Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 - Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180)Q �EwPpRT CITY OF s NEWPORT BEACH `q44:09 City Council Staff Report July 25, 2023 Agenda Item No. 10 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232, sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner, jtran@newportbeachca.gov PHONE: 949-644-3212 TITLE: Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) ABSTRACT: For the City Council's consideration is an appeal of the Planning Commission's June 22, 2023, decision to deny the appeal, uphold and affirm the Zoning Administrator's approval of a limited term permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system. The system consists of a 20-foot-wide by 12-foot-deep by 10-foot-high 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 eight 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. The appeal was filed by Amy Santella, Kevin Solomita, Leslie Pratt, and Lee Healy (adjacent residents) objecting to the location of the soil vapor extraction and treatment system building due to safety concerns. RECOMMENDATIONS: a) Conduct a de novo public hearing; b) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 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, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and c) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-42, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Denying an Appeal and Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a Limited Term Permit for a Soil Vapor Extraction and Treatment System Located at 94 Hartford Drive [NH] (PA2022-0180). 10-1 Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) July 25, 2023 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Background 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 for 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 remediation to address the environmental impacts of past facility operations before the site was redeveloped for residential purposes in the 1990s. Although remediation efforts were made, 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. The level of VOCs found in 2016 and continuing today were determined to be above the screening levels warranting action. Indoor air sampling was conducted within the Bayridge Park community (Attachment B), and it was determined there is a 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. 10-2 Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) July 25, 2023 Page 3 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. 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 at 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. Project plans are included as Attachment J. Figure 1 - Soil Vapor Extraction and Treatment System layout within the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association Biso�tiAverrue I f CMcater}IOJCf Parct l 10 gayrldga Park HomeowtrarsAssocla r - Extraction pipes 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 an SVE and treatment system to remediate the presence of VOCs found in this residential development. Prior Hearings and Decisions Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision On March 2, 2023, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider the project. 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. 10-3 Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) July 25, 2023 Page 4 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 included as Attachment C. Appeal of the Zoning Administrator Decision On March 14, 2023, Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita filed an 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. The appellants own and reside at 94 Hartford Drive. May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Hearing On May 18, 2023, the Planning Commission held a de-novo hearing to consider the appeal. For reference, the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment D, 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 which 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. 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. Ultimately, the Planning Commission continued the item and directed the applicant and the appellant to further discuss the alternative locations with the HOA board. The draft minutes from this hearing are provided as Attachment E. June 22, 2023, Planning Commission Hearing and Decision On June 22, 2023, the Planning Commission reopened the public hearing. The June 22, 2023, Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment F, which includes a summary of the Planning Commission hearing held on May 18, 2023, and information related to the revised location of the treatment system building. After considering all public comments and findings, both written and oral, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2023-023 (Attachment No. PC 1), approving Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). The minutes from the hearing are included in this report as Attachment G. Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision On July 5, 2023, Amy Santella, Kevin Solomita, Leslie Pratt, and Lee Healy filed an appeal (Attachment H) of the Planning Commission's decision citing the same objections that were cited on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. 10-4 Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) July 25, 2023 Page 5 Applicants Response to Appeal To assist the City Council with its discussion, the applicant has prepared a thorough Response to Comments document that includes a summary response to the main concerns raised by the appellants. The document also includes detailed responses to all comments and questions raised by the Planning Commission and the public at the May 18, 2023, hearing (Attachment 1). 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 to Comments includes a discussion regarding the current risks to the community, safety of the SVE system, feasibility of the alternative locations, and outreach to the community. Consideration towards the alternative locations provided in the response explains that the proposed location is the best choice to allow for remediation work that quickly addresses vapor intrusion in the community. Staff Response to Appeal The main impacts to the community with the installation of the treatment system building are related to aesthetics, noise, location and safety. Measures have been taken by the applicant to ensure these impacts are minimized and that all required permits shall be obtained to ensure compliance with all safety concerns. 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 take 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 and updated February 8, 2023, to ensure the building will be designed to comply with the allowable exterior noise standards of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Conditions 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. Further details regarding the methods to ensure minimal noise impacts are detailed in Attachment PC 6 of Attachment D. 10-5 Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) July 25, 2023 Page 6 Alternative Locations Studied In total, seven options were considered, including alternative locations at the Bayridge Park 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 that included 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 PC 7 of Attachment D. Due to these considerations, the location of the proposed treatment building adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected. Safety Safety concerns with the proposed treatment system building located 3 feet from the residents 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 have been addressed by the applicant and delaying the system's installation further is more concerning given the potential health implications for a larger number of homes in the community. a I,*a_ym I ►yi U_To 9 There is no fiscal impact related to this item. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: 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, 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. 10-6 Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) July 25, 2023 Page 7 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. 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. 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 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. 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 does 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. 10-7 Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) July 25, 2023 Page 8 NOTICING: Notice of this hearing 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 meeting, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Resolution No. 2023-42 Attachment B — Vicinity Map Attachment C — Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes from March 2, 2023 Attachment D — Planning Commission Staff Report from May 18, 2023 Attachment E — Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from May 18, 2023 Attachment F — Planning Commission Staff Report from June 22, 2023 Attachment G — Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from June 22, 2023 Attachment H — Appellant's Appeal Application from July 5, 2023 Attachment I — Applicant's Response to Comments Attachment J — Project Plans 10-8 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 2023- 42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A LIMITED TERM PERMIT FOR A SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM LOCATED ADJACENT TO 94 HARTFORD DRIVE [NH] (PA2022-0180) WHEREAS, an application was filed by WSP USA ("Applicant"), requesting approval of a limited term permit along Country Club Drive and adjacent to the property located at 94 Hartford Drive, and legally described as Lot 4 of Tract No. 12164 ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Property is located within the area that was formerly the Ford Aeronutronic facility operated by Ford Motor Company from 1957 to 1993 for aerospace and electronic research, development, and production; WHEREAS, volatile organic compounds ("VOC") were used to clean the metal parts of the operating equipment as part of the on -site operations of Ford Motor Company; WHEREAS, 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 to address the environmental impacts of the facility operations including bioremediation, excavation, disposal of soils and groundwater, as well as soil vapor treatment systems; WHEREAS, the site was subsequently rezoned and redeveloped for residential purposes in the 1990s and ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions continues; WHEREAS, 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; WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a limited term permit to construct a soil vapor extraction and treatment system consisting of a treatment system building that has a 20-foot width by 12-foot depth by 10-foot height, an underground pipe network (approximately 2,400 linear ft.), and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation located within the setback of Country Club Drive with a 3.2-foot separation from 94 Hartford Drive where the required setback is 8 feet for a term of approximately 12 months ("Project"); 10-9 Resolution No. 2023- Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, the Property is designated Multiple Residential (RM) by the General Plan Land Use Element and located within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC- 24) Zoning District; WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone, therefore, a coastal development permit is not required; WHEREAS, a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator was originally scheduled on January 26, 2023. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). The Zoning Administrator continued the item to the meeting of March 2, 2023; WHEREAS, at the continued public hearing held on March 2, 2023, evidence both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Zoning Administrator at this hearing; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. ZA2023-010 approving Limited Term Permit PA2022-0180; WHEREAS, on March 14, 2023, Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision objecting to the location of the soil vapor extraction and treatment system building based on safety concerns due to the proximity to the residents; WHEREAS, 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 of 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; WHEREAS, at the continued public hearing held on June 22, 2023, evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; 10-10 Resolution No. 2023- Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2023-023 (4 ayes, 2 nays, 1 recusal) upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of Limited Term Permit PA2022-0180; WHEREAS, on July 5, 2023, Amy Santella, Kevin Solomita, Leslie Pratt, and Lee Healy filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision objecting to the location of the soil vapor extraction and treatment system building based on safety concerns due to the proximity to the residents; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on July 25, 2023, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the 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 City Council at this public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council has considered the decision of the Planning Commission and determined that modifications to the Project made by the City Council, if any, are not major changes that require referral back to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. Section 2: The City Council does hereby uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Limited Term Permit PA2022-0180 based upon the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit 'A" and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "B," which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 10-11 Resolution No. 2023- Page 4 of 5 Section 5: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15330 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), under Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3. Section 15330 exempts 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. The Project is consistent with the intent of Section 15330 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 and the cost of often the facility is under $1 million. 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. Section 15308 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 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 Section 15308. 10-12 Resolution No. 2023- Page 5 of 5 Section 15303 exempts 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 of the Bayridge Park community. 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 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 G: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 25th day of July, 2023. NOAH BLOM Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Aaro & Harp U, Zo 23 we City ttorney Attachments: Exhibit "A" — Findings In Support of Limited Term Permit PA2022-01 Exhibit "B" — Conditions of Approval 10-13 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF LIMITED TERM PERMIT PA2022-0180 In accordance with Section 20.52.040(G) (Limited Term Permits) of the NBMC, the following findings, and facts in support of findings are set forth as follows: 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 of Newport Beach's ("City") regulations for both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property. 10-14 4. 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. 5. The wall of the treatment system building adjacent to the building at 94 Hartford Drive will be constructed with a two 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. f. The building will be secured to the concrete pad with anchors chosen for the earthquake risk parameters of the 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. 7. 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 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 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. 10-15 8. 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 Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC-24) Zoning District, which is approximately 12 acres in size. The proposed building will be located within the setback of Country Club Drive and 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 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 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. 10-16 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 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 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. 10-17 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 or two 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 truck trailer and boom lift attachment parked on Country Club Drive are to take place two times per year for four to six 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 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 City Council; and 10-18 Fact in Support of Finding: 1. Planning Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC-24) Zoning District requires a minimum of two 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. 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 NBMC. 2. The temporary treatment system building with an approximate one-year duration 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. 10-19 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division 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 10-20 Homeowner's Association and the One Ford Road Homeowner's Association in writing at least seven (7) days before performing maintenance. 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. 10-21 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 pro ert 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 54dBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property NIA 65dBA NIA 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 Qualify 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, attorneys 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 10-22 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. 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 602.0. 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 buildinq permit, the applicant shall ensure the location of the exhaust is adequately sited away from any residential building openings. 10-23 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 City Attorney'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. 10-24 Attachment B Vicinity Map 10-25 10-26 Attachment C Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes from March 2, 2023 10-27 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH ZOOM THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2023 REGULAR MEETING — 10:00 A.M. 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 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. Page 1 of 4 10-28 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 03/02/2023 Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, Zoning Administrator Zdeba closed the public hearing. 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. Page 2 of 4 10-29 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 03/02/2023 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. 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 Page 3 of 4 10-30 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 03/02/2023 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 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. JaKe Murillo Zoning Administrator Page 4 of 4 10-31 Attachment D Planning Commission Staff Report from May 18, 2023 10-32 PQR e. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 18, 2023 cCIFOP Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) ■ Limited Term Permit SITE LOCATION: 94 Hartford Drive [NH] APPECANT: 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). 10-33 10-34 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023 Page 2 • m L6 �a LOCATION ON -SITE GENERAL PLAN Multiple Residential (RM) I ZONING Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community PC-24 CURRENT USE Multi -Family Residential NORTH SOUTH RM Single Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) PC-24 PC-24 -Multi-Family Residential Single -Unit Residential EAST RM PC-24 F -Multi-Family Residential WEST RM PC-24 =F Multi -Family Residential 10-35 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 Parcel 10', A1111k illl I Y.i Aye°4e / / / d6-2Cj 16`2A a / � Former Ford f 3 Aeronutronic Facility / V� Approz mate loc Lion f of former Chip Storage 15 i r Sin Area It / 5 7 0 t / 4 Main Area L /! C.7 11 � ` Former ATC Area Big Canyon CreeK I � \ — Approrlmate former Aeronutronic Facility I__1 boundary Property Former facility ;Subject Fnrmer fatuity building Former drum storage — , Former Aerothermal Chemical (ATC( Hlstorlcal arroyo(b,,kf,d during 1 m - development ; / m r� j r \I f a zaa aaa v Feet PARCEL 10 SITE VICINITY MAP Former Fard Aeronutronic Property Newport Beach, California Sourc E,,, DigilelGlob a. GaoE E: -slur Gacvrnob­ CN ES!hirb.s �S. L'S .VSCS 1—IR I D. IGN. anC IM1e I �1SIl pate W/Ol/'2023 rigure t Gis 11sar Lbrnmunrry 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 10-36 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). 10-37 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. Zonina Administrator Hearina 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 10-38 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 10-39 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. 10-40 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 10-41 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 10-42 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 10-43 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). 10-44 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. 10-45 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: a ;� - Jenny Tran, AigrstdKlPlanner J M/jt Submitted by: jk�4fl� Jim Campbell Deputy Community Development Director 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 10-46 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 10-47 10-48 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval 10-49 10-50 Resolution No. PC2023-023 is not available at the time this went to publishing. The Resolution will be provided at a later time. 10-51 10-52 Attachment No. PC 2 Appeal Form 10-53 10-54 Appeal Application City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949-644-3005 Clerk's Date & Time Stamp Appeals are time sensitive and must be received by the City Clerk specified time period from a decision or final action by a decision -maker. It is advisable to consult with the Department managing the issue if there is question with regards to appealing an action. This is an appeal of the: ❑ (CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Planning Commission - $1715 X (CDD222)Zoning Administrator Action to the Planning Commission - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Coastal Development Application CDP Appeal from Zoning Admin to the Planning Commission (only if appeal is solely based on the CDP portion of the application) — No Fee ❑ (CDD222)Planning Commission Action to the City Council - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (CDD222)Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (CDD — Planning) - $940 ❑ (CDD222)Hearing Officer Action to the City Council - $1715 ❑ (CDD223)Building Official/Fire Marshal Action to the Building/Fire Board of Appeals - $1715 ❑ (CDD224)Chief of Police Action on an Operator License to the City Manager - $946 ❑ (RSS073)City Manager Action on a Special Events Permit to the City Council - $1823 ❑ (HBR001)Harbormaster Action to the Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (HBR001)Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (Harbor Department) - $940 ❑ (PBW018)Public Works Director Action to Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (PBW018)Harbor Commission Action to City Council (Public Works Department) - $940 ❑ Other - Specify decision -maker, appellate body, Municipal Code authority and fee: Appellant Information: Name(s): Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita Address: 94 Hartford Drive City/State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 908-370-7003 Email: Appealing Application Regarding: amycsantella@gmaii.com Name of Appllcant(s): wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, inc- Date of Final Decision: March 2, 2023 Project No.: PA2022-0180 Activity No.: N/A Application Site Address: 94 Hartford Drive Description of application: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation: Limited term permit for the construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system for a term of 12 months. Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit based on the safety of our child. The unit is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home, violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. It was never disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from our home unitl the public notice for the permit application was posted. Please see attached for continyed information. Signature of Appellant:.x, L/� Date: ` % I y / 23 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: _M ptQc—w 20'L�. r City rk a cc: Department ire rDeputy Director, Staff, File F:IUserslClerkISharedlFormst4ppealApplication updated 11/2021 10-55 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive March 14, 2023 Reason for Appeal: To Whom It May Concern: 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. 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 261 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. 1 Of 8 10-56 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita 1. Location • The original project summary/zoning administrator staff report posted on the city website was changed after our objections were received. Prior to the January 2611 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. " • 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 2" 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. • 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. • 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. 10-57 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita • 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. 2. Timeframe • 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 —I+ year of remediation implementation and then "-2+ years" of monitoring to determine if additional remediation is needed. —1+ year* —2+ years Remedy Post implementation Remediation Monitoring • 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 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 10-58 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita 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." 3. Safety 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. • 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. • The response from Ford/WSP is the top Google search if you type in "EMIT 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. 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." (RI) From the National Library of Medicine/ Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics: 4 0, 3 10-59 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita "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 [4]. 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 SensitiviU 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) • 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. • 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. 4. Ouality of Life • 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 5 0 -f 9 10-60 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita 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 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. 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. 5. Air Ouality Monitoring • 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. 10-61 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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 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? 6. Home Values • 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 7 a.F 9 10-62 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita main living area window. There would also be no possible way to quantify the loss due to this unique and unfortunate situation. • 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. • 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 (l+ 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. WSP is one of the world's leading engineering professional services firms. We request the system be redesigned with their world -class engineers to a location that does not substantially affect the health, well-being, livelihood, and safety of a young family. Respectfully, Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita References: All meeting quotations may be accessed on meeting recordings by date via hops://www.fordnbfacts.com/communiiyoutreach R1: hUs://www.who.int/initiatives/the-international-emf-project R2: Jin-Hwa Moon, MD, PhD. Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children. Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics. National Library of Medicine. httos://www.ncbi.nlm.nih gov/pmc/articles/PMC76421381 R3: hops://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic fields fact sheet R4: haps://publications M orgJpediatrics/article-abstract/116/2/e303/62886/The Sensitivity of Children to Electromap-netic?redirectedFrom=ful ltext AQMD Guiding Principles: hops://www.agmd.eov/nav/about/initiatives/environmental justice/ei- uiding_principles hn://www.agmd.sov/docs/default-source/plannin air-quality-guidance/school guidance pdf hqp://www.ggmd.gov/nav/abogt/public-notices/permitting-public notices 8 of g 10-63 10-64 Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant's Response to Appeal 10-65 10-66 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. 10-67 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 2123123 via phone call that other locations were rejected by the HOA/Board due to parking spots. 10-68 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 10-69 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 2123123 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 2122123 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 2122123 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 10-70 waste in the ground and how much additional remediation will be needed after this treatment starts. It was stated at the 2122123 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. 2122123 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 "I 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 Goog/e 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. 10-71 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. " (RI) 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. 10-72 Comment 3.2: In addition, per Jessica Law 2122123 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 2122123 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. 10-73 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 Bioventing'. 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:Hdocuments.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 ' United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing — Engineer Manual. June 3. 10-74 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 2122123 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. 10-75 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. 10-76 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 2122123 meeting it was stated yes, there is continuous monitoring. Now their response in writing show no continuous monitoring again. At 2122123 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 2127123. 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 10-77 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 + 10-78 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. 10-79 10-80 Attachment No. PC 4 Adopted Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 10-81 10-82 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. 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. 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 10-83 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 2 of 11 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: 01-17-23 10-84 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 3 of 11 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. 01-17-23 10-85 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 4 of 11 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 01-17-23 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 5 of 11 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: 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. 01-17-23 10-87 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 6 of 11 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: 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 Suoaort of Findina: 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 [l]-year duration) treatment system building is conditioned to comply with all other applicable provisions of the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other City regulations. 01-17-23 10-88 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 7 of 11 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 2O23. , AICP, Zoning Administrator 01-17-23 I i • Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 8 of 11 ANOW1l 3I ii1_m 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. 01-17-23 10-90 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 9 of 11 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 buildinq 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. 01-17-23 10-91 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 10 of 11 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. 01-17-23 10-92 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 11 of 11 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. 01-17-23 10-93 10-94 Attachment No. PC 5 March 2, 2023, Zoning Administrator Minutes 10-95 10-96 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH ZOOM THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2023 REGULAR MEETING —10:00 A.M. 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 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. 10-97 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. 10-98 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 10-99 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. J ' e Murillo Zoning Administrator 10-100 Attachment No. PC 6 Acoustical Engineering Analysis and Addendum 10-101 10-102 Yanchar Design & Consulting Group 26o- 741 F tola Parkway - S'I E uite Footl-�ill F1-1�, California 0261 O 049.770.0001 - 040.770.6575 fax www.wave-s pace.com 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 February 10, 2023 Project 8622397107.03.3D Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Bay B Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Limited Term Permit Application No. PA2022-0180 Acoustical Engineering Analysis — Addendum Soil Vapor Treatment System Bayridge Park Newport Beach, California Dear Jenny Tran: The purpose of the letter is to respond to comments from the City of Newport Beach (City) on the Acoustical Engineering Analysis Report (Acoustical Report), dated October 15, 2022, prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group (Yanchar), and submitted as part of the requirements for issuing of a Limited Term Permit for a proposed soil vapor treatment system to be installed adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive in the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association property. The comments which were made verbally during a call with WSP staff on January 25, 2022 are summarized below: Page 17 - the report says the closest sensitive receptor is 125 feet from construction activities. • The report specifies an "air tight" building, but then the isometric drawing shows louvers. The original report is attached to this addendum, updated with minor corrections. Most notably, the reference to 61 Hillside Drive has been changed to 61 Hillsdale Drive. In the Summary of Conclusions section we have clarified why 61 Hillsdale has been included in the analysis. None of these corrections impacts the conclusion of the report. 10-103 Jenny Tran City of Newport Beach February 10, 2023 Page 2 The two comments received from the City are addressed below: CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTOR On page 18 of the Acoustical Report, it is stated that: The closest existing or planned noise -sensitive uses such as homes adjacent to the project site are more than 125 feet from the project boundary. These uses may be subject to short-term, intermittent, maximum noise generated by construction activities on site. Compliance with the construction hours specified in the City's Noise Ordinance would reduce the construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. That statement refers to the closest residence outside of the Bayridge Park property boundary, which is 61 Hillsdale Avenue, across Country Club Drive. The closest residence to construction activities is 94 Hartford Drive which will be 3 feet away from some aspects of construction. The work at the treatment system site will be in two phases. The first phase will last approximately 3- weeks and consist of site clearing, grading, excavation, pipelaying, compaction, and construction of a reinforced concrete pad. A second phase, lasting approximately one week will involve a crane placing a prefabricated treatment system building on the pad with a crane, and then anchoring it using anchors drilled into the slab. During construction, the noise adjacent to 94 Hartford may be as high as 90 decibels'. This noise will be attenuated by the residence's structure but could still be significant. The Outside -Inside Transmission Class of regular'/4" monolithic class is 292, meaning that there will be a 29-decibels reduction of sound through the glass, assuming the window is closed. Therefore, the intermittent noise level inside 94 Hartford could be approximately 60 decibels — equivalent to the sound of an air conditioner; however an individual's perception of sound depends on factors such as the type of sound and its fluctuations. So what is tolerable to one person can be annoying to another. WSP will communicate construction schedule with residents and work with them individually to address concerns. Mitigations could include relocating residents during the work. SOUND MITIGATION THROUGH LOUVERS On page 19 of the Acoustical Report, one of the recommendations is to: Provide airtight construction at all exterior walls with acoustical or other non -hardening sealant at floor plates. ' Construction Noise Handbook, Federal Highway Administration, 2006 z https://glassed.vitroglazings.com/topics/determining-the-right-glass-for-the-right-acoustics 10-104 Jenny Tran City of Newport Beach February 10, 2023 Page 3 In the context of acoustical analysis, "airtight" refers to the sealing of joints between the building and penetrations; such as between the building and the louvers. Such seals will be provided in the structure. However, we note the City's concern with sound escaping through the louver openings and address that below. The proposed treatment system building has venting louvers, as shown on the attached drawing. The main purpose of the louvers is for weather protection. They will provide some sound deadening, but the focus is inside the building to prevent noise from escaping through the louvers. On the air inlet side, on the back (northern) side of the building, the louvers are positioned where the carbon vessels sit. Sound foam will be installed on the column where the vessels meet and the wall where the louvers are located. This creates a sound deadening plenum on the inside the building and eliminates line of sight for the sound from the blowers to travel through the louvers as well. At the top of the plenum, sound blankets or another change of direction will be added as needed to minimize sound through the inlet louvers. For the discharge louvers, on the side facing the street, the same principal will be used. A sound deadening plenum will be created around the heat exchanger which will be the source of the air going out those louvers. The air and sound from inside the building will again have to travel a tortuous path and line of sight will be eliminated. The building and the treatment system will be constructed as a single unit at a factory in Minnesota. An Acoustic Audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity will be conducted before it leaves the factory in accordance with the City's Equivalent noise level (Leq) requirement which involves measurement of a steady state noise level over 15 minutes. The unit will not be shipped from the factory until the 15-minute Leq is less than or equal to 50 dB at all points 3-feet from the building, including at the louvers. If required, additional sound reduction measures will be implemented to achieve the required level. Documentation of the Acoustic Audit can be provided to the City before startup of the treatment system. As a final confirmation, a second Acoustic Audit will be conducted after anchoring of the building and connection of permanent power. 10-105 Jenny Tran City of Newport Beach February 10, 2023 Page 4 It should be noted that the existing residential air conditioning unit adjacent to the treatment system may produce more noise than the treatment system, since the noise limit even for new air conditioning systems is 50 dB per the City's noise ordinance. If you need any further information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc QVyOFESSIp��'L y ,�AIDI CO z W649 z CML Andi Hope Cox, E cat�Fo Senior Associate Engineer -Environmental .vv- J Daniela Ham -Nazaroff, PE Associate Engineer Yanchar Design and Consulting Group Carl J. Yanchar President /9�,oFESS10,yq� C 91417 W a * Z6 ER,, 6/3012024 �C.) O � d' CIV11. Off/ 0r FOFCALW He/cjy/dhn/mm https://woodplc.sharepoint.com/teams/fordnb/shared documents/general/04 engtech/sve design/p10/permits/city design std-permit/bldg permit/limited term/city comment-response/acoustic study/2023_02_10_newport_acoustic study add ndm_wsp-yanchar.docx Attachments: 1. Acoustical Engineering Analysis, Soil Vapor Extraction System, 94 Hartford Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, October 15, 2022; revised with minor amendments February 8, 2023. 2. Drawing No. 6011-01 — Building Layout, H2K Technologies, Inc. 12/2022. 10-106 Yanchar Design & Consulting Group ATTACHMENT 1 Acoustical Engineering Analysis 10-107 ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Soil Vapor Extraction System 94 Hartford Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 October 15, 2022 Updated February 8, 2023 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 26741 Portola Parkway, Suite 1 E, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Tel: 949.770.6601 Fax: 949.770.6575 E-mail: carl6a yanchardesign.com 10-108 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is located on the Bayridge Park HOA property, Newport Beach, CA. as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. The property boundary is outlined in red. The Project consists of a Soil Vapor Extraction system with the mechanical equipment housed in a prefabricated metal building located adjacent to the residential building at 94 Hartford Drive. (see Figure 3). Four vacuum pumps and one heat exchanger will be located within the structure along with associated carbon vessels, holding tanks and pumps. (see appendix D) The manufacturer's noise specification for the blowers is 74 dBA and 77 dBA for the heat exchanger. (see appendix C) An existing Carrier air conditioning compressor is also located adjacent to the residential structure with a manufacturer's noise rating of 72 dBA. This condenser will be relocated slightly to the north. Since the residential building and air conditioning compressor are existing, it will be assumed that the interior noise specification of the California building code and the noise level of the condenser at the nearest property line are compliant. Only the new equipment housed in the new steel building will be addressed in this report with the impact if the new equipment combined with the existing condenser will be evaluated. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Noise measurements were collected on the morning of October 3, night of October 5, and morning of October 6, 2022 at the location of the planned treatment system building (Figure 3). The noise level predicted at three feet from the exterior of the building from the four vacuum pumps and single heat exchanger is 48.8 dBA, which is in accordance with the manufacturer's specification of 50 dBA. This level is equal or lower than some of the quietest outdoor air conditioning units. Based on the manufacturer's specification, the SVE system equipment building will meet the City of Newport Beach noise regulations at the adjacent residential structure at 94 Hartford at all hours. The residential building at 94 Hartford is on the same parcel as the SVE equipment building (see figure 2). Because the Newport Beach noise regulations specify the maximum acceptable levels at adjacent properties, calculations were also performed to predict the noise level of the SVE equipment building, existing air conditioning condenser and the combined sound level of the new equipment and the existing condenser at the nearest separate residential property at 61 Hillsdale Drive. This level was determined to be 34.9 dBA and the contribution of the new equipment is less than 0.5 dBA. This will result in an imperceptible change in ambient noise level. Therefore, the planned treatment system project is expected to meet the requirements for noise ordinance and comply with the City of Newport Beach noise regulations on both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property. Page 2 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-109 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 FIGURE 1 -- SITE VICINITY FIGURE 2 - PROJECT SITE Page 3 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-110 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 FIGURE 3 - ENLARGED PROJECT SITE Page 4 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-111 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 FIGURE 4 - COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE Page 5 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-112 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND Sound is described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by differentiating among frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is perceived to be twice as loud and 20 dBA higher is perceived to be four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Examples of various sound levels in different environments are illustrated in Table 1. TABLE 1 COMMON SOUND LEVELS AND TYPICAL NOISE SOURCES Noise Source A -Weighted Sound Level in Decibels Noise Environments Subjective Evaluations Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Reference Average Office 60 Quiet One-half as loud Suburban Street 55 Quiet Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet One -quarter as loud Large Transformer 45 Quiet Average Residence without Stereo Playing 40 Faint One -eighth as loud Soft Whisper 30 Faint Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearin 0 Very Faint Source: Compiled by YDCG Page 6 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-113 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue regarding community noise. The percentage of people claiming to be annoyed by noise generally increases with the environmental sound level. However, many factors also influence people's response to noise. The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence. Additionally, non -acoustical factors, such as the person's opinion of the noise source, the ability to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the predictability of the noise, all influence people's response. As such, response to noise varies widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses would range from "not annoyed" to "highly annoyed." RANGE OF NOISE Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (1) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time. NOISE DESCRIPTORS Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A -weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than the peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To accountfor this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite twenty -four-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time -of -day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., andthe addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and nighthours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. Page 7 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-114 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 SOUND PROPAGATION When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors: GEOMETRIC SPREADING Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. GROUND ABSORPTION The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receptor is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with areflective surface between the source and the receptor, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receptor such as softdirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. The effect due to wind conditions is typically 5 dB or less. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 ft) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Air temperature usually decreases with height. Temperature inversion is a reversal of the normal condition when cool air at the surface is overlain by a layer of hot air. This normally occurs in the evening and during the winter. Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. SHIELDING A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an "out of sight, out of mind" effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line -of -sight to nearby resident. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line -of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The FHWA does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. Page 8 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-115 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires on the roadway. According to the Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: the volume of the traffic, the speed of the traffic, and the vehicle mix within the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and a greater number of trucks. (3) A doubling of the traffic volume, assuming that the speed and vehicle mix do not change, results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. The vehicle mix on a given roadway may also have an effect on community noise levels. As the number of medium and heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise level impacts will increase. NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 12 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receptor. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. SOUND ASSESSMENT METRICS The description, analysis, and reporting of sound levels is made difficult by the complexity of human response to sound and the myriad of metrics that have been developed for describing sound impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify sound levels with respect to human response. Most of the metrics use the A -Weighted sound level to quantify sound impacts on humans. As previously identified, A -Weighting is a frequency weighting that accounts for human sensitivity to different frequencies. Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue regarding community noise. The percentage of people claiming to be annoyed by noise generally increases with the environmental sound level. However, many factors also influence people's response to noise. The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence. Additionally, non -acoustical factors, such as the person's opinion of the noise source, the ability to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the predictability of the noise, all influence people's response. As such, response to noise varies widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses would range from "not annoyed" to "highly annoyed." Because sound levels can vary over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time -varying events. This energy -equivalent sound descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of sound events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure sound is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental sound levels to within about plus or minus 0.1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental sound levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the sound source. Close to the sound source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. Page 9 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-116 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 REGULATORY SETTING Public agencies have established noise guidelines and standards to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise. The following discusses applicable noise regulations where potential project impacts could occur. STATE Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (California Building Standards Code) requires that residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior CNEL with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN The City of Newport Beach General Plan's Noise Element is a tool for including noise control in the planning process in order to maintain compatible land use with environmental noise levels. It is the guiding document for the City's noise policy and is designed to protect residents and businesses from excessive and persistent noise intrusions. The Noise Element follows the revised State guidelines in Section 46050.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The element quantifies the community noise environment in terms of noise exposure contours for both near and long-term levels of growth and traffic activity. The project will not produce an increase in traffic and therefore will not produce an increase in traffic related noise levels. The following General Plan goals apply to this project: Goal N4, Minimization of Non -Transportation -Related Noise, is focused on minimizing noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. • Policy N4.1, Stationary Noise Sources, requires the enforcement of interior and exterior noise standards outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance. • Policy N4.6, Maintenance or Construction Activities, requires the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work -related activities. Goal N5, Minimized Excessive Construction -related Noise, addresses construction noise. • Policy N5.1, Limiting Hours of Activity, promotes enforcing the limits on hours of construction activity; these limits are in Section 10.26.035D of the City's Noise Ordinance, as discussed below. Page 10 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-117 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE The Noise Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from sources on private property by setting limits that cannot be exceeded at adjacent properties. The Noise Ordinance requirements are not applicable to mobile noise sources (such as heavy trucks) that are traveling on public roadways. Control of the mobile noise sources on public roads is preempted by federal and State laws. However, the Noise Ordinance does apply to vehicles while they are on private property. Section 10.26.025 of the Noise Ordinance specifies exterior noise levels that cannot be exceeded for a specified period of time at specified noise zones. The city -adopted exterior and interior noise level limits are presented in Table 2. If the ambient noise level exceeds the standards shown in Table 2, the ambient noise shall be the standard. These standards should not be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; or the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time. If the measurement location is on the boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone should apply. HEATING, VENTILLATION AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) UNITS Section 10.26.045 of the City's Noise Ordinance specifies that new permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where installations can be shown by computation, based on the sound rating of the proposed equipment, not to exceed an A -weighted sound pressure level of 50 dBA, or not to exceed an A -weighted sound pressure level of 55 dBA and be installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Page 11 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-118 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NON -VEHICULAR NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS Zon e Noise Metric Allowable Noise Level 7AMto10 PM (daytime) 10PMto7 AM (nighttime) Exterior Noise Standards Residential: Single- family, 2- or multi -family Le 15 min 55 dBA 50 dBA Lmax 75 dBA 70 dBA II Commercial Le 15 min 65 dBA 60 dBA Lmax 85 dBA 80 dBA III Residential Portions of Mixed- Use Properties Le 15 min 60 dBA 50 dBA Lmax 80 dBA 70 dBA IV Industrial and Manufacturing Le 15 min 70 dBA 70 dBA Lmax 90 dBA 90 dBA Interior Noise Standards Residential Leq (15 min) 45 dBA 40 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 60 dBA III Residential Portions of Mixed- Use Properties Le 15 min 45 dBA 45 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 65 dBA Leq: equivalent noise level; min: minutes; dBA: A -weighted decibels; Lmax: highest sound level Note: If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. a Residential uses within 100 feet of a commercial property where noise is from said commercial property. Source: Newport Beach 2022 CONSTRUCTIOIN NOISE Section 10.26.035D of the City's Noise Ordinance exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property from the City's Noise Ordinance standards shown in Table 2. These activities are subject to the provisions of Chapter 10.28, which prohibits construction activities that generate loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity except during weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM, and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Page 12 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-119 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 NOISE MEASUREMENTS Some of the data from October 3 was skewed due to gardening activities in the immediate vicinity. Additional measurements were made on the night of October 5 and the morning of October 6. The measurement location and data are included in appendix F and G. These measurements are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Date Time LAE4 LAmin LAmax LA25% 10/3/2022 9:03 56.5 44.8 70.3 54.6 10/5/2022 22:44 35.6 33.6 39.6 36.5 10/6/2022 10:39 55.2 35.9 67.3 57.1 Except for the gardening activities, most of the noise generated during the day was due to light truck traffic on Country Club Drive and occasional aircraft overflights. There was no traffic observed on Country Club Drive (see Figure 4) during the night. The majority of the increase in noise over the minimum was due to light traffic on Bison Avenue. NOISE CALCULATIONS Calculations were performed to quantify the expected transmission loss of the manufactured steel building using Insul software. (see appendix E) The individual estimated sound levels were combined using logarithmic addition according to the formula: L = 10 Log,, ( DO(Li /10) =1 Based on these calculations, the noise level predicted at the exterior of the building from the four vacuum pumps and single heat exchanger would be 48.8 dBA. This is in agreement with the manufacturer's specification of 50 dBA. This calculation is included in Table 4. Page 13 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-120 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 4 PREDICTED SOUND LEVEL AT BUILDING EXTERIOR DUE TO VACUUM PUMPS AND HEAT EXCHANGER Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Heat Equipment Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 4 Exchanger A Weighted Sound Level Rating 74 74 74 74 77 Building Sound Transmission Loss 33 33 33 33 33 Estimated Exterior A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 44.0 Estimated Combined Exterior A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 48.8 Calculations were also performed to predict the exterior noise produced by 4 vacuum pumps and 1 heat exchanger at the nearest separate residential property line at 61 Hillsdale Drive on the opposite side of County Club Drive. The combined exterior A weighted sound pressure level as calculated in Table 4 is reduced at 61 Hillsdale Drive due to inverse square law attenuation of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of the distance according to the formula: dL = Lp2 - Lp I = 10 log (R2 / Ri)2 = 20 log (R2 / Ri) Where dL = difference in sound pressure level (dBA) Lpi = sound pressure level at location 1 (dBA) Lp2 = sound pressure level at location 2 (dBA) Ri = distance from source to location 1 (ft) R2 = distance from source to location 2 (ft) This level was determined to be 23.9 dBA which is considerably lower than the minimum ambient noise level during night hours as tabulated in Table 3. This calculation is included in Table 5. Page 14 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-121 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 5 PREDICTED SOUND LEVELAT 61 HILLSDALE DRIVE DUE TO VACUUM PUMPS AND HEAT EXCHANGER Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Heat Equipment Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 4 Exchanger A Weighted Sound Level Rating 74 74 74 74 77 Building Sound Transmission Loss 33 33 33 33 33 Inverse Square Law Attenuation 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 15.5 15.5 1 15.5 15.5 18.5 Estimated Combined Exterior A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 23.9 A calculation was also performed to predict the noise level of the existing air conditioning condenser and then the combined sound level of the new equipment and the existing condenser at 61 Hillsdale Drive. This level was determined to be 34.9 dBA. The contribution of the new equipment is less than 0.5 dBA. This will result in an imperceptible change in the ambient noise level. This calculation is contained in Table 6. TABLE 6 LEVEL OF EXISTING HVAC CONDENSER AT 61 HILLSDALE DRIVE Equipment Carrier 38TUA024 A Weighted Sound Level Rating from Manufacturer Specification Data 72 Equipment Location Factor 3 Subtotal 75 Inverse Square Law Attenuation 40.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level of Existing Air Conditioning Condenser 34.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level of Existing Air Conditioning Condenser and New Equipment 34.9 Page 15 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-122 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS Noise levels from construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 85 dBA adjacent to the project site for very limited times. The activities include clearing the sire, pouring the foundation slab and placing the off -site manufactured building on the slab. Impacts from the proposed project would be potentially adverse; however, compliance with the City's construction hours requirement would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Short-term noise impacts would be associated with excavation and erecting of building on site during construction of the proposed project. Construction related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. Thesevarious sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 7 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels. Page 16 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-123 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 7 MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor' Lmax at 50 Feet dBA Concrete Saw 20 90 Crane 16 81 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79 Backhoe 40 78 Dozer 40 82 Excavator 40 81 Forklift 40 78 Paver 50 77 Roller 20 80 Tractor 40 84 Water Truck 40 80 Grader 40 85 General Industrial Equipment 50 85 Note: 1 — Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006. The closest existing or planned noise -sensitive uses such as homes adjacent to the project site are more than 125 feet from the project boundary. These uses may be subject to short-term, intermittent, maximum noise generated by construction activities on site. Compliance with the construction hours specified in the City's Noise Ordinance would reduce the construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. Page 17 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-124 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES To achieve the expected interior noise levels it is necessary that good construction techniques and good materials be used for construction of the building. A significant increase in noise levels over expected levels could occur if workmanship or materials are of inferior quality. This is especially true for the doors and louvers since they are the weakest acoustical element of the exterior shell. For the metal equipment building, we recommend that notes and details be included on the design drawings to ensure that the construction details achieve the insulation potential of the basic building assemblies. The following indicates the recommended additional notes and details: • Use permanently non -hardening sealant around perimeter of door and ventilation louver frames. • Select door and ventilation louver assemblies with effective nonporous gaskets or weatherstripping to minimize air infiltration and sound leakage. • Provide airtight construction at all exterior walls with acoustical or other non -hardening sealant at floor plates. • Use doorjamb and head gasketing and door bottom gasketing at entry doors to seal the doors against weather and sound. • Caulk entry door thresholds as they are placed. • To the extent feasible, any penetrations in the exterior walls having a direct view should be minimized and sealed. Doors and ventilation louvers are treated separately. Page 18 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-125 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 CONCLUSION The sound level at the exterior of the prefabricated metal building was calculated to be 48.8 dBA. The manufacturer's specification is less than 50 dBA. Therefore the sounded propagated from the metal building will be less than the maximum permissible by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code at the closest residential property line and at the adjacent building at 94 Hartford. The two nearest condominiums on the property directly adjacent to 94 Hartford are 92 and 96 Hartford. Inverse square attenuation will reduce the 48.8 dBA level to less than 34.9 dBA when no outdoor air condenser is operating. This will result in an increase the ambient sound level at those structures to less than1 dBA which is less than significant. The level calculated at the nearest separate residential property line of 61 Hillsdale Drive is predicted to be 23.9 dBA. The increase in ambient sound level is calculated to be less than 0.5 dBA which is also less than significant. Therefore the proposed Project will meet the standards of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and the increase in ambient sound level will be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures will be required. Respectfully submitted, Yanchar Design & Consulting Group Carl J. Yanchar President Page 19 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-126 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX A Page 19 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-127 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 DESCRIPTION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA): The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the internationally standardized A -weighting filter or as computed from sound spectral data to which A -weighting adjustments have been made. A -weighting de-emphasizes the low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the average human ear. A -weighted sound levels correlate well with subjective reactions of people to noise and are universally used for community noise evaluations. Acoustic; Acoustical: Acoustic is usually used when the term being qualified designates something that has the properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics associated with sound waves (e.g., acoustic power); acoustical is usually used when the term which it modifies does not explicitly designate something that has the properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics of sound (e.g., acoustical material). Airborne Sound: Sound that travels through the air, as opposed to structure -borne sound. Ambient Noise: The prevailing general noise existing at a location or in a space, which usually consists of a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. Attenuation: The decrease in level of sound, usually from absorption, divergence, scattering, or the cancellation of the sound waves. Average sound level (Leq): The level of a steady sound which, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A - weighted sound energy as the time -varying sound. Unit: decibel. Background noise: The total noise from all sources other than a particular sound that is of interest (e.g., other than the noise being measured or other than the speech or music being listened to). Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The Leq of the A -weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 5 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and a 10 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Day -Night Sound Level (Ldn): The Leq of the A -weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Page 20 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-128 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Decibel (dB): The decibel is a measure on a logarithmic scale of the magnitude of a particular quantity (such as sound pressure, sound power, sound intensity) with respect to a reference quantity. Energy Equivalent Level (Leq): The level of a steady noise which would have the same energy as the fluctuating noise level integrated over the time period of interest. Leq is widely used as a single -number descriptor of environmental noise. Leq is based on the logarithmic or energy summation and it places more emphasis on high noise level periods than does L50 or a straight arithmetic average of noise level over time. This energy average is not the same as the average sound pressure levels over the period of interest, but must be computed by a procedure involving summation or mathematical integration. Field Impact Insulation Class (FIIC): A single number rating similar to the IIC except that the impact sound pressure levels are measured in the field. Field Sound Transmission Class (FSTC): A single number rating similar to STC, except that the transmission loss values used to derive the FSTC are measured in the field. All sound transmitted from the source room to the receiving room is assumed to be through the separating wall or floor -ceiling assembly. Frequency (Hz): The number of oscillations per second of a periodic noise (or vibration) expressed in Hertz (abbreviated Hz). Frequency in Hertz is the same as cycles per second. Impact Isolation Class (IIC): A single number rating used to compare the effectiveness of floor -ceiling assemblies in providing reduction of impact generated sounds such as footsteps. It is derived from the measurement of impact sound pressure levels across a series of 16 test bands using a standardized tapping machine. Noise: Any disagreeable or undesired sound, i.e., unwanted sound. Noise level: Same as sound level. Usually used to describe the sound level of an unwanted sound. Noise reduction (NR): The difference in sound pressure level between any two points along a path of sound propagation. Page 21 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-129 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Noise Isolation Class (NIC): A single number rating derived from measured values of noise reduction between two enclosed spaces that are connected by one or more paths. The NIC is not adjusted or normalized to a standard reverberation time. Normalized Noise Isolation Class (NNIC): A single number rating similar to the NIC, except that the measured noise reduction values are normalized to a reverberation time of 1/2 second. Outdoor -Indoor Transmission Class (OITC): A single number classification, specified by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM E 1332 issued 1994), that establishes the A -weighted sound level reduction provided by building facade components (walls, doors, windows, and combinations thereof), based upon a reference sound spectrum that is typical of air, road, and rail transportation sources. The OITC is the preferred rating when exterior facade components are exposed to noise environments dominated by transportation sources. Octave Band - 1/3 Octave Band: One octave is an interval between two sound frequencies that have a ratio of two. For example, the frequency range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz is one octave, as is the frequency range of 2000 Hz to 4000 Hz. An octave band is a frequency range that is one octave wide. A standard series of octaves is used in acoustics, and they are specified by their center frequencies. In acoustics, to increase resolution, the frequency content of a sound or vibration is often analyzed in terms of 1/3 octave bands, where each octave is divided into three 1/3 octave bands. Sound (1) A change in air pressure that is capable of being detected by the human ear. (2) The hearing sensation excited by a change in air pressure. Sound Absorption Coefficient: The absorption coefficient of a material is the ratio of the sound absorbed by the material to that absorbed by an equivalent area of open window. The absorption coefficient of a perfectly absorbing surface would be 1.0 while that for concrete or marble slate is approximately 0.01 (a perfect reflector would have an absorption of 0.00). Sound Level: Ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of the square of the ratio of the frequency- weighted (and time - averaged) sound pressure to the reference sound pressure of 20 micro pascals. The frequency - weightings and time -weighting employed should be specified; if they are not specified, it is understood that A -frequency -weighting is used and that an averaging time of 0.125 is used. Unit: decibel (dBA). Page 22 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-130 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Sound Pressure Level (SPL): The sound pressure level of sound in decibels is 20 times the logarithm to the base of 10 of the ratios of the RMS value of the sound pressure to the RMS value of a reference sound pressure. The standard reference sound pressure is 20 micro -pascals as indicated in ANSI S1.8-1969, "Preferred Reference Quantities for Acoustical Levels". Sound Transmission Class (STC): STC is a single number rating, specified by the American Society for Testing and Materials, which can be used to measure the sound insulation properties for comparing the sound transmission capability, in decibels, of interior building partitions for noise sources such as speech, radio, and television. It is used extensively for rating sound insulation characteristics of building materials and products. Structure -Borne Sound: Sound propagating through building structure. Rapidly fluctuating elastic waves in gypsum board, joists, studs, etc. Statistical Distribution Terms: L99 and L90 are descriptors of the typical minimum or "residual' background noise (or vibration) levels observed during a measurement period, normally made up of the summation of a large number of sound sources distant from the measurement position and not usually recognizable as individual noise sources. Generally, the prevalent source of this residual noise is distant street traffic. L90 and L99 are not strongly influenced by occasional local motor vehicle pass-bys. However, they can be influenced by stationary sources such as air conditioning equipment. L5o represents a long-term statistical median noise level over the measurement period and does reveal the long-term influence of local traffic. L,o describes typical or average levels for the maximum noise levels occurring, for example, during nearby pass bys of trains, trucks, buses and automobiles, when there is relatively steady traffic. Thus, while L,o does not necessarily describe the typical maximum noise levels observed at a point, it is strongly influenced by the momentary maximum noise level occurring during vehicle pass-bys at most locations. Li, the noise level exceeded for 1 % of the time is representative of the occasional, isolated maximum or peak level which occurs in an area. L1 is usually strongly influenced by the maximum short -duration noise level events which occur during the measurement time period and are often determined by aircraft or large vehicle pass-bys. Page 23 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-131 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX B Page 24 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-132 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 COMMON SOUND LEVELS AND THEIR NOISE SOURCES Noise Source A -Weighted Sound Level in Decibels Noise Environments Subjective Evaluations Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Average Office 60 Quiet One-half as loud Suburban Street 55 Quiet Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet One -quarter as loud Large Transformer 45 Quiet Average Residence without Stereo Playing 40 Faint One -eighth as loud Soft Whisper 30 Faint Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearing 0 Very Faint Source: Compiled by YDCG Page 25 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-133 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX C MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SUBMITTALS Page 26 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-134 AIRT=CH" 3BA9620 Features: • Cooler running, outboard bearing provides maintenance -free operation • Environmentally friendly oil -free technology • Extremely quiet operation Performance Curve for Vacuum Vacuum/Pressure Regenerative Blower • All motors are standard TEFC with Class F insulation, UL recognized, CE Compliant Explosion -Proof motors available • Custom construction blowers are available • Rugged die-cast aluminum construction Performance Curve for Compressor 500 500 87 Hz _ 400 72 Hz 60Hz 50 Hz 400 _ 3] Hz I/J E 300 300 ` ' > 200 ' T 200 U (6 U (6 m 100 M 100 U U C O 0 O 16 0 t 0 0 rn 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 U) 0 50 c 0 n E m �o � N c c- oo E a� a om o- a Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H2O1 50 50 40 40 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Pressure 0 J 30 = 30 I/J c 20 ° 20 n� E 10 a 10 o = _ a 0 3 0 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 a a 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4 Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H2O1 Pressure 0 500 500 400 400 300 I/ J 300 J o a 200 0 a 200 (D 100 D a) 100 T >, E o 0 E c0) 0 0 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 P- o 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4 Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H2O1 Pressure 0 AI RT=CH® RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070 WWW.AIRTECHUSA.COM TEL: (888) 222-9940 FAX: (201) 569-19135 3BA9620-0416 AIRT=CH" Dimensions 3BA9620 1 IC20 11 r 3.1 FNPT INLET 21,55 3"-- FNPT 8A OUTLET i Selection & Orderina Data - Tvae 3BA9620 Vacuum/Pressure Regenerative Blower 3BA96207AT66 Curve Order Frequency Rated Input Input Permissable Total Sound Weight Letter Number (Hz) Power (HP) Voltage (V) Current (A) Differential Pressure Level (Ibs) dB(A) Vacuum Pressure Inch H2O Inch H2O 1-50/60 IP155 insulation material class F I I 3BA96207AT66 150 114.75 1 200D... 240D I 345Y...415Y I 38.OD/22.OY 1 -212 1253 170 1320 I 3BA96207AT66 60 16.90 220D... 250D 415Y...460Y 38.OD/22.OY L 217 212 74 320 I ObAHIoZU/AI Do 0t J 3BA96207AT86 50 J 3BA96207AT86 60 J 3BA96207AT86 87 AIRT=CH® Z5.ou b45U... 415U Sy.SU -ZU4 IZU 04 SLU 20.10 200D... 240D 345Y...415Y 53.OD/31.OY -212 357 70 370 23.20 220D... 250D 415Y...460Y 53.OD/30.5Y -217 325 74 370 34.80 345D... RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070 415D 51.5D WWW.AIRTECHUSA.COM -204 253 84 370 TEL: (888) 222-9940 FAX: (201) 569-1 996 136 3BA9620-0416 Page I AA Series Heat Exchanger I Xchanger https-//xchanger.com/products/aa-series-heater changer/ XCHANGERI AA Series Heat Exchanger AA Senes neat erchanpes 000l low pressure gas stream with aniblen+ air These compact air rAmed units are treat for In[auons we umlted acce;s in cooling wale-+ and have slgnmcanfly loner operating coos compared to hear acnartgers MA require a coming water sysrerr. They feat rre a TEPC nWASO VAC. 3 phase motor a heavy-duty cooing ran and ap OStW approeed fan guard. AAemate molom are auaaabte upon _ ,eclWsl The m0aw9t hood and venlun frame are galvanixgn Steel uxe our IraeraCtive omNe tomn to get aTesl and aCturalra quotel common AppiwauGns AAercooiing ROM type {mtaryanbe] and multistage centnlugal blowY'rs used In pmumanc mmv Wg. blogas, w"am rnemme, and wastewater aeraaon systems. �z r.:. hlallb in:n6 w SA Con Coostrucbon Tne auminum piete fln heal emilanger cme is famace hrazed wAn allemenng tinned flow Vianneis Pnx_-,.. gas flows+n liprbpmal [flannels am ambleat coneng an Flows upnard. Mmugh vmrll[al chamwis TM process stream enters and eabs IMmugh recafigular aluminum rieadefs, which are welded to the care Opembonal consideratlnns The process stream must he Altered to ensure parbeulate M1 not obstruct lire passages. n necessary. the service slde can usuauy be cimned wlln a saapv wafer wash. TM process channels should not be cnrtmered cleanable due to trielr Jong enclosed Flom length. Installation Convolintions Pulsating now. such as that produced In rolary Inbp blcmers should be dalnwrxm by a chambered silencer AA Serves heat eeohangers dissipale heal from Vac process stream to the ambletrl ❑rvitohnleni Thew_ are designed For ouldoor 1f15Iaaallon If InMaRM Indoom. Me area Shouts be vary well Venlialed venorrnance %Charger engineers u52 d eodlplller model +e anatyre Heal exchanger per[omianoe 4a5ed an 1hP. bP-st dVaifablP. engineering prarnce A database with Fan pefformance data allows us tn. select the best fan for the applltafgn Models AA-250, AAdhO, AA-5(). AA-75u- AA-i mid. AA-1750, AA-2000. AA-275d & AA--15Do 3WIal cormsoratlors can be found on our custom Designs page Air epow real ex narger (Dic wer af[enwoler) mmeW drawing antl tvprA contgurablans: Sample dal@ sneer m our �Igfloe$�}unai�Iilfr IN II Ill CIIT f+uSH Ti1RW0H IN 4AIE5 CUT IN our rrvculFr Captured by FireShot Pro: 09 October 2022, 08:00-25 h tt ps: / / g etfires h ot. com 10-137 Page 2 AA Series Heat Exchanger I Xchanger https-1/xchanger.com/products/aa-series-heahatchanger/ I� Product Applications . CSenes HP Senes LC Series 0C a— i4 Serke Request a quote! C fflwt v lodny lc dlscuss Vow hear exchongeror Mower atte¢oMBr apo"ion uilh a design engineer, m use ou:aaracEne online fNln Fo get a fasF and accurate q-k.- Aare a request of spec=ifca['wns to send by emall9 Send h to Ir&QxChOnyer.cgm An apPllcatlpne cnyweer,.m renew ymn requ l and wiV lypically respond i Kh1h one buslness by Prefer to speak w ih an engineer dl—liy' Glue ue a -in f%li 93s:559 Captured by FireShot Pro: 09 October 2022, O8:OOc25 h tt ps: / / g etfires h ot. com 10-138 Electrical data UNIT SIZE- SERIES WPH OPER VOLTS* COMPR FAN FLA MCA 60°C MIN WIRE SIZEt 75°C MIN WIRE SIZEt MAX LENGTH (FT) 6V/75°Ct MAX LENGTH (m) 60°/75°Ct MAX FUSE** OR CKT BKR AMPS Max Min LRA I RLA 024-75 230-1 253 207 72.5 15.0 0.6 19.4 14 14 38/37 12/11 30 036-96 400-3 440 360 46.0 6.4 0.7 8.7 14 14 181/172 55/52 20 048-96 63.0 7.9 0.7 10.7 14 14 147/140 45/42 15 060-96 74.0 9.0 1 0.7 11.9 14 14 132/126 40/38 20 " Permissible limits of the voltage range at which the unit will operate satisfactorily. Operation outside these limits may result in unit failure. If wire is applied at ambient greater than 30°C (86°F), consult Table 310-16 of the NEC (ANSI/NFPA 70). The ampacity of nonmetallic -sheathed cable (NM), trade name ROMEX, shall be that of 60oC (140°F) conductors, per the NEC (ANSI/NFPA 70) Article 336-26. All motors/compressors contain internal overload protection. t American wire gage. $ Length shown is as measured 1 way along wire path between unit and service panel for a voltage drop not to exceed 2%. ** Time -delay fuse. FLA - Full Load Amps LRA - Locked Rotor Amps MCA -Minimum Circuit Amps RLA - Rated Load Amps Performance summary COOLING CAP @ 95°F (35°C) COOLING CAP 115°F (46°C) Rated Capacity Power Rated Rated Capacity Power UNIT NOMINAL AIRFLOW CFM L/S BTUH kW SIZE INDOOR MODEL BTUH kW kW EER kW F(A,B)4(A,B)SF024* 800 380 23,000 6.7 2.34 10.30 20,700 6.1 2.87 024-75 F(A,B)4(A,B)SF030 800 380 24,000 7.0 2.33 10.40 21,031 6.2 2.86 FG3ASA024 800 380 23,000 6.7 2.40 9.70 20,023 5.9 2.95 F(A,B)4(A,B)SF036* 1200 560 35,000 10.3 3.76 10.40 31,600 9.3 4.56 036-96 F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)042 1200 560 36,000 10.5 3.71 10.50 32,320 9.5 4.50 FG3ASA036 1200 560 35,000 10.3 3.69 9.80 29,395 8.6 4.48 F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)048* 1600 750 47,000 13.8 5.12 9.50 42,400 12.4 6.20 048-96 F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)060 1600 750 48,000 14.1 5.26 9.50 43,540 12.8 6.37 FG3ASA048 1600 750 46,000 13.5 5.20 9.10 41,100 12.0 6.30 FG3ASA060 1600 750 47,000 13.8 5.25 9.20 42,179 12.4 6.35 F(A,B)4(A,B)S(Fl3)060* 1850 950 57,500 16.8 6.03 9.50 52,100 15.3 7.26 060-96 FB4(A,B)SB070 1850 950 59,000 17.3 6.14 9.50 53,364 15.6 7.39 FG3ASA060 1850 950 56,500 1 16.6 6.00 1 9.40 1 51,286 15.0 1 7.23 * Tested Combination NOTES: 1. Ratings are net values reflecting the effects of circulating fan motor heat. Supplemental electric heat is not included. 2. Tested outdoor/indoor combinations have been tested in accordance with DOE test procedures for central air conditioners. Ratings for other combinations are determined under DOE computer simulation procedures. 3. Determine actual CFM values obtainable for your system by referring to fan performance data in fan coil or furnace coil literature. A -weighted sound power (dBA) UNIT SIZE STANDARD RATING TYPICAL OCTAVE BAND SPECTRUM (without tone adjustment) 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 024 72 53.5 63.0 65.0 67.0 63.5 59.0 50.5 036 74 58.0 64.0 67.5 67.0 66.0 64.5 59.0 048 1 75 1 55.5 63.0 66.5 68.0 68.0 65.0 59.5 060 1 75 155.5 164.0 69.0 67.0 67.5 65.5 60.0 7 10-139 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX D PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING PLAN AND DETAILS Page 32 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-140 14 GAGE FORMED TRUSSES, 1:12�POCH WITH TO I STEEL ROOF, CIP BOTTOM WITH 1' DRIP RML, TOP AND 1 1/2- TRUSS BRIDGING LOGTE 1RI155 AS CONTINUWSLY FIANCES, SDTCH WELD TO 14 CMIGE STEEL CLOSE TO WALL AS WELDED ROOF, 24' OC STITCH WELD TO POSSIBLE "a TRUSS VENT TRUSSES WELDING SPACE 12' TYP. OWENS CORNING THERMAFBER FIRE AND SOUND INSULATON L 14 GA WALL STEEL PANEL /24,CENTER TYP \�/ 1' DPoP RML \\`-�/� uoNc BOTH sDEs F, EXTERIOR METAL LM SIgNG � IAYER 5/8 B uKK TYP. WALL PANEL DETAIL 0 0 RIG MIN SPRAY SFAIAS BEIWEDA —E. SHILL BE CAULKED WITH AN INDUSTRIAL CMILK TO COMPLETELY SEAL BUILDING ENAMS_R TYP. ROOF JOIST DETAIL FORA INSUTATDN - UNDERSIDE OF 24' BEFORE PRIMING. NUDAR ROOF, SKID AND ENCLOSURE ENAMEL FINISH SKID FLOOR ON CENTER ON CENTER WRH TER WITH 3/ 8'FILff WELDB 1 1/2' F.ANGE PERIMETER FRAMING G WRH ALL MOUND 3/18' FLET WELOB 3116' ML AROUND 24' MAX. WALL PANEL WIDTH IXCEPT OVER DOOR 3/IB' A-38 STEEL 1 1/2' TYP. DECK 3' SPECIFICATIONS: DESIGN PER 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE / ASCE 7-16 6' WALLFAMELS TO RISK CAT III, UNOCCUPIED BUILDING, TYPE US CONSTRUCTION. I OOINNG PANEL 1. WIND: EXPOSURE: B 1 Q' EMERAND INTERIOR,/2' 4-X4"X3/8" PL W/3/8- DESIGN WIND SPEED, MPH: 102 NING WLD EVERY GUSSETS BACK UP TO TOPO FACTOR KZT: 1.0 3" qA 6' D.C. CHANNEL. 3/4" DDL HIED HAS B7 2. SEISMIC 55: 1.313 LIFT PaHr HOG ROD WITH 8" ST: 0.468 7' TYP. WALL PANEL SECTION DETAIL EMBEDMENT USING HILTI SOIL SITE CLASS: D DEFAULT 20' N.T.S. 12' 12 MI EDGE DISTANCE SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: D BE 1.25 12' N.T.S. V: 7.4KIP5 3. ROOF LIVE LOAD: 40 PSF 4. FLOOR LIVE LOAD: 125 PSF OR A 250D LB CONCENTRATED LOAD i j 17„ (2) 38' X 7 FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAD DESIGN BY OTHERS IPOLVU�RETroHwmE 1" DIA HOLE MIN 4000 PSI CONCRETE FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAD 12 IIASIIIATED �. FOR ANCHORING TO FULLY SUPPORT ENTIRE FLOOR AREA OF SKID (R-5 rMCAL) CENTERED IN 4" PLATE WNL PANEL BOTCH NICKEL PIATED WFIDED TO TOP OF UP COM R AND IXTENIOR AN STEEL IAIAIES DOO R EDGE OJET W '— HARDWARE DOOR SKTCH WELDED 10 SKID FLOOR INTERIOR CSXSS AT ODOR OPENING JAMBS FULL DOHT AND CB%8.7 HEADER, 4.75" 1" FDRIME OPENINGS NNO_ T P 8 14 GAGE FORMED CHANNEL TOP BOTTOM AND 3' WELD CHANNELS TO WALL PANELS, 3' DEPTH OF JAMBB PERPEND. 11 SIDES, STITCH WELDED TO SURROUNONG 5" TO WALL PANEL (UKE A STUD). 5' DE ­ 1 1/2' X 3/18' BOOR WALL PANELS NOTE' LOUVEE ERN_ —ON BLOWN ON AND NOT IS RROR GENERIL OETNL ONLY AND IS NOT MBt11CAL FOR XEADD2. PLATE RIGHT ANGLE BEND WELTED TO PERIMETER CHANNEL, 1 1/2' WELD EPRESE S. SE OF SHEET $0 IDUVER LOCATIONS. SEE SHEET 80t1-0t FOR 4" PAST CHANNE EVERY 0' O.C. RITUAL LOUVER LOCATONS. TYP. CORNER BOLT DOWN DETAIL T� V I V UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE "DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES • DO NOi SCALE DRAWING THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE US E OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING~ AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. l �� TechnoLogies, Inc. 7550 Commerce St. Corcoran. MN 55340. Tel: 763-746-99000C)201I PROJECT TITLE: W000 PLC SVE SYSTEM NEWPORT BEACH, CA DRAWING TITLE: WELDED STEEL ENCLOSURE ISOMETRIC CONSTRUCTION DETAIL DRAWING FOR SOUND EVALUATION SHEET I OF I REV DESCRIPTION DATE DWN DRAWN BY: MK DRAWING NO.: 6011-08 DESIGNED 8Y: MK PROJECT MGR.: MK DATE: 10/D4/2022 PROJECT NO.: 6011 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX E PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING TRANSMISSION LOSS CALCULATIONS Page 34 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-142 Sound Insulation Prediction (v9.0.24) Program copyright Marshall Day Acoustics 2017 Margin of error is generally within STC .+..3 clB - Key No. 5935 Job Name: Job No.: Initials:cjyan Date:10/8/2022 File Name:insul Svstem description Panel 1 : 1 x 0.024 in Steel Notes: STC 39 OITC 27 Mass -air -mass resonant frequency = =106 Hz Panel Size = 8.9 ft x 13.1 ft Partition surface mass = 3.68 Iblft2 Frame: Steel Stud (16-20g) (3 in x 1.5 in ), Stud spacing 24 in; Cavity Width 3 in, 1 x Fibreglass (10kgrm3) Thickness 3.0 in Panel 2 : 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Board freq.(Hz) TL(dB) TL(dB) 50 16 63 16 16 80 16 100 15 125 15 16 160 20 200 26 250 31 29 315 35 400 39 500 43 42 630 47 800 51 1000 53 52 1250 55 1600 56 2000 55 45 2S00 40 3150 42 4000 45 44 5000 48 60 55 50 45 9 M 40 e 35 0 30 25 2G O {/S 15 1C ti 53 125 250 500 10c0 20-OC Frequency (biz) 4 TCensmission Lags (ds) STC 39 FlanW,,g Limit 10-143 Sound Insulation Prediction (v9.0.24) Program copyright Marshall Day Acoustics 2017 Margin of error is generally within STC t3 dB 1. Key No. 5935 Job Name: Job No.: Initials:cjyan Date:10/8/2022 File Name:insul Svstem description Panel 1 : 1 x 0.024 in Steel Notes: INSUL STC 46 OITC 31 Mass -air -mass resonant frequency = =90 Hz Panel Size = 8.9 ft x 13.1 ft Partition surface mass = 6.2 Ib1ft2 Frame: Cold formed Steel Joist (16-20q) (3.5 in x 1.5 in ), Stud soacinq_ 24 in ; Cavity Width 3.54 in , 1 x Fibreglass (10kq/m3) Thickness 2.4 in Panel 2 : 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Board + 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Board freq.(Hz) TL(dB) TL(dB) 50 20 63 20 20 80 20 100 17 125 22 20 160 28 200 33 250 38 36 315 43 400 47 500 51 50 630 55 800 59 1000 61 61 1250 63 1600 64 2000 63 54 2500 50 3150 51 4000 54 54 5000 57 80 75 70 E5 so 55 a 50 J 45 40 35 � 30 0 25 20 15 10• 5 0 63 125 250 500 10c0 2000 Frequency (biz) 4 TCensmission Lags (d6) STC-06 Flanki,,g Limit 10-144 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX F MEASUREMENT LOCATION Page 37 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-145 dour, _vs ■ INto 4F M- SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX G MEASUREMENT DATA Page 39 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 10-147 Number 24 Start Date 10/3/2022 Start Time 9:05:44 AM End Time 9:14:09 AM Duration 00:08:25 Meas Mode Single Input Range Low Input Type Mic SPL Time Weight LN% Freq Weight Overload No UnderRange No Sensitivity LZeq 70.3 LCeq 69.5 LAeq 64.1 LZFinax 88.6 LCFinax 88.2 LAFinax 82.6 LZFmin 58.7 LCFmin 56.3 LAFmin 42.2 LZE 97.3 LCE 96.5 LAE 91.1 LZpk 96.0 LCpk 95.5 LApk 93.7 LAF1o76.2 LAF2o74.1 LAF5o70.7 LAF8o66.9 LAF10o 65.1 LAF25o 60.5 LAF50% 55.4 LAF90o 47.0 LAF95% 45.5 LAF990 43.4 1/1 Oct. (dBA) 31.5 20.0 63 38.1 125 47.5 250 50.9 500 59.6 1000 59.4 2000 56.8 4000 50.4 8000 42.4 FFT (dBA) Fast dBA 14.82mV/Pa 1 10-148 0 -Inf 43.1 31.6 86.2 44.7 129.3 46.0 172.344.8 215.446.9 258.545.3 301.646.1 344.7 46.4 387.847.4 430.848.8 473.953.9 517 55.7 560.151.5 603.254.6 646.3 52.4 689.3 50.1 732.448.8 775.547.4 818.647.9 861.747.4 904.8 46.8 947.8 46.6 990.947.4 1034 48.5 1077.1 49.2 1120.2 49.9 1163.3 51.0 1206.3 53.9 1249.4 51.0 1292.5 46.1 1335.6 45.6 1378.7 45.8 1421.8 46.7 1464.8 46.6 1507.9 45.3 1551 44.2 1594.1 44.2 1637.2 44.1 1680.3 43.6 1723.3 43.3 1766.4 43.8 1809.5 44.6 1852.6 44.5 1895.7 44.3 1938.8 44.3 1981.8 44.2 2024.9 44.5 2068 43.9 2111.1 42.9 2154.2 42.6 2197.3 42.4 2 10-149 2240.3 42.2 2283.4 41.7 2326.5 41.4 2369.6 42.0 2412.7 43.6 2455.8 42.7 2498.9 40.4 2541.9 39.2 2585 39.1 2628.1 38.8 2671.2 38.6 2714.3 38.6 2757.4 38.9 2800.4 39.2 2843.5 39.1 2886.6 39.4 2929.7 39.6 2972.8 39.0 3015.9 38.3 3058.9 38.3 3102 38.3 3145.1 37.6 3188.2 37.4 3231.3 37.3 3274.4 37.3 3317.4 37.1 3360.5 36.2 3403.6 36.1 3446.7 35.8 3489.8 35.2 3532.9 34.9 3575.9 35.1 3619 35.0 3662.1 34.9 3705.2 34.7 3748.3 34.2 3791.4 33.8 3834.4 33.5 3877.5 33.4 3920.6 33.2 3963.7 32.9 4006.8 33.0 4049.9 32.5 4092.9 32.0 4136 32.0 4179.1 31.6 4222.2 31.3 4265.3 30.8 4308.4 30.5 4351.4 30.2 4394.5 30.0 4437.6 29.9 3 10-150 4480.7 30.2 4523.8 29.9 4566.9 29.4 4609.9 29.5 4653 29.5 4696.1 29.6 4739.2 29.5 4782.3 29.4 4825.4 29.4 4868.5 29.8 4911.5 29.7 4954.6 29.6 4997.7 29.6 5040.8 29.5 5083.9 29.5 5127 29.3 5170 29.3 5213.1 29.2 5256.2 29.2 5299.3 29.0 5342.4 28.6 5385.5 28.3 5428.5 28.4 5471.6 27.9 5514.7 27.7 5557.8 27.3 5600.9 26.9 5644 26.4 5687 26.3 5730.1 25.8 5773.2 26.1 5816.3 25.7 5859.4 25.1 5902.5 24.5 5945.5 24.0 5988.6 24.0 6031.7 23.8 6074.8 23.9 6117.9 23.8 6161 23.9 6204 23.9 6247.1 23.7 6290.2 23.7 6333.3 24.3 6376.4 24.6 6419.5 24.8 6462.5 24.9 6505.6 25.3 6548.7 25.8 6591.8 26.3 6634.9 26.4 6678 26.7 n 10-151 6721 27.0 6764.1 27.1 6807.2 27.2 6850.3 27.4 6893.4 27.5 6936.5 27.5 6979.5 27.3 7022.6 27.2 7065.7 27.4 7108.8 27.5 7151.9 27.4 7195 27.2 7238.1 26.8 7281.1 26.5 7324.2 26.2 7367.3 25.9 7410.4 25.4 7453.5 25.2 7496.6 25.1 7539.6 24.8 7582.7 24.5 7625.8 24.0 7668.9 23.6 7712 23.3 7755.1 23.5 7798.1 23.4 7841.2 23.4 7884.3 23.7 7927.4 23.4 7970.5 23.6 8013.6 23.5 8056.6 23.0 8099.7 22.6 8142.8 22.5 8185.9 22.0 8229 21.7 8272.1 21.6 8315.1 21.5 8358.2 21.2 8401.3 20.9 8444.4 20.7 8487.5 20.6 8530.6 20.7 8573.6 20.6 8616.7 20.6 8659.8 20.6 8702.9 20.2 8746 20.3 8789.1 20.7 8832.1 20.6 8875.2 20.4 8918.3 20.5 5 10-152 8961.4 20.8 9004.5 20.6 9047.6 20.2 9090.6 20.1 9133.7 20.1 9176.8 20.3 9219.9 20.4 9263 20.3 9306.1 20.1 9349.2 20.0 9392.2 20.0 9435.3 19.8 9478.4 19.6 9521.5 19.6 9564.6 19.7 9607.7 18.9 9650.7 18.9 9693.8 18.9 9736.9 18.7 9780 18.4 9823.1 18.2 9866.2 18.2 9909.2 18.2 9952.3 18.1 9995.4 18.1 10038.5 17.8 10081.6 17.7 10124.7 17.6 10167.7 17.4 10210.8 17.3 10253.9 17.5 10297 17.2 10340.1 16.7 10383.2 16.9 10426.2 17.2 10469.3 17.3 10512.4 17.1 10555.5 16.5 10598.6 16.2 10641.7 16.5 10684.7 16.7 10727.8 16.6 10770.9 16.5 10814 16.7 10857.1 16.7 10900.2 16.3 10943.2 16.2 10986.3 15.7 11029.4 15.4 11072.5 15.3 11115.6 15.5 11158.7 15.2 0 10-153 11201.7 15.0 11244.8 15.0 11287.9 14.7 1133114.3 11374.1 14.2 11417.2 14.2 11460.2 14.1 11503.3 14.1 11546.4 13.5 11589.5 13.2 11632.6 13.0 11675.7 12.3 11718.8 12.2 11761.8 11.9 11804.9 11.3 1184811.1 11891.1 10.7 11934.2 10.7 11977.3 10.6 12020.3 10.3 12063.4 10.2 12106.5 9.8 12149.6 9.5 12192.7 9.1 12235.8 9.0 12278.8 8.6 12321.9 8.1 12365 8.0 12408.1 8.3 12451.2 8.2 12494.3 7.8 12537.3 7.6 12580.4 7.6 12623.5 7.6 12666.6 7.4 12709.7 7.4 12752.8 7.3 12795.8 7.1 12838.9 7.2 128827.0 12925.1 6.7 12968.2 6.7 13011.3 6.8 13054.3 7.1 13097.4 7.3 13140.5 7.1 13183.6 7.0 13226.7 7.2 13269.8 7.0 13312.8 6.9 13355.9 6.8 13399 6.6 7 10-154 13442.1 6.5 13485.2 6.3 13528.3 6.4 13571.3 6.3 13614.4 6.4 13657.5 6.7 13700.6 6.6 13743.7 6.3 13786.8 6.3 13829.8 6.4 13872.9 6.4 13916 6.4 13959.1 6.3 14002.2 6.3 14045.3 6.3 14088.4 6.0 14131.4 5.6 14174.5 5.4 14217.6 5.4 14260.7 5.1 14303.8 4.6 14346.9 4.4 14389.9 4.1 144333.6 14476.1 3.5 14519.2 3.4 14562.3 3.0 14605.4 3.0 14648.4 2.7 14691.5 2.3 14734.6 1.9 14777.7 1.7 14820.8 1.4 14863.9 1.0 14906.9 0.9 14950 0.5 14993.1 0.2 13036.2 0.0 15079.3 -0.5 15122.4 -0.7 15165.4 -1.0 15208.5 -1.1 15251.6 -1.3 15294.7 -1.6 15337.8 -1.8 15380.9 -2.1 15423.9 -2.4 15467-2.6 15510.1 -2.8 15553.2 -2.9 15596.3 -3.1 15639.4 -3.3 PIP 10-155 15682.4 -3.8 15725.5 -4.1 15768.6 -4.2 15811.7 -4.4 15854.8 -4.9 15897.9 -5.3 15940.9 -5.3 15984-5.6 16027.1 -6.0 16070.2 -6.2 16113.3 -6.4 16156.4 -6.8 16199.4 -7.1 16242.5 -7.1 16285.6 -7.4 16328.7 -7.4 16371.8 -7.6 16414.9 -8.0 16458-8.2 16501-8.3 16544.1 -8.3 16587.2 -8.6 16630.3 -8.8 16673.4 -8.7 16716.5 -8.7 16759.5 -8.7 16802.6 -8.9 16845.7 -9.1 16888.8 -9.1 16931.9 -9.0 16975 -8.7 17018-8.6 17061.1 -9.0 17104.2 -9.3 17147.3 -9.3 17190.4 -9.4 0 10-156 Number 27 Start Date 10/5/2022 Start Time 10:44:30 PM End Time 10:46:09 PM Duration 00:01:39 Meas Mode Single Input Range Low Input Type Mic SPL Time Weight LN% Freq Weight Overload No UnderRange No Sensitivity LZeq 57.9 LCeq 54.2 LAeq 37.5 LZFinax 69.4 LCFinax 63.2 LAFinax 59.0 LZFmin 52.2 LCFmin 49.9 LAFmin 34.0 LZE 77.9 LCE 74.2 LAE 57.5 LZpk 80.9 LCpk 80.2 LApk 80.2 LAF1o42.4 LAF2o39.1 LAF5o37.9 LAF8%37.5 LAF10o 37.3 LAF25o 36.4 LAF50% 35.7 LAF90o 34.8 LAF95% 34.7 LAF990 34.3 1/1 Oct. (dBA) 31.5 13.2 63 25.6 125 26.9 250 25.7 500 27.0 1000 29.9 2000 31.2 4000 29.7 8000 29.6 FFT (dBA) Fast dBA 14.82mV/Pa 1 10-157 0 -Inf 43.1 23.3 86.2 29.6 129.326.9 172.323.4 215.421.9 258.521.5 301.619.4 344.7 19.8 387.8 19.2 430.818.2 473.920.3 517 19.3 560.1 19.3 603.2 20.4 646.3 19.2 689.3 19.4 732.419.6 775.5 19.0 818.619.8 861.720.4 904.820.1 947.8 19.2 990.919.0 1034 19.4 1077.1 19.2 1120.2 20.3 1163.3 20.2 1206.3 18.8 1249.4 18.1 1292.5 17.6 1335.6 18.3 1378.7 18.2 1421.8 16.7 1464.8 16.5 1507.9 18.0 1551 18.5 1594.1 18.4 1637.2 17.8 1680.3 17.9 1723.3 17.1 1766.4 17.2 1809.5 18.1 1852.6 17.7 1895.7 15.8 1938.8 15.5 1981.8 16.3 2024.9 18.5 2068 19.0 2111.1 17.4 2154.2 16.3 2197.3 15.7 2 10-158 2240.3 15.8 2283.4 17.0 2326.5 16.5 2369.6 16.9 2412.7 16.3 2455.8 15.2 2498.9 16.2 2541.9 16.8 2585 16.5 2628.1 14.5 2671.2 14.3 2714.3 16.8 2757.4 19.8 2800.4 19.6 2843.5 17.4 2886.6 15.1 2929.7 15.8 2972.8 16.7 3015.9 13.7 3058.9 13.6 3102 15.4 3145.1 16.2 3188.2 15.8 3231.3 15.7 3274.4 13.0 3317.4 13.4 3360.5 15.1 3403.6 12.9 3446.7 11.1 3489.8 12.1 3532.9 12.6 3575.9 13.2 3619 15.0 3662.1 13.8 3705.2 12.3 3748.3 14.1 3791.4 12.4 3834.4 10.5 3877.5 12.2 3920.6 14.1 3963.7 12.2 4006.8 9.8 4049.9 10.2 4092.9 10.7 4136 14.4 4179.1 13.5 4222.2 11.6 4265.3 12.7 4308.4 11.7 4351.4 10.9 4394.5 12.1 4437.6 10.3 3 10-159 4480.7 10.4 4523.8 10.5 4566.9 8.3 4609.9 13.1 4653 16.3 4696.1 11.3 4739.2 8.5 4782.3 11.4 4825.4 15.4 4868.5 13.7 4911.5 8.3 4954.6 14.9 4997.7 16.0 5040.8 14.4 5083.9 14.9 5127 14.7 5170 9.0 5213.1 11.7 5256.2 12.5 5299.3 13.3 5342.4 12.5 5385.5 8.5 5428.5 12.2 5471.6 9.0 5514.7 7.0 5557.8 11.7 5600.9 12.2 5644 11.3 5687 10.0 5730.1 8.1 5773.2 6.9 5816.3 4.7 5859.4 7.6 5902.5 10.5 5945.5 8.8 5988.6 4.3 6031.7 6.4 6074.8 4.0 6117.9 5.8 6161 3.7 6204 5.7 6247.1 7.8 6290.2 4.0 6333.3 11.1 6376.4 10.4 6419.5 7.3 6462.5 6.1 6505.6 5.9 6548.7 7.5 6591.8 10.5 6634.9 11.1 6678 11.7 n 10-160 6721 15.3 6764.1 15.9 6807.2 16.6 6850.3 18.8 6893.4 19.2 6936.5 16.2 6979.5 13.4 7022.6 13.4 7065.7 15.1 7108.8 17.4 7151.9 16.5 7195 15.7 7238.1 16.8 7281.1 16.1 7324.2 15.7 7367.3 15.7 7410.4 17.0 7453.5 18.6 7496.6 18.6 7539.6 17.0 7582.7 15.5 7625.8 13.4 7668.9 13.5 7712 14.1 7755.1 13.4 7798.1 10.9 7841.2 8.0 7884.3 8.0 7927.4 7.8 7970.5 8.6 8013.6 11.5 8056.6 10.3 8099.7 7.5 8142.8 9.4 8185.9 8.3 8229 6.7 8272.1 8.1 8315.1 8.0 8358.2 7.6 8401.3 7.9 8444.4 8.6 8487.5 10.7 8530.6 11.8 8573.6 8.9 8616.7 7.5 8659.8 9.1 8702.9 8.4 8746 7.8 8789.1 8.6 8832.1 6.8 8875.2 5.3 8918.3 5.6 5 10-161 8961.4 5.8 9004.5 6.2 9047.6 7.6 9090.6 11.4 9133.7 11.9 9176.8 9.8 9219.9 6.9 9263 5.7 9306.1 5.4 9349.2 6.6 9392.2 7.3 9435.3 5.9 9478.4 5.1 9521.5 5.5 9564.6 4.5 9607.7 6.4 9650.7 6.0 9693.8 5.0 9736.9 5.3 9780 5.5 9823.1 4.8 9866.2 5.0 9909.2 6.5 9952.3 6.1 9995.4 7.1 10038.5 5.8 10081.6 4.1 10124.7 4.9 10167.7 4.5 10210.8 4.5 10253.9 4.2 10297 4.8 10340.1 4.1 10383.2 4.2 10426.2 4.3 10469.3 5.7 10512.4 4.7 10555.5 4.3 10598.6 3.9 10641.7 3.6 10684.7 4.0 10727.8 5.4 10770.9 5.0 10814 5.7 10857.1 5.6 10900.2 4.5 10943.2 3.6 10986.3 3.4 11029.4 3.1 11072.5 4.0 11115.6 5.2 11158.7 4.7 C: 10-162 11201.7 2.9 11244.8 2.6 11287.9 2.8 113314.7 11374.1 5.2 11417.2 2.5 11460.2 3.2 11503.3 3.6 11546.4 4.4 11589.5 3.2 11632.6 1.7 11675.7 1.1 11718.8 1.6 11761.8 2.9 11804.9 2.0 11848 0.4 11891.1 1.9 11934.2 1.3 11977.3 1.0 12020.3 0.5 12063.4 0.2 12106.5 -0.7 12149.6 0.1 12192.7 1.2 12235.8 0.9 12278.8 1.9 12321.9 2.5 12365 1.2 12408.1 0.1 12451.2 0.6 12494.3 0.3 12537.3 -1.1 12580.4 -2.1 12623.5 -2.2 12666.6 -2.0 12709.7 -2.1 12752.8 -1.3 12795.8 -0.1 12838.9 -0.2 12882-1.0 12925.1 -1.2 12968.2 -1.2 13011.3 -1.2 13054.3 -1.6 13097.4 -1.6 13140.5 -1.3 13183.6 -0.7 13226.7 -1.2 13269.8 -0.1 13312.8 -0.6 13355.9 -1.2 13399-1.2 7 10-163 Number 32 Start Date 10/6/2022 Start Time 10:39:05 AM End Time 10:42:50 AM Duration 00:03:45 Meas Mode Single Input Range Low Input Type Mic SPL Time Weight LN% Freq Weight Overload No UnderRange No Sensitivity LZeq 65.3 LCeq 64.1 LAeq 55.2 LZFinax 79.0 LCFinax 78.3 LAFinax 67.3 LZFmin 53.2 LCFmin 50.8 LAFmin 35.9 LZE 88.8 LCE 87.6 LAE 78.7 LZpk 84.5 LCpk 84.6 LApk 81.4 LAF1o65.0 LAF2 0 64.2 LAF5o62.4 LAF8o61.1 LAF10o 60.1 LAF25o 55.5 LAF50% 44.5 LAF90o 37.2 LAF95% 36.8 LAF990 36.4 1/1 Oct. (dBA) 31.5 18.1 63 35.3 125 42.3 250 42.4 500 45.2 1000 51.3 2000 50.5 4000 43.5 8000 34.1 FFT (dBA) Fast dBA 14.82mV/Pa 1 10-164 0 -Inf 43.1 29.4 86.2 40.0 129.341.6 172.340.7 215.4 39.0 258.537.5 301.635.7 344.734.7 387.835.2 430.8 36.5 473.937.3 517 37.8 560.138.4 603.2 39.0 646.3 39.5 689.3 40.1 732.440.2 775.540.4 818.641.0 861.741.8 904.8 42.2 947.8 42.4 990.941.8 1034 41.3 1077.1 41.0 1120.2 40.5 1163.3 40.4 1206.3 40.2 1249.4 40.3 1292.5 40.0 1335.6 39.8 1378.7 39.4 1421.8 39.3 1464.8 39.1 1507.9 39.3 1551 39.3 1594.1 39.5 1637.2 39.4 1680.3 39.1 1723.3 39.1 1766.4 39.0 1809.5 38.8 1852.6 38.8 1895.7 38.5 1938.8 38.3 1981.8 37.9 2024.9 37.6 2068 37.5 2111.1 36.9 2154.2 36.5 2197.3 35.9 2 10-165 2240.3 35.5 2283.4 34.9 2326.5 34.4 2369.6 33.8 2412.7 33.5 2455.8 33.2 2498.9 32.9 2541.9 32.7 2585 32.5 2628.1 32.5 2671.2 32.4 2714.3 32.2 2757.4 32.1 2800.4 31.9 2843.5 31.7 2886.6 31.5 2929.7 31.2 2972.8 31.1 3015.9 31.1 3058.9 31.1 3102 30.9 3145.1 30.8 3188.2 30.5 3231.3 30.3 3274.4 29.9 3317.4 29.8 3360.5 29.7 3403.6 29.6 3446.7 29.4 3489.8 29.4 3532.9 29.0 3575.9 28.5 3619 28.2 3662.1 28.2 3705.2 28.0 3748.3 27.6 3791.4 27.2 3834.4 26.9 3877.5 26.6 3920.6 26.3 3963.7 26.2 4006.8 25.9 4049.9 25.7 4092.9 25.6 4136 25.1 4179.1 24.8 4222.2 24.8 4265.3 24.6 4308.4 24.1 4351.4 23.7 4394.5 23.5 4437.6 23.6 3 10-166 4480.7 23.8 4523.8 23.5 4566.9 23.0 4609.9 23.0 4653 23.0 4696.1 23.0 4739.2 22.6 4782.3 22.6 4825.4 22.8 4868.5 22.5 4911.5 22.4 4954.6 22.3 4997.7 22.1 5040.8 22.0 5083.9 22.0 5127 21.8 5170 21.7 5213.1 21.5 5256.2 21.4 5299.3 21.3 5342.4 21.2 5385.5 21.4 5428.5 21.7 5471.6 22.1 5514.7 22.4 5557.8 21.3 5600.9 20.4 5644 19.8 5687 19.2 5730.1 18.4 5773.2 17.9 5816.3 17.6 5859.4 17.4 5902.5 17.2 5945.5 16.9 5988.6 16.5 6031.7 16.2 6074.8 15.8 6117.9 15.5 6161 15.7 6204 15.9 6247.1 15.9 6290.2 16.1 6333.3 16.4 6376.4 16.3 6419.5 16.4 6462.5 16.7 6505.6 16.7 6548.7 16.9 6591.8 17.4 6634.9 17.4 6678 17.4 n 10-167 6721 17.8 6764.1 18.2 6807.2 18.4 6850.3 18.7 6893.4 19.1 6936.5 19.2 6979.5 18.8 7022.6 18.9 7065.7 18.7 7108.8 18.6 7151.9 18.3 7195 18.0 7238.1 17.7 7281.1 17.5 7324.2 17.1 7367.3 16.8 7410.4 16.4 7453.5 16.2 7496.6 15.9 7539.6 15.6 7582.7 15.4 7625.8 15.1 7668.9 15.1 7712 15.1 7755.1 14.8 7798.1 14.4 7841.2 14.4 7884.3 14.4 7927.4 14.5 7970.5 14.2 8013.6 14.0 8056.6 13.8 8099.7 13.7 8142.8 13.7 8185.9 13.7 8229 13.7 8272.1 13.2 8315.1 13.0 8358.2 13.0 8401.3 12.6 8444.4 12.6 8487.5 12.5 8530.6 12.4 8573.6 12.2 8616.7 12.0 8659.8 11.9 8702.9 11.9 8746 11.9 8789.1 11.8 8832.1 11.9 8875.2 11.7 8918.3 11.8 10-168 8961.4 11.8 9004.5 11.5 9047.6 11.3 9090.6 11.3 9133.7 11.4 9176.8 11.3 9219.9 11.1 9263 11.0 9306.1 11.1 9349.2 11.3 9392.2 10.9 9435.3 11.0 9478.4 11.2 9521.5 10.9 9564.6 10.8 9607.7 10.8 9650.7 10.7 9693.8 10.8 9736.9 10.8 9780 10.7 9823.1 10.4 9866.2 10.4 9909.2 10.0 9952.3 9.8 9995.4 9.7 10038.5 9.5 10081.6 9.3 10124.7 9.5 10167.7 9.2 10210.8 9.1 10253.9 9.2 10297 9.1 10340.1 9.1 10383.2 9.1 10426.2 9.1 10469.3 9.0 10512.4 9.0 10555.5 8.8 10598.6 8.6 10641.7 8.8 10684.7 8.9 10727.8 8.6 10770.9 8.3 10814 8.4 10857.1 8.3 10900.2 8.2 10943.2 8.2 10986.3 8.1 11029.4 7.8 11072.5 7.6 11115.6 7.4 11158.7 7.4 M. 10-169 11201.7 7.3 11244.8 7.0 11287.9 6.8 11331 6.7 11374.1 6.4 11417.2 6.1 11460.2 5.8 11503.3 5.7 11546.4 5.5 11589.5 5.2 11632.6 5.3 11675.7 4.9 11718.8 4.5 11761.8 4.2 11804.9 4.1 118483.8 11891.1 3.6 11934.2 3.3 11977.3 3.2 12020.3 2.9 12063.4 2.9 12106.5 2.5 12149.6 2.3 12192.7 2.3 12235.8 2.1 12278.8 1.8 12321.9 1.6 12365 1.5 12408.1 1.4 12451.2 1.2 12494.3 1.2 12537.3 1.1 12580.4 0.9 12623.5 0.9 12666.6 0.7 12709.7 0.5 12752.8 0.5 12795.8 0.6 12838.9 0.5 12882 0.3 12925.1 0.4 12968.2 0.4 13011.3 0.4 13054.3 0.4 13097.4 0.4 13140.5 0.4 13183.6 0.6 13226.7 0.7 13269.8 0.8 13312.8 0.7 13355.9 0.7 133990.9 7 10-170 13442.1 0.8 13485.2 0.9 13528.3 0.9 13571.3 0.8 13614.4 0.9 13657.5 0.9 13700.6 0.8 13743.7 0.8 13786.8 0.7 13829.8 0.7 13872.9 0.5 139160.4 13959.1 0.4 14002.2 0.1 14045.3 0.1 14088.4 0.1 14131.4 0.0 14174.5 0.0 14217.6 0.4 14260.7 0.3 14303.8 -0.5 14346.9 -0.8 14389.9 -0.9 14433-1.3 14476.1 -1.6 14519.2 -1.6 14562.3 -1.8 14605.4 -1.9 14648.4 -2.3 14691.5 -2.5 14734.6 -2.8 14777.7 -2.9 14820.8 -3.0 14863.9 -3.4 14906.9 -3.6 14950-3.8 14993.1 -4.1 13036.2 -4.2 15079.3 -4.5 15122.4 -4.6 15165.4 -4.9 15208.5 -5.1 15251.6 -5.4 15294.7 -5.7 15337.8 -5.9 15380.9 -6.0 15423.9 -6.2 15467-6.3 15510.1 -6.3 15553.2 -6.4 15596.3 -7.0 15639.4 -7.3 PIP 10-171 15682.4 -7.4 15725.5 -7.9 15768.6 -8.2 15811.7 -8.2 15854.8 -8.6 15897.9 -8.7 15940.9 -8.8 15984-8.9 16027.1 -9.2 16070.2 -9.3 16113.3 -9.5 16156.4 -9.6 16199.4 -9.8 16242.5 -10.2 16285.6 -10.6 16328.7 -10.7 16371.8 -10.8 16414.9 -11.0 16458 -11.3 16501 -11.5 16544.1 -11.5 16587.2 -11.7 16630.3 -11.8 16673.4 -12.0 16716.5 -12.0 16759.5 -12.1 16802.6 -12.1 16845.7 -12.2 16888.8 -12.3 16931.9 -12.3 16975 -12.3 17018-12.4 17061.1 -12.6 17104.2 -12.5 17147.3 -12.6 17190.4 -12.6 0 10-172 13442.1 - 1 . 1 13485.2 -0.6 13528.3 -1.0 13571.3 - 1 . 1 13614.4 -0.8 13657.5 -0.9 13700.6 -1.2 13743.7 -1.0 13786.8 -1.0 13829.8 -1.3 13872.9 -1.1 13916-0.8 13959.1 -0.8 14002.2 -0.5 14045.3 -0.0 14088.4 -0.6 14131.4 -1.4 14174.5 -0.6 14217.6 -0.6 14260.7 -1.7 14303.8 -2.3 14346.9 -1.6 14389.9 -2.1 14433-2.9 14476.1 -2.7 14519.2 -1.6 14562.3 -2.1 14605.4 -3.1 14648.4 -2.1 14691.5 -3.1 14734.6 -4.1 14777.7 -3.3 14820.8 -3.5 14863.9 -4.4 14906.9 -4.4 14950-4.3 14993.1 -4.0 13036.2 -5.1 15079.3 -5.2 15122.4 -5.2 15165.4 -6.1 15208.5 -5.3 15251.6 -5.3 15294.7 -5.9 15337.8 -6.3 15380.9 -6.6 15423.9 -6.9 15467 -7.1 15510.1 -7.3 15553.2 -7.3 15596.3 -7.6 15639.4 -7.6 PIP 10-173 15682.4 -8.1 15725.5 -8.4 15768.6 -8.6 15811.7 -9.1 15854.8 -9.2 15897.9 -9.3 15940.9 -9.0 15984 -9.1 16027.1 -9.3 16070.2 -9.3 16113.3 -9.6 16156.4 -10.3 16199.4 -10.2 16242.5 -10.3 16285.6 -10.3 16328.7 -9.8 16371.8 -10.1 16414.9 -11.0 16458 -11.3 16501 -11.2 16544.1 -11.0 16587.2 -11.5 16630.3 -11.8 16673.4 -10.7 16716.5 -11.0 16759.5 -12.2 16802.6 -11.6 16845.7 -10.7 16888.8 -11.9 16931.9 -11.7 16975 -11.1 17018-11.7 17061.1 -11.8 17104.2 -11.4 17147.3 -11.8 17190.4 -12.1 0 10-174 Yanchar Design & Consulting Group ATTACHMENT 2 Drawing No. 6011-01 - Building Layout 10-175 HOUR FIRE WALL. THIS WALL ONLY. 1� EVE INLET THROUGH BOXOUT IN FLOOR rJ NPOINTS, TYP 4 CORNERS DETAILS TAILS OF SIZE DETERMINED IN PE CALCS d) r7 15,_1a„ 20 20'-9" LAYOUT VIEW D C' 15'-10" �: Z�: 6' EVE DISCHARG NO LOSS STACK WITH B' OU ER PIPE, PVC MATERIAL D' C A A' ROOF VIEW a VIEW D—D' DISCHARGE VIL' VV A —A LOUVERS -WHITE TRIM TYP. LAP SIDING, PAINTED SLATE ROCK ' 3-6" PPROX fED WHITE LOCKING INDUSTRIAL STYLE VIEW D-D' ODOR KNOB ;HES TO HAVE ASKET �BRICATED JVERS AND TRIM REV I\ L V 1 J 1 U I N J DESCRIPTION DATE OWN I * DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES * DO NOT SCALE DRAWING THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K TECHNOLOGIES. INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY H2KPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE R E H2K Techr Oo OgIeS, Inc. �7550 Commerce St. Corcoran. MN 55340, Tel: 763-746-9900(C�2014 W SP USA ENVIRONMENT & INFASTRUCTURE INC. NEWPORT BEACH, CA B U I L I N G LAYOUT SHEET 1 OF 1 F REVISIONS PER SVBMITTAL REVIEW 10/22 MK DRAWING NO.: 6011-01 G CHANGED TITLE BLOCK/LOUVER DIM 11/22 MK DESIGNED BY: MK H ADDED FIRE WALL NOTE 12/22 MK PROJECT MGR.: MK D CHANGED STACK LOCATION ADDED DETAIL 8/22 MK E CHANGED TO METAL SIDING 10/22 MK PROJECT NO.: 6011 10-176 Attachment No. PC 7 Alternative Locations Analysis 10-177 10-178 Alternative Location Analysis Soil Vapor Extraction System Bayridge Park (Parcel 10) Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Project File No: PA2022-0180 February 15, 2023 10-179 DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY/REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (FS/RAP) Draft FS/RAP April 9, 2021 • 27 extraction wells • 5 soil vapor treatment systems distributed in parking spaces around the community ti 1� /T Chortcrfi�d s jr Outreach ' • June 3, 2021-- Fact Sheet mailed to community • June 7 —July 9, 2021--Public Comment Period • June 10, 2021--Public Meeting FL L` a s 6 s �- x � I rytik � � i 9 r Explanation Existing groundwater mccito ing weir Pr W ased groundwater monitoring veil SW gas probe location m Muf-depth soil gas probe location '$Uli WapoF ExtracLan monitoring paint rinstalled and sampled! • CrabgFnundwater sample lncadan • Perimeter sni l gas probe loCatlon Is000ncentralli" lines based on the most recent data (.lanuary-March 2021j from samples located 0 to 143 feet below ground surface Residential 7CE isoconcentration in pwm' Proposed sel vapor extracton well pairs SVE piping ❑ Proposed SVE Skid Location Assumed radius of influence of the 0 extraction well pair (70 ft radius} LJ EloundaTy of Parael 10-Sayridge Park N C. 1'G F2: ALTERNATIVE 3 SOJL VAPOR EXTRACTION LAYOUT PARCEL 10 FnmoerFord Aeronutronic Property Newport Beach, California By Y�ul P_Wrt No. 9624397Sp73.e� wood. :"ee: 2�, Fza 10-180 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED IN 2021 Comments Received During Public Comment Period • SVE Layout (12 comments) • Parking Impacts (13 comments) • Asphalt Impacts (13 comments) • Quality of Life Impacts (8 comments) • Request for More Information (5 comments) • Mitigation/Compensation (2 comments) • Other (4 comments) "No SVE Skids will be permitted within the complex. Locations within the exterior streetscapes/ROW will be considered subject to HOA, Ford & City agreement..." "The proposed five SVE skids stationed in the parking stalls approximately a year not only compound the parking shortage issue but are unsightly and will certainly affect the values of our homes..." 'As a resident of the Bayridge community, 1 support a prompt remediation. However, your proposed plan is so intrusive. My hope is that all interested parties... you, Wood, Ford, and our Board of Directors can come up with a plan that utilizes a smaller footprint, minimizes tearing up of our streets and minimizes the general disruption to our daily lives..." Aw 1n; ,hall. {lfated*�1r Board,. � .Ilex ry,�wlx114�� 111MM. .M W r}lyr.+� •.xlrSl•a Santa Ana Regional Water QuaJity Control Board TO- Whorn It May Concern FROM: Jessica Law, P.G. Engineering Cleotogist Site Cleanup Program DATE- August 25. 2021 SUBJECT- RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PERTAINING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING THE DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY+REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN —PARCEL 10, FOR THE FORMER FOR❑ AERONLrfRON€CS FACILITY LOCATED AT 1000 FORD ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA (GEOTRAC KER ID #SL1880238d$; PCA #1880200) 1.3 INTRODUCTION This Responsiveness Summary has been prepared by the Santa Ana Regional Water QualityConM Board (Waterl3oard) and responds to all public comn3errts received during Me 33-day public comment period on the Dram Feasldilify StudylRerrrediai Action Plan — Percef 10 (Draft FSfRZAP) for the Former Ford Aeranutronics Facility at 1000 Ford Road in Newport Beach (Site). Parcel 10, also known as the Bayridge Park Horrmwners Association is located at the northern portion of the Site. This Responsiveness Summary has been incorporated as Appendix S to the Final FSIRAP_ 2.0 BACKGROUND Bayridge Park (Parcel 10), which is located at the northern portion of the Site, comprises 11.5-acres of the larger former 20G-acre Ford Aerortuh nics facility. In 1973, the Parcel 10 property was sold and developed into condominiums under the flame of Bayridge Park_ The forrrier Ford Aemnutronics facility primarily operated on All comments were responded to in a Responsiveness Summary included in the Final Draft of the FS/RAP August 25, 2021. 10-181 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Locations considered • Within Bayridge Park • Along Bison Avenue • Along Country Club Drive Criteria Considered • Disruption to neighborhood • Construction duration • Construction footprint within community walls • Proximity to homes • Proximity to windows, garages, vs walls • Impact on parking • Parking congestion worse in portions of the community than others • Permitting complexity • Setbacks from public right of way • Moratorium on Bison • Implementation complexity • Slope stability • Disruption of mature landscaping • Accessibility for construction equipment • Power connection complexity • Distance from source • Voltage drop 10-182 _, x "7 �Y T7 wW RC Pr OR 7q 0 '040 t! � ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- BAYRIDGE PARK Placement of the treatment system here is infeasible for the following reasons: • 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 4 increase construction by —2 months �.�• • Widening the trench to include electrical conductors around Hartford Drive creates conflicts with existing utilities..41 _ HOA has said parking in northwest corner is not as impacted.Lit Additional 5VE • ��''4 Pipe Trenching Additional Electrical f41 Conduit Trenching Id 10-185 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 Ir ■ r+• t / ,� t . X r s r ACCESS RAMP FROM BISON T r View from intersection of Bison Ave and Country Club Drive looking west along Bison Ave 10-186 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- Country Club Drive ALONG COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE • Reviewed all feasible locations along Country Club Drive. • Northern portion of Country Club Drive - toward Bison Avenue • Middle Portion - Adjacent to 94 Hartford • Southern portion of Country Club Drive -toward One Ford Road Community 10-187 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- Country Club Drive • Northern -Would require significant grading and potentially impact stability of existing retaining walls. • Southern -insufficient space to maintain sidewalk throughway Northern Jar w i M PROPOSED LOCATION ALONG COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE e ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS -Summary Disruption to Proximity to Impact on Permitting Implementation Power Connection Option Description Communications Neighborhood Homes Parking Complexity Complexity Complexity Bayridge Park- 5 small - Community Mailer 6/3/21, Public comment 1 systems in parking spots 6/7-7/9/21, Public meeting 6/10/21 High Low Infeasible Low Medium Medium (FS/RAP) HOA did not approve use of parking spaces. Proposed by City on 2/15/23 Disruption of mature landscaping and BayridgePark-Landscaped drainage 2 Areas between homes Inaccessibility for construction equipment High High Low Medium Medium Does not solve the proximity to homes issue - Proposed by City on 2/15/23 Bayridge Park - 2-3 Parking -All parking areas within project limits are 3 spots in eastern half of restricted by HOA MOU High Medium I nfeasible Low Low Low community. -Parking impacts are concern at every public meeting Proposed by City on 2/15/23 Northwest corner parking area less Bayridge Park - Larger impacted 4 treatment system across 3 - Significant increase in linear feet of High Low Medium Low High parking spots - northwest trenching required and construction duration corner of neighborhood -Voltage drop over additional distance not to code - Discussion with City about setback 5 Bison Ave requirements deemed this infeasible Low Low Low High Medium Bison construction moratorium Northern proposed by City 12/21, 6 Along Country Club (norther infeasible due to space limit and retaining Low Medium Low Medium Infeasible Low wall impact -Southern, infeasible due to lack of space Public meeting 11/4/21 and 1/18/23 Country Club Drive - City LTP process resulted in comments from 7 adjacent to 94 Hartford 3 nearest residents with concerns about the Low High Low Medium Low Low (Final FS/RAP & RDI P) location. 11 10-190 FINAL FS/RAP MW Final FS/RAP August 25, 2 Design updated per public comments • 28 extraction wells • 1 vapor treatment syst located outside of the the community along Club Drive ECOMMINM E"ng graun41waber rr�anitaring wli: +-roposed grDrrntlwater monnoe.-ig well $ ProaoEetl Eall vapar47CIactim well pairs UN Solt gas prate ,oaaton Fj JWW"ei;Ah eall gas probe icoaCan ❑ Sall Vapar ExTwUon mork'aring pant IbMtaAeR and sampiedj • Grab tyraurdwalersan!Plelacartlan Perm ever Eoll gas price lacat in Isaconeeotratlon linen bseatl on the most recent data {January -March 20211 Prom ealnples Wr at8d 8 to 16 feat below grountl cur.'s ce 4e9tlerllal TCE Is[curcentratrrxl In — P$1n' SVE pping ❑ Arcpawd S JE enema re Amwred radua a' Intnuence of iAe extraction wE;l pair k70 st aatllua} L7,1 Boundary of Pared 10 - Bayridge Park 1 ALTERNATIVE 3 SOIL VAPOR UTILACTION LAYOUT PA&ML 40 Fott[w Fad AoonuFmrk Property BeifJti C�inmiia Pk4wN.MEMM107331 Wood ored6n r 99- 20 10-191 REMEDIAL DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (RDIP) RDIP December 22, 2021 Additional design modifications incorporated to reduce number of wells/feet of trenching in the community while still achieving clean up goals • 13 extraction wells • 1 soil vapor treatment system along Country Club Drive. Location selected in coordination with homeowners association Outreach • November 4, 2021 - Public Meeting on RDIP • January 18, 2023 — Public Meeting on construction scheduling Ff isn rr pvu.. e`I �r S S'J E-16-It I a-9V OT � Saabnrnuq.h nrcr Explanarlan Exsting groundwater manitorng wel - Proposed groundwater monitoring well ■ Sail gas probe ibca8on ,a Soil Vapor Fxlraction monitoring print ■ Perimeter sad gas probe location K ovonce ntratiGn liner based on the mart rece nt data (Jan u ary.tune 2021). dashed were inferred Res -dental TCE isocancentration in p9 m' # Proposed sail vaparextra=n weR — SVE piping 0 PmposedSVE enclosure [J Boundary of Parcel 10 - Bayridge Park Area of SVE Remediadon r>1.100 pghn' TCE) f Abbneviations 511E = sail vapor exnetion TCE = trichtonaethene pglm'= mkrcgrams per wbie meter S41L VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM LAYOUT PARCEL10 Former Ford Aerorwtron is property Newport Beach. Califomia r'+olF]0.f9T1d7 wood. 10-192 Attachment No. PC 8 Response to Comments and Public Outreach Overview 10-193 10-194 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BAYRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY OBJECTIONS PROJECT FILE NO. PA2022-0180 Former Ford Aeronutronics Property, Newport Beach, CA February 10, 2023 The following responds to comments provided by the residents of Hartford Drive (Sites 10.48, 10.50, and 10.52) in response to Ford/WSP's application for a permit to construct the Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system (Attachment A). The SVE system is being constructed to safely remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in soil from historical aerospace research operations conducted by Ford Motor Company. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) requires this work to provide long-term protection of public health and the environment. 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. The Water Board, Ford, and WSP have been conducting outreach in support of the environmental investigation and potential remediation related to the former Ford aerospace facility since 2018. A summary of the outreach conducted is included in the responses below (Response to Comment 1.4) and further details can be found in Attachment B: Outreach Overview, Attachment C: Information Line Contact Log, and Attachment D: WSP Hartford Residents Contact Log. In addition to these responses, Ford/WSP have attempted to work individually with these residents to resolve their concerns prior to the construction of the system. To date, the residents have declined to engage in conversation. COMMENTER #1, 10.52, BAYRIDGE PARK RESIDENT, FROM JANUARY 24, 2023, EMAIL Comment 1.1: The proposed SVE system is in very close proximity to my windows. I do not have air conditioning and thus have always needed to have my windows open during the summer and fall months for ventilation. The noise levels during construction and the running of the system will cause a very disquieting and stressful atmosphere. It is jeopardizing mine and my immediate neighbor's quality of life. Response 1.1: 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 with very little, if any, community disturbance. Minimizing Construction Impacts: To lessen impacts during construction, the building which houses the treatment system is being built off -site and is designed to blend in with the existing homes in the area. The sequence of events for construction of the treatment system and estimated task durations are anticipated to be as follows. These tasks will be conducted as part 10-195 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 2 of 12 of the overall construction schedule and there will be some breaks between the construction activities listed. • Fabricate building and treatment system as a unit in Minnesota — 7 months • Prepare treatment system area including removal of vegetation and paving — 3 days • Pour concrete pad on which building will sit — 1 day • Curing of the pad — 4 days • Place prefabricated building on the pad — 1 day • Treatment system connection and commissioning — 5 days • Architectural enhancements — 10 days • Landscaping — 5 days A work notice will be distributed via US mail to all Bayridge owners/occupants no less than 7 days in advance of system installation. Emails, phone calls, and door-to-door canvassing will be implemented, as needed, to keep community members informed of the progress and upcoming work. A dedicated community relations advocate will be present during installation to quickly respond and support finding resolution to concerns. Noise associations with the SVE System: Noise from the system, which will operate 24/7, will be at — and likely a bit lower — than noise levels allowed under the City of Newport Beach noise ordinance requirements. To lessen noise, the system will operate within an enclosed structure that includes sound attenuation insulation covering all four walls and the roof. An Acoustical Engineering Analysis prepared in October 2022 calculated that the noise level at the exterior of the system building will be 48.8 decibels, which is similar to the noise from a common household refrigerator (50 decibels) and consistent with the City of Newport Beach noise limits of 55 decibels from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and 50 decibels from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am (see Newport Beach Municipal Code [NBMC]). Furthermore, it is calculated that the presence of the treatment system will increase the existing ambient noise level adjacent to these residences by less than 1 decibel — a difference which is undetectable to the human ear. Ford has contacted the person(s) who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person(s) has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.2: 1 am a two-time survivor of cancer. / am greatly concerned regarding the exhaust fumes and safety of the SVE system. Since there are not going to be real time results as to air quality how can those directly affected be guaranteed all is operating safely. What if there is some type of natural disaster. Fires, earthquakes etc. could mean disastrous damage to the system, causing grave consequences. Response 1.2: 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 state-of-the-art 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 (immunocompromised individuals, seniors, children, etc.). 10-196 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 3 of 12 A robust failure analysis has been conducted to evaluate the system's safety. The pipes are under vacuum so there is no risk of explosion or over -pressurization. The system will be set up with an uninterrupted power source to maintain operation in the event of a loss of power. The building itself is designed to meet all local and state building and fire code requirements. The wall closest to the adjacent building has a two-hour fire rating to protect from both the inside out, and outside in. The building will be secured to a concrete pad, which has been designed and reviewed by California professional structural engineers, using anchors chosen based on specific earthquake risk parameters of the Newport Beach area. The system will be remotely monitored 24/7 and set up with alarms that will immediately call the Operations Manager if the system is not operating properly. The treatment system includes built-in controls which will safely shut the system down in response to an unforeseen disturbance, such as an earthquake or other natural disaster. The built-in controls will notify a designated Operations Manager, electronically alerting this individual of a shutdown or other operational issues, which will trigger emergency response measures. Once the system is shut down, no vapors will be extracted from the ground and the system will not be under any vacuum or pressure that would force the movement or release of vapors. The system will be inspected for any damage or issues that could compromise the system or interior or exterior of the building. Once it is safe to turn the system back on, the Operations Manager will perform a series of tests throughout the piping network and treatment system to check for any cracked pipes or seal leaks that need to be repaired or replaced. Comment 1.3: This project is going to adversely affect all the community's property values. How can you justify only four properties taking the brunt of this and probably being unable to sell or rent during this project. There is no guarantee as to when someone might have to sell nor to the timing of this project. Response 1.3: 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 has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern, including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. If requested, 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. Comment 1.4: Why were the residents not consulted or included in the discussion as to where this system belongs. The original plans were scratched due to concern over visitor parking, Instead, they have decided to place the system 3 feet away from a resident's window with and infant and within feet of two other residences. Response 1 A The Water Board, Ford and WSP have conducted a comprehensive outreach program since 2018 which includes outreach to 11 residential communities and 8 commercial properties within the project study area. During this time, they have distributed 10 Water Board 10-197 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 4 of 12 project fact sheets via US mail and email to over 1,800 addresses; over 100 notices of work to support groundwater monitoring, soil vapor and indoor air investigation activities, and SVE pilot test and pre -construction activities; and held over 25 community meetings to support community understanding and input in the investigation and cleanup process. In addition, there is a project - specific webpage at www.fordnbfacts.com, a project YouTube page at https://tinvurl.com/FordNBYouTube, an electronic repository at the State Water Board's GeoTracker website at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?qlobal id=SL188023848, and a toll -free information line (833-949-3673) that community members can call 24/7 and receive a call back the same or next business day. Specific to Bayridge Park, the Water Board held a 30-day public comment period from June 7 to July 9, 2021 to accept comments on the draft cleanup plan, known as the draft Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan (FS/RAP). The draft FS/RAP describes site conditions and identifies soil vapor extraction as the most appropriate technology to remove vapors in soil below the community. The Water Board also held a virtual public meeting to discuss the draft FS/RAP and accept comments from residents on June 10, 2021. The comment period and public meeting were advertised by a save -the -date postcard sent to all residents in Bayridge Park and a Water Board fact sheet distributed prior to the start of the comment period. During the public meeting, the FS/RAP, was discussed in detail. Residents at the meeting and in comments emailed to the Water Board made it clear that they did not approve of the original plan of the 5 smaller soil vapor treatment systems in their community because it would cause increased construction activities, a reduction in parking spaces, and visual impacts. As a result, and in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA acting as the residents' representative, it was decided to have one treatment system outside of the common area. This decision was documented in the final FS/RAP as well as in a Response to Comments document, which was provided to all those who commented. Two additional meetings were held with Bayridge Park residents in November 2021 and January 2023. The November 2021 meeting was held poolside in their community and the January 2023 meeting was held at the nearby Bonita Creek Community Room, due to concerns of possible rain. During both meetings, the soil vapor treatment system location outside of the community was shared with residents (the resident at 96 Hartford attended both meetings and the resident at 92 Hartford attended the January 2023 meeting). While residents still had concerns about construction impacts and the overall design of the system, the revised location of the system was not questioned. A detailed overview of all outreach conducted in support of the project as well as specific outreach in the Bayridge Park community is included in Attachment B. Ford has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern, including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.5: The original unit included 5+ systems. Please provide information on the efficiency and safety of using 1 large system 3 feet away from residences. Response 1.5: 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 10-198 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 5 of 12 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 SVE system treatment buildings. The Water Board and Ford take public comment seriously, and where possible given the parameters of the project, will make adjustments to work. Based on these concerns the system design was re-evaluated to determine if accommodations could be made while still meeting the remedial objectives of removing volatile chemicals from the soil beneath the community. Various design considerations were evaluated including reducing the number of soil vapor extraction wells, consolidation of the five treatment systems into one, adjusting operational parameters, and selecting equipment to minimize noise, among others. The revised design was further evaluated using software called MODFLOW which is widely used in the industry to evaluate soil vapor extraction performance. The model confirmed the revised design with 13 wells and one treatment system would meet remediation performance metrics. Based on the revised design and in close coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA and Bayridge Park residents, the location outside of the community and adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected. In October 2021, Bayridge Park residents were invited to attend a community meeting held on November 4, 2021, providing information on the planning of the Remedial Design and Implementation Plan (RDIP), which describes the SVE system installation and operation details including the revised location. During this meeting, only comments in support of the proposed treatment building location were received. On December 22, 2021, the RDIP was submitted to the Water Board and included a network of 13 extraction well locations tied into a SVE treatment system building adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive. The Water Board approved the RDIP on January 28, 2022. On January 18, 2023, Ford/WSP held another community meeting with Bayridge Park residents to discuss implementation of the SVE system and measures that would be taken to reduce construction impacts to the community. Again, no questions about the location of the treatment building system outside the community were asked and instead questions focused on the design of the building as well as construction impacts from the installation of the 13 wells within the community were the focus of comments. Ford takes community concerns seriously and has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern including, accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.6: What will Ford do for the 4-6 residences DIRECTLY affected by this SVE? Response 1.6: Ford has contacted the person(s) who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern in a manner that is satisfactory and allows this work to move forward. This may include installation of air conditioning units, temporary relocation, and other concessions. To date, the person(s) have declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.7: After my initial submission I reread the City of Newport Beach Notice of Public Hearing. The notice states that the proposed project requests a 3.2-foot separation distance 10-199 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 6 of 12 where the REQUIRED separation is 8 feet between buildings. Please explain and add this concern to my previous submission. Response 1.7: This work is mandated by the Water Board to provide long-term protection of public health and the environment, and the system has been designed to operate safely and efficiently. For these reasons and as indicated in the City of Newport Beach January 26, 2023, Zoning Administrator Staff Report, the project's limited duration qualifies it for construction under a Limited Term Permit, which provides relief from the 8-foot setback developmental standard set forth PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community). The PC-24 document provided standards to follow during the development of the community in 1979 but is more stringent than the requirements of local and state building and fire codes. The location and construction of the treatment system complies with all local and state building and fire safety codes. COMMENTER #2: 10.48, BAYRIDGE PARK RESIDENT, FROM JANUARY 25, 2023, EMAIL Comment 2.1: 1 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. Response 2.1: The system location was selected, after multiple rounds of design document review and public comment and in consultation with the Bayridge Park HOA, 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. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.4 for additional details. Comment 2.2: 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. Response 2.2: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.5. Comment 2.3: 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. Response 2.3: This system was designed with community safety in mind and carefully balances the need to conduct this work while minimizing impacts to the community. The system includes multiple redundancies to ensure that all air discharged is at or below permit discharge limits, that the system will safely shut down in case of a natural disaster, that there will be no vibrations from the system's operation, and that sound will be below what is required in the City of Newport's noise ordinance in residential areas — in this case it will be no louder than a refrigerator. 10-200 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 7 of 12 The system is housed in a building that will blend with the existing community and once treatment is done and the Water Board determines the system is no longer needed — the building will be removed, and the area will be restored to like condition. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.5 for additional details. Comment 2.4: 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? Response 2.4: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.2 and response to Comment 1.7. Comment 2.5: Removal of toxins cannot be at 100%. All the toxic vapors 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. Response 2.5: This system has been designed to operate safely in a residential environment and has redundancies to ensure that VOCs are treated and all air that is discharged is at or below the discharge limits in the Air District permit that are set at levels that are protective of the most vulnerable community members. The operation of the SVE system will be overseen by the Water Board and permitted by the Air District. For this specific system, two granular activated carbon filters will remove VOCs and the air that is discharged will be within the limits set by the Air District and monitored regularly to confirm it is protective of the health. Comment 2.6: 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 off -site and analyzed, and there is a minimum of a two -week lag. 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 2.7: 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. Response 2.7: This system has been designed to safely operate in a residential area and the operation will be overseen by the Water Board and Air District. Prior to operation, the pipes and 10-201 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 8 of 12 connections will be tested to ensure that they are operating efficiently and with no leaks. The piping underlying the streets is under vacuum meaning if there is a leak, the flow of air will be into the pipe, not out of it. The system will operate within all parameters of a permit issued by the Air District and will be regularly maintained and monitored to ensure it is functioning correctly. The impacted vapors already exist below ground and by implementing this remediation system the concentrations in the soil vapor will reduce the risk of intrusion (the process of impacted vapors infiltrating into overlying homes). The system is designed to protect human health and the environment. Ford understands that the location of the unit is distressing to the person who made this comment. Ford has contacted the person who made this comment in an attempt to address this concern, including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 2.8: The noise factor so close to homes is another reason to relocate the building. Possible electrical humming from the equipment. Possible EMF fields. Response 2.8: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.1 regarding noise. 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."' 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 conditioner and having plans in place for temporary relocation, if needed. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 2.9: 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. Response 2.9: The treatment system is anticipated to operate for approximately 12 months. At the end of that timeframe, the Water Board will review the data and determine if additional monitoring and/or remediation is needed. The Water Board may request the system continue to operate for some period of time after the first year (either continuously or in a pulsed fashion). But ultimately, the goal is to remove VOC mass from the subsurface, such that the treatment system can be taken down and the area restored in a timely manner. ' Radiation: Electromagnetic fields (who.int) [ https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and- answers/item/radiation-electromagnetic-fields#:-:text=Some%20members%20of%20the %20public,fatigue%20and%201oss%20of%201ibido.] 10-202 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 9 of 12 Comment 2.10: 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. Response 2.10: Should this commentor decide to put this property on the market during the 12 months this system is anticipated to operate, Ford will work with this owner to address this concern. Comment 2.11 and 2.12: 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. Response 2.11 and 2.12: While we recognize that the person who made this comment feels this location is unacceptable, we are confident the system — as designed — can operate safely and effectively for a temporary period. This location was selected following 6 years of community engagement that included a 30-day comment period on the location, public meetings to discuss the location and impacts, and information available through fact sheets, websites and live video recordings of meetings. This location was selected in consultation with the Bayridge Park HOA and Bayridge residents that participated in the public outreach as described above in the response to Comment 1.5. COMMENTER #3: 10.50, BAYRIDGE PARK RESIDENT, FROM JANUARY 25, 2023, EMAIL Comment 3.1: As the primary residence impacted, we did not approve this system location and are requesting an alternate location due to the health and safety concerns listed below. We never received any certified mail regarding the project being directly adjacent to our home. Response 3.1: The Water Board, Ford and WSP have engaged in a 6-year public outreach process that included over 25 meetings, 10 fact sheets, recordings of meetings uploaded to YouTube, a project specific website, and toll -free information hotline. Fact sheets and meeting announcements were emailed and sent to owners/occupants via US mail as well as distributed by the Bayridge HOA, which maintains an email list of owners and occupants. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.4 for additional information. The person who made this comment moved into the community in 2020 and the listing of outreach conducted and contact log (Attachment B through D) demonstrates the extensive outreach conducted including conversations with the person who made this comment. Ford has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern including, accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 3.2: We understand the necessity of the remediation, however 94 Hartford was not the first proposed site. There are multiple sites available in the community that do not violate the building separation requirement. 10-203 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 10 of 12 Response 3.2: The location was selected in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA and Bayridge Park residents after an extensive public outreach process. Extensive discussions with the City of Newport Beach during the design process were also conducted in order to understand the basis of the separation requirement and whether a temporary structure closer to this would still be safe. This location was selected because it balances the need to do the work while minimizing impacts to the community to the greatest extent possible. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.5 and Comment 1.7 for additional information. Ford has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address and resolve this concern. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 3.3: The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home, including the exhaust that will be adjacent to windows. The project summary states that the required building separation is 8 feet. a. Data must be provided to show the proposed system, violating the required separation distance: i. is deemed safe to be within 3 feet of a residential unit for the proposed length of time ii. the proximity does not adversely affect human health and child development iii. Please include information on the electromagnetic field and/or radiation from the unit and air quality standards from the exhaust b. What are the impacts on fire safety code and potential impacts of an earthquake or other natural disaster since the required separation distance is 8 feet? Response 3.3: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.7. a. There is one discharge point on the top of the building, and that discharge point is located approximately 20 feet away from the window of the 94 Hartford Drive residence. 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). Please refer to the response to Comment 2.6 for additional information on real-time and analytical monitoring and response to Comment 2.8 regarding electromagnetic fields. b. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.2 and Comment 2.7. Comment 3.4: It was stated at the pre -construction meeting that there are no "real time" results of the air samples taken from the exhaust. These samples must be analyzed at the lab. The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from a residence where an infant resides (the required separation is 8 feet). a. How can we be assured that the air quality is safe with an infant inside 24 hours a day? b. If there is a failure in the system, how long can the failure go undetected and what are the consequences? c. Will the residences directly impacted receive air purifiers, new windows, and enhanced monitoring? 10-204 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 11 of 12 i. Currently, our home has the original windows, installed 35+ years ago; these windows have the glass separated from the metal frame and do not properly seal out wind, dust, or noise. Having the treatment system 3 feet away from the home with this condition of windows will greatly impact quality of life inside the home, including sleep disruptions due to noise impact. Response 3.4: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.7 regarding building separation and the response to Comment 2.6 for additional information on real-time and analytical monitoring. a. The residence of the person who made this comment had their indoor air sampled one time in 2020. Concentrations of chemicals of concern from samples collected within the residence did not exceed regulatory screening levels. WSP has contacted the resident multiple times to request additional sampling as part of the Indoor Air sampling program being conducted for this project. It is recommended to have at least two rounds of sampling in two different seasons (6 months apart) in order to conduct a human -health risk assessment. Once the initial two or more rounds are conducted and the risk assessment is complete, the residence will be placed in a long-term monitoring program at a frequency determined by sampling results but expected to be annually. As with all properties within our Indoor Air Program, if concentrations in indoor air exceed regulatory screening levels as a result of vapor intrusion, air purifiers will be offered and sampling frequency will increase. b. The system will be monitored remotely 24/7 and will be set up with alarms to notify the Operations Manager immediately if the system is not operating properly. The system can be stopped remotely if needed. Please refer to Comment 1.2 for more details. c. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.1. Ford has attempted to contact the person who made this comment to discuss additional measures that can be taken to mitigate noise and monitor indoor air quality. To date, this person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 3.5: The original proposal included 5-6 extraction units; please provide information on the safety of using 1 larger unit that is 3 feet away from a residence, where the required separation is 8 feet. It was stated that the efficacy of using 1 larger unit was determined by computer modeling. a. Please provide data on potential failures among these treatment systems and the impact of residential safety (for example, pipes, electrical failures, fire risk). Response 3.5: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.2 regarding safety and Comment 1.5 regarding design. Comment 3.6: The system unit will affect home values and quality of life. We did not buy our home with plans to have a treatment system directly outside of our main living area window. We will not be able to sell or rent out our home with this treatment system 3 feet away. As stated in the Zoning Administrator Staff Report: "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 visual impact from surrounding residents." 10-205 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 12 of 12 a. This location does not reduce visual impact from our residence. This location directly impacts our quality of life and home. Per the renderings, a large pine tree will be removed that is currently in front of our living area window and the system will be directly visible from our main living area window. We have not received notification of this tree being removed. b. Our home was never entered to see the visual impact the system will have from our main living area and the sightlines from 94 Hartford Drive. c. The project summary also states our air conditioning unit "shall be relocated" prior to issuance of the building permits. We did not agree to this relocation of the air conditioning unit. We did not receive notification via certified mail of moving this air conditioning unit. d. The main concerns at the pre -construction meeting were related to construction inconveniences, parking, and aesthetics, instead of health and safety of residents with the system being adjacent to a home that violates the required separation distance. Response 3.6: Please see the following responses to your comments: a. Ford/WSP are attempting to work individually with these residents to resolve their concerns prior to the construction of the system. The system is temporary, and conditions will be restored upon completion of remediation and approval from the Water Board. To date, this person has declined to engage in conversation. b. See Response A above. c. Ford/WSP are attempting to work individually with these residents to resolve their concerns prior to the construction of the system. WSP has called or emailed the resident six times since May of 2022 to attempt to discuss the relocation of the AC Unit. d. Ford/WSP have designed a system that is safe to operate, protects the health of nearby residences and reduces construction impacts to the greatest extent possible. The location of the treatment system has been designed in a manner that will allow it to operate safely and not affect the health of the residents because all vapors will be treated with granulated active carbon prior to being released into the atmosphere. The carbon will effectively treat the vapor and remove the VOC contamination to levels allowed under the permit to operate by the Air District which are set at levels that are protective of sensitive populations. The system will be regularly maintained and monitored weekly to ensure it is operating as designed and overseen by Water Board and Air District staff. Please refer to the Response to Comment 1.7 regarding separation distance. 10-206 ATTACHMENT A PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION Remediation Project File No: PA2022-0180 10-207 From: Sent: January 24, 2023 6:53 PM To: CDD Cc: Tran, Jenny Subject: Objections for hearing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. RE: City of Newport Beach Notice of Public Hearing Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive Project File No: PA2022-0180 1. The proposed SVE system is in very close proximity to my windows. I do not have air conditioning and thus have always needed to have my windows open during the summer and fall months for ventillation. The noise levels during construction and the running of the system will cause a very disquieting and stressful atmosphere. It is jeopardizing mine and my immediate neighbors quality of life. 2. 1 am a two time survivor of cancer. I am greatly concerned regarding the exhaust fumes and safety of the SVE system. Since there are not going to be real time results as to air quality how can those directly affected be guaranteed all is operating safely. What if their is some type of natural disaster. Fires, earthquakes etc. could mean disastrous damage to the system, causing grave consequences. 3. This project is going to adversely effect all the communities property values. How can you justify only four properties taking the brunt of this and probably being unable to sell or rent during this project. There is no guarantee as to when someone might have to sell nor to to the timing of this project. 4. Why were the residents not consulted or included in the discussion as to where this system belongs. The original plans were scratched due to concern over visitor parking, Instead, they have decided to place the system 3 feet away from a residents window with and infant and within feet of two other residences. 5. The original unit included 5+ systems. Please provide information on the efficiency and safety of using 1 large system 3 feet away from residences. 10-208 6. What will Ford do for the 4-6 residences DIRECTLY affected by this SVE system. 10-209 From: Sent: January 25, 2023 6:15 AM To: CDD Cc: Tran, Jenny Subject: Objections for hearing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. RE: 94 Hartford Ford Aeronutronic Soil Vapor Remediation Project File No: PA2022-0180 After my initial submission I reread the City of Newport Beach Notice of Public Hearing. THe notice states that the proposed project requests a 3.2 foot separation distance where the REQUIRED separation is 8 feet between buildings. Please explain and add this concern to my previous submission. 10-210 From: Sent: January 25, 2023 10:12 AM To: CDD Zoom Cc: Tran, Jenny Subject: Time Sensitive: Public Hearing 1/26 Issues on Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning. My name is- and I am a resident and original owner ate Hartford Dr. Newport Beach in Bayridge. Below please find issues that I am raising with regard to the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation project at Bayridge (94 Hartford) in Newport Beach. Project file No: PA2022-0180 Thank you for your review of these points prior to the public hearing on January 26. • 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 off -site and analyzed, and there is a minimum of a two -week lag. 10-211 • 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. 10-212 From: Sent: January 25, 2023 10:46 AM To: CDD Cc: Tran, Jenny Subject: Notice of Public Hearing Comments for review 1/26/23: 94 Hartford Drive Project File No.: PA2022-0180 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, My name is- and I live ato Hartford Drive. Please see below for review prior to the public hearing on 1/26/23 for Project File No.: PA2022-0180. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Regarding the City of Newport Beach: Notice of Public Hearing -- Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive on Thursday, January 26, 2023: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Location: 94 Harford Drive To Whom It May Concern: We live ato Hartford Drive with our infant son. We have the following concerns regarding the soil vapor remediation treatment system that is proposed to be built directly next to our residence, violating the required separation of 8 feet between buildings. As the primary residence impacted, we did not approve this system location and are requesting an alternate location due to the health and safety concerns listed below. We never received any certified mail regarding the project being directly adjacent to our home. We understand the necessity of the remediation, however 94 Hartford was not the first proposed site. There are multiple sites available in the community that do not violate the building separation requirement. 1. The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home, including the exhaust that will be adjacent to windows. The project summary states that the required building separation is 8 feet. 10-213 a. Data must be provided to show the proposed system, violating the required separation distance: i. is deemed safe to be within 3 feet of a residential unit for the proposed length of time ii. the proximity does not adversely affect human health and child development iii. Please include information on the electromagnetic field and/or radiation from the unit and air quality standards from the exhaust b. What are the impacts on fire safety code and potential impacts of an earthquake or other natural disaster since the required separation distance is 8 feet? 2. It was stated at the pre -construction meeting that there are no "real time" results of the air samples taken from the exhaust. These samples must be analyzed at the lab. The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from a residence where an infant resides (the required separation is 8 feet). a. How can we be assured that the air quality is safe with an infant inside 24 hours a day? b. If there is a failure in the system, how long can the failure go undetected and what are the consequences? c. Will the residences directly impacted receive air purifiers, new windows, and enhanced monitoring? i. Currently, our home has the original windows, installed 35+years ago; these windows have the glass separated from the metal frame and do not properly seal out wind, dust, or noise. Having the treatment system 3 feet away from the home with this condition of windows will greatly impact quality of life inside the home, including sleep disruptions due to noise impact. 3. The original proposal included 5-6 extraction units; please provide information on the safety of using 1 larger unit that is 3 feet away from a residence, where the required separation is 8 feet. It was stated that the efficacy of using 1 larger unit was determined by computer modeling. a. Please provide data on potential failures among these treatment systems and the impact of residential safety (for example, pipes, electrical failures, fire risk). 4. The system unit will affect home values and quality of life. We did not buy our home with plans to have a treatment system directly outside of our main living area window. We will not be able to sell or rent out our home with this treatment system 3 feet away. As stated in the Zoning Administrator Staff Report: "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 visual impact from surrounding residents." a. This location does not reduce visual impact from our residence. This location directly impacts our quality of life and home. Per the renderings, a large pine tree will be removed that is currently in front of our living area window and the system will be directly visible from our main living area window. We have not received notification of this tree being removed. b. Our home was never entered to seethe visual impact the system will have from our main living area and the sightlines from 94 Hartford Drive. 10-214 c. The project summary also states our air conditioning unit "shall be relocated" prior to issuance of the building permits. We did not agree to this relocation of the air conditioning unit. We did not receive notification via certified mail of moving this air conditioning unit. d. The main concerns at the pre -construction meeting were related to construction inconveniences, parking, and aesthetics, instead of health and safety of residents with the system being adjacent to a home that violates the required separation distance. We respectfully request the system to be moved to an alternate location that does not violate the required building separation distance. There are multiple sites in the community that do not violate this. Respectfully, 10-215 ATTACHMENT B OUTREACH OVERVIEW 10-216 ATTACHMENT B OUTREACH OVERVIEW The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), Ford and WSP have conducted a robust outreach program since 2018 that encompasses specific outreach activities for the entire project, which spans an area of 11 residential communities and 8 commercial properties, along with targeted outreach to specific communities within the project area, like Bayridge Park. Project -wide outreach has included: • 10 Water Board project fact sheets distributed via US mail to over 1,800 addresses within the project area and distributed via email to a project email list with over 300 emails. • 4 work notices notifying specific communities of upcoming work in their area, including groundwater monitoring well installation and sampling, soil vapor probe installation and sampling, soil vapor extraction (SVE) pilot test activities, and other activities as directed by the Water Board. • Signed access agreements and ongoing communications with over 350 homes and three commercial properties to test indoor air. Of the homes sampled, 29 have been offered air -purifying units as a short-term mitigation measure to reduce contaminants found in indoor air. 2 Water Board community surveys to determine appropriate outreach methods in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. A project -specific website at www.fordnbfacts.com that includes an overview of the project, investigations/findings, community outreach activities, FAQs and a repository for project documents. • A project YouTube page at https://tinvud.com/FordNBYouTube hosting recordings of all community meetings held since November 2020. A toll -free information line (833-949-3673) that community members can call 2417. Hotline calls are returned the same or next business day and generally all questions are addressed within 1-2 business days. An electronic repository containing all key technical and community outreach documents on the State Water Board's GeoTracker website at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=SL188023848. • Over 25 community meetings broken down as follows: o 9 information sessions hosted by the Water Board that are open to all communities impacted by the project. Generally, these are held 1-2 times per year. 0 3 community -specific meetings to discuss a pilot test to determine if SVE was an appropriate remedial technology to address contaminants. 0 8 community -specific meetings to discuss health risk assessments, their results and next steps. 0 5 community -specific meetings to discuss draft remediation plans and provide opportunities for public comment. 0 3 community -specific meetings to discuss the implementation of the SVE system and accept input from residents. o Each of these meetings was noticed via a meeting save the date or invite postcard distributed via US mail and at least 2 email reminders distributed to HOA representatives and residents on the project email list. 125 10-217 As part of this larger outreach program, specific activities were conducted with Bayridge Park residents to ensure they were aware and able to comment on the proposed cleanup plan and the design of the SVE system. This outreach included: A 30-day public comment period held by the Water Board from June 7 to July 9, 2021, on the draft cleanup plan, known as a draft Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan (FSIRAP). The FSIRAP describes the site and environmental conditions, possible remedial technologies to address environmental conditions, and the selection of SVE as the preferred remedial alternative. o A public meeting on the draft FS/RAP was first announced via a save the date postcard mailed on May 12, 2021, and the comment period was noticed via a Water Board fact sheet that was distributed via US mail and email on June 3, 2021. o The virtual public meeting was held on June 10, 2021. At this meeting and in subsequent emailed public comments, the community voiced concerns about having five smaller SVE treatment systems and their overall impact to the community, including increased construction activities, reduction in parking spaces and visual impacts. The Water Board takes public input seriously and as a result of input received on the SVE system location it was decided, in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA and residents to have one treatment system outside of the common area. In August 2021, the Water Board distributed a Response to Comments to all those who provided comments and finalized the FSIRAP. In both the Response to Comments and the FSIRAP it was noted that the original design of five smaller SVE treatment systems would be readjusted to one large SVE treatment system outside of the community in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA. On November 4, 2021, Ford and WSP held a poolside meeting with community residents to provide more information on the design of the SVE system and take community feedback. Residents were notified of this meeting via a postcard that was mailed via US Mail and emailed to HOA representatives in October 2021. Two meeting email reminders were distributed prior to the meeting date. 13 residents attended the meeting, including the resident at 96 Hartford, and as part of that meeting the current proposed location of the SVE treatment system was shown. The community expressed concerns around the design of the treatment system and the overall level of impact to the community during the construction and their feedback was taken into consideration. In response to comments from Bayridge Park residents during the July 2022 project - wide Water Board community meeting, Ford and WSP began sending monthly email updates to residents of Bayridge Park to proactively inform them of the work recently completed in their community, upcoming work, anticipated impacts, and upcoming community meetings. These emails have been distributed monthly since August 2022 to over 170 residents in the community. On January 18, 2023, Ford and WSP held a pre -construction meeting with community residents to provide more information on the construction of the SVE system. Residents were notified of this meeting via a postcard that was mailed via US Mail and emailed to residents in November 2022. This meeting was originally intended to be poolside in the community, but due to the possibility of heavy rains in January 2023, was re -located to the Bonita Creek Community Room. Residents were notified of this change via US Mail and email in early January 2023. An additional email reminder was sent the day before the meeting. 16 residents attended the meeting expressing similar concerns about construction inconveniences including a concern about the location and design of the SVE treatment system. 120 10-218 In addition to this outreach, FordMSP has been in communication with the residents of 92, 94 and 96 Hartford regarding indoor air sampling and the project's proposed SVE system in an attempt to ensure they had a good understanding of the proposed work and an opportunity to ask questions. To date, these residents have declined to engage in conversation. 127 10-219 ATTACHMENT C INFORMATION LINE CONTACT LOG 122 10-220 ATTACHMENT C INFORMATION LINE CONTACT LOG Resident at Property ID 10.52 • 1/18 — texted resident my contact information • 1/19 — received text with picture of Notice of Public Hearing. • 1/19 — called to explain that this was City's notice and she could provide comments but this was not a notice from WSP; discussed concerns; 2-time cancer survivor, too close, noise, emissions, causing her stress which is not good for her health • 1/20 — called and discussed possibility of meeting and indicated would be willing to meet; told her I would call once I had dates • 1/23 — left message • 2/5 — left message • 2/6 — received message stating not interested, this is a complex issue and along with two neighbors I am not open to discussing this system located within 3 feet when it is close to our residences. Resident at Property ID 10.50 • 1/27 — left message • 1/28—emailed • 1/30—emailed and called • 2/1- discussed concerns on a high level; told her wanted to meet and would call to firm up dates • 2/5 — emailed about meeting; left messages • 2/6 - received email not interesting in meeting because location has not changed • 2/6 — sent email asking her to reconsider • 2/9 — received email stating did not want to meet Resident at Property ID 10.48 • 1/27 — left message • 1/28 - emailed • 1/30—emailed • 2/6 — left message • 2/9—email stating not interested in meeting 1g9 10-221 ATTACHMENT D WSP HARTFORD RESIDENTS CONTACT LOG 20 0 10-222 ATTACHMENT D WSP HARTFORD RESIDENTS CONTACT LOG IA_Property_ID CommunicatiorL.Date Communication Time Communiration_Medium WSPStaff Communication_tog_Entry 10.48 10/12/2020 9:25 Phone MLR Called and spoke with resident to remind her of IA sampling appt this week. She provided updated email address: Leechealy@gmail.com 10.48 11/20/2020 2:12 Phone MLR Resident left VM asking about the work that is going on outside her home. 10.48 11/20/2020 3:05 Phone MLR Returned call and left VM for resident asking to let her know what questions she has and I will have someone from our team call her back. 10.48 8/26/2022 14:10 Email MLR Sent Resident an email re: scheduling annual resample. 10.48 10/13/2022 10:17 Phone/email MLR Left VIVI for Resident re: scheduling 1 year resample, and sent followup email. 10.48 11/8/2022 13:34 Phone MLR Called and spoke with Resident. She requested that I call back first week of December as they are in the middle of a big home story e/movin ro ect. 10.48 12/1/2022 16:25 Phone MLR Left VM on both #&#39;s re: scheduling annual resample. 10.48 12/1/2022 16:29 Text MLR Resident sent me a text that they are still not ready to schedule the sampling and requested that I call back after Christmas. 10.48 1/5/2023 14:58 Text MLR Sent Resident a text re: scheduling annual resample. 10.48 1/10/2023 15:41 Phone/email MLR Left VM and sent followup email to schedule annual resample. 10.48 1/23/2023 11:50 Email MLR Resident replied to email and scheduled annual resample for 2/2 & 2/3 at 11am. 20.48 2/23/2023 13:54 Email DHN Resident had reached out via email to Jessica Law on 1/23/23 with questions on the SVE system. Jessica forwarded email to DHN who responded to the list of questions and provided figures (where relevant). 10.48 1/23/2023 16:00 Email DHN Resident followed up to the email with one additional question. DHN provided the additional Information requested. 10.50 6/29/2020 NULL Misc Note Wood Staff Resident (to move out by 6/29/2020) 10.50 6/17/2020 3:00 Phone DHN DHN-6/17/2020-Prospective buyer returned DHN's call. DHN walked her through the overall investgiation, TCE as it relates to preganant women, and ongoing work in Bayridge park. Realtor Karla Stagman returned DHN's call and we got the IA sampling scheduled for after the tenant has moved out on 6/29/2020. DHN discussed with Realtor the process, what happens if results are over screening levels, and the general scope of the investigation. Property will be vacant for sampling, access via lockbox. Realtor to send written permission for access while vacant. Realtor mentioned that the tenant (who Is moving out) had candles. 10.50 7/14/2020 NULL Phone DHN DHN-7/14/2020-With the permission of the owner, DHN spoke with prospective buyer to share the results with her (908-370- 7D03). She expects to close on the property on 7/17/2020 and says that will be their primary residence. I let her know we will be sending her an AA for seasonal sampling in winter 2020. 10.50 10/21/2021 14:19 Phone MLR Left VM for new owner re: scheduling 6 month seasonal resample. 10.S0 10/21/2021 14:20 Email MLR Sent followup email re: scheduling 6 month seasonal resample. 10.50 5/13/2022 11:10 Phone MLR Left VM for Resident re: AC Unit relocation as part of the implementation of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 6/10/2022 14:06 Phone MLR Left VM for Resident re: AC Unit relocation as part of the Implementation of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 8/3/2022 16:52 Phone MLR Left VM for Resident re: AC Unit relocation as part of the implementation of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 8/11/2022 14:47 Email MLR Sent email to REsidert re: AC Unit relocation as part of the install of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 8/22/2022 10:48 Phone MLR Called to reach Resident re: AC unit relocation and was unable to leave a message as the mailbox was full. 10.50 2/20/2023 12:01 Phone DHN Left VM to Resident regarding questions on SVE System and AC Unit. 10.50 1/20/2023 12:04 Email DHN Sent Resident email to answer some questions she had asked Jessica Law and requested her to call for further discussion, 20.50 2/26/2023 12:04 Phone DHN Left VM again trying to reach out to resident regarding her concerns on the SVE System. 10.52 3/5/2020 10:25 Phone MLR MLR-3/5/20-Leslie was at community meeting 3/4/20 and would like her air tested. Called and left VM on 1st # (called 2nd # and it was someone else's #) and explained IA sampling process and asked her to call back to schedule. 10.52 3/9/2020 1A5 Phone MLR MLR-3/9/20-resident returned call and scheudled IA sampling for 3/17 & 3/18/20 at 330pm. 10.52 10/22/2021 15:12 lEmail JIVILR I Emailed resident re: scheduling 6 month resample. 10.52 11/10/2021 15:43 Email MLR Left VM re: scheduling6 month seasonal resample. 10.52 11/29/2022 11:31 Phone/email JIVILR I Left VM and sent followup email re: scheduling 6 month resample. 10.52 1/18/2023 14:46 Phone/email JIVILR I Left VM and sent email re: scheduling 6 month resample. 10-223 Z q �--' 10-224 Attachment No. PC 9 Outreach to the One Ford Road Community Z q 10-225 Zq4 10-226 From: HamannNazaroff, Daniela To: smaauin(@oox.net Cc: Jantzen-Marlon. Candace Subject: Update for Environmental Remediation and One Ford Road Date: Friday, December 9, 2022 1:22:00 PM Attachments: fia 03 prop sa 221209.ndf 0maae001.ona Dear Steve, Thank you again for meeting with us on behalf of One Ford Road to discuss the upcoming construction activities on Country Club Drive. Additional details about the anticipated schedule and impact to the community are provided in this email. Please contact me with any questions or concerns you may have. We appreciate your continued cooperation and understanding. Construction at Bayridge Park/Belcourt Terrace and potential impact to Country Club Drive The following table lists all the planned activities and approximate timing of when construction vehicles and personnel will likely be on Country Club Drive. All of the dates listed are subject to change, but the HOA will be notified at least one week in advance by email of any of the events listed below or any other activities that may impact access on Country Club Drive. We anticipate that resident access through Country Club Drive will be maintained at all times. Flagmen/cones will be utilized, when needed, to help traffic safely navigate past the work zone. Approximate Timing Activity Country Club Use (subject to change) Late January or early Topographical survey & 2-3 person crew and small equipment in roadway. February (approx. 2 utility locating Traffic cones and flagger to manage traffic. days) Mid February (approx. Mobilization of 1 vehicle to transport materials. Traffic cones 3 days) temporary facilities. around vehicle, but all work will be on the side of he road so no other traffic management needed. Early April (approx. 3 Landscaping removal One lane blocked to give crew and equipment Days) and grading at treatment adequate space to work. Some truck traffic in and system site. out of work zone for material transportation. raffic flaggers will be stationed on either side of he work zone to direct traffic. Early April (approx. 3 Conduit crossing under One lane at a time closed for potholing and Days) Country Club monitoring of the horizontal drilling process. Traffic laggers will be stationed on either side of the work zone to direct traffic. Mid April (approx. 5 Construction of concrete 1 concrete truck. Traffic cones around vehicle, but days) pad at treatment system all work will be on the side of the road so no other site traffic management needed. Late May (Approx. 2 Delivery of treatment Large flatbed truck and crane to place building on days) system building concrete pad. One lane blocked to give crew and equipment adequate space to work. Trafficflaggers 10-227 will be stationed on either side of the work zone to direct traffic. 1 day, semi-annually Maintenance events on 2 vehicles to perform work and transport materials after construction system equipment Traffic cones around vehicle, but all work will be on he side of the road so no othertraffic management needed. We will be able to provide more granularity on both the schedule and the traffic control plan for each activity asthe construction start date approaches. tilde planto maintain full transparency with the communityabout whatto expect and when. Additional Investigation within One Ford Road As you know, extensive cleanup/remediation was done within One Ford Road in the 1990s when the formerfacility was decommissioned and redeveloped to residential community. Based on the data collected in the past four years, the Water Board has agreed that no active remediation is needed within One Ford Road, howeverthey have requested 8 additional groundwater monitoring wells and 9 additional soil gas probes be installed within the community to continue to monitorthe below - ground conditions and make sure any residual impacts continue to decrease naturally overtime. This is summarized in a report called the "Remedial Design Implementation Plan" (RDIP) and is available he re: https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads eo_reportf2825709330f5L1SS023S 4S.PDF. The document is long, so I have just attached the figure (Figure 3) that shows the proposed work. • The 9 proposed soil gas probes are shown in yellow squares and will be installed within the roads (not on private property) ■ The S proposed groundwater monitoring wells are shown as green circles and will also be installed in the roads (not on private property) o The proposed locations may be adjusted slightly based on field conditions, underground utilities, or other constraints. • The Water Board has requested that the work begin no laterthan February 20th, 2023. We will mail out a Notice of Work at least 1 week before the work is to begin to all residents within One Ford Road to describe the work and the schedule. That will provide folks with addition@ I details about what to expect, number of days, etc. • Throughout the rest of the year we will need to come back quarterly or semi-annually to sample from these locations. We will notify you priorto that work later in the year. Have a great weekend, Daniela Daniell Hamann-NaxarofP Associate Engineer PE CA C91417 SheEHerlHers 10-228 M+ 1 510-206-6571 WSP USA 555 12th Street, Suite 215 Oakland, CA 94607 USA Wsp.com x9 10-229 Igo 10-230 9o10-230 Attachment No. PC 10 Project Plans 10-231 1919 200 10-232 tl BAYRIDGE PARK (PARCEL 10) SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM FORMER FORD AERONUTRONIC PROPERTY NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA *EUREKA -REDDING 3 J i c 9 3 i T SACRAMENTO O SAN FRANCISCO OAKLAND i9 q •BAKERBFIELD 90 T 0 SAN LUIS OBISPO p C SANTA BARBA- LOS ANGELES NEWPORT BEACH SAN DIES O PROJECT N SITE SITE LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCAUE SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DRAWING NAME 1 G-1 TITLE SHEET 2 G-2 GENERALNOTES 3 G-3 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS -GUIDA 4 G-0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS - CALVADA 5 G-5 EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH UTILITIES OVERLAY 6 G-6 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING SITE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY 7 CA OVERALL WELLHEAD AND PIPING LAYOUT PIPING PLAN AND PROFILE 1 OF6C-3 PIPING PLAN AND PROFILE 2 OF 6 MC-2 Cd PIPING PLAN AND PROFILE 3 OF 6 C-5 PIPING PLAN AND PROFILE 4 OF 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY THE BAYRIDGE PARK (PARCEL 10) COMMUNITY IS LOCATED IN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA (ZIP CODE 92660) BETWEEN HARTFORD DRIVE TO THE SOUTH, JAMBOREE ROAD TO THE WEST, BISON AVENUE TO THE NORTH, AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE TO THE EAST. PARCEL 10 IS DEVELOPED WITH 28 MULTI -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES FOR A TOTAL OF 168 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; THE REMAINING AREAS ARE EITHER ROADS OR LANDSCAPE. THE REAL ESTATE AND COMMUNAL SPACES (INCLUDING THE BUILDING SLABS UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS) ARE OWNED BY THE BAYRIDGE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA), AND THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE OWNED BY INDIVIDUALS. THE PLANNED SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM WILL ENCOMPASS THE ENTIRETY OF PARCEL 10, AND A PLANNED SYSTEM BUILDING WILL BE ADJACENT TO 94 HARTFORD DRIVE, TO THE EAST OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT THAT ADDRESS. _ -N- �'��' t 1 SITE LOCATION` �. SITE VICINITY MAP SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DRAWING NAME 12 C-6 PIPING PLAN AND PROFILE 5 OF 6 13 C-7 PIPING PLAN AND PROFILE 6 OF 6 14 C-8 DETAILS OF TRENCH SECTIONS AND CONDENSATE SUMPS 15 C-9 DETAILS OF WELLHEAD VAULT 16 C-10 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING SITE PREPARATION 17 C-11 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING PLAN 8 C-12 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING ELEVATIONS 9 C-13OVERALL SITE RESTORATION PLAN 01-1 k PIPINGAND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS 1-2 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 2 1-3 PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM PARCEL10 BOUNDARY moo �' \ — NI — /0 /O SrFRF�F40 g�PNV A/gRTFOR \ ` °OR � w�0 0 \ \ 0 �Qo�eURRF SF,�oROUc / l 00 ` oy l 0 0 ` /f 0 0 ` Vl l 10 I�- o _- t2u aK Y Op W y U O sj 2� Lo> d W s3 U < Of Ou a `_ O Z �c a o w Z oZo ww �a pm u yam OLL n2 �p< wwm 3u npF Ox JO3 rci yWz $z � a3I. SITE MAP °o w h� w x o rn o w ¢w J SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DRAWING NAME 23 E-004 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM, LOAD CALCULATIONS, AND PANEL SCHEDULE 24 6011-01 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING - BUILDING LAYOUT 25 6011-03A TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING- BUILDING ELEVATION CROSS SECTIONS 26 6011_04 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING- WELDED STEEL ENCLOSURE ISOMETRIC CONSTRUCTION DETAIL DRAWING 27 6011-07B TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING -SKID WELDMENT 28 6011-22 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING -ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 29 S-0.1 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING FOUNDATION -GENERAL NOTES 30 5-0.2 TREATMENTSVSTEM BUILDING FOUNDATION -GENERAL NOTES(CONTD.) 31 5-1.0 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING FOUNDATION -FLOOR PLAN AND SECTIONS c F- F Ewd�g OWN EY z�}Pe / w FnU� oop 3z�oV VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. 0-1' DATE 12/23/2022 PROJ 86223971O DWG G-1 SHEET 1 OF 31 20-1 10-233 GENERAL NOTES REM EDIATION IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE BY THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: REMEDIAL ACTION OWNER -FORD MOTOR COMPANY ENGINEER - WSP EARTH & ENVIRONMENT USA (WSP) CONSTRUCTION MANAGER -WSP CONTRACTOR -THE INDIVIDUAL, FIRM, PARTNERSHIP, OR CORPORATION DESIGNATED AS THE CONTRACTOR SELECTED BY THE OWNER TO PERFORM THE WORK HEREIN THE LEAD AGENCY IS SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (SARWQCB) 1. ALL MATERIAL AND WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL CONFORM TOTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DESIGN CRITERIA & STANDARD DRAWINGS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION 2021 EDITION. 2. THE TERM "PROVIDE" MEANS TO FURNISH AND INSTAL, COMPLETE AND READY FOR THE INTENDED USE. 3. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR INFORMATION NOT GIVEN IN THESE GENERAL NOTES OR SHOWN IN THESE PLANS. IF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OCCUR, THE PLANS GOVERN. ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WORK. 4. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. SITE CONDITIONS NOTES 1. HORIZONTAL COORDINATES ARE BASED UPON NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD 83). 2. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVE) 88). 3. EXISTING BASEMAP AND INDICATED PROPERTY LINES ARE AS PROVIDED AND CONFIRMED BY CALVADA SURVEYING, INC. AND GUIDA SURVEYING INC. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL VISUALLY INSPECT THE SITE PRIOR TO MOBILIZATION TO ASCERTAIN THE CONDITION OF EXISTING FEATURES AND FAMILIARIZE WITH PROPOSED WORK. S. PERFORM ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CLEAR AND GRUB THE SITE AND TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF THE WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL ONLY CLEAR AND GRUB AREA WHERE WORK IS PLANNED THE FOLLOWING DAY. REMOVAL SHALL INCLUDE DIGGING OUT AND OFF -SITE DISPOSAL OF RUBBISH, DEBRIS, STUMPS, ROOTS, BRUSH, TREES, AND OTHER PLANT GROWTH, EXCEPT THOSE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS TO REMAIN. 6. PROTECT BENCHMARKS,SURVEY CONTROL POINTS, AND ANY EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, WHERE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. RESTORE DAMAGED IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION, AS ACCEPTABLE TO OWNER. PERMITTING NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND PROVIDE A COPY TO THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SCAQMD) PERMIT. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE COPIES OF THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND PERMITS FOR THIS PROJECT ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES. THEY SHALL BE FAMILIAR WITH ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ANY OTHER CONDITION(S) RELATED TO THE PERMITS AND SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THE PERMITS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMIT RELATED INSPECTIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE ISSUANCE OF AND PICK UP THE BUILDING PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, PERMIT CENTER (100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660, (949) 718-1888) PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK. STAGING AND MATERIAL MANAGEMENT NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THE TEMPORARY STAGING AREA AND SCHEDULE OF WORK WITH ENGINEER. REVISION OF THE TEMPORARY STAGING AREA SHALL BE APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY ENGINEER. 2. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIAL IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO AND FROM SITE. 3. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES SHALL BE USED ON ANY HAUL VEHICLES LEAVING SITE. 4. ALL MANUFACTURED OR IMPORTED MATERIALS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO THEIR USE. ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE APPROVALS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. SCHEDULING & COMMUNICATION NOTES 1. ALL DATA,DRAWINGS, AND CORRESPONDENCE FROM LOWER -TIER MANUFACTURERS OR SUPPLIERS SHALL BE ROUTED THROUGH THE CONTRACTOR TO THE ENGINEER. 2. LIMITS OF WORK SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE LIMITS OF WORK WITH ENGINEER AND THE OWNER. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE WITH ENGINEER AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY WORK AT THE SITE. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND COMPARE ALL PLANS FOR CONFORMANCE AS TO THE LAYOUT OF DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH WORK. S. ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY UNANTICIPATED CONDITIONS THAT ARE ENCOUNTERED AND WILL DETERMINE WHETHER DESIGN CHANGES WILL BE REQUIRED. THIS INCLUDES ANY UNANTICIPATED CONDITIONS THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. 6. CONTRACTOR IS TO MAINTAIN AND PROVIDE ENGINEER WITH AN AS -BUILT MARKUP SET OF DRAWINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF ALL WORK, FOR THE ENGINEER TO GENERATE THE RECORD AS -BUILT DRAWINGS. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL SEQUENCE,COORDINATE, AND CONDUCT DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS TO MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS PUBLIC SAFETY, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY SERVICES TO EXISTING FACILITIES REQUIRING THESE SERVICES. NOTIFY ENGINEER AT LEAST FIVE (5) DAYS, WHEN FEASIBLE, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED, IN ADVANCED OF INTERRUPTION OF ANY OF THESE SERVICES. 8. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE SHALL BE PRESENTED IN A TIMELINE FORMAT SHOWING ESTIMATED START DATE, DURATION, AND COMPLETION TIMES FOR CRITICAL PATH ITEMS. THE ENGINEER WILL COMPILE AND MAINTAIN AN OVERALL PROJECT SCHEDULE WITH INPUT FROM THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMMUNICATE ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED SCHEDULE TO THE ENGINEER WITHIN 24 HOURS. SAFETY NOTES 1. ALL PERSONNEL INVOLVED SHALL FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXCAVATION CONTAINED IN THE STATE CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS ENFORCED BY THE STATE DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALWAYS BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS OF THE JOB SITE WITHIN LIMITS OF WORK INCLUDING SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY, AND FOR ALL NECESSARY INDEPENDENT ENGINEERING REVIEWS OF THESE CONDITIONS. ALTHOUGH THE ENGINEER'S JOB SITE REVIEW DOES INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY PLAN, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SAFETY MATTERS ON THE JOB SITE. 3. THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN SOIL AND GROUNDWATER DURING CONSTRUCTION. ALL WORK MUST BE PERFORMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH 29 CFR 1910.120(E). 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING A HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN TO COVER THEIR ACTIVITIES ONSITE AND SHALL ALSO COMPLY WITH THE SITE -SPECIFIC HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN PREPARED BY THE ENGINEER. 5. APPROPRIATE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE WORN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACTOR'S APPROVED HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN. 6. ALL PERSONNEL WORKING ON SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND A SITE -SPECIFIC SAFETY INTRODUCTION BEFORE STARTING ANY WORK AND AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH SUBSEQUENT WORKDAY. UTILITY NOTES 1. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO LOCATE, PROTECT, AND MAINTAIN EXISTING UTILITIES, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA; 1-800-422-4133) A MINIMUM OF THREE WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO ANY WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN A PRIVATE UTILITY -LOCATING CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE UTILITIES WITHIN THE WORK AREA WITH TRAINING PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 4216 THROUGH 4216.9, WHICH MEETS THE MINIMUM TRAINING GUIDELINES OF COMMON GROUND ALLOWANCE (CGA) CURRENT BEST PRACTICES. 2. LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS WERE OBTAINED FROM A SITE SURVEY AND AVAILABLE RECORDS FROM THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND UTILITY OWNERS. ALL EXISTING AND ABANDONED UTILITIES MAY NOT BE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALLVERIFY THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, SHOWN AND NOT SHOWN, AND TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES NECESSARY TO AVOID CONTACT WITH SUCH WHICH MAY RESULT IN INIURYTO PERSONNEL OR DAMAGE TO FACILITIES. THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF EXACT LOCATIONS AND THE COST OF REPAIR TO DAMAGED FACILITIES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 100 FEET IN ADVANCE OF TRENCHING TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES CROSSING THE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE) CONDUITSTO MAKE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS IN GRADE TO CLEAR THESE UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE EXISTING UTILITIES BY POTHOLING OR OTHER METHODS APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY THE ENGINEER. 5. NO CONNECTION SHALL BE MADE TO ANY WATER MAIN, STORM DRAIN, ELECTRICAL SOURCE OR ANY OTHER UTILITY SYSTEM WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE UTILITY AGENCY AND THE ENGINEER. 6. WHERE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS OR AS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT THE WORK, MODIFICATION OR RELOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. MODIFICATION OR RELOCATION WORK SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS AND THE UTILITY OWNER'S REQUIREMENTS. 7. THE SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMMENCE MODIFYING OR RELOCATING UTILITY WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER AND UTILITY OWNER. 8. THE SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM MODIFICATION OR RELOCATION WORK WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED BYTHE UTILITY OWNER. STORMWATER, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION NOTES 1. STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROLS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF OF SEDIMENT FROM CONSTRUCTION AREAS IN STORM WATER. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS FROM THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWEEP) PREPARED BY THE ENGINEER (IF APPLICABLE), AND ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED IN THE STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD ORDER 2009-009-DWQ (CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT), IF SUCH PERMIT IS REQUIRED AND OBTAINED BY THE ENGINEER. 2. ALL SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SWEET AND "CALTRANS STATEWIDE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN." THESE MEASURES WILL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY MAJOR SOIL DISTURBANCE OR IN THEIR PROPER SEQUENCE AND MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT PROTECTION IS ESTABLISHED. 3. ALL STORM DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY ONE OF THE PRACTICES ACCEPTED IN THE STANDARDS, AND PROTECTION SHALL REMAIN UNTIL PERMANENT STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 4. ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AND BMPS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND PERIODICALLY INSPECTED, MAINTAINED AND CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMAGE INCURRED BY EROSION SHALL BE RECTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. S. PAVED ROADWAYS MUST BE KEPT CLEAN AT ALL TIMES. STREET SWEEPING CAN BE UTILIZED. DO NOT UTILIZE A FIRE OR GARDEN HOSE TO CLEAN ROADS. 6. PROVIDE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES TO PREVENT SOIL EROSION AND DISCHARGE OF SOIL -BEARING WATER RUNOFF OR AIRBORNE DUST TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WALKWAYS, ACCORDING TO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DRAWINGS AND REQUIREMENTS OF AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION 7. STOCKPILE LOCATIONS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE ENGINEER PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION. WHEN EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES OCCUR, DUST CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO MINIMIZE DUST GENERATION. EXCAVATED SOIL SHALL BE HANDLED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SCAQMD. AT A MINIMUM, CONTRACTOR SHALL STOCKPILE SOIL USING A MINIMUM 20-MILLIMETER (MIL) HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HOPE) BOTTOM LINER WITH BERMED SIDES CONSISTING OF 1 FOOT OF SOIL OR K RAILS. STOCKPILED MATERIAL WILL BE COVERED WITH A WEIGHTED 10-MIL (MIN) HDPE COVER AND SECURED DURING PERIODS WHEN MATERIAL IS NOT BEING ADDED OR REMOVED TO SUPPRESS THE EMISSION OF DUST AND VOCS, AND TO PREVENT EXPOSURE TO RAINWATER. ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE ENCIRCLED WITH STRAW WATTLES SECURED USING SANDBAGS. DURING PERIODS OF ACTIVE USE, THE SOIL STOCKPILE WILL BE KEPT VISIBLY MOIST TO MINIMIZE DUST EMISSIONS. B. DO NOT COMMENCE SITE CLEARING OPERATIONS UNTIL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURESARE IN PLACE. SITE CLEARING NOTES 1. CONDUCT SITE CLEARING OPERATIONS TO MINIMIZE INTERFERENCE WITH ROADS, STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. DO NOT CLOSE OR OBSTRUCT STREETS, SIDEWALKS, OR ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION AND THE ENGINEER. 2. PROTECTTREES, PLANT GROWTH, AND FEATURES DESIGNATED ON THE DRAWINGS TO REMAIN AS FINAL LANDSCAPING. 3. DISPOSAL: REMOVE SURPLUS SOIL MATERIAL, UNSUITABLE TOPSOIL, DEMOLISHED MATERIALS, AND WASTE MATERIALS INCLUDING TRASH AND DEBRIS, AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF THEM OFF SITE. TRENCHING, PIPING, BACKFILLING, AND COMPACTING NOTES 1. ALL EXCAVATIONS DEEPER THAN ONE INCH SHALL BE PROPERLY BARRICADED AT ALL TIMES. ALL OPEN TRENCHES AND EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE COVERED WITH STEEL PLATES, EXCEPT WHEN THE CONTRACTOR IS PHYSICALLY WORKING WITHIN THE AREA AND HAS PLACED BARRICADES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER. 2. WHERE TREES AND STUMPS HAVE BEEN REMOVED, ALL DISTURBED AND LOOSE SOILS SHALL BE REMOVED, AND THE CAVITIES BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED WITH APPROVED MATERIALS. 3. CONTROLLED LOW STRENGTH MATERIAL (CLSM) AND PLACEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO STANDARD STD 323 OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. CONTENT SHALL BE CLASS 100-E-110 (1-SACK) SLURRY. 4. PLACEMENT OF CLSM FILL: THE CLSM SHALL BE PLACED AS FILL OR BACKFILL WITHIN 2.5 HOURS AFTER WATER IS ADDED TO THE MIX. THE CONTROLLED DENSITY FILL (CDF) MIXTURE SHALL BE PLACED DIRECTLY INTO THE TRENCH. THE PIPE SHALL BE ANCHORED TO PREVENT MOVEMENT AND FLOATATION DURING PLACEMENT OF CLSM. 5. IMPORTED FILL SHALL MEET THE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL'S CLEAN FILL ADVISORY GUIDELINES. FILL SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES OR CHARACTERISTICS: ALL PARTICLES SHALL BE LESSTHAN 3INCHES IN SIZE; - NO LESS THAN 5 PERCENT AND NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE MATERIAL SHALL PASS THE NO. 200 SIEVE; - THE FINES (I.E., MATERIAL PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE) SHALL HAVE A PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) NO GREATER THAN 15; AND -THE MATERIAL SHALL CONTAIN LESS THAN %PERCENT BY WEIGHT OF ORGANICSAND SHALL BE FREE OF OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS (E.G., CONCRETE, PLASTIC, METAL, AND OTHER WASTES). 6. AGGREGATE BASE SHALL BE AN IMPORTED MATERIALOR DERIVED FROM ON -SITE MATERIAL THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE PRESENTED IN CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 26-1.02B, Y-INCH MAXIMUM GRADATION. AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL SHOULD BE MOISTENED THOROUGHLY AND COMPACTED TO 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION AS DETERMINED BY ASTM METHOD D 1557. 7. GRADATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMEABLE BASE MATERIAL AS FOLLOWS SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING SIEVE GRAVEL OR CRUSHED ROCK 1 INCH 100 'T INCH 90-100 N4 35-65 N200 2-9 8. EXPANSIVE CLAY (ANY CLAY HAVING EXPANSION INDEX Eb70) SHALL NOT BE USED. SOIL THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN 35% BY THE WEIGHT OF MATERIAL RETAINED ON A U.S. STANDARD NO.4 SIEVE SHALL NOT BE USED. 9. ALL FILL SHALL BE PLACED IN LOOSE LIFTS NOT TO EXCEED S INCHES LOOSE DEPTH AND COMPACTED TO NOT LESS THAN 90% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM D1557. 10. BACKFILL IN TRENCH ZONE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO NOT LESS THAN 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM D1557. 11. THE AREA OF STRUCTURAL FOUNDATIONS SHOULD FIRST BE STRIPPED AND CLEARED. AFTER THE AREA HAS BEEN GRADED, SUBGRADE AT THE PAD AREA SHOULD BE SCARIFIED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8INCHES BELOW EXPOSED SUBGRADE SURFACE, MOISTURE CONDITIONED TO BETWEEN 2%AND 4%ABOVE OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT AND COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 90% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D1557. IF THE SUBGRADE SOIL IS SOFT OR DISTURBED, IT SHOULD BE EXCAVATED TO EXPOSE COMPETENT NATIVE SOILS, THE RESULTING SUBGRADE SCARIFIED AND CONDITIONED AS ABOVE, AND THE EXCAVATED MATERIAL REPLACED WITH COMPACTED FILL. 12. TRENCHING AND BACKFILL MATERIAL WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED AT NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. 13. POLYVINYL CHLORIDE(PVC)PIPE: SCHEDULE 40 AND 80 PVC PIPE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D1785. JOINTS SHALL BE LOW VOC SOLVENT CEMENT JOINTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2672. SCHEDULE 40 AND SCHEDULE 80 PVC FITTINGS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D2466 AND ASTM D2467, RESPECTIVELY. 14. PRIOR TO BACKFI LL, CONTRACTOR SHALL VACUUM TEST ALL PIPING AND FITTINGS. APPLY VACUUM AT 100 INCHES OF WATER TO THE PIPING AND FITTINGS AND HOLD FOR 2 HOURS. DURING THE TEST, VACUUM SHALL NOT DROP MORE THAN 5%. MEASUREMENTS TO BE TAKEN ONCE EVERY TWENTY MINUTES. 15. FOR ELECTRICAL CONDUITS, USE NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE WITH MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 3000 PSI AT 28 DAYS. USE 3/4" MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIZE AND 4" MAXIMUM SLUMP. ANCHOR CONDUITS TO PREVENT MOVEMENT AND FLOATATION DURING PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE. RESTORATION NOTES 1. TRENCH RESURFACING: ALL WORK INVOLVING ASPHALT CONCRETE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS AND AS DETAILED ON THE DRAWINGS. 2. ALL SURFACE MATERIALS SHALL BE RESTORED TO MATCH EXISTING MATERIALS AND CONDITIONS. MATERIALS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO RESTORE SURFACES INCLUDE CONCRETE, ASPHALTIC CONCRETE, SOIL/LANDSCAPING, AND PAVERS. 3. REPLACE SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS DAMAGED BY WORK OPERATIONS WITH THE EXISTING TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TO AN EQUAL OR BETTER CONDITION. 4. CONDUCT WORK OPERATIONS SUCH THATAN ENTIRE AREA CAN BE PAVED WITHOUT INTERRUPTIONS. 5. REMOVE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS AND RESTORE AND STABILIZE AREAS DISTURBED DURING REMOVAL. ww _0:5 WUOO w O0Q F=U CQw-O 0 Ho ow. w0 O Tn W F 0 Z Q w W Z W a Ewd Eg O E Y z�5=� wFnU� / ¢w52 3:-.0 VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING, owl kTE 12/23/2022 2 OF 31 2010-234 IN I 'w INK ,mol i — RMING'"'A LN Kwu �10120. �l� r BONNMM -� - �� vim` .�-� .,��r�ZM �`�'",• � �� �I ���i�l III I 7� �."���:..� � �b=' ��• I ' 1�1,f `� L � III 1 _ • ,I _ �',t,, . �.• 02 i /��;'�„.mot'"'A�i➢ '� t� ��� r� .<i®' ��I ,� � �.���� ram, •� � i i ♦ - � — � I I ` Oro, To SHEET __�llran__-..%_,. 1� . .� 5=��-- ' ' • .a ..cis OF I SHEET 20S 10-235 LEGEND O AS%IAL/1Alfk£Nr f5 fM09I 5URfA[f CGNOSiE IAKAIENr ft aUal K ® cavma vGWr av rNlmr (J [yJ BCLW MV MMGI Mn CWIRGL YA(K �+ fAPf BIDARiMEN1 CO19MC)MW NC NAILRA( CAWNB (� rraE xroRavr ICI ra n<aaM y f10W gMC)MW 18 /OG [Y SAY GAS ME2R )C IGG O' CURB ARG 1-- Q (Hilt SgNGARG WAifR METER ® NapTGPMC IKIL WATER ✓AU(r © ffMR CUAN Bur BLCCN WALL -Elli O5 ffxfRYAA9NME BRMYf WA(( 9M — llNiERLMd SIA&5 SNOXM'G Na— aRECMW cOMRE2/MIAWMC NICE O �� SmFET UGNiYANHpE dl1EFlRP (GrIME j m !/1PM4L/ Rlarl-cr-WAr ® rzR vA(FE --- ss -- SAAYIARY uR LINE Assc3says PANa( NuueER — TO — ICI or xarz � ¢rvr6R(Wr — —Ica cr uaE a BRaN WxE1 MPCP/RN A4nV FEAT me E(rcmM vuu BGx Ev E(rcIRM vAu(r TREATMENT SYSTEM SITE GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 FEET MONUMENT NOTES MONX DESCRIPTION M2 ED 2" BRASS DISK IN WELL MONUMENT. STAMPED "LS. 3118". PER TRACT NO. 11185. M.B. 503/27-30 M22 FD 2" BRASS DISK IN WELL MONUMENT, STAMPED "L.S. 3118", PER TRACT NO. 11185, M.B. 503/27-30 MBB ED 2" BRASS DISK IN WELL MONUMENT. STAMPED "L5. 3118", PER TRACT NO. 11785. M.B. 503/27-30 M24 FD 2- BRASS DISK IN WELL MONUMENT, STAMPED "LE. 3118", PER TRACT NO. 11785, M.B. 503/27-30 M UR ED 2" BRASS DISK IN WELL MONUMENT, STAMPED "L5. 3118", PER TRACT NO. 11785, M.B. 503/27-30 M27 FD 2- BRASS DISK IN WELL MONUMENT, STAMPED -LE. 3118", PER TRACT NO. 11785, M.B. 503/2J-30 M28 ED 2" BRASS DISK IN WELL MONUMENT, STAMPED "L.S. 3118", PER TRACT NO. 11785. M.B. 503/21-30 \ J' oCITY I Un11n EASEMENt GEaCA2U _sue rmAmTvc anlGEas. Mee sos/z�aR IS q � aueuc unmr EASM rG mE an a NEWPaat eEAcx rcn T �, \ � \ IRACr NO lIlBS. MB BBJ/11-3G � \ \ \ ' 1.2 \ L s 16B91MV Btv B� I� I III s REVISIONS I UTILITY STATEMENT PREPARED FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK SITE INFORMATION SURVEYOR OF RECORD HEN COMPLPIGN DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2022 NO. DATE REVISIONS BY BJMED UDUREs AND/OR PIPELINES SHOO HE ON ARE PER ONE ANO APPARENT SNMACE EVIDENCE, RECORD ORAWNGS OF THE CGRECe TED UTILIIY LINES OBTYNEO FROM RELNBLE MG RESPONSIBLE SOURCES NW DOder9r0und Service Alert WITH CILVP9A $DMEYING, INC. FOE WOOD PLC 100 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1100 —AND CA 99612 PHONE: (510)663-4100 ME DOORgNATES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON ME CAUFORNIA OF —HATE SYSTEM OF 1903, CCS03, ZONE 6, (2U21.15) IN ACCORDANCE i0 THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ffCIONs 0001-BBI9; SAID COORDINAI6 ARE DETERMINED LOCALLY UPON HELD-GEARTED TIES TO THE FOLLOWNG IEICA SMARMET NORTH AMEMCA (S.NH A) CONPNUOUAY OPERAING REFERENCE STAIONS (C ORS): ELEVAIDNS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BENCHMARK 35-23-]OR06, EIEVAION 119.50 FEET (NAVO BE). DESCFIPPON: SITE NAME: FORMER FORD AERONUTRONIC PROPERTY - PARCEL 11 SIZE PDORESS 8I HILLSOALE DR, NEWPORi BEACH, CA 92fifi0 ASSESSgt'S PARCEL NOS.: 442-301-63, 442-301-64, 442-301-65, ,7 ,7 ,7 t�� VADA CupvCu,N�, INC. i i1 i T 0 O3/02/22 SUBMITTAL dG PRONDfOEOBY AN INDEPENDENT LOCATING CONTRACTOR NO GUARAN- OR WPRFANIY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, d' CDII: TOLL FREE IS WOE AS TO ME ALCURACY CH THOROUGHNESS OF SUCH 1 —800 INFBRAMOR IF MORE ACCURATE LOCAIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTINES OR PIPE LINES ARE REQUIRED, ME 227-2600 MNY OR PIPELINE WLL HAVE i0 A VERIFIED BY HEW BEFOREKTOU pG PoMOLING. OLLVAfW SU—MI, INC. AND THE SURVEYOR OF r2CORD SH4L NOT BE HEW LNBLE FOR ME NCAION O 10 NOTE ME NCAION a OF OR ME UTILITIES NON -VISIBLE UTILITIES OR PIPELINES, IM.N.A CMV: NORTHING=2100252.04' EASING = 6106645.11' SN.N.A. CASE: NORTHING=2223989.44' EASING = 6056245.91' DESCNIBED BY KS 2002 - FOUND 3 3\d° OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED -35-231GR06-. SET IN ME NORTHWEST CORNER Of A 45 FT d FE CONCRETE CATCH BASIN. MONUMENT IS LOCATED IN ME SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ME Q< SOON AVENUE AND MACARIHUR BOULEVARD, BOULEVARD, 115 FT. WESTERLY 6 THE CENTERLINE OF MAGARMUR BOULEVARD AND 52 FT. SONUMENY OF ME CENTERLINE O< —A AVENUE MONUMENT IS SET LLVEL WTH THE 4DEWAM(. 442-301-fib & 442-301-69 411 Jenks Cif., Suite 205, Corona, CA 92880 PROF.. 951-280-9960 Fax: 951-280-9746 TOIL Free 800-CALVADA—.-Ivada.wm EST. 1989 JOB NO. 22145 Armando D. DuPont RegiSo-OlioH No. 7780 SHEET 2 OF 4 20 10-236 H FORG�I- Tw7 �w D A \ 5 I w�` 1 c :>T��� I . I I I ' _ \ -- - I WO�D�Uf�N , t _ s I 1 II I \ I �M�_ I/(Alb Yin •q 1 11,r,' 1\ .G� a FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AT = �.. FUTURE TREATMENT SITE g REFER TO DRAWING G 5 m Mx CITY EASEMENT 6'-0" ON EITHER SIDE I OF WATER LINE , E !` ko, of �)•-3_,� so_ .. `�T_ '� I Pi S. i Ir m � I or a 6 n - i � -r hTh'. c-___ z � .�. I M :. ��_-�- "r1 Ic __ --__ __ SYMBOLS WATER LINE (SEE NOTE 1) IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE w ---ss-- SANITARY SEWER LINE VALVE (SEE NOTE 1) FIRE HYDRANT --- so -- STORM DRAIN LINE (SEE NOTE 1) _ p ELECTRICAL PULL BOX w a --- E -- ELECTRIC LINE (SEE NOTE 2) a o STREET LIGHT PULL BOX z Y m --- c -- GAS LINE (SEE NOTE 3) w m w o U wzo TELECOM PULL BOX -- T - TELECOM LINE (SEE NOTE 4) LIGHT POST lz a BAYRIDGE PARK PROPERTY BOUNDARY SIGN - ® SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE - AREA LIGHT ® STORM DRAIN MANHOLE . FOUNDATION MONUMENT i e SEWER CLEANOUT SOIL GAS PROBE Y O UOU m WATER METER PERIMETER SOIL GAS PROBE z rn EXTENDED LIGHT POST GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL z WATER CONTROL VALVE U 4 Z. UTILITY ALIGNMENT NOTES 1. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UTILITY ALIGNMENTS ARE FROM AS -BUILT INFORMATION IN THE CITY'S GIS SYSTEM, SUPPLEMENTED BY TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF SURFACE FEATURES SUCH AS MANHOLES. 2. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON UTILITY ALIGNMENTS ARE FROM AS -BUILT INFORMATION IN SCHEMATIC MAPS SHOWING EXISTING ELECTRICAL NETWORK, SUPPLEMENTED BY TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF SURFACE FEATURES SUCH AS DISTRIBUTION VAULTS. 3. SOCAL GAS UTILITY ALIGNMENTS ARE FROM AS -BUILT INFORMATION IN SCHEMATIC MAPS SHOWING EXISTING GAS NETWORK, SUPPLEMENTED BY TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF SURFACE FEATURES SUCH AS METERS. 4. AT&T UTILITY ALIGNMENTS ARE FROM AS -BUILT INFORMATION IN SCHEMATIC MAPS SHOWING EXISTING TELECOM NETWORK, SUPPLEMENTED BY TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF SURFACE FEATURES SUCH AS MANHOLES. NOTES 1. REFER TO GENERAL NOTES ON DRAWING G-2 2. ALL STREETS IN PARCEL 10 ARE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS. UTILITY CLEARANCE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED REQUIRED MIN. COVER MIN. MIN. PER AGENCY UTILITY HORIZONTAL VERTICAL STANDARD SOURCE CLEARANCE CLEARANCE DETAIL* SANITARY SEWER 2' 1' -- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STORM DRAIN 2' 1' -- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WATER MAIN 5' 1' 36" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WATER LATERAL 5' 1' 24" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GAS 2' 1' 30" SOCAL GAS, NATURAL GAS SERVICE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC** 2' 1' 30" SOCAL EDISON ELECTRICAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS CABLE 2' 1' 24" AT&T SPECIFICATIONS, APPENDIX F MONITORINGWELLS 3' NA NA WSP EARTH AND AND SOIL GAS PROBES ENVIRONMENT USA *PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY FIELD VERIFY THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTED DEPTH OF EACH UTILITY. *CLEARANCES NOT SPECIFIED BY THE UTILITY. ASSUMED TO BE SIMILAR TO GAS AND CABLE. m¢ z_J O W w 0 0 h m z fQ �o 0 W aw o J g z F Ln X W z- z 8 ONE zJ M@ M. w F,nUo / ¢w5 mf oop 3z�oV VERIFY SCALE BAR 11 ONE I111111 ORIGINAL DRAWING. ATE 12/23/2022 5 OF 31 205 10-237 / / NOTES 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES REFER TO DRAWING G-2. 2. BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY CALVADA, INC ON 2/24/2022. SEE DRAWING G4. 3. ELECTRIC AND TELECOM LINES NOT DETECTED BY GEOVISION' UNDER FOOTPRINT OF TREATMENT SYSTEM ON 7/8/2022. FIELD VERIFY. / 4. WATER LINE DETECTED BY GEOVISION ON 7/8/2022. / FIELD VERIFY. 5WIDTH OF CITY EASEMENT FROM I R7 — — E — — — E — —« BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT S-BUIL1TS. =E E — — — — E — — — — E_L— — — -- 96 HARTFORD DRIVE E E---- E---- E---- E----E---- UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATER E---- SEE NOTE3 g4 HARTFORD DRIVE --- E ---- E---- E---- E---- E---- E__— —_ E— E I I ACCESS GAT NORMALLY CLOSED I GRASSCRETE AC UNIT \ SURFACING t ' FUTURE PAD _ _ — —I ' \ LOCATION — — — — — — t _ I 014" 11111ill Jill, ,t- /t FIRE LANE / I t —_I� CITY EASEMENT 6'-0" CITY S ESE TE 5 6 0 I o SEE NOTE S t � p�0 �O�Oa I O Qo t � , SEE NOTE 3 0 SEE NOTE 4 • t j I LANDSCAPED AREA I op I^ t'�� I I opp0apo t''� L--------- ✓ -.r--- BAYRIDGE PARK, w ------ 7"—� � " a� a PROPERTY BOUNDARY P F ---- rCONCRETEPEDESTRIANPATH ICV LEGEND GRASS ven ICV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE --- W-- WATER LINE (CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH) — — — E — — ELECTRIC LINE (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON) — — — T — — TELECOM LINE (AT&T) • FOUNDATION MONUMENT GRASSCRETE SURFACING Nol spa u w'o U i2 op- �i za wwm 3u w4rc m O03 rci Ow= o, � a3 0 I. ol� oQ - 7 � ma a LU y ~ O z� N F- } aw N z C F- F- z (n w X �w F- w w� H � z'z�^ �wA 5; E Y wFnU� / ¢ 5d� 000 3z1oV VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING, B-1' ATE 12/23/2022 'ROJ 8622397107 IWG GE iHEET 6 OF 31 206 10-238 J tl 0 t - sx�— vE—sK—sK� __ — 6• �t ¢ f L_ _ a SYMBOLS �3 w 4• \� \ HARTFORD DL24 ; � j I � � EXISTING FEATURES �k WATER LINE w > �a Q ro B I m .. - SANITARY SEWER LINE g a> SVE_10 2 m U Q- STORM DRAIN LINE w ELECTRIC LINE GAS LINE - 3'^ FOR PLAN AND PROFILE I - w I N� SEE DWG 0- I s j '', �I U -- - - TELECOM LINE t2c nm i i II��I�IIIIu X I I s1 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ¢ <� s.M' n Qf ✓� i � GF N I I I I Y O STORM DRAIN MANHOLE w FOR PLAN SEE DWG CE SVE-10-13/' II 2 22 -r' I s SEWERCLEANOUT z yO zE Y -��o� I C� � I 0 WATER METER a 3 � gz c— EXTENDED LIGHT POST U W , t h I e Q 0WATER CONTROL VALVE oc � 'o IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE E SVE-10- ono-, _ I 1 � 3/I VALVE Z �c 1� r I 1 FIRE HYDRANT gyp t l 1 1 L zoo v SVE-10-08 ' I I O W ELECTRICAL PULL BOX STREET LIGHT PULL BOX z w a o— -FORP� ��BRADBIlRYp_so LAN AND PROFILE 1 '� £gn o f SEEDWGGB _ m i m i I '" I 1� = TELECOM PULL BOX -.