with City guidelines and do not require approval from the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to be installed. The well locations were approved by the Orange County Health Care Agency and are not dependent on the treatment system location. The piping layout will be approved by the City’s Public Works Department once the Limited Term Permit has been approved. The Water Board has approved the SVE treatment system design, including well locations and piping layouts, to allow for the safe and effective implementation of the SVE system to remediate contaminants found in soil vapor and the HOA has approved of this design. HOA approval was a requirement of the Water Board’s approval. 282 ATTACHMENT 2 EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging 283 284 285 ATTACHMENT 3 Artist’s 5endering of 7reatment %uilding 286 Future Conditions - Rendering *Landscaping preliminary, pending community input Current Conditions Parcel 10 Soil Vapor Extraction System Building 287 ATTACHMENT 4 Community Outreach Summary 288 Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary June 8, 2023 The following lists outreach activities (that have occurred for the Bayridge Park community since the start of the project in 2018. Fact sheets are mailed and emailed to the community. Meeting invites are emailed a total of three times (initial email when document delivered via US Mail followed by two reminder emails) prior to each meeting. Document Distribution/Meeting Date Location Water Board Community Fact Sheet #1 May 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Sampling request letter July 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #1 Save the Date August 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Community Fact Sheet #2 September 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #1 (Open House) September 27, 2018 Civic Center Community Room 100 Civic Center Drive Water Board Information Session #2 Meeting Invite October 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #2 November 10, 2018 Bayridge Park Session: 3:00 – 4:30 p.m. Civic Center Community Room 100 Civic Center Drive Water Board Information Session #3 Invite Letter February 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #3 February 28, 2019 Civic Center Community Room 100 Civic Center Drive Water Board Information Session #4 Save the Date April 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #4 Invite Letter May 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #4 May 29, 2019 Bayridge Park Session: 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. Civic Center Community Room 100 Civic Center Drive Water Board November 2019 Information Session #5 Save the Date September 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #5 Invite Letter October 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Community Fact Sheet #3 October 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #5 November 7, 2019 Civic Center Community Room 100 Civic Center Drive Water Board Community Fact Sheet #4 February 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Ford Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Pilot Test Meeting Invite February 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents SVE Pilot Test HOA Meeting March 4, 2020 Bonita Creek Community Room 3010 La Vida Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary June 8, 2023 Document Distribution/Meeting Date Location Notice of Work: SVE Pilot Test May 2020 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Water Board Community Fact Sheet #5 August 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board November 2020 Information Session #6 Save the Date September 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board November 2020 Information Session #6 Invite Letter October 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #6 November 5, 2020 Zoom Water Board Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and SVE Pilot Test Community Meeting Invite March 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Water Board HHRA and SVE Pilot Test Results Meeting April 22, 2021 Zoom Water Board Community Fact Sheet #6 April 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Draft FS/RAP Public Meeting Save the Date May 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Water Board Draft FS/RAP Fact Sheet June 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Water Board Draft FS/RAP Public Comment Period June 7 – July 9, 2021 Comments could be provided via mail, phone and email Water Board Draft FS/RAP Public Meeting June 10, 2021 Zoom Water Board July 2021 Information Session #7 Save the Date June 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board July 2021 Information Session #7 Invite Letter July 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Community Fact Sheet #7 July 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #7 July 29, 2021 Civic Center Community Room, 100 Civic Center Drive, and YouTube Livestream Ford Remedial Design and Implementation Plan (RDIP) Meeting Invite October 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Ford RDIP Meeting November 4, 2021 Bayridge Park community pool February 2022 Information Session #8 Save the Date December 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary June 8, 2023 Document Distribution/Meeting Date Location February 2022 Information Session #8 Invite Letter January 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Community Fact Sheet #8 January 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #8 February 3, 2022 Zoom Notice of Work: Bayridge Park Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling February 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Notice of Work: Bayridge Park Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling April 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Water Board July 2022 Information Session #9 Save the Date June 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board July 2022 Information Session #9 Invite Letter July 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Community Fact Sheet #9 July 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information Session #9 July 27, 2022 Civic Center Community Room, 100 Civic Center Drive, and YouTube Livestream Bayridge Park Monthly Work Update #1 August 2022 Distributed via email to Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work Update #2 October 2022 Distributed via email to Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work Update #3 November 2022 Distributed via email to Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work Update #4 December 2022 Distributed via email to Bayridge Park residents Ford SVE Pre-Construction Meeting Invite December 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Water Board February 2023 Information Session #10 Save the Date December 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Bayridge Park Monthly Work Update #5 January 2023 Distributed via email to Bayridge Park residents Ford SVE Pre-Construction Meeting Invite #2 (Location Change) January 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Ford SVE Pre-Construction Meeting January 18, 2023 Bonita Creek Community Room 3010 La Vida Water Board February 2023 Information Session #10 Invite Letter January 2023 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary June 8, 2023 Document Distribution/Meeting Date Location Water Board Community Fact Sheet #10 January 2023 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Bayridge Park Monthly Work Update #6 February 2023 Distributed via email to Bayridge Park residents Water Board Information Session #10 February 2023 Civic Center Community Room, 100 Civic Center Drive, and YouTube Livestream Bayridge Park Monthly Work Update #7 March 2023 Distributed via email to Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work Update #8 April 2023 Distributed via email to Bayridge Park residents Notice of Work: Utility Potholing April 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Water Board Sub-Slab Depressurization (SSD) System Save the Date April 2023 Phone calls to residents within Bayridge Park who are experiencing vapor intrusion in their home Water Board SSD System Meeting Invite Letter and SSD Fact Sheet May 2023 Distributed to residents within Bayridge Park who are experiencing vapor intrusion in their home Bayridge Park Monthly Work Update #9 May 2023 Distributed via email to Bayridge Park residents Notice of Work: SVE Extraction Well Installation May 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Water Board SSD System Meeting May 17, 2023 Residents within Bayridge Park who are experiencing vapor intrusion in their home SSD System Access Agreement and What to Expect Handout May 2023 Distributed to residents within Bayridge Park who are experiencing vapor intrusion in their home Ford Remediation Update Meeting Invite May 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work Update #10 June 2023 Distributed via email to Bayridge Park residents Ford Remediation Update Meeting June 8, 2023 Bayridge Park community pool Attachment No. PC 6 Public Correspondences 293 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE294 From:Amy Santella To:Planning Commissioners; Tran, Jenny Cc:Kevin Solomita Subject:Planning Commission Meeting Homeowner Objections 5.18.23 Date:May 17, 2023 1:08:00 PM Attachments:image.pngPlanning Commission 5.18.23 Homeowner Objections 94 Hartford Drive.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, Please see below and attached objections for the Planning Commission meeting on 5/18/23. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you. Respectfully,Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita Regarding the City of Newport Beach: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94Hartford Drive Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, May 18, 2023: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Location: 94 Harford Drive To Whom It May Concern: In addition to our appeal letter previously submitted, we would like to state the following: SAFETY AND RESIDENTIAL EXAMPLES: ·We are continuously assured by Ford/WSP that the soil vapor extraction unit is “safe” in a residential neighborhood, 3 feet away from a home. Despite this, weHAVE NOT been provided with any real-life examples of residential treatmentsystems, let alone 3 feet away from a home. NO studies have ever been conductedto show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. ·On 3/13/23 per email, I asked Jessica Law and Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff for residential examples of SVE systems, to see how close they were to houses, as well asto compare the 3-foot proximity to our home. Per email responses below: 1.Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff, PE, WSP, on 3/13/23 sent 2 examples of dry cleaners, no residential communities. Daniela noted that the SVE system fromSunny Dry Cleaners is located 500 feet away from residences. This is not Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 295 comparable to 3 feet. Daniela noted that the SVE system at Campus Cleaners islocated 100 feet away from residences. This is also not comparable to 3 feet. 2. Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, on 3/15/23 per email: “I have not had an opportunity to follow up on this yet, but it is on my list ofthings to do.” We have not received any further information to date. · In addition, per phone conversation on 5/16/23 at 11:21 AM with WSP Candace Jantzen-Marson, Assistant Vice President, WSP, I brought up this concern again, andno residential examples could be given. Candace stated that these SVE systems aremore common in commercial and industrial areas. How is this comparable to aresidence with a newborn baby and a toddler living, breathing, and sleeping 3 feetaway, 24 hours a day vs. a commercial building or industrial setting? Again, we arecontinuously “assured” this is “OK” and “permitted,” without any data to back upthese claims. Ford/WSP has not been able to provide us with any evidence-basedexamples; this is unacceptable. · We are appalled that the one example given by WSP that they are claiming is “residential,” which shows a BOARDED-UP home. It was not mentioned in theappeal comments by WSP that the home was boarded up (please see below). In fact, the military base was CLOSED DOWN in 1994 due to contamination. The clean-upsystem took place in 2004. (https://fortordcleanup.com/about/fort-ord-and-brac-history/). Per WSP Response to Appeal 4/7/23: “Here is another example of an SVE system that was not in Orange County, but was in a residential neighborhood in an area of California with similar regulatory requirements” · This is NOT a comparative example to THREE feet away from a livable home with a newborn and a young toddler. Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 296 Above photo that Ford/WSP sent to us, and stated is a “residential example:” a boarded-up home on a vacant, shut down military base. http://docs.fortordcleanup.com/ar_pdfs/AR-OUCTP- 0011.1/Volume_IRI/Volume_I_Appendix_G/Appendix_G_Photos.pdf LOCATION: · It was never disclosed at the Bayridge pre-construction meeting that the structure was 3 feet from a home, violating the setback distance. · It was never disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive violating the 8-foot separation distance UNTIL the Public Notice for the permitapplication was posted. Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the public notice is unacceptable and did not provide enough time for residents to be fully awareof the entire impact of the system. This distance greatly increases risk to our home. The examples given to us by WSP show SVE systems at commercial sites, 100 feetaway and 500 feet away from residences! · The original project summary/zoning administrator staff report posted on the city website was changed after our objections were received. Prior to the January 26th meeting, the document stated: “The treatment system will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it hasbeen identified as the most feasible location to reduce the visual impact from surroundingresidents.” · This statement shows the primary reason was for aesthetics and this original document did not mention that other locations studied were not feasible. Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 297 · Multiple community outreach meetings by Ford/WSP stated that other locations could not be used due to parking. · After our objections were received, the new amended project summary for March 2nd includes alternative locations studied and states “Due to these infeasibilities thelocation adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected.” · The Newport Beach City Assistant Planner Jenny Tran confirmed on 2/23/23 via phone call that other locations were rejected by the HOA/Board due to parking spots. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS REVIEW: · The original project document by WSP did not have an alternative analysis UNTIL our objections were received. After our objections were received by WSP in January, all of a sudden, an alternative analysis was written to show different locations wereinfeasible, except 94 Hartford. All of these changes can be verified by the City of Newport Beach archives via the city website. · During the Zoning Administrator meeting on March 2, 2023, the alternative analysis presented one location that cannot be used due to timeframe – it “wouldincrease construction by 2 months.” However, this first level appeal alone has alreadyextended the project a minimum of 5 months. The original hearing was scheduledJanuary 2023. It is now the end of May 2023. Perhaps the team should look at thearea that cannot be done due to timing. · Option #1 on the alternative analysis shows 5 small systems in parking lots is INFEASIBLE due to parking. The HOA could implement multiple parking alternatives such as: enforcing residents park in garages to free up exterior spaces,allow residents to park in the vacant “vacation parking” near Jamboree, where there are always extra spots. The HOA could assign parking spot numbers TEMPORARILY toease parking concerns, since WSP keeps assuring us this is TEMPORARY. Parking has been valued over safety in this situation. This is completely unacceptable that“parking spots” cancel out this entire location. Instead, Ford/WSP has decided to put the system 3 feet away from a newborn baby and a toddler, when this has clearly neverbeen done before. · Option #2 shows infeasibility due to “disruption of mature landscaping.” However, the proposed location at 94 Hartford DOES NOT show that the mature pine tree (tallerthan our home) and other trees and mature landscaping will be removed from OURhome and disrupt the view from our main living area window. Why was this notincluded on the alternative analysis for the option with our home? · Option #3 again shows infeasibility due to PARKING SPOTS. There are MULTIPLE ways to mitigate parking and have the system AWAY from residences! Parking is a simple fix compared to all the unknowns of having a system 3 feet awayfrom a newborn baby and a young toddler at their most vulnerable time of Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 298 development. Did Ford hire a parking consultant to alleviate this concern? We justcame up with multiple realistic options in the paragraph above in less than 5 minutes. Again, as stated before, we are shocked that Ford/WSP, the City of Newport Beach,the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Bayridge HOA value parking over the unknowns of a massive system 3 feet away from where children andadults live 24 hours a day. CITY INDEMNIFICATION: · As stated in the Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-023, Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received: “the applicant shall indemnify, defend, and holdharmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers,employees and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages,actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, andexpenses of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any mannerrelate (directly or indirectly) to the City’s approval of the Aeronutronic Ford SoilVapor Remediation.” · Due to this indemnification, there are no consequences to the City of Newport Beach whether they approve this or not. However, we do not know how in good faith and conscience the City of Newport Beach can approve this. The soil vapor extractionunit will be cleaning up contaminated soil THREE feet away from a home with a newborn and young toddler that are in the residence 24 hours a day. As previouslystated, NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vaporextraction unit within 3 feet of a home. Ford/WSP have FAILED to provideexamples of residential units and their claim of a “residential” example was aboarded-up home on a VACANT military base! · Also, there is NO real-time/ continuous monitoring to ensure the air quality levels are acceptable for a home with an infant inside. This is essential for the entire durationof the project. This has been confirmed by the water board and WSP. Ford Response 2.6: In accordance with the Air District Permit, total VOC concentration willbemeasured using a real-time monitor (such as a photoionization detector) at least once a dayforthe first seven days of operation to confirm the system is operating as designed and withinpermit specifications which are set to be protective of public health. Following the first sevendays, monitoring will continue weekly or more frequently if required by the Air District. Inaddition to the real-time monitoring, analytical sampling will be conducted at least once amonth and analyzed by an independent laboratory in accordance with the Air Districts Rule304. Samples will be analyzed for specific VOCs to verify compliance with the permit andreported to the Air District. All data will also be reported to the Water Board and be availableto the public on the State Water Boards document repository geotracker.ca.gov. · This response only shows that real-time monitoring will occur ONCE a day for the Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 299 first seven days; after it will be weekly or more frequently if required. · We confirmed with Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, that the photoionization detector stated above is NOT “lab quality.” Thisconfirms that there is no real-time monitoring that accurately shows the total VOCconcentration emitted 3 feet from our home. · In the appeal response, Ford/WSP has offered to discuss new windows, a new air conditioning unit, and temporary relocation with us. Why is this the case if everything is ok to be next to our home? Furthermore, we have not agreed to the relocation of ourair conditioning unit, which was stated would be completed by WSP prior to the permitting process. · We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit to clean up the contaminated soil and groundwater from the former Ford Aeronutronics facility. We are not asking to stop the remediation; we are asking to change the location based on the safety of our young toddler and we are expecting anewborn baby soon. There are too many unknowns as