• 7. A public hearing was originally scheduled on January 26, 2023. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC'). The Zoning Administrator continued the meeting of to March 2, 2023."
"9. The Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. ZA2023-010 approving a Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180)."
• "1. The treatment system building will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive, along Country Club Drive, outside of common residential areas of the Bayridge ParkHomeHomeowners Association....
"5. The building will be secured to the a concrete pad with anchors chosen for the earthquake risk parameters of the City of Newport Beach area. The treatment system 10-562
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) May 18, 2023, PC agenda Item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 building will additionally be secured with a monitoring system that will safely and automatically shut down the system in the event of an earthquake or other unforeseen natural disasters and an operations manager will be alerted of the shutdown. The treatment system will be monitored and inspected for potential damages prior to restart. " [Is the shutoff automatic?]
• 7. The treatment system includes multiple redundancies to ensure concentrations of organic compounds released from the exhaust stack, are below the AQMD emission limits...."
"1. The Property is within Planning Area 8 (Attached Residential), a portion of the PC- 24 Zoning District, -which -is approximately 12 acres in size. The proposed building will be located adjacent to the residence of at 94 Hartford Drive and to Country Club Road and will not negatively impact on -site vehicular circulation."
"3. The treatment system will be located within a new prefabricated building, which is 20 feet by 12 feet and j240 square feetl in size...."
"7. Additional locations along Country Club Drive were considered providing a greater separation from 94 Hartford Drive. Unfortunately, the andape landscaped parkway was either too narrow to accommodate the facility or too steep, ..." "8. Alternative locations were considered within the Bayridge Park community within landscaped areas that provided adequate building separation from residents. These areas would require significant removal of existing trees within the community and the placement of the treatment system building will would cause a disruption to existing drainage and creek beds. Additionally, placement of the treatment system building in these areas will would create heavy visual impacts within the community and remove much needed parking for the residents."
• "1. The limited term permit would allow the limited duration use to deviate from setback requirements and building separation requirements of the PC-24 Zoning District pursuant to Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code." [Note: This fact, saying the proposed development deviates from the code appears to contradict the stated required Finding E ("The limited duration use is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the Municipal Code, and other City regulations"). However, the contradiction appears to result from an oversight in the wording of the NBMC, for Subsection
20.52.040.B.1 says "A limited term permit allows limited duration uses that might not meet the development or use standards of the applicable zoning district."] • "3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk by in accordance with the provisions of Title 20,. Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code."
10-563
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) May 18, 2023, PC agenda Item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4
"8. Maintenance vehicles shall utilize residential guest spaces within the Bayridge Park community with approval from the Bayridge Park Homeow-nWs Homeowners Association when working at the soil vapor extraction system and treatment facility. " • "9. Maintenance requiring large commercial vehicles shall be permitted to park on Country Club Road no more than two (2) times per calendar year unless otherwise required for health and safety. The applicant shall notify the Bayridge Park omeo w^Homeowners Association and the One Ford Road Homeownerls Homeowners Association in writing at least seven (7) days before performing maintenance." [Note: Before this, won't construction equipment also need to park on Country Club Road? Does there need to be a condition addressing that?]
"12. Prior to the issuance of a final building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Permit to Construct (P/C) from the South Coast Qualify Air Qualit Management District."
• "17. The treatment system unit shall be constructed off -site and prior to the transportation of the prefabricated treatment system unit to the project site and again after installation of the structure, an acoustic audit shall be performed to ensure that the noise level observed at the exterior of the structure when operating at maximum capacity meets the allowable exterior noise standards of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The results of the acoustic audit shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to final inspection of the building permit." [cf. Fact in Support of Finding A.3 citing the content of Condition of Approval Nos.17 and 18 and saying they contain these requirements. Conducting the audit without the machinery running would seem meaningless.] 10-564
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No_ 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aero utmnic Ford Soil Vapor Remediadon Appeal (PA2022-180) From: Lee Healv
To; Pldnning Commissioners
Subject: COMMENTS: AERE 3PJUTRCNIC FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION APPEAL (PA2022-01B0) Date: May 17, 2023 4:04:56 PM
Attachments: Crdip QOmrnunf€dtions.Ddf
itdemnifi€ADn.odf
GeoTra€ker.pdf
Bayr" SVE { )biertions Jan 2D23.docx
013J=ONS TO FORD REM BaATIE3H BAYRIDGE 3223.dnce
[EXTERNAL EMAEL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commissioners:
The previous comments sent in March to the Planning Commission about the Ford remediation have not been answered by WS P to our satisfaction. It's because they don't have the answers.