�z + �fi E E m IM I 1 Fa I -� I✓O -- B _ _ _} - LIGHT POST I I I / I I ♦` ®1 Fpa �, - 1 SIGN w'o +§vE vE-to-DzzC AREA LIGHTzg o o a Wiwi N i�z .yr-�s_�r _ _W�µ�__IwH FOUNDATION MONUMENT =i iw u- i; n 1 a I I I IN I ; �(�I Ii _/" \LAN AND PROFILE F-OQ I , J� rF{ 1 / _SEED vzc .cam wwm 3u G ---- Ee`$2 ' I - 4 -l/ -C-3 SOIL GAS PROBE p a oG '-- I n o �3 s ® \ _ F - o--�T-- N rll FOR PWGII PERIMETER SOIL GAS PROBE SVE 10- 06 I GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL 0, a3 (- s I Ex, 1`q\ i _ 1YJ4^7?J 1\ \I j NEW CONSTRUCTION LL zc / ,y e 1 I I I e t, i svE UNDERGROUND SVE PIPING 3� 4 I FOR PLAN AND PROFILE c l ^'"xl" 1 H SEE DWG G] I oC ; O SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL 31 — tM L__ L___� I �� 131P c14 ix .FOR PLAN AND PROFILE _ _-- _10 07 r— Q = ra _ I CONDENSATE SEPARATOR F - s .� W Q 1 Lr_== ____ 2 } SEE DWG C< _ _-- 8IOV ' ON ETHER Fp W SI EOEWATER t _ LI E_ Z _J d LLI i ' Q O z E`1Ib-0---to-010 W. g 5 t _ i_ 1 i fl 1 >� M ____m L_1_ 1 G Q _--___- nlLy_L m-� _�_�_ os��- I �iiFv}iUo sh" I I . J L __ I 7LLNx T EI E ' 3 .0 FOR PLAN AND PROFILE VERIFY SCALE SEE DWG CS ' BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. O 1'— / \ 4 DATE 12/23/2022 PROJ 8622397107107 - ® DWG C-1 SHEET 7 OF 31 207 10-239 3 � O 0+50 1+00 t 1+50 2+00 2+ "DIA. 3+00 MATCH POINTA� srE — s1s H— sys— aE srE— syst sys— s.E— srE— suE svE - sve arE— srE _ -5.0' �7.C1+3\ 8" DIA. o+zs 45 DEG. WE 6'x4" REDUCING TEE _W----w----w----w---_ yy____w_ __y"____vy____vy_ yy____w____yv____yv____yv _yv____y,,____w____W ___yv___ ___vy__ _yp____ ____ ___yy____yy__'L_w____w - w- 1 .��- IW---w----w----wl FIw w1l w Q 0+22 45 DEG. ELBOW I I z I 4"DIA. 3 SEE DWG c-6 0 �P � I HARTFORD DR SEE BVE-10-fOPROFILE HjARTFO I i �,. WELL VAULT. SEE DWG. C5 C.8 CONDENSATE ' ' CROSSWALK, TYP. i 2 ss- --Ss-- �---ss-- - ; PYARPKING AREA, 4"DIA. ; SEPARATOR j --ssir---ss--ss— — __ SEPARATOR Cb tl^ ------ -------- - - PSG; a Ili III `WELL SVE-10-10 9 ; —es--5s— — es— __- ___-ss _- _s _ --- 11— --- — _ssi _ ___ _ I� ___ CONDENSATE ,ss—ysr R -ss--sue— ; p ; 4 ^ ti05 WELL VAULT. SEE DWG. GI I G 10 REMOVE AND REPLACE li 6 ' CR09S GUTTER. SEE NOTE 3 �' $ m 0+00 !G-'-I'G-___G____ __ _G____G__ G____ G____ G___� \�_'�____L_-ems C---- ___ ___ - - - - -- ® 63 �W GW�I W W IW I�3W I I O W W WELL 6VE-10-12 SEE DWG G 20 m19 N N O 19 3 18 20 m19 O 19 18 SVE-10-12 CONNECT TO BRITTANY, SEE DW C-6 l Q WELL VAULT SEE DWG. C-9 8-SS SCH 80 PVC °.B SVE VACUUM LINE 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 Station HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE MATCH POINT 2+00 200 195 190 185 2+50 2- LEGEND: {(��( MINIMUM COVER, 1.5 FEET y o L.�...../ UTILITY CLEARANCE EXEMPTION REQUESTED _ SCH 80 PVC SOIL VAPOR e� EXTRACTION VACUUM LINE m PIPE BEND ® WYE OR TEE CONNECTION NOTES: 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, REFER TO DRAWING G-2. 2. CURVE PIPING RUNS WHEN FITTING ANGLE DOES NOT ACHIEVE DESIGNED ALIGNMENT. DO NOT EXCEED MANUFACTURERS MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED PIPE DEFLECTION. 3. WHERE TRENCH CROSSES CONCRETE CROSS DRAIN, REMOVE GUTTER BY SAW -CUTTING AT NEAREST JOINTS. FIELD VERIFY JOINT LOCATIONS. REPLACE GUTTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARD DETAIL 185, MATCHING EXISTING WIDTH. 4. CONDENSATE SEPARATORS ARE THE SAME DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DIAMETER IN THAT SECTION. CONNECTTO SVE-10-10 C CONDENSATE 9 SEPARATOR 1.4' iS-SD 1 C� SCH 80 PVC SVE VACUUM LINE T 1 24"SD 2+70 3+00 3+50 4+00 Station HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE 4+50 200 195 m m w� y yQ O 190 185 5+00 Station SVE-10-10 PROFILE m Imo` W ° U w Nol zu Boa w'� c Uo i2 20" F=U - CQCaw z m 3u aorc m �3 *Ow yz o°' wz y� a3 0 w Z� N111 c J U. O w IL F ZLL m o ¢ O 0 J IL t7 Z a a wz� Ewd�g E Y z5;�}Pe 000, w FnU� 000 aw5d� 3z1oV VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. 0-1' ATE 12/23/2022 'ROJ 8622397107 IWG C-2 MEET 8 OF 31 202 10-240 20 m 20 fD 19 19 31 CONDENSATE 2 CONNECTTO SEPARATOR HARTFORD SOUTH 8"W TO 45 DEG. ELBOW, B-W YP. SCH 80 PVC Cb SVE VACUUM LINE 90 DEG. ELBOW TO SVE TREATMENT SYSTEM 7+50 WELL VAULT -_-- SVE-10-06 SEE DWG. C-9 c' 2 CONDENSATE I C-e SEPARATOR 205 20 205 20 SVE-10-09 200 - __- / 3 CITY EASEMENT 6-V CONNECTTO / SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION 19� HARTFORD NORTH SYSTEM BUILDING 200 m 20 200 m 19 195 ;.::_:::: - - I_ _ O CONNECT TO HARTFORD NORTH 24"SDV ryr l 3S"DIPj. /1�3 vI B 3 1Ir REMOVE AND REPLACE 195 19 195 19 190 REMOVE AND REPLACE CURB AND I DRA88CRETE. SEE DRAW CRETE. SEE C-11 GUTTER NEARESTJOINTS AND WELL VAULT REPLACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH E 3 190 19 SEE DWG. C-9 190 18 185 CITY STANDARD DETAILS I i 8+00 8+19 0+00 0+10 0+00 0+16 " II Station Station Station 3 HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE SVE-10-06 PROFILE SVE-10-09 PROFILE (CONTINUED) O D --- - - ---- ---- - - -G O WELL VAULT. SEE DWG. G-9 G 37 WELL SVE-10-06 Q'oo �8"DIA. /// W7jo �8 og a SEE PROFILESVl40-06 _- N sE 71.25 1 8'&4"REDUCING DEG. ELBOW TEE HARTFORD00 �- _-c_- -G-- -c - - c---- - - �_ _�- -W- 1+62 W6.0' w 8" DIA. -- w-- g" DI _-- y,,____ y„ _ _ µ,_ - 4,�DLLTEEyQ{T1f d"Xe w--- �� ____ __ _ _� ��/s8"X6"REDUCING TEE WITH 6^ DIA. 11.25 DEG. ELBOW "- CENTRIC REDUCER �� a '"oo so T -as-__-os- __as ____os --asp I F fl/1R�F�RD �6" DI �11. DE (ELBOW _s= SEE DWG ( 7 Cl l Iw ■■M �" 4' IA. SEE PROFILE SVE-10-09 °' tt aLL ems' -� REMOVEAND REPLACE a� WELL VAULT. SEE DWG. C-9-s-o �— `� a CROSS GUTTER. SEE NOTE \ W)tti N60 <f J zp PSG-10-� WELL SVE-140B Icy, F / — --�` NFL OOQ ?F I UrU �1.m 3c CONNECT TO SEABOROUGH, CONNECT TO SVE-10-06 SEE DWG C-7 CONNECT TO SVE-10-09 3' �8^W 1 1�.r /� GB so PVC B"uJ 1 `� B.W J SVE VACUUM LINE O e"ss Os^ss 8^ss a^ss 205 190 185 a o oc �3 JpW yx O x Owz a3 200 y� o w zF 3 pC W 95 - m O w IL Z o a o a w Q N J 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 7+60 IL Station HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE Z IL a w /\ z„ �wd LEGEND: NOTES: _ 68 On' _E 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, REFERTO DRAWING G-2. �I � MINIMUM COVER, 1.5 FEET 2. CURVE PIPING RUNS WHEN FITTING ANGLE + z 5' e y O DOES NOT ACHIEVE DESIGNED ALIGNMENT. DO w UTILITY CLEARANCE EXEMPTION REQUESTED NOT EXCEED MANUFACTURERS MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED PIPE DEFLECTION. 00p 3. WHERE TRENCH CROSSES CONCRETE CROSS � o 3 z SCH 80 PVC SOIL VAPOR DRAIN, REMOVE GUTTER BY SAW -CUTTING AT _ EXTRACTION VACUUM LINE NEAREST JOINTS. FIELD VERIFY JOINT VERIFY SCALE LOCATIONS. REPLACE GUTTER IN BAR IS ONE INCH ON m PIPE BEND ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARD DETAIL ORIGINAL DRAWING, Bit^ 185, MATCHING EXISTING WIDTH. ® WYE OR TEE CONNECTION 4. CONDENSATE SEPARATORS ARE THE SAME DATE 12/23/2022 DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DIAMETER IN THAT PROJ 8622397107 SECTION. DWG C-3 SHEET 9 OF 31 2Oj 10-241 SEE 6V 2 CONDENSATE SEPARATOR "h \> �' y 5. 3 1 P SG-1032 __-- 4 + V " Q 1 REMOVE AND REP " -4-ss- 4 �__ss— — ss-__-s;-- ss y�--6`— — s - «��111.25 DEO ELBOW I __ E Lss- 4 s l_i F - rss-----ss---_s:- -�ss- - aa- - _ - ° ° - al L__ss-T T LACE ° - a REMOVE AND REPLACE 1 90 DEG ELBOW " Q 1 CROSS GUTTER. SEE NOTE F r� WESTPORT { a- 9 s— ¢----s°---7 s°__ CROSSGUITER.SEE NOTE3 n 11.25 DEG. ELBOW ---- ---------- __ 0+00 1 � auE= sva� ava M =are— sre— aver avE� are— sv!— avE�- are— ava— sve— gvs � — svE arE}+=�sre—are_ � 3.7 QOwN 0+E00 2 ONDREANSAT\J -- N-_ - - -- SC.B'CTOR ---v___- _ -- ---EPA W11 , I t LL Mi TI VAULT. SEE DWG. G9 205 200 m d 3 O � 195 19 0+00 LEGEND: MINIMUM COVER, 1.5 FEET UTILITY CLEARANCE EXEMPTION REQUESTED _ SCH 80 PVC SOIL VAPOR svE EXTRACTION VACUUM LINE m PIPE BEND ® WYE OR TEE CONNECTION NOTES: 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, REFER TO DRAWING G-2. 2. CURVE PIPING RUNS WHEN FITTING ANGLE DOES NOT ACHIEVE DESIGNED ALIGNMENT. DO NOT EXCEED MANUFACTURERS MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED PIPE DEFLECTION. 3. WHERE TRENCH CROSSES CONCRETE CROSS DRAIN, REMOVE GUTTER BY SAW -CUTTING AT NEAREST JOINTS. FIELD VERIFY JOINT LOCATIONS. REPLACE GUTTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARD DETAIL 185, MATCHING EXISTING WIDTH. 4. CONDENSATE SEPARATORS ARE THE SAME DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DIAMETER IN THAT SECTION. 2 CONDENSATE REMOVE AND REPLACE C8 CONDENSATE CE CONDENSATE SEPARATOR REMOV�ROSS AND REPLACE CROSS GUTTER. SEE NOTE 3 CROSS 45 DEG. ELBOW, TYP. GUTTER. SEE NOTE SEPARATOR SEPARATOR ".2 W 2W 1.2"W 1.2"W 1.2"W 1.2"W 1.2-W I I 71 .l .l 8 W ,a 1Y Rt'ro 3' 1.1' 1• 2-W 24"SD 45 DEG. ELBOW, TYP. 1' "SD GB SCH 80 PVC 08"SS 8"SS 0 0 SVE VACUUM LINE 8" SS CONNECT O SVE-10-04 0+50 1+00 1+50 Station HARTFORD SOUTH PROFILE ss ____ ___ssi___aa WELLOVT_SEE DWG. C-9 Is ___J ss ____sr ____ ___ss �S-P 10-281 -�---- " I 4" DIA. 1 ? wa J WELL SVE- ® q i 6'X 4'REDUCING • TEE 6. DIA. 6 45 DEG. ELBOW, TYP. M SEPARATOR TIM____M ___ M�vs M4fi DEG. ELBOW, TYP. M CONO ,H_ 2 CONDENSATE 2 CONDENSATE 2.6� L 2 ENSATE 4 - CA " 4 C-e SEPARATOR S.O Cb SEPARATOR r--T - -- --^^-- ,- 0 5 3+00 re auET area auE�ays� auE— svE auE— m ems, av£� suE _ -10-29 P-59 I a avE MATCH P�OINTA _tan_ _ _ __�____D ____0 ____0 ____0 ___ 0____�____�____ ____.w __ _0 ___0 ____ __ _0 ____ ____ EX. 6' DIA. SOIL GAS PROBE /� -,,, n 1 205 m 200 � O 195 190 0 lI PSG-0j0-26-�* F J ss =--svL WELL BVE10-05 __ As 6"DIA TEE 6' X 4' ECCENTRIC REDUCER - - PS e 10-27- M4+0 EX. 6" DIA. SOIL GAS PR EX. 12" DIA. GROUNDWATER 205 200 195 190 = 2+00 2+50 2+80 p W' .oa yam UD i2 0 F=U - CQCaw �zu m 3u -1U-2s q --ss--- ¢ m pw- 4 WELL VAULT. SEE DWG. G9 ___ss ____ Ow. a3 HARTFOR f� 45 DEG. ELBOW, TYP. £ -2.6� oc n c w Ps 1 O SVe�"DIA. SOIL GAS PROBE - d -- fflfilffl OBE y Z 6" IA. Q LL �� bOra �� Z M ¢m Q c J IL 0 z WELL VAULT WELL VAULT d SEE DWG. C-9 SEE DWG. C-9 CONNECTTO HARTFORD SOUTH d 20 2 CONDENSATE C-8 SEPARATOR CONNECT TO SVE-10-05 ONNECT TO HARTFORD SOUTH SVE-10-05 20 SVE-10-04 'W 9 2 W ,tiy 2RN 9 2 SCH 80 PVC Y BW C 8 SVE VACUUM LINE 195 0 8'SS 08"SS 08"SS 08'SS 08"SS 190 205 q4 004 200 �wd�8 OON EY i�im. w FnUo N�ry 0 a 195 x VERIFY SCALE BARIS 19O EINCHON ORGNA�DRAWING. 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 0+00 0+25 0+00 0+23 ' Station Station Station DATE 12/23/2022 HARTFORD SOUTH PROFILE SVE-10-04 PROFILE SVE-10-05 PROFILE PROJ 8622397107 DWG C-4 SHEET 10 OF 31 210 10-242 31 SEE DWG CL I I � III i I ' I n I I � I 3 'c4 I i I� `C25 CONDENSATE i SEPARATOR IrrI 1 l µ 3 SG.10i PSG 10- -5.0' I -- I I a I I � I 6 I I ' s I r ti-ss- I I B EX. 6" DIA. SOIL GAS PROBE I z ® 2a2 10 Q I I I 3 WELL VAULT. SEE DWG. C-9 Prv& ``s,WELLSVE-10-01D �n` SG-10-03 SG-10-03A -6.7 a� � SG-10-05- I q SG-10- - -°,ss—_ss____ss____ss_- _s'____ --ss----ss---- _ \a s�DIA. HARTFORD 4" DIA. J 8' '^ X4" REDUCING TEE -2 6-2 5, 6n A. i � I ` 1 I -5.0' �m S oaa � -10-20 T+ w ti �- - sh- EX. T DIA. SOIL GAS PROBE E%. 8" DIA. SOIL GAS PROBE LEGEND: ((� MINIMUM COVER, 1.5 FEET UTILITY CLEARANCE EXEMPTION REQUESTED SCH 80 PVC SOIL VAPOR -'�`- EXTRACTION VACUUM LINE m PIPE BEND ® WYE OR TEE CONNECTION NOTES: 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, REFER TO DRAWING G-2. 2. CURVE PIPING RUNS WHEN FITTING ANGLE DOES NOT ACHIEVE DESIGNED ALIGNMENT. DO NOT EXCEED MANUFACTURERS MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED PIPE DEFLECTION. 3. WHERE TRENCH CROSSES CONCRETE CROSS DRAIN, REMOVE GUTTER BY SAW -CUTTING AT NEAREST JOINTS. FIELD VERIFY JOINT LOCATIONS. REPLACE GUTTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARD DETAIL 185, MATCHING EXISTING WIDTH. 4. CONDENSATE SEPARATORS ARE THE SAME DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DIAMETER IN THAT SECTION. G8 CONDENSATE SEPARATOR CONNECT TO SVE-10-011D � NNECT TO HARTFORD NORTH 2"W 1' SCH 80 PVC w t� 45 DEG. ELBOW, w o TYP. 0-8 SVE VACUUM LINE O 8"SS O 8"SS 2" O O 8'SS 8'SS O O 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 Station HARTFORD SOUTH PROFILE 200 195 CONNECT TO HARTFORD SOUTH WELL VAULT SEE DWG. G9 SVE-10-01D 8'w Or O8"SS 200 195 7+34- 0+00 0+25VV Station SVE-10-1D PROFILE m Imo` W O U w Nol wC �a oa Hz~ ULL i2 O . F=U _ CQCaw z m 3u Ono Dx JOW rc, z O W z a3 E w o �LL Zu 111 o`D J w IL 1-6 zLL m o ¢O 3o Z aw Q c J IL Z a a Q4 zz - EW ddd�g zS}fi5; E Y e wFnU� / 3z.o- VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. BI-1' )ATE 12/23/2022 'ROJ 8622397107 )WG C-5 MEET 11 OF 31 211 10-243 31 v WELL VAULT. SEE DWG. C-B �pSG10-PSG m 0 PS@-10-35 f s____..____ss____ --------4-ss-i-_ - —ss— — --__y __�� u_ WELL SVE-10-s3 s'£ a qla. a DIAL WOODBURNE _ WELL SVE-1D92 s _ 1+Oo ., 00 suE �sE—yse�s� 0+00 I e CONDENSATE — z i 04 CROSSGUTTENOTE 3. "-✓- i C B SEPARATOR w �-___n' IPSG-10�4 �+ w----w----0+E�REMOVEAND WELL VAULT. SEE DWG. C-9 _ SEE DWG C< ! I C?e CONDENSATE SEPARATOR 11.25 DEG. ELBOW WELL VAULT SEE DWG. C-9 SVE-10-03 SVE-10 2 CONNECT TO HARTFORD SOUTH W .2•W 2' .2.W "2.•W 1••W 1.1' 8 CONDENSATE 1 C-8 SCH 80 PVC SVE VACUUM LINE SEPARATOR 0+00 0+50 Station WOODBURNE PROFILE w' z I I m I F REMOVE AND REPLACE CROSS GUTTER, E NOTE 3 WELL VAULv____W_ --w- -IW---W----W- _w3A3 W 7 � T ELL svE-10-1a 3 i T.SEEDWG.C-9 E- svE� suE� sue- ave-H m- 's- svE svE avE syt- �SG-10-4 V4� 0+00 I �PSGiD-a�16 RITTANY--I _,�- - ss-- ss-- 1 I WELL VAULT SEE DWG. C-9 205 WELL VAULT SEE DWG. C-9 200 195 1+00 1+08190 ® 1z SEE DWG C-2'`s •ATOR C'S / \ 6"DIA, SEE DWG C-2 N 00 WELL SVE-1D-11 REMOVE AND REPLACE SVE-1613 CONNECT TO HARTFORD NORTH CONNECT TO SVE-10-11 '2-W '2"W 2"W .m .2"W z'W i.r 1• OF SCVEHVC M 8"W DANSAT C SE, 8'SS0 0+00 0+50 1+00 Station BRITTANY PROFILE 200 195 190 185 1+38 LEGEND: MINIMUM COVER, 1.5 FEET UTILITY CLEARANCE EXEMPTION REQUESTED _ SCH 80 PVC SOIL VAPOR srE EXTRACTION VACUUM LINE m PIPE BEND ® WYE OR TEE CONNECTION NOTES: 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, REFER TO DRAWING G-2. 2. CURVE PIPING RUNS WHEN FITTING ANGLE DOES NOT ACHIEVE DESIGNED ALIGNMENT. DO NOT EXCEED MANUFACTURERS MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED PIPE DEFLECTION. 3. WHERE TRENCH CROSSES CONCRETE CROSS DRAIN, REMOVE GUTTER BY SAW -CUTTING AT NEAREST JOINTS. FIELD VERIFY JOINT LOCATIONS. REPLACE GUTTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARD DETAIL 185, MATCHING EXISTING WIDTH. 4. CONDENSATE SEPARATORS ARE THE SAME DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DIAMETER IN THAT SECTION. CONNECT TO BRITTANY 20 200 m 19 195 O 19 190 18 185 0+00 0+22 Station SVE-10-11 PROFILE SVE-10-11 WELL VAULT SEE DWG. C-9 0 8'SS m Imo` W O U w Nol a wC Ki u y6 1, ULL i2 OpQ F=Ud. CQCaw z m 3u R no °x JOW rcz w W z °z w� o �LL zu 3- 111 u. o`D O w a yN Z zo Q LL Z O aw QLo c J a (7 z a a p4 �z,y E W mm- g 5; E Y wFnUo / HAM 000 , - m VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. obi )ATE 12/23/2022 'ROJ 8622397107 )WG C-6 MEET 12 OF 31 212 10-244 31 20 m 20 m n<i O 19 19 4 z ® i PSG- P -0-1 3 _M____M __ W WELL 4" SVE-10N DIA. --- I I I I I --� f--------�Ei---aa----E--�Ri# BDB{JRY-�-- - ---s� --- „oo � -- I svE�suE—"f—sve Ir svE—sys�sve �ays—svF —d WELLSVE-f008 I 0+00 s° _ �Cl PSG-10-14 REMOVE ANDREPLACE CROSS ' C8 CONDE OREISEPAR I � IUTTERSEENOTE3WELL VAULT. SEEDWGC-9 ____w____w____.,;____w _T,_.,, REMOVE AND REPLACE CROSSGUTTER. SEE NOTE 3 WELL VAULT. SEE DWG, �T__- F�N I I I I VAULT CONDENSATE C REMO E AND REPLACE SEE C-S4Y7 B SEPARATOR CROSS GU ER. SEE NOTE 3 SVE-10-N SVEG. CON ECT TO SEABOROUGH •2"W .2'W •2•'W 1.1' 2•W 1.2" 1' CA SCH 80 PVC TSW SVE VACUUM LINE QB SS Q 8•SS 205 WELL VAULT SEE DWG. C-9 200 195 190 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+48 Station BRADBURY PROFILE SEE DWG C-3 s REMOVE AND REPLACE CROSS I b yW t__ __ GUTTER. SEE NOTE 3 _ z 6�� _w__-- Ca_ ____w____w_ _ _ _ 1 _ jM SEPARATOR I T svE _ _ _ __ wsve IIS _ _ w — m ®\1 3W 1`"' 3 1+Og i auE�a.� suE�are—s sle�srE lue—srx — evs �I s 1 svf � 1 1 7 1+82 11 ', M 3 SE BOROUGH „ REMOVE AND REPLACE SEE CROSS GD ER. SEE NOTES m \ 1\ \ D , SEE DWG CJ CONNECTTO REMOVE AND REPLACE REMOVE AND REPLACE BRADBURY CROSS GUTTER. SEE NOTE 3 CROSS GUTTER. SEE NOTE 3 CONNECTTO 2 2 CONDENSATE HARTFORD NORTH SEPARATOR --- 2•W 1�2"W 1 1.2"W 1 2"W 1.2'bV 1. 1'2•W 1.2YJ 8^N Q8 SCH 80 PVC SVE VACUUM LINE 0+00 0+50 1+00 Station SEABOROUGH PROFILE 205 200 195 190 1+50 1432 m Imo` W O U w Nol Boa wM UO 2 i OpQ F=U _ CQCad. w z m 3u .4, oc *Rn 03 �3 Oz 0.z a3 � 0 11 zu 3- A J U. LEGEND: 0 a MINIMUM COVER, 1.5 FEET j Z co UTILITY CLEARANCE EXEMPTION REQUESTED h i o Q LL O � p1 Z a SCH 80 PVC SOIL VAPOR rc � J _ EXTRACTION VACUUM LINE d m PIPE BEND Z ® WYE OR TEE CONNECTION d a NOTES: 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, REFER TO DRAWING G-2. 2. CURVE PIPING RUNS WHEN FITTING ANGLE �z� DOES NOT ACHIEVE DESIGNED ALIGNMENT. DO NOT EXCEED MANUFACTURERS 0 wE Y MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED PIPE ! i } = e DEFLECTION. 3. WHERE TRENCH CROSSES CONCRETE w r w ^ m r = CROSS DRAIN, REMOVE GUTTER BY 000 u Y SAW -CUTTING AT NEAREST JOINTS. FIELD 3 �. o VERIFY JOINT LOCATIONS. REPLACE GUTTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY VERIFY SCALE STANDARD DETAIL 185. MATCHING BAR IS ONE INCH ON EXISTING WIDTH. ORIGINAL DRAWING. 4. CONDENSATE SEPARATORS ARE THE SAME ° � 1• DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DIAMETER IN THAT DATE 12/23/2022 SECTION. PROJ 8622397107 DWG C-7 SHEET 13 OF 31 213 10-245 2"TEMPORARY PATCH. FOR FINAL RESTORATION SEE NOTE 3. DETECTABLE WARNING TAPE MARKED SAW CUT TO FULL DEPTH "SVE VACUUM LINE" OF EXISTING ASPHALT ` EXISTING ASPHALT I 12" I / PAVEMENT i VARIES PER PROFILE, 18" MIN CONTROLLED LOW 12" STRENGTH MATERIAL :.:. (CLSM) 3" SAND BEDDING SCH 80 PVC PIPE 4", 6" OR 8"DIA. PER 3" PLANS PIPE DIA. TRENCH WIDTH'W SEE TABLE 'D' MIN. 4" 16" 6" 18" 8" 20" NOTE: SURFACE RESTORATION IN LANDSCAPE OR WALKWAYS TO MATCH EXISTING 3 TYPICAL SVE VACUUM LINE TRENCH SECTION (n TRAFFIC RATED CHRISTY FOR LOCATIONS, SEE PLAN BOX OR APPROVED EQUAL. AND PROFILE DRAWINGS DIAMETER PER TABLE LID MARKED "SVE" CIRCULAR CONCRETE COLLAR 8" 0.5" a #4 BAR ALL LOCKABLE MONITORING DEPTH VARIES AROUND WELL COMPRESSION PLUG PER PIPING PROFILE. CONTROLLED LOW STRENGTH MATERIAL (CLSM) 0.1 % MIN - 0.1 % MIN SCH 80 PVC PIPE DIA. PER PLAN CONDENSATE CAPTURE SUMP 24" SURFACE RISER DIA. BOX DIA. 4 8" 6" 10" 3" SAND BEDDING 8" 12 ALLAROUND COVER FACTORY MARKED "SVE" 3" PVC END CAP CONDENSATE SEPARATOR DETAIL SAW CUT TO FULL DEPTH OF EXISTING ASPHALT 2" TEMPORARY PATCH. FOR FINAL RESTORATION SEE NOTE 3. 12" 2" X 18" BOXOUT 18" 3/18" TOP FLOOR PLATE ELASTOMERIC SEALANT T] 3" RESIDENTIAL ° e BUILDING ° a d EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMNT 24" MIN 12" DETECTABLE WARNING TAPE MARKED "SVE VACUUM LINE" CONTROLLED LOW 3" STRENGTH MATERIAL O O (CLSM) 3„ NORMAL WEIGHT 3" 1.5" 3" CONCRETE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT TRENCH SECTION ( g ) NOTES 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES REFER TO DRAWING G-2. 2. ALL WORK IN ROADWAY TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STANDARDS. 3. BACKFILLED TRENCH SHALL BE TEMPORARILY PATCHED AFTER APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET OF WORK IS COMPLETE. ACCESS TO THE DOORS AND GARAGES FOR RESIDENCES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. 4. SCHEDULE OF TRENCHING, BACKFILL AND TEMPORARY PATCHING TO BE AGREED WITH THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO START OF WORK. 5. FOR THE EXTENT OF FINAL PAVING, REFER TO DRAWING C-13. 6. CAP AND PROTECT PIPE BEFORE AND DURING INSTALLATION OF THE PREFABRICATED TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING. TO TREATMENT SYSTEM TEMPORARY PVC END CAP ' (SEE NOTE 6) i SPRAY FOAM INSULATION AROUND PIPE FLOOR FRAMING (BY OTHERS) 6 3/16" REINFORCED CONCRETE PAD ° REFER TO TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING ° FOUNDATION DRAWINGS J PIPE CAST INTO SLAB WITH TOP OF CLSM. 15„ -I 0.5" INSULATION FOAM ALL FOR BACKFILL ROUND DETAIL, SEE DETAIL 1 8" 90 DEG SCH 80 PVC BEND FORINVERT ELEVATION REFER TO DRAWING CJ VACUUM LINE AT TREATMENT SYSTEM PROFILE VIEW 4 TREATM SYS BUILDING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 4TI- FROM IN -GROUND CONDENSATE SEPARATOR, LOCATION PER PLAN DUT PRAY FOAM ISULATION ROUND PIPE 8" 90 DEG SCH 80 PVC BEND VACUUM LINE AT TREATMENT SYSTEM PLAN VIEW 5 of ww pa H'o Uw oon F=U CQwHO Hoo 0w wE 0 I. Qa fn � LL Z N 0 to h N O H io JVQ W aw r N Z coo Z Z w0 M U r lz.z� mg 5; E Y wFnU� / ¢ 5d� oop 3z1oV VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. B-1' 1TE 12/23/2022 20J 8622397107 VG C-8 1EET 14 OF 31 2-14 10-246 31 L- TO SVE SYSTEM SAWCUT TO FULL DEPTH 36" OF ASPHALT ALL AROUND 12 --n2 TRAFFIC RATED COVER MATCH ROAD GRADE • • • • • • BY SHIMMINGAND-_-_-_-_. . ' GROUTING TOP JOINT . . . . . . 18" OR BY OTHER MEANS - - - COVER APPROVED BY - O TYP THE ENGINEER - - - - BACKFILL WITH . . . . . CONTROLLED LOW - - - STRENGTH MATERIAL •-•-•-•-• (CLSM) . . . . 8 TO SVE ` SYSTEM _ FRAME m COVER, CUT -AWAY TO SHOW INTERIOR 4" DIA. HOLE. SEAL WITH LINK -SEAL OR SIMILAR APPROVED PRODUCT 3/4" FREE DRAINING CRUSHED GRAVEL s" MIN DRAINAGE 6" HOLES q" 0 PVC WELL CASING MIN �1 SVE WELLHEAD SECTION BY OTHERS. CUT TO SUIT A NOTES: 1. SEE GENERAL NOTES (G-2) FOR TRENCHING, PIPING, BACKFILLING, COMPACTING AND OTHER DETAILS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A COMPLETE AND FULLY FUNCTIONAL INSTALLATION. 3. THE WALL THICKNESS OF THE PRECAST BOX AND COVER DIMENSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO DESIGN BY THE CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUPPLIER, AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. THE COVER AND BOX COMBINATION SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MEET AASHTO H-20 MEDIUM DUTY. EQUIPMENT ITEM DESCRIPTION OPRECAST CONCRETE WELL VAULT. AASHTO H-20 MEDIUM DUTY. DESIGN BY CONTRACTOR'S SUPPLIER, P.E. STAMPED COVER AND FRAME. AASHTO H-20 MEDIUM DUTY LOADING. LIFT O2 ASSIST MECHANISM - STAINLESS STEEL SPRINGS OR SIMILAR. STAINLESS STEEL AUTOMATIC HOLD OPEN ARM. LIFTING HANDLE. SCREW DOWN LOCKING MECHANISM. CHECKER PLATE COVER MARKED "SVE" BY MANUFACTURER O4- X 2' SCH 80 PVC REDUCING TEE O2' DIA. THREADED GATE VALVE, FULL PORT, BRASS O1/4- BRASS BALL VALVE O6 4" DIA SCH 80 PVC BLIND FLANGE O7 4" X T SCH 80 PVC ECCENTRIC REDUCER O0-150- W.C. VACUUM GAUGE, 2.5" DIAL, CENTER BACK CONNECTION, 1/4"NPT Q t2u Q al Y - W y 090 21c }d W s3 F � _ U WW ou C - O 1c m ¢ z N O w ozoA. z Boa c ynrc UD i2 00Q F=U - CQCaw zo 3u m aorc n �3 > OLL TRAFFIC RATED COVER wo °_ WITH LIFT ASSIST 2 z 13 w MECHANISM E 0 w 3 o`c AUTOMATIC J HOLD OPEN ARM LL 7 y 0 > hm N �o z� J_ Q Q a8 W W J � � J W 24" lzz� Ewd 8 OWN EY / w FnUo jw5 mf PARTIAL SECTION SHOWING COVER MECHANISM — B z --0 3 VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. oar DATE 12/23/2022 �f�•cxEe PROJ 8622397107 DWG C-9 SHEET 15 OF 31 215 10-247 0 0 i / z3 q96 HARTFORD DRIVE I p#94 HARTFORD DRIVE raa� ! i -E----E--- E__ TO HARTFORD DRIVE j Paz wu F SEE NOTES O % SITE ACCESS FROM Er t----E_ _ __ _ f ON G-0 DIVERT EXISTING DOWNSPOUT m> I HARTFORD DRIVE ONLY I E - E --- E---- N U Q E ___ __ E e-__-E____E____ E----E ---E PROTECTIO ITO MATCH EXISTING w o_ MAINTAIN 1 FT BUFFER MIN. TO ADJACENT RESIDENCE--E----E---__--E RELOCATE AIR E-----E-----F_-- wm O� U w_ REMOVE GRASSCRETE I / DURING THE WORK CONDITIONING UNIT ; WIDTH OF FIRE LANE. / G? RESTORE EXISTING. I APPROXIMATE NEW LOCATION OF OVER FULL wa / / / / AIR CONDITIONING UNIT. FINAL LOCATION SEE NOTE 4. I / j � TO BE COORDINATED WITH ENGINEER Nol _ _____-_�--- - _---_—_—_ I V z y O iu r- z i - sz _____ UO —_ - - - L-- \ APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF WORK. F \ AGREE LIMITS OF WORK WITH I U W L _ ENGINEER BEFORE T 1I PROTECT TREE IN PLACE Q ol MOBILIZING TO THE SITE 1 — oc PINE TREE - ---� 14"DIATRUNK,, T I K Z= FIRE LANE o MAINTAIN ACCESS DURING THE WORK I I PINE TREE $ 20"DIA TRUNK N w z z CLEARAND13RUB - co H I I VEGETATION, TVP. I I A o w r WITHIN z Z. Hill 11I I THE LIMTS OF WORK c� oc -�� OVE TREE AND ROOTS AS - 1' NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION I tta 0 OF BUILDING PAD. WORK TO BE I I f w i! I p�O <111 PERFORMED BY CERTIFIED ARBORIST oOp lzSEE NOTESzCITY EASEMENT 6'-0"_� ITYEA EM NTS'-0 1 0, ON G� OO �O p nt?< DO 0o p FOOTPRINT OF FUTURE I I O o z u uu TREATMENT SYSTEM x �wzBUILDING I o� n p °3 v/ p'0 o' Q a �3 REMOVE IRRIGATION CONTROL I O O — > LL w oZ VALVE AND ASSOCIATED -- J w IRRIGATION PIPING AND FITTINGS. I w P z a3 I REINSTALLSUIT FINAL PLANTING PLANTING PLAN zF 4 ° ° 9 e 4 BAYRIDGE PARK° ° a ° ° Z 4 ° PROPERTY 4° ° 4 coO ° 4 ° ° ° ° n ° d BOUNDARY ° H _ d ° ._---_ve-- ° d ° a e 4 41 ° de ° ° 4 �z W � SECURE SITE WITH SNOW ° d° ° ° ° 14 ° ° ° ° 4 ° ° Q °4 FENCING OW OTHER ° 4 d' MAINTAIN PEDE-STR ACCESS G SIDEWALK °° 4 ° ° ° w o } d a ° ° APPROVED MEANS ° ° ° ° ° ° 3 W ° 4 ° 4 m :/i a 4 ° ° 4 ° e 4 ° Z D- °d ° 4 ° ° ° ° ° 4 Z W ° 4 °e ° °p ° 4 ° e° e ° ° ICY U.I F_ ° d 4Icv ICY ICY IGV (/J F 4 j Q 4 ° ° ICY Lu H NO ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE LEGEND NOTES: (ACCESS FROM HARTFORD DRIVE ONLY) ^ z i N 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES REFER TO DRAWING G-2. 1.z rc " 68 GRASSCRETE --- w-- EX. WATER LINE 2. IMPLEMENT EROSION CONTROLS AND DUST �I 2 �' E m CONTROL IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTES ON G-2 ♦ >z 5 - cRAss ` FOOTPRINT OF FUTURE - E-- EX. ELECTRIC LINE w AND CITY REQUIREMENTS. � m s a ' TREATMENT SYSTEM ° -'-------- 3. DURING THE WORK, MAINTAIN PUBLIC ACCESS, '=�" BUILDING -- T - EX. TELECOM LINE 3 ? o INCLUDING DISABLED ACCESS, USING DIVERSIONS APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF VEGETATION TO BE 4. IF NECESSARY. REMOVE AND REPLACE GRASSCRETE IN VERIFY SCALE WORK FOR TREATMENT REMOVED O SYSTEM BUILDING ACCORDANCE WITH THE GRASSCRETE DESIGN BAR IS NE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. AND INSTALLATION GUIDES. MATCH EXISTING Bar CONSTRUCTION THICKNESS OF GRAVEL BASE. DATE 12/23/2022 PROJ 8622397107 DWG C-10 SHEET 16 OF 31 210 10-248 7= 203 WALL OF EXISTING REINFORCED CONCRETE 1 203 RESIDENCE MAT FOUNDATION SEE 5" HIGH NATURAL 202 3"ABOVE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS STONE CURB 202 FGL,TYP. '201,25 FFL 201 201 r 200 EXISTING) ____ ... ., 200 p GROUND 0 LEVEL(EGL) _______ y 199 SCARIFY AND T TO 199 Z BASE OF MAT a' AGGREGATE 12" BELOW BASE 01 M � �y 198 BASE SEE GRADING NOTES 198 - CONCRETE SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT INFILL SEE 197 8'OIA. SCH80 PVC PIPE TO8-BELOW EGL SEE GRADING NOTES GRADING NOTE4 197 96 O 196 95 -10 -9 -B -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 195 7 8 9 OFFSET (FT) TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING SITE CROSS-SECTION - NORTH -SOUTH 6'x6"CAPSTONE 6^ +201 25 RIVARIES 12` APPROX. ExISTING 12"-21^ SIDEWALK I FIX. 3" +200.5 TO t199.5 -4" " 36" 6" ^ CONCRETE SEE GRADING NOTE 4 ,. EDGING STONES LANDSCAPE NOTE 2 I` 12" CRUSHED STONE BEDDING, 6- DEEP %11 DETAIL OF STONE CURB o I b GRADING NOTES VOLUME 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, REFER TO DWG. G-2 APPROXIMATIONS 2. BELOW FOUNDATIONS REMOVE ALL ROOTS, VEGETATIVE MATTER, AND OTHER MATERIAL THAT COULD IMPACT BEARING CAPACITY, AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. CUT 5.58 CU VDS 3. SCARIFY, MOISTURE CONDITION, AND DOMPACTTOATLEAST W% OF THE OPTIMUM DRY DENSITY. PERFORM ALL TESTING TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE, INCLUDING MODIFIED PROCTOR TESTING FILL 1.49 CU VDS ON EXISTING SOILS AND ON -SITE COMPACTION TESTING. 3. AGGREGATE BASE TO BE 3/4" CALTRANS CLASS 2 (2018 CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 26-1.02B), THOROUGHLY MOISTENED AND COMPACTED TO 95% RELATIVE NET 4 CU VDS CUT COMPACTION, ASTM METHOD D 1557. 4. CONCRETE FOR INFILL AND CURB BEDDING TO MATCH SPECIFICATION OF CONCRETE USED FOR MAT FOUNDATION. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. LANDSCAPING NOTES TREATMENT SYSTEM 1. INSTALL ZERO WATER XERISCAPE LANDSCAPING IN DISTURBED LAYOUT COORDINATES AREAS. SUBMIT PLANTING PLAN, PLANT LIST, PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PLAN FOR APPROVAL BEFORE START OF A WORK. 2. EDGINGSTONESTOBE12'HX6' X12"LLOCALSTONEWITH rp NATURALROUGHSURFACE. PROVIDESAMPLEFORAPPROVAL. I I r� I / A COORDII—EPOINT _ -CONNECTION sysTEm suPFL RELOCATED AC V 3.2 FT / UNIT 3.5 FT � _ CONDENSATE 2 ��i ING TRE �52.5 FT 1.0 FT EXISTPROTECTEN - SEPARATOR C"B - - - i F f' RESTORE GRASSCRETE TO MATCH EXISTING. SEE DWG. C-10 PLACE 1.0 GRAVEL EROSION 020" - - , I PROTECTION- L - _ _______ ______________________-______ -�- * = = SALVAGE OR .25 FFL 57' / MATCH EXISTING ' WALL FIRE RATED T \ -OURS B— SIDES EVE INLET PIPING CB / BLS.ES GN INSTALL XERISCAPE OVER 1.2 FT �Ii \ azs lsxuv.wxs) / DISTURBED AREAS - SEE LANDSCAPING NOTES - 1 _ - _ FOOTPRINT OF 20'X 12' 12.5 FT III PREFABRICATED BUILDING TO BE PROVIDED BY TREATMENT A TREATMENT SYSTEM SUPPLIER AND PLACED 1. SYSTEM MAT ANG ANCHORED BV FOUNDATION CONTRACTOR / TT^ CITY EASEMENT 64" - • - IIII / / 5-HIGH NATURAL STONE EDGI /-� +201.25 FFL \ 1.0 1.0 FT -_ EXTENT OF UTILITY - LOCATION BY GPR - 20 FT i / III I " I� +201.25 FFL I 1.0 FT 236FT P ^� y ,.1' n PROPERTY BOUNDARY ; BURIED ELECTRICAL" > I BY EX. CONTRACTOR +. n RESTORE PATH -�-TO EXISTING CONDITIONS C AFTER CONSTRUCTION \ ' < s n CONDUIT PER SOCASON n s o n IIII, 1' SPECIFICATIONS s VARIES 1 FT MIN. 1 FTTOCL OFANCHOHOR,TVP. +20125 FFL .., +201.0 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING SITE CROSS-SECTION SCARIFY AND RECOMPACTTO 12"BELOW BOTTOM OF FOUNDATION LU Imo` W U w Nol a o. z � 2 lc LU it WOJ m� FLUZ Zo Z ~ cw HZU' L< a ILI J Z ~ m Q 010111 z69 EwE g OWN EY }Ee wFn., / ¢ 5d� 001, 3„oV VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING, 0-1' ATE 12/23/2022 'ROJ 8622397107 IWG C-11 ;HEET 17 OF 31 227 10-249 I 1 L 1 s I 4 I o I o AI 94 HARTFORD DR. 1 B SECOND STORY WINDOW 96 HARTFORD DR. i EXISTING EXISTING CONCRETE GATE SIDEWALK 3.0 ft �:74.5 ft� EL+200.0 EXISTING NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE EXISTING FIRE LANE DI AIR EXHAUST EX. FIRE LANE 18.8 ft 94 HARTFORD DR. 1 orklur4u STORY WINDOW EXISTING NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION LOOKING WEST FROM COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 0 4 0 FEET 1" = 4' �N�NEER *b �isi0aa m� w a U Q m Q m U Q z W U U O U 5N W a of O U � K N w Q a o Z 0 Y W �oaa ' 0: 2 N U LL °ioa U a F 4 C Z 2 U X6wyq m6Wm z a� O �O LL' 0 �ioa o N 3 w O N` z O� 20= K Z Wacf _U y 2Z� �Z OQ F! af U N sDm zo moa Q� a W W m Q m N Q H N r 0 a =0� NWZ �o zcj z � zirV -S O1 EA rcjyom w O yN U o ® fa/1QN c 3dZ'.Ov VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. DATE 3/30/2023 PROJ 8622397107 DWG C-12 SHEET 1 OF 1 212 10-250 I \\ SYMBOLS r° EXISTING FEATURES ss` WATERLINE z SANITARY SEWER LINE �c 10 -s--- s - `- s�_— STORM DRAIN LINE k —__m� is i -s^ m - E ELECTRIC LINE <L J SVE-10-12 - SVE-10-10 lZ m W o GAS LINE w O w �sa�� r TELECOM LINE O a — Z ----- BAYRIDGE PARK PROPERTY BOUNDARY � I, wa O SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE U t2'c STORM DRAIN MANHOLE ¢ z` _€ J SEWER CLEANOUT Y �° SVE 10-13 x II S 2 2 WATER METER z O L' EXTENDED LIGHT POST O 52 o 1. WATER CONTROL VALVE U w ° u ox IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE "c ou s , ou VALVE a SVE-10 09 1 IIII a FIRE HYDRANT m III - 1 E kc 3 n 1 - ELECTRICAL PULL BOX STREET LIGHT PULL BOX a o W / \ SVE-10-08 Z Zu TELECOM PULL BOX Ti 10 O C7o mec I z '.., II LIGHT POST ac wa u - 1 ✓o ter- - - - - } SIGN ¢a II , AREA LIGHT woo au /��F�3 svE-10-02 1i1 i \\\ FOUNDATION MONUMENT o - zz YI�/ 10oa, � � +' SOIL GAS PROBE ono ? a� i SEE DWG C-11 -. b QQ n Cirtj rc M1, PERIMETER SOIL GAS PROBE w w m 3u MONITORING WELL n p rc3 ! o W ' ! /�/ NEW CONSTRUCTION o w z �_ SVE 10 06 T Hu I sv>= UNDERGROUND SVE PIPING o zx x SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL Zu y. 3c S E-10-07 I ® AREA TO BE REPAVED WITH 2" OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE oc , o AFTER COMPLETION OF WORK ( AREA OF LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE TO BE RESTORED Z \) TO EXISTING CONDITIONS AFTER COMPLETION OF WORK Q I ra �a AREA OF GRASSCRETE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED I !A Z J cl O EXTENT OF CROSS -GUTTER TO BE REMOVED AND w' w J REPLACED. SEE PIPING PLAN AND PROFILE DRAWINGS. z Q ~ i 1w Wo NOTES c SEE DWGS. C-10 1. WEATHER LIMITATIONS: DO NOT PAVE WHEN THE ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE IS > � AND C-11 BELOW 40F OR WHEN THE BASE IS WET. 2. MACHINE GRIND AND HAUL TO DUMP APPROXIMATELY 62,620 SO FT OF FAILED LU I _ ------_-- ASPHALT AT 2" IN DEPTH. SVE-10-01D l 3. CLEAN AND APPLY "TACK COAT' (FOR PROPER BONDING OF NEW ASPHALT) TO " - 4 PAVEMENT WITH UP TO VARIABLE 1y APPROXIMATELY 62,620 SO FT OF FAILED PAVEMENT. THICKNESS OF HOT ASPHALT AFTER COMPACTION). " 5. THE PAVEMENT SHALL CONSIST OF A MIXTURE OF MINERAL AGGREGATE AND - A DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, OR AS DIRECTED BY THE E GRADES 8 S BINDER MIXED AT A CENTRAL MIXING PLANT, SPREAD AND COMPACTED 0 EPARED BASE COURSE, AND PLACED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LINES, i �� 6. COMIPACTRASPHALT TO MAXIMUM COMPACTION USING MACHINE ROLLER AND/OR j a h 5 v 6 CITATORY EQUIPMENT. 7. CUT BACK RAGGED FEATHERED EDGES TO A NEAT LINE BY MEANS OF A / CONCRETE SD SAW. SASTRAIGHTCUTS SHALL BE VERTICAL AND IN A STRAIGHT LINE AS NEARLY ' '�^ o V PARALLEL TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE TRENCH AS PACTICABLE 3 z 8. CONDUCT A WATER FLOOD TEST IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ENGINEER UPON VERIFY SCALE TO 9A E R COMPLETION OF ALL PAVING OPERATIONS. ERTY BAR IS NEINCHON H N0 G E 9. FLOOD PAVEMENT UNIFORMLY, AND CORRECT BIRD BATHS AND DEPRESSIONS ORIGINAL DRAWING. — / I WHERE WATER PONDS MORE THAN 1/4-INCH IN ANY DIMENSION. 0 1' 0 10. REMOVE MATERIALS IN THE AREAS TO BE REPAIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM LAYING DATE 12/23/2022 DEPTH OF ONE INCH. PATCH CUT AREAS AS SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION. PROJ 8622397107 Fees 1 FEATHER -EDGE JOINTS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. DWG C-13 SHEET 19 OF 31 229 10-251 -VES AND a PIPING Db GLOBE DWI BALL W .- R-N CHECK C�< GATE ORIFICE METERING LUBRICATED PLUG KMI VACUUM RELIEF S CPERIC ONSWATI ONSER/ATON VEM PRESSURE RELIEF PRESSURE REDUCING INTERNAL RELIEF 3 PRESSURE REDUCING EXTERNAL PRESSURE PRESSURE REDUCING DIFFERENT VL PRESSURE PRESSURE REDUCING VENTED Pc 3 WAY REDUCER L� Y-SIRNNTR SAMPLE/TEST PORT T SCREWI PORT FLANGE �Ir UNION ORIFICE PLATE IXI VALVE NORMALLY OPEN ►T^/ VV&VVE NORMALLY CLOSED '� �J' ROTAMETER OPERATORS 0 MOTOR MOTORIZED VALVE PA O PNUEMATC PNEEMAT11 VALVE ACTUATOR 4 SOLENOID VALVE SOLENOID O T MANUAL MANUAL VALVE )4 MANUAL WITH GEAR EGwPMEM/y�Lly\� A6 \ SCREEN VANE �v/ SCREEN COMPRESSOR LIQUID RING PUMP FLAME O ARRESTOR HEAT EXCHANGER I INDITE Y� (pgf�y-�[ SILENCER VAPOR/UOUID O CENTRIFUGAL FLAME CHECK SEPARATOR PUMP AIR STRIPPER CENTRIFUGAL FAN METERING PUMP LDfH-J aLp AIR INTAKE S ,,,,�QQ�++QQ��,,,, FILTER/SIUDNILENCER TER GEAR PUMP FLEX CONNECTOR OIL/WA SEPARATOR 1/1\/\LANAI PRURE �Cl REGENERATNE ESSBLOWER ( BLOWER OIL FLOODED ROTARY INUNE SCREW COMPRESSOR FILTER COMPRESSED AR PARTIO FILTER WITH DRAIN CULATE SCRUBBER GAS BURNER POSITIVE ROTARY CLAW PANEL DISPLACEMENT BLOWER FILTER 11 BLOWER COMPRESSED NR FILTER WITH DRAIN CQ CATA VENTILATION ELECTRIC CERAMIC HEAT CATALYST LIQUID FLOW MI GAS QUENCH/ CONTROL PANEL FAN HEATER EXCHANGE MEDIA REACTOR SCRUBBER RANSDUCERS INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION EXAMPLE: BUBSLESYMBOL INSTRUMENT LOCATION SYMBOL I� CURRENT TO PNEUMATIC FIRST LETTER S O FIELD MOUNTED OI INTERLOCKS TRANSDUCER (MOUNTED SUCCEEDING (LEVERS }SEE ISA TABLE INSTRUMEM BEHIND -THE -PANEL) e NIG INSTRUMENT ( EHIND-THEPANEL n PANEL A ANALOG OM AUXILAARY LOCATION) D DIGRAL BEHIND -THE -PANEL E VOLTAGE MOUNTED INSTRUMENT F FREQUENCY TYPE ACTION OR COMROL GREEN I CURRENT (SEE ABBREVIATIONS) O PILOT UGHT/ALARM LIGHTP PNEUMATIC INSTRUMENT (LIGHT COLOR) PF PULSE FREQUENCY IDEMIFlCATION e PD PULSE DURATION PANEL MOUNTING (AU%IL1VtY LOCATION) INSTRUMENT LOCATION. TYPE OR ABSENCE LINE DENOTES PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROLS PRIMARY IODATION LOCATION (SEE RIGHT) (SHRED) PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROLS (NORMALLY INACCESSIBLE PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROLS AUXILIARY LOCATON (NORMALLY INACCESSIBLE) ®PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROLS (SHARED) PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROLS AUXILARY LOCATION (SHARED NORMALLY INACCESSIBLE) TYPICAL LETTER SYMBOLS USED FOR IDENTIFYING INSTRUMENTS B INSTRUMENT COMPONENTS . SI SPARK IGNITOR aFIR DOUBLACTINE-G PNEUMATIC ACTUATOR FLAME ROD SPRING-REURN UV SINGLE -ACTING PNEUMATIC ACTUATOR SELF CHECKING USCANNER IMII- II FLEXIBLE HOSE CONNECTOR COMPRESSED MR RESEW R SEA Im OBSEWATION AIR FLOW WE' PORT INDICATOR SELF -AGING PLOT STATION SIGHT TUBE PlToT AIR STATIC FILTER CASES e� ON AND OFF EVENT LIGHTS �S OPENED AND CLOSED POSDION UGHIS yG OPENED AND CLOSED POSITION SWITCHES ®CX COMPRESSOR /X PANEL 4EO-X GEO TRAILER ®X PANEL ePCP ART SYSTEM PANEL �osa�mm000mo ®�®ate®tee®®e TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHDT PPM CONCENTRATION PARTS PER MILLION MISCELLANEOUS CONTINUATION PIPING MATERIAL DWG NO ARROW 1 SPECIFICATION CHANGE PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM LEGEND SCFM VAPOR FLOW STANDARD CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE GPM WATER FLOW GALLONS PER MINUTE PSIG PRESSURE POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH GAGE OPROCESS NO. O NOT IN CONTRACT FOR COORDINATION ONLY INSTRUMENTATION IDENTIFICATION LETTERS FIRST -LETTER SUCCEEDING -LETTERS ] OR ANIABLE MODIFIER READOUT OR PASSIVE FUNCTION OUTPUT FUNCTION MODIFIER - ALARM ION - - - - - - CONTROL - DIFFERENTIAL - - - - SENSOR PRIMARY ELEMENT - - RATK) FRACTION - - - - GLASS VIEWING DEVICE - - - - - HIGH CAL - INDICATE - - SCAN ILE TIME RATE OF CHANGE - CONTROL STATION - - UGHT - Low MOMENTARY - - MIDDLE, INTERN - ORIFICE, RESTRICTION - - A - PCW TE CONNECTION - - INTEGRATE, TOTAUZE - - - - RECORD - T SAFETY - SWITCH - - - TRANSMIT - - MULTIFUNCTION I MULTIFUNCTION IMULTIFUNCTION IICAL ANALYSIS - - VALVE, DAMPER, LOUVER - _ ;ELL X AXIS UNCLASSIFIED I UNCLASSIFIED JUNCLASSIFIED 'RESENCE V A%IS - RELAY. COMPUTE, CONVERT - )N Z AXIS - DRIVER, ACTUATOR, UNCLASSIFIED FINAL CONTROL ELEMEM - NOTE: INSTRUMENT DESIGNATIONS BASED ON INSTRUMENT SOCIETY OF AMERICA, STANDARD S5.1 CONTROLABBRENATIONS AC TYPE, ACTION OR ALTERNATING CURRENT A ANALOG INPUT AO ANALOG OUTPUT AM AUTO -MANUAL ART ART CONTROL PANEL AS ADJUSTABLE SPEED CSO DC CAR SEAL OPEN DIRECT CURRENT OI DIGITAL INPUT DO FAR DIGITAL OUTPUT FORWARD -AUTO -REVERSE FR PORNARD-REVERSE HOA HAND -OFT -AUTO A HAND -OFT -REMOTE HLO HIGH -LOW -OFF HLOA HIGH -LOW -OFF -AUTO LCP LOCAL CONTROL PANEL LEL LOWER EXPLOSIVE UNIT LOS LOCKOUT STOP LR LOCAL -REMOTE M MANUA MA MANUAL-ALRO MCP MAN CONTROL PANEL NC NORMALLY CLOSED NO NORMALLY OPEN DA OFF -AUTO OC OCA OPEN -CLOSE OPEN -CLOSE -AUTO GO ON -OFF GOA ON -OFF -AUTO OCR ON -OFF -REMOTE OVA ORGANIC VAPOR ANALYZER PCP PUMP CONTROL PANEL PLC PROGRAM LE LOGIC CONTROLLER R RESE SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY SP SMAPJB PORT SR SS SPRING RETURN - --MEW VAPOR EXTRACTION WELLS MFU VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE LINE LEGEND PRIMARY PIPING SECONDARY PIPING COMPRESSED AR //- PNEUMATIC SIGNAL ELECTRICAL SIGNAL � �F�)F� CAPILLARY ---MECHANICAL LINK NON CONNECTING LINES CONNECTING LINES DATA LINK TUUUU HOSE r LINE SIZE 1 FLOW DIRECTION OTHERS -*�- CCC NOTES: 1. SPECIFICATIONS AND DIMENSIONS PRE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTIFICATION. 2. REFERENCE ANSI/ISA-S5.1 FOR SYMBOLS NOT SHOWN ON THIS LEGEND. M. Z of �0 Qa 0 W y Z Nc� Q o m Z Q Q EL- F- o c d Lu Q :)o Z W Z W Jq4 zi�y 5; z�}Pe w FnUo / ¢ n S2 3 z 1. VERIFY SCALE BAR IB ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. LATE 12/23/2022 'ROJ 3622397107 IWG I-1 THEFT 20 OF 31 220 10-252 2 3 4 5 6 EQUIPMENT CONTAINED IN BUILDING FURNISHED BY OWNER 0 Oz3 ?m Wi a3 w >a U Q A Y m n� S-1001 V-0702 S-1002 F-1001 13-1001 E-1001 C-1001A/B VAPOR -LIQUID DILUTION AIR INLINE ROTARY FAN VAPOR PHASE > fO ¢ ° SEPARATOR AIRVALVE FILTER FILTER LOBE COOLER GRANULAR ACTIVATED - BLOWERS CARBON �w <8 Ig m U y O TO o om ATMOSPHERE Q Z� >> F wo U WQ Ow C w= z g 3 4 z 'z F-1001 6 x 8o �+ B B-1001 E-1001 J S-1002 6 a o w r z wz o FROM 1 z y - m EXTRACTION WELLS V-0702 C-1001A C-1001B sp �a Boa S-1001 w 1.1 zz 00Q F=U - CQCaw z m 3w aorc o0 no rc3 w W °z P-1001 wz a3 y o z� T-1001 ~ °Z. T-1002 00 C T-1001 T-1002 �L - CONDENSATE SECONDARY Q P-1001 STORAGE TANK CONTAINMENT CENTRIFUGAL (D PUMP Q h� 3 O am LL o V) V) LU U O w a !Strearrr ia� — 1 t 3 i d 5 fi l__________________ ______________________._. ___.______._._._ ____ __________ ____r________._____ 11okEyietric Flcwrare I,sufmil 6c2 662 667 662 -662 662 t-- - -- --------------- - - - --------- ---- �Xi01th`=1_E�riCFIGYff�3_,�:(aCf_C9;__: $�5 `a33 7O7 :6_87 07G 7CjG Temp. flog Fi 6_' _ E � _ '!75 f_Cl_ )g _�---1 O .'n'E Y - 2 @ D ,PraSgurF �},SStd ; 1'J.J 'i ~ E5.0h r z w _T�_______r____ :F}0t':5Fiy (Ik .(.} O.Q34 0.054 .......... __-_--_--_-__----_--___r__-_--_--_--- R.ssilawrata{fu'hr},013 3,013 3A�33A1� '• 3,J13 / z � o V 3 rRe4a`ite �.IL il�li _---__-.-.-_...-_-.. ___----._._......-__--_--_-_----.--- __r.-.. ._._�-_-_-5-..-... y; c} 1*0 16� VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON DRAWING. ORIGINAL D-1' DATE 12/23/2022 PROJ 8622397107 DWG 1-2 FILENAME 1101.1-P--02 PFD.mw PLOT— —.22-2022 PLOTTIME. IOA6aM SHEET 21 OF 31 221 10-253 FROM EVE WELLS EQUIPMENT CONTAINED IN BUILDING FURNISHED BY OWNER BUILDING BOUNDARY G _ H�7H REGENERATIVEATIVE BLOWER 19.4 HP VAC 3 PHASEHASE TEFC TEFL 3BA562O ]ATE6 B-1002 TO REGENERATIVE BLOWER fN ATMOSPHERE 19.4 HP VAC 3 PHASEHASE TEFC TEFL 3BA9620.]AT66 ------------- I � I I B-1003 Ir�H REGENERATIVE BLOWER 19.411 208-230/4B0 VAC 3 PHASE TEFC j\T/7 LILJ 8 3BA9620-7AT66 - G y — HRHPi B-1004 Ex6 RE GENERATIVE BLOWER 19.4 HP PHASE TEFC VAC E-1001 F-1001 3 PHASE TEFC j INLINE 3BA9620.]AT66 a HEA0E 146o VA FER ILTER b 3H3 PHASE 3 PHA_IBS — AA-100 \ / / X X OR41N C-tO1A ORAI Q-10018 DEMISTER VAPOR -PHASE N VAPOR -PHASE ACTIVATED ACTIVATED S6 _ CARBON CARBON LB 2,000LB STEEL STEEL I I E-ID01 13 VAPOR AN LIQUID J IF SEPARATOR VLS 320 siRAWER P-1001 TRANSFER PUMP O CENTRIFUGAL Ff — 1Y2HP2VAC 3 PHASE TEFC AMT 368G95 u 10GPM @ 4 HEAD T-1001 CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK T-1002 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — M. F ww tta M U12 w F=U CQw �O 0 " Ho ywz E 0 I. a N 0 Z h ao ZG Z a a z aLu F_ F z Z q4 limey — EWd�g 5; w FnU� / 3z.oV VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. 0-1' )ATE 12/23/2022 22 OF 31 222 10-254 (E)SCE JO 12.d7KV PULL VAULT SECTION M METERING TOSCE 300KVA — MAIN d50A �P SCE TRANSFORMER 1z.arcv TO 4MV,.30,3W (2)292' -A3 &tKMGNO CONCRETE ENCASED JIG FEEDER LOAD CALCUTATONS: TYPICAL EACH 2OM 20HPBLOWERSx(4) 3HP HE PANEL FOR PARCELStt10&11 1)BAMP 48AMP 112HFRUMP V3HPVENTFAN 1.1 AN RB AMP SKVA CONTROLTRANSFORMER 25% OFIARGESTMOTOR 24 AMP TAMP FUTURE SPARE CAPACITY ,AMP TOTAL LOAD 1IB7 AMP AMPERES @<80V.,3O,IN FOR BOTH PARCELS #10 111 AT 359.A AMP 200A NEMA3R STAINLESSAINDI STEELGA BOARD OUTDOOR METERING MAINS IR STEEL BOARD OUE' AOOA BUS.4BW..30.3W 50KAIC, AFC — IF I 3P I 3P SPACES MAIN GROUND R00 WITHRINGROUNDWIRE (2)3'C.3%300MCM L=1380 w=z9% INLESS ST10KAIC KETFD _PARCELMIO 22M BUS, 225ABUPROVID.EDAN, 1UKAICLEDBY 0] ZOOA INSIDELTREATMEN SYSTEM BULDNG)SVE SYSTEM VENDOR 3P 1 MAIN GROUND ROD WITH#2 GROUND WIRE f PARCELp11 3R TAIN3G,3W,EELGINAETEDN 22M BUS, 30,SS10KAICSKFTED 2EA ABA (PANEL PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BYSVESYSTEMVENDOR INSIDE TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING) 1 3P MAIN GROUND ROD WITH 4GROUND WIRE 9 J b GENERAL NOTES =.'N1; r.F.{S 1. PROVICE AEHIB'ALL AROUND T& CONCRETE PAD FOR SCE TRANSFORMER OUTDOOR �ug ssui ezia WITH 3000 PSI CONCRETE. 2. COMPLY WITH LATEST SCE REGULATIONS FOR MAIN SERVICE FEEDERSMETERING Gio05oasi 12 www�pb....eers0iom 61G1obroi0iid390 AND APPROVALS. 3. COORDINATE WITH LOCAL CITY APPROVAL FORTHE OUTDOORMETERING SWITCHGEAR. 4. 30GKVA SERVICE TRANSFORMER, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FEEDER WIRES W TO BE PROVI DED AN D I NSTALLED BY SCE. U Q PRIMARY AND 5. IT NDUIT BR COCTRIC N m y W INARYFESTALLED CONCRETE TO BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY ELECTRICAL ENCASED IN CO CRETE TOOVIDED AND CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR. d m U 5. ALL GROUND WIRES SHALL BE IN MIN 114"CONDUIT. ]. MDBDESIGNINTENTIS BASE ON SQUARED WITH COMPACT DIMENSIONS 6 CONSIDERING THE SITE SPACE CONSTRAINT. SUBSTITUTION NOT PERMITTED. 8. THE 200A SUB -PANEL FOR PARCELS 10 & 11 CAN BE COORDINATED FOR SQUARED AS APPLICABLE. 9. COORDINATE SCE TRANSFORMER/MDS YARD WORK WITH PARCEL #12(HOA) W HOME OWNER ASSOCIATION AS REQUIRED. 10. ALLUNDERGROUND CONDUITS SHALL BE SCHRO ENCASED IN 3000 PSI y CONCRETEMINIMUM. PROVIDE MINIMUM 12 INCHES SEPARATION IN TRENCH BETWEEN OTHER SYSTEMS. K OU I KEYNOTES N m B. m a it O- '3ao 0. UQ IS IU wzz. dOQ 0'60 >_R� p_F1wi H3E LL ESs w2 65 ' �90 2 Qy E-004 31 OF 33 22S 10-255 HOUR FIRE WALL. THIS WALL ONLY. ❑WER FEEL THIS CORNER TO 480 VAC PANEL 1 ' SVE INLET THROUGH BOXOUT IN FLOOR 5 � NCHOR POINTS, TYP 4 CORNERS DETAILS OF SIZE DETERMINED IN PE CALLS 15,_10„ o of lJt� 1 IIII "- IIII IIII M � _ �IIII o ■- i II'� � 0� � 0 ■1�1�1�1�1 �L 0 J� • n LAYOUT VIEW B' B ROOF VIEW c J C 8„ DISCHARGE VILP A —A LOUVERS TRIM SLATE ROCK 3'6" PPROX [ED WHITE LOCKING INDUSTRIAL STYLE VIEW D—D' DOOR KNOB -HES TO HAVE ,ASKET NBRICATEO i, TV�,—�, JVERS v • WHITE LOUVERS AND TRIM L7 L \ / I L I f 1 N H L V J U V UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE PROJECT TITLE: DRAWING TITLE: REV DESCRIPTION DATE DWN { DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES • THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY ` WSP USA ENVIRONMENT & r SHEET 1 OF 1 DO NOT SCALE DRAWING AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K BUILDING L A Y O U T DRAWING NO.: F REVISIONS PER SUBMITTAL REVIEW 10/22 MK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE H2K INFASTRUCTURE INC. G CHANGED TITLE BLOCK/LOUVER DIM 11/22 MK DESIGNED BY: MK USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING -�-� NE�n/PORT BEACH, CAU011—Ol r q q q H ADDED FIRE WALL NOTE 12/22 MK PROJECT MCR.: MK AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY D CHANGED STACK LOCATION ADDED DETAIL 8/22 MK H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE I T e c h n 0 to g I e S , Inc. E CHANGED TO METAL SIDING 10/22 MK PROJECT NO.: 6011 REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. 7550 Commerce St. Corcoran, MN 55340, Tel: 763-746-9900 ©2014 22' 10-256 PGi LAYOUT VIEW VIEW Y—Y' 17TFW X—Y' DISCHARGE TO STACK 7M HEAT EXHANGER TO CARBON INLET H L V 1 S 1 U N J UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE * DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES < DO NOT SCALE DRAWING THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY 12K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. H2KCROSS T e c h n o o g l e s, Inc. 7550 Commerce St. Corcoran, MN 55340, Tel: 763-746-9900©2014 PROJECT TITLE: W S P USA ENVIRONMENT & IN F A S T R U C T U R E INC NEWPORT BEACH, CA DRAWING TITLE: B U I L D I N G ELEVATION O [� [� SECTIONS C R J J SHEET 1 OF 1 REV DESCRIPTION DATE OWN A ADDED VIEW OF SMALLER PANEL 9/22 MK DRAWING NO.: 6011-��A B CHANGES PER SUBMITTAL REVIEW 10/22 MK DESIGNED BY: IIK C CHANGED TITLE BLOCK/ANCHORS 11/22 MK PROJECT MGR.: MK D ADDED 2 HOUR FIRE RATING 12/22 MK PROJECT NO.: 6011 2215 10-257 14 CAGE FORMEEDDL 14 GAGE FORMED STEEL STEEWITHL ROOF, CAP TRUSSES, 1:12 PITCH WITH TOP AND 1 1/2" BOTTOM CONTINUOUSDR'LY FIANCES. STITCH WELD T/ WELDED ROOF, 24' DC (2) LAYERS 5/B" SHEETROCK CEILI 1" DRIP RAIL ALONG BOTH SIDES R19 MIN SPRAY TYP. ROOF JOIST DETAIL FOAM INSULATIONUNDERSIDE OF - SKID FLOOR C�fi%%1 N PERIMETER FlWIfTH ALL A LEWELDS A ALL AROUND 3/1fi" A-36 STEEL \ DECK SPECIFICATIONS: DESIGN PER 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE / ASCE 7-16 RISK CAT III, UNOCCUPIED BUILDING, TYPE LIB CONSTRUCTION. 1. WIND: EXPOSURE: B DESIGN WIND SPEED, MPH: 102 TURD FACTOR KZT: 1.0 2 HOUR R F 2. SEISMIC RATED WALL, THIS SS: 1.313 WALL ONLY S7: 0.468 SDS: 1.051 SOIL SITE CLASS: D DEFAULT SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: D R: 6.5 IE: 1.25 V: 7.4KIPS 3. ROOF LIVE LOAD: 40 PER 4. FLOOR LIVE LOAD: 125 PSF OR A 2500 LB CONCENTRATED LOAD FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAD DESIGN BY OTHERS MIN 400D PSI CONCRETE FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAD TO FULLY SUPPORT ENTIRE FLOOR AREA OF SKID N.T.S. ROOF TRUSSES CONTINUOUSLY WELDED TO WALL PANELS AT ENDS 'LOCATE AS CLOSE TO WALL STUDS AS OSSIBLE ttP. ""-3" ttP. 14 GACE STEEL WALL FORMED STEEL WALL PANELS, 1 1/2" FLINGS 2 LAYERS 5/8- GYPSUM WALLBOARD TYPE % INTERIOR 3 1/2'. NO. 20 MSG STUD, CORROSION PROTECTED 1 1/2" FLANGE 24" MAX. WALL PANEL 3 1/2' ttP. a GAUGE STEED WALL PANEL 2 LAYERS 5/8" GYPSUM WALLBOARD TYPE % INTERIOR METAL IAA SIDING MINERAL WOOL INSULATION TO FILL ltt TYP. 2 HOUR FIRE RATED WALL PANEL SECTION DETAIL T LAYER 5/8" GYPSUM TYP. WALL PANEL DETAIL 14 /SEAMS BETWEEN PANELS SHALL BE CAULKED WITH AN INDUSTRIAL CAULK TO COMPLETELY SEAL BUILDING EXTERIOR BEFORE PAINTING. EXTERIOR ENAMEL FINISH ROOF, SKID AND ENCLOSURE 1 1/2" FLANGE [�24" MAX. WALL PANEL WIDTH EXCEPT OVER DOOR ---- MAX 1/2" P. 3" P. WALL PANELS WELDED TO ADJOINING PANEL NxTERIORRIOR, AND 4"X4'X3 8 PT W 3 8 1 Q INTERIOR, I /2" / / / " 6" O WELD EVERY GUSSETS BACK UP TO 6' O.C. CHANNEL. DIA. 3/4" DIA. HILTI HAS-E B7 J::�Ll" IFT POINT HDG ROD WITH 5" TYP. WALL PANEL SECTION DETAIL EMBEDMENT USING HILTI HIT-HY 200 V3 ADHESIVE, 12" MIN EDGE DISTANCE 12 N.T.S. 17" (2) 36" % V i8 GAGE STEEL P 12' OLYORETIIANE INSULATED DOORS, µ 3 IF 111GA1) ALL PANEL STITCH NICKEL PLATED WELDED TO TOP OF STEELLATCHES CONTAINMENT LIP GE OVER D HARDWARE EXTERIOR AND DOOR EDGE WITH KEY LOCK STITCH WELDED TO SKID FLOOR C3%3.5 AT DOOR OPENING JAMBS INTERIOR FULL EIGHT AND C5X6.7 HEADER, LOUVER OPENINGS FRAMED WITH 14 GAGE STITCH WELD CHANNELS TO WALL PANELS, 1" FORMED STEEL CHANNEL TOP BOTTOM AND 3" DEPTH OF JAMBS PERPENDICULAR SIDES, STITCH WELDED TO SURROUNDING TO WALL PANEL (LIKE A STUD). 5" DEPTH WALL PANELS VERTICAL FOR HEADER. NOTE: 1 1/2" X 3/16" FLOOR LOUVER LOCATION SHOWN ON ISOMETRIC IS FOR GENERAL DETAIL ONLY AND IS NOT PLATE RIGHT ANGLE BEND REPRESENTATIVE OF ACTUAL LOUVER WELDED TO PERIMETER LOCATIONS. SEE SHEET 6011-01 FOR CHANNEL. 1 1/2" WELD ACTUAL LOUVER LOCATIONS. EVERY 6" O.C. 1" DIA HOLE FOR ANCHORING CENTERED IN 4" PLATE INSULATONVTO PILL cavm TYP. STANDARD WALL PANEL SECTION DETAIL 75 11 PAST CHANN TYP. CORNER BOLT DOWN DETAIL REVISIONS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE * DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES < DO NOT SCALE DRAWING THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE USE USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY 12K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. —►-� l L H2K I T e c h n o to g l e 5 , Inc. 7550 Commerce St, Corcoran, MN 55340, Tel: 763-746-9900©2011 PROJECT TITLE: WSP ENVIRONMENT ix INFASTRUCTURE INC. NEWPORT BEACH, CA DRAWING TITLE: WELDED L ❑ E ❑ STEEL ENCLOSURE C L 0 S ❑ R E M TRIO CONSTRUCTION I S ❑ E f� l l� ISOMETRIC [DETAIL DRAWING SHEET 1 OF 1 REV DESCRIPTION DATE I OWN CHANGES PER PE REVIEW 8/22 MK DRAWN BY: MK DRAWING NO. - 6011-04 B CHANGES PER PE REVIEW 8/22 MK DESIGNED BY: MK C ADDED WALL AND SHEATHING DETAILS 12/22 MK PROJECT MGR.: MK D CHANGED SHEETROCK DESCRIPTION 12/22 MK DATE: 08/02/2022 PROJECT NO.: BUT 220 10-258 TOWER FEED THIS CORNER 1 O 480 VAC PANEL 4 1 2' 6" --- _LLA 20' �n'_a" SKID FRAMEWORK 6 3 ANCHOR POINTS, TYP 4 CORNERS DETAILS OF SIZE DETERMINED IN PE CALCS OR PLATE FLOOR C-CHANNEL ON EDGE I PERIMETER AND FLOOR JOIST I �ATIDNCASDENOTED AD 0 VEON CENTER SKID HEIGHT DETAIL - NOT TO SCALE SKID TOP PLATE H L V I S 1 U N J UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE * DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES < DO NOT SCALE DRAWING THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. H2K T e c h n 0l O r 1 I e S , Inc. 7550 Commerce St. Corcoran, MN 55340, Tel: 763-746-9900©2014 PROJECT TITLE: WSP USA ENVIRONMENT & iN FASTRUCTURE INC NEWPORT BEACH, CA DRAWING TITLE: SKID WELDMENT SHEET 1 OF I REV DESCRIPTION DATE DWN A REVISIONS PER SUBMITTAL REVIEW 5/22 MK DRAWING NO.: 6011-07D B ADDED FLOOR HEIGHT DETAIL 10/22 MK DESIGNED BY: MK C CHANGED TITLE BLOCK/ANCHORS 11/22 MK PROJECT MGR.: MK D ADDED ELECTRICAL BOXOUT 12/22 MK PROJECT NO.: 6011 227 10-259 INCOMING POWER SUPPLY 480VAC, 3PHASE, 3WIRE WITH GROUND SYSTEM FLA-125 AMPS L3 L2--------------------- ll 0 b. 200AMP 1 MCI 2 SVE 9.4 —1 T BLOWER #1 HP _ T3 L3 27 FLA _ — _ J 60AMP 3 MS3 "__L SVE4 BLOWER #327 FLA moo 60AMP VFD#1 FF VFO WIRING 9 SVE BLOWER 3 DETAILS, SEE HEAT EXCHANGER HP COLUMN 9 4.6 7 (BLK-14AWG) MS_6 _ T10/L L1 9 VENT 1/3 -- _ FAN HP _ T3 L3 — 0 FLA 9 (BLK-14AWG) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LIGHTNING/ 18 SURGE SUPPRESSOR 19 15AMP 15AMP I I I I I I I I I I MS2 I 0/LTI — T _ 9.4 BLOWER IVE T3 _ HP BLOWER #2 I 60AMP �_ 7 FLA I (BLK-10AWG) MS4 _ 0/LT1 — SVE _ 8.4 I HP BLOWER #4 GOAMP v_ 7 FLA (BLK-10AWG) I M55 I — — 1 0/LT1 — 1/2 MOISTURE SEPARATOR HP TRANSFER PUMP T3 15AMP _ _ 1.1 FLA - I (BLK-14AWG) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —---------------------------------J ISAMP G R 1 0 0 (BLK-14AWG) 0 O GROUND BUS IN O \ G(SIZE DETERMINED BY 0' \ NSTALLING ELECTRICIAN) 480V AC, 30, 3W WITH GROUND 0 NEMA 3R PANELBOARO B 0 WITH 2ODAMP NO MOUNTED U 00 NEXT TO CONTROL PANEL 5 r T I I I I I I I L H1 H3' H2 H4 r ISKVA 400-120/240VAC -VA TRANSFORMER MOUNTED (NEXT TO CONTROL PANEL x1 I I � x2 J I I ll� I I I NEUTRAL BAR I I I �_-+� I m m NEUTRAL (BLK-OAWG) BAR I I I 0 I I I _ CONTROL �� ��� BUILDING - o- - - - - o— -POWERR - POW LIGHTING ISAMP 15AMP I (600WATT5) (BLK-I4AWG) I I I I (BLK-14AWG) I I I I r----- GFCI O O RECEPTACLE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F------- 20AMP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - -� - _ - - (BELA) (BLK-12AWG) TO GROUND BUS (SIZE DETERMINED BY � INSTALLING ELECTRICIAN) H2K K L \ / C / \ N C UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE . —►� PROJECT TITLE: DRAWING TITLE: L V J V V J * DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY \ SHEET 2 OF 8 REV DESCRIPTION DATE DWN . AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K .--►—� ��_ A RELEASE FOR SUBMITTAL OS 02 22 RC DRAWN BY: RC TECHNOLOGIES, IN C. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE WS P ENVIRONMENT & T r� /� T DRAWING NO.: B RELEASE FOR RESUBMITTAL 05 25 22 RC DESIGNED BY: RC USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION .—--� NEASTRUCTURE INC.ELECTRICAL SYSTEM C RELEASE FOR PRODUCTION 08 09 22 RC PROJECT MANAGER:TP FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING \ Y1 6 0 1 1 - 2 2 D CHANGED TITLE BLOCK 12 20 22 RC DATE: 04 18 22 AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY --�-� �—. NEWPORT BEACH, CA H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE Technologies, �nc. PROJECT NO.: 6011 REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. 7 7550 Commerce St. Corcoran, MN 55340, Tel: 763-746-9900©2022 10-260 Attachment E Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from May 18, 2023 10-261 DocuSign Envelope ID: 23A974E3-E32D-4068-94E1 -F1 3D54E51 B1 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2023 REGULAR MEETING — 6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER — 6:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Klaustermeier III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Curtis Ellmore, Vice Chair Mark Rosene, Secretary Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Brady Barto, Commissioner Tristan Harris, and Commissioner Jonathan Langford ABSENT: Commissioner Lee Lowrey Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, Senior Civil Engineer David Keely, Assistant Planner Jenny Tran, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, and Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Lt. Colonel Bob Lang, Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association representative for John Wayne Airport (JWA), opposed the residential development on Campus Drive and the golf course. Julian Steffenhagen, Pacific Flight Aviation flight instructor, noted that the noise map for JWA does not reflect the sound from 20 Left, sound impacts for residents, and consequences to employees, employers, and JWA users from construction at 20 Left. John Mahany, SoCal Pilots Association President, opposed rezoning the land next to JWA to residential and noted the noise impacts to residents. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Community Development Director Campbell announced that Item No. 3: Housing Element Implementation - Noise -Related Amendments (PA2022-0201) has been removed from the agenda and will return to the Planning Commission at a later date. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2023 Recommended Action: Approve and file Jim Mosher noted the Planning Commission meeting start time change to 6:00 p.m. as per the meeting minutes and the 6:30 p.m. start time of tonight's meeting. Motion made by Commissioner Langford and seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the minutes of the May 4, 2023, meeting with Mr. Mosher's edits. AYES: Ellmore, Barto, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lowrey Page 1 of 6 10-262 DocuSign Envelope ID: 23A974E3-E32D-4068-94E1 -F1 3D54E51 B1 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 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; 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 - Page 2 of 6 10-263 DocuSign Envelope ID: 23A974E3-E32D-4068-94E1 -F1 3D54E51 B1 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 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 Page 3 of 6 10-264 DocuSign Envelope ID: 23A974E3-E32D-4068-94E1 -F1 3D54E51 B1 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 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 dispersal, 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. Page 4 of 6 10-265 DocuSign Envelope ID: 23A974E3-E32D-4068-94E1 -F1 3D54E51 B1 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 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: None. This item has been removed from the agenda. Vill. 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 Page 5 of 6 10-266 DocuSign Envelope ID: 23A974E3-E32D-4068-94E1 -F1 3D54E51 B1 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 None IX. ADJOURNMENT - With no further business, Chair Ellmore adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m. The agenda for the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, May 11, 2023, at 6:16 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City's website on Thursday, May 11, 2023, at 6:39 p.m. Curtis Ellmore, Chair Sale �f aUS I fo&flfl° Sarah Klaustermeier, Secretary Page 6 of 6 10-267 Attachment F Planning Commission Staff Report from June 22, 2023 10-268 CITY 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] APPECANT: 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 10-269 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 Mav 18. 2023. Plannina Commission Hearin 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. 10-270 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 Svstem Buildin 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. licants Response to Plannina 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 10-271 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: z - Jenny Tran, AAstdKPIanner JM/jt Submitted by: Jim Campbell Deputy Community Development Directar 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 10-272 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval 10-273 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"). 10-274 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 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, 10-275 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 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 10-276 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 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 Suaaort of Findin 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. 10-277 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 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. 10-278 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 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 10-279 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 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. 10-280 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 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. 10-281 -82:1547A.7;36893A0-"A,,#+),$.#A.#,,-A$ &(A)$.!A/!#-%$.%!,!& Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 9 of 13 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE , 2023. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Langford, and Rosene NOES: Klaustermeier and Harris RECUSED: Lowrey ABSENT: None BY: Curtis tinore, una!r BY: SaW wusi-fwfl(`LI° Sarah Klaustermeier, Secretary 10-282 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 10 of 13 INN I =� iV_1% 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. 10-283 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 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. 10-284 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 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 10-285 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 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. 10-286 Attachment No. PC 2 May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report 10-287 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] APPECANT: 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). 1 10-288 2 10-289 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 Parse I , ❑ �', Subject Property I i� �1b,2r1 / \ I � � MO I � — Former Ford A—i-nlc FaclSty I Approoimato locatlnn 1 of former Chip Sta..gR. J I Bin Area t 4 ` Main Aron I 1 i •. a � 1; l %o `11 � 1 Formnr ATC Aroa — — -- t - 6i9 Canto❑ CMaR .. L:. ��c•io�Gbtx GeoEye Eyaaid Geugray'-r :vL- .+ ..a tr:: uSW uSLS .ieroGRiO iGR ryrpr..nn.np fo"r ApprylFpM1t Wilily �--1 pcoMary Fpmrrfaolity u Fd Wilily buldng L—� F".n *ym O%Ne F—I Arre,henlal C —led (AM _ — _ HislM.[a4 arrpya 16d[kRlletl dying tk.tlapmenll PARCEL tO WE ViflNiTY MAP Former Po-d Awv utron.[ Prpperty Newport Reach CalitUrrlla Gate' WAfRP21 r4"• 7 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 10-291 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). 5 10-292 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. Zonina Administrator Hearina 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 0 10-293 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: 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 7 10-294 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. g 10-295 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 9 10-296 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 1 D 10-297 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 11 10-298 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). 12 10-299 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. is 10-300 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: a ;� - Jenny Tran, AlgrstdKPlanner J M/jt Submitted by: Jim Campbell Deputy Community Development Director 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 14 10-301 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 15 10-302 1- 0 10-303 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval 1-7 10-304 1- g 10-305 Resolution No. PC2023-023 is not available at the time this went to publishing. The Resolution will be provided at a later time. 19 10-306 2 L-) 10-307 Attachment No. PC 2 Appeal Form 21 10-308 22 10-309 Appeal Application City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive 1 P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949-644-3005 Clerk's Date & Time Stamp 1 : 33 Appeals are time sensitive and must be received by the City Clerk specified time period from a decision or final action by a decision -maker. It is advisable to consult with the Department managing the issue if there is question with regards to appealing an action. This is an appeal of the: ❑ (CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Planning Commission - $1715 X (CDD222)Zoning Administrator Action to the Planning Commission - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Coastal Development Application CDP Appeal from Zoning Admin to the Planning Commission (only if appeal is solely based on the CDP portion of the application) — No Fee ❑ (CDD222)Planning Commission Action to the City Council - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Harbor Commission _ $1250 ❑ (CDD222)Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (CDD — Planning) - $940 ❑ (CDD222)Hearing Officer Action to the City Council - $1715 ❑ (CDD223)Building Official/Fire Marshal Action to the Building/Fire Board of Appeals - $1715 © (CDD224)Chief of Police Action on an Operator License to the City Manager - $946 ❑ (RS3073)City Manager Action on a Special Events Permit to the City Council - $1823 ❑ (HBROOI )Harbormaster Action to the Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (HBR001 )Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (Harbor Department) - $940 ❑ (PBWO18)Public Works Director Action to Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (PBWO 1 8)Harbor Commission Action to City Council (Public Works Department) - $940 ❑ Other - Specify decision -maker, appellate Body, Municipal Code authority and fee: Appellant Information: Name(s): Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita Address: 94 Hartford Drive City/StatelZip: Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 908-370-7003 Email: amycsantella@gmaii.com Appealing Application Regarding: Name of AppIicant(s): Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. Date of Fina] Decision: March 2, 2023 Project No.: PA2022-0180 Activity No.: NIA Application Site Address: 94 Hartford drive Description of application: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediatiow Limited term permit for the construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system for a term of 12 months. Reasons) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): we strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit based on the safety of our child. The unit is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home, violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. It was never disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from our home unit) the public notice for the permit application was posted. Please see attached for contin ed information. }} Signature of Appellant: �— Date: .`7 J N 123 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: 1'Y1�C1-t 20 ,.:. fme City rk �� cc: Department i , Deputy Director, Staff, File F:VUsersICI&*kSriamdFo"sL4pp6aiApplfcarion Updated 1112021 r r�Lrs'oPr� 2S 10-310 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive March 14. 2023 Reason for Appeal: To Whom It May Concern: We strongly abject 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 5-5 smaller extraction units were turned down by the HOAIBoard due to loss of parking spots. 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 201 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. 1 of e 24 10-311 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita 1. Location • The original project summary/zoning administrator staff report posted on the city website was changed after our objections were received. Prior to the January 2611 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 moss_ feasible location to reduce the visual impact frown surrounding residents. r • 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 FordIWSP 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 HDAIBoard due to parking spots. • 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. 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. 2 4 25 10-312 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita ■ 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 infeasibiiities objectively. 2. Timeframe ■ 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 l year. However, at the 2/22/23 community meeting, it was stated that there will be - I+ year of remediation implementation and then "-2+years" of monitoring to determine if additional remediation is needed. —1+ year* `2+ years Remedy Post :nplernenlation Remediation Monitoring ■ 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 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, gat their good bill of health, and we come hack later, and concentrations increased." Although she also states they have confidence in 3 of 9 20 10-313 Appeal application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita 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 "i year." 3. Safely 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. ■ 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. + 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 faelds 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 law 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. 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." (R1) From the National LibrM of Medicine/ Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics: 4 0-f 9 27 10-314 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita "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 [4]. 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 [�9]. Therefore, radiation penetration is larger in children than in adults [39,40J. 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 [a." (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—_L5). 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 Sensitivi(y of Children to Electroma netic-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) • 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. ■ 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. 4. Qualily of Life • 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 5 p f � 22 10-315 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita 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 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. ■ 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 foriginall containers were too impactful, ugly, disruptive." • The current design disrupts our home and livelihood and is intrusive to our home. 5. Air Ouality Monitoring • 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 ofoperation to confirm the system is operating as designed and within permit specifications which are set to be protective of public health. Fallowing 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 verb 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. 10-316 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information., Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita ■ 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. ■ 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. ■ 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 2122/23 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. ■ 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 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? 