reiterated by the fact that NOresidential units can be shown to us by Ford/WSP. We are being asked to be theguinea pigs, where there are clearly other options that can be used, that are claimed tobe “infeasible” due to PARKING. Respectfully,Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 300 May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Item 2 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2. AERONUTRONIC FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION APPEAL (PA2022-0180) The item is a bit confusing in that the Project Plans (Attachment PC 10) show a project extending over roughly half of Planning Area 8 (Bayridge Park), yet all that appears to be before the Commission is the proposed temporary 240 square foot treatment structure. Regarding the Alternative Location Analysis for that structure (Attachment PC 7), when this was before the Zoning Administrator, it seemed improbable to me that the (HOA preferred?) location in the northwest corner of Planning Area 8, near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree (as shown on handwritten page 153), could be ruled out because of the length of electrical cabling required to power it and the attendant out-of-code voltage drop. Clearly, new vapor piping to that remote location would be needed, but since there are both homes and traffic lights in the vicinity, I would think a nearby power source, not requiring 1,450 feet of conduit, could be found. Regarding the Acoustical Engineering Analysis and Addendum (Attachment PC 6), as a member of the City’s General Plan Advisory Committee’s Noise Element Subcommittee, I am particularly interested in ambient noise levels in our communities, and I found the consultant’s treatment of that subject in Table 3 on handwritten page 88 quite confusing. First, most of the numbers presented in that table do not match the data printouts provided in Appendix G (handwritten pages 115-142). Unless I am misreading the data sheets, the following corrections would be needed to make Table 3 agree with them: Table 3: Ambient Noise Measurements (corrected) Date Time LAEQ LAmin LAmax LA25% 10/3/2022 9:03 9:06 56.5 64.1 44.8 42.2 70.3 82.6 54.6 60.5 10/5/2022 22:44 35.6 37.5 33.6 34.0 39.6 59.0 36.5 36.4 10/6/2022 10:39 55.2 35.9 67.3 57.1 55.5 Second, the notes under Table 3 say that during the nighttime measurement on October 5, lasting only 1 minute and 39 seconds, most of the noise over the minimum came from “light traffic on Bison,” while during the day (October 3 measurement, lasting 8 minutes and 25 seconds and October 6, lasting 3 minutes and 45 seconds) most of the noise was generated by gardening activity, light truck traffic on Country Club Drive and “occasional aircraft overflights.” Unless additional samples were taken, my intuition would be such short samples are inadequate to establish meaningful ambient noise levels, since many of the noise sources cited are quite sporadic and a brief sample can be expected to be uncharacteristically high or low depending on whether, by chance, such events happened to occur during it or not. Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 301 May 18, 2023, PC agenda Item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Additionally, instead of providing a time series of measurements that could be related, at least, to the readily-available historical record of aircraft flights, Appendix G provides a lengthy and much less useful audio frequency decomposition of the entire sample. Regarding the Draft Resolution for Approval (Attachment PC 1), it appears to carry over many small errors from the one adopted by the Zoning Administrator. The Commissioners may wish to consider the following comments and suggested strikeout underline corrections to the passages shown in italics. Title page (1 of 13):  On the last line of the title block, I do not know what the “[NH]” following “94 HARTFORD DRIVE” means.  “1. An application was filed by WSP USA (“Applicant”), in regard to the property located adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive, and legally described as Lot 4 of Tract No. 12164 (“Property”), requesting approval of a limited term permit.”  “2. The Property is located within adjacent to the area that was formerly the Ford Aeronutronic facility operated by Ford Motor Company from 1957 to 1993. The primary operation of the facility consisted of aerospace and electronic research, development, and production. As part of on-site operations and as common practice at the time, volatile organic compounds (“VOC”) were used to clean the metal parts of the operating equipment. The facility was demolished between 1993 and 1996 and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water Board”), the leading lead regulatory agency for the former Ford Aeronutronic facility and related off-site areas, has overseen remediation work to address the environmental impacts of the facility operations. Remedial technologies such as bioremediation, excavation, disposal of soils & groundwater, and soil vapor treatment systems were used.” [note: According to Figure 1 (handwritten page 4), Bayridge Park touches, but is outside the perimeter of the former Ford facility.] Page 2 of 13:  “7. A public hearing was originally scheduled on January 26, 2023. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”). The Zoning Administrator continued the meeting of to March 2, 2023.”  “9. The Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. ZA2023-010 approving a Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180).” Page 4 of 13:  “1. The treatment system building will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive, along Country Club Drive, outside of common residential areas of the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Homeowners Association. …” Page 5 of 13:  “5. The building will be secured to the a concrete pad with anchors chosen for the earthquake risk parameters of the City of Newport Beach area. The treatment system Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 302 May 18, 2023, PC agenda Item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 building will additionally be secured with a monitoring system that will safely and automatically shut down the system in the event of an earthquake or other unforeseen natural disasters and an operations manager will be alerted of the shutdown. The treatment system will be monitored and inspected for potential damages prior to restart.” [Is the shutoff automatic?]  “7. The treatment system includes multiple redundancies to ensure concentrations of organic compounds released from the exhaust stack, if any, are below the AQMD emission limits. …”  “1. The Property is within Planning Area 8 (Attached Residential), a portion of the PC- 24 Zoning District, which is approximately 12 acres in size. The proposed building will be located adjacent to the residence of at 94 Hartford Drive and to Country Club Road and will not negatively impact on-site vehicular circulation.” Page 6 of 13:  “3. The treatment system will be located within a new prefabricated building, which is 20 feet by 12 feet and (240 square feet) in size. …”  “7. Additional locations along Country Club Drive were considered providing a greater separation from 94 Hartford Drive. Unfortunately, the landscape landscaped parkway was either too narrow to accommodate the facility or too steep, …”  “8. Alternative locations were considered within the Bayridge Park community within landscaped areas that provided adequate building separation from residents. These areas would require significant removal of existing trees within the community and the placement of the treatment system building will would cause a disruption to existing drainage and creek beds. Additionally, placement of the treatment system building in these areas will would create heavy visual impacts within the community and remove much needed parking for the residents.” Page 8 of 13:  “1. The limited term permit would allow the limited duration use to deviate from setback requirements and building separation requirements of the PC-24 Zoning District pursuant to Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.” [Note: This fact, saying the proposed development deviates from the code appears to contradict the stated required Finding E (“The limited duration use is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the Municipal Code, and other City regulations”). However, the contradiction appears to result from an oversight in the wording of the NBMC, for Subsection 20.52.040.B.1 says “A limited term permit allows limited duration uses that might not meet the development or use standards of the applicable zoning district.”]  “3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk by in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.” Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 303 May 18, 2023, PC agenda Item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Page 10 of 13:  “8. Maintenance vehicles shall utilize residential guest spaces within the Bayridge Park community with approval from the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Homeowners Association when working at the soil vapor extraction system and treatment facility.”  “9. Maintenance requiring large commercial vehicles shall be permitted to park on Country Club Road no more than two (2) times per calendar year unless otherwise required for health and safety. The applicant shall notify the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Homeowners Association and the One Ford Road Homeowner’s Homeowners Association in writing at least seven (7) days before performing maintenance.” [Note: Before this, won’t construction equipment also need to park on Country Club Road? Does there need to be a condition addressing that?] Page 11 of 13:  “12. Prior to the issuance of a final building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Permit to Construct (P/C) from the South Coast Quality Air Quality Management District.”  “17. The treatment system unit shall be constructed off-site and prior to the transportation of the prefabricated treatment system unit to the project site and again after installation of the structure, an acoustic audit shall be performed to ensure that the noise level observed at the exterior of the structure when operating at maximum capacity meets the allowable exterior noise standards of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The results of the acoustic audit shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to final inspection of the building permit.” [cf. Fact in Support of Finding A.3 citing the content of Condition of Approval Nos.17 and 18 and saying they contain these requirements. Conducting the audit without the machinery running would seem meaningless.] Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 304 From:Lee Healy To:Planning Commissioners Subject:COMMENTS: AERONUTRONIC FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION APPEAL (PA2022-0180) Date:May 17, 2023 4:04:56 PM Attachments:Craig Communications.pdf indemnification.pdf GeoTracker.pdf Bayridge SVE Objections Jan 2023.docx OBJECTIONS TO FORD REMEDATION BAYRIDGE 3223.docx [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commissioners: The previous comments sent in March to the Planning Commission about the Ford remediation have not been answered by WSP to our satisfaction. It’s because they don’t have the answers. It has been a long-term project now in the hands of WSP Global (which acquired Wood Environmental last fall for approximately $1.81 billion and with them, the meaty Ford contract). Environmental consulting is big business—the OC Business Journal “The List” in the Feb. 6, 2023 issue lists 17 firms in OC by 2022local billings—WSP USA was 15. Over the years, they have been paid millions by the Ford Motor Company to oversee the project. Craig Communications, the PR agency retained by Wood now WPS, brags on its website how well they have managed the communications of “the largest vapor intrusion project in California and Ford Motor’s highest profile environmental project.” (attachment) The difference? This is business for them. These are our HOMES, where we live, and have raised families, without knowing the contamination of the soils on which Bayridge was built. We have illnesses; are they related? I am an original owner, buying here in 1985. There was NO disclosure at the time as to the chemical dumping grounds by the Ford plant—which was documented as early as 1965. (attachment). It seems the city knew. Residential projects of this proposed nature are unprecedented, despite WSP’s lead engineer saying they have done them for years and how safe they are. This is based on MODELS. Many, many unknowns, and we are to be the guinea pigs with this proposed treatment building feet from our homes. The 13 wells, covering most of Bayridge, are converging into ONE treatment system housing unit, concentrating all the contaminated vapors into ONE area. How quickly will Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 305 those carbon filters be full? Monitoring proposals are not satisfactory. We agree the issues need to be addressed. The remediation building needs tobe away from residences. Rubber-stamping this to “get it done and over with”–and with the wide swath of indemnification by WSP/Ford--leads to thequestion: who is the guardian of our well-being in this Newport community? Lee Healy 949.760.305492 Hartford Dr Newport Beach CA 92660LeeCHealy@gmail.com Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 306 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 307 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 308 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 309 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 310 5/16/23, 5:59 AMGeoTracker Page 1 of 2https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case_summary?global_id=SL188023848   CASE SUMMARY REPORT DATE 1/2/1965 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT REPORT FILED WITH OES? I. REPORTED BY - UNKNOWN CREATED BY UNKNOWN III. SITE LOCATION FACILITY NAME     FORD AERONUTRONIC PROPERTY, FORMER FACILITY ID     FACILITY ADDRESS     1000 FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA    ORANGE COUNTY ORIENTATION OF SITE TO STREET     CROSS STREET     V. SUBSTANCES RELEASED / CONTAMINANT(S) OF CONCERN TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) VINYL CHLORIDE DICHLOROETHENE (DCE) VI. DISCOVERY/ABATEMENT DATE DISCHARGE BEGAN          DATE DISCOVERED       HOW DISCOVERED     * PTR   DESCRIPTION       DATE STOPPED       STOP METHOD       DESCRIPTION       VII. SOURCE/CAUSE SOURCE OF DISCHARGE       CAUSE OF DISCHARGE       DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION       VIII. CASE TYPE CASE TYPE     Soil Other Groundwater (uses other than drinking water) Soil Vapor Indoor Air IX. REMEDIAL ACTION NO REMEDIAL ACTIONS ENTERED X. GENERAL COMMENTS  The Ford Aeronutronics Facility operated at the Site from 1957 until 1993 when the facility was shut down. Assessment activities began in 1990. Site demolition and remediation activities were conducted from 1993 until 1996. In 1997, the OCHCA granted the Site soil closure which allowed the Site to be re-zoned from industrial to residential use. At that time, the Site was transferred to the SARWQCB for regulatory oversight to continue off-Site groundwater assessment and remediation. The former facility is divided into two distinct areas, the Main Area (90 acres) and the Aerothermal Chemical Building (ATC) Area (8 acres). Detailed historical site use is described within the 2017 CSM. This Site is divided into two hydrogeologic regimes. Groundwater that leaves from the former ATC Area flows south and that investigation area is referred to as the Big Canyon Arroyo Area. Groundwater that leaves the Main Area flows north and that investigation area is referred to as the North Area. Current efforts are focused on delineationg of groundwater contamination in the Southern Area. XI. CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION REPORTED HEREIN IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. XII. REGULATORY USE ONLY LOCAL AGENCY CASE NUMBER    REGIONAL BOARD CASE NUMBER     1880200 LOCAL AGENCY UNKNOWN REGIONAL BOARD CONTACT NAME    INITIALS    ORGANIZATION_NAME EMAIL ADDRESS     Tools Reports UST Case Closures How to Use GeoTracker ESI Information Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 311 5/16/23, 5:59 AMGeoTracker Page 2 of 2https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case_summary?global_id=SL188023848 Back to Top Conditions of Use Privacy Policy Accessibility Contact Us Copyright © 2023 State of California JESSICA LAW JML SANTA ANA RWQCB (REGION 8)jessica.law@waterboards.ca.gov ADDRESS     3737 Main Street, Suite 500 RIVERSIDE, CA   92501 CONTACT DESCRIPTION     PHONE TYPE PHONE NUMBER EXTENSION PHONE (951)-782-4381 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 312 OBJECTIONS TO PROJECT FILE #PA2022-0180, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC HEARING 1/26/23 • I respectfully and strenuously object to the Bayridge/Ford treatment system building being placed at 94 Hartford Drive. IT IS TOO CLOSE TO HOMES AND NEEDS TO BE RELOCATED. • The original plan of Wood/WSP was NOT to have 13 well installations with concentrated vapors converging into one building for treatment. They proposed 5 buildings closer to the hot spots, where the vapor would be diffused in different areas of the Bayridge complex. • Objections were raised to the original plan because of the taking up of parking spaces. Let’s not make parking convenience a priority over health and safety. The proposed distance from the building and 94 Hartford is 3.2 feet, where 8 feet is the required separation. What if there is a fire inside the structure? An earthquake? • Removal of toxins cannot be at 100%. All the toxic vapor being expelled within feet of our residences IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to our health and well-being. The problem is exacerbated by the prevailing onshore breezes that will move the vapor to the closest homes on Hartford Drive. The new model with one treatment system building was conceived through computer-generated 3D modeling that we must trust. • We are being asked to put our faith in technology, with no real time monitoring. It was explained in the meeting that samples have to be taken offsite and analyzed, and there is a minimum of a two- week lag. • Pipes can leak. Connectors can leak. There can be failures with the system, and this is occurring a few feet from where we live, sleep and breathe. Living in close proximity to this ongoing process is psychologically disturbing and deprives us of peace of mind. • The noise factor so close to homes is another reason to relocate the building. Possible electrical humming from the equipment. Possible EMF fields. • The project is supposed to last a year. What if the testing at that point does not show results that are satisfactory to the Regional Water Quality Control Board? The timeframe could be extended. • What if we want to sell our homes or rent them out over the next 18+ months? Who would buy or rent with this situation? Our homes are NUMBER ONE FINANCIAL ASSET. • A relocation of the treatment system building is imperative. Either go back to the original plan of 5 structures or find a better location, such as the corner of Bison & Country Club Drive, which is closer to garages, not homes, or the 7 parking spaces that border Jamboree that were fenced in and used as a construction yard for a past project. • This is not acceptable and we expect it to be changed. Thank you. Lee Healy, owner 92 Hartford Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 January 25, 2023 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 313 OBJECTIONS TO PROJECT FILE #PA2022-0180, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC HEARING 3/2/23 This is an addendum to objections raised prior to the postponement of the January 26 public hearing on the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at Bayridge Park. By combing through the City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Agenda and clicking on “Staff Report” we found the “Ford Response to Comments” (dated February 10, 2023) to our earlier objections beginning on page 114 of a 179-compilation report. Why did Ford’s communications firm not send these to us directly or at the least a link to their answers? I requested responses to our concerns in a February 8 email to Tracy Craig. This lack of transparency is disheartening and seems symptomatic of Ford. As an original owner, we were never informed of the environmental issues of contaminated soil, soil gas and groundwaters at Bayridge. The Ford facility had been cited for chemical dumping as early as 1965. We choose not to meet with Ford/WSP to discuss concerns because without an impartial, expert third party, it would have been a session with the representatives trying to assuage our fears. The Ford responses cited a community meeting held Nov. 4, 2021 on the revised SVE system installation and new location for the now singular treatment system building. In the meeting agenda, and in the meeting itself (I watched it), the address of the location is never