It has been a long-term project now in the hands of WSP Global (which acquired Wood Environmental last fall for approximately $1.81 billion and with them, the meaty Ford contract).
Environmental consulting is big business —the OC Business Journal "The List" in the Feb. 6, 2023 issue lists 17 firms in OC by 2022local billings—WSP USA was
15. Over the gears, they have been paid millions b the Ford Motor Company to oversee the project.
Craig Communications, the PR agency retained by Wood now W PS, brags on its ebsite how well they have managed the communications of "the lamest vapor intrusion project in California and Ford Motor's highest profile envlronmentalproject.(attachment)
The difference? This is business for them. These are our HOMES, where we live, and have raised families, without knowing the contamination of the soils on which Ba ridge was built. We have illnesses; are they related? I am an original owner, buying here in 1985. There was NO disclosure at the time as to the chemical dumping grounds by the Ford plant —which was documented as early as 1965. (attachment). It seems the city knew.
Residential projects of this proposed nature are unprecedented, despite WSP's lead engineer saying they have done them for gears and how safe they are.
This is based on MODELS. Many, many unknowns, and we are to be the guinea pigs with this proposed treatment building feet from our homes. The 13 wells, covering most of Bayridge, are converging into ONE treatment system housing unit, concentrating all the contaminated vapors into ONE area. How quickly will 10-565
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) those carbon filters be full? Monitoring proposals are not satisfactory.
We agree the issues need to be addressed. The remediation building needs to be away from residences. Rubber-stamping this to "get it done and over with" —and with the wide swath of indemnification by WSP/Ford--leads to the question: who is the guardian of our well-being in this Newport community? Lee Healy
949.760.3054
92 Hartford Dr
Newport Beach CA 92660
LeeCHealyCgmaii.com
10-566
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Helping communities stay informed and Feel Included in the Investigation and Remedial Processicaia No. r 2c - Additional Mat413\Me41 00 AM Aeronu on c Ford il Vo p Appeal A20)
0 Our Work (https:/lcraig-communications.com/case-study) Our Services ( https://craig-communications.00m/servicesO Our Firm ( https://craig-communications.com/abouil)
CASE STUDY
Helping communities Stay Informed and
Feel Included in the Investigation and
Remedial Process
Sector
Environmental ( https://craig-
co m m u n icat io ns .com /sector/
environmental/}
Services
Community Engagement
Craig Communications developed and manages
the communications program to support indoor
air testing within 1400 homes in Newport Beach.
This is the largest vapor intrusion project in
California and Ford Motor Company's highest
profile environmental project
CHALLENGE
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) updated its environmentai screening levels for VOCs in 2016 to be more protective of human health and the
environment. During routine monitoring of soil and
groundwater in 2018, concentrations of VOCs were detected in soil gas above the Water Board's revised environmental screening levels resulting in the Water Board directing our client to conduct extensive environmental assessment
( https://craig-
activities. These activities included the offering of indoor air communications.comiservice
testing of more than 1,400 homes and commercial buildings lcommunityl , Event
within the former facility boundary to assess the potential of Organization (https:l/craig-
vapor intrusion. Vapor Intrusion is the movement of vapor- communications.com/service
forming Chemicals (in this case VOCs), from an underground /event/), Regulatory
Source such as contaminated soil or groundwater, into the Relations (https:llcraig-
indoor air of an overlying building. Homeowners in the area https:llcraig-communications.com/case-study helping -communities -stay -informed -and -feel -included -in -the- nvestigation-and-remedial-process/ Page Iof5
10-567
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Helping Communities Stay Informed and Feel Included in the Investigation and Remedial Process - CraiCo Mo2c- Additional Ma284 AM Ford SoilVapor Appeal PA2020) communications.comiservice were concerned about how the large-scale environmental lregulatorylj, Scientific investjgation activities_ , potential vapor intrusion, and. remedial Communications and mitigation efforts may impact their health, their quaUty of {https:llcraig- life,. and the value of their homes.
communications.com/service
lscientificlj
SOLUTION
Location
Newport Beach, California our Team designed and executed a robust community engagement plan to assist the client with successfully
Client characterizing the extent of contamination, conducting indoor Ford Motor Company air testing in potentially impacted homes and commercial buildings, and initiating various remedial actions to reduce or eliminate potential risk to the community and environment.