6. Home Values 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 7 of 9 3D 10-317 Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita main living area window. There would also be no possible way to quantify the loss due to this unique and unfortunate situation. • 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'xl2'x10' shedlhazmat treatment facility, in addition to workers that will need to come in and out to maintain the facility. ■ 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 + 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. WSP is one of the world's leading engineering professional services firms. We request the system be redesigned with their world class engineers to a location that does not substantially affect the health, well-being, livelihood, and safety of a young family. Respectfully, Amy Santeila and Kevin Solomita References: Al] meeting quotations may be accessed on meeting recordings by date via h!Vs://www.fordnbfacts.co /cornmunioutreach RI: httias://www.who.ijit/initiatives/the-international-emf-project R2: Jin-Hwa Moon. MD, PhD. Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children. Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics. National Library of Medicine, hops:11www.ncbi.nlm.nih.QoylpmclarticleslPMC7S421381 R3: htt s://www.cancer. ov/about-cancer/causes- revention/risk/radiation/clectroma netic-fields-fact-sheet R4: h!Ws://Rublications.agp.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/I 16/2/e3O3/62886/The-Sensitivi-of-Children-to- Ele )m agnetic?redirectedFromJulltext AQMD Guiding Principles: ht s://www.a and. ov/nav/about/initiatives/environmental-qustice/ej- uidin - rinci les http://www.ggmd.2oy/docs/default-soureelplannin air-quality-p,uidance/school cuidance.pdf hgp-//www.aqmd.gov/nav/abolutipublic-notic&perm itting-public-notices 8�ru 10-318 �2 10-319 Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant's Response to Appeal S3 10-320 �4 10-321 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. 3'5 10-322 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 2123123 via phone call that other locations were rejected by the HOA/Board due to parking spots. so 10-323 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 10-324 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 2123123 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 2122123 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 2122123 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 2 10-325 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 "I 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. �� 10-326 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. " (RI) 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. 40 10-327 Comment 3.2: In addition, per Jessica Law 2122123 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 2122123 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. 41 10-328 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 Bioventing'. 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/aeo 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 ' United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing — Engineer Manual. June 3. 42 10-329 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 2122123 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. 4 3 10-330 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. 44 10-331 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 2122123 meeting it was stated yes, there is continuous monitoring. Now their response in writing show no continuous monitoring again. At 2122123 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 2127123. 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 45 10-332 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 + 40 10-333 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. 47 10-334 4 2 10-335 Attachment No. PC 4 Adopted Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 4 9 10-336 50 10-337 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. 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. 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 51 10-338 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 2 of 11 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: 01-17-23 52 10-339 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 3 of 11 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. 01-17-23 5S 10-340 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 4 of 11 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 01-17-23 54 10-341 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 5 of 11 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. 01-17-23 55 10-342 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 6 of 11 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 Suaaort of Findina: 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. 01-17-23 50 10-343 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 7 of 11 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 2O23. , AICP, Zoning Administrator 01-17-23 '57 10-344 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 8 of 11 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division 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. 01-17-23 '5g 10-345 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 9 of 11 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. 01-17-23 �� 10-346 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 10 of 11 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. 01-17-23 00 10-347 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010 Paae 11 of 11 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. 01-17-23 0 10-348 02 10-349 Attachment No. PC 5 March 2, 2023, Zoning Administrator Minutes O3 10-350 04 10-351 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH ZOOM THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2023 REGULAR MEETING — 10:00 A.M. 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 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. 05 10-352 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 Haman n-N azaroff, 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. 00 10-353 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 07 10-354 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. Jaiffie Murillo Zoning Administrator 02 10-355 Attachment No. PC 6 Acoustical Engineering Analysis and Addendum 09 10-356 70 10-357 Yanchar Design & Consulting Group 26o- 741 F tola Parkway - SE Suite 1 Footl-�ill fl-l" California 0261 O 040.770.6601 - 940.770.6575 fax www.wave-s pace.com 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 February 10, 2023 Project 8622397107.03.3D Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Bay B Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Limited Term Permit Application No. PA2022-0180 Acoustical Engineering Analysis — Addendum Soil Vapor Treatment System Bayridge Park Newport Beach, California Dear Jenny Tran: The purpose of the letter is to respond to comments from the City of Newport Beach (City) on the Acoustical Engineering Analysis Report (Acoustical Report), dated October 15, 2022, prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group (Yanchar), and submitted as part of the requirements for issuing of a Limited Term Permit for a proposed soil vapor treatment system to be installed adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive in the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association property. The comments which were made verbally during a call with WSP staff on January 25, 2022 are summarized below: Page 17 - the report says the closest sensitive receptor is 125 feet from construction activities. • The report specifies an "air tight" building, but then the isometric drawing shows louvers. The original report is attached to this addendum, updated with minor corrections. Most notably, the reference to 61 Hillside Drive has been changed to 61 Hillsdale Drive. In the Summary of Conclusions section we have clarified why 61 Hillsdale has been included in the analysis. None of these corrections impacts the conclusion of the report. 71 10-358 Jenny Tran City of Newport Beach February 10, 2023 Page 2 The two comments received from the City are addressed below: CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTOR On page 18 of the Acoustical Report, it is stated that: The closest existing or planned noise -sensitive uses such as homes adjacent to the project site are more than 125 feet from the project boundary. These uses may be subject to short-term, intermittent, maximum noise generated by construction activities on site. Compliance with the construction hours specified in the City's Noise Ordinance would reduce the construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. That statement refers to the closest residence outside of the Bayridge Park property boundary, which is 61 Hillsdale Avenue, across Country Club Drive. The closest residence to construction activities is 94 Hartford Drive which will be 3 feet away from some aspects of construction. The work at the treatment system site will be in two phases. The first phase will last approximately 3- weeks and consist of site clearing, grading, excavation, pipelaying, compaction, and construction of a reinforced concrete pad. A second phase, lasting approximately one week will involve a crane placing a prefabricated treatment system building on the pad with a crane, and then anchoring it using anchors drilled into the slab. During construction, the noise adjacent to 94 Hartford may be as high as 90 decibels'. This noise will be attenuated by the residence's structure but could still be significant. The Outside -Inside Transmission Class of regular'/a" monolithic class is 292, meaning that there will be a 29-decibels reduction of sound through the glass, assuming the window is closed. Therefore, the intermittent noise level inside 94 Hartford could be approximately 60 decibels — equivalent to the sound of an air conditioner; however an individual's perception of sound depends on factors such as the type of sound and its fluctuations. So what is tolerable to one person can be annoying to another. WSP will communicate construction schedule with residents and work with them individually to address concerns. Mitigations could include relocating residents during the work. SOUND MITIGATION THROUGH LOUVERS On page 19 of the Acoustical Report, one of the recommendations is to: Provide airtight construction at all exterior walls with acoustical or other non -hardening sealant at floor plates. ' Construction Noise Handbook, Federal Highway Administration, 2006 z https://glassed.vitroglazings.com/topics/determining-the-right-glass-for-the-right-acoustics 72 10-359 Jenny Tran City of Newport Beach February 10, 2023 Page 3 In the context of acoustical analysis, "airtight" refers to the sealing of joints between the building and penetrations; such as between the building and the louvers. Such seals will be provided in the structure. However, we note the City's concern with sound escaping through the louver openings and address that below. The proposed treatment system building has venting louvers, as shown on the attached drawing. The main purpose of the louvers is for weather protection. They will provide some sound deadening, but the focus is inside the building to prevent noise from escaping through the louvers. On the air inlet side, on the back (northern) side of the building, the louvers are positioned where the carbon vessels sit. Sound foam will be installed on the column where the vessels meet and the wall where the louvers are located. This creates a sound deadening plenum on the inside the building and eliminates line of sight for the sound from the blowers to travel through the louvers as well. At the top of the plenum, sound blankets or another change of direction will be added as needed to minimize sound through the inlet louvers. For the discharge louvers, on the side facing the street, the same principal will be used. A sound deadening plenum will be created around the heat exchanger which will be the source of the air going out those louvers. The air and sound from inside the building will again have to travel a tortuous path and line of sight will be eliminated. The building and the treatment system will be constructed as a single unit at a factory in Minnesota. An Acoustic Audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity will be conducted before it leaves the factory in accordance with the City's Equivalent noise level (Leq) requirement which involves measurement of a steady state noise level over 15 minutes. The unit will not be shiooed from the factory until the 15-minute Lea is less than or eaual to 50 dB at all points 3-feet from the building, including at the louvers. If required, additional sound reduction measures will be implemented to achieve the required level. Documentation of the Acoustic Audit can be provided to the City before startup of the treatment system. As a final confirmation, a second Acoustic Audit will be conducted after anchoring of the building and connection of permanent power. 7S 10-360 Jenny Tran City of Newport Beach February 10, 2023 Page 4 It should be noted that the existing residential air conditioning unit adjacent to the treatment system may produce more noise than the treatment system, since the noise limit even for new air conditioning systems is 50 dB per the City's noise ordinance. If you need any further information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc 1����Q Qr> OF E S S/p�`,k yni co L z m CML ST\ �F CAL4F�� Yanchar Design and Consulting Group Carl J. Yanchar Senior Associate Engineer -Environmental President FEH5A5�rp,N-� c3 e C 91417 � AV- * y� E7� 613012024 p ?► sad CIV3� �P Daniela Ham -Nazaroff, PE OFCAUf Associate Engineer He/cjy/dhn/mm https://woodplc.sharepoint.com/teams/fordnb/shared documents/general/04 engtech/sve design/p10/permits/city design std-permit/bldg permit/limited term/city comment-response/acoustic study/2023_02_10_newport_acoustic study add ndm_wsp-yanchar.docx Attachments: 1. Acoustical Engineering Analysis, Soil Vapor Extraction System, 94 Hartford Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, October 15, 2022; revised with minor amendments February 8, 2023. 2. Drawing No. 6011-01 — Building Layout, H2K Technologies, Inc. 12/2022. 74 10-361 Yanchar Design & Consulting Group ATTACHMENT 1 Acoustical Engineering Analysis 7'5 10-362 ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Soil Vapor Extraction System 94 Hartford Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 October 15, 2022 Updated February 8, 2023 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 26741 Portola Parkway, Suite 1 E, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Tel: 949.770.6601 Fax: 949.770.6575 E-mail: carl(a�yanchardesign.com 70 10-363 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is located on the Bayridge Park HOA property, Newport Beach, CA. as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. The property boundary is outlined in red. The Project consists of a Soil Vapor Extraction system with the mechanical equipment housed in a prefabricated metal building located adjacent to the residential building at 94 Hartford Drive. (see Figure 3). Four vacuum pumps and one heat exchanger will be located within the structure along with associated carbon vessels, holding tanks and pumps. (see appendix D) The manufacturer's noise specification for the blowers is 74 dBA and 77 dBA for the heat exchanger. (see appendix C) An existing Carrier air conditioning compressor is also located adjacent to the residential structure with a manufacturer's noise rating of 72 dBA. This condenser will be relocated slightly to the north. Since the residential building and air conditioning compressor are existing, it will be assumed that the interior noise specification of the California building code and the noise level of the condenser at the nearest property line are compliant. Only the new equipment housed in the new steel building will be addressed in this report with the impact if the new equipment combined with the existing condenser will be evaluated. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Noise measurements were collected on the morning of October 3, night of October 5, and morning of October 6, 2022 at the location of the planned treatment system building (Figure 3). The noise level predicted at three feet from the exterior of the building from the four vacuum pumps and single heat exchanger is 48.8 dBA, which is in accordance with the manufacturer's specification of 50 dBA. This level is equal or lower than some of the quietest outdoor air conditioning units. Based on the manufacturer's specification, the SVE system equipment building will meet the City of Newport Beach noise regulations at the adjacent residential structure at 94 Hartford at all hours. The residential building at 94 Hartford is on the same parcel as the SVE equipment building (see figure 2). Because the Newport Beach noise regulations specify the maximum acceptable levels at adjacent properties, calculations were also performed to predict the noise level of the SVE equipment building, existing air conditioning condenser and the combined sound level of the new equipment and the existing condenser at the nearest separate residential property at 61 Hillsdale Drive. This level was determined to be 34.9 dBA and the contribution of the new equipment is less than 0.5 dBA. This will result in an imperceptible change in ambient noise level. Therefore, the planned treatment system project is expected to meet the requirements for noise ordinance and comply with the City of Newport Beach noise regulations on both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property. Page 2 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 77 10-364 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 FIGURE 1 -- SITE VICINITY FIGURE 2 - PROJECT SITE Page 3 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 7 g 10-365 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 FIGURE 3 - ENLARGED PROJECT SITE Page 4 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 7� 10-366 ' �r + � ��'� - ----ter SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND Sound is described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by differentiating among frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is perceived to be twice as loud and 20 dBA higher is perceived to be four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Examples of various sound levels in different environments are illustrated in Table 1. TABLE 1 COMMON SOUND LEVELS AND TYPICAL NOISE SOURCES Noise Source A -Weighted Sound Level in Decibels Noise Environments Subjective Evaluations Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Reference Average Office 60 Quiet One-half as loud Suburban Street 55 Quiet Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet One -quarter as loud Large Transformer 45 Quiet Average Residence without Stereo Playing 40 Faint One -eighth as loud Soft Whisper 30 Faint Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearing 0 Very Faint Source: Compiled by YDCG Page 6 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 21 10-368 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue regarding community noise. The percentage of people claiming to be annoyed by noise generally increases with the environmental sound level. However, many factors also influence people's response to noise. The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence. Additionally, non -acoustical factors, such as the person's opinion of the noise source, the ability to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the predictability of the noise, all influence people's response. As such, response to noise varies widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses would range from "not annoyed" to "highly annoyed." RANGE OF NOISE Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (1) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time. NOISE DESCRIPTORS Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A -weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than the peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To accountfor this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite twenty -four-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time -of -day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., andthe addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and nighthours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. Page 7 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 22 10-369 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 SOUND PROPAGATION When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors: GEOMETRIC SPREADING Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. GROUND ABSORPTION The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receptor is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with areflective surface between the source and the receptor, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receptor such as softdirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. The effect due to wind conditions is typically 5 dB or less. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 ft) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Air temperature usually decreases with height. Temperature inversion is a reversal of the normal condition when cool air at the surface is overlain by a layer of hot air. This normally occurs in the evening and during the winter. Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. SHIELDING A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an "out of sight, out of mind" effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line -of -sight to nearby resident. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line -of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The FHWA does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. Page 8 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 2S 10-370 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires on the roadway. According to the Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: the volume of the traffic, the speed of the traffic, and the vehicle mix within the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and a greater number of trucks. (3) A doubling of the traffic volume, assuming that the speed and vehicle mix do not change, results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. The vehicle mix on a given roadway may also have an effect on community noise levels. As the number of medium and heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise level impacts will increase. NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 12 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receptor. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. SOUND ASSESSMENT METRICS The description, analysis, and reporting of sound levels is made difficult by the complexity of human response to sound and the myriad of metrics that have been developed for describing sound impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify sound levels with respect to human response. Most of the metrics use the A -Weighted sound level to quantify sound impacts on humans. As previously identified, A -Weighting is a frequency weighting that accounts for human sensitivity to different frequencies. Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue regarding community noise. The percentage of people claiming to be annoyed by noise generally increases with the environmental sound level. However, many factors also influence people's response to noise. The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence. Additionally, non -acoustical factors, such as the person's opinion of the noise source, the ability to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the predictability of the noise, all influence people's response. As such, response to noise varies widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses would range from "not annoyed" to "highly annoyed." Because sound levels can vary over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time -varying events. This energy -equivalent sound descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of sound events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure sound is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental sound levels to within about plus or minus 0.1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental sound levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the sound source. Close to the sound source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. Page 9 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP R4 10-371 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 REGULATORY SETTING Public agencies have established noise guidelines and standards to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise. The following discusses applicable noise regulations where potential project impacts could occur. STATE Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (California Building Standards Code) requires that residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior CNEL with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN The City of Newport Beach General Plan's Noise Element is a tool for including noise control in the planning process in order to maintain compatible land use with environmental noise levels. It is the guiding document for the City's noise policy and is designed to protect residents and businesses from excessive and persistent noise intrusions. The Noise Element follows the revised State guidelines in Section 46050.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The element quantifies the community noise environment in terms of noise exposure contours for both near and long-term levels of growth and traffic activity. The project will not produce an increase in traffic and therefore will not produce an increase in traffic related noise levels. The following General Plan goals apply to this project: Goal N4, Minimization of Non -Transportation -Related Noise, is focused on minimizing noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. • Policy N4.1, Stationary Noise Sources, requires the enforcement of interior and exterior noise standards outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance. Policy N4.6, Maintenance or Construction Activities, requires the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work -related activities. Goal N5, Minimized Excessive Construction -related Noise, addresses construction noise. • Policy N5.1, Limiting Hours of Activity, promotes enforcing the limits on hours of construction activity; these limits are in Section 10.26.035D of the City's Noise Ordinance, as discussed below. Page 10 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 25 10-372 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE The Noise Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from sources on private property by setting limits that cannot be exceeded at adjacent properties. The Noise Ordinance requirements are not applicable to mobile noise sources (such as heavy trucks) that are traveling on public roadways. Control of the mobile noise sources on public roads is preempted by federal and State laws. However, the Noise Ordinance does apply to vehicles while they are on private property. Section 10.26.025 of the Noise Ordinance specifies exterior noise levels that cannot be exceeded for a specified period of time at specified noise zones. The city -adopted exterior and interior noise level limits are presented in Table 2. If the ambient noise level exceeds the standards shown in Table 2, the ambient noise shall be the standard. These standards should not be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; or the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time. If the measurement location is on the boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone should apply. HEATING, VENTILLATION AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) UNITS Section 10.26.045 of the City's Noise Ordinance specifies that new permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where installations can be shown by computation, based on the sound rating of the proposed equipment, not to exceed an A -weighted sound pressure level of 50 dBA, or not to exceed an A -weighted sound pressure level of 55 dBA and be installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Page 11 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP go 10-373 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NON -VEHICULAR NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS Zon e Noise Metric Allowable Noise Level 7AMto10 PM (daytime) 10PMto7 AM (nighttime) Exterior Noise Standards Residential: Single- family, 2- or multi -family Le 15 min 55 dBA 50 dBA Lmax 75 dBA 70 dBA II Commercial Le 15 min 65 dBA 60 dBA Lmax 85 dBA 80 dBA III Residential Portions of Mixed- Use Properties Le 15 min 60 dBA 50 dBA Lmax 80 dBA 70 dBA IV Industrial and Manufacturing Le 15 min 70 dBA 70 dBA Lmax 90 dBA 90 dBA Interior Noise Standards I Residential Leq (15 min) 45 dBA 40 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 60 dBA III Residential Portions of Mixed- Use Properties Le 15 min 45 dBA 45 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 65 dBA Leq: equivalent noise level; min: minutes; dBA: A -weighted decibels; Lmax: highest sound level Note: If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. a Residential uses within 100 feet of a commercial property where noise is from said commercial property. Source: Newport Beach 2022 CONSTRUCTIOIN NOISE Section 10.26.035D of the City's Noise Ordinance exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property from the City's Noise Ordinance standards shown in Table 2. These activities are subject to the provisions of Chapter 10.28, which prohibits construction activities that generate loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity except during weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM, and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Page 12 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP g7 10-374 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 NOISE MEASUREMENTS Some of the data from October 3 was skewed due to gardening activities in the immediate vicinity. Additional measurements were made on the night of October 5 and the morning of October 6. The measurement location and data are included in appendix F and G. These measurements are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Date Time LAEQ LAmin LAmax LA25% 10/3/2022 9:03 56.5 44.8 70.3 54.6 10/5/2022 22:44 35.6 33.6 39.6 36.5 10/6/2022 10:39 55.2 35.9 67.3 57.1 Except for the gardening activities, most of the noise generated during the day was due to light truck traffic on Country Club Drive and occasional aircraft overflights. There was no traffic observed on Country Club Drive (see Figure 4) during the night. The majority of the increase in noise over the minimum was due to light traffic on Bison Avenue. NOISE CALCULATIONS Calculations were performed to quantify the expected transmission loss of the manufactured steel building using Insul software. (see appendix E) The individual estimated sound levels were combined using logarithmic addition according to the formula: R L = 10 Logto ( Y 10 (Le + 10) =i Based on these calculations, the noise level predicted at the exterior of the building from the four vacuum pumps and single heat exchanger would be 48.8 dBA. This is in agreement with the manufacturer's specification of 50 dBA. This calculation is included in Table 4. Page 13 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 22 10-375 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 4 PREDICTED SOUND LEVEL AT BUILDING EXTERIOR DUE TO VACUUM PUMPS AND HEAT EXCHANGER Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Heat Equipment Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 4 Exchanger A Weighted Sound Level Rating 74 74 74 74 77 Building Sound Transmission Loss 33 33 33 33 33 Estimated Exterior A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 44.0 Estimated Combined Exterior A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 48.8 Calculations were also performed to predict the exterior noise produced by 4 vacuum pumps and 1 heat exchanger at the nearest separate residential property line at 61 Hillsdale Drive on the opposite side of County Club Drive. The combined exterior A weighted sound pressure level as calculated in Table 4 is reduced at 61 Hillsdale Drive due to inverse square law attenuation of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of the distance according to the formula: dL=Lp2-Lpl = 10 log (R2 / Ri)2 = 20 log (R2 / Ri) Where dL = difference in sound pressure level (dBA) Lpi = sound pressure level at location 1 (dBA) Lp2 = sound pressure level at location 2 (dBA) Ri = distance from source to location 1 (ft) R2 = distance from source to location 2 (ft) This level was determined to be 23.9 dBA which is considerably lower than the minimum ambient noise level during night hours as tabulated in Table 3. This calculation is included in Table 5. Page 14 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP g9 10-376 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 5 PREDICTED SOUND LEVELAT 61 HILLSDALE DRIVE DUE TO VACUUM PUMPS AND HEAT EXCHANGER Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Heat Equipment Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 4 Exchanger A Weighted Sound Level Rating 74 74 74 74 77 Building Sound Transmission Loss 33 33 33 33 33 Inverse Square Law Attenuation 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 15.5 15.5 1 15.5 15.5 18.5 Estimated Combined Exterior A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 23.9 A calculation was also performed to predict the noise level of the existing air conditioning condenser and then the combined sound level of the new equipment and the existing condenser at 61 Hillsdale Drive. This level was determined to be 34.9 dBA. The contribution of the new equipment is less than 0.5 dBA. This will result in an imperceptible change in the ambient noise level. This calculation is contained in Table 6. TABLE 6 LEVEL OF EXISTING HVAC CONDENSER AT 61 HILLSDALE DRIVE Equipment Carrier 38TUA024 A Weighted Sound Level Rating from Manufacturer Specification Data 72 Equipment Location Factor 3 Subtotal 75 Inverse Square Law Attenuation 40.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level of Existing Air Conditioning Condenser 34.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level of Existing Air Conditioning Condenser and New Equipment 34.9 Page 15 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP TI 0 10-377 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS Noise levels from construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 85 dBA adjacent to the project site for very limited times. The activities include clearing the sire, pouring the foundation slab and placing the off -site manufactured building on the slab. Impacts from the proposed project would be potentially adverse; however, compliance with the City's construction hours requirement would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Short-term noise impacts would be associated with excavation and erecting of building on site during construction of the proposed project. Construction related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. Thesevarious sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 7 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels. Page 16 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 9 1- 10-378 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 7 MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor' Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA Concrete Saw 20 90 Crane 16 81 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79 Backhoe 40 78 Dozer 40 82 Excavator 40 81 Forklift 40 78 Paver 50 77 Roller 20 80 Tractor 40 84 Water Truck 40 80 Grader 40 85 General Industrial Equipment 50 85 Note: 1 — Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006. The closest existing or planned noise -sensitive uses such as homes adjacent to the project site are more than 125 feet from the project boundary. These uses may be subject to short-term, intermittent, maximum noise generated by construction activities on site. Compliance with the construction hours specified in the City's Noise Ordinance would reduce the construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. Page 17 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 92 10-379 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES To achieve the expected interior noise levels it is necessary that good construction techniques and good materials be used for construction of the building. A significant increase in noise levels over expected levels could occur if workmanship or materials are of inferior quality. This is especially true for the doors and louvers since they are the weakest acoustical element of the exterior shell. For the metal equipment building, we recommend that notes and details be included on the design drawings to ensure that the construction details achieve the insulation potential of the basic building assemblies. The following indicates the recommended additional notes and details: • Use permanently non -hardening sealant around perimeter of door and ventilation louver frames. • Select door and ventilation louver assemblies with effective nonporous gaskets or weatherstripping to minimize air infiltration and sound leakage. • Provide airtight construction at all exterior walls with acoustical or other non -hardening sealant at floor plates. • Use doorjamb and head gasketing and door bottom gasketing at entry doors to seal the doors against weather and sound. • Caulk entry door thresholds as they are placed. • To the extent feasible, any penetrations in the exterior walls having a direct view should be minimized and sealed. Doors and ventilation louvers are treated separately. Page 18 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 9 10-380 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 CONCLUSION The sound level at the exterior of the prefabricated metal building was calculated to be 48.8 dBA. The manufacturer's specification is less than 50 dBA. Therefore the sounded propagated from the metal building will be less than the maximum permissible by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code at the closest residential property line and at the adjacent building at 94 Hartford. The two nearest condominiums on the property directly adjacent to 94 Hartford are 92 and 95 Hartford. Inverse square attenuation will reduce the 48.8 dBA level to less than 34.9 dBA when no outdoor air condenser is operating. This will result in an increase the ambient sound level at those structures to less than1 dBA which is less than significant. The level calculated at the nearest separate residential property line of 51 Hillsdale Drive is predicted to be 23.9 dBA. The increase in ambient sound level is calculated to be less than 0.5 dBA which is also less than significant. Therefore the proposed Project will meet the standards of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and the increase in ambient sound level will be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures will be required. Respectfully submitted, Yanchar Design & Consulting Group Carl J. Yanchar President Page 19 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 94 10-381 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX A Page 19 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 9 '5 10-382 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 DESCRIPTION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA): The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the internationally standardized A -weighting filter or as computed from sound spectral data to which A -weighting adjustments have been made. A -weighting de-emphasizes the low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the average human ear. A -weighted sound levels correlate well with subjective reactions of people to noise and are universally used for community noise evaluations. Acoustic; Acoustical: Acoustic is usually used when the term being qualified designates something that has the properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics associated with sound waves (e.g., acoustic power); acoustical is usually used when the term which it modifies does not explicitly designate something that has the properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics of sound (e.g., acoustical material). Airborne Sound: Sound that travels through the air, as opposed to structure -borne sound. Ambient Noise: The prevailing general noise existing at a location or in a space, which usually consists of a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. Attenuation: The decrease in level of sound, usually from absorption, divergence, scattering, or the cancellation of the sound waves. Average sound level (Leq): The level of a steady sound which, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A - weighted sound energy as the time -varying sound. Unit: decibel. Background noise: The total noise from all sources other than a particular sound that is of interest (e.g., other than the noise being measured or other than the speech or music being listened to). Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The Leq of the A -weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 5 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and a 10 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Day -Night Sound Level (Ldn): The Leq of the A -weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Page 20 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 90 10-383 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Decibel (dB): The decibel is a measure on a logarithmic scale of the magnitude of a particular quantity (such as sound pressure, sound power, sound intensity) with respect to a reference quantity. Energy Equivalent Level (Leq): The level of a steady noise which would have the same energy as the fluctuating noise level integrated over the time period of interest. Leq is widely used as a single -number descriptor of environmental noise. Leq is based on the logarithmic or energy summation and it places more emphasis on high noise level periods than does L50 or a straight arithmetic average of noise level over time. This energy average is not the same as the average sound pressure levels over the period of interest, but must be computed by a procedure involving summation or mathematical integration. Field Impact Insulation Class (FIIC): A single number rating similar to the IIC except that the impact sound pressure levels are measured in the field. Field Sound Transmission Class (FSTC): A single number rating similar to STC, except that the transmission loss values used to derive the FSTC are measured in the field. All sound transmitted from the source room to the receiving room is assumed to be through the separating wall or floor -ceiling assembly. Frequency (Hz): The number of oscillations per second of a periodic noise (or vibration) expressed in Hertz (abbreviated Hz). Frequency in Hertz is the same as cycles per second. Impact Isolation Class (IIC): A single number rating used to compare the effectiveness of floor -ceiling assemblies in providing reduction of impact generated sounds such as footsteps. It is derived from the measurement of impact sound pressure levels across a series of 16 test bands using a standardized tapping machine. Noise: Any disagreeable or undesired sound, i.e., unwanted sound. Noise level: Same as sound level. Usually used to describe the sound level of an unwanted sound. Noise reduction (NR): The difference in sound pressure level between any two points along a path of sound propagation. Page 21 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 97 10-384 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Noise Isolation Class (NIC): A single number rating derived from measured values of noise reduction between two enclosed spaces that are connected by one or more paths. The NIC is not adjusted or normalized to a standard reverberation time. Normalized Noise Isolation Class (NNIC): A single number rating similar to the NIC, except that the measured noise reduction values are normalized to a reverberation time of 1/2 second. Outdoor -Indoor Transmission Class (OITC): A single number classification, specified by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM E 1332 issued 1994), that establishes the A -weighted sound level reduction provided by building facade components (walls, doors, windows, and combinations thereof), based upon a reference sound spectrum that is typical of air, road, and rail transportation sources. The OITC is the preferred rating when exterior facade components are exposed to noise environments dominated by transportation sources. Octave Band - 1/3 Octave Band: One octave is an interval between two sound frequencies that have a ratio of two. For example, the frequency range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz is one octave, as is the frequency range of 2000 Hz to 4000 Hz. An octave band is a frequency range that is one octave wide. A standard series of octaves is used in acoustics, and they are specified by their center frequencies. In acoustics, to increase resolution, the frequency content of a sound or vibration is often analyzed in terms of 1/3 octave bands, where each octave is divided into three 1/3 octave bands. Sound (1) A change in air pressure that is capable of being detected by the human ear. (2) The hearing sensation excited by a change in air pressure. Sound Absorption Coefficient: The absorption coefficient of a material is the ratio of the sound absorbed by the material to that absorbed by an equivalent area of open window. The absorption coefficient of a perfectly absorbing surface would be 1.0 while that for concrete or marble slate is approximately 0.01 (a perfect reflector would have an absorption of 0.00). Sound Level: Ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of the square of the ratio of the frequency- weighted (and time - averaged) sound pressure to the reference sound pressure of 20 micro pascals. The frequency - weightings and time -weighting employed should be specified; if they are not specified, it is understood that A -frequency -weighting is used and that an averaging time of 0.125 is used. Unit: decibel (dBA). Page 22 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTTIING GROUP g 10-385 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Sound Pressure Level (SPL): The sound pressure level of sound in decibels is 20 times the logarithm to the base of 10 of the ratios of the RMS value of the sound pressure to the RMS value of a reference sound pressure. The standard reference sound pressure is 20 micro -pascals as indicated in ANSI S1.8-1969, "Preferred Reference Quantities for Acoustical Levels". Sound Transmission Class (STC): STC is a single number rating, specified by the American Society for Testing and Materials, which can be used to measure the sound insulation properties for comparing the sound transmission capability, in decibels, of interior building partitions for noise sources such as speech, radio, and television. It is used extensively for rating sound insulation characteristics of building materials and products. Structure -Borne Sound: Sound propagating through building structure. Rapidly fluctuating elastic waves in gypsum board, joists, studs, etc. Statistical Distribution Terms: L99 and L90 are descriptors of the typical minimum or "residual' background noise (or vibration) levels observed during a measurement period, normally made up of the summation of a large number of sound sources distant from the measurement position and not usually recognizable as individual noise sources. Generally, the prevalent source of this residual noise is distant street traffic. L90 and L99 are not strongly influenced by occasional local motor vehicle pass-bys. However, they can be influenced by stationary sources such as air conditioning equipment. L5o represents a long-term statistical median noise level over the measurement period and does reveal the long-term influence of local traffic. L,o describes typical or average levels for the maximum noise levels occurring, for example, during nearby pass bys of trains, trucks, buses and automobiles, when there is relatively steady traffic. Thus, while L,o does not necessarily describe the typical maximum noise levels observed at a point, it is strongly influenced by the momentary maximum noise level occurring during vehicle pass-bys at most locations. Li, the noise level exceeded for 1 % of the time is representative of the occasional, isolated maximum or peak level which occurs in an area. L1 is usually strongly influenced by the maximum short -duration noise level events which occur during the measurement time period and are often determined by aircraft or large vehicle pass-bys. Page 23 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 99 10-386 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX B Page 24 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 100 10-387 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 COMMON SOUND LEVELS AND THEIR NOISE SOURCES Noise Source A -Weighted Sound Level in Decibels Noise Environments Subjective Evaluations Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Average Office 60 Quiet One-half as loud Suburban Street 55 Quiet Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet One -quarter as loud Large Transformer 45 Quiet Average Residence without Stereo Playing 40 Faint One -eighth as loud Soft Whisper 30 Faint Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearing 0 Very Faint Source: Compiled by YDCG Page 25 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 101 10-388 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX C MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SUBMITTALS Page 26 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 102 10-389 AIRT=CH" 3BA9620 Features: • Cooler running, outboard bearing provides maintenance -free operation • Environmentally friendly oil -free technology • Extremely quiet operation Performance Curve for Vacuum Vacuum/Pressure Regenerative Blower • All motors are standard TEFC with Class F insulation, UL recognized, CE Compliant Explosion -Proof motors available • Custom construction blowers are available • Rugged die-cast aluminum construction Performance Curve for Compressor 500 500 Hz - 400 72 72 Hz 60Hz I/J 50 Hz 3] Hz 400 _ E 300 300 > 200 T 200 U aS m U 100 U a3 M U 100 C O 0 C O t 0 M rn 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 =5 U) 0 50 Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H2O1 50 50 40 40 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Pressure 0 J 30 = 30 I/J c 20 ° 20 n� E a1 0 10 c a 10 o E a 0 3 � 0 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 a a 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4 Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H201 Pressure 0 500 500 400 400 300 I/ J 300 J o a 200 0 a 200 a) 100 D a) 100 �> > E o 0 E° 0 0 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 P- o 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4 Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H2O1 Pressure 0 AI RT=CH® RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070 WWW.AIRTECHUSA.COM TEL: (888) 222-9940 FAx1(O�569-169610-390 da�777� 3BA9620-0416 AIRT=CH" Dimensions 2 o s-s 17 7 �3 IIILET �1 FNPT DUT FT it,@ L ■1 Selection & Orderinq Data - Type 3BA9620 3BA9620 M 7 — Vacuum/Pressure Regenerative Blower 3BA96207AT66 Curve Order Frequency Rated Input Input Permissable Total Sound Weight Letter Number (Hz) Power (HP) Voltage (V) Current (A) Differential Pressure Level (Ibs) dB(A) Vacuum Pressure Inch H2O Inch H2O 1-50/60 IP155 insulation material class F I 3BA96207AT66 50 14.75 200D... 240D 345Y...415Y 38.OD/22.OY -212 253 70 320 3BA96207AT66 60 16.90 220D... 250D 415Y...460Y 38.OD/22.OY -217 212 74 320 1 3BA96207AT66 87 25.50 345D... 415D 39.51) -204 120 84 320 J 3BA96207AT86 50 20.10 200D... 240D 345Y...415Y 53.OD/31.OY -212 357 70 370 J 3BA96207AT86 60 23.20 220D... 250D 415Y...460Y 53.OD/30.5Y -217 325 74 370 J 3BA96207AT86 AI RT=CH® da�777� 87 34.80 345D... RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070 415D 51.5D WWW.AIRTECHUSA.COM -204 253 84 370 TEL: (888) 222-9940 FAX�(0--569-169610-391 3BA9620-0416 Page 1 AA Series Heat Exchanger I Xchanger https-//xchanger.cony/products/aa-series-heat- exchanger/ XCHA►IIGERke - Made In USA AA Series Heat Exchanger AA Sews heal exchangers Cool ww prpsslrm gas 51reaht5 with ohrhienl air These cohrPa[I alf Loolld units ale Weal For Iggpohl ruin Ilrhlted ateess fo cuoling Wmat and nave significantly rower operating cos8 compared to -real entilaingers Nat rectuive a cacNng water system. Iraq Feature I eFc; 29Urs5u VAC. 9 pro" molar. a heave-dury cncing ran and an DSHA appRM=4 ran guam Alternate nnrllors are ay.%AhW won mciu I The ftxnaLL nova arf vLmurr rrarnC are galYan(wo 5 i uM our Irnamaive online w'm to get a fast anal accurate gaotel common APPlrrannns AnereWllrlg Rools type IrolaryJobe) and multistage Cenlrlluoa3 blowers used In pneum l c cuny"rg. blogas. voafaeam melnage, and wastewater aeraMn syslelre con construction The akinrNnum plate Nn heal eiichanger core s furnace biased wnn anema1mg finnan flow thanneis Prorxas gas flows in hprlmnlal charmeJs, ana arnb"I. W Nhg 2N FIOA%UPaaiq Ihrdlagh Wnlgk Channels. Ttw protect stream eolers and twl^ IN%gh retlarrgdlal aiuftnhum headrr5 p141Cr4 are WoLd Ip me cnf Operoflonel Con Crderiilon5 The process stream TIUst be littered to ensure particulate we not ObsfrUCf the passages If nlecessarp toe mxe Bide can usually be cleaned Venn a 5 IW waler wash ihk proce5 cnan08Js-z,,xntl not M con ginered cleanable+Jue to MaIr Wig encloed 16W length Installation COnsld yrdGvns PwN41ing flop such ae that predLiGed by rotary Inpe inci er 51,nuln tie dampeneu dy a lraormmd eNenw AA Sens hear ea'enarrg¢rs.yissipa�e neat from IM process :arlam b Ihu ambI&LI erlwronolent TrcW WO de5lg fled for ouldodn Instalialioh Ir ImAatied Irldoor4 urn ar nu VIUWd be very' well YenllsaEe7 PerfonharlCp Xrharrger en gInaer use 3 cofnpiper mWel lb ana!WO-- MMI r=xrnaNdr pelformanr o:e5elr on Ilia Less auaNgle engrneerinlg prarhl-.e A dalat»sa wph ran perrormaFxe dMa asli us 10-sate[t the nest fan for Ilse appllcaieon Models AA-25o AA"N). AA,5up. A -75t1. AA -tow AA+1750 AA-2gW nafz73e a AAason special CnAfiaumnor5 Can be T]uno on our Custom De Nns gage Air Goofed flea: exchanger (Lrower attercooler! c rrr,Mlc drawing and lyplc8f configurations Sample data sheet 111 our ]I 9II,0E$AT — II Il CUT PusH TrIRWGH IN PAIL. our IN �r >'ARA4IEL Captured by FreShot Pro: 09 October 2022, 08:00:25 h ttps: / / g e tfiresh ot. cum 1-05 10-392 Page 2 AA Series Heat Exchanger I Xchanger h ttps: / /xch a n g er. c o m/ prod ucts/ a a-series-h ea t-exchanger/ Gallery Product Applications nA . C9erles . NP canes LC Senes M 5— . tV Salee Request a Quote! Cdnlaol � lodey 1. dlecues ypui heel exchange. o, 14-of a .cool& appGtanon �ilh a "a en9lneei ar ow YRaracM onifne fans to gel a Fes[ and accurate geor& r{are u aquF%[ arsperiFcagons M —,r by emallq Send Rio IMoQKPlwW.ecm M ApPlleatlrms <Nmm MH 18M< "0 request and .IR rypically respond m40n one badness dey f�ra�r rn ape.R nhh an anpf—dew? Glue ue a mill 19521 931T65'_r Captured by FreShot Pro: 09 October 2022, 08:00:25 h ttps: / / g e tfiresh ot. com 10 0 10-393 Electrical data UNIT SIZE- SERIES WPH OPER VOLTS* COMPR FAN FLA MCA 60°C MIN WIRE SIZEt 75°C MIN WIRE SIZEt MAX LENGTH (FT) 6V/75°Ct MAX LENGTH (m) 60'/75°Ct MAX FUSE** OR CKT BKR AMPS Max I Min LRA RLA 024-75 230-1 253 207 72.5 15.0 0.6 19.4 14 14 38/37 12/11 30 036-96 400-3 440 360 46.0 6.4 0.7 8.7 14 14 181/172 55/52 20 048-96 63.0 7.9 0.7 10.7 14 14 147/140 45/42 15 060-96 74.0 9.0 1 0.7 11.9 14 14 1 132/126 40/38 20 " Permissible limits of the voltage range at which the unit will operate satisfactorily. Operation outside these limits may result in unit failure. If wire is applied at ambient greater than 30°C (86°F), consult Table 310-16 of the NEC (ANSI/NFPA 70). The ampacity of nonmetallic -sheathed cable (NM), trade name ROMEX, shall be that of 60oC (140oF) conductors, per the NEC (ANSI/NFPA 70) Article 336-26. All motors/compressors contain internal overload protection. t American wire gage. $ Length shown is as measured 1 way along wire path between unit and service panel for a voltage drop not to exceed 2%. ** Time -delay fuse. FLA - Full Load Amps LRA - Locked Rotor Amps MCA -Minimum Circuit Amps RLA - Rated Load Amps Performance summary COOLING CAP @ 95°F (35°C) COOLING CAP 115°F (46°C) Rated Capacity Power Rated Rated Capacity Power UNIT NOMINAL AIRFLOW CFM L/S BTUH kW SIZE INDOOR MODEL BTUH kW kW EER kW F(A,B)4(A,B)SF024* 800 380 23,000 6.7 2.34 10.30 20,700 6.1 2.87 024-75 F(A,B)4(A,B)SF030 800 380 24,000 7.0 2.33 10.40 21,031 6.2 2.86 FG3ASA024 800 380 23,000 6.7 2.40 9.70 20,023 5.9 2.95 F(A,B)4(A,B)SF036* 1200 560 35,000 10.3 3.76 10.40 31,600 9.3 4.56 036-96 F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)042 1200 560 36,000 10.5 3.71 10.50 32,320 9.5 4.50 FG3ASA036 1200 560 35,000 10.3 3.69 9.80 29,395 8.6 4.48 F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)048* 1600 750 47,000 13.8 5.12 9.50 42,400 12.4 6.20 048-96 F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)060 1600 750 48,000 14.1 5.26 9.50 43,540 12.8 6.37 FG3ASA048 1600 750 46,000 13.5 5.20 9.10 41,100 12.0 6.30 FG3ASA060 1600 750 47,000 13.8 5.25 9.20 42,179 12.4 6.35 F(A,B)4(A,B)S(Fl3)060* 1850 950 57,500 16.8 6.03 9.50 52,100 15.3 7.26 060-96 FB4(A,B)SB070 1850 950 59,000 17.3 6.14 9.50 53,364 15.6 7.39 FG3ASA060 1850 950 56,500 1 16.6 6.00 1 9.40 1 51,286 15.0 1 7.23 * Tested Combination NOTES: 1. Ratings are net values reflecting the effects of circulating fan motor heat. Supplemental electric heat is not included. 2. Tested outdoor/indoor combinations have been tested in accordance with DOE test procedures for central air conditioners. Ratings for other combinations are determined under DOE computer simulation procedures. 3. Determine actual CFM values obtainable for your system by referring to fan performance data in fan coil or furnace coil literature. A -weighted sound power (dBA) UNIT SIZE STANDARD RATING TYPICAL OCTAVE BAND SPECTRUM (without tone adjustment) 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 024 72 53.5 63.0 65.0 67.0 63.5 59.0 50.5 036 74 58.0 64.0 67.5 67.0 66.0 64.5 59.0 048 1 75 1 55.5 63.0 66.5 68.0 68.0 65.0 59.5 060 1 75 155.5 1 64.0 69.0 67.0 67.5 65.5 60.0 107 10-394 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX D PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING PLAN AND DETAILS Page 32 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP L g 10-395 14 GAGE FORMED STEEL ROOF' COPWITH TRUSSES. 1:12�PffCH WOH T AS ��� 1' DRIP ROIL, TOP AND 1 1/2' BOROM TRUSS BRIDGING ATE TNUSS AS CON CONDNUOUSLY WELDED FUNGES, STITCH WELD TO ROOF, 24' OC 14 GAUGE STEEL STITCX WELD N i TO WAL AS POss BI£ WHITE ENS TRUSS VENT TRUSSES INNNING WELDING SPACE 12" TYP. MRFlAE FIRE AND SOUND AND SW ND T1 K CORNING FIRE MIIERM WOOL AND SOUND AND SOUND 3' TYP INS INSUTADON, )' INSULADON L 14 GAGE MEL WILL FORTED SIEf1 WNL PANELS. 1 1/2' FUNDS 24' ON CENTER TYP 5/6' DPE X SHEEINOCK, 1 2 IAYERS 5/B' uYER TYPE X SH D 1" OR RAL FlNM EXTERIOR 1 -ER 5/0' ALONG BOTH SIDES METE Up SIpNG 0 O O TYPE X SHEETROCK TYP, WALL COUNG 2 UYERS PANEL DETAIL RIG MIN SPRAY SEMIS BETWEEN CAULKED WITH AN COMPLETELY SEAL PANELS SHILL BE INDUSTRIAL MILK TO BUILDING ENN— TYP. ROOF JOIST DETAIL FORA INSUTATKIN — UNDERSIDE OF JOISTS 24' BEFORE ID AND. ROOF, SKID AND IXIESUR ENMIFL FINISH ENCLOSURE SKID FLOOR ON DE ql CEMER WITH 3/ WELDS 1 1/2' FLANGE CB%1I PDTH IN WITH ALL AROUND AROUND 3/16' WELDS AROUND ALL ANOUND 24' MAX. WALL, PANEL WIDTH EXCEPT OVER DOOR 3/16' A-36 STEEL 1 1/2" TW, DECK 3' SPECIFICATIONS: 6' WALL _ DESIGN PER 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE / ASCE 7-16 RISK CAT III, UNOCCUPIED BUILDING, TYPE IIB CONSTRUCTION. WEMMDTD —01NINCPANEL 1. WIND: EXPOSURE: B '� 0' -E— MID INTERIOR, 1 1/Y 4'X4'X3/B' PL W/3/6' DESIGN WIND SPEED, MPH: 102 U) G WELD EMERY GUSSETS BACK UP TO TOPO FACTOR KZT: 1.0 3" qA 0'O.G 3/4WNEL. 3/4" CIA. HILD HAS-E B7 2. SEISMIC SS: uFr PaNr HD ROD WITH 6" 0.313 S7: 01.08 �, TYP. WALL PANEL SECTION DETAIL EMBEOMEM USING HILTI SOIL SITE CLASS: D DEFAULT 20' N.T.S. 12 i2" MI EDGE 200 3DISTANCE SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: D IE: 1.25 12 N.T.S. V: 7.4KIP5 3. ROOF LIVE LOAD: 40 PSF 4. FLOOR LNE LOAD: 125 PSF OR A 2500 LB CONCENTRATED LOAD I i j 1 17„ (2) 38' % 7 ' FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAD DESIGN BY OTHERS T 16 GAGE 1' DIA HOLE MIN 4000 PSI CONCRETE FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAD 12 PoLYIIRflwwE INSULATED �' FOR ANCHORING TO FULLY SUPPORT ENTIRE FLOOR AREA OF SKID (R-5 TYPICAL) CENTERED IN 4" PLATE WNL PANEL STITCH NICKEL Pu1ED WELDED TO TOP OF CONTANMENT UP STEEL —ES DNP EDGE WHN AND HARDWARE IXIENIOR AND DOOR WKEY STITCH WELDED 10 SKID FLOOR INTERIOR CM33 AT DOOR OPENING JAMBS FALL EIGHT AND C5X6.7 HEADER, 4.75" 1' LOUVER OPENINGS FRIAED WRH 14 CAGE FORMED STEEL CHANNEL TOP BOTTOM AND STRCII WELD CHANNELS TO WALL PANELS, 3' DERN OF JAMBS PERPENDICUVR SIDES, STITCH WELDED TO S—OUNDING TO WALL PANEL (UKE A STUD). 5' DEPTX 1 1/2% 3/,6• FLOOR WAIL PANELS NOTE: LOUVER —ON SHOWN ON SaETRIC IS FROR GENERAL DETAL ONLY AND IS NOT YERIICM FOR HEADER. PLATE PoGllf ANGLE BEND WELDED TO PERIMETER CHWNEL, , 1/2' WELD EPRESENTATIYE OF — IDUVER UO TONS. SEE SHEET 6011-01 Fat 4" PAST CHANNE EVERY 0' O.C. M:TUM LOWER LOCATIONS. TYP. CORNER BOLT DOWN DETAIL REVISIONSUNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE " DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES + DO NOT SCALE DRAWING THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. ♦ H2KISOMETRIC �� TechnoLogies, Inc. 7550 Commerce St. Corcoran. MN 55340. Tel: 763-746-99000C)2011 PROJECT TITLE: W000 PLC SVE SYSTEM NEWPORT BEACH, CA DRAWING TITLE: WELDED STEEL ENCLOSURE CONSTRUCTION DETAIL DRAWING FOR SOUND EVALUATION SHEET 1 OF 1 REV DESCRIPTION DATE DWN DRAWN BY. MK DRAWING NO.: 6011-08 DESIGNED BY: MK PROJECT MGR.: MK DATE: IO/D4/2022 PROJECT NO.: 6011 10-396 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX E PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING TRANSMISSION LOSS CALCULATIONS Page 34 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 110 10-397 Sound Insulation Prediction (vg.0.24) Program copyright Marshall Day Acoustics 2017 Margin of error is generally withi n STC t3 d8 Key No. 5935 Job Name: lob No. Initials:cjyan dated 0/8/2022 File Name:insul Svstem description Panel " 1 x 0-024 in Stee Notes: INSUL STC 39 OITC 27 Mass -air -mass resonant frequency = =106 Hz Panel Size = 8-9 It x 13.1 It Partition surface mass = 3.68 IbN2 Frame. Steel Stud (15-20g) (3 in x 1.5 in Cavity W ), Stud spacing 24 in -. idth 3 in , 1 x FiOreglass (10kg!rn3) Thickness 3.0 it Panel 2 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Boarc freq.(Hz) TL(dB) TL(dB) 50 16 63 16 16 8❑ 16 100 15 125 15 1 :� 160 20 200 26 250 31 `.) 315 35 400 39 500 43 4_ 630 47 800 51 1000 53 5.' 1250 55 1600 56 2000 55 4_: 2500 40 3150 42 4000 45 5000 48 30 15 10 15 is r5 )0 Is 10 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 Frequency (H:!) ■ Transmission Loss (dB) STC39 Flanking Limit 4000 111 10-398 Sound Insulation Prediction (`✓9.0.24) Program copyright Marshall Day Acoustics 2017 Margin of error is generally withi n STC t3 dB . Key No. 5935 Job Name. lob No. Initials:cjyan Dated 0/8/2022 File Name:insul Svstem description Panel ` 1 x 0.024 in 5tee Nc!es 'I �;:� INSUL STC 46 UI-rC --),1 Mass -air -mass resonant frequency = =90 Hz Panel Size = 8.9 ft x 13.1 R Partition surface mass = 6.2 Vftc Frame: Cold formed Steel Joist (16-20g)(3.5 in x 1.5 in 1, Slud socing 24 in ; Gavity_ Width 3.54 in , 1 x Fibreglass (10kgim3) Thickness 2.4 it Panel 2 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Boarc + 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Boarc freq.(Hz) TL(dB) TL(dB) 50 2C 63 2C 20 8❑ 20 100 17 125 22 2,1 160 28 200 33 250 38 315 43 400 47 500 51 50 630 55 800 59 1000 61 E" 1250 63 1600 64 2000 63 51 2500 50 3150 51 4000 54 51 5000 57 AD 75 70 E5 i5o 55 a 50 J C 45 40 35 36 a 25 20 15 10 5 0 N 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 Frequency {Hz) Transmission Loss (d3) STC 46 Flanking Limit 112 10-399 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX F MEASUREMENT LOCATION Page 37 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 1-1 S 10-400 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX G MEASUREMENT DATA Page 39 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 1-1 5 10-402 Number 24 Start Date 10/3/2022 Start Time 9:05:44 AM End Time 9:14:09 AM Duration 00:08:25 Meas Mode Single Input Range Low Input Type Mic SPL Time Weight LNa Freq Weight Overload No UnderRange No Sensitivity LZeq 70.3 LCeq 69.5 LAeq 64.1 LZFinax 88.6 LCFinax 88.2 LAFinax 82.6 LZFmin 58.7 LCFmin 56.3 LAFmin 42.2 LZE 97.3 LCE 96.5 LAE 91.1 LZpk 96.0 LCpk 95.5 LApk 93.7 LAF1o76.2 LAF2o74.1 LAF5o70.7 LAF8o66.9 LAF10o 65.1 LAF25o 60.5 LAF50% 55.4 LAF90o 47.0 LAF95o 45.5 LAF990 43.4 1/1 Oct. (dBA) 31.5 20.0 63 38.1 125 47.5 250 50.9 500 59.6 1000 59.4 2000 56.8 4000 50.4 8000 42.4 FFT (dBA) Fast dBA 14.82mV/Pa 1 1 1 10-403 0 -Inf 43.1 31.6 86.2 44.7 129.3 46.0 172.344.8 215.446.9 258.545.3 301.646.1 344.7 46.4 387.847.4 430.848.8 473.953.9 517 55.7 560.151.5 603.254.6 646.3 52.4 689.3 50.1 732.448.8 775.547.4 818.647.9 861.747.4 904.8 46.8 947.8 46.6 990.947.4 1034 48.5 1077.1 49.2 1120.2 49.9 1163.3 51.0 1206.3 53.9 1249.4 51.0 1292.5 46.1 1335.6 45.6 1378.7 45.8 1421.8 46.7 1464.8 46.6 1507.9 45.3 1551 44.2 1594.1 44.2 1637.2 44.1 1680.3 43.6 1723.3 43.3 1766.4 43.8 1809.5 44.6 1852.6 44.5 1895.7 44.3 1938.8 44.3 1981.8 44.2 2024.9 44.5 2068 43.9 2111.1 42.9 2154.2 42.6 2197.3 42.4 2 11 j 10-404 2240.3 42.2 2283.4 41.7 2326.5 41.4 2369.6 42.0 2412.7 43.6 2455.8 42.7 2498.9 40.4 2541.9 39.2 2585 39.1 2628.1 38.8 2671.2 38.6 2714.3 38.6 2757.4 38.9 2800.4 39.2 2843.5 39.1 2886.6 39.4 2929.7 39.6 2972.8 39.0 3015.9 38.3 3058.9 38.3 3102 38.3 3145.1 37.6 3188.2 37.4 3231.3 37.3 3274.4 37.3 3317.4 37.1 3360.5 36.2 3403.6 36.1 3446.7 35.8 3489.8 35.2 3532.9 34.9 3575.9 35.1 3619 35.0 3662.1 34.9 3705.2 34.7 3748.3 34.2 3791.4 33.8 3834.4 33.5 3877.5 33.4 3920.6 33.2 3963.7 32.9 4006.8 33.0 4049.9 32.5 4092.9 32.0 4136 32.0 4179.1 31.6 4222.2 31.3 4265.3 30.8 4308.4 30.5 4351.4 30.2 4394.5 30.0 4437.6 29.9 3 11 R 10-405 4480.7 30.2 4523.8 29.9 4566.9 29.4 4609.9 29.5 4653 29.5 4696.1 29.6 4739.2 29.5 4782.3 29.4 4825.4 29.4 4868.5 29.8 4911.5 29.7 4954.6 29.6 4997.7 29.6 5040.8 29.5 5083.9 29.5 5127 29.3 5170 29.3 5213.1 29.2 5256.2 29.2 5299.3 29.0 5342.4 28.6 5385.5 28.3 5428.5 28.4 5471.6 27.9 5514.7 27.7 5557.8 27.3 5600.9 26.9 5644 26.4 5687 26.3 5730.1 25.8 5773.2 26.1 5816.3 25.7 5859.4 25.1 5902.5 24.5 5945.5 24.0 5988.6 24.0 6031.7 23.8 6074.8 23.9 6117.9 23.8 6161 23.9 6204 23.9 6247.1 23.7 6290.2 23.7 6333.3 24.3 6376.4 24.6 6419.5 24.8 6462.5 24.9 6505.6 25.3 6548.7 25.8 6591.8 26.3 6634.9 26.4 6678 26.7 n 10-406 6721 27.0 6764.1 27.1 6807.2 27.2 6850.3 27.4 6893.4 27.5 6936.5 27.5 6979.5 27.3 7022.6 27.2 7065.7 27.4 7108.8 27.5 7151.9 27.4 7195 27.2 7238.1 26.8 7281.1 26.5 7324.2 26.2 7367.3 25.9 7410.4 25.4 7453.5 25.2 7496.6 25.1 7539.6 24.8 7582.7 24.5 7625.8 24.0 7668.9 23.6 7712 23.3 7755.1 23.5 7798.1 23.4 7841.2 23.4 7884.3 23.7 7927.4 23.4 7970.5 23.6 8013.6 23.5 8056.6 23.0 8099.7 22.6 8142.8 22.5 8185.9 22.0 8229 21.7 8272.1 21.6 8315.1 21.5 8358.2 21.2 8401.3 20.9 8444.4 20.7 8487.5 20.6 8530.6 20.7 8573.6 20.6 8616.7 20.6 8659.8 20.6 8702.9 20.2 8746 20.3 8789.1 20.7 8832.1 20.6 8875.2 20.4 8918.3 20.5 5 120 10-407 8961.4 20.8 9004.5 20.6 9047.6 20.2 9090.6 20.1 9133.7 20.1 9176.8 20.3 9219.9 20.4 9263 20.3 9306.1 20.1 9349.2 20.0 9392.2 20.0 9435.3 19.8 9478.4 19.6 9521.5 19.6 9564.6 19.7 9607.7 18.9 9650.7 18.9 9693.8 18.9 9736.9 18.7 9780 18.4 9823.1 18.2 9866.2 18.2 9909.2 18.2 9952.3 18.1 9995.4 18.1 10038.5 17.8 10081.6 17.7 10124.7 17.6 10167.7 17.4 10210.8 17.3 10253.9 17.5 10297 17.2 10340.1 16.7 10383.2 16.9 10426.2 17.2 10469.3 17.3 10512.4 17.1 10555.5 16.5 10598.6 16.2 10641.7 16.5 10684.7 16.7 10727.8 16.6 10770.9 16.5 10814 16.7 10857.1 16.7 10900.2 16.3 10943.2 16.2 10986.3 15.7 11029.4 15.4 11072.5 15.3 11115.6 15.5 11158.7 15.2 R 1 �1 10-408 11201.7 15.0 11244.8 15.0 11287.9 14.7 1133114.3 11374.1 14.2 11417.2 14.2 11460.2 14.1 11503.3 14.1 11546.4 13.5 11589.5 13.2 11632.6 13.0 11675.7 12.3 11718.8 12.2 11761.8 11.9 11804.9 11.3 1184811.1 11891.1 10.7 11934.2 10.7 11977.3 10.6 12020.3 10.3 12063.4 10.2 12106.5 9.8 12149.6 9.5 12192.7 9.1 12235.8 9.0 12278.8 8.6 12321.9 8.1 12365 8.0 12408.1 8.3 12451.2 8.2 12494.3 7.8 12537.3 7.6 12580.4 7.6 12623.5 7.6 12666.6 7.4 12709.7 7.4 12752.8 7.3 12795.8 7.1 12838.9 7.2 128827.0 12925.1 6.7 12968.2 6.7 13011.3 6.8 13054.3 7.1 13097.4 7.3 13140.5 7.1 13183.6 7.0 13226.7 7.2 13269.8 7.0 13312.8 6.9 13355.9 6.8 13399 6.6 7 1-22 10-409 13442.1 6.5 13485.2 6.3 13528.3 6.4 13571.3 6.3 13614.4 6.4 13657.5 6.7 13700.6 6.6 13743.7 6.3 13786.8 6.3 13829.8 6.4 13872.9 6.4 13916 6.4 13959.1 6.3 14002.2 6.3 14045.3 6.3 14088.4 6.0 14131.4 5.6 14174.5 5.4 14217.6 5.4 14260.7 5.1 14303.8 4.6 14346.9 4.4 14389.9 4.1 144333.6 14476.1 3.5 14519.2 3.4 14562.3 3.0 14605.4 3.0 14648.4 2.7 14691.5 2.3 14734.6 1.9 14777.7 1.7 14820.8 1.4 14863.9 1.0 14906.9 0.9 14950 0.5 14993.1 0.2 15036.2 0.0 15079.3 -0.5 15122.4 -0.7 15165.4 -1.0 15208.5 -1.1 15251.6 -1.3 15294.7 -1.6 15337.8 -1.8 15380.9 -2.1 15423.9 -2.4 15467-2.6 15510.1 -2.8 15553.2 -2.9 15596.3 -3.1 15639.4 -3.3 E:? 