Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - Land Use Entitlements for the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project (PA2020-061) - Response to CommentsJanuary 26, 2021 Agenda Item No. 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-2 (ATTACHMENT A) EXHIBIT H RESPONSES TO CORRESPONDENCE RESIDENCES AT 4400 VON KARMAN ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Public Review of an Addendum Summary of Comments Several commenters wrote that the Addendum was not circulated for sufficient time to allow for adequate public comment. Response The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides that the lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15164(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifically provides that an Addendum need not be circulated for public review. Accordingly, there is no requirement under CEQA that an Addendum be circulated for public review. The absence of a public review process for Addendums is consistent with CEQA's policy favoring the finality of adopted EIRs and CEQA Statute Section 21166 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21166) proscription against further environmental review except in specified circumstances. (See Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.Sth 656.) The Addendum is subject to and complied with the Brown Act and related requirements for Planning Commission actions, including timely issuance of the meeting agenda and appropriate inclusion of the Addendum in the Planning Commission staff report for the Project. Several commenters appeared, in person or via remote access, to support and oppose the Project and to comment on the Addendum at the Planning Commission hearing. The Addendum thus complied with applicable law, and was timely available to and used by members of the public during the Planning Commission meeting, and has remained available for and was commented on during the several weeks between the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council's consideration of the Project. Timeliness of Comments Summary of Comments A commenter claims their comments, received after the City Council Agenda packet was printed on January 12, 2021, are timely. The commenter cites Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 to support its position. Response However, in the referenced case, the court was discussing the role of the public comment period on an EIR, where CEQA requires that the EIR be circulated for public review for 45 days and the lead agency provide written responses to all comments received during the public comment period. Here, the Project is supported by an Addendum where there is no requirement of public circulation and written responses to comment. All correspondence received related to the Project prior to production of the Agenda report for the January 21, 2021 City Council meeting was included in the Agenda report and therefore provided previously to City Council. .Although written responses are not required to be prepared for correspondence received on an Addendum, the City has prepared written responses to address misstatements in the correspondence as well as provide clarification to commenters. These responses 2 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence comprehensively address comments provided in this correspondence, inclusive of correspondence provided to the City after the January 12, 2021 City Council Agenda packet was printed. EIRs Prepared for Other Projects Summary of Comments Comments were made that EIRs were prepared for other projects in the City of Newport Beach and reference specifically the Uptown Newport project and the Koll Center Residences project. A commenter claims that because findings of significant impacts associated with the previously proposed Koll Center Residences project and the nearby Uptown Newport project demonstrate that there are significant impacts to be analyzed in the area. Response The City's prior decision to prepare an EIR for a different project, even on the same site, does not require the City to reach the same decision for the proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project. Commenters suggest that the Addendum for the proposed Project omitted impacts that were identified as significant and unavoidable in the Uptown Newport and Koll Center Residences EIRs and that mitigation from these two other EIRs have not been applied to the proposed Project. As a point of clarification to the commenters, the City is considering an Addendum to the City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan Update EIR for the proposed Project not an Addendum to the Uptown Newport certified Final EIR; the Koll Center Newport EIR was not certified. As background, approved by the City in 2013, the Uptown Newport project included 1,244 residential units (up to 150 feet), 11,500 square feet (sf) of retail uses, and 2 acres of park space on approximately 25 acres. The Uptown Newport EIR assumed the first phase of construction occurring over a five-year timeframe. The project is still under construction. Comparisons to the Uptown Newport Project are not relevant to the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project. Uptown Newport is a different project, located at a different site. Commenters have provided no evidence to demonstrate that the proposed Project would result in similar impacts to the Uptown Newport project or any other significant impact warranting preparation of an EIR for the proposed Project. The Koll Center Residences proposed a mixed-use infill residential and retail development with 260 residential condominiums, 3,000 sf of ground -floor retail uses, a 1.17 -acre public park, a free-standing parking structure, and the reconfiguration of some of the existing surface parking areas. The 260 dwelling units would be in three, 13 -story buildings with a maximum building height of 160 feet. Construction was expected to occur over a 4.5 -year timeframe. The Koll Center Residences Draft EIR was not certified, but the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and found significant impacts with respect to construction air quality and noise impacts and land use and planning impacts due to uncertainty regarding the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) consistency determination with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. While the comments indicate the proposed Project would result in similar impacts or any other potentially significant impacts, the comments do not include specific evidence. For the proposed Project, the City determined air quality modeling conducted for the Project found no exceedances of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) construction thresholds and models with worst-case scenario assumption inputs found that construction noise impacts at the closest sensitive receptors would not substantially differ from the General Plan Program EIR and would be less 3 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence than significant. Additionally, the ALUC has determined that the Project is consistent with the AELUP. Noise modeling performed for the proposed Project with worst-case scenario assumption inputs found that construction noise impacts at the closest sensitive receptors would not substantially differ from the General Plan Program EIR and would be less than significant. The City's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. While not referenced by commenters, two other mixed-use projects in the Airport Area include residential development: Newport Airport Village and Newport Crossings. Most recently, the Newport Airport Village project was approved by the City in 2020. Like Uptown Newport, the Koll Center Residences, and the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Projects, the Newport Airport Village project is also located in the Airport Area of the City. The Newport Airport Village project is a mixed -used development with 444 apartment units (329 base units and 115 density bonus units) and 297,572 sf of office, retail, service, and auto rental facilities on approximately 16.5 acres. For this project, the City prepared an Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Program EIR (General Plan Program EIR) and the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental EIR. Note, General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental EIR is not relevant to the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project. The Newport Crossings project was approved by the City in 2019. An EIR was prepared for the project that proposed the demolition of a 58,277-sf shopping center and the construction of a multi -story building including 350 apartment units (including affordable units), 2,000 sf of restaurant space, and 5,500 sf of retail space. The project also includes a 0.5 -acre public park on the approximately 5.7 -acre site. As previously addressed, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR or to an adopted negative declaration is appropriate when it meets the criteria in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Pages 3 to 6 of the Addendum summarizes the findings of the General Plan Program EIR, and the Addendum evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed Project compared to existing conditions to determine whether the potential impacts are consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the Addendum evaluated where there was a change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, whether these factors would result in new significant impacts not discussed in the previous EIR or substantially more severe effects compared to those noted in the previous EIR. None of these factors have occurred. Therefore, the City's prior decision to prepare an EIR for a different project, even on the same site, does not require the City to reach the same decision for the currently proposed Project. Other Project EIRs Imposed Mitigation Summary of Comments A commenter claims that mitigation measures in the certified final Uptown Newport EIR and the mitigation measures in the Koll Center Residences Draft EIR demonstrate that specific and enforceable mitigation must be implemented for the proposed Project. Response As previously stated, the City's prior decision to prepare an EIR for a different project does not require the City to reach the same decision for the proposed Project. The Addendum for the Project incorporates and describes all applicable and required General Plan policies as project design features for the Project. If the Project is approved, compliance with the required General Plan policies would be made conditions of Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence approval. In addition to required General Plan policies, the Addendum identifies required regulatory requirements and City conditions of approval that further reduce potential environmental impacts. General Plan EIR Tiering Summary of Comments Commenters have claimed that the Addendum improperly tiers from the General Plan Program EIR because the proposed Project is not the same project as the General Plan. A commenter claims that tiering from the General Plan Program EIR is not appropriate because the General Plan Program EIR did not consider the specifics of currently proposed Project. Response Commenters cite Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 in support of their claim that a later proposal must be identical to the project analyzed in a Program EIR in order for Public Resources Section 21166 to apply. However, the court's language cited by commenters clearly states that the later proposal must be either the same or within the scope of the project described in the EIR. The proposed Project is within the scope of development analyzed in the certified final General Plan Program EIR. The General Plan Program EIR evaluated development of 4,400 multi -family residential units in the Airport Area, which is twice what was eventually approved in General Plan, and the Project proposes residential development well under the levels previously analyzed in that EIR in the Airport Area. Accordingly, the Project is within the scope of development previously analyzed. Reliance on the prior environmental analysis is appropriate and authorized by CEQA, and that prior analysis was supplemented in the Addendum with site-specific details for the proposed Project demonstrating that no new or increased significant impacts would occur. The City has approved other EIR Addenda to the same General Plan Program EIR, including Newport Airport Village, to support development under the General Plan. Tiering From Multiple CEQA Documents Summary of Comments A commenter asserted that the City cannot rely on both the General Plan Program EIR and the subsequent Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the City's General Plan Housing Element amendment to the General Plan, both of which provide for multi -family residential development in the Airport Area, which includes the project site and Koll Center. Response Citing Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, the commenters claim that multiple CEQA documents cannot be relied upon to support approval of a project. The Newport Banning Ranch EIR was a project -specific EIR and was not tiered from the General Plan Program EIR or any other EIR. The court determined that the EIR did not adequately address potential environmentally sensitive habitat areas based on California Coastal Commission criteria, and the court did not believe that technical information in the EIR appendix was sufficient analysis. The case did not involve reliance on earlier CEQA documents, or subsequent environmental review for a project when an EIR had already been certified. 5 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Tiering Consistency Summary of Comments A commenter claims that the City is applying tiering inconsistently because an EIR was required for other projects. Response As stated previously, the City's prior decision to prepare an EIR for a different project, even on the same site, does not require the City to reach the same decision for the currently proposed Project. The commenter provided no specific evidence to show that the proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts similar to those projects or any other potentially significant impacts. Comparisons to the Uptown Newport Project, which is a different project on a different site, are not relevant to this Project. Supplemental EIR Criteria; Change in Circumstances Summary of Comments One comment claims that the proposed Project requires a Supplemental EIR because the criteria in PRC Section 21166 are met, specifically with respect to COVID-19, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and comment letters objecting to traffic impacts caused by Irvine's residential apartment projects. Commenters have also asserted that an EIR is warranted based on issues identified in the Uptown Newport EIR, such as the potential for hazards from groundwater contamination. Comments were made that these factors would require the preparation of an EIR for the proposed Project because they result in changed circumstances. Response The State CEQA Guidelines Section 16162(a)(2) refers to the need for a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration when: Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Under CEQA, a changed circumstance is not equivalent to a new significant impact or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact. As detailed in the following discussion, there is no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project is undertaken which require major revisions to the General Plan Program EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts. Therefore, under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b), an Addendum is appropriate and a supplemental EIR is not warranted. COVID-19. COVID-19 is a public health issue, not a project -related CEQA effect. Conditions, information, recommendations, and procedures regarding this virus have changed many times during 2020 and would likely continue to change frequently. To attempt to predict such changes or to prescribe safety measures based on potential future public health requirements is not feasible nor practical in this Addendum. The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Project, if approved, is anticipated would not begin construction until the third quarter of 2021. If the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing at that time, Project workers would follow any guidelines and requirements issued by the State of California and Orange County as well as any additional safety measures required by contractors working on site. Construction work has continued in California through most of the pandemic, and it can reasonably be assumed that work could proceed on the Project as long as any required safety measures were implemented. If another shutdown were to occur, the Project work and schedule would be modified based on conditions and guidance from public health officials at that time. Additionally COVID-19 is an existing condition, and the scope of CEQA is assessing the Project's impacts on the environment rather than an existing condition's impact on the Project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. As stated in the Addendum, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time of the certification of the General Plan Program EIR. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of GHG emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Therefore, the fact that GHG emissions could have a significant adverse environmental impact was known at the time the General Plan was approved and the General Plan Program EIR was certified. When the Housing Element was updated in 2013, the City analyzed GHG emissions and found that the Housing Element would have less than significant impacts with respect to this threshold. In Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, a project opponent argued that new threshold guidelines for GHG emissions came to light after the EIR for the project was certified in 2002 and therefore constituted significant and new information requiring a supplemental EIR for a subsequent project. The court rejected the argument and found that the new threshold guidelines did not constitute "new information" requiring additional environmental review. While the Addendum for the proposed Project determined that GHG emissions is not new information, the Addendum nevertheless contains an analysis of potential impacts to GHG emissions and climate change from the Project. The Project is consistent with the region's SB 375 sustainable communities strategy for reducing GHG emissions from the land use and transportation sectors, which includes more residential development in Orange and Los Angeles counties to help reduce long-distance commutes and vehicle miles travelled (VMT), and this plan has been approved as meeting the region's assigned GHG reduction target by the California Air Resources Board. The Project is also required to comply with all GHG reduction regulations and standards. Traffic: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). As stated in the Addendum, when the City's General Plan Program EIR was approved in 2006, the applicable traffic threshold was Level of Service (LOS), not VMT. On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law and started a process that would change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant environmental impacts. On January 20, 2016, the Office of Planning and Research released revisions to its proposed CEQA guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allowed lead agencies an opt -in period to adopt the guidelines, before the mandatory date adoption of July 1, 2020. As described further below, because LOS was the applicable threshold when the 2006 General Plan Program EIR was approved, LOS, not VMT, is 7 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence the applicable traffic standard for the proposed Project. VMT is therefore not an applicable traffic threshold. A CEQA Addendum is appropriate when some changes to a prior EIR are necessary, but (1) there are no substantial changes to the project which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; (2) there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; and (3) there is no new information showing that the project would have significant effects not discussed in the prior EIR or showing that new mitigation measures or alternatives are feasible or required. (14 Cal Code Regs §15164(b).) Therefore, the question with respect to preparing an Addendum is whether there have been any substantial changes to a project's physical environmental impacts or whether there are any new physical environmental impacts. The purpose of a CEQA Addendum is to compare physical project impacts with what was evaluated in the prior EIR to determine whether major revisions to the EIR are required. (See Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538.) An Addendum's intent is not to evaluate impacts of a project compared to thresholds that were not considered in the EIR. As previously addressed, in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, a project opponent argued that new threshold guidelines for GHG emissions came to light after the EIR for the project was certified in 2002 which constituted significant new information requiring a supplemental EIR for a subsequent project. The court rejected the argument and found that the new threshold guidelines did not constitute "new information" requiring additional environmental review. Likewise, in Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Department of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, the court held that a new regulation designating critical habitat for an endangered species was not significant new information requiring a supplemental EIR. The court stated that "[H]owever legally characterized, the habitat would be affected the same as before. And the environmental review and mitigation measures that had already been completed focused on the real effects of the project not just on 'the tortoise,' but on its habitat (previously termed 'crucial'), which is exactly how the project would impact on the species." (Id. at p. 1605.) Similarly, in this case, LOS, not VMT, was the applicable threshold when the 2006 General Plan Program EIR was certified. The new mandate requiring lead agencies to use VMT as a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts does not affect the assessment of the Project's environmental impacts or mitigation measures compared to those analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the new threshold is irrelevant with respect to the analysis of traffic impacts in this Addendum and LOS is the appropriate threshold by which to measure traffic impacts of the Project. Traffic: City of Newport Beach's Prior Comments Regarding Traffic Congestion in the Immediate Area. The commenter is suggesting that comments made to the City of Irvine by the City of Newport Beach more than a decade ago regarding traffic conditions in the area are relevant to the current analysis of transportation impacts of this Project. They are not relevant. The Addendum includes a technical analysis of the transportation impacts anticipated for this Project, based upon currently existing and planned road conditions and the current status of development in the area. Groundwater. Commenters submitted two technical reports alleging that there could be contamination conditions present below either the residential site or structured parking lot site. An expert environmental 8 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence consultant has reviewed these consultant reports and determined that they relied on outdated data, or used inaccurate assumptions about the project. That report, inclusive of figures and the resume/CV of the expert who completed this independent peer review of the studies submitted by commenter, is included as Attachment A. Project Within Scope of General Plan Summary of Comments A commenter disagrees with the City's decision to prepare an Addendum claiming that the City prepared an Addendum because proposed Project is within the allowable residential land use and density in the General Plan. The commenter claims that all projects that do not require a General Plan Amendment could proceed with an Addendum under this logic. Response The staff report does note that the proposed Project is within the allowable residential land use and density of the General Plan. However, the staff reports find that an Addendum is appropriate because: "On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the project (inclusive of recommended conditions of approval) would not result in any new significant impacts that were not previously analyzed in the Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update (SCH No. 2006011119) and the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration (together referenced as PEIR). The potential impacts associated with this project would either be the same or less than those described in the PEIR that have been appropriately mitigated. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the PEIR, nor has any new information regarding the potential for new or more severe significant environmental impacts been identified." A CEQA Addendum is appropriate when some changes to a prior EIR are necessary, but (1) there are no substantial changes to the project which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; (2) there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; and (3) there is no new information showing that the project would have significant effects not discussed in the prior EIR or showing that new mitigation measures or alternatives are feasible or required. (14 Cal Code Regs §15164(b).) Here, the City previously certified a Program EIR for the General Plan, which evaluated development of approximately 4,400 residential units in the Airport Area. Ultimately, only half of that evaluated residential development was approved as part of the General Plan. The City has approved other EIR Addenda to the same General Plan Program EIR, including Newport Airport Village, to support development under the General Plan. The proposed Project is within the scope of development previously analyzed and would not result in any new or increased significant impacts. Accordingly, an Addendum is appropriate. Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Deferred Mitigation Summary of Comments A commenter claims that the Addendum improperly defers mitigation by relying on adopted General Plan policies to mitigate potential environmental impacts. Response The General Plan Program EIR relies on General Plan policies adopted in the General Plan to mitigate potential environmental impacts. Existing enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that all required General Plan policies would be implemented, including conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring. Because the Project itself already mandated compliance with these measures, no additional mitigation measures were required to be included in the General Plan Program EIR. The Addendum incorporates and describes all applicable/required General Plan policies as required project design features for the proposed Project. Compliance with the General Plan is always a requirement for development within the City. A General Plan is the "constitution" for development in a jurisdiction and lies at the top of a city's land use regulation hierarchy. Neighborhood Action Group for the Fifth Dist. v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540. All zoning and land use approvals must be consistent with the general plan. De Vita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 772. Therefore, the Project would be required to comply with the General Plan. In addition to required General Plan policies, the Addendum identifies required regulatory requirements and City conditions of approval that further reduce potential environmental impacts. One commenter asserts that the City is taking an improper "we may require mitigation later, maybe" approach, citing to Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.4th 918. However, under CEQA case law, it is appropriate for an initial level of site characterization and analysis to be completed as part of an EIR process, with follow-up work required later. For example, in City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 262, the Court upheld an EIR for a new school site against claims that the EIR did not adequately evaluate environmental hazards. The EIR committed to the later preparation of a supplemental site investigation, a remedial action work plan, and cleanup according to that work plan. Commenters on the EIR claimed that further analysis was required prior to certification of the EIR, and that the school district could not defer a more specific study until after the new school project was approved. The court held that the EIR analysis was adequate. A similar result was reached in Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, where the Court upheld a general analysis of environmental hazards with follow-up mitigation. Because the Addendum identifies all required project design features that would ensure that the proposed Project results in no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the significant impacts previously identified in the General Plan Program EIR and the conditions of approval and General Plan requirements are enforceable mechanisms to ensure the required project design features are implemented, the Addendum does not defer mitigation. 10 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Summary of Comments A commenter claims that an agency must adopt a MMRP because approving a project that requires mitigation measures, and that failure to adopt one violates CEQA. Response As described in the prior response, the General Plan Program EIR incorporated policies that made it unnecessary to also adopt duplicative mitigation measures. The General Plan policies are required to be implemented by all development within the City, including the proposed Project. Because no mitigation measures were required by the General Plan Program EIR, a MMRP was not required. Additionally, CEQA only requires a MMRP for EIRs and Mitigated Negative Declarations, and expressly authorizes reliance on conditions of project approval. Project Description: Parking and Storm Drain Improvements Summary of Comments A commenter claims that the Project Description is inadequate because it does not describe necessary off-site staging and parking and does not adequate describe how storm flows would be managed. Response Staging/laydown for the proposed Project would occur on site. Therefore, the comment that soil export would require an off-site staging area is inapplicable. All excavated soil to be exported would be placed directly into trucks and hauled off of the site. This soil would not be stockpiled. Additionally, as stated in the Addendum, Standard Condition (SC) TRAN-1 requires the review and approval of a Construction Management Plan by the City. The Plan must identify construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan must identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the Project. Please also see the draft Construction Management Plan (Planning Commission Attachment PC -5). Therefore, the Project is expected to be able to accommodate all construction parking on site. Section 2.4.3 of the Addendum identifies the parking assumptions for the Project. Office parking displaced by the Project would be provided in a new, free-standing parking structure, the residential building's parking structure, and surface parking areas. The new free-standing parking structure would be built as Phase 1, in advance of the construction of the residential building to account for the loss of 106 surface parking spaces. Section 2.6 of the Addendum discloses that construction of the free-standing parking structure requires the demolition of 106 surface parking spaces. A 284 -stall parking structure would be constructed prior to initiating grading or construction of the remainder of the Project in order to replace the surface parking temporarily or permanently displaced by site development. Lastly, the developer was required to, and has with this proposed Project, replaced all parking spaces on the parking lot converted to park or residential use by the Project. Further, parking is not an "environmental impact" under CEQA. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco ("SFUDP") (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.) The Project also complies with the City's parking 11 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence standards for residential projects, and includes residential as well as guest parking, and appropriate temporary parking for vendors, deliveries, and other vehicles. The City thoroughly investigated parking. The parking study the City required to be conducted for this Project (referenced in the Addendum) confirmed that, even pre-COVID-19, substantial numbers of parking stalls remained empty even during peak occupancy periods, and the comments to not include evidence that displaced surface parking stalls are not being replaced. With respect to storm drainage, the hydrology analysis in the Addendum describes that the project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot and that the proposed storm drain system would largely maintain the same existing drainage patterns and connectivity. Drainage areas south of the high point would drain to Von Karman Avenue and drainage areas north of the high point would drain to an existing 60 -inch storm drain line located on the east side of the 5000 Birch Street building. There is an existing underground storm drain in the location of the proposed free-standing parking structure. Commenter claims incorrectly that the on-site drainage facilities are not described. In fact, two feasible options are proposed to address the location of the proposed free-standing parking structure to the storm drain. Option A would retain a storm drain under the parking structure. This option would remove approximately 200 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) within the disturbance area for the free-standing parking structure. Additionally, a new 66 -inch RCP storm drain would be constructed in the same alignment to match the hydraulic capacity of the existing system while also matching the ultimate design life of the proposed parking structure. Option B would remove and relocate the storm drain so that it is not under the parking structure or other permanent buildings or structures. Option B is addressed in greater detail under the response to Flood Hazards. In addition, the construction of the proposed Project would not increase the overall drainage areas from existing to the proposed condition. Reuse of the site with a residential building, parking structure, and park would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff so that it would result in flooding on or off of the site, or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. With implementation of the proposed Project, the pervious condition would increase from 18 percent pervious to 21 percent. The hydrology analysis describes an existing storm drain near the southern end of the project site near Von Karman Avenue. As identified in Table 3.9-1, Runoff Volume Summary, in the Addendum, the proposed Project would result in the conveyance of less water to the storm drain system because the new development would reduce the volume of runoff at the project site. Aesthetics Summary of Comments: Aesthetic Character Some commenters have asserted that the proposed Project conflicts with the surrounding character of professional/office enterprises and ownerships. Response The aesthetics of adding multi -family residential to office business parks by repurposing surface parking lots with infill residential uses and structured parking is a fundamental planning policy question that was considered and approved in the Airport Area nearly a decade ago based on the EIR prepared at that time. This Project implements this approved Plan. The analysis in the Addendum appropriately considers impacts of the proposed Project based on the CEQA thresholds of significance: (a) substantial adverse 12 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence effects on a scenic vista; (b) damage to scenic resources within a State scenic highway; (c) conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality; and (d) new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As evaluated in the Addendum, the project site is an urban infill site currently improved with surface parking. It is not visible from a scenic vista or within a State scenic highway. The Addendum discloses that the Project would change the visual character of the site from a parking lot to a multi -family residential development, structured parking, and a public park, and describes the fact that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. Further, the proposed Project is required to comply with a site development review to ensure that the design details of the Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations, including General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2, which requires design to avoid abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of materials that result in glare and excessive illumination. The Addendum also describes project design features and required General Plan policies that would minimize the visibility of lighting. The City's conditions of approval, including those imposed by the City of Newport Beach Park, Beaches & Recreation (PB&R) Commission, further assure compliance with all applicable standards. Commenters' aesthetic opinions are noted but do not constitute substantial evidence of a significant adverse aesthetic impact warranting preparation of an EIR. It is also noted that commenters' opinion that multi -family residential land use is an inappropriate aesthetic use in a business park was fully addressed at the time the General Plan and Housing Element update were adopted, and aesthetic objections to this City policy and planning decision are not timely. Summary of Comments: Aesthetic Impacts of Stand -Alone Parking Structure A commenter asserts that the stand-alone parking structure is an adverse aesthetic impact that must be screened and moved. Response Please see the prior response. The proposed free-standing parking structure would be compatible with existing and proposed development at the Koll Center Newport. The free-standing parking structure would be four levels inclusive of rooftop parking, at a massing and scale that is consistent with or smaller than nearby office buildings and parking structures. Project conditions of approval permits a maximum height at 40 feet, including mechanical equipment and elevator shafts. The parking structure would be constructed in the southeast portion of the site, proximate to the future Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport development. The proposed Project would comply with General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2, which requires that new buildings be designed to "avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open space, or adversely modify wind patterns." The proposed structure is four levels in height inclusive of rooftop parking. The height of the structure would not interfere with views or cause substantial shade. To minimize visibility of lighting from each floor of the structure, the facades of the above -ground levels of the structure would have a wall system to obscure the lighting and reduce noise from within the structure. With respect to the upper -roof level, light 13 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence standards are required to not exceed 25 feet above the driving surface. The aesthetic objections of commenters are opinions that are noted for the record but do not constitute a significant adverse CEQA impact warranting preparation of an EIR. Summary of Comments: Views Comments were provided to the City that views from existing uses would be impacted. Response The General Plan does not identify any viewpoints or view corridors in the vicinity of the project site. With respect to view protection, the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.30.100 states: ...provides regulations to preserve significant visual resources (public views) from public view points and corridors. It is not the intent of this Zoning Code to protect views from private property, to deny property owners a substantial property right or to deny the right to develop property in accordance with the other provisions of this Zoning Code .... The provisions of this section shall apply only to discretionary applications where a project has the potential to obstruct public views from public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space... It is not the intent of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code to protect views from private property. Further, the City's General Plan goals and policies provide directives in its consideration of aesthetic compatibility, and the Project complies with General Plan goals, as is addressed in the Addendum. While Natural Resources Element Goal NR 20 is the "Preservation of significant visual resources", the policies of the Natural Resources Element are applicable to only public views and public resources, not private views or private resources. The Addendum properly determined that the Project will not impact views. Summary of Comments: Deferral of Lighting Plan Mitigation A commenter claims that a lighting plan with photometrics must be prepared as part of the Addendum and that preparing it later constitutes deferred mitigation. Response The commenter is referring to a standard City condition and requirement that a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan must be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit (SC AESTH-1, Part d). Imposition of a standard City condition in conjunction with the approval of a final lighting plan is not improper deferral of the analysis of lighting impacts. The Addendum evaluated the potential lighting impacts of the proposed Project and determined that no new impacts relative to adverse effects related to lighting or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. The standard condition merely provides quality assurance that the final lighting plan associated with the final design package would continue to provide the same protections to neighboring properties as the design evaluated in the Addendum. 14 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Air Quality Several comments were provided to the City regarding the adequacy of the Addendum's air quality analysis. Responses are provided below. Summary of Comments: Modeling and SCAQMD Requirements A comment was made that the Addendum does not impose the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Rule 403 for dust control during construction, and the modeling is based on "numerous assumptions and credits." Response The analysis and modeling conducted for the proposed Project was conducted in accordance with SCAQMD recommended methodologies and the SCAQMD recommended California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The CalEEMod input values were adjusted to be project -specific based on the proposed land use, construction schedule, anticipated construction equipment, and daily vehicle trip generation. To be conservative, the analysis evaluated the proposed Project's air quality emissions based on reasonably expected maximum emissions scenarios. The proposed Project is required to comply with all regulatory standards as required by the SCAQMD. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires projects to incorporate fugitive dust control measures and is required for all projects. As such, these measures were incorporated into CalEEMod. Additionally, as compliance with SCAQMD Rules are already required by regulation, the incorporation of mitigation requiring compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations is not needed. Summary of Comment: Enforceable Mitigation A comment suggests that the Addendum does not include enforceable mitigation for air quality. Response The Addendum determined that that Project construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would therefore be less than significant for regional and localized impacts. As shown in Table 3.2-1 and Table 3.2-2 of the Addendum, the Project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Additionally, Tables 3.2-4 and 3.2-5 show that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds (LSTs). As set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15041, 15071, and 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are required when a potentially significant impact is identified. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15041(a) requires mitigation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by case law. As demonstrated in the Addendum, the Project would not result in an exceedance of an air quality threshold or standard and impacts were found to be less than significant. Although mitigation is not required, and as previously noted, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD regulatory requirements. 15 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Summary of Comment: Construction Activities Commenters have claimed that the propose Project would have significant impacts related to construction truck traffic. Response A commenter incorrectly interpreted Table 3.2-3 (Equipment Specific Grading Rates). This table is used to determine the daily acreage that would be disturbed by off-road construction equipment. Haul trucks are considered on -road vehicles and are not included in this part of the analysis, in accordance with SCAQMD guidance and methodologies. The air quality modeling and analysis for the Addendum evaluated the emissions from 14,375 truck trips for earthwork/soil hauling. The comment incorrectly states that the truck trips should be included in Table 3.2-3. Because this is an incorrect assumption, the air quality analysis and the localized construction emissions are not underestimated. Summary of Comment: Comparisons to Other Projects Comments were provided that the proposed Project conflicts with the findings of the Uptown Newport certified Final EIR and the Koll Center Residences Draft EIR. Response The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed Project compared to existing conditions to determine whether the potential impacts are consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the findings of the certified Uptown Newport Final EIR and the Koll Center Residences Draft EIR are not directly relevant to the proposed Project. However, to address the unsubstantiated comments, it is noted that the analysis for the Addendum was conducted based on project -specific details including land use and project size, construction schedule, anticipated construction equipment, and daily vehicle trip generation, among other variables. Some key factors that differentiate the proposed Project from the previous Koll Center Residences Project include: ■ Shorter construction period (32 months instead of 5 years) ■ Different construction process (including construction of one residential building instead of two) ■ Less excavation (1.5 subterranean levels instead of 2.5 levels) ■ Less heavy-duty equipment ■ Less truck trips for soil export ■ Less concrete and concrete trucks (residential building would be wood framed) ■ Smaller residential building area (565,452 sf compared to 691,162 sf) ■ Smaller stand-alone parking garage than the previous project as it would be more efficient and displace less existing parking As a result, the proposed Project has different emissions profiles and sources and would therefore result in different total emissions. As such, simply concluding that the proposed Project would have air quality impacts because the previous Koll Center Residences EIR identified that construction emissions would exceed thresholds is inappropriate and inaccurate. 