Utilizing area canvassing, community events, a project
website, project informational mailings, and individual conversations with residents, we proactively addressed
community concerns and supported efforts to accomplish
project goals and objectives. Over X community meetings were held to ensure residents and the larger community
understood the process, had the opportunity to ask
questions/voice concerns, and allowed for the community to build trust in the investigation and remedial action efforts.
With the CCVID-19 pandemic, we offered hybrid meeting
models that combined in -person meetings (both indoors and outdoors) where safe to do so with an online option
(livestream or meeting recording). These meeting models were shown to greatly increase engagement rates through ease of access and the providing of a recorded option for community members to come back to at a later date.
IMPACT
As of December 2022, our Team has secured access to install over 420 soil vapor monitoring probes, conducted indoor air testing in over 350 homes, deployed short-term air purification systems in 29 homes, and are in the process of constructing multiple large-scale soil vapor extraction remediation systems.
By investing time to ensure residents understood the purpose and Im act of investigation activities, and were comfortable participating, we were able to ensure our client has not faced any nerative_pubIicii or lY awsuits to date. The Water Board has used this site as a model for successful public participatlon activities for other high -profile vapor intrusion sites and Craig Communications staff was commended by residents for their diplomacy, clear communication, and availability.
https:ilcraig-communications.comicase-study/helping-communities-stay-informed-and-feel-included-in-the-investigation-and-remedial-process/ Page 2 of 5 10-568
Plannin Commission - May 18, 2023
�: iC = i Ai ll 0#19rW ��F1
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023
Paae 12 of 13
18. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter
10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified periods unless the ambient noise level is higher:
Between the hours of 7:00 AM
and 10:00 PM
Between the hours of 10:00
PM and 7:00 AM
Location
Interior
Exterior
Interior
Exterior
Residential Property
45dBA
55dBA
40dBA
50dBA
Residential Property located within
100 feet of a commercial property
45dBA
60dBA
45dBA
50dBA
Mixed Use Property
45dBA
60dBA
45dBA
50dBA
Commercial Property
NIA
65dBA
N/A
60dBA
19. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner, or leasing agent.
20. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28,040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays.
21. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
22. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits or authorization from the Regional Water Qualify Control Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The project shall be designed, implementer, operated, and maintained in accordance with said permits or authorization from both agencies.
23. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (Including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor R,emediation including, but not limited to, Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City 10-569
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
ifgf#? Me: gc = AM06figil ~Wl1§ ftwiiwd
AA%98Ht4& grFp6Yd98iV"��pbr
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-023
upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition,
Fire Department
24. A three (3)-foot wide walkway shall be provided on at least one (1) side of the lot from Country Club Drive for Fire Department access.
Building Division
25. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code.
25. A list of "good housekeeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality, These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs.
Electrical Mechanical and Plumbin-g Division
27. All exhaust air shall terminate outside of the treatment system building in accordance with the requirements of California Mechanical Code 502.0.
28. Discharged liquid waste or sewage shall be connected properly to the drainage system of the premises in accordance with the requirements pursuant to California Plumbing Code, Chapter 7.
29. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall ensure the location of the exhaust is adequately sited away from any residential building openings. 10-570
GeoTracker
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional MateriaW1l@N%i�e99 AM
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180)
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
GEoTRACKLF https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case_summary?global_id=SL188023848
10-571
GeoTracker
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional MateriaW1IRN%i�e89 AM
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180)
JESSICA LAW JML
SANTA ANA RWQCB (REGION 8)
ADDRESS
3737 Main Street, Suite 500
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
PHONE TYPE
PHONE NUMBER
PHONE
(951)-782-4381
CONTACT DESCRIPTION
[email protected]
EXTENSION
Back to Top Conditions of Use Privacy Policy Accessibility Contact Us Copyright © 2023 State of California
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case_summary?global_id=SL188023848
10-572
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) OBJECTIONS TO PROJECT FILE #PA2022-0180, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC HEARING 1/26/23 • 1 respectfully and strenuously object to the Bayridge/Ford treatment system building being placed at 94 Hartford Drive. IT IS TOO CLOSE TO HOMES AND NEEDS TO BE RELOCATED. • The original plan of Wood/WSP was NOT to have 13 well installations with concentrated vapors converging into one building for treatment. They proposed 5 buildings closer to the hot spots, where the vapor would be diffused in different areas of the Bayridge complex. • Objections were raised to the original plan because of the taking up of parking spaces. Let's not make parking convenience a priority over health and safety. The proposed distance from the building and 94 Hartford is 3.2 feet, where 8 feet is the required separation. What if there is a fire inside the structure? An earthquake?
• Removal of toxins cannot be at 100%. All the toxic vapor being expelled within feet of our residences IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to our health and well-being. The problem is exacerbated by the prevailing onshore breezes that will move the vapor to the closest homes on Hartford Drive. The new model with one treatment system building was conceived through computer -generated 3D modeling that we must trust.
• We are being asked to put our faith in technology, with no real time monitoring. It was explained in the meeting that samples have to be taken offsite and analyzed, and there is a minimum of a two - week lag.
• Pipes can leak. Connectors can leak. There can be failures with the system, and this is occurring a few feet from where we live, sleep and breathe. Living in close proximity to this ongoing process is psychologically disturbing and deprives us of peace of mind. • The noise factor so close to homes is another reason to relocate the building. Possible electrical humming from the equipment. Possible EMF fields.
• The project is supposed to last a year. What if the testing at that point does not show results that are satisfactory to the Regional Water Quality Control Board? The timeframe could be extended. • What if we want to sell our homes or rent them out over the next 18+ months? Who would buy or rent with this situation? Our homes are NUMBER ONE FINANCIAL ASSET. • A relocation of the treatment system building is imperative. Either go back to the original plan of 5 structures or find a better location, such as the corner of Bison & Country Club Drive, which is closer to garages, not homes, or the 7 parking spaces that border Jamboree that were fenced in and used as a construction yard for a past project.
• This is not acceptable and we expect it to be changed. Thank you.
Lee Healy, owner
92 Hartford Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660
January 25, 2023
10-573
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) OBJECTIONS TO PROJECT FILE #PA2022-0180, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC HEARING 3/2/23 This is an addendum to objections raised prior to the postponement of the January 26 public hearing on the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at Bayridge Park.
By combing through the City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Agenda and clicking on "Staff Report" we found the "Ford Response to Comments" (dated February 10, 2023) to our earlier objections beginning on page 114 of a 179-compilation report.
Why did Ford's communications firm not send these to us directly or at the least a link to their answers? I requested responses to our concerns in a February 8 email to Tracy Craig.
This lack of transparency is disheartening and seems symptomatic of Ford. As an original owner, we were never informed of the environmental issues of contaminated soil, soil gas and groundwaters at Bayridge. The Ford facility had been cited for chemical dumping as early as 1965.
We choose not to meet with Ford/WSP to discuss concerns because without an impartial, expert third party, it would have been a session with the representatives trying to assuage our fears.
The Ford responses cited a community meeting held Nov. 4, 2021 on the revised SVE system installation and new location for the now singular treatment system building. In the meeting agenda, and in the meeting itself (I watched it), the address of the location is never mentioned. The meetings have low attendance, to include those logging on. This comment in the responses is NOT true —watch the end with the attendees' comments: "During this meeting, only comments in support of proposed treatment building location were received."
The responses also stated the Water Board approved the RDIP January 28, 2022. Why were the residents who would be most impacted by this installation not notified? What were you waiting for? And why was it another year before everything got back on schedule, with the city notice of a public hearing and the community meeting in the latter half of January 2023? In 2022 business was not at the disruptive levels we saw in 2020 or 2021 as a result of COVID.