12S 10-410 15682.4 -3.8 15725.5 -4.1 15768.6 -4.2 15811.7 -4.4 15854.8 -4.9 15897.9 -5.3 15940.9 -5.3 15984-5.6 16027.1 -6.0 16070.2 -6.2 16113.3 -6.4 16156.4 -6.8 16199.4 -7.1 16242.5 -7.1 16285.6 -7.4 16328.7 -7.4 16371.8 -7.6 16414.9 -8.0 16458-8.2 16501-8.3 16544.1 -8.3 16587.2 -8.6 16630.3 -8.8 16673.4 -8.7 16716.5 -8.7 16759.5 -8.7 16802.6 -8.9 16845.7 -9.1 16888.8 -9.1 16931.9 -9.0 16975 -8.7 17018-8.6 17061.1 -9.0 17104.2 -9.3 17147.3 -9.3 17190.4 -9.4 0 124 10-411 Number 27 Start Date 10/5/2022 Start Time 10:44:30 PM End Time 10:46:09 PM Duration 00:01:39 Meas Mode Single Input Range Low Input Type Mic SPL Time Weight LNa Freq Weight Overload No UnderRange No Sensitivity LZeq 57.9 LCeq 54.2 LAeq 37.5 LZFinax 69.4 LCFinax 63.2 LAFinax 59.0 LZFmin 52.2 LCFmin 49.9 LAFmin 34.0 LZE 77.9 LCE 74.2 LAE 57.5 LZpk 80.9 LCpk 80.2 LApk 80.2 LAF1o42.4 LAF2o39.1 LAF5o37.9 LAF8%37.5 LAF10o 37.3 LAF25o 36.4 LAF50% 35.7 LAF90o 34.8 LAF95o 34.7 LAF990 34.3 1/1 Oct. (dBA) 31.5 13.2 63 25.6 125 26.9 250 25.7 500 27.0 1000 29.9 2000 31.2 4000 29.7 8000 29.6 FFT (dBA) Fast dBA 14.82mV/Pa 1 1-25 10-412 0 -Inf 43.1 23.3 86.2 29.6 129.326.9 172.323.4 215.421.9 258.521.5 301.619.4 344.7 19.8 387.8 19.2 430.818.2 473.920.3 517 19.3 560.1 19.3 603.2 20.4 646.3 19.2 689.3 19.4 732.419.6 775.5 19.0 818.619.8 861.720.4 904.820.1 947.8 19.2 990.919.0 1034 19.4 1077.1 19.2 1120.2 20.3 1163.3 20.2 1206.3 18.8 1249.4 18.1 1292.5 17.6 1335.6 18.3 1378.7 18.2 1421.8 16.7 1464.8 16.5 1507.9 18.0 1551 18.5 1594.1 18.4 1637.2 17.8 1680.3 17.9 1723.3 17.1 1766.4 17.2 1809.5 18.1 1852.6 17.7 1895.7 15.8 1938.8 15.5 1981.8 16.3 2024.9 18.5 2068 19.0 2111.1 17.4 2154.2 16.3 2197.3 15.7 2 120 10-413 2240.3 15.8 2283.4 17.0 2326.5 16.5 2369.6 16.9 2412.7 16.3 2455.8 15.2 2498.9 16.2 2541.9 16.8 2585 16.5 2628.1 14.5 2671.2 14.3 2714.3 16.8 2757.4 19.8 2800.4 19.6 2843.5 17.4 2886.6 15.1 2929.7 15.8 2972.8 16.7 3015.9 13.7 3058.9 13.6 3102 15.4 3145.1 16.2 3188.2 15.8 3231.3 15.7 3274.4 13.0 3317.4 13.4 3360.5 15.1 3403.6 12.9 3446.7 11.1 3489.8 12.1 3532.9 12.6 3575.9 13.2 3619 15.0 3662.1 13.8 3705.2 12.3 3748.3 14.1 3791.4 12.4 3834.4 10.5 3877.5 12.2 3920.6 14.1 3963.7 12.2 4006.8 9.8 4049.9 10.2 4092.9 10.7 4136 14.4 4179.1 13.5 4222.2 11.6 4265.3 12.7 4308.4 11.7 4351.4 10.9 4394.5 12.1 4437.6 10.3 3 127- 10-414 4480.7 10.4 4523.8 10.5 4566.9 8.3 4609.9 13.1 4653 16.3 4696.1 11.3 4739.2 8.5 4782.3 11.4 4825.4 15.4 4868.5 13.7 4911.5 8.3 4954.6 14.9 4997.7 16.0 5040.8 14.4 5083.9 14.9 5127 14.7 5170 9.0 5213.1 11.7 5256.2 12.5 5299.3 13.3 5342.4 12.5 5385.5 8.5 5428.5 12.2 5471.6 9.0 5514.7 7.0 5557.8 11.7 5600.9 12.2 5644 11.3 5687 10.0 5730.1 8.1 5773.2 6.9 5816.3 4.7 5859.4 7.6 5902.5 10.5 5945.5 8.8 5988.6 4.3 6031.7 6.4 6074.8 4.0 6117.9 5.8 6161 3.7 6204 5.7 6247.1 7.8 6290.2 4.0 6333.3 11.1 6376.4 10.4 6419.5 7.3 6462.5 6.1 6505.6 5.9 6548.7 7.5 6591.8 10.5 6634.9 11.1 6678 11.7 n 122 10-415 6721 15.3 6764.1 15.9 6807.2 16.6 6850.3 18.8 6893.4 19.2 6936.5 16.2 6979.5 13.4 7022.6 13.4 7065.7 15.1 7108.8 17.4 7151.9 16.5 7195 15.7 7238.1 16.8 7281.1 16.1 7324.2 15.7 7367.3 15.7 7410.4 17.0 7453.5 18.6 7496.6 18.6 7539.6 17.0 7582.7 15.5 7625.8 13.4 7668.9 13.5 7712 14.1 7755.1 13.4 7798.1 10.9 7841.2 8.0 7884.3 8.0 7927.4 7.8 7970.5 8.6 8013.6 11.5 8056.6 10.3 8099.7 7.5 8142.8 9.4 8185.9 8.3 8229 6.7 8272.1 8.1 8315.1 8.0 8358.2 7.6 8401.3 7.9 8444.4 8.6 8487.5 10.7 8530.6 11.8 8573.6 8.9 8616.7 7.5 8659.8 9.1 8702.9 8.4 8746 7.8 8789.1 8.6 8832.1 6.8 8875.2 5.3 8918.3 5.6 5 J-)q 10-416 8961.4 5.8 9004.5 6.2 9047.6 7.6 9090.6 11.4 9133.7 11.9 9176.8 9.8 9219.9 6.9 9263 5.7 9306.1 5.4 9349.2 6.6 9392.2 7.3 9435.3 5.9 9478.4 5.1 9521.5 5.5 9564.6 4.5 9607.7 6.4 9650.7 6.0 9693.8 5.0 9736.9 5.3 9780 5.5 9823.1 4.8 9866.2 5.0 9909.2 6.5 9952.3 6.1 9995.4 7.1 10038.5 5.8 10081.6 4.1 10124.7 4.9 10167.7 4.5 10210.8 4.5 10253.9 4.2 10297 4.8 10340.1 4.1 10383.2 4.2 10426.2 4.3 10469.3 5.7 10512.4 4.7 10555.5 4.3 10598.6 3.9 10641.7 3.6 10684.7 4.0 10727.8 5.4 10770.9 5.0 10814 5.7 10857.1 5.6 10900.2 4.5 10943.2 3.6 10986.3 3.4 11029.4 3.1 11072.5 4.0 11115.6 5.2 11158.7 4.7 M. I S0 10-417 11201.7 2.9 11244.8 2.6 11287.9 2.8 11331 4.7 11374.1 5.2 11417.2 2.5 11460.2 3.2 11503.3 3.6 11546.4 4.4 11589.5 3.2 11632.6 1.7 11675.7 1.1 11718.8 1.6 11761.8 2.9 11804.9 2.0 11848 0.4 11891.1 1.9 11934.2 1.3 11977.3 1.0 12020.3 0.5 12063.4 0.2 12106.5 -0.7 12149.6 0.1 12192.7 1.2 12235.8 0.9 12278.8 1.9 12321.9 2.5 12365 1.2 12408.1 0.1 12451.2 0.6 12494.3 0.3 12537.3 -1.1 12580.4 -2.1 12623.5 -2.2 12666.6 -2.0 12709.7 -2.1 12752.8 -1.3 12795.8 -0.1 12838.9 -0.2 12882-1.0 12925.1 -1.2 12968.2 -1.2 13011.3 -1.2 13054.3 -1.6 13097.4 -1.6 13140.5 -1.3 13183.6 -0.7 13226.7 -1.2 13269.8 -0.1 13312.8 -0.6 13355.9 -1.2 13399-1.2 7 IS-1 10-418 Number 32 Start Date 10/6/2022 Start Time 10:39:05 AM End Time 10:42:50 AM Duration 00:03:45 Meas Mode Single Input Range Low Input Type Mic SPL Time Weight LNa Freq Weight Overload No UnderRange No Sensitivity LZeq 65.3 LCeq 64.1 LAeq 55.2 LZFinax 79.0 LCFinax 78.3 LAFinax 67.3 LZFmin 53.2 LCFmin 50.8 LAFmin 35.9 LZE 88.8 LCE 87.6 LAE 78.7 LZpk 84.5 LCpk 84.6 LApk 81.4 LAF1o65.0 LAF2 0 64.2 LAF5o62.4 LAF8% 61.1 LAF10o 60.1 LAF25o 55.5 LAF50% 44.5 LAF90o 37.2 LAF95o 36.8 LAF990 36.4 1/1 Oct. (dBA) 31.5 18.1 63 35.3 125 42.3 250 42.4 500 45.2 1000 51.3 2000 50.5 4000 43.5 8000 34.1 FFT (dBA) Fast dBA 14.82mV/Pa 1 1�2 10-419 0 -Inf 43.1 29.4 86.2 40.0 129.341.6 172.340.7 215.4 39.0 258.537.5 301.635.7 344.734.7 387.835.2 430.8 36.5 473.937.3 517 37.8 560.138.4 603.2 39.0 646.3 39.5 689.3 40.1 732.440.2 775.540.4 818.641.0 861.741.8 904.8 42.2 947.8 42.4 990.941.8 1034 41.3 1077.1 41.0 1120.2 40.5 1163.3 40.4 1206.3 40.2 1249.4 40.3 1292.5 40.0 1335.6 39.8 1378.7 39.4 1421.8 39.3 1464.8 39.1 1507.9 39.3 1551 39.3 1594.1 39.5 1637.2 39.4 1680.3 39.1 1723.3 39.1 1766.4 39.0 1809.5 38.8 1852.6 38.8 1895.7 38.5 1938.8 38.3 1981.8 37.9 2024.9 37.6 2068 37.5 2111.1 36.9 2154.2 36.5 2197.3 35.9 2 I ss 10-420 2240.3 35.5 2283.4 34.9 2326.5 34.4 2369.6 33.8 2412.7 33.5 2455.8 33.2 2498.9 32.9 2541.9 32.7 2585 32.5 2628.1 32.5 2671.2 32.4 2714.3 32.2 2757.4 32.1 2800.4 31.9 2843.5 31.7 2886.6 31.5 2929.7 31.2 2972.8 31.1 3015.9 31.1 3058.9 31.1 3102 30.9 3145.1 30.8 3188.2 30.5 3231.3 30.3 3274.4 29.9 3317.4 29.8 3360.5 29.7 3403.6 29.6 3446.7 29.4 3489.8 29.4 3532.9 29.0 3575.9 28.5 3619 28.2 3662.1 28.2 3705.2 28.0 3748.3 27.6 3791.4 27.2 3834.4 26.9 3877.5 26.6 3920.6 26.3 3963.7 26.2 4006.8 25.9 4049.9 25.7 4092.9 25.6 4136 25.1 4179.1 24.8 4222.2 24.8 4265.3 24.6 4308.4 24.1 4351.4 23.7 4394.5 23.5 4437.6 23.6 3 1 10-421 4480.7 23.8 4523.8 23.5 4566.9 23.0 4609.9 23.0 4653 23.0 4696.1 23.0 4739.2 22.6 4782.3 22.6 4825.4 22.8 4868.5 22.5 4911.5 22.4 4954.6 22.3 4997.7 22.1 5040.8 22.0 5083.9 22.0 5127 21.8 5170 21.7 5213.1 21.5 5256.2 21.4 5299.3 21.3 5342.4 21.2 5385.5 21.4 5428.5 21.7 5471.6 22.1 5514.7 22.4 5557.8 21.3 5600.9 20.4 5644 19.8 5687 19.2 5730.1 18.4 5773.2 17.9 5816.3 17.6 5859.4 17.4 5902.5 17.2 5945.5 16.9 5988.6 16.5 6031.7 16.2 6074.8 15.8 6117.9 15.5 6161 15.7 6204 15.9 6247.1 15.9 6290.2 16.1 6333.3 16.4 6376.4 16.3 6419.5 16.4 6462.5 16.7 6505.6 16.7 6548.7 16.9 6591.8 17.4 6634.9 17.4 6678 17.4 4 I SS 10-422 6721 17.8 6764.1 18.2 6807.2 18.4 6850.3 18.7 6893.4 19.1 6936.5 19.2 6979.5 18.8 7022.6 18.9 7065.7 18.7 7108.8 18.6 7151.9 18.3 7195 18.0 7238.1 17.7 7281.1 17.5 7324.2 17.1 7367.3 16.8 7410.4 16.4 7453.5 16.2 7496.6 15.9 7539.6 15.6 7582.7 15.4 7625.8 15.1 7668.9 15.1 7712 15.1 7755.1 14.8 7798.1 14.4 7841.2 14.4 7884.3 14.4 7927.4 14.5 7970.5 14.2 8013.6 14.0 8056.6 13.8 8099.7 13.7 8142.8 13.7 8185.9 13.7 8229 13.7 8272.1 13.2 8315.1 13.0 8358.2 13.0 8401.3 12.6 8444.4 12.6 8487.5 12.5 8530.6 12.4 8573.6 12.2 8616.7 12.0 8659.8 11.9 8702.9 11.9 8746 11.9 8789.1 11.8 8832.1 11.9 8875.2 11.7 8918.3 11.8 I S O 10-423 8961.4 11.8 9004.5 11.5 9047.6 11.3 9090.6 11.3 9133.7 11.4 9176.8 11.3 9219.9 11.1 9263 11.0 9306.1 11.1 9349.2 11.3 9392.2 10.9 9435.3 11.0 9478.4 11.2 9521.5 10.9 9564.6 10.8 9607.7 10.8 9650.7 10.7 9693.8 10.8 9736.9 10.8 9780 10.7 9823.1 10.4 9866.2 10.4 9909.2 10.0 9952.3 9.8 9995.4 9.7 10038.5 9.5 10081.6 9.3 10124.7 9.5 10167.7 9.2 10210.8 9.1 10253.9 9.2 10297 9.1 10340.1 9.1 10383.2 9.1 10426.2 9.1 10469.3 9.0 10512.4 9.0 10555.5 8.8 10598.6 8.6 10641.7 8.8 10684.7 8.9 10727.8 8.6 10770.9 8.3 10814 8.4 10857.1 8.3 10900.2 8.2 10943.2 8.2 10986.3 8.1 11029.4 7.8 11072.5 7.6 11115.6 7.4 11158.7 7.4 C. 1-�7 10-424 11201.7 7.3 11244.8 7.0 11287.9 6.8 11331 6.7 11374.1 6.4 11417.2 6.1 11460.2 5.8 11503.3 5.7 11546.4 5.5 11589.5 5.2 11632.6 5.3 11675.7 4.9 11718.8 4.5 11761.8 4.2 11804.9 4.1 118483.8 11891.1 3.6 11934.2 3.3 11977.3 3.2 12020.3 2.9 12063.4 2.9 12106.5 2.5 12149.6 2.3 12192.7 2.3 12235.8 2.1 12278.8 1.8 12321.9 1.6 12365 1.5 12408.1 1.4 12451.2 1.2 12494.3 1.2 12537.3 1.1 12580.4 0.9 12623.5 0.9 12666.6 0.7 12709.7 0.5 12752.8 0.5 12795.8 0.6 12838.9 0.5 12882 0.3 12925.1 0.4 12968.2 0.4 13011.3 0.4 13054.3 0.4 13097.4 0.4 13140.5 0.4 13183.6 0.6 13226.7 0.7 13269.8 0.8 13312.8 0.7 13355.9 0.7 133990.9 7 g 10-425 13442.1 0.8 13485.2 0.9 13528.3 0.9 13571.3 0.8 13614.4 0.9 13657.5 0.9 13700.6 0.8 13743.7 0.8 13786.8 0.7 13829.8 0.7 13872.9 0.5 139160.4 13959.1 0.4 14002.2 0.1 14045.3 0.1 14088.4 0.1 14131.4 0.0 14174.5 0.0 14217.6 0.4 14260.7 0.3 14303.8 -0.5 14346.9 -0.8 14389.9 -0.9 14433-1.3 14476.1 -1.6 14519.2 -1.6 14562.3 -1.8 14605.4 -1.9 14648.4 -2.3 14691.5 -2.5 14734.6 -2.8 14777.7 -2.9 14820.8 -3.0 14863.9 -3.4 14906.9 -3.6 14950-3.8 14993.1 -4.1 15036.2 -4.2 15079.3 -4.5 15122.4 -4.6 15165.4 -4.9 15208.5 -5.1 15251.6 -5.4 15294.7 -5.7 15337.8 -5.9 15380.9 -6.0 15423.9 -6.2 15467 -6.3 15510.1 -6.3 15553.2 -6.4 15596.3 -7.0 15639.4 -7.3 E:? ��� 10-426 15682.4 -7.4 15725.5 -7.9 15768.6 -8.2 15811.7 -8.2 15854.8 -8.6 15897.9 -8.7 15940.9 -8.8 15984-8.9 16027.1 -9.2 16070.2 -9.3 16113.3 -9.5 16156.4 -9.6 16199.4 -9.8 16242.5 -10.2 16285.6 -10.6 16328.7 -10.7 16371.8 -10.8 16414.9 -11.0 16458 -11.3 16501 -11.5 16544.1 -11.5 16587.2 -11.7 16630.3 -11.8 16673.4 -12.0 16716.5 -12.0 16759.5 -12.1 16802.6 -12.1 16845.7 -12.2 16888.8 -12.3 16931.9 -12.3 16975 -12.3 17018-12.4 17061.1 -12.6 17104.2 -12.5 17147.3 -12.6 17190.4 -12.6 0 1-4 0 10-427 13442.1 - 1 . 1 13485.2 -0.6 13528.3 -1.0 13571.3 -1.1 13614.4 -0.8 13657.5 -0.9 13700.6 -1.2 13743.7 -1.0 13786.8 -1.0 13829.8 -1.3 13872.9 -1.1 13916-0.8 13959.1 -0.8 14002.2 -0.5 14045.3 -0.0 14088.4 -0.6 14131.4 -1.4 14174.5 -0.6 14217.6 -0.6 14260.7 -1.7 14303.8 -2.3 14346.9 -1.6 14389.9 -2.1 14433-2.9 14476.1 -2.7 14519.2 -1.6 14562.3 -2.1 14605.4 -3.1 14648.4 -2.1 14691.5 -3.1 14734.6 -4.1 14777.7 -3.3 14820.8 -3.5 14863.9 -4.4 14906.9 -4.4 14950-4.3 14993.1 -4.0 15036.2 -5.1 15079.3 -5.2 15122.4 -5.2 15165.4 -6.1 15208.5 -5.3 15251.6 -5.3 15294.7 -5.9 15337.8 -6.3 15380.9 -6.6 15423.9 -6.9 15467 -7.1 15510.1 -7.3 15553.2 -7.3 15596.3 -7.6 15639.4 -7.6 1 1 10-428 15682.4 -8.1 15725.5 -8.4 15768.6 -8.6 15811.7 -9.1 15854.8 -9.2 15897.9 -9.3 15940.9 -9.0 15984 -9.1 16027.1 -9.3 16070.2 -9.3 16113.3 -9.6 16156.4 -10.3 16199.4 -10.2 16242.5 -10.3 16285.6 -10.3 16328.7 -9.8 16371.8 -10.1 16414.9 -11.0 16458 -11.3 16501 -11.2 16544.1 -11.0 16587.2 -11.5 16630.3 -11.8 16673.4 -10.7 16716.5 -11.0 16759.5 -12.2 16802.6 -11.6 16845.7 -10.7 16888.8 -11.9 16931.9 -11.7 16975 -11.1 17018-11.7 17061.1 -11.8 17104.2 -11.4 17147.3 -11.8 17190.4 -12.1 0 142 10-429 Yanchar Design & Consulting Group ATTACHMENT 2 Drawing No. 6011-01 - Building Layout 14 3 10-430 HOUR FIRE WALL. THIS WALL ONLY. 1� EVE INLET THROUGH BOXOUT IN FLOOR r NPOINTS, TYP 4 CORNERS DETAILS TAILS OF SIZE DETERMINED IN PE CALCS d) r7 15'-10„ 20 20'-9" LAYOUT VIEW D C' 15'-10" 7 XF. S' SVE DISCHARG NO L055 STACK WITH B' OU ER PIPE, PVC MATERIAL D' C A A' ROOF VIEW 8„ VIEW B—D' DISCHARGE VIL' Y11 A —A LOUVERS -WHITE TRIM TYP. LAP SIDING, PAINTED SLATE ROCK ' 3-6" PPROX RED WHITE LOCKING INDUSTRIAL STYLE VIEW D—D' DOOR KNOB ;HES TO HAVE ASKET �BRICATED JVERS AND TRIM REV I\ L V 1 J 1 U I N J DESCRIPTION DATE DWN I * DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES * DO NOT SCALE DRAWING THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OE H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. H2K Technologies, Inc. 7650 Commerce St. Corcoran. MN 56340, Tel: 763-746-9900 (C�2014 WSP USA ENVIRONMENT & INFASTRUCTURE INC. NEWPORT BEACH, CA r B U I L D I N G LAYOUT SHEET 1 OF 1 F REVISIONS PER SUBMITTAL REVIEW 10/22 MK DRAWING NO.: 6011-01 G ANGED TITLE BLOCK/LOUVER DIM 11/22 MK DESIGNED BY: MK H ADDED FIRE WALL NOTE 12/22 MK PROJECT MOR.: MK D CHANGED STACK LOCATION ADDED DETAIL 1 8/22 MK E CHANGED TO MEAL SIDING 10/22 MK PROJECT NO.: 6011 10-431 Attachment No. PC 7 Alternative Locations Analysis 1-4 5 10-432 1-4 0 10-433 Alternative Location Analysis Soil Vapor Extraction System Bayridge Park (Parcel 10) Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Project File No: PA2022-0180 February 15, 2023 1-47 10-434 DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY/REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (FS/RAP) Draft FS/RAP April 9, 2021 • 27 extraction wells • 5 soil vapor treatment systems distributed in parking spaces around the community ChoiM�q+d ' R Outreach • June 3, 2021-- Fact Sheet mailed to community • June 7 — July 9, 2021--Public Comment Period • June 10, 2021--Public Meeting E:xpdanation Existing groundwater monitoring well Prnpased grou ndwater monito ring well 48 Soil gas probe location d klutd-depth soil gas probe location Sal Vapor Extraction montan ng paint $ (installed and sampledl • Grab ground water sample location • Perimemr sail gas probe location lsoconcentration lines based on the most recent data (.fanuary-IRarch 2021j from samples located B to 16 feet below ground surface Residential 7C E isoconoentration in pw'm' Proposed so] vapor extiaclion well pairs SVE piping ❑ Proposed SVE Skid Location Pssu med radius of influence of ttie extraction well pair (70 ft radius) 0 LJ Elaundary of Parcel l 0-13ayridge Park F ALTERNATLVE 3 SO]L VAPOR EXTRACTION LAYOUT PARCEL 10 Former Fard Aeronutronic Property Newport Beach, California Kul - r:t Mo. 9620297Sp7d.3C WOC)d' Val: 04/W2011 Fgurt20 i4 2 10-435 ALTERNATLVE 3 SO]L VAPOR EXTRACTION LAYOUT PARCEL 10 Former Fard Aeronutronic Property Newport Beach, California Kul - r:t Mo. 9620297Sp7d.3C WOC)d' Val: 04/W2011 Fgurt20 i4 2 10-435 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED IN 2021 Comments Received During Public Comment Period • SVE Layout (12 comments) • Parking Impacts (13 comments) • Asphalt Impacts (13 comments) • Quality of Life Impacts (8 comments) • Request for More Information (5 comments) • Mitigation/Compensation (2 comments) • Other (4 comments) "No SVE Skids will be permitted within the complex. Locations within the exterior streetscapes/ROW will be considered subject to HOA, Ford & City agreement..." "The proposed five SVE skids stationed in the parking stalls approximately a year not only compound the parking shortage issue but are unsightly and will certainly affect the values of our homes..." 'As a resident of the Bayridge community, 1 support a prompt remediation. However, your proposed plan is so intrusive. My hope is that all interested parties... you, Wood, Ford, and our Board of Directors can come up with a plan that utilizes a smaller footprint, minimizes tearing up of our streets and minimizes the general disruption to our daily lives..." yJ Boards j .,,I +M hIINYNY4�� ��iur Boaj ds Santa Ana Regional Water OuaJlty Control Board TO' VYhorn It May Concem FROM- Jes-s4ca Law. P.G Engineering Geotogisl Sile Cleanup Program DATE: August 25. 2021 SUBJECT: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PERTAINING TO PUBIJC: COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING THE DRAFT FEASIBILfTY STUDYIREMEDIAL ACTION PLAN — PARCEC 10. FOR THE FORMER FORD AERONUTRONICS FACILITY LOCATED AT 1000 FORD ROAD, NEV+VPtJRT BEACH. CALIFORNIA (GEOTRAC KER ID #SL199023OU: PCA #1080200) 1A INTRODUCTION This Respowyaness Summary has been prepared by the Santa Ara Regional Water Qualify Cmu-N Board (WarerBoard) and responds to all public commerrts received during the 33-day pubk oofnment period on the Drarf Feasrbrlrfy StudylRerrredraf AcJian Plan — Parcel PO 6Draft FGiRAP) for the Former Ford Aeron Aronics Facility at 1000 Ford Road in Newport 8aach (Site). Parcel 10, aiso known as the Bayridge Park HDnieawners Association as located at the northem pDMcp of the Site. This Responsiveness 3umrpary has been incorporated as Appendix B to the Final FSIRAP. 2.0 BACKGROUND Rayi idge Park (Parcel 10). which is IDcatec at the northern portion of the Site. comprises 11.5 acres Df she larger farmer 200-acre Ford Aeronutmnics facility. In 1979. the Parcel 10 properL-r was sold and developed into condominiums under t'te name of Bayi idge Parts_ The fom rer Ford A mnutronics facility pnnmdiy operated m All comments were responded to in a Responsiveness Summary included in the Final Draft of the FS/RAP August 25, 2021. 1- 4.9 10-436 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Locations considered • Within Bayridge Park • Along Bison Avenue • Along Country Club Drive Criteria Considered • Disruption to neighborhood • Construction duration • Construction footprint within community walls • Proximity to homes • Proximity to windows, garages, vs walls • Impact on parking • Parking congestion worse in portions of the community than others • Permitting complexity • Setbacks from public right of way • Moratorium on Bison • Implementation complexity • Slope stability • Disruption of mature landscaping • Accessibility for construction equipment • Power connection complexity • Distance from source • Voltage drop ISO 10-437 FPP AM " 4 ' Parking areas: 4k Heavily impacted and/or close to residences. The HOA has denied use of any 0A of these parking areas even for temporary field visits. Staff park offsite nd walk in. IF Parkingaconcerns raised at every cmmunity meetin•lip Ado og Ik A,, 40b 4 IN& A 6 t; IQJ 4 10 [Not Pictured] #4 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- BAYRIDGE PARK _. A Placement of the treatment system here is infeasible for the following reasons: • 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 p increase construction by —2 months • Widening the trench to include electrical conductors around Hartford Drive creates conflicts with existing utilities. r ■f HOA has said parking in northwest corner is not as impacted. I C Additional 5VE Pipe Trenching �i • T i • �� 'Ned."? }� " Additional Electrical Conduit Trenching Ab. ANIL- i J� 15S 10-440 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 View from intersection of Bison Ave and Country Club Drive looking west along Bison Ave 1 r 10-441 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- Country Club Drive ALONG COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE • Reviewed all feasible locations along Country Club Drive. • Northern portion of Country Club Drive - toward Bison Avenue • Middle Portion - Adjacent to 94 Hartford • Southern portion of Country Club Drive -toward One Ford Road Community 1-55 10-442 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- Country Club Drive • Northern -Would require significant grading and potentially impact stability of existing retaining walls. • Southern -insufficient space to maintain sidewalk throughway *-S.. �a aoa�v a Northern View from Bison Ave looking south along the sidewalk between Country Club Drive and Bayridge Park Southern# r View looking south along the sidewalk between Country Club Drive and Bayridge Park approaching the One Ford Road Gate 150 10-443 PROPOSED LOCATION ALONG COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE Worked with the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association Board to select this location. 1-5 j 10-444 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS -Summary Disruption to Proximity to Impact on Permitting Implementation Power Connection Option Description Communications Neighborhood Homes Parking Complexity Complexity Complexity Bayridge Park- 5 small - Community Mailer 6/3/21, Public comment 1 systems in parking spots 6/7-7/9/21, Public meeting 6/10/21 High Low Infeasibl Low Medium Medium (FS/RAP) HOA did not approve use of parking spaces. Proposed by City on 2/15/23 Disruption of mature landscaping and BayridgePark-Landscaped drainage 2 Areas between homes Inaccessibility for construction equipment High hmm High Low Medium Infeasible Medium Does not solve the proximity to homes issue - Proposed by City on 2/15/23 Bayridge Park - 2-3 Parking -All parking areas within project limits are 3 spots in eastern half of restricted by HOA MOU High Medium I nfeasibI91 Low Low Low community. -Parking impacts are concern at every public meeting Proposed by City on 2/15/23 Northwest corner parking area less Bayridge Park -Larger impacted 4 treatment system across - Significantincreaseinlinearfeetof High Low Medium Low High Infeasible parking spots - northwest trenching required and construction duration corner of neighborhood _Voltage drop over additional distance not to code - Discussion with City about setback Imr- 5 Bison Ave requirements deemed this infeasible Low Low Low Infeasible High Medium Bison construction moratorium Northern proposed by City 12/21, 6 Along Country Club (norther infeasible due to space limit and retaining Low Medium Low Medium Infea wall impact -Southern, infeasible due to lack of space Public meeting 11/4/21 and 1/18/23 Country Club Drive - City LTP process resulted in comments from 7 adjacent to 94 Hartford 3 nearest residents with concerns about the Low High Low Medium Low Low (Final FS/RAP & RDI P) location. 11 �g 10-445 FINAL FS/RAP Final FS/RAP August 25, Design updated per pub comments • 28 extraction wells • 1 vapor treatment sy! located outside of the the community along Club Drive f e'lii 7 448 Explena&M Ex'a1lrggmun�wjbErrn,anlb3ring e'E' — -rocxszd gmundwaler montor ig Ka11 $ m Pnosed sail aapa 2x`rdc'Im wall palN A soli gas pnme ocaean A Mart -depth sail gas arc-e lacallan soli Vat-Y Exlacllor rnDPI Og pant 3Lneta:lee and samv�edj ■ Slat?gsourd'NaWTSWalelacaL'an * PerrPre eo11 gas pr_.ae IaraLan la000ncentrsilon linen broad on the most recent data JJanuary-Marzh 20211 Prom samples roca[ed 8 to 16 feel brrlow gm un d eur[s c3 �3rayTCE rc[ :icer.1m.mi n — SVE p:ping ❑ 3roposed SVE enc.loalc-e Assu'r'edrafts ClrrluLrc or -tea extraction WH', pair (70.Rradil.s L7,1 3mridary of PXCel 10 - Bapridge Part ALTEMAT1VE3 SOH VAPOR EXTRACf1OFi LAYOUT PARUL 10 Former €o:d Ae mn4tnonic Property Newpwt Beach CAlkri i& }� Bx ru.i —. tax 962L3}7107aal wood. na. W,2.20) i r'!I— .20 1 �� 10-446 REMEDIAL DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (RDIP) .. yi•..1ry W:CS `.F A �t RDIP December 22, 2021 Additional design modifications incorporated to reduce number of wells/feet of trenching in the community while still achieving clean up goals • 13 extraction wells • 1 soil vapor treatment system along Country Club Drive. Location selected in coordination with homeowners association Outreach • November 4, 2021 - Public Meeting on RDIP • January 18, 2023 — Public Meeting on construction scheduling C _ I V 1 { .0 i f Al � rl I a{ auE s+=.19.9e I S-0a6nrnu9,ry II la•.,r,Kn. �,., r i �.tiE-9t'S P-0T . r �. SVE.16-W t, m waci Explanation Existng groundwale• monitarng we. Praposec grmmdwater rnon i6aring well ■ Sail gas pz0be taca,'icn ., Soil Vapor Ervactbn montodna pant Permete• sn I gas prone lacaran lsoconce ntratmn 1i ne5 based on the mass recentdata (January -dune 2021), dashed were in€erred Res dental TCE isocancentralion In pg•�Ma `• $ Proposed soil vaparedm6on we: C SVE piping I0 Proposed SVE enclosure CJ Soundary of Parcel 10 - Baprdge Park Area of SVE RemediaMn ;11.100 pq+.,3 TCE) Atbreviations SVE = sail vapor extraction TICE = trichlomethene p pWm'= mlrnograms per chic meter I 'N 501L VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM LAYCJT IE PARCEL10 Former Ford Aeronuwonic gropert} Newport Beach. Cal:farnia i!i-- umc F^c:r Y. No SL::02�Jio wood .,.nwru2• - 3 100 10-447 Attachment No. PC 8 Response to Comments and Public Outreach Overview 1-01 10-448 1-02 10-449 L(Z_�d� RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BAYRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY OBJECTIONS PROJECT FILE NO. PA2022-0180 Former Ford Aeronutronics Property, Newport Beach, CA February 10, 2023 The following responds to comments provided by the residents of Hartford Drive (Sites 10.48, 10.50, and 10.52) in response to Ford/WSP's application for a permit to construct the Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system (Attachment A). The SVE system is being constructed to safely remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in soil from historical aerospace research operations conducted by Ford Motor Company. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) requires this work to provide long-term protection of public health and the environment. 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. The Water Board, Ford, and WSP have been conducting outreach in support of the environmental investigation and potential remediation related to the former Ford aerospace facility since 2018. A summary of the outreach conducted is included in the responses below (Response to Comment 1.4) and further details can be found in Attachment B: Outreach Overview, Attachment C: Information Line Contact Log, and Attachment D: WSP Hartford Residents Contact Log. In addition to these responses, Ford/WSP have attempted to work individually with these residents to resolve their concerns prior to the construction of the system. To date, the residents have declined to engage in conversation. COMMENTER #1, 10.52, BAYRIDGE PARK RESIDENT, FROM JANUARY 24, 2023, EMAIL Comment 1.1: The proposed SVE system is in very close proximity to my windows. I do not have air conditioning and thus have always needed to have my windows open during the summer and fall months for ventilation. The noise levels during construction and the running of the system will cause a very disquieting and stressful atmosphere. It is jeopardizing mine and my immediate neighbor's quality of life. Response 1.1: 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 with very little, if any, community disturbance. Minimizing Construction Impacts: To lessen impacts during construction, the building which houses the treatment system is being built off -site and is designed to blend in with the existing homes in the area. The sequence of events for construction of the treatment system and estimated task durations are anticipated to be as follows. These tasks will be conducted as part Z o3 10-450 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 2 of 12 of the overall construction schedule and there will be some breaks between the construction activities listed. • Fabricate building and treatment system as a unit in Minnesota — 7 months • Prepare treatment system area including removal of vegetation and paving — 3 days • Pour concrete pad on which building will sit — 1 day • Curing of the pad — 4 days • Place prefabricated building on the pad — 1 day • Treatment system connection and commissioning — 5 days • Architectural enhancements — 10 days • Landscaping — 5 days A work notice will be distributed via US mail to all Bayridge owners/occupants no less than 7 days in advance of system installation. Emails, phone calls, and door-to-door canvassing will be implemented, as needed, to keep community members informed of the progress and upcoming work. A dedicated community relations advocate will be present during installation to quickly respond and support finding resolution to concerns. Noise associations with the SVE System: Noise from the system, which will operate 24/7, will be at — and likely a bit lower — than noise levels allowed under the City of Newport Beach noise ordinance requirements. To lessen noise, the system will operate within an enclosed structure that includes sound attenuation insulation covering all four walls and the roof. An Acoustical Engineering Analysis prepared in October 2022 calculated that the noise level at the exterior of the system building will be 48.8 decibels, which is similar to the noise from a common household refrigerator (50 decibels) and consistent with the City of Newport Beach noise limits of 55 decibels from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and 50 decibels from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am (see Newport Beach Municipal Code [NBMC]). Furthermore, it is calculated that the presence of the treatment system will increase the existing ambient noise level adjacent to these residences by less than 1 decibel — a difference which is undetectable to the human ear. Ford has contacted the person(s) who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person(s) has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.2: 1 am a two-time survivor of cancer. / am greatly concerned regarding the exhaust fumes and safety of the SVE system. Since there are not going to be real time results as to air quality how can those directly affected be guaranteed all is operating safely. What if there is some type of natural disaster. Fires, earthquakes etc. could mean disastrous damage to the system, causing grave consequences. Response 1.2: 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 state-of-the-art 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 (immunocompromised individuals, seniors, children, etc.). ZOO' 10-451 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 3 of 12 A robust failure analysis has been conducted to evaluate the system's safety. The pipes are under vacuum so there is no risk of explosion or over -pressurization. The system will be set up with an uninterrupted power source to maintain operation in the event of a loss of power. The building itself is designed to meet all local and state building and fire code requirements. The wall closest to the adjacent building has a two-hour fire rating to protect from both the inside out, and outside in. The building will be secured to a concrete pad, which has been designed and reviewed by California professional structural engineers, using anchors chosen based on specific earthquake risk parameters of the Newport Beach area. The system will be remotely monitored 24/7 and set up with alarms that will immediately call the Operations Manager if the system is not operating properly. The treatment system includes built-in controls which will safely shut the system down in response to an unforeseen disturbance, such as an earthquake or other natural disaster. The built-in controls will notify a designated Operations Manager, electronically alerting this individual of a shutdown or other operational issues, which will trigger emergency response measures. Once the system is shut down, no vapors will be extracted from the ground and the system will not be under any vacuum or pressure that would force the movement or release of vapors. The system will be inspected for any damage or issues that could compromise the system or interior or exterior of the building. Once it is safe to turn the system back on, the Operations Manager will perform a series of tests throughout the piping network and treatment system to check for any cracked pipes or seal leaks that need to be repaired or replaced. Comment 1.3: This project is going to adversely affect all the community's property values. How can you justify only four properties taking the brunt of this and probably being unable to sell or rent during this project. There is no guarantee as to when someone might have to sell nor to the timing of this project. Response 1.3: 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 has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern, including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. If requested, 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. Comment 1.4: Why were the residents not consulted or included in the discussion as to where this system belongs. The original plans were scratched due to concern over visitor parking, Instead, they have decided to place the system 3 feet away from a resident's window with and infant and within feet of two other residences. Response 1 A The Water Board, Ford and WSP have conducted a comprehensive outreach program since 2018 which includes outreach to 11 residential communities and 8 commercial properties within the project study area. During this time, they have distributed 10 Water Board 1015 10-452 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 4 of 12 project fact sheets via US mail and email to over 1,800 addresses; over 100 notices of work to support groundwater monitoring, soil vapor and indoor air investigation activities, and SVE pilot test and pre -construction activities; and held over 25 community meetings to support community understanding and input in the investigation and cleanup process. In addition, there is a project - specific webpage at www.fordnbfacts.com, a project YouTube page at https://tinvurl.com/FordNBYouTube, an electronic repository at the State Water Board's GeoTracker website at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?qlobal id=SL188023848, and a toll -free information line (833-949-3673) that community members can call 24/7 and receive a call back the same or next business day. Specific to Bayridge Park, the Water Board held a 30-day public comment period from June 7 to July 9, 2021 to accept comments on the draft cleanup plan, known as the draft Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan (FS/RAP). The draft FS/RAP describes site conditions and identifies soil vapor extraction as the most appropriate technology to remove vapors in soil below the community. The Water Board also held a virtual public meeting to discuss the draft FS/RAP and accept comments from residents on June 10, 2021. The comment period and public meeting were advertised by a save -the -date postcard sent to all residents in Bayridge Park and a Water Board fact sheet distributed prior to the start of the comment period. During the public meeting, the FS/RAP, was discussed in detail. Residents at the meeting and in comments emailed to the Water Board made it clear that they did not approve of the original plan of the 5 smaller soil vapor treatment systems in their community because it would cause increased construction activities, a reduction in parking spaces, and visual impacts. As a result, and in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA acting as the residents' representative, it was decided to have one treatment system outside of the common area. This decision was documented in the final FS/RAP as well as in a Response to Comments document, which was provided to all those who commented. Two additional meetings were held with Bayridge Park residents in November 2021 and January 2023. The November 2021 meeting was held poolside in their community and the January 2023 meeting was held at the nearby Bonita Creek Community Room, due to concerns of possible rain. During both meetings, the soil vapor treatment system location outside of the community was shared with residents (the resident at 96 Hartford attended both meetings and the resident at 92 Hartford attended the January 2023 meeting). While residents still had concerns about construction impacts and the overall design of the system, the revised location of the system was not questioned. A detailed overview of all outreach conducted in support of the project as well as specific outreach in the Bayridge Park community is included in Attachment B. Ford has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern, including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.5: The original unit included 5+ systems. Please provide information on the efficiency and safety of using 1 large system 3 feet away from residences. Response 1.5: 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 100 10-453 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 5 of 12 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 SVE system treatment buildings. The Water Board and Ford take public comment seriously, and where possible given the parameters of the project, will make adjustments to work. Based on these concerns the system design was re-evaluated to determine if accommodations could be made while still meeting the remedial objectives of removing volatile chemicals from the soil beneath the community. Various design considerations were evaluated including reducing the number of soil vapor extraction wells, consolidation of the five treatment systems into one, adjusting operational parameters, and selecting equipment to minimize noise, among others. The revised design was further evaluated using software called MODFLOW which is widely used in the industry to evaluate soil vapor extraction performance. The model confirmed the revised design with 13 wells and one treatment system would meet remediation performance metrics. Based on the revised design and in close coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA and Bayridge Park residents, the location outside of the community and adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected. In October 2021, Bayridge Park residents were invited to attend a community meeting held on November 4, 2021, providing information on the planning of the Remedial Design and Implementation Plan (RDIP), which describes the SVE system installation and operation details including the revised location. During this meeting, only comments in support of the proposed treatment building location were received. On December 22, 2021, the RDIP was submitted to the Water Board and included a network of 13 extraction well locations tied into a SVE treatment system building adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive. The Water Board approved the RDIP on January 28, 2022. On January 18, 2023, Ford/WSP held another community meeting with Bayridge Park residents to discuss implementation of the SVE system and measures that would be taken to reduce construction impacts to the community. Again, no questions about the location of the treatment building system outside the community were asked and instead questions focused on the design of the building as well as construction impacts from the installation of the 13 wells within the community were the focus of comments. Ford takes community concerns seriously and has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern including, accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.6: What will Ford do for the 4-6 residences DIRECTLY affected by this SVE? Response 1.6: Ford has contacted the person(s) who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern in a manner that is satisfactory and allows this work to move forward. This may include installation of air conditioning units, temporary relocation, and other concessions. To date, the person(s) have declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.7: After my initial submission 1 reread the City of Newport Beach Notice of Public Hearing. The notice states that the proposed project requests a 3.2-foot separation distance Z 07 10-454 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 6 of 12 where the REQUIRED separation is 8 feet between buildings. Please explain and add this concern to my previous submission. Response 1.7: This work is mandated by the Water Board to provide long-term protection of public health and the environment, and the system has been designed to operate safely and efficiently. For these reasons and as indicated in the City of Newport Beach January 26, 2023, Zoning Administrator Staff Report, the project's limited duration qualifies it for construction under a Limited Term Permit, which provides relief from the 8-foot setback developmental standard set forth PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community). The PC-24 document provided standards to follow during the development of the community in 1979 but is more stringent than the requirements of local and state building and fire codes. The location and construction of the treatment system complies with all local and state building and fire safety codes. COMMENTER #2: 10.48, BAYRIDGE PARK RESIDENT, FROM JANUARY 25, 2023, EMAIL Comment 2.1: 1 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. Response 2.1: The system location was selected, after multiple rounds of design document review and public comment and in consultation with the Bayridge Park HOA, 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. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.4 for additional details. Comment 2.2: 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. Response 2.2: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.5. Comment 2.3: 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. Response 2.3: This system was designed with community safety in mind and carefully balances the need to conduct this work while minimizing impacts to the community. The system includes multiple redundancies to ensure that all air discharged is at or below permit discharge limits, that the system will safely shut down in case of a natural disaster, that there will be no vibrations from the system's operation, and that sound will be below what is required in the City of Newport's noise ordinance in residential areas — in this case it will be no louder than a refrigerator. 102 10-455 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 7 of 12 The system is housed in a building that will blend with the existing community and once treatment is done and the Water Board determines the system is no longer needed — the building will be removed, and the area will be restored to like condition. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.5 for additional details. Comment 2.4: 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? Response 2.4: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.2 and response to Comment 1.7. Comment 2.5: Removal of toxins cannot be at 100%. All the toxic vapors 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. Response 2.5: This system has been designed to operate safely in a residential environment and has redundancies to ensure that VOCs are treated and all air that is discharged is at or below the discharge limits in the Air District permit that are set at levels that are protective of the most vulnerable community members. The operation of the SVE system will be overseen by the Water Board and permitted by the Air District. For this specific system, two granular activated carbon filters will remove VOCs and the air that is discharged will be within the limits set by the Air District and monitored regularly to confirm it is protective of the health. Comment 2.6: 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 off -site and analyzed, and there is a minimum of a two -week lag. 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 2.7: 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. Response 2.7: This system has been designed to safely operate in a residential area and the operation will be overseen by the Water Board and Air District. Prior to operation, the pipes and Z 09 10-456 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 8 of 12 connections will be tested to ensure that they are operating efficiently and with no leaks. The piping underlying the streets is under vacuum meaning if there is a leak, the flow of air will be into the pipe, not out of it. The system will operate within all parameters of a permit issued by the Air District and will be regularly maintained and monitored to ensure it is functioning correctly. The impacted vapors already exist below ground and by implementing this remediation system the concentrations in the soil vapor will reduce the risk of intrusion (the process of impacted vapors infiltrating into overlying homes). The system is designed to protect human health and the environment. Ford understands that the location of the unit is distressing to the person who made this comment. Ford has contacted the person who made this comment in an attempt to address this concern, including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 2.8: The noise factor so close to homes is another reason to relocate the building. Possible electrical humming from the equipment. Possible EMF fields. Response 2.8: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.1 regarding noise. 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."' 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 conditioner and having plans in place for temporary relocation, if needed. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 2.9: 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. Response 2.9: The treatment system is anticipated to operate for approximately 12 months. At the end of that timeframe, the Water Board will review the data and determine if additional monitoring and/or remediation is needed. The Water Board may request the system continue to operate for some period of time after the first year (either continuously or in a pulsed fashion). But ultimately, the goal is to remove VOC mass from the subsurface, such that the treatment system can be taken down and the area restored in a timely manner. ' Radiation: Electromagnetic fields (who.int) [ https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and- answers/item/radiation-electromagnetic-fields#:—:text=Some%20members%20of%20the %20public,fatigue%20and%201oss%20of%201ibido.] 270 10-457 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 9 of 12 Comment 2.10: 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. Response 2.10: Should this commentor decide to put this property on the market during the 12 months this system is anticipated to operate, Ford will work with this owner to address this concern. Comment 2.11 and 2.12: 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. Response 2.11 and 2.12: While we recognize that the person who made this comment feels this location is unacceptable, we are confident the system — as designed — can operate safely and effectively for a temporary period. This location was selected following 6 years of community engagement that included a 30-day comment period on the location, public meetings to discuss the location and impacts, and information available through fact sheets, websites and live video recordings of meetings. This location was selected in consultation with the Bayridge Park HOA and Bayridge residents that participated in the public outreach as described above in the response to Comment 1.5. COMMENTER #3: 10.50, BAYRIDGE PARK RESIDENT, FROM JANUARY 25, 2023, EMAIL Comment 3.1: As the primary residence impacted, we did not approve this system location and are requesting an alternate location due to the health and safety concerns listed below. We never received any certified mail regarding the project being directly adjacent to our home. Response 3.1: The Water Board, Ford and WSP have engaged in a 6-year public outreach process that included over 25 meetings, 10 fact sheets, recordings of meetings uploaded to YouTube, a project specific website, and toll -free information hotline. Fact sheets and meeting announcements were emailed and sent to owners/occupants via US mail as well as distributed by the Bayridge HOA, which maintains an email list of owners and occupants. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.4 for additional information. The person who made this comment moved into the community in 2020 and the listing of outreach conducted and contact log (Attachment B through D) demonstrates the extensive outreach conducted including conversations with the person who made this comment. Ford has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern including, accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 3.2: We understand the necessity of the remediation, however 94 Hartford was not the first proposed site. There are multiple sites available in the community that do not violate the building separation requirement. 1 j 1- 10-458 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 10 of 12 Response 3.2: The location was selected in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA and Bayridge Park residents after an extensive public outreach process. Extensive discussions with the City of Newport Beach during the design process were also conducted in order to understand the basis of the separation requirement and whether a temporary structure closer to this would still be safe. This location was selected because it balances the need to do the work while minimizing impacts to the community to the greatest extent possible. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.5 and Comment 1.7 for additional information. Ford has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address and resolve this concern. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 3.3: The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home, including the exhaust that will be adjacent to windows. The project summary states that the required building separation is 8 feet. a. Data must be provided to show the proposed system, violating the required separation distance: i. is deemed safe to be within 3 feet of a residential unit for the proposed length of time ii. the proximity does not adversely affect human health and child development iii. Please include information on the electromagnetic field and/or radiation from the unit and air quality standards from the exhaust b. What are the impacts on fire safety code and potential impacts of an earthquake or other natural disaster since the required separation distance is 8 feet? Response 3.3: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.7. a. There is one discharge point on the top of the building, and that discharge point is located approximately 20 feet away from the window of the 94 Hartford Drive residence. 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). Please refer to the response to Comment 2.6 for additional information on real-time and analytical monitoring and response to Comment 2.8 regarding electromagnetic fields. b. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.2 and Comment 2.7. Comment 3.4: It was stated at the pre -construction meeting that there are no "real time" results of the air samples taken from the exhaust. These samples must be analyzed at the lab. The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from a residence where an infant resides (the required separation is 8 feet). a. How can we be assured that the air quality is safe with an infant inside 24 hours a day? b. If there is a failure in the system, how long can the failure go undetected and what are the consequences? c. Will the residences directly impacted receive air purifiers, new windows, and enhanced monitoring? 1-7 10-459 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 11 of 12 i. Currently, our home has the original windows, installed 35+ years ago; these windows have the glass separated from the metal frame and do not properly seal out wind, dust, or noise. Having the treatment system 3 feet away from the home with this condition of windows will greatly impact quality of life inside the home, including sleep disruptions due to noise impact. Response 3.4: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.7 regarding building separation and the response to Comment 2.6 for additional information on real-time and analytical monitoring. a. The residence of the person who made this comment had their indoor air sampled one time in 2020. Concentrations of chemicals of concern from samples collected within the residence did not exceed regulatory screening levels. WSP has contacted the resident multiple times to request additional sampling as part of the Indoor Air sampling program being conducted for this project. It is recommended to have at least two rounds of sampling in two different seasons (6 months apart) in order to conduct a human -health risk assessment. Once the initial two or more rounds are conducted and the risk assessment is complete, the residence will be placed in a long-term monitoring program at a frequency determined by sampling results but expected to be annually. As with all properties within our Indoor Air Program, if concentrations in indoor air exceed regulatory screening levels as a result of vapor intrusion, air purifiers will be offered and sampling frequency will increase. b. The system will be monitored remotely 24/7 and will be set up with alarms to notify the Operations Manager immediately if the system is not operating properly. The system can be stopped remotely if needed. Please refer to Comment 1.2 for more details. c. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.1. Ford has attempted to contact the person who made this comment to discuss additional measures that can be taken to mitigate noise and monitor indoor air quality. To date, this person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 3.5: The original proposal included 5-6 extraction units; please provide information on the safety of using 1 larger unit that is 3 feet away from a residence, where the required separation is 8 feet. It was stated that the efficacy of using 1 larger unit was determined by computer modeling. a. Please provide data on potential failures among these treatment systems and the impact of residential safety (for example, pipes, electrical failures, fire risk). Response 3.5: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.2 regarding safety and Comment 1.5 regarding design. Comment 3.6: The system unit will affect home values and quality of life. We did not buy our home with plans to have a treatment system directly outside of our main living area window. We will not be able to sell or rent out our home with this treatment system 3 feet away. As stated in the Zoning Administrator Staff Report: "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 visual impact from surrounding residents." 13 10-460 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 12 of 12 a. This location does not reduce visual impact from our residence. This location directly impacts our quality of life and home. Per the renderings, a large pine tree will be removed that is currently in front of our living area window and the system will be directly visible from our main living area window. We have not received notification of this tree being removed. b. Our home was never entered to see the visual impact the system will have from our main living area and the sightlines from 94 Hartford Drive. c. The project summary also states our air conditioning unit "shall be relocated" prior to issuance of the building permits. We did not agree to this relocation of the air conditioning unit. We did not receive notification via certified mail of moving this air conditioning unit. d. The main concerns at the pre -construction meeting were related to construction inconveniences, parking, and aesthetics, instead of health and safety of residents with the system being adjacent to a home that violates the required separation distance. Response 3.6: Please see the following responses to your comments: a. Ford/WSP are attempting to work individually with these residents to resolve their concerns prior to the construction of the system. The system is temporary, and conditions will be restored upon completion of remediation and approval from the Water Board. To date, this person has declined to engage in conversation. b. See Response A above. c. Ford/WSP are attempting to work individually with these residents to resolve their concerns prior to the construction of the system. WSP has called or emailed the resident six times since May of 2022 to attempt to discuss the relocation of the AC Unit. d. Ford/WSP have designed a system that is safe to operate, protects the health of nearby residences and reduces construction impacts to the greatest extent possible. The location of the treatment system has been designed in a manner that will allow it to operate safely and not affect the health of the residents because all vapors will be treated with granulated active carbon prior to being released into the atmosphere. The carbon will effectively treat the vapor and remove the VOC contamination to levels allowed under the permit to operate by the Air District which are set at levels that are protective of sensitive populations. The system will be regularly maintained and monitored weekly to ensure it is operating as designed and overseen by Water Board and Air District staff. Please refer to the Response to Comment 1.7 regarding separation distance. 1-74 10-461 ATTACHMENT A PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION Remediation Project File No: PA2022-0180 175 10-462 From: Sent: January 24, 2023 6:53 PM To: CDD Cc: Tran, Jenny Subject: Objections for hearing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. RE: City of Newport Beach Notice of Public Hearing Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive Project File No: PA2022-0180 1. The proposed SVE system is in very close proximity to my windows. I do not have air conditioning and thus have always needed to have my windows open during the summer and fall months for ventillation. The noise levels during construction and the running of the system will cause a very disquieting and stressful atmosphere. It is jeopardizing mine and my immediate neighbors quality of life. 2. 1 am a two time survivor of cancer. I am greatly concerned regarding the exhaust fumes and safety of the SVE system. Since there are not going to be real time results as to air quality how can those directly affected be guaranteed all is operating safely. What if their is some type of natural disaster. Fires, earthquakes etc. could mean disastrous damage to the system, causing grave consequences. 3. This project is going to adversely effect all the communities property values. How can you justify only four properties taking the brunt of this and probably being unable to sell or rent during this project. There is no guarantee as to when someone might have to sell nor to to the timing of this project. 4. Why were the residents not consulted or included in the discussion as to where this system belongs. The original plans were scratched due to concern over visitor parking, Instead, they have decided to place the system 3 feet away from a residents window with and infant and within feet of two other residences. 5. The original unit included 5+ systems. Please provide information on the efficiency and safety of using 1 large system 3 feet away from residences. z70 10-463 6. What will Ford do for the 4-6 residences DIRECTLY affected by this SVE system. z77 10-464 From: Sent: January 25, 2023 6:15 AM To: CDD Cc: Tran, Jenny Subject: Objections for hearing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. RE: 94 Hartford Ford Aeronutronic Soil Vapor Remediation Project File No: PA2022-0180 After my initial submission I reread the City of Newport Beach Notice of Public Hearing. THe notice states that the proposed project requests a 3.2 foot separation distance where the REQUIRED separation is 8 feet between buildings. Please explain and add this concern to my previous submission. z72 10-465 From: Sent: January 25, 2023 10:12 AM To: CDD Zoom Cc: Tran, Jenny Subject: Time Sensitive: Public Hearing 1/26 Issues on Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning. My name is- and I am a resident and original owner ate Hartford Dr. Newport Beach in Bayridge. Below please find issues that I am raising with regard to the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation project at Bayridge (94 Hartford) in Newport Beach. Project file No: PA2022-0180 Thank you for your review of these points prior to the public hearing on January 26. • 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 off -site and analyzed, and there is a minimum of a two -week lag. 2�" 10-466 • 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. IRO 10-467 From: Sent: January 25, 2023 10:46 AM To: CDD Cc: Tran, Jenny Subject: Notice of Public Hearing Comments for review 1/26/23: 94 Hartford Drive Project File No.: PA2022-0180 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, My name is- and I live ato Hartford Drive. Please see below for review prior to the public hearing on 1/26/23 for Project File No.: PA2022-0180. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Regarding the City of Newport Beach: Notice of Public Hearing -- Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive on Thursday, January 26, 2023: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Location: 94 Harford Drive To Whom It May Concern: We live ato Hartford Drive with our infant son. We have the following concerns regarding the soil vapor remediation treatment system that is proposed to be built directly next to our residence, violating the required separation of 8 feet between buildings. As the primary residence impacted, we did not approve this system location and are requesting an alternate location due to the health and safety concerns listed below. We never received any certified mail regarding the project being directly adjacent to our home. We understand the necessity of the remediation, however 94 Hartford was not the first proposed site. There are multiple sites available in the community that do not violate the building separation requirement. 1. The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home, including the exhaust that will be adjacent to windows. The project summary states that the required building separation is 8 feet. 121 10-468 a. Data must be provided to show the proposed system, violating the required separation distance: i. is deemed safe to be within 3 feet of a residential unit for the proposed length of time ii. the proximity does not adversely affect human health and child development iii. Please include information on the electromagnetic field and/or radiation from the unit and air quality standards from the exhaust b. What are the impacts on fire safety code and potential impacts of an earthquake or other natural disaster since the required separation distance is 8 feet? 2. It was stated at the pre -construction meeting that there are no "real time" results of the air samples taken from the exhaust. These samples must be analyzed at the lab. The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from a residence where an infant resides (the required separation is 8 feet). a. How can we be assured that the air quality is safe with an infant inside 24 hours a day? b. If there is a failure in the system, how long can the failure go undetected and what are the consequences? c. Will the residences directly impacted receive air purifiers, new windows, and enhanced monitoring? i. Currently, our home has the original windows, installed 35+years ago; these windows have the glass separated from the metal frame and do not properly seal out wind, dust, or noise. Having the treatment system 3 feet away from the home with this condition of windows will greatly impact quality of life inside the home, including sleep disruptions due to noise impact. 3. The original proposal included 5-6 extraction units; please provide information on the safety of using 1 larger unit that is 3 feet away from a residence, where the required separation is 8 feet. It was stated that the efficacy of using 1 larger unit was determined by computer modeling. a. Please provide data on potential failures among these treatment systems and the impact of residential safety (for example, pipes, electrical failures, fire risk). 4. The system unit will affect home values and quality of life. We did not buy our home with plans to have a treatment system directly outside of our main living area window. We will not be able to sell or rent out our home with this treatment system 3 feet away. As stated in the Zoning Administrator Staff Report: "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 visual impact from surrounding residents." a. This location does not reduce visual impact from our residence. This location directly impacts our quality of life and home. Per the renderings, a large pine tree will be removed that is currently in front of our living area window and the system will be directly visible from our main living area window. We have not received notification of this tree being removed. b. Our home was never entered to see the visual impact the system will have from our main living area and the sightlines from 94 Hartford Drive. 22 10-469 c. The project summary also states our air conditioning unit "shall be relocated" prior to issuance of the building permits. We did not agree to this relocation of the air conditioning unit. We did not receive notification via certified mail of moving this air conditioning unit. d. The main concerns at the pre -construction meeting were related to construction inconveniences, parking, and aesthetics, instead of health and safety of residents with the system being adjacent to a home that violates the required separation distance. We respectfully request the system to be moved to an alternate location that does not violate the required building separation distance. There are multiple sites in the community that do not violate this. Respectfully, I-RS 10-470 ATTACHMENT B OUTREACH OVERVIEW 124 10-471 ATTACHMENT B OUTREACH OVERVIEW The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), Ford and WSP have conducted a robust outreach program since 2018 that encompasses specific outreach activities for the entire project, which spans an area of 11 residential communities and 8 commercial properties, along with targeted outreach to specific communities within the project area, like Bayridge Park. Project -wide outreach has included: • 10 Water Board project fact sheets distributed via US mail to over 1,800 addresses within the project area and distributed via email to a project email list with over 300 emails. • 4 work notices notifying specific communities of upcoming work in their area, including groundwater monitoring well installation and sampling, soil vapor probe installation and sampling, soil vapor extraction (SVE) pilot test activities, and other activities as directed by the Water Board. • Signed access agreements and ongoing communications with over 350 homes and three commercial properties to test indoor air. Of the homes sampled, 29 have been offered air -purifying units as a short-term mitigation measure to reduce contaminants found in indoor air. 2 Water Board community surveys to determine appropriate outreach methods in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. A project -specific website at www.fordnbfacts.com that includes an overview of the project, investigations/findings, community outreach activities, FAQs and a repository for project documents. • A project YouTube page at https://tinvud.com/FordNBYouTube hosting recordings of all community meetings held since November 2020. A toll -free information line (833-949-3673) that community members can call 2417. Hotline calls are returned the same or next business day and generally all questions are addressed within 1-2 business days. An electronic repository containing all key technical and community outreach documents on the State Water Board's GeoTracker website at: https:/Igeotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=SL188023848. • Over 25 community meetings broken down as follows: o 9 information sessions hosted by the Water Board that are open to all communities impacted by the project. Generally, these are held 1-2 times per year. 0 3 community -specific meetings to discuss a pilot test to determine if SVE was an appropriate remedial technology to address contaminants. 0 8 community -specific meetings to discuss health risk assessments, their results and next steps. 0 5 community -specific meetings to discuss draft remediation plans and provide opportunities for public comment. 0 3 community -specific meetings to discuss the implementation of the SVE system and accept input from residents. o Each of these meetings was noticed via a meeting save the date or invite postcard distributed via US mail and at least 2 email reminders distributed to HOA representatives and residents on the project email list. 125 10-472 As part of this larger outreach program, specific activities were conducted with Bayridge Park residents to ensure they were aware and able to comment on the proposed cleanup plan and the design of the SVE system. This outreach included: A 30-day public comment period held by the Water Board from June 7 to July 9, 2021, on the draft cleanup plan, known as a draft Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan (FSIRAP). The FSIRAP describes the site and environmental conditions, possible remedial technologies to address environmental conditions, and the selection of SVE as the preferred remedial alternative. o A public meeting on the draft FS/RAP was first announced via a save the date postcard mailed on May 12, 2021, and the comment period was noticed via a Water Board fact sheet that was distributed via US mail and email on June 3, 2021. o The virtual public meeting was held on June 10, 2021. At this meeting and in subsequent emailed public comments, the community voiced concerns about having five smaller SVE treatment systems and their overall impact to the community, including increased construction activities, reduction in parking spaces and visual impacts. The Water Board takes public input seriously and as a result of input received on the SVE system location it was decided, in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA and residents to have one treatment system outside of the common area. In August 2021, the Water Board distributed a Response to Comments to all those who provided comments and finalized the FSIRAP. In both the Response to Comments and the FSIRAP it was noted that the original design of five smaller SVE treatment systems would be readjusted to one large SVE treatment system outside of the community in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA. On November 4, 2021, Ford and WSP held a poolside meeting with community residents to provide more information on the design of the SVE system and take community feedback. Residents were notified of this meeting via a postcard that was mailed via US Mail and emailed to HOA representatives in October 2021. Two meeting email reminders were distributed prior to the meeting date. 13 residents attended the meeting, including the resident at 96 Hartford, and as part of that meeting the current proposed location of the SVE treatment system was shown. The community expressed concerns around the design of the treatment system and the overall level of impact to the community during the construction and their feedback was taken into consideration. In response to comments from Bayridge Park residents during the July 2022 project - wide Water Board community meeting, Ford and WSP began sending monthly email updates to residents of Bayridge Park to proactively inform them of the work recently completed in their community, upcoming work, anticipated impacts, and upcoming community meetings. These emails have been distributed monthly since August 2022 to over 170 residents in the community. On January 18, 2023, Ford and WSP held a pre -construction meeting with community residents to provide more information on the construction of the SVE system. Residents were notified of this meeting via a postcard that was mailed via US Mail and emailed to residents in November 2022. This meeting was originally intended to be poolside in the community, but due to the possibility of heavy rains in January 2023, was re -located to the Bonita Creek Community Room. Residents were notified of this change via US Mail and email in early January 2023. An additional email reminder was sent the day before the meeting. 16 residents attended the meeting expressing similar concerns about construction inconveniences including a concern about the location and design of the SVE treatment system. 120 10-218 In addition to this outreach, FordMSP has been in communication with the residents of 92, 94 and 96 Hartford regarding indoor air sampling and the project's proposed SVE system in an attempt to ensure they had a good understanding of the proposed work and an opportunity to ask questions. To date, these residents have declined to engage in conversation. 127 10-219 ATTACHMENT C INFORMATION LINE CONTACT LOG 122 10-220 ATTACHMENT C INFORMATION LINE CONTACT LOG Resident at Property ID 10.52 • 1/18 — texted resident my contact information • 1/19 — received text with picture of Notice of Public Hearing. • 1/19 — called to explain that this was City's notice and she could provide comments but this was not a notice from WSP; discussed concerns; 2-time cancer survivor, too close, noise, emissions, causing her stress which is not good for her health • 1/20 — called and discussed possibility of meeting and indicated would be willing to meet; told her I would call once I had dates • 1/23 — left message • 2/5 — left message • 2/6 — received message stating not interested, this is a complex issue and along with two neighbors I am not open to discussing this system located within 3 feet when it is close to our residences. Resident at Property ID 10.50 • 1/27 — left message • 1/28—emailed • 1/30—emailed and called • 2/1- discussed concerns on a high level; told her wanted to meet and would call to firm up dates • 2/5 — emailed about meeting; left messages • 2/6 - received email not interesting in meeting because location has not changed • 2/6 — sent email asking her to reconsider • 2/9 — received email stating did not want to meet Resident at Property ID 10.48 • 1/27 — left message • 1/28 - emailed • 1/30—emailed • 2/6 — left message • 2/9—email stating not interested in meeting 1g9 10-221 ATTACHMENT D WSP HARTFORD RESIDENTS CONTACT LOG 20 0 10-222 ATTACHMENT D WSP HARTFORD RESIDENTS CONTACT LOG IA_Property_ID CommunicatiorL.Date Communication Time Communiration_Medium WSPStaff Communication_tog_Entry 10.48 10/12/2020 9:25 Phone MLR Called and spoke with resident to remind her of IA sampling appt this week. She provided updated email address: Leechealy@gmail.com 10.48 11/20/2020 2:12 Phone MLR Resident left VM asking about the work that is going on outside her home. 10.48 11/20/2020 3:05 Phone MLR Returned call and left VM for resident asking to let her know what questions she has and I will have someone from our team call her back. 10.48 8/26/2022 14:10 Email MLR Sent Resident an email re: scheduling annual resample. 