mentioned. The meetings have low attendance, to include those logging on. This comment in the responses is NOT true—watch the end with the attendees’ comments: “During this meeting, only comments in support of proposed treatment building location were received.” The responses also stated the Water Board approved the RDIP January 28, 2022. Why were the residents who would be most impacted by this installation not notified? What were you waiting for? And why was it another year before everything got back on schedule, with the city notice of a public hearing and the community meeting in the latter half of January 2023? In 2022 business was not at the disruptive levels we saw in 2020 or 2021 as a result of COVID. My objections remain the same: • The structure is too close to our homes when there is a better site that would take up a few parking places away from residences on the northeast section of the complex, where the system’s exhaust could drift toward Bison Ave. and away from residences (yes, it would require more trenching) • The disruptive nature of the entire process, with many unknowns on how the test results will play out, is unacceptable • There is a psychological impact of wondering if the system malfunctions and subjects us to toxic vapor. That is a direct impact on quality of life and quiet enjoyment of one’s property • The value of our homes will diminish for the duration of the remediation • There seems to be modeling based on assumptions to how it should perform rather than supporting data • There is no guarantee this will be finished in a year Despite all this, we understand the need for remediation and getting started to get it done and behind us. We know any changes will take more time, but feel the location of the treatment system building must be moved away from homes. Lee Healy 92 Hartford Dr. Newport Beach CA 92660 LeeCHealy@gmail.com March 1, 2023 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 314 From:Larry Cano To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Remediation Date:May 17, 2023 5:32:11 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Documents show that the Newport Beach City Council knew about the potential hazards from toxic waste being dumped into the ground at the Ford plant since at least the 1960s. Nonetheless, Ford was allowed to re-zone the industrial area for the sale of the land for housing after they closed their facility. Subsequent housing developments came into being in and around the Ford plant site. I have been a resident of Newport Beach and of this area in question since 1987. When my wife purchased a condominium in Bayridge Park in 1985, there was no disclosure of the potential hazards of living atop a toxic dump. Had we been informed of such we would not have stayed. Consequently we, as well as many other residents (and their children), were exposed to unknown levels of these toxins over a very long period of time. To my knowledge there has been no scientific study that would follow and document the health and well- being of we long-term residents to determine the ramifications of such exposure. And now there is a needed attempt at remediation of the ground soil with current levels of toxins being shown to be unacceptable. It is logical to assume the levels present at the time these developments were built would be much higher than what they are now. Out of convenience, and probably due to cost saving measures, it has been determined that a filtration structure should be built within a few feet of our neighbor’s condominium, and within close proximity to ours and others. Since there is a published write-up of the situation being referred to in the past tense, and referencing a meeting that was held on the 18th, a day that has not yet come, it’s apparent the City Planning Commission has already made up its mind, and we are just going through the motions at this point. We are being asked to trust the remediation company hired by the polluting company and approved by the state Water Board, and our city officers. (None of our past city officials saw fit to inform the public of the health risks involved in the first place.) I am not opposed to remediation efforts, as they are needed. But to place the structure adjacent to where people live when there are alternatives, is the same kind of thinking that got us to where we are now. Haven’t we residents who are bearing the brunt of this poisoning suffered enough already? By insisting to locate the filtering structure adjacent to homes is putting financial concerns and the convenience of parking places over health and safety. Further, it is subjecting people to the possibility of further damage. There is ample room in the Bayridge Park complex for the structure to be placed in the parking places in the northeast section of the complex. That way the structure is not within a few feet of a residence, and whatever is being discharged, would then be carried by the prevailing breezes away from residential areas. These carbon-based filtration systems can fail. There is no real time monitoring involved, and putting Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 315 the structure where it is planned is absurdly wrong. To take any more risks impacting public health and safety for the benefit of convenience or cost saving is not in the best interest of we citizens. What has happened in the past cannot be changed, and is on the record. The decision-making from thispoint onward will either reflect a serious effort to protect the public or a cave-in to maintain status quo. I urge the city not to approve this plan, or if it is already approved to change that decision and require theremediation company to explore the other viable sites for the structure. Larry Cano92 Hartford DrNewport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 316 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA222-0180) 317 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA222-0180) 318 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA222-0180) 319 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA222-0180) 320 From:Amy Santella To:Planning Commissioners; Tran, Jenny; Rodriguez, Clarivel Cc:Kevin Solomita Subject:New information received for hearing tonight 5/18/23 Date:May 18, 2023 2:18:32 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Regarding the City of Newport Beach: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at94 Hartford Drive Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, May 18, 2023: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Location: 94 Harford Drive To Whom It May Concern: We were notified today at 1:00 PM by Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner for the City, via phonecall, that the proposed treatment system building would need to be shifted approximately 8 feet to the north, making it in direct view of our dining room window and a more problematiclocation than before! It may also require an additional pine tree to be taken down. Along with our neighbors, we paid $1715 to appeal the location of the building, PRIOR to thischange. Part of our appeal included our disagreement with the alternative analysis relating to the “infeasibilities” of the alternate locations that were provided by Ford/WSP. Per JennyTran, the building was moved due to a water main that was located where the building was proposed to be constructed. Given that there is a water main at this site, it would be logical toconsider that this location is also infeasible. Also to note, we were notified on Tuesday, 5/16/23, by Candace Jantzen-Marson, Assistant VP of WSP that the building was to be moved4 feet SOUTH towards the fire gate, further showing we keep receiving conflicting information from Ford/WSP. Since Ford/WSP agreed this proposed location was also infeasible by moving the building, and this in turn effects the location of the exhaust, Ford/WSP should be required to file for acompletely new permit request since this was NOT what was presented at the Zoning Administrator meeting held on March 2, 2023. This is now an entirely new decision. If thePlanning Commission agrees that a new permit is required, we request we are refunded the $1715 we paid for the appeal. We urge the Planning Commission to deny this request and have Ford/WSP review their infeasibilities adequately, instead of completely shifting a building location 5 hours before a“DE NOVO” public hearing. Respectfully, Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Received After Deadline Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) 321 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE322 Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Received prior to printing Agenda Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov RE: Leter of Support for Limited Term Permit to Construct the Soil Vapor Extrac�on System Building Dear Planning Commissioners: I am wri�ng this leter to ask each of you to approve the permit that allows for the construc�on of the soil vapor extrac�on treatment building. I think it is impera�ve that we protect the health and safety of the community and the best way to do that is by allowing the SVE work to begin so that the Ford project team can clean up our community. My husband sits on the HOA board and I am a realtor who has recently sold property in the Bayridge Park community. While our condo is not affected, we are well aware of the vapor intrusion issues others are facing. We have heard that the air purifiers are noisy and were intended as a temporary measure. If Ford and the Santa Ana Water Board are both saying that the SVE system can operate safely in this loca�on, then let’s listen to the environmental experts and approve this limited term permit so we can start to protect this community and get rid of the air purifiers. Thank you, Danielle Rivas 234 Har�ord Drive Owner Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Received prior to printing Agenda Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov RE: Leter of Support for Limited Term Permit Approval to Construct the Soil Vapor Extrac�on System Building Dear Planning Commissioners: My name is Enrique Sanchez and I am the HOA President at Bayridge Park. My wife and I live at 75 Bradbury, which is one of the 22 homes in the Bayridge Park community currently impacted by the vapors from the former Ford Aeronutronics project. I am reques�ng that each of you support our decision to have the SVE treatment building placed adjacent to 94 Har�ord Drive by approving the limited term permit. My wife and I have experienced vapor intrusion at our home. We originally had two air purifiers installed in our home in