16 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Summary of Comments: Cumulative Imoacts Comments were made that the proposed Project would have a significant cumulative contribution to operational air quality impacts. Response The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to South Coast Air Basin's existing air quality conditions. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) states that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project -specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact and, inversely, projects with emission volumes below the SCAQMD thresholds are not cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 3.2-1 and Table 3.2-2 of the Addendum, the Project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Since these thresholds indicate whether individual project emissions have the potential to affect cumulative regional air quality, project -related emissions would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project -by -project basis. Summary of Comments: Consistency with SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan A comment was made that the Project is inconsistent with the SCAQMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Response Updates to the SCAQMD AQMP do not affect the project's ability to be consistent with the AQMP. The 2016 AQMP uses assumptions from the City's General Plan. As noted in the Addendum, the Project proposes development that would be within the development capacity assumed in the General Plan Program EIR. Addendum Section 3.13, Population and Housing, notes that the increase in residential units and population represents approximately two percent of the growth anticipated under the General Plan. It is important to note that the General Plan Program EIR addressed the introduction of 4,400 multi -family residential units into the Airport Area; the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi -family units. Project implementation would make progress on the City's housing goals and would be consistent with projected growth in the City based on the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) growth forecasts, which are used in the AQMP. The Project is an infill development near large employment areas, thereby potentially reducing the need to travel long distances for some residents and reducing associated GHG emissions. The California Air 17 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010) identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency. CAPCOA also explains that projects with increased densities reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing development density also facilitates implementation of various other strategies including increased transit ridership, which justifies enhanced transit service. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in increasing growth and would be within the growth assumptions of the 2016 AQMP. As properly concluded in the Addendum, the Project is consistent with the SCAQMD's AQMP. Summary of Comments: Health Effects of Criteria Pollutants Some comments were made that the Addendum did not addresses air quality health effects. Response The comment incorrectly states that the Addendum failed to analyze the health effects of air emissions on surrounding employees and residents. As discussed in the Addendum, Project emissions would be less than significant and would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds (referto Table 3.2-1 and Table 3.2-2). Localized effects of on-site project emissions on nearby receptors were found to be less than significant (refer to Table 3.2-4 and Table 3.2-5). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable State or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. The concern raised in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno was related to the Friant Ranch project, a 942 -acre Specific Plan project that would have significant and unavoidable emissions of multiple criteria pollutants (including significant emissions of both primary 03 precursors [NOx and ROGs]) at levels that exceeded the daily thresholds of significance. In contrast, the proposed Project's operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds and would not have the potential for health impacts from criteria pollutants. The commenter's comparison to Sierra Club v. County of Fresno is improper. Biological Resources Summary of Comments A commenter suggests that the Addendum does not adequately address potentially significant impacts to biological resources and no enforceable mitigation is provided for potential impacts to nesting birds. Response With respect to potential impacts to biological resources, the comment provides no documentation to support this unsubstantiated opinion. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4t" 556, 580.) 18 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence The topic of biological resources is addressed in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of the Addendum. The project site is an existing surface parking with ornamental landscape areas; there are no native habitat areas on the site nor is the site adjacent to native habitat areas. The site is bordered on all sides by developed urban uses. The Addendum notes that some of the existing landscape trees on the project site could provide nesting habitat for native birds. Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC §703 et seq.) and the California Fish and Game Code (§ 3503 et. seq.). Federal regulations prohibit any person to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, [or] purchase" any migratory bird, including parts of birds, as well as eggs and nests. The California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3512 also prohibit the take of birds and active nests. The Addendum includes Standard Condition (SC) BIO -1, which requires a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey(s) prior to any disturbance activities (e.g., site clearing, demolition, grading) to identify any active nests in and adjacent to the project site no more than three days prior to these activities. This standard condition applies to activities during the breeding/nesting season. SC BIO -1 further identifies the procedures that must be implemented should any active nests be potentially impacted by project activities. Compliance with this standard condition is enforceable by the City of Newport Beach. The Addendum properly concluded that impacts are less than significant without mitigation. The commenter's opinion stating that impacts are not properly addressed and mitigation is required is unsupported. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Summary of Comments Commenters suggested that the Addendum documentation does not comply with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52; that the Addendum does not address tribal cultural resources; that the Addendum does not include mitigation measures associated with potential impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources, and then later says the cultural and tribal cultural mitigation measures are not sufficiently specific, and that the mitigation is inconsistent with prior City practices and General Plan policies. Response With respect to SB 18, because the proposed Project does not require an amendment to the General Plan or to a specific plan, SB 18 is not applicable. AB 52 had not been adopted at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified. AB 52 requires lead agencies to analyze the impacts of a project on "tribal cultural resources" separately from archaeological resources. AB 52 provisions only apply to projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) filed on or after July 1, 2015. Therefore, AB 52 does not apply to the proposed Project. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the General Plan Program EIR analyzed potential impacts on cultural resources, which at the time the EIR was prepared was inclusive of historic resources, archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources. Potential impacts to these resources are addressed in the Addendum. Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, 19 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence addresses historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources. Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, also addresses paleontological resources. With respect to the mitigation program, in the Addendum, SC CULT -1 requires the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist and a Native American tribal representative to perform periodic monitoring of ground -disturbing activities, which are inclusive of excavation, grading, etc. The standard condition identifies the programs and actions that would be taken should resources be observed at the project site. Compliance with this standard condition is enforceable by the City of Newport Beach. General Plan Policy HR 2.2 states "Require a qualified paleontologist/ archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/ archaeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department." This policy does not mandate the frequency of monitoring. The duration and frequency of monitoring is at the discretion of the monitors and the City. As noted, the standard condition also requires monitoring during ground -disturbing activities. SC CULT -1 is consistent with this General Plan policy. The commenter's statement that the cultural and tribal resources mitigation measures are not sufficiently specific and that the mitigation is inconsistent with prior City practices and General Plan policies is unsupported. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4t" 556, 580.) Energy Summary of Comments: Energy Analysis Comments were made regarding the inclusion of an energy analysis in the Addendum. Response As noted in Section 3.5, Energy, of the Addendum, potential impacts related to energy were not specifically analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR because this topic was not called out separately on the Office of Planning and Research's (OPR's) State CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G checklist until January 1, 2019, which was subsequent to the certification of the General Plan Program EIR. However, the General Plan Program EIR did include an analysis of the impacts on other public services and utilities, which included electricity and natural gas (see General Plan Program EIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems). The energy analysis in the Addendum is carried through to this new energy section for context, discussion, and comparison purposes. As discussed in the Addendum, nothing in the energy analysis would trigger a subsequent EIR. Summary of Comments: Electrical Service A commenter claims that the Addendum does not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project can be served with electricity by Southern California Edison (SCE) because SCE forecasts of adequate electricity to meet expected growth in its service area do not extend beyond 2026 when the Project is anticipated to open in 2024. 20 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Response No substantial evidence has been provided by commenters to support the position that electrical service could be unavailable to the Project in the future. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that additional energy demands resulting from implementation of the General Plan would be adequately met by current and planned infrastructure during most of the year as well as compliance with the energy conservation measures contained in Title 24, which would reduce the amount of energy needed for operation of buildings. The projected electrical demand for buildout under the General Plan was expected to be within SCE's then -current ten-year load forecasts. It should be noted that the General Plan Program EIR evaluated impacts of twice the amount of residential development in the Airport Area than was ultimately approved. The Addendum explains that the increase in electricity demand from the proposed Project would be approximately 0.0008 percent of the overall demand in Southern California Edison's (SCE) service area. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE's level of service. Furthermore, the Project would include energy efficiency design features that would reduce peak demand. For example, the Project would include high -efficiency wall assemblies and windows to reduce heating and cooling loads; Energy Star appliances; high -efficiency heating and cooling systems; high efficiency domestic hot water systems; and high -efficiency light -emitting diode (LED) lighting in residential units, common areas, and landscape design. The proposed buildings would meet the latest most stringent energy efficiency building codes, which would minimize demand. Furthermore, SCE has demand response programs that provide incentives for reducing electricity use when the demand for electricity is high to manage peak loads to further manage peak demand issues. Project operations would benefit from Title 24 energy standards, which would reduce electricity demand. Based on the analysis in the Addendum and the low proportion of energy and fuel consumption compared to regional demand (i.e., the Project would be 0.0008 percent of overall demand in SCE's service area), the Project would not affect peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. The proposed Project would not require additional power generation plants, natural gas transmission facilities, or fuel refineries to be constructed. Through use of renewable energy required by the State, energy efficiency standards, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure, the proposed Project would minimize impacts on the local and regional energy supply. The Project would comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Summary of Comments: Fuel Use During Construction Comments were made that the Addendum's analysis of fossil fuel consumption does not include truck trips associated with the export of soil Response Fuel use from construction haul trucks is specifically analyzed in Section 3.5, Energy, of the Addendum. The Addendum explains that transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The analysis qualitatively notes that fuel use would not be excessive or wasteful because contractors have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction. Based on the Project's emissions modeling, construction fuel consumption would result in 232,876 gallons of gasoline and 81,404 gallons 21 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence of diesel. As noted on page 63 of the Addendum, Orange County's annual gasoline fuel use in 2020 was 1,180,213,295 gallons and diesel fuel use was 144,020,787 gallons. The Project's construction use of gasoline and diesel would represent 0.007 percent of current gasoline use and 0.162 percent of current diesel use in the County. None of the Project's energy uses exceed one percent of their corresponding County use. Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. It should be noted that this fuel consumption includes both haul trucks as well as worker trips, vendor trucks, and off-road equipment. Flood Hazards Summary of Comments Commenters claims that the proposal for the parking structure would place the watershed near the entrance of 4340 Von Karman office building and cause flooding. A commenter asserted that the impacts of relocating or preserving the existing storm drain were not appropriate analyzed. Response The proposed Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not increase the total flows to the storm drain system or the overall pervious/impervious ratio for the site. Existing drainage from north of the parking structure would be intercepted at the northeast corner of the parking structure and would be connected to the existing 66 -inch storm drain system to match existing conditions and would not affect the drainage conditions to the south of the structure. The Project's proposed storm drain improvements also includes water quality devices and a detention system that would be located to the south of the parking garage. The proposed detention system is designed to capture and treat the low flow water quality volumes. However, all peak flow drainage would be directly conveyed to the existing storm drain system. As a result, the proposed water quality feature would not increase flooding risk in this area, and instead significantly decreases the risk of flooding and increases the hydraulic efficiency of the existing system. As a result, the proposed water quality improvements and detention system would have a positive impact on the existing drainage conditions and there is not a risk for additional flooding in the vicinity of the 4340 Von Karman office building. Attachment B provides clarification to this issues. Commenter claims incorrectly that impacts of relocating the storm drain or preserving it in situ are not described. In fact, two feasible options are proposed to address constructing a parking structure over a storm drain. Option A would retain a storm drain under the parking structure. This option would remove approximately 200 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) within the disturbance area for the free-standing parking structure. Additionally, a new 66 -inch RCP storm drain would be constructed in the same alignment to match the hydraulic capacity of the existing system while also matching the ultimate design life of the proposed parking structure. Option B would remove and relocate the storm drain so that it is not under the proposed free-standing parking structure or other permanent buildings or structures, and would instead be located to the east, south and south-west of the free-standing parking structure. This option would remove approximately 300 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch RCP within the disturbance area for the free-standing parking structure. Approximately 550 linear feet of new 72 -inch RCP storm drain would be constructed to the east, south, and south-west of the free-standing parking structure. The new 72 -inch RCP storm drain would reconnect to the existing 66 -inch storm drain at southwest corner of the free-standing parking structure. 22 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence In addition, the construction of the proposed Project would not increase the overall drainage areas from existing to the proposed condition. Reuse of the site with a residential building, parking structure, and park would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff so that it would result in flooding on- or off- site or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. With implementation of the proposed Project, the pervious condition would increase from 18 percent pervious to 21 percent. The hydrology analysis describes an existing storm drain near the southern end of the Project site near Von Karman Avenue. As identified in Table 3.9-1, Runoff Volume Summary, in the Addendum, the proposed Project would result in the conveyance of less water to the storm drain system because the new development would reduce the volume of runoff at the project site, particularly due to the increased permeability of soils associated with the proposed public park. Geology and Soils Summary of Comments A commenter claims that the Addendum ignores geotechnical problems, including groundwater intrusion by the parking structure, liquefaction and expansive soils, and seismic risks. Response Although the historical high groundwater level is approximately 10 feet below grade, a perched groundwater condition was encountered in exploratory borings at depths between 20 and 25 feet below the existing ground surface during subsurface exploration performed for the preparation of the geotechnical report. These perched zones do not necessarily represent the static groundwater level, which may be closer to 50 feet below existing grades. The geotechnical report concluded that groundwater is not expected to have a significant impact during construction for one level of subterranean founded at a depth of 12 feet below existing grades; however, groundwater is anticipated to have a significant impact for two levels of subterranean found to a depth of 24 feet below existing grades. The Addendum and geotechnical report prepared for the Project included extensive analysis of seismically -induced liquefaction risk. The geotechnical report and Addendum determined that localized and isolated sandy layers within the old paralic deposits that underlie the Project site are susceptible to relatively minor amounts of liquefaction as a result of a potential earthquake along a nearby fault and the historical high groundwater level of 10 feet below existing grades. The estimated settlements appear to be limited to isolated and localized relatively thin zones generally between 12 and 49 feet below existing grades during seismic events. However, the seismic -induced liquefaction settlement would be reduced with removal of materials for the subterranean parking structure excavation. Typical construction methods and protocols for remedial grading would replace unsuitable materials with suitable engineered fill materials prior to recompaction with paralic deposits or other non -expansive materials. The resulting configuration would not be subject to liquefaction. In addition, the typical reinforced concrete structural mat foundation system for the support of the proposed residential building and parking structure would further reduce impacts. The Project would be required to comply with General Plan policies and California Building Code regulations. 23 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary of Comments Commenters have stated that a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis was not provided and that the GHG analysis that was prepared was not adequate or correct. A commenter claims that the Project and the underlying documents do not comply with the provisions of AB 32 and other mandates requiring local jurisdictions to take affirmative steps to reduce GHG emissions with feasible mitigation and valid climate action plans. Comments also reference the City of Santa Ana, who is not the lead agency for the proposed Project, and that the proposed Project includes retail uses, which it does not nor is required to provide. Response As stated in the Addendum, the issue of GHG emissions and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time of the certification of the General Plan Program EIR. When the Housing Element was updated in 2013, the City analyzed GHG emissions and found that the Housing Element would have less than significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions. As previously addressed, in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, a project opponent argued that new threshold guidelines for GHG emissions came to light after the EIR for the project was certified in 2002 and therefore constituted significant and new information requiring a supplemental EIR for a subsequent project. The court rejected the argument and found that the new threshold guidelines did not constitute "new information" requiring additional environmental review. While the Addendum notes that the GHG emissions and climate change are not new information, the analysis of GHG emissions is provided in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Addendum. The Addendum analysis shows that the Project would not exceed SCAQMD's interim screening level numeric bright -line annual threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction, including Title 24 energy efficiency standards and other state-wide and City mandates and policies implemented in accordance with AB 32, SB 32 and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan. Also, as described above, the Project is also consistent with the CARB-approved SB 375 plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from land use development in the region (the 2020 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy approved by the SCAG). The analysis demonstrates how the Project would not generate a significant amount of GHG emissions. Additionally, the Project is a residential infill project that would increase land use diversity and reduce GHG emissions compared to traditional development. The proposed infill development includes increased density that is near large employment areas, thereby potentially reducing the need to travel long distances for some residents and reducing associated GHG emissions. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010) identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project, reduce VMT which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency. CAPCOA also explains that projects with increased densities reduce VMT and provide greater options for the mode of travel they 24 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence choose. Increasing development density also facilitates implementation of various other strategies including increased transit ridership, which justifies enhanced transit service. As documented in the Addendum, the project would be within the development capacity assumed in the General Plan Program EIR. Section 3.13, Population and Housing, of the Addendum notes that the increase in residential units and population represents approximately two percent of the growth anticipated under the General Plan. Project implementation would make progress on the City's housing goals and be consistent with projected growth in the City based on SCAG's growth forecasts. Lastly, commenters stated that the Project has the potential to generate additional retail uses. The Project does not propose commercial uses and there is no information in the Addendum or project information identifying retail uses on the project site. Hazardous Materials Summary of Comments A commenter claims that the Addendum fails to disclose that a plume of contaminate soils and groundwater extends north of the TowerJazz Semiconductor Facility (TowerJazz) site and into the project site and that excavation required for the Project may result in exposure to contaminated soils or groundwater. A commenter also asserts that Project construction requires dewatering that would increase risks of the plume. The commenter alleges that groundwater contamination, or migration, would affect future residents on the site. Response As a general rule, CEQA does not require analysis of the impact of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project. However, if the project would in some way exacerbate existing environmental hazards, then those exacerbated conditions must be evaluated as impacts of the project. (California Bldg. Indus. Assn v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.) The California Supreme Court stated this rule as follows (62 C4th at 377): In light of CEQA's text, statutory structure, and purpose, we conclude that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. But when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must evaluate the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project's impact on the environment—and not the environment's impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how those future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions. Two courts have relied on California Bldg. Indus. Assn in rejecting claims that the effect of existing environmental hazards on the project need to be addressed by CEQA review. In Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 582, the court ruled that concerns about the effect activities at a nearby equestrian facility would have on project residents were "outside CEQA's scope." Similarly, in Clews Land & Livestock v City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.Sth 161, 193, the court observed that consideration of existing environmental hazards, such as the potential effect of wildfires on the project, would not be proper under CEQA. (See also South Orange County Wastewater Auth. v City of Dana Point 25 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1617 (EIR not required for general plan and zoning changes to allow mixed- use development adjacent to wastewater treatment plant because CEQA does not protect projects from existing adverse environmental conditions); Baird v County of Contra Costa (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1468 (EIR not required for expansion of residential addiction treatment facility near contaminated areas, because effect of existing contamination on residents of proposed facility is "beyond the scope of CEQA and the EIR requirement").) As a part of the Uptown Newport project, the former TowerJazz office building was demolished and the Phase 1 portion of the site was graded. Two of the residential apartment buildings and the Phase 1 park were completed. The certified Final EIR for the Uptown Newport project included a comprehensive review of the regulatory requirements for hazardous materials and identified five extremely hazardous substances that are used by and stored at the existing TowerJazz for manufacturing and operating on the Phase 2 portion of the planned community. The July 28, 2020 staff report for the Addendum to the Uptown Newport EIR, which includes the Addendum to the Uptown Newport EIR; see https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/Web/0/doc/2549418/Pagel.aspx. The Uptown Newport EIR disclosed and evaluated the potential for these five substances to impact surrounding uses orthe Phase 1 residential use of the approved project. An off-site consequence assessment was prepared to evaluate the potential risks, and only one of these substances, anhydrous ammonia, posed a health risk. Mitigation measures for the Uptown Newport EIR included installation of a new (replacement) ammonia tank at a minimum distance of 200 feet from the nearest existing or proposed residential structure with mitigation safeguards. With that requirement, the impact was reduced to less than significant levels. In the Addendum to the Uptown Newport EIR, the applicant proposed an alternative to the replacement and relocation of the ammonia tank. The Addendum proposed to enclose the existing, 2,230 -gallon, above -ground, pressurized, anhydrous ammonia tank at its current location. The enclosed structure would be airtight, and the interior of the building would be equipped with a water deluge system to neutralize the ammonia and allow it to drain into the existing sewer system. A revised ammonia risk analysis for the existing ammonia tank and an off-site consequence analysis technical review report were prepared based on the updated plans. The City of Newport Beach Fire Marshall reviewed the revised assessment and found the revised mitigation measure to be acceptable. The proposed enclosure would reduce the potential release of ammonia in the event of a malfunction or failure of the ammonia tank, and ultimately reduce potential exposure from such a release to TowerJazz employees and contractors, adjacent commercial users, and existing and future residents of Uptown Newport. Because the revised ammonia risk assessment concluded, to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshall, that mitigation to encapsulate the ammonia tank would prevent exposure of ammonia to adjacent uses and residents of Uptown Newport, the risk of exposure to future residents of the project is reduced to a less than significant level. In response to this comment, an expert consultant re -reviewed contaminated soil and groundwater issues, and concluded that: (a) the plume does not extend into the residential project site, and neither construction activities that include excavation for the residential building and construction of the structured parking would not cause or exacerbate any new or significant contamination conditions, or expose construction workers or future residents and parking structure users to this existing contamination condition. As stated previously, commenters submitted two technical reports alleging that there could be contamination conditions present below either the residential site or structured parking lot site. An expert environmental consultant has reviewed these consultant reports and determined that they relied on outdated data, or used inaccurate assumptions about the Project itself. That report, inclusive of Figures 26 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence and the CV of the expert who completed this independent peer review of the studies submitted by commenter (Attachment A). Specifically, the expert consultant concluded that assertions regarding migration of contamination in the direction of the project site were unsupported by fact and ignored current data for the Uptown Newport (formerly Conexant) site. The commenter offers no specific information as to if or how contamination, including underground storage tanks, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or trichloroethylene (TCE), could potentially affect development. There is no data or reasonable technical argument to support the argument that development of the project site with a free-standing parking structure may be affected by contamination at the Uptown Newport site. The commenter cites a 2017 groundwater figure and a 2020 Geosyntec groundwater figure as evidence that groundwater beneath the site is contaminated. However, a July 2019 report with the most recent shallow groundwater data shows well samples with "consistent non -detect results over the last five years." The 2020 groundwater figure cited by the commenter was not shallow groundwater and therefore does not support the commenter's assertion of contamination. The expert consultant found no data or information to support soil contamination or historical activities at the proposed location of the free-standing parking structure (referred by the commenter as Lot 5) that could negatively impact its environmental condition. The need for a Soil Management Plan and regulatory oversite, as suggested by the commenter, is unsupported. Likewise, the commenter provides no information or data to substantiate the assertion that the proposed location of the residential building (referred to by the commenter as Lots 1 and 3 — existing surface parking) may be affected by VOCs from the Uptown Newport (Conexant) site. Lastly, the Project does not involve dewatering and residents would only have living spaces on the second and third floors of the proposed building. Therefore, there is no risk of vapor intrusion to future residents and no need for vapor control measures. Because the Addendum appropriately evaluated contamination conditions at and from the TowerJazz site, and concluded that there is no public health risk at the project site, excavation required for the proposed Project would not exacerbate the existing environmental condition, or expose people to pre-existing contamination conditions. Further, there is no risk of contamination on the site, and no evidence of historical activities that could affect environmental conditions on the site. This Addendum assessment was re -reviewed and confirmed in response to the comment by a qualified environmental consultant as discussed above. As concluded in the Addendum, impacts are less than significant. Land Use Summary of Comments: Physically Divide an Established Community A commenter suggested that the inclusion of residential development in Koll Center Newport would physically divide an established community. Comments are also provided that the removal of the gates at the middle driveway ("Driveway 2") on Birch Street to allow for ungated vehicular movement from Birch Street to the internal access street to Von Karman Avenue would bisect the community. Response It is important to note that the project site is within the boundaries of the Airport Business Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) which was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council in September 2010. The 27 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence ICDP is generally bound by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street and Jamboree Road and contemplates residential uses on the Uptown Newport and on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport where the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project is proposed. As included as Figure 4 to the Addendum, the conceptual ICDP identified residential development in this part of Koll Center Newport with existing office uses adjacent to and on either side of the residential uses. As addressed in the Addendum, the proposed Project would not divide an established community. Physical division of an existing community is intended to apply to projects such as highway construction projects that create physical barriers dividing an established community. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; Cathay Mortuary, Inc. v. San Francisco Planning Com. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 275.) That is not the case for this Project. The Project would allow for the infill and intensification of development in an already urbanized, mixed-use area. The Project does not include any development features that would traverse or create a physical barrier between currently developed areas. It would also not preclude pedestrians from walking through the area and in fact includes a public park that connects existing and proposed uses. The proposed residential building would be integrated into Koll Center Newport and would not block or preclude movement through the area, particularly given that the Project includes pedestrian paths and a public park that would connect the Project to surrounding uses and public sidewalks. There is no evidence that the Project would result in physical division of an established community. Additional traffic, altered setbacks, higher density, changed building orientation, and road widening do not constitute a fair argument of physical division of a community. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 1419-1420.) In particular, a project's density and design compared to existing conditions is not relevant when analyzing physical division of a community. (Id.) Claims that the internal circulation, traffic, and building orientation/size of the Project constitute physical division of an established community are unfounded. In particular, alteration of the interior circulation of Koll Center Newport would not cause division of an established community. As discussed in the Addendum, the Project's internal circulation would not substantially increase hazards, result in inadequate emergency access, or conflict with circulation programs, plans, or policies. In any event, alteration of internal circulation, in and of itself, is not a CEQA impact. Summary of Comments: Koll Center Newport Planned Community Amendment A comment claims that the Addendum has not analyzed the impacts of an amendment to the Planned Community (PC) designation to provide a residential overlay. Response As disclosed in the Addendum, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)" and zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 and subsequently amended several times. As a part of the Project, the PC text is proposed to be amended so that PC -15 Koll Center would include a Residential Overlay zone in Professional and Business Office Site B allowing for residential development and a park consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. The Project's amendment to PC -15 Koll Center includes development standards and the identification of 28 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence permitted uses and parking standards. The proposed overlay zone is tailored to the Project and include specific uses, setbacks, density, and development standards. No change to the existing General Plan land use designation is required as a part of the City's consideration of the proposed Project. With approval of the PC -15 text amendment, the Project would be permitted on the property and consistent with PC -15. Therefore, with approval of the Project's entitlements, the Project would not conflict with PC -15 standards. It should also be noted that project inconsistency with a zoning standard that is itself not consistent with a General Plan designation is not a physical impact on the environment, or a significant adverse impact under CEQA. Summary of Comments: John Wayne Airport A commenter suggested that the proposed project is incompatible with airport operations at John Wayne Airport. Response John Wayne Airport generates nearly all aviation traffic directly above the City of Newport Beach due to flight paths and descent patterns. All land uses surrounding the airport are required to comply and be compatible with the land use standards established in the City's Municipal Code and the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. The General Plan identifies a goal to protect residents, property, and the environment from aviation -related hazards, and lists General Plan Policies S 8.1 through S 8.4 to ensure preparation and minimize risk in the case of an aviation accident. The entire Airport Area is within the Height Restriction Zone designated in the AELUP. General Plan LU Policy 6.15.24 requires that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential development be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the AELUP, unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. The project site is in Safety Zone 6, which allows residential uses and most nonresidential uses other than outdoor stadiums, children's schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. Safety Zone 6 has a "generally low likelihood of accident occurrence at most airports; risk concern primarily is with uses for which potential consequences are severe." Safety Zone 6 includes all other portions of regular traffic patterns and pattern entry routes." Because the Project site is in Safety Zone 6, which allows residential uses, the Addendum properly concluded that the Project is consistent with the AELUP. On November 19, 2020, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County considered the proposed Project. The ALUC voted unanimously to find the Project consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP) (see staff report Attachment H). The ALUC staff report concludes: "ALUC staff has reviewed this project for compliance with the AELUP including review of noise, height, overflight and imaginary surfaces. Although the project site is located within Safety Zone 6 —Traffic Pattern Zone, it is located outside of the 60 and 65 dBA noise contours for John Wayne Airport. The Flight Tracks of general aviation aircraft are generally to the west and the east of the project site. The City provided FAA Determinations of No Hazard for structures up to 123 feet AMSL, and the proposed structure heights do not penetrate the horizontal surface for JWA." 29 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Courts generally defer to an agency's decision on consistency with its own plan unless, on the evidence before the decision-making body, a reasonable person could not have come to the same conclusion. (The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.Sth 883, 896.) Because (1) Safety Zone 6 allows for residential uses, (2) the project site is outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, and (3) the ALUC unanimously voted that the Project was consistent with the AELUP, in its discretion under its AELUP, there is no basis for a claim that the Project is inconsistent with the AELUP. With respect to airport noise, the AELUP is cited in Section 6, References, of the Addendum. A review of the contours within Appendix B of the ALUC plan shows that the project site is outside of the 60-dBA CNEL contour. Additionally, the latest contours from the airport show that the project site is outside of the 60- dBA CNEL contour'. These contours take into account aircraft type and flight paths associated with the airport. Additionally, General Plan Policy N 1.3 and Standard Condition SC N-3 require residential developments within the Airport Area to demonstrate that the design of a structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code and that interior noise levels will achieve 45 dBA CNEL or less. Therefore, both due to the Project's location and design, airport noise will not adversely affect future Project residents. Separate from the Addendum, existing and future noise impacts from aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport were analyzed in Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 617, John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment (JWA EIR) (County of Orange, May 2014). The JWA EIR analyzed the environmental impacts (including noise impacts) for an increase in flights and passengers at John Wayne Airport as a result of extending the terms of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement. According to the JWA EIR, the project site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour under existing and future plus project conditions and is not located within the arrival or departure flight paths at John Wayne Airport. Additionally, the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANG) has been adopted by the County of Orange to regulate the hours of operation and the maximum permitted noise levels associated with general aviation operations. John Wayne Airport maintains ten permanent noise monitoring stations. The GANO specifies noise limits at each noise monitoring stations that vary by time of day. The GANO also identifies private aircraft that may not meet the noise standards and specifically limits their operations unless the aircraft owner/operator can furnish evidence that the aircraft can operate within acceptable noise levels. John Wayne Airport noise impacts were also analyzed in the Environmental Assessment for the Southern California Metroplex Project (Metroplex EA) (United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, June 2015) for the optimization of Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures at several airports in Southern California, including John Wayne Airport. This is accomplished by developing procedures that take advantage of technological advances in navigation, such as Area Navigation (RNAV). RNAV uses technology, including Global Positioning System (GPS), to allow an RNAV-equipped aircraft to fly a more efficient route. According to Noise Integrated Routing System (NIRS) grid point modeling in the Metroplex EA, John Wayne Airport airplane noise levels at the closest modeled grid receptor (located approximately 0.19 mile to the north of the project site) with implementation of RNAV ATC procedures would be approximately 52.0 DNL (Day -Night Sound Level). As the project site is 0.19 mile further south ' https://www.ocair.com/reportspubIications/AccessNoise/cneInoisecontours/2019.PDF 30 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence from the modeled grip receptor, aircraft noise levels would be lower than 52.0 DNL and below the City's noise standards for residential uses. Summary of Comments: Building Setbacks A comment was made that the Project does not comply with setback requirements for multi -family residential projects. Response The General Plan Land Use Element does not include a minimum setback for multi -family projects. Therefore, any allegation that the Project does not comply with General Plan setback requirements is unsupported. The Project would comply with setbacks required by the PC -15 text, as amended as part of the Project entitlements. With approval of the Project's entitlements, the Project would comply with setbacks required by PC -15. Further, building setback deviations are not physical impacts to the environment under CEQA. The residential building would be bordered by a new public park, existing office buildings, and parking areas, and the commenter has offered no evidence that amending the PC -15 setback will result in an adverse impact to the physical environment under CEQA. Summary of Comments: General Plan Consisten Comments were provided that the number of residential units proposed by the Project is underestimated or inconsistent with the General Plan. Response The project site has a General Plan land use category of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -H2), which provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multi -family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU -H2 designation applies to a majority of properties in the Airport Area, inclusive of the project site and adjacent uses, and permits a maximum of 2,200 residential units as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses at a maximum density of 50 units per adjusted net acre, of which a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill units. A maximum of the 550 units are "additive" units that "may be developed as infill on existing surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area as depicted on General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU22 provided that parking is replaced on-site." Together, the approved Uptown Newport Project and the proposed Project would use all of the 550 additive units allocated to the Airport Business Area ICDP. The Project includes 312 multi -family rental units: 260 additive units and 52 density bonus units. As shown in Table 1 in the Addendum, between Uptown Newport's 290 additive units and the Project's 260 additive units, the total number of dwelling units in the Airport Business Area ICDP is 550. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the ICDP's maximum unit requirement. Some commenters claimed that the Project's 312 units (260 base units and 52 density bonus units) exceed maximum unit allocations in the City's ICDP and General Plan. However, eligible density bonus units permitted by Government Code Section 65915 and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.32 are not included in the MU-H2's allowable maximum of 2,200 residential units. There is no basis for a claim that the Project's number of units is underestimated or inconsistent with the General Plan. 31 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence The General Plan policies for the Airport Area call for the orderly evolution of this area from a single purpose business park to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of the office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses. The proposed Project is consistent with the MU -H2 land use designation for the project site and would implement the City's General Plan goals and policies for this portion of the Airport Area because it would integrate residential uses into the Koll Center Newport. Additionally, the General Plan Program EIR considered the environmental impacts of twice as many units than the approved General Plan, and thus tiering from that General Plan Program EIR also appropriately considers the impacts associated with the Project's unit count for the Airport Area. The Airport Business Area ICDP is a prerequisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in the City's General Plan, and it provides a framework for residential development on the project site. The proposed Project would carry out the intent of the Airport Business Area ICDP and the City's General Plan because the project site would be developed with the uses envisioned in and approved under the Airport Business Area ICDP. Implementation of the proposed Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Airport Business Area ICDP and the City's General Plan. With respect to General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5, the project is consistent with the ICDP's maximum of 2,200 multi -family residential units, as discussed above. Additive units are exempt from the requirement of not exceeding the number of existing peak hour trips generated by existing uses. These units will be allocated to the Project pursuant to the City's General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. The Project is also consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.6, which requires a minimum of 10 -acres for mixed-use residential villages centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities. The Project would involve development on a 13 -acre site with a 1.1 -acre public park and on-site amenities. With respect to General Plan Policy LU 6.15.8, which requires a residential density of 45 to 50 units per net acre averaged over the first phase of each residential village, the ICDP area is exempt from the numerical requirement in LU 6.15.8. Rather, it is subject to a requirement for a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per net acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre prior to any affordable housing density bonus. The net density for the Project's base units would be 44 dwelling units per acre without the density bonus units considered. Inclusive of the density bonus, the density would be 53 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Policy LU 6.15.8. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 because it includes a 1.1 -acre public park with a minimum dimension of 150 feet. LU 6.15.13 requires at least 8 percent of the gross land area or acre, whichever is greater, to be dedicated as a neighborhood park. The Project's 1.1 -acre park exceeds both standards. The legal test for determining whether a land use enactment is consistent with a General Plan has been set forth in numerous court decisions. Generally, it is recognized that a General Plan consists of policies reflecting a wide range of sometimes competing interests. A project can be found to be consistent with a General Plan and its various competing policies if the project furthers some policies and objectives of the General Plan and does not inhibit or obstruct the attainment of other policies (67 Ops Cal Atty Gen 75 (1984); Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines (2017)). Under this standard, a project need not be perfectly consistent with each and every policy of a general plan (See, e.g., Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 815 [upholding overall 32 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence consistency finding even though the project deviated from some plan provisions because plan allowed for balancing of competing policies]). The standard for a finding of consistency is that the project is in "harmony" with the general plan's goals and objectives (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719). The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum has properly and thoroughly identified and discussed relevant General Plan policies and goals for the City's consistency determination. The Addendum analyzed the applicable General Plan objectives, goals and policies, and provided sufficient detail and analyses to support the consistency findings for the Project. The lead agency has discretion to weigh whether a project is consistent with the use, scale, and character of existing development and the surrounding natural environment. Courts generally defer to an agency's decision on consistency with its own plan unless, on the basis of evidence before the decision-making body, a reasonable person could not have found the project to be consistent (The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.Sth 883, 896). Agencies have particularly broad discretion in determining whether a project is consistent with goals, policies, objectives, and measures of the agency's own general plan (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378). Noise Comments have been made regarding the Addendum's noise analysis with respect to construction noise and need for mitigation, as well as claims of Project inconsistency with the General Plan. Summary of Comments: Other Projects Commenters have compared the proposed Project to the mitigation requirements of the Uptown Newport certified Final EIR and Koll Center Residences Draft EIR, and stated the opinion that the Addendum ignores specific mitigation associated with those projects. Response The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum evaluates the potential construction and operational noise impacts of the proposed Project compared to existing conditions to determine whether the potential impacts are consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the findings of the Uptown Newport certified Final EIR and Koll Center Residences Draft EIR are not directly relevant to the proposed Project. The analysis for the Addendum was conducted based on project -specific details including land use and project size, construction schedule, anticipated construction equipment, and daily vehicle trip generation, among other variables. Some key factors that differentiate the proposed Project from the previous Koll Center Residences project include: ■ Shorter construction period (32 months instead of 5 years) ■ Different construction process (including construction of one residential building instead of two) ■ Less excavation (1.5 subterranean levels instead of 2.5 levels) ■ Less heavy-duty equipment ■ Less truck trips for soil export 33 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence ■ Less concrete and concrete trucks (residential building would be wood framed) ■ Smaller residential building area (565,452 sf compared to 691,162 sf) ■ Smaller stand-alone parking garage than the previous project as it would be more efficient and displace less existing parking As such, simply concluding that the proposed Project would have noise impacts because other EIRs identified that noise impacts is inappropriate and inaccurate. The Addendum determined that that construction or operational noise levels associated with the Project would not exceed significance thresholds and therefore no additional mitigation is warranted. Temporary and permanent noise impacts from integrating residential development in the Airport Area were also considered in the General Plan Program EIR, which studied adding 4,400 multi -family residential units to the Airport Area (and the Project's units fall within the scope of that General Plan which assumes 2,200 multi -family units), so noise from occupancy — primarily vehicle use —was also considered based on traffic and other impacts considered in that EIR. The General Plan Housing Element Update Negative Declaration similarly concluded that compliance with applicable noise standards, including standard conditions of approval, would not result in new or worse significant noise impacts than those identified in the General Plan Program EIR. The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum further confirms that the proposed Project would not violate any noise standards or result in significant noise impacts that are new or worse than those identified in the General Plan Program EIR. The commenter has not presented any evidence that the noise control standards applicable to the proposed Project would be ineffective, or result in unique new or worse significant noise impacts for this mid -rise project. Summary of Comments: Construction Noise Comments were provided that construction noise was not adequately addressed in the Addendum. Response With respect to construction activities, construction noise associated with the proposed Project was analyzed on pages 128 to 131 of the Addendum. Municipal Code Section 10.28.040(8) states that the provisions of Section 10.28.040(a) do not apply to those activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on any weekday that is not a federal holiday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays. The analysis conservatively uses the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) threshold of 80 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for residential uses and 85 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts. Section 3.12, Noise, of the Addendum demonstrates that Project construction would not exceed thresholds and result in significant impacts. Construction noise would be temporary in nature (and be substantially shorter in duration when compared to Uptown Newport [first phase: 5 years] and Koll Center Residences [4.5 years]) and cease upon Project completion. Potential construction noise related to this use would be similar to construction noise assumptions addressed in the General Plan Program EIR and would not represent a new impact. Construction noise would be subject to General Plan Policy N 4.6, which would require enforcement of the Noise Ordinance limits and hours in the City's Municipal Code. Since the Project's construction noise 34 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence levels would be consistent with the assumptions in the General Plan Program EIR, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Summary of Comments: Operational Activities Comments were provided that noise from operational activities was not adequately addressed in the Addendum. Response With respect to mobile and stationary source operational noise, the analysis summarized on pages 125 to 128 of the Addendum also demonstrate that these noise sources would comply with City standards and would be consistent with General Plan policies and would not introduce new types of noise sources that were not already anticipated under the existing land use designation. Operational noise impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Summary of Comments: Consistencv with General Plan Comments were provided that the Addendum underestimates noise because the proposed number of residential units is inconsistent with the General Plan. Response The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and it does not exceed the number of residential units for the Airport Area. As noted in the Addendum, the General Plan Program EIR evaluated the introduction of 4,400 multi -family residential units into the Airport Area; the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi -family units. The commenter is incorrectly referencing the number of apartment units assumed in the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) for Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1405 within which the project site is located. The number of apartment units assumed in TAZ 1405 is not relevant to the Addendum noise analysis. The Addendum correctly compares noise associated with the proposed Project to the City's significance thresholds and the General Plan Program EIR, which evaluated 4,400 multi -family units in the Airport Area, although the General Plan subsequently approved 2,200 multi- family units. Additionally, the commenter incorrectly argues that the Addendum underestimated noise levels from vehicle trips. Noise from occupancy, including vehicle use, was considered in the General Plan Program EIR, which studied adding far more residential units to the Airport Area than the Project's units. The General Plan Housing Element Update Negative Declaration similarly concluded that compliance with applicable noise standards would not result in new or worse significant impacts than those identified in the General Plan Program EIR. The Addendum correctly analyzed noise, including vehicle noise, from development of 312 dwelling units. Vehicle noise was fully considered in the CEQA documents referenced above, including the Addendum, and was not underestimated. 35 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Summary of Comments: Off -Site Noise Levels Comments were provided that the Addendum did not address noise impacts to off-site uses. Response With respect to potential noise impacts to uses along Birch Street, Table 4.9-8 of the General Plan Program EIR shows that the noise levels along the segment of Birch Street in the vicinity of the project site range from 63.2 to 63.6 dBA. Traffic noise levels along Von Karman Avenue range from 62.5 to 63.0 dBA. Exhibit 5-A of the General Plan Program EIR Appendix D (Traffic Study) shows that Birch Street has an ADT of 20,000 vehicles and that Von Karman Avenue would has an ADT of 17,000 vehicles in the General Plan Buildout scenario. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Technical Noise Supplement to the Transportation Noise Analysis Protocol (2013), it takes a doubling of traffic volumes to result in a perceptible (3 dBA) increase in noise levels. As the Project would have a daily trip generation of 1,697 vehicles, it would not double the traffic volumes on Birch Street or Von Karman Avenue and would not result in a perceptible noise increase. Additionally, as the noise levels in the vicinity would be 62.5 to 63.6 dBA, General Plan Policies N 1.1, N 1.2, and N 2.1 do apply to the Project. It should be noted that the on-site noise analysis in the Addendum is conservatively based on a higher noise level of 64.6 dBA. The General Plan policies require proposed projects that are located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher to determine the level of exterior or interior, noise attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the feasibility of such mitigation when other planning considerations are taken into account. As analyzed in the Addendum, the worst-case exterior interior noise levels would not exceed the City's 45 dBA daytime interior noise standard and the 40-dBA nighttime interior noise standard. Summary of Comments: Internal Road Noise Levels Comments were provided that the Addendum did not address noise associated with vehicular traffic on the interior access road. Response Although some motorists may choose to cut through the site to access either Birch Street or Von Karman Avenue, it is reasonable to assume that most motorists without the need to access the proposed or existing uses in this portion of Koll Center Newport would continue to use existing travel routes. Von Karman Avenue is a six -lane divided arterial and Birch Street is a four -lane divided arterial that would have faster travel times than cutting through single lane drive aisles with slower speeds, loading areas, and parallel parking. If the drive aisle were to be used by vehicles other than those accessing this portion of Koll Center Newport, a worst-case conservative assumption would be that there could be 10,000 vehicles per day per the City's Circulation Element. It refers to the capacity for a 2 -lane commuter roadway, which has different characteristics than the project's drive aisle. This volume of daily vehicles would result in 61 dBA at 25 feet from the drive aisle centerline (the approximate distance to the building closest to the drive aisle). As discussed above, the roadway noise levels modeled for the segments of Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street adjacent to the project site range from 62.5 to 63.6 dBA, which is greater than 61 dBA along the drive aisle. Therefore, potential worst-case drive aisle traffic noise would not be noticeable since it is 36 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence below ambient conditions. Additionally, closest area of frequent human use is located approximately 100 feet from the drive aisle centerline. At 100 feet, noise levels would be reduced to 55 dBA and would not exceed the City's Compatibility Standard of 65 dBA. This noise level is a conservative condition for discussion purposes and does not represent actual conditions anticipated for the site (i.e., using 2 -lane commuter roadway traffic volumes for an internal drive aisle). Noise levels from the drive aisle would be lower. Summary of Comments: Interior Noise Comments were provided that the Project will exceed interior noise levels. Response As discussed in the Addendum's noise analysis, on-site noise levels could reach 64.6 dBA. Therefore, as required by General Plan Policy N 1.2, exterior and interior noise levels must be evaluated to determine if additional attenuation is required. The on-site noise levels would not exceed the 65 dBA clearly compatible standard for residential use. According to the U.S. EPA (Protective Noise Levels, November 1978), typical building construction reduces noise levels by 25 dBA with the windows closed. Therefore, the worst-case exterior interior noise levels would be reduced to 39.6 dBA, which is below the City's 45 dBA daytime interior noise standard and the 40 dBA nighttime interior noise standard. Therefore, additional noise attenuation beyond what is required for standard building code requirements would not be required. Summary of Comments: Airport Noise A commenter stated that the Addendum's finding that the project site is outside of the 65-dBA contour is not supported by evidence. Response As addressed in the Addendum, the project site is not located within the AELUP's 65 dBA CNEL noise contour as shown on Figure 3. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, Amended April 17, 2008 is cited in Section 6 (References of the Addendum). A review of the contours within Appendix B of the ALUC plan shows that the project site is outside of the 60-dBA CNEL contour. Additionally, the latest contours from the airport show that the project site is outside of the 60-dBA CNEL contour: https://www.ocair.com/reportspublications/AccessNoise/cnelnoisecontours/2019.PDF Public Services: Solid Waste Summary of Comments Commenters suggested that the construction management plan is not adequate and that the Addendum underestimates solid waste generation which would adversely affect the capacity of landfills. Response With respect to construction debris, Standard Condition (SC) UTIL-3 requires the applicant to prepare and obtain approval of a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan, which requires the diversion 37 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence of a minimum of 65 percent of solid waste to be diverted from landfills. The adequacy of the plan would be determined by the City of Newport Beach. With respect to landfill capacity, the General Plan Program EIR did not identify significant impacts related to solid waste disposal. Specific to the Airport Area, General Plan Program EIR evaluated impacts associated with the introduction of 4,400 multi -family residential units; the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi -family units. As such, both the General Plan Program EIR and Addendum adequately address solid waste disposal at County landfills. Recreation Summary of Comments Comments have been provided that recreational impacts are not adequately addressed in the Addendum because the proposed park is an "odd -shaped area", temporary parking would not be provided for the park, and vehicular headlights from cars in the parking structure could disturb park users. Response Although the proposed Project does not include or require a subdivision, the Project includes a 1.1 -acre public park with open space, as well as on-site recreational amenities consistent with GP LU 6.15.16 for residents. As addressed in the Addendum, the park would be dedicated to the City and that would be accessible to the public during daytime hours. The ground level park would be located between and north of the proposed residential building and the existing office buildings located at 4910 Birch Street and 4440 Von Karman Avenue, and extend from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue. The proposed park would be improved and maintained by the Applicant, and accessible to the residents and public during daylight hours. With respect to the configuration of the park, General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 addresses park standards and notes that, as applicable to the Project, a park must have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. The Project meets this requirement. With respect to parking spaces, five parking spaces located in front of residential building would be provided/allocated for park users. With respect to potential visibility of vehicle headlights from the parking structure, parks throughout the City include parking lots and are often near roadways. The potential for lighting from vehicles to be visible at the park is not relevant and is not a CEQA impact. Utilities: Sewer and Water System Capacity Summary of Comments A commenter asserted that the Addendum did not adequately study sewer and water system capacity. Response As concluded in the Addendum, there is adequate capacity for water and sewer services for the Project. 