My objections remain the same:
• The structure is too close to our homes when there is a better site that would take up a few parking places away from residences on the northeast section of the complex, where the system's exhaust could drift toward Bison Ave. and away from residences (yes, it would require more trenching) • The disruptive nature of the entire process, with many unknowns on how the test results will play out, is unacceptable
• There is a psychological impact of wondering if the system malfunctions and subjects us to toxic vapor. That is a direct impact on quality of life and quiet enjoyment of one's property • The value of our homes will diminish for the duration of the remediation • There seems to be modeling based on assumptions to how it should perform rather than supporting data • There is no guarantee this will be finished in a year Despite all this, we understand the need for remediation and getting started to get it done and behind us. We know any changes will take more time, but feel the location of the treatment system building must be moved away from homes.
Lee Healy
92 Hartford Dr.
Newport Beach CA 92660
[email protected]
March 1, 2023
10-574
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) From: Larry Cano
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Remediation
Date: May 17, 2023 5:32:11 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Documents show that the Newport Beach City Council knew about the potential hazards from toxic waste being dumped into the ground at the Ford plant since at least the 1960s.
Nonetheless, Ford was allowed to re -zone the industrial area for the sale of the land for housing after they closed their facility.
Subsequent housing developments came into being in and around the Ford plant site.
I have been a resident of Newport Beach and of this area in question since 1987. When my wife purchased a condominium in Bayridge Park in 1985, there was no disclosure of the potential hazards of living atop a toxic dump. Had we been informed of such we would not have stayed. Consequently we, as well as many other residents (and their children), were exposed to unknown levels of these toxins over a very long period of time.
To my knowledge there has been no scientific study that would follow and document the health and well- being of we long-term residents to determine the ramifications of such exposure.
And now there is a needed attempt at remediation of the ground soil with current levels of toxins being shown to be unacceptable. It is logical to assume the levels present at the time these developments were built would be much higher than what they are now.
Out of convenience, and probably due to cost saving measures, it has been determined that a filtration structure should be built within a few feet of our neighbor's condominium, and within close proximity to ours and others.
Since there is a published write-up of the situation being referred to in the past tense, and referencing a meeting that was held on the 18th, a day that has not yet come, it's apparent the City Planning Commission has already made up its mind, and we are just going through the motions at this point.
We are being asked to trust the remediation company hired by the polluting company and approved by the state Water Board, and our city officers. (None of our past city officials saw fit to inform the public of the health risks involved in the first place.)
I am not opposed to remediation efforts, as they are needed. But to place the structure adjacent to where people live when there are alternatives, is the same kind of thinking that got us to where we are now.
Haven't we residents who are bearing the brunt of this poisoning suffered enough already? By insisting to locate the filtering structure adjacent to homes is putting financial concerns and the convenience of parking places over health and safety. Further, it is subjecting people to the possibility of further damage.
There is ample room in the Bayridge Park complex for the structure to be placed in the parking places in the northeast section of the complex. That way the structure is not within a few feet of a residence, and whatever is being discharged, would then be carried by the prevailing breezes away from residential areas.
These carbon -based filtration systems can fail. There is no real time monitoring involved, and putting 10-575
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) the structure where it is planned is absurdly wrong. To take any more risks impacting public health and safety for the benefit of convenience or cost saving is not in the best interest of we citizens.
What has happened in the past cannot be changed, and is on the record. The decision -making from this point onward will either reflect a serious effort to protect the public or a cave-in to maintain status quo.
I urge the city not to approve this plan, or if it is already approved to change that decision and require the remediation company to explore the other viable sites for the structure.
Larry Cano
92 Hartford Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
10-576
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA222-0180) jlilatl Leslie Pratt
Objections to Ford SVE MAY 18
2 messages
..CITY Of
Leslie Pratt NEMRT BEACH Thu, May 18, 2023 at 9:08 AM To: [email protected]
Regarding the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach: Notice of Public Hearing -- Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal at 94 Hartford Drive on Thursday, May 18, 2023:
Project File No.: PA2022-0180
Location: 94 Harford Drive
To Whom It May Concern:
I reside at 96 Hartford. I strongly object to 94/96 Hartford Drive as the shared location of the soil vapor extraction unit to clean up the hazardous waste in the soil and groundwater from the fonner Ford Aeronutronics facility.