February 2020, but removed them a�er about a month because they were too noisy and disrup�ve. This is one of the many reasons we would like to see the long-term solu�on of soil vapor extrac�on implemented quickly. Addi�onally, as the HOA President, I have worked closely with the Santa Ana Water Board, Ford and WSP since the inves�ga�on began back in 2018. Through this process, the project team has demonstrated a willingness to listen to and collaborate with the community by answering the HOA’s ques�ons and communica�ng the science behind the proposed path forward in an easily understood manner. When we were determining the loca�on for the SVE treatment building, we met with representa�ves of WSP and looked at mul�ple op�ons. Ul�mately, the loca�on behind 94 Har�ord was selected based on a number of criteria, most notably because the SVE system can safely operate there while allowing the clean vapors to vent onto a road and not into the community. Based on our understanding, we agreed with WSP that this was the best op�on and felt that they did a good job communica�ng to all residents via mul�ple mee�ngs held in 2021 and 2023 on the design and construc�on of the SVE system. In the interest of the health of the community and to ensure the cleanup can begin quickly, we stand by the decision to have this building adjacent to 94 Har�ord Drive. I have done my research and believe that it can operate safely to address the risk my wife and I - and the other 21 homes - are currently experiencing in the community. Sincerely, Enrique Sanchez HOA President and 75 Bradbury Owner Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No 2a - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) June 16, 2023 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov RE: Leter of Support for Limited Term Permit Approval to Construct the Soil Vapor Extrac�on System Building Dear Planning Commissioners: My name is Jack Copeland and my wife and I have lived at 100 Har�ord in the Bayridge Park community for five years. We were one of the earliest adopters of the air purifiers, receiving two in September 2018 a�er learning that our home had elevated levels of vola�le organic compounds in indoor air. We have been diligent about keeping our home safe because our two granddaughters visit o�en, many �mes spending the night. However, we are limited in what we can do to keep the air in our home safe un�l a permanent remedy is in place. For us and the number of young children living at Bayridge, we need the soil vapor extrac�on (SVE) system installed so that all people of all ages can live here safely. This is why I am wri�ng to urge you to approve the limited term permit to allow for the construc�on of the SVE building. We need to follow the science and not be persuaded by other what ifs that are not grounded in real world experiences. The Santa Ana Water Board and WSP have kept us well-informed through writen communica�ons and community mee�ngs, explaining how the SVE system building can operate safely so that we can start to treat the problem within 1-2 years. They have assured us that these are common systems used throughout the country and that they will operate under the Air District’s authority to ensure everything runs safely for all in the community. If you don’t approve this permit, then how long will it be before we can begin to address the situa�on? I’ve heard it could take many years if we don’t install the SVE system now. Any need to redesign the system and we are looking at another two-year wait before a permanent solu�on can be implemented. On a more personal note, we moved into this condo prior to any disclosure of the problem at Bayridge Park. If my wife and I had been advised about the contamina�on, we never would have bought our condo. Likewise, I now do not feel comfortable selling un�l the problem is resolved. Interes�ngly, the couple who filed the appeal now has their condo up for sale. I urge the Planning Commission to do what is right for the 22 households within Bayridge Park who, like us, who are experiencing impacts from vapor intrusion and approve the limited term permit so we can get this system installed and start to clean up this problem. It is your duty as Commissioners to keep the en�re community safe and the SVE system will do just that! Thank you, Jack and Teena Copeland Jack and Teena Copeland 100 Har�ord Owners Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2b - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) June 21, 2023 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov RE: Leter of Objec�on for Limited Term Permit Approval to Construct the Soil Vapor Extrac�on on System Building at Bayridge We have reviewed the leters of support from other residents of Bayridge. Based on the iden�cal templates of the leter (which I have adapted here) they were most likely solicited by WSP’s communica�ons firm. The four leters represent five residents in a community of 166 homes. The apathy is not unusual—if it doesn’t affect someone directly, they stay neutral or uninvolved. To avoid redundancy of past communica�on, no one objects to the soil vapor extrac�on. It is a solu�on to the problem. We object to the placement of it so close to the homes of 92, 94 and 96 Har�ord Dr. The writers of the leters of support do not live where this will affect their daily lives—we do. And as stated in the mee�ngs, WSP does not know how long the system could be in place. Experts have told us that the system can be noisy and pipes can leak. The opera�on will be 24/7. We s�ll have not seen examples of this sort of extrac�on system next to a home, despite promises. Only an old, vacant military base from years ago. Let’s go back when the original Wood/WSP proposal was to have five loca�ons, rather than one central extrac�on system. The Board strenuously objected to that because of disrup�on of the complex and loss of parking spaces. The one loca�on WAS NOT the original plan. It was an effort by Ford’s contracted consultancy to appease the Board and get the job done. We are asking the Planning Commission again to reconsider the loca�on of the system extrac�on building. There are other op�ons. We are en�tled to safety and quiet enjoyment of our homes. If this moves forward, and makes condi�ons unlivable for those of us in close contact to the extrac�on building, we will seek further recourse. Sincerely, Lee Healy Lee Healy 92 Har�ord Drive Newport Beach CA 92660 Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) June 20, 2023 City of Newport Beach Atn: Planning Board Commissioners RE: Remedia�on Project Loca�on at 94 Har�ord Drive (Project PA2022-0180) My son and daughter-in-law live at 94 Har�ord Drive. They have a 1-year-old and another child on the way. Since I have been made aware of the remedia�on project, I have concerns for their health and well-being as well of the neighbors near their property. First, the no�on that this is a temporary one- year deal Is not even close to the truth. There is an op�on to extend the permit for another year and if required, pe��oning the commissioners for another extension. This is an open-ended permit that can have serious health issues for my son’s family. Secondly, WSP s�ll have not provided an example that shows a residen�al installa�on similar to what is proposed 3 feet behind 94 Har�ord. 3 feet! Can you imagine a blower 3 feet from your window for 1+ years? It seems to me that the loca�on of the proposed air filtra�on system has been chosen over all other viable loca�ons, not because it was deemed the best loca�on, but because the HOA didn’t want it near their proper�es and a shallow excuse that it will take up parking spaces. I understand their reasoning but would expect, and hope, that they work for all residents, not themselves. The other loca�ons are feasible. WSP and especially Ford have an obliga�on to all to create an environment that suits all, not the chosen few. Those in charge of the Bay Ridge HOA are not gods. They are people just like everyone else. As a father and grandfather, I cringe at the thought that my family’s health and welfare is being ignored. I find it par�cularly wrong that the HOA is making the decision, and not Ford in conjunc�on with the Newport Beach Commissioners. The HOA is overstepping their authority for personal reasons. I watched the proceedings without one person from the HOA being present. Why? I hope that a�er weighing all the evidence, the commissioners will order the loca�on be moved to a more feasible one. Thank you so much for your considera�on. Chris Solomita Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Appellant Objections for Planning Commission Meeting 6.22, 94 Hartford Drive Soil Vapor Extraction From: Amy Santella <amycsantella@gmail.com>   Sent: June 21, 2023 3:55 PM  To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>; Tran, Jenny  <jtran@newportbeachca.gov>; Rodriguez, Clarivel <CRodriguez@newportbeachca.gov>  Subject: Appellant Objections for Planning Commission Meeting 6.22, 94 Hartford Drive Soil Vapor Extraction    [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Good afternoon,     Please see below objections for the Planning Commission Meeting on 6/22.  Please confirm receipt of this email.      Thank you.    Respectfully,  Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita      Regarding the City of Newport Beach: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, June 22, 2023:    Project File No.: PA2022-0180    Location: 94 Hartford Drive    Dear Planning Commissioners:    In addition to our appeal letters previously submitted, we would like to state the following:    1. Remediation, Timeline, and Data:   We have never stated that we oppose the remediation. In fact, we have always stated in writing, since our original objections were sent in January, that we are NOT trying to stop the remediation. We are objecting to the current location of the treatment system placed 3 feet from our home. We have requested examples of residential treatment systems and still have not been provided with this data.     The letters in support of the treatment system from Bayridge Park residents state various reasons of how Ford/WSP has communicated well and have gone “above and beyond.” Another letter of support states “we need to follow the science,” however, as previously stated, we still haven’t received any data, zero residential examples, and zero evidence-based research on a residential system. Of course there are letters of support for the project—and these are coming from those that do not live 3 feet away from the building!    Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) 2  Ford/WSP were aware of our original objections in January 2023 and our appeal on March 11, 2023. If the remediation is time-sensitive, Ford/WSP should have been working on alternative options starting at the beginning of the year, instead of postponing the hearing meetings to May… and now it is the end of June. Furthermore, Ford dumped these chemicals in the 1960s and residents have been living here since the 1980s with zero knowledge of the vapor intrusion occurring until recent years!      It was never stated by Ford/WSP that changing to other locations would add an additional 2 years to the project until the June 8th meeting. In fact, the alternative analysis discussed at the March Zoning Administrator Meeting states that one location cannot be used due to timeframe – it “would increase construction by 2 months.” How did 2 months turn into 2 years?     Again, we have never asked Ford/WSP to stop remediation, we understand the necessity. However, we have asked for residential examples of SVE systems to have evidence- based data of the safety of placing a system 3 feet away from a home before. This still has not been provided to us!       No studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. We are being asked to trust that this is safe, despite ANY data!     Per Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Board 6/8/23 Community Meeting: “We want, the regulatory agency/Water Board, we always want to see actual data.” We still have not been provided with any data!    2. Information regarding continued decision:   After May 18th meeting, decision was continued by the planning commission to further discuss the alternative locations with the HOA Board.     June 1, 2023: Email sent to Kenn Conner VP WSP, Mike Barnes WSP, Jenny Tran City of Newport Beach, asking for update on the continuance to discuss alternate locations with the HOA.   New rendering of 94 Hartford Drive sent with no mention of discussion of alternate locations/continuance with HOA. No residential examples of systems provided by WSP.    June 5, 2023: Comprehensive letter sent to the HOA board asking for update on continuance/ work with WSP after city meeting on discussing alternative locations   As of June 21, 2023: No response has been received from HOA Board     June 8, 2023: Bayridge Community Meeting with WSP: HOA Board asked for update on continuance:    Quote from Enrique HOA Board President: “This came by recommendation. If I understand, they calculated the system, and the system runs efficiently in that location. That what’s it came down to.”     June 21, 2023: 94 Hartford Drive Homeowner Meeting with Kenn Conner VP WSP and Mike Barnes WSP:   Extensive discussion with WSP regarding our questions for the system, including information about the slab/water main line, exhaust stack facing the street, and other Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) 3 safety concerns. Per Kenn, he understands our concerns and would place this in another location if he had one. He also respects the appeal process that has been taking place.     3. Infeasibilities of 94 Hartford Drive:   Each time our objections are received, and new questions are asked, Ford/WSP adds more infeasibilities to the list of other locations – without adding more to 94 Hartford Drive, even when new issues have been found, such as the water main line too close to the proposed location, altering the foundation of the building.     Back to the original proposal by WSP, the main reason cited for not choosing the 5 smaller treatment locations was loss of parking spots! After our objections were received in January, an alternative analysis was written by WSP, and the project summary was changed on the Newport Beach City website.      Reasons why 94 Hartford Drive should also be infeasible include:     Water main line too close to treatment building   Encroachment agreement now needed for this location   Air conditioner needs to be removed   Multiple mature pine trees and landscaping need to be removed   3 feet from a home, violating 8-foot setback requirements   No examples of SVE systems have ever been placed this close to a home occupied by residents   Directly outside of a main living area window   Too close to sidewalk, nearly touching the sidewalk   Due to water main, now treatment building foundation will be constructed only of a slab and shall not be constructed with stem walls or deepened footings   Exhaust stack needs to face street (however it is still extremely close to a home)   Final exhaust stack must be approved by the Air Quality Management District and the permit has not been approved yet. Per Kenn Conner, WSP, AQMD may request the stack in a different location and has yet to be determined.      We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location for the soil vapor extraction system for all of the reasons stated above. We truly hope that the city will support its residents in wanting to see evidence-based research and data before agreeing to place a 240 square-foot remediation treatment building 3 feet from their home to clean up the soil contaminated by Ford Motor Company.    Respectfully,    Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita         Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) June 2023 1 Soil Vapor Extraction System Bayridge Park (Parcel 10) Project File No: PA2022-0180 WSP USA June 22, 2023 Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 2 Introductions WSP Earth & Environment •Kenn Conner, PE –Senior Vice President/West Regional Site Investigation & Remediation Leader •Mike Barnes –Project Manager •Candace Jantzen-Marson –Engineering Project Manager •Emily Miller, PE –Project Engineer Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board –State of California •Jessica Law, PG –Engineering Geologist Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 3 Introductions Bayridge Homeowners Association (HOA) •Enrique Sanchez -​ President •Gayle Weinberg Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 4 Continuance Agenda Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility Item Key Points Key Responses w/ Location Analysis Addressing Current and Future Permit Applications under other authorities Community Feedback Community Support Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 5 Key Points -The LTP was needed due to aesthetic issues, i.e., < 8 ft setback -WSP is the owner of the LTP application -HOA’s input was considered, but engineering, implementationand power availability determined the location -WSP/Ford has performed extensive community outreach -Until yesterday, these individual meetings were turned down -Most important, this project is needed in an urgent manner -Vapor Intrusion exists in 22+ homes -SVE is the only remediation technique to address the risk Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 6 Key Responses Main purposes: -Planning Commission to hear information from all sides -Re: Limited Term Permit (LTP) application -Appeal was filed against the City Planner’s LTP approval of the Treatment Unit Building Placement -Need for LTP is aesthetic as location < than setback requirement Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 7 Bayridge Park SVE System •Construct: Fall 2023 –Spring 2024 •Operate: ~1 year •13 wells within community •1 treatment system outside of community walls Treatment System Building Project Description Artist Rendering Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 8 Key Responses to Comments/Questions •Saving Parking Spaces > Appellant’s Health & Safety •Were Parking Spaces > Appellants’ Health & Safety? Saving Parking Spaces had no priority over the Health & Safety of any of the residents Only the engineering factors and/or Health & Safety factors determined the final decision on that alternative. Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 9 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS -Summary Option Description Communications Disruption to Neighborhood Proximity to Homes Impact on Parking Permitting Complexity Implementation Complexity Power Connection Complexity 1 Bayridge Park- 5 small systems in parking spots (FS/RAP) - Community Mailer 6/3/21, Public comment 6/7-7/9/21, Public meeting 6/10/21 - HOA did not approve use of parking spaces. High Low Infeasible Low Medium Medium 2 Bayridge Park -Landscaped Areas between homes - Proposed by City on 2/15/23 - Disruption of mature landscaping and drainage - Inaccessibility for construction equipment - Does not solve the proximity to homes issue High High Low Medium Infeasible Medium 3 Bayridge Park - 2-3 Parking spots in eastern half of community. - Proposed by City on 2/15/23 - All parking areas within project limits are restricted by HOA MOU -Parking impacts are concern at every public meeting High Medium Infeasible Low Low Low 4 Bayridge Park - Larger treatment system across 3 parking spots - northwest corner of neighborhood - Proposed by City on 2/15/23 - Northwest corner parking area less impacted - Significant increase in linear feet of trenching required and construction duration -Voltage drop over additional distance not to code High Low Medium Low High Infeasible 5 Bison Ave - Discussion with City about setback requirements deemed this infeasible - Bison construction moratorium Low Low Low Infeasible High Medium 6 Along Country Club (northern - Northern proposed by City 12/21, infeasible due to space limit and retaining wall impact -Southern, infeasible due to lack of space Low Medium Low Medium Infeasible Low 7 Country Club Drive - adjacent to 94 Hartford (Final FS/RAP & RDIP) - Public meeting 11/4/21 and 1/18/23 - City LTP process resulted in comments from 3 nearest residents with concerns about the location. Low High Low Medium Low Low Alternatives involving parking spaces Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 10 Key Responses to Comments/Questions •Analysis of Parking Space Locations not thorough. •HOA directed WSP/Ford on Parking Space use. •Location Analysis was biased to preferred outcome. •Power availability should not be a problem/should not drive the choice. •Location Analysis details? •Bison Avenue moratorium? •Power drop is an issue? -Three Alternatives, 1, 3 and 4 involved Parking Spaces -Two Alternatives, 1 and 3: -Deemed infeasible for based on community feedback (not the HOA), -Eventually dropped because: -Disruption to the neighborhood due to extensive trenching. -Trenching that would need to be deeper/wider due to amount and size of pipes and conductors to be installed and would undermine foundations and other utilities. -And more lengths of trench thus causing longer construction times. -All of this greatly increased the Health & Safety risks for all residents. Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 11 Key Responses to Comments/Questions •For Alternative 4, which might seem by first review the best location of all, the disqualifying issues involving: •the power drop location, •the voltage drop across the distance (causing the need for a special-order electrical part), •additional trenching necessary, •the utility conflicts, •the additional depth/width of trenching, and •the need to place more utilities in the trenches. Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 12 Key Responses to Comments/Questions •The power drop location and timing had the most decisive effect on the choice of location Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 13 Location Analysis –Parking Space Option 4: Long- term parking Option 1: Five small systems Option 3: One system on east side Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 14 Location Analysis - Other Option 5: Bison Avenue Options 6 and 7: Country Club Drive Option 2: Landscaped Areas Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 15 •City utility clearance requirements cannot be met (larger trench). •Trench would double in width, impeding traffic flow. •Construction would be extended to at least 6 months. •More residents impacted by construction. •Significant delay to operation start because of modifications to design and permits. LOCATION ANALYSIS –Long-Term Parking Area –Alternative 4 Additional SVE Pipe Trenching Additional Electrical Conduit Trenching Community Concerns Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 16 Long-Term Parking: •By doubling the length of the electrical conductors needed to power the system, the 3% maximum voltage drop code requirement cannot be met. •Risk of complaints from additional residents who previously did not have construction happening in front of their home during the community meetings. •Additional 1,450 feet electrical conduit and 850 feet of SVE piping would increase construction by ~2 months •Widening the trench to include electrical conductors around Hartford Drive creates conflicts with existing utilities. HOA has said parking in northwest corner is not as impacted. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS— BAYRIDGE PARK –Alternative 4 Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 17 Locations Considered •Within Bayridge Park •Along Bison Avenue •Along Country Club Drive ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Criteria Considered •Disruption to neighborhood •Construction duration •Construction footprint within community walls •Power connection complexity •Distance from source •Voltage drop •Permitting complexity •Setbacks from public right of way •Moratorium on Bison •Implementation complexity •Slope stability •Disruption of mature landscaping •Accessibility for construction equipment •Proximity to homes •Proximity to windows, garages, vs walls •Impact on parking •Parking congestion worse in portions of the community than others Location Analysis Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 18 Key Responses to Comments/Questions •Appellants’ Health & Safety vs. Health & Safety vapor intrusion homes. The Health & Safety of all residents is of the utmost importance. The HOA has never directed any of WSP’s engineering activities. Because the Bayridge Park HOA owns the land which is needed for the building location (regardless of alternative), it is imperative that WSP coordinate and reach agreement for the use of land for the project. Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 19 Key Responses to Comments/Questions •SVE is not safe and is only transferring risk to the Appellants. SVE operation is a proven, effective and completely safe remediation technique that has been permitted thousands of times across California in both residential and commercial areas. The Appellants are safe because of their situation of: -Being on the second floor -Having a garage underneath -Vapor Intrusion is the only pathway/mechanism -Other devices, which are normally present in and near homes, have a higher risk factor: -AC compressors with refrigerants (outside) -Refrigerators with refrigerants Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 20 Key Responses to Comments/Questions •Building proximity intrinsically increases the risk for the Appellants. The proximity of the treatment unit building is not the determining factor regarding risk and has no bearing on Health & Safety. It is the exhaust concentration of the SVE that determines risk and that will be dictated by the Air District permit. Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 21 Key Responses to Comments/Questions •Location choice was personal by HOA to favor group over the Appellants. •Where is the HOA tonight? -Every public meeting, communication and correspondence with the HOA has been focused on the immediate issues involving the vapor intrusion that is known to be occurring in at least 22 homes. -There has never been a compromise of anyone’s Health & Safety during monitoring and design, and this will continue during implementation and operation of the SVE system. Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 22 Key Responses to Comments/Questions The HOA is represented here tonight. It should be clear, though, that this LTP is solely the responsibility of WSP and Ford. The HOA is the landowner, but the permit will be managed by WSP. As the legal representative for all of the residents, the HOA had significant input on the terms and conditions for the use of the HOA’s land. This is normal. The determining factors in choosing the location for the building were solely based on engineering design, implementability and power availability. Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 23 Addressing Current/Future Permit Applications Current •City of Newport Beach –Limited Term Permit •Submitted August 2022 •Public comment began January 2023 •WSP responses to comments included in all staff reports since 3/2 •South Coast Air Quality Management District –Permit to Operate •Draft permit issued November 2022 (7 months of supervisory review) •Public comment period –30 days •City of Newport Beach –Building Permit •Design submitted for plan check in December 2022 •Comments received February 2023 •Conditions of approval include obtaining Limited Term Permit and Permit to Operate Construction start date is reliant on obtaining all permits listed above. Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 24 Community Support “I have done my research and believe that it can operate safely to address the risk my wife and I -and the other 21 homes -are currently experiencing in the community.”Enrique Sanchez, Bayridge Park Resident and HOA Board President “Both the Water Board and WSP have done an excellent job communicating with us about the issues and possible solutions. They have provided intelligent, transparent communications –answering my questions and addressing my worries –whenever I’ve called.”Gwenn Abrams, Bayridge Park Resident “If Ford and the Santa Ana Water Board are both saying that the SVE system can operate safely in this location, then let’s listen to the environmental experts and approve this limited term permit so we can start to protect this community and get rid of the air purifiers.”Danielle Ocker-Rivas, Bayridge Park Resident “For us and the number of young children living at Bayridge, we need the soil vapor extraction (SVE) system installed so that all people of all ages can live here safely.”Jack and Teena Copeland, Bayridge Park Resident Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) June 2023 25 Thank You Summary: •The selected location is the only viable location. •The system has a finite operation period and then the building will be removed. •SVE technology is safe, reliable, and is the most commonly used method of soil vapor remediation. Ford and WSP are open to discussion with any resident to try and address specific concerns. Please contact us at: (833) 949-3673 info@fordNBFacts.com Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) Kevin Solomita and Amy Santella 94 Hartford Drive Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) Examples Given by WSP of SVE Systems in Residential Areas… 1)Sunny Dry Cleaners (SVE system is located 500 feet away from residences) 2)Campus Cleaners (SVE system is located 100 feet away from residences) 3)Fort Ord Military Base Housing… Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) •This is what WSP created AFTER our complaints were received in January •Prior to our complaints, we continuously heard the building needed to go behind our house simply due to parking *This is still true for options 1 and 3 •At the community meeting on June 8th, now stated it will add 2-2 ½ years to relocate Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) •Infeasible: •not possible to do easily or conveniently •It is not OUR job to take the burden to make it easier or more convenient for the people who caused the problem in the first place Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) Approximately 40 feet between roadway and wall -Why would this impede on moratorium Would not obstruct view of motorists as claimed in planning commission meeting City is in charge of moratorium Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) One proposed location that was “infeasible” due to parking and not pictured Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) -Take up two spots with building -Have two parallel parking spots -Parking spots lost= ZERO SVE Building Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) -Take up three spots with building -Have two parallel parking spots -Parking spots lost= ONE SVE Building Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) -Reconfigure Island -Remove tree -Move Mailboxes Parking spots lost= ZERO (Possibly gain one or two) SVE Building Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) The Proposed Location Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) The Proposed Location •Too close to a home (3 feet) violating 8-foot setback requirements •Too close to the sidewalk (nearly touching the sidewalk) •Too close to a water main Called a ”compromise” by the city at the last meeting •Encroachment agreement now needed •Have to remove 50+ year old pine trees •Have to move our air conditioner •Directly outside our main living area window •On slab without deepened footings •No examples of SVE systems have ever been placed this close to a home occupied by residents Planning Commission - June 22, 2023 Item No. 2f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180)