38 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence The project site is within the service area of the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) which provides both potable and non -potable water to its customers. IRWD has existing potable distribution lines adjacent to and within the site. The Project would construct a new water system with connections to an existing 10 - inch IRWD main in Von Karman Avenue and a 10 -inch main in Birch Street to provide potable and fire flow water service to the project site. IRWD maintains a non -potable water main immediately adjacent to the project site in Von Karman Avenue. The proposed Project assumes 312 multi -family dwelling units. The 2015 IRWD Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) states that the daily per capita water usage is 129 gallons per capita per day. The number of persons expected to reside in each residential unit on the project site is 2.19 persons, which is the average cited by the Department of Finance for Newport Beach for 2020 (DOF 2020). Therefore, approximately 684 residents are anticipated to reside with the proposed Project. Based on 684 anticipated residents, buildout of the proposed Project is estimated to generate a water demand of approximately 88,236 gallons per day, or 98.9 acre-feet per year (AFY) (see Addendum Table 3.17-2). The most recent IRWD UWMP provides updated water demand and supply projections, shown in Addendum Table 3.17-4, IRWD Current and Projected Water Demand. In comparison of IRWD's water demand to IRWD's water supply (Addendum Table 3.17-2), there would be an anticipated water supply surplus in 2025 of 51,558 AFY. The proposed Project's water demand of 98.9 AFY would represent less than 1 percent of IRWD's anticipated water surplus for 2025 during a normal year. Given that the Project's demand would represent less than one percent of anticipated surplus in 2025, there is no basis for a claim that the Project would not have a sufficient water supply. It is also noted that the IRWD 2008 Irvine Business Complex Sub -Area Master Plan (SAMP) assumes the 2,200 residential units, as identified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan for the Airport Area. With respect to wastewater service and infrastructure, the City will provide sewer service to the Project. There are three, 8 -inch service connections in Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The proposed Project would connect to existing service connections through sanitary sewer lines or laterals. Discharge from the sewer system would be directed to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) treatment plants. The Project proposes 312 multi -family residences, structured parking, and a public park with open space areas. Assuming the City's wastewater generation factors of 240 gallons per day per dwelling unit (gpd/du) for residential land uses noted in the 2010 Sewer Master Plan, the proposed Project would generate 74,880 gpd, as identified in Addendum Table 3.17-5, Wastewater Generation. Wastewater collected by the City would be treated at OCSD's two reclamation plants, with a small portion of wastewater treated at IRWD's treatment plant. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 320 million gallons per day (mgd) and an estimated average daily influent of 120 mgd. Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a capacity of 312 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 65 mgd. Collectively, the two plants have a residual capacity of 185 mgd. The proposed Project would generate an additional 0.06 mgd of wastewater, which is nominal compared to the combined residual capacity of both treatment plants. Therefore, existing wastewater treatment facilities would accommodate the Project -generated wastewater and continue maintaining a substantial amount of remaining capacity for future wastewater treatment. The Addendum properly evaluated the water and wastewater capacity associated with the Project and correctly concluded that the Project would result in less than significant impacts. There is no evidence 39 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence that utility infrastructure systems would be insufficient to accommodate buildout of the Project. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 580.) Transportation and Parking Summary of Comments: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Comments were made that a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis was required. Response Please refer to the response to the appropriateness of a VMT analysis provided in the Response: Supplemental EIR Criteria; Change in Circumstances. In summary, as stated in the Addendum, when the City's General Plan Program EIR was approved in 2006, the applicable traffic threshold was Level of Service (LOS), not VMT. Because LOS was the applicable threshold when the 2006 General Plan Program EIR was approved, LOS, not VMT, is the applicable traffic standard for the proposed Project. VMT is therefore not an applicable traffic threshold. Summary of Comments: Internal Circulation A comment was made that the Addendum does not address internal circulation associated with the alteration of internal streets. Response Commenters did not provide substantial evidence regarding their assertion that the project would have a significant impact to internal circulation. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 580.) As noted in the Addendum, vehicular access to office buildings Koll Center Newport near the project site is most directly provided by three driveways on Birch Street and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue. Cross access throughout the site currently allows motorists to access any parking area within Koll Center Newport from any of the site driveways. All driveways are unsignalized and gated. No changes to the locations of the existing driveways are proposed. As a part of the proposed Project, gates would be removed at the middle driveway ("Driveway 2") on Birch Street to allow for ungated vehicular movement from Birch Street to the internal access street to Von Karman Avenue. The remaining existing driveways would remain gated. See Figure 7 in the Addendum. Although some motorists may choose to cut through the site to access either Birch Street or Von Karman Avenue, it is reasonable to assume that most motorists without the need to access the proposed or existing uses would continue to use existing travel routes. Although it would be possible for through traffic to use the internal drive aisle, it is not likely that this would occur on a frequent or regular basis because the internal drive aisle would not provide an efficient path of travel. For example, vehicles traveling on Von Karman Avenue trying to access Birch Street would have to slow down substantially to maneuver along the internal drive aisle and turn north onto another drive aisle and then ultimately turn on to Birch Street. Von Karman Avenue is a six -lane divided arterial and Birch Street is a four -lane divided arterial that 40 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence would have faster travel times than cutting through single lane drive aisles with slower speeds, loading areas, and parallel parking. The intersection analysis presented in the Addendum Traffic Impact Study shows that the intersection of Von Karman Avenue at Birch Street is operating at Level of Service (LOS) A under existing conditions and is expected to continue to operate at LOS A with and without the proposed Project. As there is no congestion at the adjacent intersection, there is no incentive for vehicles to cut through the slower internal drive aisle, which would take more time to pass through. As discussed in the Addendum, the Project's internal circulation would not substantially increase hazards, result in inadequate emergency access, or conflict with circulation programs, plans, or policies. In any event, alteration of internal circulation, in and of itself, is not a CEQA impact. Summary of Comments: External Circulation Comments were provided that the off-site traffic analysis is inadequate. Response No substantial evidence is provided to support with position. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4t" 556, 580) In summary and as addressed in the Addendum and Traffic Impact Study, the traffic analysis provides an evaluation of morning and evening peak hour intersection at 25 intersections. The study intersections consist of a combination of intersections in the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine. The study area and study intersection list reflect input received from the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. Potential impacts were evaluated based on the significance criteria of the respective jurisdictions, as well as intersections (freeway ramps) controlled by Caltrans. The CEQA Level of Service (LOS) analysis evaluated the following scenarios: ■ Existing Conditions ■ Year 2025 Without Project ■ Year 2025 With Project ■ Post -2030 General Plan Buildout ■ Post -2030 General Plan Buildout With Project At Project buildout and when compared to buildout of the General Plan, the proposed Project would not significant impact traffic study area intersections based on the significance criteria. A General Plan comparison analysis was prepared to determine whether the proposed Project would result in any new or substantially more significant environmental impacts as compared to the conclusions discussed in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study (March 2006). The project is located in traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 1405 of the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM), used in the 2006 General Plan traffic analysis. The NBTM TAZ 1405 consists of 128 apartment units, 128,610 sf of general commercial and 695,157 sf of office. The Project proposes 312 apartment units. To provide a conservative analysis, the traffic from the additional 184 units (312 units -128 units) were added on to Post -2030 General Plan Buildout traffic to determine 2030 General Plan Buildout With Project traffic. Based on this 41 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence comparison, the proposed Project would not result in any new traffic -related impacts compared to those identified in the 2006 City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study. The proposed Project would not result in a significant Project impact at the study locations; therefore, no mitigation at the study locations is required. In compliance with City requirements, the Traffic Impact Study also includes a Traffic Management Ordinance (TPO) analysis to evaluated the following scenarios. No significant impacts were identified. ■ Existing Conditions ■ TPO Analysis Year 2025 Without Project ■ TPO Analysis Year 2025 With Project Summary of Comments: Parking and Need for Parking Mitigation Comments were provided with respect to insufficient parking spaces during construction and at completion of the Project, inconsistencies with the CC&Rs, and the location and aesthetics of the proposed free-standing parking structure. Response With respect to the aesthetic characteristics of the proposed free-standing parking structure, please refer to Response: Aesthetics. CEQA Section 21099 exempts parking impacts from review under CEQA. However, it is recognized that a CEQA does not exempt secondary impacts, such as traffic and air quality, "The social inconvenience of having to hunt for scarce parking is not an environmental impact; the secondary effect of scarce parking on traffic and air quality is." (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco), The proposed Project would not result in a parking shortage; therefore, secondary impacts to traffic or air quality would not occur. A parking survey was conducted for the Koll Center Newport offices to determine parking utilization of the existing parking supply within the project site and the availability of parking during Project construction. Table 2-4 in the Addendum Project Description identifies the number of parking spaces that would be provided during each phase of the Project; both during the construction of the phase when the surface parking has been removed, and at the completion of the phase when the replacement parking or the new parking has been completed. As a part of the Project, office parking displaced by the Project would be provided (1) in the residential building's parking structure; (2) in a new, free-standing parking structure; and, (3) in surface parking areas. The new office parking structure would be built as Phase 1, in advance construction of the residential building to account for the loss of 106 surface parking spaces east of the internal street. During the construction of the new parking structure (Phase 1) and the construction of the residential building (Phase 2A), parking shuttles would be provided for the use of office employees of and visitors to the office buildings. At completion, there would be no net reduction in parking spaces. A parking deficit would not be created; therefore, secondary parking impacts would not occur and mitigation is not required. 42 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Although CC&Rs a are private covenants that are not CEQA environmental issues and are not enforced by the City, as a matter of disclosure, it is the understanding of the City that applicant is required through the applicable CC&Rs to replace every parking space converted to park or residential use by the Project. The parking study the City required to be conducted forthis Project, which is referenced in the Addendum, confirmed that, even pre-COVID-19, that a substantial numbers of parking stalls remained empty even during peak occupancy periods, and no commenter has provided evidence to support the allegation that displaced surface parking stalls would not be adequately replaced as part of the Project. Comments have been provided that the location of replacement parking would not be convenient to existing office buildings. The proposed overall site parking plan was designed to provide full replacement of removed parking spaces and distinct parking areas for the existing office uses and adequate parking for the proposed residential uses. It should be noted that within Koll Center Newport, there is no allocation of parking spaces by office building unless these spaces are located within the individual property. Assigned parking is not provided. Summary of Comments: Construction Traffic and Emergency Access Commenters suggest that the Addendum does not adequately address traffic during construction and adequate emergency access would not be provided. Response The Addendum addresses both construction traffic and emergency access. As stated in SC TRAN-1, the City requires the approval of a Construction Management Plan. The Plan must identify construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan must identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the Project. As addressed in the Addendum, approach and departure routes for construction vehicles would be from Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Depending on the origin/destination, trucks would either arrive and depart via 1-405, to the north of the site; or via SR -73, to the south of the site. Impacts from construction traffic would be limited to occasional and temporary delays to traffic during the movement of heavy equipment or transport of heavy loads to and from the site. The arrivals and departures of dirt -hauling trucks and other heavy trucks would be scheduled outside of the morning and evening peak hours. Construction management requirements, such as complying with peak hour restrictions, using flag men for short-term obstructions, and a formal traffic control plan for extended lane and street closures would be required. As addressed in the Addendum, impacts would be less than significant. With respect to emergency access and as addressed in the Addendum, the proposed Project would remove and relocate existing gated access (at one driveway) through the project site to allow for unrestricted vehicle access through the site from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue. This change would not cause substantial delays and congestion that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area. All -access roads would meet requirements for fire access roads in the 2019 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9), Section 503. 43 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Urban Decay Summary of Comments Commenters asserted that the Addendum improperly excluded an analysis of social -economic impacts. Some commenters asserted that the project will cause economic or property interest harm or deprive existing owners of investment -backed expectations. Response Economic and social effects of projects are outside of CEQA's purview unless forecasted economic or social effects of a project will directly or indirectly lead to adverse physical environmental effects. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184.) In Bakersfield, the courts defined urban decay as follows: "[N]ot simply a condition in which buildings become vacant as businesses compete with each other in the normal course of the market-based economy, nor is it a condition where a building may be vacated by one business or use and reused by a different business or for alternative purposes. Rather, under CEQA 'urban decay' is defined as physical deterioration of properties or structures that is so prevalent, substantial, and lasting a significant period of time that it impairs the proper utilization of the properties and structures, and the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Physical deterioration includes abnormally high business vacancies, abandoned buildings, boarded doors and windows, parked trucks and long-term unauthorized use of the properties and parking lots, extensive or offensive graffiti painted on buildings, dumping of refuse or overturned dumpsters on properties, dead trees and shrubbery, and uncontrolled weed growth or homeless encampments." The proposed residential project could not conceivably result in business closures or physical deterioration of the Koll Center Newport area. Blight in Koll Center Newport is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome associated with the implementation of an infill residential development. Therefore, an urban decay analysis is unnecessary. Unlike Bakersfield Citizens, which addresses potential closures of shopping centers due to the introduction of competition, the proposed Project is a residential use integrated into an existing urban area of the City, which includes office, retail, and hotel uses, and is adjacent to the Uptown Newport mixed -used development. In Bakersfield Citizens, there was evidence suggesting that economic and social effects caused by a proposed shopping center could result in urban decay, which necessitated the analysis of urban decay. However, case law is clear that where there is no such evidence, an analysis of urban decay is not mandated by CEQA. (Melom v. City of Madera (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 41.) It is a project challenger's responsibility to provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a project may cause urban decay. (Visalia Retail, LP v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1.) Under the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 580.) The commenters have provided no evidence that would necessitate an analysis of urban decay. 44 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence As stated in Placerville Historic Preservation League v. Judicial Council of California_(2017) _Cal.App.4th_ (Case No. A149501), "there is no reason to presume that urban decay would be a consequence of the project. As defined by CEQA, urban decay is a relatively extreme economic condition. In a dynamic urban environment, including that of a small city such as Placerville, change is commonplace. In the absence of larger economic forces, urban decay is not the ordinary result. On the contrary, businesses and other activities come and go for reasons of their own, without necessarily affecting the overall health of the economy." Alternative Location For Free -Standing Parking Structure And Driveway Summary of Comments Comments have requested that an alternative location for the free-standing parking structure be considered. It has been suggested that the new structure be constructed adjacent to and east of the existing parking structure for the 5000 Birch Street office building in order that it be further from the existing office buildings in this part of Koll Center Newport. Concerns raised include aesthetic impacts and shading impacts to existing office buildings. Response The requirement to consider alternatives under CEQA refers to alternatives that would eliminate or substantially reduce a significant adverse project impact evaluated in an EIR. No such impact exists with respect to the proposed Project (including the free-standing garage), and a reasonable range of alternatives was already considered in prior EIRs covering this project site. Further, CEQA does not require the assessment of infeasible or speculative alternatives raised, such as building on top of other, third - party privately -owned improvements or real property over which an applicant has no jurisdiction or control. The City was not required to consider or analyze various alternatives suggested by commenters. Development Agreement: Fees Summary of Comments A commenter infers the applicant is providing a gift to the City. Response General Plan Policy LU 6.15.12 requires a development agreement for all projects in the Airport Business Area that include infill residential units. Therefore, the Project applicant was required to enter into a development agreement with the City. Pursuant to the General Plan policy, the development agreement must define improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment on the number, density, and location of housing units. The applicant agreed to pay a $7,500,000 public benefit fee. Such a fee does not constitute a "gift" but rather is consideration for the City's commitment to allow a certain number of housing units at a particular density and in a particular location. The terms of the development for the Project are in accordance with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.12 and California law. 45 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Summary of Comments Several comments were provided asserting that the Project violates and is inconsistent with the Koll Center CC&Rs. Response CC&Rs are private voluntary covenants between private parties rather than between a governmental agency and a private party. They are not CEQA environmental issues and are not enforced by the City. Conditions of Approval Summary of Comments A commenter asserted that the Project's conditions were internally inconsistent because of a General Plan inconsistency Response Resolution No. 2021-3 lays out in great detail the facts in support of the Project's consistency with each applicable General Plan policy. Without specific facts to the contrary of these findings, the assertion that the Project's conditions of approval are defective because of a General Plan inconsistency is unsupported. Inability To Approved Required Resolution Summary of Comments A commenter has suggested that the City Council will not be able to make the findings for the resolution to approve the Project's entitlements. Commenter alleges that the project is not consistent with the zoning for the site and that the proposed Project is inconsistent and incompatible (bulk, scale, aesthetics). Further it is alleged that the development would bisect Koll Center Newport. Response See the responses titled "Aesthetics" and "Land Use" for responses to these comments. The commenter is incorrect that residential development was never contemplated for the project site. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element identifies the project site as Potential Residential Village Site 3 in the Sites Analysis and Inventory. In reference to the site, the Housing Element states "Further supporting the realistic development potential for these areas is the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan that has been prepared for future residential development on the Koll (Site 3) and Uptown Newport (formerly referred as Conexant) (Site 4) properties." As it applies to schools, the project site has been planned for residential development and is located within the boundaries of the Santa Ana Unified School District. 46 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Summary of Comments A commenter stated that the RHNA housing requirements cannot be met by projects that have market rate housing with only a small affordable unit count. Response The City is obligated to plan for thousands of new housing units over the next eight years under the sixth cycle of the State's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Planning and permitting infill residential development of surface parking lots with replacement structured parking contributes to meeting the City's legal obligations under RHNA. The Project directly contributes to the City's attainment of this RHNA target. 47 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR ReSDonsesto Correspondence rROUXJ Date: January 21, 2021 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Tim Stanley, Picerne Development c/o Jennifer Hernandez, Holland & Knight LLP From: Mauricio H. Escobar, P.G., Andrea Berlinghof, P.E., Roux Associates, Inc. Subject: Rebuttal to CEQA Comments Related to Contamination at Proposed Development, Lots 1, 3 and 5 (associated with buildings at 4400 Von Karman Avenue), Newport Beach, California At the request of Holland & Knight LLP (Counsel/HK Law) and for the benefit of Picerne Development (Client), Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) has prepared this Technical Memorandum with rebuttal to comments asserting soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contamination in the area of Client's proposed development at Lots 1, 3, and 5 — associated with buildings at 4400 Von Karman Avenue — in the City of Newport Beach, California (Site, Roux Figure 1). Lots 1 and 3 shown in Roux Figure 2 is the location of the proposed 4400 Von Karman redevelopment; the proposed redevelopment includes multi -unit residential apartments beginning on the second or third floor, with two levels of subterranean parking and a minimum of one floor of parking or amenity spaces (Roux Figure 3); no living spaces will be constructed on the ground floor. Lot 5 shown in Roux Figure 2, is the location of a proposed multi-level, above ground parking structure with no inhabitable spaces. As confirmed by Client, the development plans do not call for dewatering. Roux reviewed the following documents provided by Client on January 15 and 18, 2021: 1) "Limited Environmental Assessment" letter, prepared by NOREAS, Inc. (NOREAS) dated January 11, 2021; and 2) "Review of Potential Soil and Groundwater Environmental Issues Related to Construction of the Residences at 4400 Von Karman" letter prepared by EKI Environment & Water, Inc. (EKI) dated January 11, 2021. This Technical Memorandum has been prepared in response to claims of contamination at the Site asserted in the NOREAS letter and the EKI letter. To assess the validity of the claims, Roux conducted a technical review of relevant environmental reports publicly available on the State of California's GeoTracker online database to evaluate the current documented condition of soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at the Site and potential risks those conditions may pose to Client's proposed development. Where appropriate, figures and excerpts have been borrowed from existing reports in support of the observations and conclusions presented in this Technical Memorandum; these are included as Roux Figures 1 through 3 and Attachments 1 through 3. For ease of review, Roux's rebuttal comments below have been enumerated; many of the NOREAS and EKI comments are similar in nature and in some cases, specific responses by Roux apply to multiple assertions. NOREAS Letter The NOREAS letter provides a significant amount of background, previous environmental investigations and remediations for Jazz Semiconductor, which was formerly owned by Synaptics, Inc. (formerly Conexant Systems, Inc.), and is referred to by NOREAS as "the Conexant site." The background provided 515o East Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450 ■ Long Beach, California 90804 ■ +1.310.879.4900 ■ www.rouxinc.com California ■ Illinois ■ Massachusetts ■ New Jersey ■ New York ■ Texas January 21, 2021 Page 2 in the NOREAS letter is generally consistent with Roux's understanding of the Conexant site, however, certain conclusions reached by NOREAS are unsupported by data or fact. 1. NOREAS asserts that contamination from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the Conexant Site "apparently resulted in the presence" of contamination in Lot 5 (below from NOREAS): Several properties with potential contamination or significant soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contamination have been identified adjacent and or in the vicinity of Lots 1, 3, and 5. Specifically, the reported level of VOC contamination in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater has been significant in the nearby former Conexant Site, which had apparently resulted in presence of soil vapor contamination in Lot 5. Although several rounds of soil vapor and groundwater remediation have been conducted at the former Conexant Site, the SVE/DPL was shut down in 2016. NOREAS's statement that VOC contamination has "apparently resulted in the presence" of contamination in Lot 5 appears to be conjecture. In fact, figures prepared by Geosyntec in 2014 show that VOC contamination in soil and groundwater at Conexant do not extend onto Lot 5 in any meaningful way (Attachment 1)1. This is further supported by soil vapor data near Lot 5 collected by RM Environmental, Inc. (RME) in May 2010, which showed little to no VOCs in shallow or deep soil vapor near the property boundary with Lot 5 (Attachment 2)2. Lastly, groundwater data collected over the past several years has consistently shown that VOC impacts to the shallow groundwater zone in wells to the north of the Conexant site are not impacted by VOCs(Attachment 3)3,4. Based on these data and facts, the assertion that significant VOC contamination extends onto the Site cannot be supported. There is no data or reasonable technical argument to support the assertion that development of Lot 5 with a surface parking garage may be negatively affected by off -Site contamination. 2. NOREAS asserts that lithology will cause rebound of VOCs in shallow soil vapor beneath the Conexant site that may affect soil vapor at Lot 5 (below from NOREAS): JHA (2019) reported presence of a significant residual contaminant mass within the "Clayey Vadose Zone". Presence of contaminated clayey soil in vadose zone makes the removal of VOCs via vapor extraction (SVE and DPE) difficult. Therefore, it is common that once the SVE/DPE operations cease, contaminant vapor concentrations build slowly back up to the initial conditions by diffusion from the residual contamination in clay because only a small fraction of the initial contaminant mass is normally removed by SVE/DPE. The last soil vapor survey at the former Conexant Site was reportedly conducted in 2006. Therefore, if a new round of soil vapor survey is conducted at the former Conexant Site, it is probable that significant concentrations of VOCs will be detected in soil vapor at various locations, including in some areas of Lot 5, where significant VOC concentrations in soil vapor had been detected in 2005-2006. NOREAS's statement that "it is probable" that VOCs "will be detected in soil vapor at various locations, including some areas of Lot 5" is a theoretical future soil vapor sampling event that appears to ignore the soil vapor data collected by RME in May 2010 (Attachment 2) and the development plans for Lot 5 (surface parking lot). NOREAS does not define the term "significant" and incorrectly portrays lithology described by JHA Environmental, Inc. (JHA)3; in fact, JHAstates that the unsaturated zone is generally comprised of very fine- to medium -grained sand, silty Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Supplemental Remedial Investigation Work Plan. 18 November 2014. 2 RM Environmental, Inc. (RME). Report of Installation of Soil Gas Probes GP -11 through GP -17, and Soil Gas Vapor Sampling of Soil Gas Probes GP -2 through GP -7 and GP -9 though GP -17. 7 November 2011. 3 JHA Environmental, Inc (JHA). 2019 Annual Groundwater and Remediation Progress Report. November 2019. 4 Shallow groundwater flow direction is currently inwards at the Conexant site due to a residual groundwater depression, but prior to extraction, the apparent direction of groundwater flow in the Shallow Zone beneath the site was to the southeast, cross -gradient from the Site. ROUX I Technical Memorandum 3664.0001L100/M January 21, 2021 Page 3 sand, sandy silt, and clayey sediments. The Unsaturated Zone is very heterogeneous and there is poor lateral correlation of specific layers between wells." Lastly, it is noteworthy that the SVE/DPE system at the Conexant site was reported to have reached asymptotic conditions after removing 14,188.7 cumulative pounds of VOCs and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) to the satisfaction of the regulatory oversight agency, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SA-RWQCB)5. The assertion that lithology will cause rebound of VOCs in soil vapor that may affect development of Lot 5 appears unfounded. 3. NOREAS asserts that groundwater contamination beneath the Conexant site could affect development of Lots 1, 3, and 5 due to plume migration caused by theoretical dewatering activities as part of Site construction (below from NOREAS): As noted in the JHA Report (2019), the groundwater at the former Conexant Site is still contaminated (see Figures 6, 7, 9, and 10 in Appendix B). As mentioned previously, it is NOREAS's understanding that there are plans to develop Lots 1 and 3 into a residential building with associated subterranean parking and Lot 5 into a parking structure. However, NOREAS is not aware of the design details and the planned vertical depth of the subterranean parking structure below ground surface. If the depth of the subterranean parking is extended below the existing groundwater level, then a dewatering system may become necessary. In such case, the groundwater will likely need to be removed (pumped) and treated prior to discharge. As such, the removal of groundwater for dewatering purposes may cause a drop in groundwater level in the area of the removal and causing the existing contaminated groundwater from the former Conexant Site to move towards Lots 1, 3, and 5. This potential issue needs to be considered as part of the development plans. NOREAS appears misinformed and admits they are "not aware of the design details and the planned vertical depth of the subterranean parking structure" at Lots 1 and 3. As previously stated, proposed development plans do not call for dewatering, VOCs from the Conexant site are not present in shallow groundwater beneath the Site, and groundwater flow direction prior to remediation was to the southeast'. Therefore, the assertion that Site development activities will mobilize VOC contamination in groundwater from the Conexant site and adversely affect development cannot be supported. 4. NOREAS makes the general assertion that environmental conditions at properties other than the Conexant site could negatively affect Site development. NOREAS cites a closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) case and dry-cleaning facilities located approximately 900 feet west-northwest from the Site. However, NOREAS offers no records of impacts or any data to support their assertion. Given the lack of evidence of impacts, the distance, and the proposed development plan (residents not on ground floor), these assertions cannot be substantiated. EKI Letter The EKI letter focuses on contamination, assessment, and remediation that has occurred at the Conexant site. In particular, EKI highlights pre -remediation data and cites Iithology as a possible conduit for contamination that "has migrated in the direction of the Site and could affect development. EKI's assertions are largely unsupported by fact and appear to ignore the current data on the Conexant site and off-site to the north and west. 5. EKI makes the declarative statement more than once that VOCs from the Conexant site have migrated towards the Site. 5 RME. Report of Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Sampling and Soil Confirmation Borings. July 26, 2016. 6 JHA Environmental, Inc (JHA). 2019 Annual Groundwater and Remediation Progress Report. November 2019. ROUX I Technical Memorandum 3664.0001L100/M January 21, 2021 Page 4 EKI has determined that historical contamination by volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") has migrated into the shallow and intermediate ground water zones which migrated to the north and west of the former Conexant site towards the Proposed development. EKI offers no specific information as to if, or how, their conclusion may affect development of Lot 5. As stated in rebuttal comment No. 1, there is no data or reasonable technical argument to support the assertion that development of Lot 5 with a surface parking garage may be negatively affected by contamination at the Conexant site. 6. EKI cites a 2017 groundwater figure and a 2020 Geosyntec groundwater figure as evidence that groundwater beneath the Site is contaminated. EKI appears to be unaware that JHA published a July 2019 report with the most recent shallow groundwater data (Attachment 3). In its July 2019 report, JHA states that shallow groundwater wells sampled in the vicinity of Lot 5 (wells M-29 and M-30) were reported to "have had consistent non -detect results over the last five years"'. EKI also appears to confuse the Geosyntec 2020 groundwater figure as being for shallow groundwater when it fact it is for the Intermediate Zone, which is found between 65 and 100 feet below ground surface, separated from the shallow groundwater zone by a 20 foot thick, laterally extensive fine grained unit known as Aquitard A'. For these reasons, EKI's assertion cannot be supported. 7. EKI asserts that migration of VOCs from the Conexant site to Lot 5 poses "two significant issue (sic)" — the need for a Soil Management Plan and "risk of indoor air contamination impacts to residents". The first issue asserted by EKI is: 1) Since earthwork and footings will be required to build the first parking structure planned in this development, and its location is near the contaminant source area on the Jazz Semiconductor property, there is a potential that the RWQCB will require the preparation of a Soil Management Plan describing specific precautions, testing, and actions that would need to be undertaken if VOC soil or groundwater impacts are encountered during this construction. The apartments that are part of this construction plan will have subterranean parking and plan to excavate 20 feet below ground surface. Though this area is further away from the contaminant source, there is a potential that groundwater and soils in that area may also be impacted. There is also a potential that any dewatering activities that might be associated with the work would draw contaminated groundwater into the area. As stated in rebuttal comment Nos. 1 and 5, there is no data or reasonable technical argument to support the assertion that development of Lot 5 with a surface parking garage may be negatively affected by contamination at the Conexant site. There is no data or information provided to support soil contamination or historical activities at Lot 5 that may have negatively impacted its environmental condition. The need for a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and regulatory oversight it wholly unsupported. Further, EKI offers no information or data to substantiate the assertion that Lots 1 and 3 may be affected by VOCs from the Conexant Site. Lastly, EKI appears unaware that development plans do not call for dewatering. EKI offers no substantive arguments to support their first "significant issue." Based on data and fact, an SMP appears unnecessary and the development plans do not call for dewatering activities. ' JHA. 2019 Annual Groundwater and Remediation Progress Report. November 2019. 9 Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Work Plan for Supplemental Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation. 17 March 2020. ROUX I Technical Memorandum 3664.0001L100/M January 21, 2021 Page 5 The second issue asserted by EKI is: 2) The potential presence of VOCs in shallow groundwater beneath the Proposed Development creates a potential risk of indoor air contamination impacts to residents. This risk should be evaluated and potential vapor control measures may be appropriate on buildings and facilities. As discussed above, there is no indication of VOCs in shallow groundwater, soil, or soil vapor beneath Lots 1 and 3. Additionally, development plans for Lot 1 and 3 include subterranean parking levels and a minimum of one aboveground parking or amenity level below all residential units at the Site. EKI offers no substantive arguments to support their second "significant issue." Based on data and fact, there is no documented risk from vapor intrusion to future residents and therefore no need for vapor control measures. Andrea Berlinghof Senior Engineer O' Mauricio Escobar Principal Geologist Figures Roux Figure 1 — Site Location Map' Roux Figure 2 — Site Map' Roux Figure 3 — Building Sections for Residences at 4400 Von Karman10 Attachments Attachment 1 — Geosyntec Figures 4A through 6E11 Attachment 2 — RME Soil Vapor Figure and Table12 Attachment 3 — JHA Figures 5 through 713 9 Figures from NOREAS letter. 10 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Entitlement Submittal. 17 December 2020. 11 Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Supplemental Remedial Investigation Work Plan. 18 November 2014. 12 RM Environmental, Inc. (RME). Report of Installation of Soil Gas Probes GP -11 through GP -17, and Soil Gas Vapor Sampling of Soil Gas Probes GP -2 through GP -7 and GP -9 though GP -17. 7 November 2011. 13 JHA. 2019 Annual Groundwater and Remediation Progress Report. November 2019. ROUX I Technical Memorandum 3664.0001L100/M Technical Memorandum 4400 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 FIGURES 1. Site Location Map 2. Site Map 3. Building Sections for Residences at 4400 Von Karman 3664.0001 L100/CVRS ROUX ROUX FIGURE 1 -- J v — n t [Ilk S p.F.ig Gun Club BiikeF St v �SA j ca HrL Wa yn-L —!5E1 W- (-i r L sit i rI t?A W - 60 SITE i Map Source: Magau& a�f�t Region P SITE LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE Lots 1, 3 and 5 Koll Center Newport Newport Beach, Ca EMS542 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Drafter Figure AS AF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES, INC. 05/28/2020 FinanciallyBased Environmental Solutions 1 ROUX FIGURE 3 RESIDENCES AT 4400 VON KARMAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA TCA # 2019-032 13.13' PIL UNIT UNIT w i Q UNIT OfI w o UNIT PARALLEL PARK'G 5.53' PARKING PARKING PARKING li \ A R C H I T E C T S 10.63' 3) SECTION C TPG (KCN) ACQUISITION LLC ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DECEMBER 17, 2020 PARKING PARKING CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR 13.13' PL �I LD2� wl coJI ■ 9' wl 0PARALLEL PARK' 9.80' I PL I ' UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT gj�07.13' q �I 2 (D I UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT COR. ROOF DECK STAIR 4 T Lo UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT T '-'j I PARALLEL ;� LEVEL 5 o PARK'G UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 1.88' UNIT UNIT CORRIDOR 1 o PARKING 1 + 3) SECTION C TPG (KCN) ACQUISITION LLC ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DECEMBER 17, 2020 PARKING PARKING CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR 13.13' PL �I LD2� wl coJI ■ 9' wl 0PARALLEL PARK' 9.80' I 0 T UNIT T T UNIT o T 0 AMENITY - - - - --- --- -T T 1 Q AMENITY T PARKING 0 PARKING C? 0 0' 30' 60' 120' T.O. PARAPET ------------ ROOF OL a � LEVEL 5 LEVEL 4 � LEVEL 3 � LEVEL 2 h c� LEVEL 1 h BASEMENTI Ilk BASEMENT 2 � 2) SECTION B 1) SECTION A C B A KEY PLAN BUILDING SECTIONS TO.PARAPET gj�07.13' q r ROOF OL UNIT UNIT UNIT COR. ROOF DECK STAIR 4 T T ;� LEVEL 5 --- --- --_ - --_- - --� -- - UNIT UNIT UNIT CORRIDOR 1 o C 1 + LEVEL 4 _ _ +CD _ OL UNIT UNIT UNIT CORRIDOR__= = o _= ----_ __ ___ _T �- --C,5 _ _ _ LEVEL 3 OL _- UNIT UNIT UNIT CORRIDOR -= = T C5CD cc LEVEL 2 CORRIDOR _- -_ _ "' 4T O LEVEL 1 C) BASEMENT 1 OLT CD T BASEMENT 2 0 T UNIT T T UNIT o T 0 AMENITY - - - - --- --- -T T 1 Q AMENITY T PARKING 0 PARKING C? 0 0' 30' 60' 120' T.O. PARAPET ------------ ROOF OL a � LEVEL 5 LEVEL 4 � LEVEL 3 � LEVEL 2 h c� LEVEL 1 h BASEMENTI Ilk BASEMENT 2 � 2) SECTION B 1) SECTION A C B A KEY PLAN BUILDING SECTIONS Technical Memorandum 4400 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTACHMENTS 1. Geosyntec Figures 4A through 6E 2. RME Soil Vapor Figure and Table 3. JHA Figures 5 through 7 3664.0001 L100/CVRS ROUX Technical Memorandum 4400 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTACHMENT Geosyntec Figures 4A through 6E 3664.0001L100/CVRS ROUX D Legend • Roderik Smith (1989) ❑ JAG (2010) SIE Woodward Clyde (1984-1985) .f Jacob & Hefner ❑ TRC Envirormental Consultants (1988)s / Haley & Aldrich (2007c) ti — — Historical Source Area a 100 mg/kg Total VOCs in Soil Contours: 5 ft bgs 10 ft bgs 15 ft bgs 20 ft bgs 25 ft bgs Historical Soil Borings InterpretedTotal VOCs in Soil 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 50 25 0 50 100 Feet GeosyntecO' Figure consultants 4A Project No: HY1483 September 2014 Legend • Roderik Smith (1989) ❑ JAG (2010) SIE Woodward Clyde (1984-1985) .f Jacob & Hefner TRC Envirormental Consultants (1988)s / Haley & Aldrich (2007c) ti — — Historical Source Area a 1 mg/kg Dioxane in Soil Contours: 5ftbgs 10 ft bgs 15 ft bgs 20 ft bgs 25 ft bgs Historical Soil Borings Interpreted 1,4 Dioxane in Soil 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 50 25 0 50 100 Feet GeosyntecO' Figure consultants 413 Project No: HY1483 September 2014 Legend • Soil Samples O • Total VOCs in Soil at 5 ft bgs Total VOCs in the Shallow Groundwater Zone ----------- ---------- L ----=L L__, :A B5 9 B51 B52 B45 — B48 O AEI -4A .J B49 ES -1 3 ---------B46 • r B40 B41 NB35 ? ? ♦ B47 B38 B29 r i B30 B44 B36♦ 7B16 C� B31 ES -2 I I �B25A B25j I 1 r B18 n B26 ? `1B32 B33 I 1 SZO-2j al • LSZT-1 B27 B37I I •'SZO-1 • I B21B28 ♦ B20 B22 ' ♦ r / ♦ C'1 ♦ I / B13 I / ♦aI B52S �- - ES -3A B9 B10 IP '*" JVAI 90( B7 M-33 • ------------Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (Total VOCs in Soil at 5 ft bgs) rA Geosyntec 5A Legend • Soil Samples O • L Total VOCs in Soil at 10 ft bgs Total VOCs in the Shallow Groundwater Zone I———I L B5 B45 — B48 O AEI -4A .J B49 ES -1 M-38 ---------------------- B46 B34 r B40 B41 �B35 ? ? ♦ B47 ♦ - IT -5 B29 ♦ FB y B30 B44♦ ♦ �B36♦ OpW B16 C� B31 ES -2 l \ • B25A B25 ` J • cll B32 8 7B26 B1B33 I - SZO-2 • VL Cr ♦ �r61%SZT-1 B27 - B37 I r1-7 - B12 ♦ (`SZO-1/ B21 B28 �� I ri � B22 B51 B13B52N All /• w �• I B52S � '�• ES -3A B9 P t ------------Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (Total VOCs in Soil 10 ft bgs) ` �M-33 s� r, Geosyntec consultants 5B Legend • Soil Samples O • Total VOCs in Soil at 15 ft bgs L Total VOCs in the Shallow Groundwater Zone B45 - B48 O AEI -4A .J OW B49 ES -1 WM!38----------------- B46OB40 B41 35 ? ♦ B47 7 B30 B44 M-39: B36 ♦ �r I � / ' � - r♦ i I B31 ES -2 ♦ ♦ �B42 B25A B25 1 B18 rB26 B32 B33 J* 1 SZO-2 V ? v 4r 19 SZT-1 B27 B37' I E1-1 :1 7 - B12 INNSZO-1 B20� 21 �B28 \ ♦ O B22 7 B51 B13 / O \ ♦ / ♦ i B52N ♦ B23 B52S ES -3A _ B15 Cil B9 M-36 B5 M-33 i ---- Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (Total VOCs in Soil 15 ft bgs) rA Geosyntec 5C Legend • Soil Samples O • Total VOCs in Soil at 20 ft bgs L Total VOCs in the Shallow Groundwater Zone B45 - B48 O AEI -4A .J B49 1.9 ES -1 MF%B3 --------------------------------B46 B34B40 B41 -_5 _ ♦ B47 IT -5 B38 / i B44 B30 B36 I B16 1 � B31 ES -2 B42 C�1 � B25A � B25 B26 B32 1901 SZO-218 O ?B33 ♦ EI -1 •rB19_ SZT-1 B27 B37 JOF - B12 ♦ SZO-1 B21 B28 ♦ B20 ? / ♦ O B22 / B51 B13 / B52N ♦ B23 B52S ES -3A - B15 B9 M-36 B5 M-33 i B10 ---------------------------- Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) i rA (Total VOCs in Soil 20 ft bgs) Geosyntec 5D Legend • Soil Samples O • Total VOCs in Soil at 25 ft bgs L Total VOCs in the Shallow Groundwater Zone I ---I L B45 - B48 COj AEI -4A .J OW B49 r - ES -1 B35 `s ♦ IT -5 M-39: Cs � B16 � 11 f ES -2 B25A szo-2 ♦ 40P 40P� SZT-1 ♦qqPf rl-7 B12 EI�1 ' SZO-1 40P40P f B51 Cil � \ ♦ ♦ B52N B52S ES -3A B9 M-36 B10 B5 ` �M-33 s� ------------Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) Total VOCs in Soil 25 ft bgs r, Geosyntec 5E Legend • Soil Samples O • 1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 5 ft bgs L 1,4 -Dioxane in the Shallow Groundwater Zone 1---1 L M-39 s 1-7 r �B5 B5 r. B7 r �r ES -1 M-38 B46 ■ B34 � w � ♦ B40- B41.. ♦B35 C1 ♦ B47 I ♦ IT -5 F4� B29r B38 B44♦'B30 ? I C� B36♦ 16B31 ES2. B25A B25�'B18 B26 )B2 Z0�2rB19.