I am not asking to stop the remediation; I am asking to change the location based on the safety of myself and immediate neighbors. The unit is proposed to be THREE FEET away from 94 Hartford, violating the 8-Moot separation distance for this area. The location is arbitrary and was not the original proposal by Ford/WSP. It was stated multiple times in community meetings, the original project summary, and by the Newport Beach City Assistant Planner that the original proposal of 5-6 smaller extraction units were turned down by the HOAIBoard due to loss of parking spots.
It is absolutely unacceptable and appalling to have parking be valued over safety. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. Without this data, it is unacceptable to ask us to be the guinea pigs of this major operation. How in good conscience can Ford/W SP, The Water Board, and the city grant a hazardous waste clean-up unit 3 feet from a home, Per the South Coast Air Quality Management District, "all basin residents have the right to live and work in an environment of clean air, free of airborne health threats," and the "government is obligated to protect public health."
It was never even disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive, violating the 8-foot separation distance UNTIL the Public Notice for the permit application was posted. I was informed by the resident of 94 Hartford that this location has been once again changed.. The new proposed sight is supposedly 4 feet closer to 96 Hartford. Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the update from 94 Hartford, who said she was contacted directly by WSP while 96 Hartford was not included in the update is totally unacceptable.
We all sent in our original objections prior to the January 26`j' public hearing. To date, we have not received any responses in writing sent directly to us and instead, found the responses buried in the city 10-577
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received
website archives. Our objections are more than valid and need *er$MUddleSg&iiUEOdatWMIOtand\ppeal (PA222-0180) olijectiveway.
1. Medical Safety
- I am a two time survivor of advanced Breast Cancer. I have personally been diagnosed with the BRCA1 gene. In layman terms, this means I am greater than 8 5 % more likely to get cancer than the rest of the human population. My DNA does not have the genes that 99% of the population has to prevent getting recurrent cancer.
■ I was first diagnosed in 1984. After being in remission for 26 years in 2011 I was diagnosed with a 8 cm tumor in my lymph nodes. I underwent extensive surgeries, chemo and radiation for the second time in my life. I have been living in Bayridge Community since 1991 and purchased tray place in 1998. Myself and the family at 92 Hartford have lived here longer than aver 2/3 of the current residents.
• In addition I have heart and other neuropathic conditions often seen with VCC's, specifically TCE and PCE in groundwater and soil gas contaminations. • It is a confirmed statistic that stress is highly documented as a factor in addition to VQC's to be highly contributional to the development of cancer. When one is Immuno-suppressed this is even more critical. What this project has done and will do to my immunologic response system should not be taken lightly.
2. _ ality. of Life
• The hazardous waste unit so closely situated to my home will greatly impact my quality of life.
The noise generated, the air quality and the vapors being emitted and transferred by any direction of the wind will prevent me from opening my windows or utilizing my deck which is directly across from the SVE proposed system. I have no air conditioning, so rely on opening the windows during the warm months. In addition, the recommendation to prevent the household vapors intrusion was to keep windows open if possible . Also the — 40 year original windows will do little to to combat the noise impact from the system.
• 96 Hartford is the only unit out of 166 that will have to directly see the SVE unit daily. - My stairwell and living room windows are directly in view of the SVE system. I will also be more constantly exposed to possible contamination from the vapors being expelled.
Sitting on my deck will only further jeopardize my chances of possible contamination. .• Associate Engineer WSP: "Based on feedback, a lot of people commented and called that design was too intrusive to neighbors' homes and livelihood and too impactful' ugly, and disruptive. So why should 96 Hartford bear almost 99% of this intrusiveness?
3. [Ionic Values
10-578
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received
• I am 75 years old with no husband or other family membevRoMy000ndwisamldi ainv 0 A122-0180) worked very hard to secure and maintain this as a source of financial help if I am forced to some other type of senior or assisted living. There is no guarantee as to when I will need to sell. It is quite predictable that my place will be unsellable or rentable if such an emergency should happen. The SVE unit outside my condo would basically be destroying my savings account. With all the medical uncertainties I could not possibly continue to live here.. Simply picking up and leaving comes at a high price. Why should possibly three households out of 163 be forced to abandon due to their very valid objections and concerns.The hazardous waste unit directly next to our home will greatly impact our marketability.