10.48 10/13/2022 10:17 Phone/email MLR Left VIVI for Resident re: scheduling 1 year resample, and sent followup email. 10.48 11/8/2022 13:34 Phone MLR Called and spoke with Resident. She requested that I call back first week of December as they are in the middle of a big home story e/movin ro ect. 10.48 12/1/2022 16:25 Phone MLR Left VM on both #&#39;s re: scheduling annual resample. 10.48 12/1/2022 16:29 Text MLR Resident sent me a text that they are still not ready to schedule the sampling and requested that I call back after Christmas. 10.48 1/5/2023 14:58 Text MLR Sent Resident a text re: scheduling annual resample. 10.48 1/10/2023 15:41 Phone/email MLR Left VM and sent followup email to schedule annual resample. 10.48 1/23/2023 11:50 Email MLR Resident replied to email and scheduled annual resample for 2/2 & 2/3 at 11am. 20.48 2/23/2023 13:54 Email DHN Resident had reached out via email to Jessica Law on 1/23/23 with questions on the SVE system. Jessica forwarded email to DHN who responded to the list of questions and provided figures (where relevant). 10.48 1/23/2023 16:00 Email DHN Resident followed up to the email with one additional question. DHN provided the additional Information requested. 10.50 6/29/2020 NULL Misc Note Wood Staff Resident (to move out by 6/29/2020) 10.50 6/17/2020 3:00 Phone DHN DHN-6/17/2020-Prospective buyer returned DHN's call. DHN walked her through the overall investgiation, TCE as it relates to preganant women, and ongoing work in Bayridge park. Realtor Karla Stagman returned DHN's call and we got the IA sampling scheduled for after the tenant has moved out on 6/29/2020. DHN discussed with Realtor the process, what happens if results are over screening levels, and the general scope of the investigation. Property will be vacant for sampling, access via lockbox. Realtor to send written permission for access while vacant. Realtor mentioned that the tenant (who Is moving out) had candles. 10.50 7/14/2020 NULL Phone DHN DHN-7/14/2020-With the permission of the owner, DHN spoke with prospective buyer to share the results with her (908-370- 7D03). She expects to close on the property on 7/17/2020 and says that will be their primary residence. I let her know we will be sending her an AA for seasonal sampling in winter 2020. 10.50 10/21/2021 14:19 Phone MLR Left VM for new owner re: scheduling 6 month seasonal resample. 10.S0 10/21/2021 14:20 Email MLR Sent followup email re: scheduling 6 month seasonal resample. 10.50 5/13/2022 11:10 Phone MLR Left VM for Resident re: AC Unit relocation as part of the implementation of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 6/10/2022 14:06 Phone MLR Left VM for Resident re: AC Unit relocation as part of the Implementation of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 8/3/2022 16:52 Phone MLR Left VM for Resident re: AC Unit relocation as part of the implementation of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 8/11/2022 14:47 Email MLR Sent email to REsidert re: AC Unit relocation as part of the install of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 8/22/2022 10:48 Phone MLR Called to reach Resident re: AC unit relocation and was unable to leave a message as the mailbox was full. 10.50 2/20/2023 12:01 Phone DHN Left VM to Resident regarding questions on SVE System and AC Unit. 10.50 1/20/2023 12:04 Email DHN Sent Resident email to answer some questions she had asked Jessica Law and requested her to call for further discussion, 20.50 2/26/2023 12:04 Phone DHN Left VM again trying to reach out to resident regarding her concerns on the SVE System. 10.52 3/5/2020 10:25 Phone MLR MLR-3/5/20-Leslie was at community meeting 3/4/20 and would like her air tested. Called and left VM on 1st # (called 2nd # and it was someone else's #) and explained IA sampling process and asked her to call back to schedule. 10.52 3/9/2020 1A5 Phone MLR MLR-3/9/20-resident returned call and scheudled IA sampling for 3/17 & 3/18/20 at 330pm. 10.52 10/22/2021 15:12 lEmail JIVILR I Emailed resident re: scheduling 6 month resample. 10.52 11/10/2021 15:43 Email MLR Left VM re: scheduling6 month seasonal resample. 10.52 11/29/2022 11:31 Phone/email JIVILR I Left VM and sent followup email re: scheduling 6 month resample. 10.52 1/18/2023 14:46 Phone/email JIVILR I Left VM and sent email re: scheduling 6 month resample. 10-223 Z q �--' 10-224 Attachment No. PC 9 Outreach to the One Ford Road Community Z q 10-225 Zq4 10-226 From: HamannNazaroff, Daniela To: smaauin(@oox.net Cc: Jantzen-Marlon. Candace Subject: Update for Environmental Remediation and One Ford Road Date: Friday, December 9, 2022 1:22:00 PM Attachments: fia 03 prop sa 221209.ndf 0maae001.ona Dear Steve, Thank you again for meeting with us on behalf of One Ford Road to discuss the upcoming construction activities on Country Club Drive. Additional details about the anticipated schedule and impact to the community are provided in this email. Please contact me with any questions or concerns you may have. We appreciate your continued cooperation and understanding. Construction at Bayridge Park/Belcourt Terrace and potential impact to Country Club Drive The following table lists all the planned activities and approximate timing of when construction vehicles and personnel will likely be on Country Club Drive. All of the dates listed are subject to change, but the HOA will be notified at least one week in advance by email of any of the events listed below or any other activities that may impact access on Country Club Drive. We anticipate that resident access through Country Club Drive will be maintained at all times. Flagmen/cones will be utilized, when needed, to help traffic safely navigate past the work zone. Approximate Timing Activity Country Club Use (subject to change) Late January or early Topographical survey & 2-3 person crew and small equipment in roadway. February (approx. 2 utility locating Traffic cones and flagger to manage traffic. days) Mid February (approx. Mobilization of 1 vehicle to transport materials. Traffic cones 3 days) temporary facilities. around vehicle, but all work will be on the side of he road so no other traffic management needed. Early April (approx. 3 Landscaping removal One lane blocked to give crew and equipment Days) and grading at treatment adequate space to work. Some truck traffic in and system site. out of work zone for material transportation. raffic flaggers will be stationed on either side of he work zone to direct traffic. Early April (approx. 3 Conduit crossing under One lane at a time closed for potholing and Days) Country Club monitoring of the horizontal drilling process. Traffic laggers will be stationed on either side of the work zone to direct traffic. Mid April (approx. 5 Construction of concrete 1 concrete truck. Traffic cones around vehicle, but days) pad at treatment system all work will be on the side of the road so no other site traffic management needed. Late May (Approx. 2 Delivery of treatment Large flatbed truck and crane to place building on days) system building concrete pad. One lane blocked to give crew and equipment adequate space to work. Trafficflaggers 10-227 will be stationed on either side of the work zone to direct traffic. 1 day, semi-annually Maintenance events on 2 vehicles to perform work and transport materials after construction system equipment Traffic cones around vehicle, but all work will be on he side of the road so no othertraffic management needed. We will be able to provide more granularity on both the schedule and the traffic control plan for each activity asthe construction start date approaches. tilde planto maintain full transparency with the communityabout whatto expect and when. Additional Investigation within One Ford Road As you know, extensive cleanup/remediation was done within One Ford Road in the 1990s when the formerfacility was decommissioned and redeveloped to residential community. Based on the data collected in the past four years, the Water Board has agreed that no active remediation is needed within One Ford Road, howeverthey have requested 8 additional groundwater monitoring wells and 9 additional soil gas probes be installed within the community to continue to monitorthe below - ground conditions and make sure any residual impacts continue to decrease naturally overtime. This is summarized in a report called the "Remedial Design Implementation Plan" (RDIP) and is available he re: https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads eo_reportf2825709330f5L1SS023S 4S.PDF. The document is long, so I have just attached the figure (Figure 3) that shows the proposed work. • The 9 proposed soil gas probes are shown in yellow squares and will be installed within the roads (not on private property) ■ The S proposed groundwater monitoring wells are shown as green circles and will also be installed in the roads (not on private property) o The proposed locations may be adjusted slightly based on field conditions, underground utilities, or other constraints. • The Water Board has requested that the work begin no laterthan February 20th, 2023. We will mail out a Notice of Work at least 1 week before the work is to begin to all residents within One Ford Road to describe the work and the schedule. That will provide folks with addition@ I details about what to expect, number of days, etc. • Throughout the rest of the year we will need to come back quarterly or semi-annually to sample from these locations. We will notify you priorto that work later in the year. Have a great weekend, Daniela Daniell Hamann-NaxarofP Associate Engineer PE CA C91417 SheEHerlHers 10-228 M+ 1 510-206-6571 WSP USA 555 12th Street, Suite 215 Oakland, CA 94607 USA Wsp.com x9 10-229 Igo 10-230 9o10-230 Attachment No. PC 10 Project Plans 10-231 1919 200 10-232 BAYRIDGE PARK (PARCEL 10) SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM FORMER FORD AERONUTRONIC PROPERTY NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA i —N— du PROJECR SITE SITE LOCATION MAP ,,— PARCEL 10 N 11 . ... . ..... ..... I i mll immu Mill -Irmliffiffilm Mill nl.11mg ON mp-M ml - immml 'j In pv�wwwimww. —N— SITEEMT �c LOCATION SITE VICINITY MAP SITE MAP 20-1 10-488 STR­ ........... S ............. __T IS T.E E-- O'T.E. oll "I I IRI 1111 1-11 TI T11 11 T11 1111111R. I IlEll TI:=,%1" =1"IET 111 —1 L—' IaLICLS 1­ 11—TIIIT 11 "All —RI uPlWsacq I 111E " E"T 1111" 1 IL, TI E 11" 1111L IE 1111111 "ll"T"I" sxl Ico =T 11 �11 1, 711.11 4'l IT " T L L' 'E ST T, I E �I.TROII 1 1— lI 01, =E. E 1101. T._ .E,T. "T E Rl.-Eo-T.Rl IURI- -11— I— 11111111111110" TI I" E111L 11 ==I 1. " —11 MEI 11-1ED 111AL 202 ffel ENTOA ► �. ..�. .� �mME 1gg _ I Am "-' �_ „"'ICI, - _ �A�,!��► I. - Nul!I ,1 owlI�I�I ON fill MKM ■1 I1� 203 10-490 LEGEND MONUMENT NOTES TREATMENT TEM SITE 111-114 4" SYSol" 1W -X GRAPHIC SCALE 2, FEET -hp 61 REVISIONS UTILITYSTATEMENT PREPARED FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK ISITE INFORMATION RECORD . NO. DATE REASONS By �.l N.1 03/02/22 JG R CALVADA SUBMmax�xasrnwsITTAL sunvevim :33, 'r Tt 1 800 F-- 227-2600 E- Iese SHEU 2 OF 4 204 10-491 mm�,Wrl ---- - ------ (FORD DR-- ♦ 4-- FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AT FUTURE TREATMENT SITE REFER TO DRAWING G-5 CITY EASEMENT 6_0" ON EITHER SIDE OF WATER LINE I A- WATER LINE (SEE NOTE 11 IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVESANITINI INEWER LINE 'AL' (SEE 'oTE I) FIRE IGRAXT STORM DMIN LINE (SEE NOTE 1) ELECTRICAL PULL SIX =,UE (SEE NOTE I STREET LIGHT KILL BOX X NOTE Tl TELECOB PULL BOX TELECOB LINE (BE. NOT. LIGHT POST EATENIGGE PASS PROPERTY ,oN"AN, L.. AAHTTANY lElEl NA"lILE — LSGT .T.SUX RAN AN—E lIlNGAJSON MINUIENI IFIER-1 I SOIl GAS PROBE ATER FTERs PERIMETER SOIL GAS PROBE EXTENGE. LIGHT PONT 111UNIIAT11 11NIIINING WELL • WATER CONTROL VALVE ITILTY IlGl— NOTES 1, IGY 01 NE-1 1—" ILLITTILISUNMENTS ARE FROM U11-111" 11 THE =S SYSTEM, . PPLESENTE. .1 I.P.—PINC S.-EY .1 SURFACE FEATURES ' A LEI E.H.N TILII ALI.—NT. ARE — AN -BUST NE, .. Al—UL 1. QEIER. —IF.R EM1111 MAP' '"WNI F"'ll"I ELEIIRLIAL NE—.Rl GUIPLEMENIC. .1 SUR-1 Or . RrACE FEATURES .I. A. INUIR-1— -UL- 3. SOIAL III UTILITY ILIINIENTI IRE rNGS, AN11ILT IFIRRATIl IN NAPI F�HTIREGSESUSTRIGS=RTWORI, SUPPLEMENTED 11 TOlOG-PlIC SURVEY 01 SURFACE A EAT&T UTILITY ILIGIMEHIS IRE IR01 ASIABLI WFOR111101 IN SCI—C IIIS SU= =S=NETWORK, S PPLEMENTED BY TOPOG—C SU— OF VANHOLES. W "Ol"'REFER TO E.— NOTES ON DRAINING G� X. ALL STREETS IN PARCEL 10 ARE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBUC UTIIJI EASEMENTS. rn OW IS IS C, z �o I'm Em 10-492 NO 3 ELEC= INI TELECOM LINES NOT DETECTED BY F 3 cTEO BY GIONISION ON TrerzoAZDZA MENT E---- a_ wATEa uNE OETE F FIELD VERIFY. mC S. WIDTH OF CItt EASEMENT FROM CItt OF NEWVORT -- E —__ — E -- _ _ eBACH vueuc=R oevARTMBNT_ ,g u - E____E_1__E____ E ———— uuoBaGaouao uraav LOCATEa 9E HARTFDRD oNlE E — E — E_--- \\ E____B____E____ E `SESNOUE3 E—_ 94 HARTFORD DRIVE E----E----E----E--_ E I k I N`GR ALLYCLOSEO n AC UNIT \ SURFACING L — — — — RO—------ I I , HI—E CITY BE IN I ,T-' I EEy�33 2 I dab ° SEE NOTEClSEE F Tes�SEE NOTE1g5 o 0 2 ai= oD°o°o SEEN — AREA a o8 d r— .. .. .. ___—___—_—_ SAIR El PIERTY BOUNDARY 'cRET PE` ,tN VATH coN DIESTRI e � � LEGEND ICV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE --- w-- WATER LINE (CITY OF NEWRORT BEACH) --- E -- ELECTRIC LINE (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIsoN) oo ' ---T-- TELECGN UNE(ATaT) • FOuaoATIDN MoxUNENT RASICRETESURFACING �CATI 200 10-493 ezisnxu FEATURES WATER LINE NE STORM DRAIN LINE \ qI"j 41 --E El.DING SHE '`•• -�� GAs LINE e AA.11—sE.ER NAHHDEE Fi ! c a STORM DRAIN ruxxDLE SEWERCI-EAN —Ell _ia•?s I, �' EXTENDED LIGHT rose I -ra , .'ems'---•-e.-;:.-.�....._- n i ■ ------------ g�5 �E m� �y z, �e w' g �'a z a �a 0 00 i Go DATE 12-022 20Y' 10-494 ww ' IA m—m m DIA -=w----w----^--"----w_w____._-w---- DIA. 4^xe �tl�-k s oeceisN eew_6 w 1 A s HARTFORD DR _-i---- -- w _ "_'i .. Ow- _- "--p uw ® caesswn�x rsv. Aae-rm- FAa wuxGrri 4" DIA. —A- I i exxoossveeaurt,owre.s ------------- _ _ _ _ ._ _ . -_ w• Emu p=bscR,Ts-Fi s" - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ 4_._ _ ,._ _ --- r , w i m su�cxe orca _c- _c- 0 20 ouou 200 19 95 �p - -I--pew WELL suE evuux uxe 9 Igo_ SEE DING. 190 185 T 85 0+00 0+50 1+00 1 +5 0 Station HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE 2+00 2+50 2+ 0 LEGEND PH sa= ax m > .:aEo. E.a�w ;' S^DIA. -s.9• ____ wHARTFORD . MINIM MCOVER, 1.5 FEET uT.LM" CLEARANCE xEwrRnaa REOuesreo• �� -5.0' '_ _ _ ®_ ' - SOH 80 Fvc BOIL VAPOR —"'— [xTRAcilou vnouuM urv[ �x ` g g m , I x, $ PIPE BEND n /f _- _ -__ _ __„____ .._ �.. W+E aRIEE CANNEtnaN NOTES f"Fss s —I.N.R M.FNOEO FIFE DEFLE"-`NCH o! a f CROSSES CONCRETE CROW DRAIN, RE E ER AT zW ,o �6 N ACCORDANCE WITH CITY ST ARO OErna les. a �i�.soea. eleay. g QO < 4. DIAMETER CAS ONDE PIPEOuEnErER w nur STHE O . 1 2 xwr RF IxrA 200 20 zoo ^_ ��`"A��a !�8� —it_ xxecrro �e,o-, sEPnlaa,o« �OxVry m19 195 19 95 190, .90 ' 19 190 18 p LL E I. 18 85 2. 0 3+00 3+50 6+p0 4+50 5+00 0*00 0+ 5 Slstion !Z" HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE SVE-10-10 PPIROFILE 209, 10-495 20 205 —DEN— 21 -205 SEE MG 20'­ — ao .1 MA.—_ 2W Do i BE _ 200- _200 nnarwreorvorem—EM 195- 19,_ 190 III C N—E - am sru�o"aooEr"iIs E"WELL TC E SEE C-P D, 19 _�180 185 ­- ------- 1685 8+00 8 '90 Station HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE (CONTINUED) .. 0 0.10 E"' " SVE-10-06 PROFILE 01+00 O.il S"'.'n SVE-,,-O,PROF,LE Ar --- --------- -I" DIA 8" —E- 17 N11C HARTFORD "I - DIA.ar ----------- asc 'DI aN -ir CIA. RD SE. III 1 -.1 ---- ------- - ----E N 8-5 201 20 200- corn EEDA.- 11"NEI 2 00 19i 19, .95 T-0 T-0. ] 0 T-0 sw 0 igo- - 0— 110 185F)o 5i SO B.00 6450 S"U"D HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE +00 74500 .INI....CVFF,1SF­ 16 FORGENERAL N­ REFERTOINAWINGGI. 26 P FIND RIN11"IN IIIINI-111 OEENOTACN_.E.,.NEC_._ DO "o " RE LE.11EE A IFERS.1.111"ll .ENDE. PIPE DERLECT 3. WHERE TRENCH CROSSES CONCRETE CROSS D N REMOVE GITTER By EAW_CUTTINS AT VERI—LE CTI.N NA-.. NINE PIPE BEND ED ME OR TEE CONNECTON NEAREST JOINTS. FIELD VERIFY JOINT ACC.PDANCREEPI'T.CCE -­ 7TAR�'NARD DETAIL 1W MATCHING EXISTNG WDTH. CONDENSATE SEPARATORS ME THE SAME DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DIAMETER IN THAT 209 10-496 NOTES LEGEND: FEET C% 1 , MINIMUM COVER.1.5IS 11GUE ffi UM ' 4 = e e ___m--- T- -L-- - y_ R---_n_ „_ - - - - EMPTION REWESTEO - 3. WHERE TRENCH CROSSES CONCRETE CROSS u - cx°sscµaRo-u�� m uTreRseexore WESTPORT °°°" 'CT"XnoxvncuuMiwE AT of°.aeav NE].aesT aoluTs. rlEin vEalrvaDlur — _•--`-,o— — ,o-r— ,p___ ,i r w.cv ___ _.._..—.._ ; n..i .„____.__®____m__ ,.ro ..�..— _ .. PIPE BEND oETaa .. ..�—..�..� ..�.._�—.hy— .}e nCCORDnNCE wITN Cm STnNonRo TCNING ExIBTwGwO,N. 6 DIP.___ a__„ ,.00i, cDrv°ervsaTe ._ ._ __ L---„_-1_„__-„-__-„--_ M- --„- --I..-- ® wve OR TEE CONNECTION J �__ .,-1— M sevuuTox -^^ "----"- "----"- 4. coM.Pry TE SEP—TORS SEETNE'E-F ---- oInMETERa rNE PIPE o_'F IN TNaT SECTION. �q 20 205 rc sw° a, °sc.Naay.n rcxosseurres. see x°Tea seanru*ox 2 /c.°sseuC.-x°Tea --I �-4 200 19 95 o sre1=% LINE Oe.0 ess0 Oe,ss conx ,me 90 0+00 0+80 1+00 Station +01+ 0 20 2+50 2+80 HARTFORD SOUTH PROFILE $ m „ ,ow l wel.Ve,.�T. seeIT ww.w RRE 4-DIA. 4- g HARTFOR 8' DIA imw nP. ' = n eismx, '°vcsx �_ °ea n -2 w 1-2.81 —L. •[ataAi ;I 1 L, �1�, 2 \A--4I&-P,'r-Rl - . ., — M , axu m�� Pie N Ex°xE a' 0 go ®IIIM ®.. B. °wa o 20 20 205 m20 ssaDExxec.ro:,E,°o, a«T°xN,.,oxa - zoo o z a 4 ^ ����a ME o— ol. o,'ss ° ss 90 9a E 121 2+80 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+80 5+pp 0*00 0*25 0+00 0+23 Station Station HARTFORD SOUTH PROFILE SVE-10-04 -04 PROFILE SVE-10-05 PROFILE EEO; 10-497 BBE r m A. s � } _ D 1 _ _LEGEND. �E�FQE o ` "EMP IDNG EnED eENDrv�AGNNMLINE CoPIPE wvE OR TEE CONNECTION a9 ® sc-,o-ots m, NOTES: �_._ _ m �d3 ______..__.__.__ _ t rvERu NOTES, REPr_a TO oaMwirvc T Poa cE c-z. / z. cuavE PlPwc auuswNiDneD grvc MNcu= `DIA. 3 HARTFORDQw DOES nor ACHIEVE DECDeseN Fm 6'DIA. DGNMENT. y Do NOT ExcEEDMMNUFMCTUREas ^ uc,Na re[ MMIMUM RECOMMENDED PIPE �� � 2.9•°.Re� E. g^ DEFLECTION. , WHERE TRENCH GRDEEEE CONCRETE 5a x a ? - - ERIFr�D T DDMEI Er—ENMs D ' a �M" 3 CE a i UTT ___ GUARLDA J _ STANDARD TOHNG a.e ow.sai casmoee� `—. Exe on. soi�wsanaee� COSTNGWDTH. NDEN—E BRN—RS ARE THE BASE CFTFR AS THE PIPE OIMMErERIry TRMT u.D. sEO„Orv. a 20 20s 205 :EP..A.roR I—C IC 20 zoo zoo �� .NOEaE -pew svE VMvsNMUNE ""� 19 19s 195 az �_ ����a /t ��g�� 10 0ass 0ass 0M55 D 0 OR— 9 90 NNOD5+50 8+00 8+50 7+00 7+34 0+00 0+25 Station Station HARTFORD SOUTH PROFILE SVE-10-11D PROFILE DATE 12-022 10-498 -------------- ------------ L ------ A' DIA 4- 6A. WOODBURNE N AFxaTE F V .-j - - a�a_SA 20205 o IA- 2on, 200 �95 1 96, B D, 0 0, x 0+50 1 Do 1.06 Station WO.DBURNE PROFILE c; LEGEND MINIMUM —F. IS FEET E EU.EMIClrH r=&E. NSAT' cRo SCHWPVCWILVAPOR EXTRACTI.N VACUUM LINE sN E E IT] 11PPSENG <anyg ID ME OR TEE CONNECTION 4' DIA. NES OT FOR GENERI NOTES, REFER TO DI-VING 2 2U'R- FIlIlI RUNS MEN FITTNI A C A A.SNIN—E llE'."% " E.1 lUESA'... ENT 1 1 N T C AN I —RE C r—N.NEC ... ENDED PIPE Ja PLECT NI E = 1 0 lAll NO AT NEAREST IOINTSEF ELD PEPLA. S. IUIE' A '11ANIE "' " . a ST.. L'S, AT. Z ARN D'— NIING 'ET'HG "NEPARATORE ARE THE SANIE 4 CONDENSATE S DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DIAMETER IN THAT SECTION [--�IAULT 'Al— —.ECT—PI 200, ,EA no 200, 200 N— NE T. 19& �95 95 19 OF T� —0 86, 1885 oto o-'w J'38 5 0, A Station SIGNS' BRITTANY PROFILE SVE-1 0-11 PROFILE U80A WE 85 212 -N -NDGN�M IGFI 1. —11 —1 IF, 'I 200 0 svevncuun LINE 0- 190 Station BRADBURY PROFILE nS sl ---------- T- SE OROUGH --------------asEE orE CRcsa LEGEND 10 —I.—SPASPEET E-.E.- CL�EARANCE REQUESTED SEE D_ SCH 80R_ ED— EXTR—N IAC rUM L'INE C NNELTTD PIN 05 [D PIPE GEN. _=E CING"' 200 OR ME CONNECTON NOTES I GENERAL NOTES. REFER TO DINGG 2 N�I.RLN HEN FI.IING GLE RIE P P' I 19 ax. :C. LINE 195 DO' ES N.ENT =.IT IIIEEG."I�N HE . NUD'E. PIPE CROSEIG CONCRETE 3IIENITIE 90 i 0-00 0 50 1.00 E'S" SEABOROUGH PROFILE 190 1+50 1 W CHOSEDRAIN,NEW GUTTER By ­ "N. ATN4GETJOjNM FIELD VERIFY JOINT 1-0—ION: .1EllCE �'TANDEA�'NDADCECO�ILDIA.C.—.,N. "ET". "DTHE CONDE—M E —RE ARE THE SANE DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DMETER IN THAT SECTION. —SCALE . MST 11TE 1112 213 10-500 ETECTABLEWARNING TAPE MARKED SVE VACILIUNE (PAV U.. PHALT E.EN PROFILE, 18'MIN STREN MATERIAL :�— (CLSM)SCH � PVC PIPE PATCH GTH 3- SAW CUT TO FULL DEPT A CORE ' SANG DEGG NG FOR SEE NOTE'. N 1Y' PLANET RE DEE TABLE (s[EPORAERY PVC END CAP PAOUND PIPE TATION _.—_..__,_ (ev OTHERSI NG NE IA P. -To BuuOwc urvonnDN .—..A RESIDENTIAL WITH Top OFFOR EACNFUL RGGND °NFG MALL DETAa, NOTE: sURFACE RESTOPATION IN ..........M.N vAVEmNr HUTI-ANDS APE OR WALHeD Pvc BENG MATCHEXIUING KwAYS TO ETECiABLE wuwING eeo DEG SC 'SVEVACU UNE' TO DRAwINO TYPICAL SVE VACUUM LINE CONTv TRENCH SECTION STRENGT Low �� sL,ENU HMATERIAL VACUUM LINE ROFILEVIEW NT SYSTEM�� O,O . (cLsml NORMAL WEIGHT T H H CONCRETE B MEER PER svE'� AND PROFILE DRA CIRCULAR CONCRETE COLLPR ELECTRICAL CONDUIT TRENCH SECTI" CoNTROLL GLowssON Pwc =H MATERIAL 0.1%MIN SCH I IC III D. PFA PLAN NNTE 24 wTURE SUMP RISER8IA BO ZFACE ALLAROUND COVER FACTORY MARKED'EVE " 3' END CAP CONDENSATE Pvc SEPARATOR DETAIL / L LDCAT�DN PERPLAN VACUUM LINE AT TREATMENT SYSTEM PLAN VIEW 5 224 10-501 - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ARE 3 THE -L-S OF PRECr B= ==ONS -.1- S-El I TH. -Wl g V DIA, D—E HOLES .-S—N aE SES-S. I H- S.- -2 1S. 1. 0 z WELL S' I I- B- - - - - - - COVER. —RPRAMS -/ SVE WELLHEAD PLAN (TYP.) (13 TOTAL) TO SHOW H-OR U gg5 �g .-PTT F LOE L ID T I 1W T— ER SH . ....... G-1-1-11INT ........ -E ......... �XER THE E.-EER F 'oNl"LED LOW SR'EE 1.-L, ERIr- HIXD OPEN ARM . (L-, . . . . . . .......... 0 To- ....... Sri FRAME I*LD' "E, SEAL 11H All,,_ —D 1-1LL =O D CR f 00 PARTIAL SECTION SHOWING COVER MECHANISM 00. 4 0 WELL CASING 2=2 �ulN-SVE WELLHEAD SECTION 10-502 o i, --- ----------------- vrA�rv,alrvA��Esso�a�rv�.rvEw�k , j zo�ol �RElrvsrwL.os�ITFIN,L I _ j IF----------- ____-- -- aAW °� ° °` . .a °e $ <° ° . e , .° ° .TMM � °° •9° ° • ° a ° I n .D�' • a° smsw • • ° ° • a rvo NE LEGEND NOTES: � (nccis�.s rROMI I�u�rorto oRrve arvivi oR GRASSCRETE --w-- EX. WATERLINE FORGENERALEROSION ONTRLTO DRAWING G-2. ss J �IMPLEMENIN TE ACCORDANCE NCEWI WITH ON FOOTPRINT OF FUTURE EX ELECTRIC LINE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. WITH NOTES ON G-2 AND CITY REQUIREMENTS. l TREATMENT SYSTEM 3. DURING TH DISABLED DACCES PUBLIC ACCESS, BUILDING --�- EX. TELECOM LINE INCLUDING DISABLED ACCESS, USING DIVERSIONS IF NECESSARY, APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF VEGETATION TO BE 4. REM VEAND REPLACE GRASSSCREEEDESIGN WORK FOR TREATMENT REMOVED AC SYSTEM BUILDING AN O INSTALLATION GUIDES. MATCH EXISTING CONSTRUCTION THICKNESS OF GRAVEL BASE. 216 10-503 awro a �oE. G m s Eo oA mi a o.� �o E�E, ENTP-101 P��aEl.. ta.01 i� 1 DETAIL OF STONE CURB �. �E aEE �m �iEe b­—N.— Po m go p = e s i e s , a z ossss. sr s s " s s . s e TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING SITE CROSS-SECTION J NORTH -SOUTH I i I � � wsEo<re .oa GB � I ' _ I I - _sssw✓a.c opix G rtr s n �I a - aen —pb� sate _ __ ________ 020 _____wEov u�.e,voEmox oisiumsco�s \ xnuu awvuuai C0/ /LLxEFutsNO uNosCASN6 Nm.ESE // / - irvcio D1_4c,om D / / sa,xoniw / / R\ / ,_• _ - - �=m.ax axa� � Exton _ I rom �EiEt..� I I sEvwwsasw 6 g b a�z ;s O yam - ioaa.xxs-, .. � _ � /� AR.R L1� o µt�oa..rP. ------------ TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING SITE CROSS-SECTION I a e�msoxExcxox 1-022 21Y' 10-504 a \ \ !( !) !a 94 _TFO s m a _TFO e o a _TFO sDR. } } \I( ` /f SECOND \ �( _ - _n m_ w_EXHAUST - aow : _ -STORY \ / —WINDOW : ,e. _�EXI q` ) (f § ne ( —EXISTING — CONCRETE q| GAT` SIDEWALK11.4 ( ft ft # R x. . z \ 45 2, ® ` \\ aam NEW CONSTRUCTION eem gem NEW CONSTRUCTION oa< p! FRONT ELEVATION � ELEVATION LOOKING _mG�m_MT _ _E _me_ l §/\D 212 f0 5 5 v ,A a ` Res . w STORM orsaN LINE ELECTRIC LINE GAS TELECOM LINE eR BOUNMAR. U i �il z SANURARI ­ER oLe RMOR,M MaN OLe NET- ENOPOST q } WATER CONTROL VALVE rc F IRRIOanox CONTROL VALVE I - E,EEE,LIGHTFULL .. so w TELEBeMPULLBOX y ° L BAN �n FOUNDATION MONUMENT SOIL GAS 11011 ;oE �7 MoxR ETE:ML LABPRMBeNEWCONSTRUCTION a$ ----------� _ MNBERRRMMNBB�EP�P�NR o L��RE�a�.�ONMLL .€ D\ i ® AREARI:OMPLEPAWDIMORX ASPHAL CONCRETE e _ 1 z, �o '� 4 �Ia GO I JF fi o RERLABEo BEEP�P�N�PLANANRPROXLeMRA,MN�B INTO'g W O Non s 1. weaTHER LMRAT ONT: EXA E Pave WHEN THE ATMOSPHERIC s > ti c, N -- z MACHINE NAULODUMP APPROXIMATELY 62603o FT OF FAILED aUA^Op C a. CLEAN AND APPLv'�ACN COAIIFORPNOPEReONONO of NEW ASPHALT)" rCX"S110 OTR11nOu[ 11Bm SOFTOF PAVemeNTwTXUPTOTVAR 1 XALT IAF,H, COMPACTON� TXCNN 11NT OTASP B. BNUM' EMENTBXALL CONSBT OFAINAL 11EOF -ANT SHOOREGATEANO -- -- _ _ I ®1 RTUMNOUSRNOERMuEEOURSE, ATRaLMxNO CONFORMI 0All COMPACTEO 'T` ON TXE PREPARED BASE COURSE AND PIACEO NCONFORMrvIMTX TXELNEB w Q j GRADESANOMMENsONSSN ON THE ORAWNBBORABDIRECTED B.THE _ s a a ENE Bo . BPXaLTTOMaMUMCOMPACTONUBNGMACXNERH! s lip --A IN NEasNEARL. MMMP� N CONCRETE IA' IA' CUTS 'HALL IS 1ER=1 - ��. a EOFTHEEMMMEERE68ON8 M,:oNDICTICWaTERFL000TESTNTHEPRESEPARALLEL TO THE CENTERUNE OF THE 'REN NR1—LE oM'LETaNOFALLPA N�oPERTONs �s�E F COC IWIIM NT XN FORMLr AND 1oRRe1T B RO BATHB No oEP — _ ,B a MO11MA ON'a°SIN;.OE'AE ,oaEaE AAR o°oPao oEAMINIMUM—N. ,z,z�B„ FHATXFR.F-Pe NTSWBLNUTXePe_mEU EUINTHIS E­ �9 10-506 mm- -z vure N.R- .TC> Z x- 'All l�NU. WMW ]D 'zr "E- :mr. xwxx (er'- —El 11 1 Y=l Z= =o.IE P— z. 90 01 4:5 az > z 2. z N— �E 00 PPI- —E- 220 10-507 —R°°oUID DLUTON — — SEPARATOR AIR VALVE FILTER FILTER R—v LOSE BLOWERS — COOLER PHASE GRANULAR ACED CARBON § $ a 4g y €a $ To ATMOSPHERE ox w a� g 51002 EXTRACTION WELLS i ` r 2 C 10p1B y&y� S g�5 3 gig CI PRIF fQQ H CENTRIFUGAL GTORAGE TPNK CONTAINMENT K PUMP Q 2: O N W U O a 2 3 -_ 4 5 i S a _ __ IVoI neVC Flow ate s f _ Ec1 DE7 ; a67 _S67-062_--- F£2_ Vol is Flw (acf,, Z5 1 93_3_ 7a7 97 94 7GQ r+-let __ Ta _ -Tieg 1 Ei TEmp. F; 50 6J 375 _ .._.._.._.___ �ressure ICJ JE gC �yg� 8— ° 1ps�a; 10.5 1.04 I 15.5 f5.2 15.0 I —T 14.7 I aae _ [3e�sAi (I>,1 f 0054 C.05%1 f'065 Puss Pa a[ (t�hr] L 3013 301'! 0073 0672 303 OJ72 3J13 .- iRFrscALE _�613 F Reawe 4.rmidy '; 1J:1 160 ti � _3,013 1_ 40 afs 55 R§L-a 10-508 BUILDING BOUN-Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � /` \ , TM -T. 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ IIE� E =T= V=V AZT 1, I-R ------------------------ --------------------------- I 222 10-509 GENERAL NOTES w p� KEY NOTES o �s �g q uame.uu.oa..wcusews,i �> i.sioErsr.,rww:..srrww.si.ai manrvow .� IN ft o a 4 1— 86223971 8£ .weow..wauxioni�.r w..w w?M :¢�� PS gi wimwa,wow�� £_ s �n FF 223 10-510 a .eu vac PANEL HER 1 . SEVE UNL T THNOJGH BaKOJT IN —CR OEIAILI CR SIll OEIERNINE0 11 HE uLcs _ s'—ta" 13'-5" APPROX 12' s 10'-2" P.�HIIRIN L 10 7, 20' LAYOUT VIEW VIEW B—B' LOCIING TEEL LAP SIDING, PA-ED sure ROCK VIEW D—D' DOOR KNOB TRIAL STYLE B' B STEEL PC.,C' 3'-6" D ,�ELDED e OUTER THE, PVC MATERIAL 12 _ HAVE L.D AN 15-10" CLUSTUI EABRIEATED e PIPE. PAD HATERIAL Fr— T 8„ B LDJv E'er LOUVERS 4,-7„ A ROOF VIEW A' GERRIN VIEW A —A' LOUVERS VIEW C—C' ERs ERs AND TR N REVISIONS N�IMENOiONs ARE �NHINCH • S HE E MA MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY ArvD SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF 12K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE TIE USE OF MATERIOLS AND INFORMATION IIN ION LNG TAL FOR THE "MIT" THE EOJIPF IN solo BY AND TECHNOLOGIES. INC. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. ♦ \ _ --►��� :H2K —`� Technologies, Inc. 1550 Commerce St. Corcoran, MN 55340, Tel: 263-7C6-9900©2014 PROJECT TITLE: WSP USA ENVIRONMENT & INFASTRUCTURE INC. NEWPORT BEACH, CA RAWING TITLE: OgUILDING LAYOUT SHEET 1 OF 1 EV DESCRIPTION OaTE own RCASIONS PER SUBMmAL REVIEW 10/2 ORAwlrvc n0.. 6�11—[)1 G CHANGED TRLE BLOCK/LOUVER DIM it/22 MK DESIGNED BY: M H E wA1u NOTE 12/22 M D 8/22 CHANGED TO METAL SIDING 10/22 JECT NO.. 5011 224 10-511 HOUR FIRE WALL THIS WALL Mom ARGON DISCHARGE TO STACK O IPING FROM HEAT E—NGER TO CARBON INLET Y _ 2,_9,. EL ACCES X'L---> LAYOUT VIEW VIEW X—X' VIEW Y—Y' REVISIONS SE MATERIALS ARE PRQPRIETARr —► H2K RRD EET T,T E: RAW,NG T,T E: � WSP USA ENVIRONMENT SHEET , of , ADDED s/22 x iicHrsio�ociESMIHc. E_F SHALL NA -HE ♦ & INFASTRUCTURE INC EOILOING I —NO NO, RB rtiPt PANEL MK USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION ELEVATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF wSTnLLING NEWPORT BEACH, CA ED011-03A c oCK/ANCHORS 11/22 M AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD By CROSS SECTIONS ,2/zz M N2K TEcnnoLoclEs. INC, NOT To BE �- Technologies, Inc 0 ADDED 2 HOUR FIRE RADNG H D REPRODUCED 'MiHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. ECT NO.. 6 „ ommerce omomn. IN 55340. Tel. ]e}—]46-9900®2014 Vr ,L IIII IIII �•�'' o 0 -_� �� ■ 44 a 10-512 TYP. ROOF JOIST DETAIL mo � °" \ tCxwSTM,Cnox. NNG^CNPEO a,IIDING, ME nB FYo Low TO —PTMm�RwR00R/GCEIaxCwNnwsED 20 1 TYP 2 HOUR FIRE RATED WALL PANEL SECTION DETAIL � TYP. STANDARD WALL PANEL SECTION DETAIL 0 Un POTS TYP. W LL PANEL SECTION DETAIL N.T.S. am TYP. CORNER ROLT DOWN DETAIL REVISION SE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY iicwSioAoclESMlec. R_RONALL OF USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY NZN TECNNOWGES. INC. NOT TO DE H2KWSP �- Technologies, Inc PRD"ET TITLE: ENVIRONMENT & INFASTRUCTURF INC. NEwPaRT BEACH, CA DRnvIND TITLE: WELDED STEEL ENCLOSURE ISOMETRIC CONSTRUCTION DETAIL DRAWING SHEET I DF Ra eEW i /zz M�HFI DRAvnNC No.: 6011-04 S/zz M NMR C 12/22 MR MGR.: 0 CNwGED SREETROCR DESCRIPDON +z/zz M N DATE: of/Gz/zozz PROJECT NO.. GOtt REPRODUCED 'RTHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. 7550 o—l- 11, C.-- MN 55340. Tel. 983-7-99000)2011 22c 10-513 /'oM aD '.E F.NEL NER 4 J2 2' LLLLLLd 6" 20' SKID FRAMEWORK 116' TOP PLATE FLOOR 6 3/ 1 6' 21DN ENTERONST DrED ARDOR E SKID HEIGHT DETAIL - NOT TO SCALE SKID TOP PLATE 11 v Iv TNESE MATERwLs ARE PROPRIETARr ♦ SHEET t DF t DIE wsP usA ENVIRONNENr a SKID WELDMENT y//z2 W TECHNOLOGIES Mwc. euriR SHALL NAMEEZTHE �� iNFASTRUCTURE INC DRAwwc no.. E NF DETAILEW t0/22 MK USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING H2ry NEWPORT BEACH, CA 50I1—g7B C EOCK/ANCHORS tt/22 M AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY t2/2z M H2K TECHNOLocIEs. wc. NOT To DE �- Technologies, Inc oanlcn un soli REPRODUCED —OUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Assn uN ssi,n r.l Tsi-TAs-nnnnml�nia 227 10-514 INCOMING POWER SUPPLY .Tx Ma«MD ,I Ex aA-JEs . ------------------------- I D x •w�-}i T TD P.— PANEL I ,L 2 � � -_ = - I �- s�na vea »x I i I�---, 1 F 0� y= r-L -J -�- LK-�D.M ssnw ssNw , � Cam: -Jw Irk �eLK_eNv¢i 3 { 0 { I NEDTa.L a.a — 5 RLK-,a — � x-.a——DR �----- �Iso N ` aDL T 6 xEnT Exan eo.=PLA FFa vunv a 56� R 9 �NM -- s 9 ELK-unv A 12 - � I Ij Ij I' I' Ij Ij I IPEK-�EA VR� I I II II I I 13 14 15 16 1] 1er----- - - I j I' II II II Ij j ----------------------------------� M II II II II I I L: —Ps- _ o 0 " 1e a M o D TD Ma"T IN --, 'XI, T L, LNED R. R ,NSTALLJN� ELEETa��J.NJ TD E.N. RNE „ �ET:P DPreaH�NPD R. -------- : �za.z4o�.c JNET.LL�w ELEETaJU— .- i r REY REVISIONS DESCRIRTION DIMENSIONSAREINxINCHEE + TIESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF NICK TECHNOLOGIES. INC, euvER SHALL HAVE THE sE of MATERIALS AND wvoRMATIo" a°o THE LIMITED c`�c`EQUIPMENT"solo"eY AND MAITECNTAINING INC, NOT TO RE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. --�� H2K ----� TN "..' U IES, In g ommecce orcomn, MN 55340, iel. 3-]46-9900©2022 PROJECT TILE: WSP ENVIRONMENT & INFASTRUCTURE INC. NEWPORT BEACH, CA DRA1MrvG TIME: ELECTRICAL SYSTEM SHEET 2 OF e A RELEASE FOR SUBM11c" oRAvnnc No.: 60 —22 UB c DESIc"I+EDRr: Rc Rc °A 220 10-515 Attachment No. PC 3 Draft May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Minutes 10-516 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 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; 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 - Page 2 of 6 10-517 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 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 Page 3 of 6 10-518 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 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. Page 4 of 6 10-519 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 2023 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: None. This item has been removed from the agenda. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM`IVO.4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 5 REPORTSY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANjNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA Deputy Community Development Director Cam II announced that the City Council approved the timeshare and fractional home ownership code amendment and co ercial parking rate amendment, and a second reading of both amendments will take place at the June 23 City ouft4,meeting. He relayed that the General Plan Advisory Committee and General Plan Update Steering Committee mee s are canceled for June 7 due to a conflict with the Corona del Mar Residents Association annual meeting an a tentatively rescheduled for June 12. Furthermore, he noted that the public hearing notice for this meeting was ued before the approved start time change and reflected a 6:30 p.m. start time and future Planning Commission me swill start at 6:00 p.m. Lastly, he announced that the Planning Commission meeting on June 8 is cancelled and the t meeting on June 22 will include an agenda item for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2-0180). ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Page 5 of 6 10-520 Attachment No. PC 4 Revised Treatment System Building Plans 10-521 IT ADJUSTED BUILDING LOCATION FUTURE PAD a _ LOCATION — SECOND FLOOR / WINDOW O of GRAVEL EROSION PROTECTION F�aeuNe � _ � �� ° z88� O 'ss � �I � o00o O ORIGINAL PROPOSE BUILDING LOCATIO \ PEo 0 o TREE REMOVAL — N— — 3.8 ft I vo�o0� 8 TBD BY ARBORIST �,Noso WATER MAIN LOCATED \ -OBRO ON 5/3/2023 _wje� �BAYRI: PAeKeo�e EFFLUENT­Ra'A,Ro _%0 - K + " fn 0 5 10 Feet s P10 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING PLAN VIEW Former Ford Aeronutronic Property ONewport Beach, California By. ENM Pd. No. 862239710 e Date: 5/17/2023 Figure 1 10-522 Attachment No. PC 5 Response to Comments dated June 8, 2023 10-523 June 8, 2023 Project 862239710.01.1 B City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov 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 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: 10-524 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 some 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. 10-525 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 10-526 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 & Infrastr h � D.55d19 z �► izlsi/xuzu Kenn Conner, PE dt� CIVti�- Senior Vice President I/Northern if rnwi ' ub Office Manager Mike Barnes Vice President - Environmental Scientist Program Manager 10-527 City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 5 mb/kc/smm https://wsponIine.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 10-528 ATTACHMENT 1 Responses to Comments Raised at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting 10-529 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(a-)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) 10-530 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 10-531 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 10-532 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. 10-533 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 10-534 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: 1 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: 1 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: 1 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. 10-535 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? 10-536 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. 10-537 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 10-538 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. 10-539 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: 1 [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. 10-540 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? 10-541 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. 10-542 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. 10-543 ATTACHMENT 2 EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging 10-544 What Are Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging? Both soil vapor extraction, or "SVE," and air sparging extract (remove) contaminant vapors from below ground for treatment above ground. Vapors are the gases that form when chemicals evaporate. SVE extracts vapors from the soil above the water table by applying a vacuum to pull the vapors out. Air sparging, on the other hand, pumps air underground to help extract vapors from groundwater and wet soil found beneath the water table. The addition of air makes the chemicals evaporate faster, which makes them easier to extract with another technology, such as SVE. SVE and air sparging are often used together. Both methods are used for chemicals that evaporate easily —like those found in solvents and gasoline. These chemicals are known as "volatile organic compounds," or "VOCs." How Do They Work? Extraction: SVE involves drilling one or more extraction wells into the contaminated soil to a depth above the water table, which must be deeper than 3 feet below the ground surface. Attached to the wells is equipment Vapor Treatment Building lean Compressor for Air Air Sparging —� blower far SUE —\ — (such as a blower or vacuum pump) that creates a vacuum. The vacuum pulls air and vapors through the soil and up the well to the ground surface for treatment. Sometimes the ground must be paved or covered with a tarp to make sure that the vacuum does not pull air from above into the system. Pulling in clean air would reduce the efficiency of the cleanup. The cover also prevents any vapors from escaping from the ground to the air above. Air sparging involves drilling one or more injection wells into the groundwater -soaked soil below the water table. An air compressor at the surface pumps air underground through the wells. As air bubbles through the groundwater, it carries contaminant vapors upward into the soil above the water table. The mixture of air and vapors is then pulled out of the ground for treatment using SVE. Treatment: Extracted air and contaminant vapors, sometimes referred to as "off -gases," are treated to remove any harmful levels of contaminants. The off -gases are first piped from the extraction wells to an air -water separator to remove moisture, which interferes with treatment. The vapors are then separated from the air, usually by pumping them through containers of activated carbon. The carbon captures the chemicals while clean air exits to the atmosphere. (See Community Guide to Granular Activated Carbon Treatment.) Filter materials other than activated carbon may be used. In a process called "biofiltration," tiny microbes (bacteria) are added to break down the vapors into gases, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor. Another option is to destroy vapors by heating them to high temperatures. How Long Will It Take? Cleaning up a site using SVE or air sparging may take several years. The cleanup time will depend on Illustration of a combined air sparging and SVE system. several factors that vary from site to site. For example, SVE and air sparging will take longer where: • Contaminant concentrations are high. • The contaminated area is large or deep. • The soil is dense or moist, which slows the movement of vapors. Are SVE and Air Sparging Safe? When properly designed and operated, SVE and air sparging pose little risk to site workers or the community. Treatment of the vapors involves no harmful chemicals that must be transported to the site. Chemical vapors 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 may be sampled to make sure all harmful vapors have been removed or destroyed. How Might They Affect Me? You may notice some increased truck traffic as the equipment for SVE or air sparging is delivered and later removed. Installation of the systems involves drilling rigs and sometimes other heavy machinery to install wells, blowers and treatment equipment. Sheds or larger buildings may be built to house the treatment systems and keep operating noise to a minimum. Workers will visit these systems regularly to ensure they are working. Why Use Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging? SVE and air sparging are efficient ways to remove VOCs above and below the water table. Both methods can help clean up contamination under buildings and cause little disruption to nearby activities when in full operation. SVE and air sparging have been selected for use at Superfund sites and other cleanup sites across the country. Pipes transport vapors from the underground SVE extraction well to treatment. Aboveground treatment system includes two tanks of activated carbon. NOTE: This fact sheet is intended solely as general information to the public. It is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States, or to endorse the use of products or services provided by specific vendors. Office of Land and Emergency Management (5203P) I EPA-542-F-21-022 1 2021 1 www.clu-in.org 10-546 ATTACHMENT 3 Artist's Rendering of Treatment Building 10-547 Parcel 10 Soil Vapor Extraction System Building l 10-548 ATTACHMENT 4 Community Outreach Summary 10-549 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 May 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #1 Bayridge Park Sampling request letter July 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information August 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Session #1 Save the Date Bayridge Park Water Board Community Fact September 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #2 Bayridge Park Water Board Information September 27, 2018 Civic Center Community Room Session #1 (Open House) 100 Civic Center Drive Water Board Information October 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Session #2 Meeting Invite Bayridge Park Water Board Information November 10, 2018 Civic Center Community Room Session #2 Bayridge Park Session: 100 Civic Center Drive 3:00 — 4:30 p.m. Water Board Information February 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Session #3 Invite Letter Bayridge Park Water Board Information February 28, 2019 Civic Center Community Room Session #3 100 Civic Center Drive Water Board Information April 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Session #4 Save the Date Bayridge Park Water Board Information May 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Session #4 Invite Letter Bayridge Park Water Board Information May 29, 2019 Civic Center Community Room Session #4 Bayridge Park Session: 100 Civic Center Drive 6:30 — 8:00 p.m. Water Board November 2019 September 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #5 Save the Bayridge Park Date Water Board Information October 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Session #5 Invite Letter Bayridge Park Water Board Community Fact October 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #3 Bayridge Park Water Board Information November 7, 2019 Civic Center Community Room Session #5 100 Civic Center Drive Water Board Community Fact February 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #4 Bayridge Park Ford Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) February 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park Pilot Test Meeting Invite residents SVE Pilot Test HOA Meeting March 4, 2020 Bonita Creek Community Room 3010 La Vida 10-550 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 August 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #5 Bayridge Park Water Board November 2020 September 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #6 Save the Bayridge Park Date Water Board November 2020 October 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #6 Invite Bayridge Park Letter Water Board Information November 5, 2020 Zoom Session #6 Water Board Human Health Risk March 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park Assessment (HHRA) and SVE residents Pilot Test Community Meeting Invite Water Board HHRA and SVE April 22, 2021 Zoom Pilot Test Results Meeting Water Board Community Fact April 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #6 Bayridge Park Water Board Draft FS/RAP May 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park Public Meeting Save the Date residents Water Board Draft FS/RAP Fact June 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park Sheet residents Water Board Draft FS/RAP June 7 —July 9, 2021 Comments could be provided Public Comment Period via mail, phone and email Water Board Draft FS/RAP June 10, 2021 Zoom Public Meeting Water Board July 2021 June 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #7 Save the Bayridge Park Date Water Board July 2021 July 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #7 Invite Bayridge Park Letter Water Board Community Fact July 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #7 Bayridge Park Water Board Information July 29, 2021 Civic Center Community Room, Session #7 100 Civic Center Drive, and YouTube Livestream Ford Remedial Design and October 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park Implementation Plan (RDIP) residents Meeting Invite Ford RDIP Meeting November 4, 2021 Bayridge Park community pool February 2022 Information December 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Session #8 Save the Date Bayridge Park 10-551 Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary June 8, 2023 Document Distribution/Meeting Date Location February 2022 Information January 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Session #8 Invite Letter Bayridge Park Water Board Community Fact January 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #8 Bayridge Park Water Board Information February 3, 2022 Zoom Session #8 Notice of Work: Bayridge Park February 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park Groundwater Monitoring Well residents Installation and Sampling Notice of Work: Bayridge Park April 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park Groundwater Monitoring Well residents Installation and Sampling Water Board July 2022 June 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #9 Save the Bayridge Park Date Water Board July 2022 July 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #9 Invite Bayridge Park Letter Water Board Community Fact July 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #9 Bayridge Park Water Board Information July 27, 2022 Civic Center Community Room, Session #9 100 Civic Center Drive, and YouTube Livestream Bayridge Park Monthly Work August 2022 Distributed via email to Update #1 Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work October 2022 Distributed via email to Update #2 Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work November 2022 Distributed via email to Update #3 Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work December 2022 Distributed via email to Update #4 Bayridge Park residents Ford SVE Pre -Construction December 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park Meeting Invite residents Water Board February 2023 December 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #10 Save Bayridge Park the Date Bayridge Park Monthly Work January 2023 Distributed via email to Update #5 Bayridge Park residents Ford SVE Pre -Construction January 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park Meeting Invite #2 (Location residents Change) Ford SVE Pre -Construction January 18, 2023 Bonita Creek Community Room Meeting 3010 La Vida Water Board February 2023 January 2023 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #10 Invite Bayridge Park Letter 10-552 Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary June 8, 2023 Document Distribution/Meeting Date Location Water Board Community Fact January 2023 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #10 Bayridge Park Bayridge Park Monthly Work February 2023 Distributed via email to Update #6 Bayridge Park residents Water Board Information February 2023 Civic Center Community Room, Session #10 100 Civic Center Drive, and YouTube Livestream Bayridge Park Monthly Work March 2023 Distributed via email to Update #7 Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work April 2023 Distributed via email to Update #8 Bayridge Park residents Notice of Work: Utility April 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park Potholing residents Water Board Sub -Slab April 2023 Phone calls to residents within Depressurization (SSD) System Bayridge Park who are Save the Date experiencing vapor intrusion in their home Water Board SSD System May 2023 Distributed to residents within Meeting Invite Letter and SSD Bayridge Park who are Fact Sheet experiencing vapor intrusion in their home Bayridge Park Monthly Work May 2023 Distributed via email to Update #9 Bayridge Park residents Notice of Work: SVE Extraction May 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park Well Installation residents Water Board SSD System May 17, 2023 Residents within Bayridge Park Meeting who are experiencing vapor intrusion in their home SSD System Access Agreement May 2023 Distributed to residents within and What to Expect Handout Bayridge Park who are experiencing vapor intrusion in their home Ford Remediation Update May 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park Meeting Invite residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work June 2023 Distributed via email to Update #10 Bayridge Park residents Ford Remediation Update June 8, 2023 Bayridge Park community pool Meeting 10-553 Attachment No. PC 6 Public Correspondences 10-554 Planning Commission -"18, 2023 item No_ 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutmnic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-18D) From: Amy Sdntelld To: Pldnniw Ccmmissibners; Trdn. Jenny Cc: Kevin Solnmitd Subject; Pldnnirng Commission Meeting Homeowner ubjectimr S.1B.23 Date: Mdy 17, 2023 1:CB;00 PM Attachments: imdge.png Pldnning Commission 5.0.23 Homeowner Obiections 94 Hartford CYive. [E XTER- AL E _'%LX1EL1 DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you reco =e the sender and know the content is safe. Good aiternom Please see below and attached objections for the Planning Commission meeting on Sr 1 8.'2.3. 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, 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: 6WWRIJ C 9.1111 wo M ' • e are continuously assured by Ford-WSP that the sail vapor extraction tout is -`safe" in a residential neighborhood, 3 feet away- frain a home_ Despite this, we HAVE NOT been provided -with any real -life examples of residential treatment systems_ let alone 3 feet away from a home_ NO studies ha3-e ever bee conducted to show the safety- of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. • On 3113123 per email_ I asked Jessica Law and Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff for residential examples of SSE systems_ to see how close they were to houses. as well as to compare the 3-foot proximity to our home_ Per email responses below: 1 _ Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff PE, W P, on 3/13/23 sent 2 examples of dry cleaners, no residential communities_ Daniela noted that the SVE system from Sunni- Dry Cleaners is located 500 feet away from residences_ This is not 10-555 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) comparable to 3 feet. Daniela noted that the SVE system at Campus Cleaners is located 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 of things 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, and no residential examples could be given. Candace stated that these SVE systems are more common in commercial and industrial areas. How is this comparable to a residence with a newborn baby and a toddler living, breathing, and sleeping 3 feet away, 24 hours a day vs. a commercial building or industrial setting? Again, we are continuously "assured" this is "OK" and "permitted," without any data to back up these claims. Ford/WSP has not been able to provide us with any evidence -based examples; 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 the appeal 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-up system took place in 2004. (htws:,/fortordcleanup.com/about/fort-ord-and-brae-historyl). 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. 10-556 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) Phato9re13h 2-6 Granulated Ar.livatcd G.irhon Units 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 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. This distance greatly increases risk to our home. The examples given to us by WSP show SVE systems at commercial sites, 100 feet away 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 has been identified as the most feasible location to reduce the visual impact from surrounding residents. " • This statement shows the primary reason was for aesthetics and this original document did not mention that other locations studied were not feasible. 10-557 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) • 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 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 were infeasible, 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 "would increase construction by 2 months." However, this first level appeal alone has already extended the project a minimum of 5 months. The original hearing was scheduled January 2023. It is now the end of May 2023. Perhaps the team should look at the area 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 to ease 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 never been 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 (taller than our home) and other trees and mature landscaping will be removed from OUR home and disrupt the view from our main living area window. Why was this not included 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 away from a newborn baby and a young toddler at their most vulnerable time of 10-558 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) development. Did Ford hire a parking consultant to alleviate this concern? We just came 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 and adults 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 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 of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the City's approval of the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor 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 extraction unit 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 previously stated, NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. Ford/WSP have FAILED to provide examples of residential units and their claim of a "residential" example was a boarded -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 duration of 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 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. • This response only shows that real-time monitoring will occur ONCE a day for the 10-559 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 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." This confirms that there is no real-time monitoring that accurately shows the total VOC concentration 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 our air 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 a newborn baby soon. There are too many unknowns as reiterated by the fact that NO residential units can be shown to us by Ford/WSP. We are being asked to be the guinea pigs, where there are clearly other options that can be used, that are claimed to be "infeasible" due to PARKING. Respectfully, Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita 10-560 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Item 2 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher(a)-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- 3 9:06 5" 64.1 44-.8 42.2 73 82.6 5" 60.5 10/5/2022 22:44 3" 37.5 3" 34.0 39 -6 59.0 3" 36.4 10/6/2022 10:39 55.2 35.9 67.3 57455.5 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. 10-561 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 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 s*�=:t 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 "(NHI' 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 ParkHomeHomeowners 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 10-562 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 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, 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 j240 square feetl in size...." "7. Additional locations along Country Club Drive were considered providing a greater separation from 94 Hartford Drive. Unfortunately, the andape 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." 10-563 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 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 Homeow-nWs 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 omeo w^Homeowners Association and the One Ford Road Homeownerls 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 Qualify Air Qualit 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.] 10-564 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No_ 2c - Additional Materials Received Aero utmnic Ford Soil Vapor Remediadon Appeal (PA2022-180) From: Lee Healv To; Pldnning Commissioners Subject: COMMENTS: AERE 3PJUTRCNIC FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION APPEAL (PA2022-01B0) Date: May 17, 2023 4:04:56 PM Attachments: Crdip QOmrnunf€dtions.Ddf itdemnifi€ADn.odf GeoTra€ker.pdf Bayr" SVE { )biertions Jan 2D23.docx 013J=ONS TO FORD REM BaATIE3H BAYRIDGE 3223.dnce [EXTERNAL EMAEL] 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 WS P 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 gears, they have been paid millions b the Ford Motor Company to oversee the project. Craig Communications, the PR agency retained by Wood now W PS, brags on its ebsite how well they have managed the communications of "the lamest vapor intrusion project in California and Ford Motor's highest profile envlronmentalproject.(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 Ba ridge 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 gears 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 10-565 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) those carbon filters be full? Monitoring proposals are not satisfactory. We agree the issues need to be addressed. The remediation building needs to be 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 the question: who is the guardian of our well-being in this Newport community? Lee Healy 949.760.3054 92 Hartford Dr Newport Beach CA 92660 LeeCHealyCgmaii.com 10-566 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Helping communities stay informed and Feel Included in the Investigation and Remedial Processicaia No. r 2c - Additional Mat413\Me41 00 AM Aeronu on c Ford il Vo p Appeal A20) 0 Our Work (https:/lcraig-communications.com/case-study) Our Services (https://craig-communications.00m/servicesO Our Firm (https://craig-communications.com/abouil) CASE STUDY Helping communities Stay Informed and Feel Included in the Investigation and Remedial Process Sector Environmental (https://craig- co m m u n icat io ns .com /sector/ environmental/} Services Community Engagement Craig Communications developed and manages the communications program to support indoor air testing within 1400 homes in Newport Beach. This is the largest vapor intrusion project in California and Ford Motor Company's highest profile environmental project CHALLENGE The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) updated its environmentai screening levels for VOCs in 2016 to be more protective of human health and the environment. During routine monitoring of soil and groundwater in 2018, concentrations of VOCs were detected in soil gas above the Water Board's revised environmental screening levels resulting in the Water Board directing our client to conduct extensive environmental assessment (https://craig- activities. These activities included the offering of indoor air communications.comiservice testing of more than 1,400 homes and commercial buildings lcommunityl , Event within the former facility boundary to assess the potential of Organization (https:l/craig- vapor intrusion. Vapor Intrusion is the movement of vapor- communications.com/service forming Chemicals (in this case VOCs), from an underground /event/), Regulatory Source such as contaminated soil or groundwater, into the Relations (https:llcraig- indoor air of an overlying building. Homeowners in the area https:llcraig-communications.com/case-study helping -communities -stay -informed -and -feel -included -in -the- nvestigation-and-remedial-process/ Page Iof5 10-567 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Helping Communities Stay Informed and Feel Included in the Investigation and Remedial Process - CraiCo Mo2c- Additional Ma284 AM Ford SoilVapor Appeal PA2020) communications.comiservice were concerned about how the large-scale environmental lregulatorylj, Scientific investjgation activities_ , potential vapor intrusion, and. remedial Communications and mitigation efforts may impact their health, their quaUty of {https:llcraig- life,. and the value of their homes. communications.com/service lscientificlj SOLUTION Location Newport Beach, California our Team designed and executed a robust community engagement plan to assist the client with successfully Client characterizing the extent of contamination, conducting indoor Ford Motor Company air testing in potentially impacted homes and commercial buildings, and initiating various remedial actions to reduce or eliminate potential risk to the community and environment. Utilizing area canvassing, community events, a project website, project informational mailings, and individual conversations with residents, we proactively addressed community concerns and supported efforts to accomplish project goals and objectives. Over X community meetings were held to ensure residents and the larger community understood the process, had the opportunity to ask questions/voice concerns, and allowed for the community to build trust in the investigation and remedial action efforts. With the CCVID-19 pandemic, we offered hybrid meeting models that combined in -person meetings (both indoors and outdoors) where safe to do so with an online option (livestream or meeting recording). These meeting models were shown to greatly increase engagement rates through ease of access and the providing of a recorded option for community members to come back to at a later date. IMPACT As of December 2022, our Team has secured access to install over 420 soil vapor monitoring probes, conducted indoor air testing in over 350 homes, deployed short-term air purification systems in 29 homes, and are in the process of constructing multiple large-scale soil vapor extraction remediation systems. By investing time to ensure residents understood the purpose and Im act of investigation activities, and were comfortable participating, we were able to ensure our client has not faced any nerative_pubIicii or lY awsuits to date. The Water Board has used this site as a model for successful public participatlon activities for other high -profile vapor intrusion sites and Craig Communications staff was commended by residents for their diplomacy, clear communication, and availability. https:ilcraig-communications.comicase-study/helping-communities-stay-informed-and-feel-included-in-the-investigation-and-remedial-process/ Page 2 of 5 10-568 Plannin Commission - May 18, 2023 �: iC = i Ai ll 0#19rW ��F1 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023 Paae 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 NIA 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 Qualify Control Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The project shall be designed, implementer, 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 R,emediation 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 10-569 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 ifgf#? Me: gc = AM06figil ~Wl1§ ftwiiwd AA%98Ht4& grFp6Yd98iV"��pbr 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. 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 Plumbin-g 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. 10-570 GeoTracker Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional MateriaW1l@N%i�e99 AM Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEoTRACKLF< j Tools Reports UST Case Closures How to Use GeoTracker ESI Information CASE SUMMARY REPORT DATE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT REPORT FILED WITH OES? 1/2/1965 I. REPORTED BY - CREATED BY UNKNOWN UNKNOWN III. SITE LOCATION FACILITY NAME FACILITY ID FORD AERONUTRONIC PROPERTY, FORMER FACILITY ADDRESS ORIENTATION OF SITE TO STREET 1000 FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA CROSS STREET ORANGE COUNTY V. SUBSTANCES RELEASED / CONTAMINANT(S) OF CONCERN TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(POE) TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) VINYL CHLORIDE DICHLOROETHENE (DOE) VI. DISCOVERY/ABATEMENT DATE DISCHARGE BEGAN DATE DISCOVERED HOW DISCOVERED DESCRIPTION PTR 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 1 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 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 iE 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 nortl 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 LOCALAGENCY UNKNOWN REGIONAL BOARD CONTACT NAME INITIALS ORGANIZATION NAME EMAILADDRESS https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case_summary?global_id=SL188023848 Page 1 of 2 10-571 GeoTracker Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional MateriaW1IRN%i�e89 AM Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) JESSICA LAW JML SANTA ANA RWQCB (REGION 8) ADDRESS 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 PHONE TYPE PHONE NUMBER PHONE (951)-782-4381 CONTACT DESCRIPTION jessica.law@waterboards.ca.gov EXTENSION Back to Top Conditions of Use Privacy Policy Accessibility Contact Us Copyright © 2023 State of California https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case_summary?global_id=SL188023848 Page 2 of 2 10-572 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) OBJECTIONS TO PROJECT FILE #PA2022-0180, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC HEARING 1/26/23 • 1 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 10-573 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 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 10-574 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 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 10-575 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) 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 this point 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 the remediation company to explore the other viable sites for the structure. Larry Cano 92 Hartford Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 10-576 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA222-0180) jlilatl Leslie Pratt <Impratt417@gma1l.com> Objections to Ford SVE MAY 18 2 messages ..CITY Of Leslie Pratt <impratt417@gmail.com> NEMRT BEACH Thu, May 18, 2023 at 9:08 AM To: CRadriquez@newporlbeachca.gov Regarding the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach: Notice of Public Hearing -- Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal at 94 Hartford Drive on Thursday, May 18, 2023: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Location: 94 Harford Drive To Whom It May Concern: I reside at 96 Hartford. I strongly object to 94/96 Hartford Drive as the shared location of the soil vapor extraction unit to clean up the hazardous waste in the soil and groundwater from the fonner Ford Aeronutronics facility. I am not asking to stop the remediation; I am asking to change the location based on the safety of myself and immediate neighbors. The unit is proposed to be THREE FEET away from 94 Hartford, violating the 8-Moot separation distance for this area. The location is arbitrary 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 HOAIBoard due to loss of parking spots. It is absolutely unacceptable and appalling to have parking be valued over safety. 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/W SP, The Water Board, and the city grant a hazardous waste clean-up unit 3 feet from a home, 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. I was informed by the resident of 94 Hartford that this location has been once again changed.. The new proposed sight is supposedly 4 feet closer to 96 Hartford. Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the update from 94 Hartford, who said she was contacted directly by WSP while 96 Hartford was not included in the update is totally unacceptable. We all sent in our original objections prior to the January 26`j' 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 10-577 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received website archives. Our objections are more than valid and need *er$MUddleSg&iiUEOdatWMIOtand\ppeal (PA222-0180) olijectiveway. 1. Medical Safety - I am a two time survivor of advanced Breast Cancer. I have personally been diagnosed with the BRCA1 gene. In layman terms, this means I am greater than 8 5 % more likely to get cancer than the rest of the human population. My DNA does not have the genes that 99% of the population has to prevent getting recurrent cancer. ■ I was first diagnosed in 1984. After being in remission for 26 years in 2011 I was diagnosed with a 8 cm tumor in my lymph nodes. I underwent extensive surgeries, chemo and radiation for the second time in my life. I have been living in Bayridge Community since 1991 and purchased tray place in 1998. Myself and the family at 92 Hartford have lived here longer than aver 2/3 of the current residents. • In addition I have heart and other neuropathic conditions often seen with VCC's, specifically TCE and PCE in groundwater and soil gas contaminations. • It is a confirmed statistic that stress is highly documented as a factor in addition to VQC's to be highly contributional to the development of cancer. When one is Immuno-suppressed this is even more critical. What this project has done and will do to my immunologic response system should not be taken lightly. 2. _ ality. of Life • The hazardous waste unit so closely situated to my home will greatly impact my quality of life. The noise generated, the air quality and the vapors being emitted and transferred by any direction of the wind will prevent me from opening my windows or utilizing my deck which is directly across from the SVE proposed system. I have no air conditioning, so rely on opening the windows during the warm months. In addition, the recommendation to prevent the household vapors intrusion was to keep windows open if possible . Also the — 40 year original windows will do little to to combat the noise impact from the system. • 96 Hartford is the only unit out of 166 that will have to directly see the SVE unit daily. - My stairwell and living room windows are directly in view of the SVE system. I will also be more constantly exposed to possible contamination from the vapors being expelled. Sitting on my deck will only further jeopardize my chances of possible contamination. .