- SZT-1 EI -1 �`� B27B37I B12r ♦ SZO-1 B21- �� ♦ B20 I / ♦ ti B22 I / ♦ C? I / I i 1 �-B13 ♦ B52N ♦♦I B52S. ES -3A B9 B10 M-33 i rA Comparison of 1,4 Dioxane in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 5 ft bgs) Geosyntec consultants 6A Legend Soil Samples O • • 1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 10 ft bgs ———I L — — i 1,4 -Dioxane in the Shallow Groundwater Zone 1——-1 L B5 M-39 s 1-7 r r. B5 i "Ewe ------------ 1-9 ft M-38 err ES -1 B46 ■ � w � ♦ B40- B41.. ♦B35 C� � ♦ B47 SIT -5 B38 B29 ? � 'B30 B44 / B36 B16 ` B31 ES -2, B25A B25 l W4* \ B18 �B26 �B32 B33 \ \ SZ04rB19 SSZT-1 B27 B37 1 B12,K ♦ SZp-1 B21� B28 1 B20 B22 —B13 i 1 — B13 B52N B52S. ES -3A B9 B10 Comparison of 1,4 Dioxane in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 10 ft bgs) ------------------ Mai M-33 i rA Geosyntec consultants 6B Legend Soil Samples O • 1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 15 ft bgs L 1,4 -Dioxane in the Shallow Groundwater Zone L ----------s - IPB34 M-38 46410 ES- M -38 ■ ♦ B40- B41.. ♦B35 O O O ♦ B47 F r1T-5 638 / B29 =W B44 M-39 / B36 B16 B42 B31 ES -2. j � \ I �B25A B25 41 I B18 rB26 C7 `�B32 B33 \� SZO-2 C'1 �kl 9 1 E1_1 ISZTG1� B27 B37 �I-7 B12r ♦' SZ�O-1 B21 B28 / \ ♦ B20 B22 ' / B51 - B13_ B52N ♦ I B23 ♦♦I B50 B52S. ES -3A B15 CSI B9 M-36 B10 B5 rj M-33 i r, Comparison of 1,4 Dioxane in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 15 ft bgs) Geosyntec consultants 6C Legend Soil Samples 0 • • 1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 20 ft bgs L 1,4 -Dioxane in the Shallow Groundwater Zone 1——-1 L B5 M-39 s 1-7 r rj r� M-38 B46410 ES -1 ■ -------------- B40- 1341., ♦B35 O O ` B47 IT -5 B29 ■ -Ell* B44 B38 B44 / 1336 131s ` � QA7 El - B12 r B� / JML B51 to B52S M-33 i B9 CJ -3H B15 CSI rA Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 20 ft bgs) Geosyntec"" consultants 6D Legend • Soil Samples 0 • L 1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 25 ft bgs 1,4 -Dioxane in the Shallow Groundwater Zone 1---1 L B5 M-39 s 1-7 r rj ---------- 1:9 rr M-38 ES -1 ■ w-------------- - OPI ♦B35 C'1 i IT -5 r, +, s Comparison of 1,4 Dioxane in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 25 ft bgs) Geosyntec"" consultants 6E Technical Memorandum 4400 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTACHMENT 2 RME Soil Vapor Figure and Table 3664.0001 L100/CVRS ROUX 92AE C -.,t HRA 12.12.11 Table 1: Con exant Soil Gas in u gIM3 - 10.31-11 f.r.W r>opm pale b-le+o chlere narr. Vint[ ChleHd. mW-. Awn 1..-0khmrc c. MMe. uinw 1,1,241 5,0,2J[ Aw - 1-1.5- pWe1e 1.1i0ionioro -'2. M nerve 2•Mrt.nw.. Ch+••e[..m 1,1.1- TncMere 0-33 T11 -lb. ~0 P- i Tw- r.n.cMo 2- E*o X"- xlyry !•^[+^"^ en. Fhc.nen. b.n4ene %ytwn .-Xv- sry[w s�+�ry1 1 iu.m Txrnxny[ GP -1-S 10' s 0.5128/10 NQ .8 ND 8.2 ND 5.1 PS NQ 7.9 NO 3i NO 15 116 NO .9 N 8.0 NQ .9 28 NO 9. NO 11 15 Np 71 it 68 ND 11 HD 73 N 9.1 N B.B 18 Nfl 8.5 NQ 19 H 19 GP -9-D 15' s 05128110 NA .3 HQ 7.7 NO(4-S) 34 ND 7.4 45 NO 1d 76 NQ .4 N 7.6 NO .4 18 11 NO 10 16 ND 10 ND 82 N 10 17 N 6.fi H 8.1 24 ND(OA) NO .7 NO 18 GP -2-S 11Y s OV281t0 Nil 9.d ND 7.9 HO 4, N 11 NQ 7.8 470 ND 15 170 NO .B NO 7.7 NO .6 40 ND .3 ND(IO) 65 Nil 10 49 210 NO 10 NO 13 NO 8.6 12 38 71 N .9 NQ 19 GP -2-D 15' s 05!28110 Na 8,9 N 7.5 N 4.6 NWO) ND 7. 88 NO 14 270 NO .2 ND .3 Na .2 57 NO 8.8 N 9.8 U H 20 110 NO . NO 12 N"- 9.6 30 8A NO .3 NO t8 GP -3-S Sp' s 05/28/10 ND .S ND 7.7 ND 4.6 NOW) 54 170 170 ND ,4 Np Ai Nfi 7.d 43 N30-11 53 17 140 NO(7-7) 200 N 10 480 ND 8.6 14 47 12 ND(R.7 H 16 GP-" 15' s 05/28/70 ND 9.3 N N 4. NOW) 100 170 149 NQ .4 ND 7.0 79 42 ND .7 32 53 29 NO .7 150 N 10 18 NO 8.8 12 19 11 No 9.7 NQ 18 GP -4 5' s OSR8170 Np 70.0 9.2 H 5. NO 71 NO 33 Np 15 139 Nfl 8.0 NO 6.2 H 8.0 32 NQ .9 NO(I f 29 ND 17 17 B6 ND 11 N 14 NQ 9.3 NO .8 16 NO 6.8 NO 10 ND(2D) GPI -5 5' 05!28179 (4D 8.8 N .3 ND 4.5 N 50.0NO MN0s.O NQ 28 HD 1d 79 HD .0 Np .2 NQ .0 19 NO 8.7 ND 9. 11 NO .5 8.4 46 ND .7 H 1 Z NO NO 13 N 7- ND 9.2 NO(M GP -8 5' 05!28119 N f0. S.fi 5.9 NQ 11 50 HD 15 210 NQ 8.0 NO 2 84 53 HO .9 N{] 71 37 26 91 NO 51 ND t4 NO .3 NQ .8 18 NQ B.8 NQ 70 NQ 2GP•7 5' OS12811p N 9.t N 7.8 N 4. NO 1 N 29 N 14 7Y 77 N9 7.4 2l0 23 NO 9.0 NQ 70 29 35 99 NQ 1 N 1 Ha 8.5 ND .0 20 HD S.0 ND 9.5 NO 1GP-8•S f0' s 05128/10 N 8.3 ND 7. ND 4.3 N 9.5 68 NQ 13 90 HO . NA .8 NQ 6. 3S HD 0.2 NO 43 28 160 NO 9.2 ND 71 Nfl 12 40 11 NO S. NO 1 GP -e -p 15' s 05128/19 NO 8. ND .5 Np 4-8 Nfl 10 . 46 NO td 12D NO .2 NO .3 HD 7. 42 ND 8.8 NO 9.6 43 tl 160 NO .8 ND(M NA 8.3 11 19 11 NQ 9.3 NO 1 GP -9.6 10' s 05/28/10 Np 98 NO 82 NO 51 NO 110 NO 79 NO 310 NO t50 H 240 NQ 9 ND 80 ND 9 NO 58 INNOD HD 110 190 87 780 NO 11 NO(130 NE)91 H 86 NO 86 NQ 8B ND 10 NQ 19GP-9•D 15' 05!28110 Na 44 NQ 37 23 HA 50 NO 3$ Np 14 H 66 ND 110 ND NO 38 Nb 35 Nil 26 NO 43 N 48 290 a 2t9 ND d8 NQ ND 41 H 39 b9 ND 39 H 4B NDGA•1D-S 70' s 05!28170 NO 8. NO .2 NO 4,$ NQ .6 ND .9 92 N i3 61 Np e. NQ 7.1 ND 6.4 19 H B.5 ND 5 3313 HN, 110 N 9.5 ND 1 ND 8.0 7.7 2S Np -$ Np Np 17GP-10.3 15' s 05128/70 152 81 19 3313 110 NO 1 7.7 2SGP-10.O 15' 05128/10 ND 8.7 ND .7 NO 4.2 NO 9. Np 8.5 Np 25 NQ 1 88 NO .5 ND B-8 Np 8.5 45 N S.0 ND 8.9 6.2 5, 190 ND 8.9 200 NQ .5 NO 7.1 18 ND .f ND .1 GP -1-S 10' 3 08111/11 NS NS NS NS HS HS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS S HS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS GP -1.O 75' 08111111 NS NS I NS NS NS NS NS NS NS HS NS NS NS NS NS S NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS GP -2-S 10' 08/11/71 2.2 1.00 ND [1,51 ND 1.1 NQ 0.79 N 3.7 NO 1.5 15 NA .79 Np 0.81 NO .79 9.2 ND 0.98 ND 1,1 8.1 3.3 9.9 NO 1.4 1.4 3.5 9.1 3.8 1.8 2-8 3,0 GP -2•0 75's 08/11/71 2,1 0.92 ND 0.57 NA 1.1 ND(Q 79 N 3.] N 1.5 12 NOM-79) ND 0.87 NO 0.79 2.9 Np 0.95 NO 1.1 9.7 HO 1.1 3.6 10 NO 1.4 0.82 4.9 9.0 4.1 3.3 3.7 4.1 GP -3-6 10 bas 08/11111 3.1 1.4 1 NO(O.61) 1.4 1 NE)0.7 8.2 1 NO0.51 26 ND ,7 NO 0.81 ND(Oltl 9.2 ND .98 Nl)1.] 8.65 NO l �D. 2.6 6.1 NQ 1.4 1.7 1.4 5.1 2.5 1.3 2.3 3.0 GP -3.0 15'bgs 04/11111 3.0 1.4 NO 0.57 1.3 ND 0.79 3.2 Nr)1.5 11 ND .79 ND 0.81 ND ,79 4.0 N.. .98 NQ 1.1 t.f N 1 1 2.0 7.8 NO 1,4 F7 0.82 1.6 GPJ 5' bgs 08111!7 7 3.3 "DL, 83 N 0.51 4.4 Na 0.79 N 3.1 ND 1.5 15 NO 0.79 NOM.81 ND 0.79 7.6 NZ)0.98 ND 1.1 1.2 NO(1.1 2.3 14 NQ 1.4 D(0.82 1.9 5.7 P.6 2.4 1.7 NO GP -5 OH111111 1.4 HD 0.83 H 0.51 1.5 ND 0.79) N .l NO(1.5) 8.S NQ 0.79 0.91 NO 0.79 3.3 N❑ .9B N 7.1) 1.2 20 1,6 6.8 SS b 0.62 1.5 5.0 2A 1.6 2.0 2.3 GP$ _Ebls 5' bgs 08175!11 3.8 NQ 2.8 27 H 7.8 NO 3.8 50 14 3.0 160 6.8 NO d N 2. NWA) 249 NQ 2.0 4.3 ND .4 ND 2.0 N 2.2 2.6 ND(2-2 HD .1 ND .5 ND 4. GP -7 5' kgS 08/17111 NOf22) ND 18 ND 14 ND 25 NO 18 NQ?6) NQ 34 69 56 ND $B 750 N 73 N NO(24) ND 14 S.200 ND 18 NO.UA ~NE 93 NQ 18 NO 9 NQ 19 NO(IS) N 1 NO H 44 GP•5-S 10' bos 08/11117 NS NS h5 NS NS N5 NS HS NS NS NS NS NS HS HS N$ NS NS NS NS NS NS NS HS NS GP -8-p 15' s 08111!17 NS NS NS NS NS N$ N$ NS NS NS NS NS NS H$ NS NS NS NS NS NS NS N5 NS 148 N8 NS GP-" 10' bus 06111!17 I NO .5 690 NQ 4.9 ND 11 ND .6 ND 30 NO 15 87 NO .6 NQ 7.8 ND 7.6 11 NO .4 NQ 1D 180 NQ 10 NQ .9 48 ND 13 ND -9 13 1 24 NQ 8.3 8.3 NOMA N 19 G" -D 15' bgs 08111/11 3.2 ND 2.1 NO 1.3 ND 2.6 ND(2-0 Nb 7.6 N 3.8 17 j ND .0 NOR -0) Nb 2.0 7.3 NQ .4 ND 2.7 32 NO .7 NO ,0 10 Nl)3.4 ND 2.0 S.7 &a 4.1 4.5 3.8 5.1 GP -10-S 10' W5 D6111111 4-2 Nb 2.7 NQ 1.3 4.7 ND .0 NO .8 N 3.8) 22 NQ .0 ND .0 ND 2.0 8.9 4.i 8.9 4.2 200 2A 16 750 ND 3.1 7.7 4.0 2,7 2.7 ND(4-9) GP -10-s 15' s 05Y2WIO 5.2 H 2.1 NO 1,3 5.7 NO(2.0) NQ .6 ND 3.8 23 ND 2.0 NO ,0 NQ 2.0 10.0 4.1 8.9 5.2 201 2A 16 SSt NQ 2.0 S.1 7.7 4.0 2.7 3.7 7.1 GP•10.0 15'bg5 0511 V71 2.8 N 2.1) NQ 1.3 4.1 ND .0 NO .8 N 3. 15 2A ND .0 3.2 4.9 4.7 18 2.2 410 2.8 t2 270 ND 2.0 NO S,7 32 2.2 NW. ND 4,9 GP -11-S IS - Ns 08/19/11 3.7 HQ 2.8 ND 7. N 3.4 3.4 16 100 290 HD .7 ND .8 NO(Z.7) 140 12 0.5 2.8 29 41 1 49 26 3.9 7A 24 7.6 7.8 3.9 NO .8 GP41.0 20' bgs 08/19/11 4-2 N 2.1) H 1.3 H 2.8 2.7 NO .8 62 160 NO(2.0) NQ A 18 71 7.1 2.9 3,2 28 33 46 15 3.5 6.8 21 6.4 6.6 2.7 ND 4.9 GP -12-S 11),bas 08!19111 3.1 H 2.1 ND 7.3 9.5 HD .0 12 75 260 ND 2.0 NO N 60 M(2.4 ND S.6 6.0 31 56 12 4.7 13 43 13 11 6.9 7.6 GP -12-D 15'bgs 06119/11 Y.8 1.8 NO -51 4.9 1A 32 26 60 2.8 2,0 78 23 5.4 NO 7.1 24 19 31 120 1 3.6 3.9 21 59 17 23 5.9 5.4 GP -1 3,-S Wbgs 06719/71 4.3 1 NW -11 ND 7.3 26 55 1 11 276 70 12 2.4 64 15 3.3 ND(2 3.9 370 4.3 65 98 ND 2.0 7.4 21 6.4 9.4 4,7 GP.13-D 15' Ns 06719/11 3.2 H 2.1 ND 7.3 35 79 25 360 190 30 4.8 290 67 4A NQ .7 11 520 31 730 130 4.8 18 68 17 1S 7.9 6.6 GP -14-S I(Fbgs 08119171 3.2 1.1 Na .51 12 2.1 15 24 100WNO�0-81) 0.81 ND 0.79 24 4A NO 1.7 8.2 7.2 19 110 7.1 3.6 17 49 16 17 9.0 7.5 GP•14-0 55' S 08[79171 3.2 3.8 Ni) .S4 t3 ND 0.79 31 0.81 0.85 20 74 NDO-1) 18 18 18 480 9.5 2.9 18 47 14 23 S,0 N 2.0 GF -1 5-S 10' s 08119/11 3.3 ND .83 ND 0.5F 2.6 H 0,79 32 NOO 0.81 NO 0.79 2S N 0.98 NQ 7.4 31.6 ND 7.1 4.5 35 N 9.4 5.3 8.7 26 8.0 11 3.1 8A GP -15-D 15' s 06719/11 3.3 ND(2 1 NO 1.3 15 3.8 14 O .0 ND 2. 25 2.8 ND 10 S.S SS 170 4.6 2.9 19 54 15 1s 6.8 5.2 GP -16•S 10, $0120111 3.9 1.5 0.183 3.2 0.363 1.33 Z-F;ND D 0.61 NO 0.91 6.0 0.455 NO 1.1 73 4.9 4.3 SS 6.2 0.82 6A 16 4.9 3.8 5.2 6.5 Is' 10720/11 0.93 0.69 0.32 14 0.81 13 0.25 3.3 8-1 , NO 0.98 NQ 1.1 9.6 75 HD 1.1 73 � 22 1.3 1.9 5.3 18 2.3 2.4 N 3.GP-17-5 19' 10120171 1.1 0.69 1.2 1,9 ND(O.79) 0.80.1 Ot0.81) NQ(0.79) 17 1.6 NO(1.1) 41 NO[1A O{p.82 76 0.84J 2.0 Yd 16 5.4 4.7 S.6 ND(3.0) GP•17•D 15' tD120177 I).78J 1.7 NQ11.3) ND(2.8) . ND 1.4 2A,} NDC3.8) 23 D .0 ND 1.97 8.8 NO(2A) ND(21) 78 NO (2.5) ND(2.0) 170 1.4J N 2.0) 14 21 7.2 12 12 1 N .3) $vil-Gds ug1m3 ProVCL Staiislies Pelvo+a am.. �+.4..�. h.ne vin[n Chie+541 T[Iw.m nuem 1.1AICMe[e Graben .. % 1,1,25'1 1,2.2*Fr Aexoir [•1,x• Oiehlele rhe.. 1,1J1ichle[e c1,2• xhaM chie+o 2A.rt.- CManWxn t,1.F- i+ichlom g.na.n. Trichlom lan4r 1 1.- eihen. !•�"o'• Te[•aclb 2• ca^ EInH [n p 6 m- %ylm. e-%y1.n1 5[y1.m 4ad.M Tolum. Trimxlryt Max @ Depth tr h 9 is +b 15 +s +5 is +0 5 15 5 +v 10 +5 5 10 1A 5 s 15 [5 +1 is +a Max 1 5.2 690 23 35 791 470 360 290 56 4.8 750 140 14 53 296 5200 45 210 270 4BUI 2459 47 23 12 7.6 MEAN 3.19] 51.61 5.-0 1001 151] 51.32 117.5 90.91 1275 2227 13ts Flag 5.542 17.17 33.65 375.2 1521 8+38 5837 4443 9.2 49.25 15.93 9.339 -0.621 1.921 50 --- - 0.94a 153.6 6873 19.E 27.37 x391 114 75.56 +701 1609 27 08 26,10 -51 4W5 18.51 57.55 1970 s2a 65.70 T979 12+6 T+R4 5888 13.01 3843 2813 1933 95% UCL 3.45 89.99 2.08 8.8611 14.171 53.23 57.62 137.8 6.58 1.166 -F4-08,-43 - 3.791 89.9 408 20.21 1271 36.6 71.7 8.61 20.9 23.3 8.57 5.09 4.64 Figure 4: Boring Locations Uptown Newport Facility Site .'� GP' 17 GP_55 CP -t3 GP- "I a ■ a r GP,9 Gil 16 GP -14 ■ ..10 GP -11 � GF GP4 0, I r .., ' I GP -7 ■ GP -5 I r � -I I !> ! I I ■ 14 a GP -2 �r �I�.•.:�. . 4i !W :011 R M Environment -al. Inc. itvjrts No. 10-6"9 FIGURE 1 I Technical Memorandum 4400 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTACHMENT 3 JHA Figures 5 through 7 3664.0001 L100/CVRS ROUX 0 J m Q U Q 1 BASE MAP DERIVED FROM HALEY & ALDRICH, 2007 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT, JUNE 2007 E X P L A N A T I O N O SHALLOW ZONE MONITOR WELL M-33 • SHALLOW ZONE EXTRACTION WELL ES -413 (NOT IN OPERATION) 6 DPE TEST WELL SZO-2 SHALLOW ZONE ENHANCED IN-SITU EISB-S1 BIOREMEDIATION INJECTION WELL NOT MONITORED 25.03 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (ms1) CONTOUR OF EQUAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE MSL NM NOT MONITORED N GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=200 0 100 200 400 O O I zE O E, a r�awx WWzw� 04 W Ga Z O d E- f� �ocoz W W O N O a a x rn E X P L A N A T I O N C \^/ L1t O SHALLOW ZONE MONITOR WELL • SHALLOW ZONE EXTRACTION WELL (NOT IN OPERATION) W • DPE TEST WELL SHALLOW ZONE ENHANCED IN-SITU A E--� s BIOREMEDIATION INJECTION WELL z %� EISB-S1 NOT MONITORED ,''4. A O Q � ti WELL IDENTIFICATION � � p u i ST q ES -2 m�F'r BENZENE 0.92 W W Z W M 29 VOLTILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) N 0 w ND CONCENTRATION IN MICROGRAMS PQ pq PER LITER (ug/L) Oa d O _ ` ND NOT DETECTED ABOVE LABORATORY <11 a ~' METHOD DECTION LIMIT I__ M-30 W W co ND M-25 J ANYALYTE DETECTED AT A CONCENTRATION z 04 4 Z Q BELOW THE REPORTING LIMIT "-' O M-39 M_ ND AND ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT v) G4 U TRICHLORETHENE 0.11. S-1 Z Q M-3 EIS 1 � M-36 M O cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.82 P4 trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.23J SZO SZT-1 O-1 3.2 0 J P� M- S- z SKO- 9 O KSKO O ER SIT O M-33 B I DING 02 -40 ES -46 Z -45 TEOR BUI ArG503) ~ o M-45 ES -5 ES -6 r; CHLOROFORM 0741 TRICHLOROETHENE 0.23 ES -6 H z� cis- 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 1.1 rT, trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.15J M -48R TRICHLOROETHENE 0.141 B ND Ln M-24 ES -4B �0�/ � �- 1. cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 10 04 V O trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.311 TRICHLOROETHENE 0.86 N z M-37 ES -5A VINYL CHLORIDE 7.4 M-37 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 1.8 4 -DIOXANE 0.361 C 7 11,4 -DIOXANE HLOR0.681 ACETONE 9.6J r Z Z CHLOROETHANE 0.371 trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.26 Q � � � 0 -BUTANONE 3.61 TRICHLOROETHENE 0.20 r ARBON DISULFIDE 0.41 O CHLOROFORM 0.111 ,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.061 UPTOWN NEWPORT PHASE 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 "=200 P 0 100 200 400 BASE MAP DERIVED FROM HALEY & ALDRICH, 2007 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT, JUNE 2007 KSKO-1 iINYL CHLORIDE 0.151 .1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.79 .1-DICHLOROETHENE 1.3 is-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 46 ans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 1.7 -RICHLOROETHENE 25 KSKO-2 M-40 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.82 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 6.8 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 57 trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 7.9 TETRACHLOROETHENE 13 1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE 2.6 TRICHLOROETHENE 220 VINYL CHLORIDE 0.301 BENZENE 0.095) CHLOROFORM 0.171 SZO-2 M-40 ACETONE 1000 1,2-DICHLOROBENZEN 320 1,4 -DIOXANE 970 VINYL CHLORIDE trans-l,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.741 2_gUTANONE TRICHLOROETHENE 3.21 CHLOROBENZENE 37 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 2.41 t,4 -DICHLOROBENZENE 4.41 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 700 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 2.31 DI -ISOPROPYL ETHER 4.SJ ETHYLBENZENE 35 METHYLENE CHLORIDE B.OJ m,p-XYLENE 74 o -XYLENE 45 TOLUENE 15 1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE 18 M-38 M-40 1.9 TETRACHLOROETHENE 1.4 TRICHLOROETHENE 67 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 18 1,4 -DIOXANE 0.531 trans-l,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.741 2_gUTANONE 2.21 CHLOROETHANE 4.2 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.161 CHLOROFORM p.1gJ L.1 DICHLOROFTHFNF 0.231 M-38 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 1.9 TRICHLOROETHENE 0.261 ACETONE 4.SJ TRANS-I,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.086) ES -1 SZT-1 0.381 ETHYLBENZENE 130 CHLOROETHANE 900 CHLOROBENZENE 900 TOLUENE 11 1,2 -DICHLOROBENZENE 290 TRICHLOROETHENE 5.7 1,4 -DICHLOROBENZENE 52 VINYL CHLORIDE 24 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 19 m,p-XYLENES 110 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 20 o -XYLENES 31 trans-l,2-DICHLOROETHENE 5.41 1,4 -DIOXANE 15 1,3 -DICHLOROBENZENE 5.31 n-PROPYLBENZENE 1.61 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 3.91 ISOPROPYLBENZENE 2.11 ES -1 CHLOROFORM 0.381 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 8.0 trans-l,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.281 TETRACHLOROETHENE 0.381 TRICHLOROETHENE 1.9 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.451 ES -3A TRICHLOROETHENE 0.191 ACETONE 4.SJ cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.491 METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.056) trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.161 M-33 SZO-1 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.151 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.281 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 22 trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.70 TRICHLOROETHENE 2.5 VINYL CHLORIDE 0.451 1,4 -DIOXANE 0.381 TETRACHLOROETHENE 0.451 ES -2 SZO-1 BENZENE 0.251 1.2 -DICHLOROBENZENE 3.9 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.87 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.191 pis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 16 trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.82 TETRACHLOROETHENE 0.321 TRICHLOROETHENE 4.6 VINYL CHLORIDE 11 1,4 -DIOXANE 51 M-24 SZO-1 0.191 ACETONE 2300 CHLOROETHANE 7.2 1,2 -DICHLOROBENZENE 82 1,4 -DICHLOROBENZENE 2.61 2-BUTANONE (MEK) 361 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 8.2 ETHYLBENZENE 39 DI -ISOPROPYL ETHER (DIPE) 1.21 CHLOROBENZENE 190 METHYLENE CHLORIDE 1.31 VINYL CHLORIDE 5.4 o -XYLENE 17 m,p-XYLENES 31 TOLUENE 3.91 1,4 -DIOXANE 1100 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 3.61 M-24 CHLOROFORM 0.191 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 0.181 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 0.121 TETRACHLOROETHENE 0.331 TRICHLOROETHENE 0.201 NAPHTHALENE 0.591 1 � BASE MAP DERIVED FROM HALEY & ALDRICH, 2007 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT, JUNE 2007 E X P L A N A T I O N p SHALLOW ZONE MONITOR WELL SHALLOW ZONE EXTRACTION WELL (NOT IN OPERATION) 1K DPE TEST WELL O SHALLOW ZONE ENHANCED IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION INJECTION WELL EISB-S1 NOT MONITORED ND NOT DETECTED ABOVE LABORATORY METHOD DETECTION LIMIT 23 TOTAL VOLITILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER (ug/L) CONTOUR OF EQUAL TOTAL VOC (VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND) CONCENTRATION IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER (ug/L) DASHED WHERE INFERRED NM NOT MONITORED N GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=200 0 100 200 400 m 0 a I 0.i H W � a A w A E'' o za W�zx W� U GQ w I� r, �4 Z z 0 H 0 H Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence ATTACHMENT B: FLOOD CONTROL I TAI T RISING TO THE CHALLENGE p:71 41560/8200 www.tait.com MEMORANDUM 701 N. Parkcenter Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Date: January 21, 2021 To: The Picerne Group, LLC. From: Tait & Associates, Inc. Subject: RE: Koll Center Residences at 4400 Von Karman And Related Parking Structure The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to Forward Counsel's Letter. The Proposed Flood Control System Will Create Hazards For The 4340 Property While Attempting To Mitigate Them For The Project The proposed project maintains the existing drainage pattern of the site and does not increase the total flows to the storm drain system or the overall pervious/impervious ratio for the site. Existing drainage from north of the structure will be intercepted at the North-East corner of the parking structure and will be connected to the existing 66" Storm Drain System to match existing conditions and will not affect the drainage conditions to the south of the structure. The proposed storm drain improvements for the project also includes water quality devices and a detention system located to the south of the parking garage. The proposed detention system is designed to capture and treat the low flow water quality volumes, however, all peak flow drainage will be directly conveyed to the existing storm drain system. As a result, the proposed water quality feature will not increase flooding risk in this area, and instead significantly decreases the risk of flooding and increases the hydraulic efficiency of the existing system. As a result, the proposed water quality improvements and detention system will have a positive impact on the existing drainage conditions and there is not a risk for additional flooding in the vicinity of the subject project. Proposal to Mitigate the Impacts of the Structure Parking The proposed alternate location of the parking structure has detriments to the existing site layout which are noted below: a) Insufficient distance between existing parking structure to property line — The separation between existing eastern parking structure edge and property line is approximately 121 ft. The width of the proposed parking structure is currently 128 ft. Thus, the parking structure would need to be redesigned to fit within the existing site parameters. b) Existing Fire Access — The existing fire access route would be terminated by the proposed building location. In order to maintain a fire access, the building footprint will need to be revised to provide a fire access lane adjacent to the structure. Subsequently, the width of I TAI T RISING TO THE CHALLENGE p:71 41560/8200 www.tait.com 701 N. Parkcenter Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705 the building will be decreased and the length increased in order to maintain the proposed parking stall counts. c) Increased Conflict With Existing Storm Drain — As a result of the above noted increased length of the building, a longer portion of the existing 66" RCP storm drain would full under the parking garage creating further conflicts with the columns of the parking garage. d) Existing utility infrastructure - utilities such as water, electrical, telecommunications, and other unknown items would be in conflict with the structure and will need to be relocated. Based on the above material presented, it is our belief that current location of the parking structure will not pose a risk for additional flooding in the vicinity of the subject project. In fact, the proposed water quality devices and detention units will improve the existing drainage condition. Additionally, the proposed alternate location of the parking structure is infeasible due to the existing site constraints. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David Sloan, PE Vice President - Director of Engineering (714) 560 - 8643