• Associate Engineer WSP: "Based on feedback, a lot of people commented and called that design was too intrusive to neighbors' homes and livelihood and too impactful' ugly, and disruptive. So why should 96 Hartford bear almost 99% of this intrusiveness? 3. [Ionic Values 10-578 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received • I am 75 years old with no husband or other family membevRoMy000ndwisamldi ainv 0 A122-0180) worked very hard to secure and maintain this as a source of financial help if I am forced to some other type of senior or assisted living. There is no guarantee as to when I will need to sell. It is quite predictable that my place will be unsellable or rentable if such an emergency should happen. The SVE unit outside my condo would basically be destroying my savings account. With all the medical uncertainties I could not possibly continue to live here.. Simply picking up and leaving comes at a high price. Why should possibly three households out of 163 be forced to abandon due to their very valid objections and concerns.The hazardous waste unit directly next to our home will greatly impact our marketability. 4. Air Quality Monitoring • The confirmed method of photoionization detector is not lab quality. Seven days of of non lab quality monitoring system does not show a risk free system. 4. Hazard Safety_ • You have provided no documents showing this system has been a proven method situated so closely to residences when the ordinances clearly state 8 ft. What would be the implications of a fire, earthquake or some other type of natural disaster when situated so closely to residences, mainly 92, 94 and 96 Hartford. This past spring a —150 foot pine tree fell against my condo in very close proximity to the proposed SVE unit. There are very large trees lining Country Club Drive. This could have been disastrous to the three units in such close proximity. The confirmed method of photoionization detector is not lab quality. Seven days of non lab quality monitoring does not show a risk free system. In conclusion, how can they justify only 3 out of 166 condos being so adversely affected. This is a community. We all pay our HOA dues and should be treated all the same. You shouldn't sacrifice the quality of life and safety of three families to benefit 163 others. With careful planning and insight there are other solutions. I am pleading with you to stop this discrimination and find a solution that works for everyone.. Respectfully, Leslie Pratt 96 Hartford Mail Delivery System <noreply@cisco.com> Thu, May 18, 2023 at 9:09 AM To: Impratt417@gmail.com The following message to <CRodriquez@newportbeachca.gov> was undeliverable. The reason for the problem: 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550= 5.4.1 Recipient address rejected: Access denied. AS(201806281) [BLOGCCO2FT025.eop-gcc02.prod. protection.outlook.com 2023-05-18T16:09:08.479Z 08DB57A3D4E5B6B7]' Final -Recipient: rfc822;CRodriquez@newportbeachca.gov 10-579 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received Action: failed Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA222-0180) Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure) Remote-MTA: dns; [104.47.64.110] Diagnostic -Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'5.4.1 Recipient address rejected: Access denied. AS(201806281)[BLOGCCO2FT025.eop-gcc02.prod. protection.outlook.com 2023-05-18T16:09:08.479Z 08DB57A3D4E5B6B7]' (delivery attempts: 0) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Leslie Pratt <Impratt417@gmail.com> To: CRodriquez@newportbeachca.gov Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 09:08:52 -0700 Subject: Objections to Ford SVE noname OK 10-580 Planning Commission - May 18, 2023 Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Received After Deadline Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) From: Amy Santella To: Planning Commissioners; Tran, Jennv; 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 at 94 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 phone call, 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 problematic location 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 this change. 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 Jenny Tran, 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 to consider 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 moved 4 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 a completely 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 the Planning 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 10-581 Attachment G Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from June 22, 2023 10-582 DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2023 REGULAR MEETING — 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER — 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Secretary Klaustermeier III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Curtis Ellmore, Vice Chair Mark Rosene, Secretary Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Brady Barto, Commissioner Tristan Harris, Commissioner Jonathan Langford, and Commissioner Lee Lowrey ABSENT: None Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Brad Sommers, Assistant Planner Jenny Tran, Associate Planner Joselyn Perez, and Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher recommended the Planning Commissioner Handbook prepared by the Institute for Local Government and highlighted the section on ex parte communications and site visits. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2023 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Langford and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the minutes of the May 18, 2023, meeting with Mr. Mosher's edits. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: Lowrey ABSENT: None 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 Page 1 of 9 10-583 DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023 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 PA2022-0180. Chair Ellmore announced that this item was continued from the May 18 Planning Commission meeting to understand from the Homeowners Association (HOA) how the proposed location was chosen. He asked for new information and indicated that the Planning Commission supports the remediation effort. Assistant Planner Tran provided a brief recap of the appeal and noted the purpose of the continuance to further address safety concerns, alternate locations, and additional input from the HOA Board regarding the location selection. With the exception of Vice Chair Rosene who met with the applicant to discuss alternative locations and the appellant and Commissioners Harris and Langford who spoke with the applicant's representative, the remaining Commissioners had no ex parte communications. Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing. Kenn Conner, WSP, introduced the team and members of the Bayridge HOA, reviewed the key points related to the permit, application, location determinants, community outreach, and urgency. Furthermore, he shared a remediation area map and Bayridge Park soil vapor extraction (SVE) system outline, key responses to comments/questions, location justification, alternative #4 location map, location analysis, and community support. Mr. Connor agreed to the conditions of approval. Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Board, clarified their authority as a State agency. Enrique Sanchez, Bayridge HOA President, apologized for not attending the May 18 Planning Commission meeting. In response to Commissioner Langford's questions, Mr. Sanchez provided an overview of the location selection process and authority, structure, and election rules of the HOA. Commissioner Harris utilized the Bayridge Park SVE system slide to question an alternative parking area location, and in response to his inquiries, Mr. Sanchez indicated that backlash from residents at the HOA meetings, inconvenience, and the best recommendation are what stopped the alternative location in the parking area from being a viable alternative. He noted unit counts and configurations of those units within complex. Commissioner Barto noted a narrow versus distributed community impact approach by using the proposed location and, in response to his inquiry, Mr. Conner indicated that the location selection was driven by Page 2 of 9 10-584 DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023 engineering issues, trench size, utility conflicts, and space requirements and multiple locations would only take care of a small number of extraction wells. Amy Santella, appellant, indicated that the original proposal by the engineers included five sites and was turned down by the HOA due to the impact on parking. She believes it remains a viable alternative, reviewed the HOA parking policy, clarified her support of the remediation, disclosed conversations with WSP and the Santa Ana Regional Water Board and HOA responses to her outreach, suggested alternate site feasibility is not being considered, reported having not received the requested residential treatment system evidence -based example and data, utilized slides to show photos of residential treatment systems, and asked the City to support evidence -based research and data before agreeing to the location. Kevin Santella utilized a presentation to review the alternative analysis summary, address infeasibilities, discussed the Bison Avenue, Country Club Drive, Bayridge Park, Brittany/Hartford locations and configuration options, and replayed proposed location details. Mr. Sanchez indicated that the HOA is focused on remediation and what is best for the neighborhood, noted a temporary one-year permit, and relayed interest in resolving the matter as soon as possible for 22 families. Leslie Pratt believed that the HOA had not made any effort to contact the residents involved and hoped the Commission would consider all the reasons provided to make the best decision. Mr. Conner indicated that the original five locations were proposed with the understanding that a power drop location would be closely located, the current proposed location is the only spot where the power drop location is available, current mitigation efforts are short term, SVE is a long-term remedy to lowering risks of vapor intrusion, and analysis revealed engineering, utility, clearance, and trench size and depth challenges for every other location. In response to Chair Ellmore's questions, Mr. Conner relayed community outreach details and noted the proposed location decision came down to the power drop location indicated by SoCal Edison and power drop feasibility is a result of COVID and post-COVID challenges, and timeline to change locations. In response to Commissioner Harris' questions, Mr. Conner clarified that the alternative locations were provided at a time when WSP thought more power drop locations were an option, but in July 2022 SoCal Edison came back with one feasible location. He noted that the power drop on Belcourt Drive will be shared by a trench with another treatment system running under Country Club Drive to the fire lane area. Mr. Conner clarified that the HOA never stated that the parking spaces could not be used for the project. In response to Vice Chair Rosene's question, Mr. Conner indicated that WSP is working with SoCal Edison and an electrical engineer to stamp the drawings. Vice Chair Rosene expressed his disbelief that by using the alternative parking lot located approximately 98 feet from the proposed location it would delay the project three years. Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing. Commissioner Barto questioned the incongruity from an electrical perspective, thought the matter has a high impact on a specific residence for a general good and wondered if Ford has taken the opportunity to discuss this with residents, and struggled with the matter. Vice Chair Rosene recognized the remediation is necessary, the current proposed location is what remains after the "right thing" to do passed, changing the location would not take three years, and no guarantee for a one-year remediation. He thought that no review took place, and the appellant and Planning Commission are in a difficult position. Secretary Klaustermeier concurred with Vice Chair Rosene and thought the matter was outside the purview of the Planning Commission and perhaps better passed to the City Council. Page 3 of 9 10-585 DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023 Assistant City Attorney Summerhill stated, and Chair Ellmore concurred, that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a decision for health and safety reasons and the matter can be appealed or called for a review by the City Council. Commissioner Harris echoed the same sentiments as the other Commissioners, noted that it is not the job of the Planning Commission to make value judgments, thought the decision by the HOA is convenient for the majority and within their purview, expressed disappointment with the HOA decision, and indicated he cannot vote against the permit. Commissioner Langford thought the HOA deliberated accordingly and supported the permit approval. Chair Ellmore stated that the information about the power drops was new information to the Planning Commission, expressed disappointment for the proposed location choice, and supported the permit to address the health and safety issues. Motion made by Chair Ellmore and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the item as recommended by staff. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Langford, and Rosene NOES: Harris and Klaustermeier RECUSED: Lowrey ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 3 MILLER RESIDENCE (PA2023-0017) Site Location: 22 Bay Island Summary: A coastal development permit (CDP) to allow the demolition of an existing single -unit dwelling and the construction of a new, 4,566-square-foot, three (3)-story single -unit dwelling, adjustment to the off-street parking requirements with a parking management plan, and an increase to the allowed building height to 28 feet for flat portions of the roof and 33 feet for the sloped portions of the roof in accordance with Use Permit No. UP3618. The design includes hardscape, drainage facilities, and landscaping. With approval of the height allowance, the project complies with all applicable development standards. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-024 approving a Coastal Development Permit for the demolition and reconstruction of a single -unit dwelling (PA2023-0017). Assistant Planner Tran utilized a presentation to introduce the proposal for a Coastal Development Permit, Parking Management Plan, and height increase up to 33 feet and noted the proposal is not a variance and the Use Permit allows for a height increase. She reviewed the vicinity map, building sites, Use Permit Development Standards, height increase with Planning Commission approval (west and south elevations), Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan Development Standards, Parking Management Plan, offsite parking aerial photo, building site map that is part of the approved use permit and proposed site plan, encroachment condition of approval, and recommended action. Page 4 of 9 10-586 DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023 In response to Vice Chair Rosene's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell relayed the parking requirements for Title 20 and Title 21 and golf cart parking accommodations to satisfy on -site compliance with Title 21. No ex parte communications were reported by the Commission. Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing. Nicole Thompson, Brandon Architects, indicated that they will comply with the setback/encroachment requirement and agreed to the conditions of approval. Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing. Motion made by Vice Chair Rosene and seconded by Secretary Klaustermeier to approve the item as recommended by staff. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 4 NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (PA2023-0082) Site Location: Generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, Birch Street and Bristol Street North Summary: An amendment to Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan (PC-11) to change the minimum affordable housing percentage of the Residential Overlay from thirty percent (30%) to fifteen percent (15%). Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this Amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-025 recommending approval of a Planned Community Development Plan Amendment to modify the minimum inclusionary affordable housing percentage to the City Council. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell used a slide presentation to introduce the public hearing to modify the Newport Place Planned Community text requested by the City Council that is related to a reduced Affordable Housing inclusionary percentage to from 30 percent to 15 percent. He reviewed the vicinity map, Newport Place background, residential overlay and Land Use Plan, proposed amendment details, California Environmental Quality Act exemption, recommended actions, and next steps. In response to Secretary Klaustermeier's question, Deputy Director Campbell relayed that lower affordable housing is defined by State law and the area median income (AMI) and clarified that the amendment would reduce the required amount of affordable housing without changing the affordability level. Page 5 of 9 10-587 DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023 Assistant City Attorney Summerhill reviewed the AMI amounts for very low income, low income, and moderate income based on a four -person family. In response to Secretary Klaustermeier's question, Deputy Director Campbell explained the State Density Bonus Law parameters to achieve a 15 percent minimum affordability, as per State law. In response to Commissioner Langford's question, Deputy Director Campbell thought that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) would agree that 15 percent is compliant with the Housing Element. No ex parte communications were reported by the Commissioners. Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher relayed that no discussion on the matter took place with the City Council, no order was given to the Planning Commission, a request was made by Council Member Weigand, the Council issued an amendment related to the affordability percentage, and his interpretation that the item is about whether the percentage should be lowered and to what percentage. Furthermore, he suggested that the amendment would create an inconsistency with the Housing Element and the airport area. Nancy Scarbrough reviewed the 2022 Keyser Marston Associates Inclusionary Housing Financial Evaluation which states that 15 percent is the most mathematically, efficient, and advantageous percentage to use to get the 50 percent density bonus; however, she thought that more sites would be needed for planning or building by reducing the percentage, the total unit development would double, and HCD approved the Housing Element with 30 percent affordable housing. As a result, she questioned if lowering the percentage to 15 percent is in the best interest of the City. Deputy Director Campbell indicated that the study revealed that 30 percent is likely infeasible for most projects and creates a hurdle and thought 15 percent affordable is supported by the analysis, eliminates an impediment, and boosts future production in the Newport Place area above the Density Bonus Law on its own. He noted the related challenges and a good balance for the community and recommended the action. Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Langford and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the item as recommended by staff. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Langford, and Rosene NOES: None RESUSED: Harris and Lowrey ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 5 NEWPORT VILLAGE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (PA2023-0071) Site Location: 1550 Avocado Avenue at the corner of Avocado Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road Summary: Consistent with the City Council's initiation on April 25, 2023, the proposed amendment to the Newport Village Planned Community (PC-27) Development Plan would add "recreational facilities" as an allowed use within the area designated as Area 1. Area 1 encompasses the 2.43-acre property at the corner of Avocado Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road that is developed with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) transit facility and surface parking lot. Recommended Action: Page 6 of 9 10-588 DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find the amendment is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines). The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-026, recommending the City Council approve a Planned Community Development Plan Amendment allowing recreational facilities in Area 1 of the Newport Village Planned Community. Associate Planner Joselyn Perez utilized a presentation to review a vicinity map, surrounding land uses, the existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) site, the proposed amendments to PC-27, staff recommendation, and next steps. No ex parte communications were reported by Commissioners. Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher noted two grammatical errors and questioned if Area 1 is truly large enough for a field as stated in Section 3, whether the night lighting of the courts would be consistent with the development plan and the residential uses to the east, and if the amendment would be contrary to promoting alternative means of transportation by eliminating existing parking spaces at the transit facility. Deputy Director Campbell clarified that night lighting is referring to security and overnight lighting and any lighting to illuminate a sport court would be evaluated at the time a project comes forward. He agreed that a "field" may not be the right wording and suggested removing it. Mr. Campbell explained that as part of the amendment, required parking for the transit facility and any future recreational use will be evaluated when a project comes forward. Lastly Mr. Campbell shared a conversation from his earlier meeting with OCTA regarding the site and how current survey results indicate only a 30 percent utilization on average of the existing parking lot. Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing. In response to Vice Chair Rosene's question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill noted that there are exemptions that could and should apply in this scenario. Motion made by Commissioner Harris and seconded by Commissioner Langford to approve the item as recommended by staff. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Vill. DISCUSSION ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 NEW VISITOR -SERVING ACCOMMODATIONS MU-W2 AND MU-CV/15T" ST Site Location: Various properties located in Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square and mixed -use areas on 15t" Street, Agate Avenue, and Marine Avenue Summary: Page 7 of 9 10-589 DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023 At City Council's request on May 23, 2023, Planning Commission was directed to identify opportunities for to modify Titles 20 and 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to facilitate new visitor serving accommodation opportunities within the MU-W2 and MU-CV/15t" Street zones. The request also included several considerations: 1) applicability to multi -unit residential developments with 20 or more residential units under common ownership, 2) requirement for professional management, 3) requirement for project amenities, and 4) where there are no parking impacts that could reduce the availability of parking in residential neighborhoods. Recommended Action: 1. Receive public comment; Find recommended actions exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; 3. Form an ad hoc committee consisting of three Planning Commissioners appointed by the Chair to develop a recommendation for the Planning Commission to consider and forward to the City Council; or 4. Instruct staff to prepare a report focusing on the topic that will be reviewed by all the Planning Commissioners at a future date. Deputy Director Campbell utilized a presentation to provide an overview of the City Council's direction to facilitate new visitor serving accommodation opportunities within the MU-W2 and MU-CV/15t" Street zones, vicinity map, and background on the MU-W2 and MU-CV/15t" Street zones. He asked the Planning Commission to either establish an ad hoc subcommittee or direct staff to prepare a report with code amendments. Jim Mosher thought the Planning Commission does not have enough information to move forward and suggested the item be added to the City Council agenda for discussion and direction. Chair Ellmore, Vice Chair Rosene, and Commissioner Barto supported a report prepared by staff. Motion made by Commissioner Barto and seconded by Chair Ellmore to instruct staff to prepare a report focused on the matter for review by the Planning Commission at a future date. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None RECUSED: Langford ABSENT: None IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 8 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA Deputy Director Campbell reported that the July 6 Planning Commission meeting is the annual meeting with three items and officer elections scheduled, City Council will appoint two commissioners by the next meeting, three items are anticipated for the July 20 meeting, and City Council approved the VE Zone amendment with changes to the side yard encroachment. Page 8 of 9 10-590 DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023 ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Lowrey requested an excused absence on August 17th. Commissioner Barto requested a possible excused absence on July 6th. Vice Chair Rosene requested a possible excused absence on July 20th. X. ADJOURNMENT - With no further business, Chair Ellmore adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m. The agenda for the June 22, 2023, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, June 15, 2023, at 12:28 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City's website on Thursday, June 15, 2023, at 12:15 p.m. C—_ C:77�_� Curtis Ellmore, Chair Tom. H444-4 Tristan Harris, Secretary Page 9 of 9 10-591 Attachment H Appellant's Appeal Application from July 5, 2023 10-592 Appeal Application City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949-644-3005 Clerk's Date & Time Stamp Appeals are time sensitive and must be received by the City Clerk specified time period from a decision or final action by a decision -maker. It is advisable to consult with the Department managing the issue if there is question with regards to appealing an action. This is an appeal of the: ❑ (CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Planning Commission - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Zoning Administrator Action to the Planning Commission - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Coastal Development Application CDP Appeal from Zoning Admin to the Planning Commission (only if appeal is solely based on the CDP portion of the application) — No Fee ,,(CDD222)Planning Commission Action to the City Council - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (CDD222)Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (CDD — Planning) - $940 ❑ (CDD222)Hearing Officer Action to the City Council - $1715 ❑ (CDD223)Building Official/Fire Marshal Action to the Building/Fire Board of Appeals - $1715 ❑ (CDD224)Chief of Police Action on an Operator License to the City Manager - $946 ❑ (RSS073)City Manager Action on a Special Events Permit to the City Council - $1823 ❑ (HBR001)Harbormaster Action to the Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (HBR001)Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (Harbor Department) - $940 ❑ (PBW018)Public Works Director Action to Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (PBW018)Harbor Commission Action to City Council (Public Works Department) - $940 ❑ Other - Specify decision -maker, appellate body, Municipal Code authority and fee: Appellant Information: Name(s): Leslie Pratt (949-394-2708), Amy Santella & Kevin Solomita (908-370-7003), Address: 92 Hartford Dr, 94 Hartford Dr, City/State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: see above Appealing Application Regarding: Name of Applicant(s): WSP USA Lee Healy (949-887-1220) 96 Hartford Dr Email: Impratt417@gmail.com, amycsantella@gmail.com, leechealy@gmail.com Date of Final Decision: 6H22/2023 Project No.: PA2022-0180 Activity No: n/a Application Site Address: 94 Hartford Dr, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Description of application: 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 for 12 months. Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit, proposed to be 3 feet away from 94 Hartford Drive, violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. No studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. Please see attached for continued information. (& c.k6 Signature of FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: 20— 0�;Qw I . City Clerk 5"IV6 cc: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff, File � 7M23 F.IUserslClerMSharedtFormsOppeal Appllcatlon Updated 11/2021 10-593 July 5, 2023 The City Council City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Letter of Objection for Limited Term Permit Approval to Construct the Soil Vapor Extraction on System Building at Bayridge, Newport Beach Dear City Council Members: This matter is regarding the Soil Vapor Extraction System Building proposed by WSP, an environmental consultancy for its client, Ford Motor Company. Several Newport Beach communities are built on land polluted by Ford Aerospace decades ago by its Aeronutronic division, to include Bayridge, a community of 166 homes located at Jamboree and Bison. We have been objecting with the NB Planning Commission since January on the proposed location of the extraction building, very close to our homes at 92, 94 and 96 Hartford Drive. The Commission, reluctantly and not unanimously, gave approval for the temporary permit at the June 22 meeting. To clarify: no one objects to the soil vapor extraction. It is a solution to the problem. We object to the placement of it so close to our three homes. WSP does not know how long the system could be in place —it could easily exceed the proposed year. Experts have told us that the system can be noisy and pipes can leak. The operation will be 24/7. We still have not seen examples of this sort of extraction system next to a home, despite promises from WSP. Only an old, vacant military base from decades ago. The original Wood/WSP proposal was to have five locations, rather than one central extraction system. The Board objected to that because of disruption of the complex and loss of parking spaces. The proposed location WAS NOT the original plan. It was an effort by Ford's contracted consultancy to appease the Board and get the job done. There are other options as to the location and we do not believe it will take two -three years to relocate the structure. We are entitled to safety and quiet enjoyment of our homes and believe that will be disrupted with this location of the extraction system building. Sincerely, Lee H-ea L� Lee Healy 92 Hartford Drive Newport Beach CA 92660 949.760.3054 10-594 P of l3 Regarding the City of Newport Beach: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Location: 94 Hartford Drive Dear Newport Beach City Council Members: In addition to our appeal letters previously submitted, we would like to state the following: Along with our neighbors, we strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit to clean up the chemicals from the former Ford Aeronutronics facility. We are not asking to stop the remediation; we are asking to change the location based on lack of evidence -based data. The unit is proposed to be THREE FEET away from 94 Hartford Drive, 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 on the Newport Beach City website, 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. 1. Location • The original project summary/zoning administrator staff report posted on the city website was changed after our objections were received. Prior to the January 261 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 resid en ts. " • 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. All meeting recordings are available on www.fordnbfacts.com • AFTER our objections were received, the new amended project summary for March 2" d included alternative locations studied and states "Due to these infeasibilities the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected." 10-595 • 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. • 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." • 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. 2. 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 94 Hartford Drive. We have requested examples of residential treatment systems and still have not been provided with this data. • 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, we HAVE NOT been provided with any real -life examples of residential treatment systems, let alone 3 feet away from a home. NO studies have ever been conducted to 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 as to 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 from Sunny Dry Cleaners is located 500 feet away from residences. This is not comparable to 3 feet. Daniela noted that the SVE system at Campus Cleaners is located 100 feet away from residences. This is also not comparable to 3 feet. 10-596 o-C 13 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 of things 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, and no residential examples could be given. Candace stated that these SVE systems are more common in commercial and industrial areas. How is this comparable to a residence? Again, we are continuously "assured" this is "OK" and "permitted," without ANY data to back up these claims. Ford/WSP has not been able to provide us with any evidence - based examples; this is unacceptable. We are appalled that the one example given by WSP that they are claiming is "residential," shows a BOARDED -UP home. It was not mentioned in the 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-up system took place in 2004. (ht ps.-Ilortordcleanup. com/about/fort-ord-and-brat-histoUI 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" Photograph 2-6 Granulated Activated Carbon Units �._ ................ . . ..` - 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-0UCTP- 0011. I/Vol u mej R I/Vol u mejAppend ix_G/Ap pendix_G_P hotos. pdf 10-597 L4a�_i3 • 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/WO that changing to other locations would add an additional 2 years to the project until the June 81" 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 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! • 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 —I+ year of remediation implementation and then "-2+ years" of monitoring to determine if additional remediation is needed. Photo below from PowerPoint from community meeting, can be found on www.fordnbfacts.com. ~1+ year* —2+ years Remedy Post mplementation Remediation Monitoring rimC'1a-13n rcm_iy t n .r_n_s F: zi-ta n anC cn to t-r cm_dy - adn: c" t —=d at c- s ..a a-r�a--cr • Per Kenn 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." • Furthermore, it is impossible to quantify the amount of chemicals in the ground and how much additional remediation will be needed after this treatment starts. 10-598 9 o_F t 3 • 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." 3. Information reaardint! continued decision: 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 were infeasible, except 94 Hartford. All of these changes can be verified by the City of Newport Beach archives via the city website. • 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 to ease 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. 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 (taller than our home) and other trees and mature landscaping will be removed from OUR home and disrupt the view from our main living area window. Why was this not included 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 away from a home. Did Ford hire a parking consultant to alleviate this concern? We just came 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 a home. • After May 18' meeting, decision was continued by the planning commission to fiuther discuss the alternative locations with the HOA Board. 10-599 U cif i 3 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 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. 4. Air Ouality Monitoring We expressed concern that there is no real-time/ continuous monitoring to ensure the air quality levels are acceptable for a residential home. 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. 10-600 - ] a 13 • 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, Santa Ana Regional Water Board, 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. 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. • 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 a home with NO CONTINUOUS monitoring. • 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 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 a residential home? 5. 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 10-601 3of [3 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 Air Quality Management District and 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. 6. Plannina Commission: Multiple members of the Cii, — arming 'on supporteathe appellants and stated their disapproval in regard to this system being too close to a home. The Planning Commission also commented on the alternate locations, challenging WSP on multiple locations —including the power drop that is stated to be "ONLY" available at 94 Hartford Drive. Per a Planning Commissioner, there are parking spots available 98 feet away from the proposed location. How is the power drop not available there? • 94 Hartford was NOT the original proposal! There were other locations that were feasible BEFORE this was chosen. 7. City Indemnification: • As stated in the Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-023, Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received: "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 10-602 � 6� 13 action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the City's approval of the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor 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 extraction unit will be cleaning up contaminated soil THREE feet away from a home! 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. Ford/WSP have FAILED to provide examples of residential units and their claim of a "residential" example was a boarded -up home on a VACANT military base! 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 References: All meeting quotations may be accessed on meeting recordings by date via hgps://v yw,fordnbfacts.com/communityoutreach • AQMD Guiding Principles: hqs://www.agmd. gov/nav/about/initiatives/environmental-justice/ei-guiding-principles hqp://www.Mmd.gov/nav/about/public-notices/pennittingpublic-notices 10-603 (�� 0 I RE: Continuance Bayridge Park First, I would like to reiterate for the thousandth time we are not objecting to the SVE system and cleanup. We are objecting to its placement 3 feet from a residents window. Clearly we need to put into perspective who is at fault here. I would like to remind people that Ford is the entity that has put all of Bayridge at risk. Ford is the only one we can blame, not the residents who are exercising their right to appeal. WE asked Ford, WSP and the HOA to find a solution that is favorable to all residents. The City Planning Commission granted a continuance at the May 18th, 2023 council meeting. They were appalled the HOA was not present and urged them to present the reasons why they deemed this was the only feasible spot. On June 8th at the community meeting we asked if a Board Member was present if they could explain why they believe this is the only feasible location. The HOA president states "this came by recommendation, they calculated the system and the system runs efficiently in that location. Am I clear on that Ken?" This clearly shows who is making the decisions and his lack of input into this decision. Nothing about the safety of the system was mentioned. At an earlier date when we asked a Board member to listen to our objections her response was " if you don't like it then move". This Board member who is making the final decision is a former employee of Ford and clearly demonstrates a conflict of interest. These are the only responses we have gotten from the HOA "RE: Mike Barnes Correspondence: " I was the Program Manager on this project from 2017 up to April of last year. I've recently returned and assumed the same position, so am very familiar with the project and coming back up to speed quickly on what I've missed over the past year. e recognize residents at 94 Hartfordrive have appealed the approval of this L-=--Ted I erm Permit due to concerns and perceptions about the safety of the Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVE system). 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. Mike you have obviously not come up to speed on what you have missed over the coming year. I met with you for almost an hour to discuss my objections to the proposed site at 94 Hartford on March 22, 2022 which you did not deny in our most recent correspondence June 7, 2023. At that time, you said I understand your objections, will relate them to Ford and will get back in touch with you. That was pretty much the last discussion we or anyone had regarding the proposed site 10-604 11 cF I at 94 Hartford for the SVE system in May, 2022. Wood Environmental was acquired by WSP on June 3, 2022. WSP Global Buys Wood's Environmental Unit in $1.8B Deal In addition I have had several conversations with Traci Craig and Jessica Law .How can you say we declined to meet to work with you. This statement is completely and undeniably false, when in fact we have been met with the very insubordination you are accusing of us. I have e-mails verifying these conversations. Our request for documentation has not been given to this day. The original timeline presented by WOOD on November 4, 2021 is presented in this slide. See Attached Below. As you can see the SVE system would have been installed in Q1-Q2 of 2022. Clearly the delay had nothing to do with the 94 Hartford appeal in January of 2023. The SVE system installation is now delayed till February of 2024. FYI: In addition my unit was tested and TCE was present. Sending the Vapor toward a Roadway: Ken stated the vapors would be being sent toward a roadway. Unfortunately the wind doesn't always blow in one direction. On February 26th the winds uprooted a tree on Country Club Drive in close proximity to the proposed SVE system site. The tree fell against my condo. Country club drive is lined with very large trees. Who is to say this couldn't have fallen against the SVE system and endangering the waterline so close to its proximity WE are NOT Realtors: When we ask about home values etc. Mike and Jessica's response was we are not realtors. Yes, but why are you inferring the burden belongs to the homeowner and or realtor, when clearly Ford is the one who has put us in this situation. We have to legally disclose all about this SVE system etc. under law and would be personally liable for not doing so. There is no guarantee when this moratorium on selling our houses will be over. Ford needs to answer this question. Craig Communications Letters: An anonymous renter shared with me the letter that John from Craig Communications drafted and wanted him to sign. The resident refused to sign as it clearly did not convene the message he wanted. People are signing these letters yet there is no mention they would be content having this system placed 3 feet from their window. It's not my problem since it's out of my sight shows the mentality that is being exhibited in this community. Once again we have received no documentation showing the proven safety of an operating SVE system this close to a residence. 10-605 12 c)-F 13 In conclusion, I cannot believe how appalling I find the comments of several of the residents including the president of the HOA, to blame three residents, who are taking the brunt of Ford, a multimillion dollar corporation's complete disregard for human safety and supporting their efforts to endanger us and protect themselves. Seriously, if they are so supportive of Ford, WSP and our HOA the SVE system should be placed three feet from their windows. I could never blindly support this unproven system with a clear conscience no matter whose home was being affected. Once again I believe the appellants have more than substantiated their claims and the application should be denied. It's not cost, it's not efficiency, it is the safety of human lives that Ford has jeopardized. Regards, Leslie Pratt - i- Iimirtary RemeUiat�o -�h Schedule' Oucaiion may change du, - weather, permuting. antl otl•.er'a: �::•; 10-606 Of- (3 Attachment I Applicant's Response to Comments 10-607 July 11, 2023 Project No. PA2022-0180 City of Newport Beach — City Council 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Limited Term Permit Application Appeal Dear City Councilmembers: 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 WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (WSP) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the appeal application submitted to the City's Clerk's Office on July 5, 2023. We recognize residents at 92, 94, and 96 Hartford Drive have appealed the Planning Commission's June 22, 2023, approval of the Limited Term Permit due to concerns and perceptions about the safety of operating the Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVE System) treatment building near their homes. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Water Board) is requiring the use of SVE as part of the approved cleanup actions for the Bayridge Park community. The SVE System has been designed to safely remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found underground and will operate in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (Air District) permit requirements that protect public health and the environment. On June 8, 2023, WSP provided the Planning Commission the attached Response to Comments (Attachment 1) on behalf of Ford Motor Company to respond to the comments and questions raised by residents of the Bayridge Park community and the Planning Commission during the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. The response describes in detail how the SVE System can operate safely behind 94 Hartford Drive and why this location was the only viable location out of the many alternatives analyzed. WSP provided a brief presentation at the June 22, 2023, Planning Commission meeting and addressed questions and concerns raised by the appellant and Planning Commissioners before the Commissioners voted to approve the Limited Term Permit. The Planning Commission reasoned that, "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, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the requested limited duration use." The residents' July 5, 2023, appeal reiterates the same concerns made in response to the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting and responded to in Attachment 1. We recognize that each Councilmember is responsible for making the best possible decision for their constituents. To help in that decision, we offer the following summary based on our scientific understanding and experience: 10-608 City of Newport Beach — City Council July 11, 2023 Page 2 City of Newport Beach Limited Term Permit Scope: The Limited Term Permit was applied for to request approval for the temporary siting of the SVE System treatment building closer to an existing building than the 8-foot setback in the community development guidelines. The City Council — like the Planning Commission before it — is not deciding on the safety of the system location as that is under the authority of the Air District. The Air District has prepared its own draft Permit to Construct/Operate that lays out various requirements that must be followed to ensure that the SVE System safely operates in this location. The Air District will hold its own public comment period on the draft permit prior to its approval. Thus, the City's Limited Term Permit is an aesthetic decision about whether the building can be placed on a temporary basis three feet away from an existing building when the community's development guidelines require eight feet of separation. The design of the building with the three feet of separation meets all California Building Code requirements, so the eight feet of separation is simply one of aesthetics. In addition, construction of the treatment building will be completed off -site to limit impacts to the entire Bayridge Park community of 168 homes and have designed it to match the character of Bayridge Park. Attachment 2 provides an artist's rendering of the building. 2. Vapor Intrusion Risk to Community: The health and safety of all residents is of the utmost importance and is in fact why this work must be done. The VOCs currently present in sub- surface soil vapor are a known health risk to 22 homes experiencing vapor intrusion in Bayridge Park. These 22 homes only account for the property owners that have chosen to participate in the indoor air sampling program. Several homes opting out of the program may be experiencing vapor intrusion impacts and VOCs could continue to present health risks to these homes until remedial activities are implemented. The SVE System has been designed over the past 18 months working closely with the Santa Ana Water Board, the Air District, Southern California Edison, and the Bayridge Park HOA. Selecting an alternate location will lead to delays of up to two years because the components of the system will need to be redesigned, electrical infrastructure would need to be routed through Bayridge Park, and new permits will need to be applied for and secured through the Air District and the City of Newport Beach. It cannot be overstated the amount of time a redesign will take. These time delays 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, additional residents are at risk of vapor intrusion in the future. Further, primary chemicals of concern have not been detected above regulatory screening levels in samples collected from the 92, 94 and 96 Hartford Drive residences and no change is expected with the placement of the treatment building in this location. 3. Safety of SVE Systems: SVE is recognized in guidance by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corp of Engineers as an effective remediation technique for treating sites impacted by VOCs. SVE systems are heavily regulated by agencies such as the Water Board and Air District at sites all over the country, including 285 Superfund sites. When properly designed and operated, SVE systems are safe for site workers and the community, including sensitive groups such as infants, individuals that are 10-609 City of Newport Beach — City Council July 11, 2023 Page 3 immunocompromised or ill, and the elderly. In this case, vapors are treated using carbon, so no harmful chemicals or combustion sources are involved. The proximity of the SVE System treatment 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 point of compliance that is relevant with respect to the health and safety of the residents. VOCs will be entirely contained within the system which will reduce the concentrations so only clean air that meets the Air District's very stringent health protective standards is discharged. In addition, the Air District requires that the exhaust (where the air leaves the SVE System) must be placed at least 13 feet above ground and 15 feet away from any window or opening. Attachment 3, EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging, provides a detailed explanation of how SVE Systems work. 4. Location Feasibility: As part of the Santa Ana Water Board remedial design process, WSP conducted a feasibility analysis of multiple locations within the community. This was further refined by discussions with the Bayridge Park HOA, the Air District and Southern California Edison. Seven locations were studied and six were proven infeasible for the following engineering, scheduling, and safety reasons: • Southern California Edison determined that the only feasible power source would come from the existing distribution vault on Belcourt Drive, which limits where we can place the treatment building since the size of the trenches within the Bayridge Park community would need to be increased significantly, which would cause conflicts with the existing utility clearance requirements and would greatly impact residents' ability to enter/exit their homes during construction. • The ability to implement the SVE System quickly to begin to address the vapor intrusion problem for the 22 known homes currently experiencing indoor air impacts • The need to exhaust outside of Bayridge Park common areas to keep the exhaust 15 feet away from the nearest window or opening as required by the Air District • The proximity of other buildings, steep slopes or other existing features that would prevent the safe construction of the system. As the above illustrates, parking was not and never has been the determining factor in the location of the treatment building. It was only taken into consideration in response to the feedback we received from the community during the various outreach opportunities described below. The selected location represents the best choice to allow for SVE remediation work to occur quickly to address vapor intrusion in the community. 5. Public Outreach and Community Support: The project team has executed a thorough outreach program over the past six years which gave the public multiple opportunities to provide input on the SVE System design through public comment periods, community meetings held at Bayridge Park, a website and a toll -free number. Attachment 4 provides a summary of the community outreach conducted to date. In fact, both the Bayridge Park HOA 10-610 City of Newport Beach — City Council July 11, 2023 Page 4 and multiple residents strongly support the proposed location and the plans to begin cleaning up the VOC impacts underground using the SVE System. We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with more information on the planning of the SVE System and the reasoning behind selecting this location for the treatment building. We welcome the opportunity to meet with each of you to provide more information or to conduct a site walk so you can see the location firsthand. Please call Tracy Craig at 510-334-4866 to schedule a meeting. Thank you for your dedication and service to the Newport Beach community. Sincerely, WSP USA Environment & Infrastructu i�FSSs o v°e`�"'��ik�, Ho. ssaz9 � z a EXP. m Kenn Conner, PE "'d 12/31120224� r Mike Barnes Senior Vice President I/Northern Call rql C Vice President - Environmental Scientist Office Manager Program Manager mb/kc/smm https:Hwsponline.sharepoint.com/sites/wds-bayareadocusafe/ford motor company/newport beach/comm notices-mailings/19_citynb hearing_rtc/2023_07_11/nb_city council cover Itr_.docx Attachments: Attachment 1 — Responses to Comments Raised at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Attachment 2 — Artist's Rendering of Treatment Building Attachment 3 — EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging Attachment 4 — Community Outreach Summary 10-611 ATTACHMENT 1 Responses to Comments Raised at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting 10-612 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(a)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) 10-613 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 10-614 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 10-615 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. 10-616 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 10-617 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: 1 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: 1 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: 1 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. 10-618 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? 10-619 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. 10-620 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 10-621 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. 10-622 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(nttps://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: 1 [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. 10-623 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? 10-624 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. 10-625 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. 10-626 ATTACHMENT 2 EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging 10-627 '011 RVIO10Z0] M i i PN I to 61611611016 What Are Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging? Both soil vapor extraction, or "SVE," and air sparging extract (remove) contaminant vapors from below ground for treatment above ground. Vapors are the gases that form when chemicals evaporate. SVE extracts vapors from the soil above the water table by applying a vacuum to pull the vapors out. Air sparging, on the other hand, pumps air underground to help extract vapors from groundwater and wet soil found beneath the water table. The addition of air makes the chemicals evaporate faster, which makes them easier to extract with another technology, such as SVE. SVE and air sparging are often used together. Both methods are used for chemicals that evaporate easily —like those found in solvents and gasoline. These chemicals are known as "volatile organic compounds," or "VOCs." How Do They Work? Extraction: SVE involves drilling one or more extraction wells into the contaminated soil to a depth above the water table, which must be deeper than 3 feet below the ground surface. Attached to the wells is equipment Vapor Treatment Building Clean Compressor for Air Air Sparging—\ Blower for SVE Leaking Tank } t, Vapor Vapor Flow Flow �^ti l ti / 1 water Contaminated Watei Table Groundwater Table Air Flow Air Flow OUX010t10 (such as a blower or vacuum pump) that creates a vacuum. The vacuum pulls air and vapors through the soil and up the well to the ground surface for treatment. Sometimes the ground must be paved or covered with a tarp to make sure that the vacuum does not pull air from above into the system. Pulling in clean air would reduce the efficiency of the cleanup. The cover also prevents any vapors from escaping from the ground to the air above. Air sparging involves drilling one or more injection wells into the groundwater -soaked soil below the water table. An air compressor at the surface pumps air underground through the wells. As air bubbles through the groundwater, it carries contaminant vapors upward into the soil above the water table. The mixture of air and vapors is then pulled out of the ground for treatment using SVE. Treatment: Extracted air and contaminant vapors, sometimes referred to as "off -gases," are treated to remove any harmful levels of contaminants. The off -gases are first piped from the extraction wells to an air -water separator to remove moisture, which interferes with treatment. The vapors are then separated from the air, usually by pumping them through containers of activated carbon. The carbon captures the chemicals while clean air exits to the atmosphere. (See Communitv Guide to Granular Activated Carbon Treatment.) Filter materials other than activated carbon may be used. In a process called "biofiltration," tiny microbes (bacteria) are added to break down the vapors into gases, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor. Another option is to destroy vapors by heating them to high temperatures. How Long Will It Take? Cleaning up a site using SVE or air sparging may take several years. The cleanup time will depend on Illustration of a combined air sparging and SVE system. several factors that vary from site to site. For example, SVE and air sparging will take longer where: • Contaminant concentrations are high. • The contaminated area is large or deep. • The soil is dense or moist, which slows the movement of vapors. Are SVE and Air Sparging Safe? When properly designed and operated, SVE and air sparging pose little risk to site workers or the community. Treatment of the vapors involves no harmful chemicals that must be transported to the site. Chemical vapors 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 may be sampled to make sure all harmful vapors have been removed or destroyed. How Might They Affect Me? You may notice some increased truck traffic as the equipment for SVE or air sparging is delivered and later removed. Installation of the systems involves drilling rigs and sometimes other heavy machinery to install wells, blowers and treatment equipment. Sheds or larger buildings may be built to house the treatment systems and keep operating noise to a minimum. Workers will visit these systems regularly to ensure they are working. Why Use Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging? SVE and air sparging are efficient ways to remove VOCs above and below the water table. Both methods can help clean up contamination under buildings and cause little disruption to nearby activities when in full operation. SVE and air sparging have been selected for use at Superfund sites and other cleanup sites across the country. Jm- Pipes transport vapors from the underground SVE extraction well to treatment. Aboveground treatment system includes two tanks of activated carbon. NOTE: This fact sheet is intended solely as general information to the public. It is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States, or to endorse the use of products or services provided by specific vendors. Office of Land and Emergency Management (5203P) I EPA-542-F-21-022 1 2021 1 www.clu-in.org an_FI)o ATTACHMENT 3 Artist's rendering of treatment building 10-630 Parcel 10 Soil Vapor Extraction System Building ! l� 10-631 ATTACHMENT 4 Community outreach summary 10-632 Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary June 6, 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 May 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #1 Bayridge Park Sampling request letter July 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Bayridge Park Water Board Information August 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Session #1 Save the Date Bayridge Park Water Board Community Fact September 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #2 Bayridge Park Water Board Information September 27, 2018 Civic Center Community Room Session #1 (Open House) 100 Civic Center Drive Water Board Information October 2018 Distributed sitewide, including Session #2 Meeting Invite Bayridge Park Water Board Information November 10, 2018 Civic Center Community Room Session #2 Bayridge Park Session: 100 Civic Center Drive 3:00 — 4:30 p.m. Water Board Information February 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Session #3 Invite Letter Bayridge Park Water Board Information February 28, 2019 Civic Center Community Room Session #3 100 Civic Center Drive Water Board Information April 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Session #4 Save the Date Bayridge Park Water Board Information May 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Session #4 Invite Letter Bayridge Park Water Board Information May 29, 2019 Civic Center Community Room Session #4 Bayridge Park Session: 100 Civic Center Drive 6:30 — 8:00 p.m. Water Board November 2019 September 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #5 Save the Bayridge Park Date Water Board Information October 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Session #5 Invite Letter Bayridge Park Water Board Community Fact October 2019 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #3 Bayridge Park Water Board Information November 7, 2019 Civic Center Community Room Session #5 100 Civic Center Drive Water Board Community Fact February 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #4 Bayridge Park Ford Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) February 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park Pilot Test Meeting Invite residents SVE Pilot Test HOA Meeting March 4, 2020 Bonita Creek Community Room 3010 La Vida 10-633 Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary June 6, 2023 Document Distribution/Meeting Date Location Notice of Work: SVE Pilot Test May 2020 Distributed to Bayridge Park residents Water Board Community Fact August 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #5 Bayridge Park Water Board November 2020 September 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #6 Save the Bayridge Park Date Water Board November 2020 October 2020 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #6 Invite Bayridge Park Letter Water Board Information November 5, 2020 Zoom Session #6 Water Board Human Health Risk March 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park Assessment (HHRA) and SVE residents Pilot Test Community Meeting Invite Water Board HHRA and SVE April 22, 2021 Zoom Pilot Test Results Meeting Water Board Community Fact April 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #6 Bayridge Park Water Board Draft FS/RAP May 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park Public Meeting Save the Date residents Water Board Draft FS/RAP Fact June 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park Sheet residents Water Board Draft FS/RAP June 7 —July 9, 2021 Comments could be provided Public Comment Period via mail, phone and email Water Board Draft FS/RAP June 10, 2021 Zoom Public Meeting Water Board July 2021 June 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #7 Save the Bayridge Park Date Water Board July 2021 July 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #7 Invite Bayridge Park Letter Water Board Community Fact July 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #7 Bayridge Park Water Board Information July 29, 2021 Civic Center Community Room, Session #7 100 Civic Center Drive, and YouTube Livestream Ford Remedial Design and October 2021 Distributed to Bayridge Park Implementation Plan (RDIP) residents Meeting Invite Ford RDIP Meeting November 4, 2021 Bayridge Park community pool February 2022 Information December 2021 Distributed sitewide, including Session #8 Save the Date Bayridge Park 10-634 Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary June 6, 2023 Document Distribution/Meeting Date Location February 2022 Information January 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Session #8 Invite Letter Bayridge Park Water Board Community Fact January 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #8 Bayridge Park Water Board Information February 3, 2022 Zoom Session #8 Notice of Work: Bayridge Park February 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park Groundwater Monitoring Well residents Installation and Sampling Notice of Work: Bayridge Park April 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park Groundwater Monitoring Well residents Installation and Sampling Water Board July 2022 June 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #9 Save the Bayridge Park Date Water Board July 2022 July 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #9 Invite Bayridge Park Letter Water Board Community Fact July 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #9 Bayridge Park Water Board Information July 27, 2022 Civic Center Community Room, Session #9 100 Civic Center Drive, and YouTube Livestream Bayridge Park Monthly Work August 2022 Distributed via email to Update #1 Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work October 2022 Distributed via email to Update #2 Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work November 2022 Distributed via email to Update #3 Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work December 2022 Distributed via email to Update #4 Bayridge Park residents Ford SVE Pre -Construction December 2022 Distributed to Bayridge Park Meeting Invite residents Water Board February 2023 December 2022 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #10 Save Bayridge Park the Date Bayridge Park Monthly Work January 2023 Distributed via email to Update #5 Bayridge Park residents Ford SVE Pre -Construction January 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park Meeting Invite #2 (Location residents Change) Ford SVE Pre -Construction January 18, 2023 Bonita Creek Community Room Meeting 3010 La Vida Water Board February 2023 January 2023 Distributed sitewide, including Information Session #10 Invite Bayridge Park Letter 10-635 Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary June 6, 2023 Document Distribution/Meeting Date Location Water Board Community Fact January 2023 Distributed sitewide, including Sheet #10 Bayridge Park Bayridge Park Monthly Work February 2023 Distributed via email to Update #6 Bayridge Park residents Water Board Information February 2023 Civic Center Community Room, Session #10 100 Civic Center Drive, and YouTube Livestream Bayridge Park Monthly Work March 2023 Distributed via email to Update #7 Bayridge Park residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work April 2023 Distributed via email to Update #8 Bayridge Park residents Notice of Work: Utility April 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park Potholing residents Water Board Sub -Slab April 2023 Phone calls to residents within Depressurization (SSD) System Bayridge Park who are Save the Date experiencing vapor intrusion in their home Water Board SSD System May 2023 Distributed to residents within Meeting Invite Letter and SSD Bayridge Park who are Fact Sheet experiencing vapor intrusion in their home Bayridge Park Monthly Work May 2023 Distributed via email to Update #9 Bayridge Park residents Notice of Work: SVE Extraction May 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park Well Installation residents Water Board SSD System May 17, 2023 Residents within Bayridge Park Meeting who are experiencing vapor intrusion in their home SSD System Access Agreement May 2023 Distributed to residents within and What to Expect Handout Bayridge Park who are experiencing vapor intrusion in their home Ford Remediation Update May 2023 Distributed to Bayridge Park Meeting Invite residents Bayridge Park Monthly Work June 2023 Distributed via email to Update #10 Bayridge Park residents Ford Remediation Update June 8, 2023 Bayridge Park community pool Meeting 10-636 Attachment J Revised Project Plans 10-637 �6 A F E 94 HARTF RD DIVE SECOND FLOOR / WINDOW ACCESS GATE NORMALLY CLOSED $ GRAVEL EROSION RELOCATED O PROTECTION ❑ AC UNIT w AC IT ADJUSTED M GRASSCRETE L0 BUILDING LOCATION \ SURFACING FUTURE PAD "t LOCATION ------ - 020" OFIRE LANE 9 9 � I J6,�� `U I � O ORIGINAL PROPOSE o 0 0`6001 o °o TREE REMOVAL BUILDING LOCATIONLANDSCAPED \ 3.8 ft AREA o0 00 TBD BY ARBORIST °op a opal WATER MAIN LOCATED EASEMENT BOUN RY AS SHOWN ON TRACT AP 12164 ICV ON 5/3/2023 - EASEMENT BOUNDARY AS SHOWN SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 121664 + c_� ^j '+ _ �� +V _ + ^ BAYRE AT BOUNV BOUNpARV " EF F LU ENT STACK w PAY + + w A M V COIY£RETE PEDESTRIAN PATH' ^ w + V ICV ICV ICV ICV w + A 00� 0 5 10 Feet GRASS O ED- O V w y w + + w + V y + P10 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING PLAN VIEW Former Ford Aeronutronic Property Newport Beach, California By: ENM Prj. No. 8622397107 ®® Date: 5/17/2023 Figure 1 10-638