4. Air Quality Monitoring
• The confirmed method of photoionization detector is not lab quality. Seven days of of non lab quality monitoring system does not show a risk free system.
4. Hazard Safety_
• You have provided no documents showing this system has been a proven method situated so closely to residences when the ordinances clearly state 8 ft. What would be the implications of a fire, earthquake or some other type of natural disaster when situated so closely to residences, mainly 92, 94 and 96 Hartford. This past spring a —150 foot pine tree fell against my condo in very close proximity to the proposed SVE unit. There are very large trees lining Country Club Drive. This could have been disastrous to the three units in such close proximity. The confirmed method of photoionization detector is not lab quality. Seven days of non lab quality monitoring does not show a risk free system.
In conclusion, how can they justify only 3 out of 166 condos being so adversely affected. This is a community. We all pay our HOA dues and should be treated all the same. You shouldn't sacrifice the quality of life and safety of three families to benefit 163 others. With careful planning and insight there are other solutions. I am pleading with you to stop this discrimination and find a solution that works for everyone..
Respectfully,
Leslie Pratt
96 Hartford
Mail Delivery System Thu, May 18, 2023 at 9:09 AM
To: [email protected]
The following message to was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550= 5.4.1 Recipient address rejected: Access denied. AS(201806281) [BLOGCCO2FT025.eop-gcc02.prod. protection.outlook.com 2023-05-18T16:09:08.479Z 08DB57A3D4E5B6B7]' Final -Recipient: rfc822;[email protected]
10-579
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2d - Additional Materials Received
Action: failed Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA222-0180) Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
Remote-MTA: dns; [104.47.64.110]
Diagnostic -Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'5.4.1 Recipient address rejected: Access denied.
AS(201806281)[BLOGCCO2FT025.eop-gcc02.prod. protection.outlook.com 2023-05-18T16:09:08.479Z 08DB57A3D4E5B6B7]' (delivery attempts: 0)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Leslie Pratt
To: [email protected]
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 09:08:52 -0700
Subject: Objections to Ford SVE
noname
OK
10-580
Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2e - Additional Materials Received After Deadline Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) From: Amy Santella
To: Planning Commissioners; Tran, Jennv; Rodriguez, Clarivel Cc: Kevin Solomita
Subject: New information received for hearing tonight 5/18/23 Date: May 18, 2023 2:18:32 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Regarding the City of Newport Beach: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, May 18, 2023:
Project File No.: PA2022-0180
Location: 94 Harford Drive
To Whom It May Concern:
We were notified today at 1:00 PM by Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner for the City, via phone call, that the proposed treatment system building would need to be shifted approximately 8 feet to the north, making it in direct view of our dining room window and a more problematic location than before! It may also require an additional pine tree to be taken down.
Along with our neighbors, we paid $1715 to appeal the location of the building, PRIOR to this change. Part of our appeal included our disagreement with the alternative analysis relating to the "infeasibilities" of the alternate locations that were provided by Ford/WSP. Per Jenny Tran, the building was moved due to a water main that was located where the building was proposed to be constructed. Given that there is a water main at this site, it would be logical to consider that this location is also infeasible. Also to note, we were notified on Tuesday, 5/16/23, by Candace Jantzen-Marson, Assistant VP of WSP that the building was to be moved 4 feet SOUTH towards the fire gate, further showing we keep receiving conflicting information from Ford/WSP.
Since Ford/WSP agreed this proposed location was also infeasible by moving the building, and this in turn effects the location of the exhaust, Ford/WSP should be required to file for a completely new permit request since this was NOT what was presented at the Zoning Administrator meeting held on March 2, 2023. This is now an entirely new decision. If the Planning Commission agrees that a new permit is required, we request we are refunded the $1715 we paid for the appeal.
We urge the Planning Commission to deny this request and have Ford/WSP review their infeasibilities adequately, instead of completely shifting a building location 5 hours before a "DE NOVO" public hearing.
Respectfully,
Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
10-581
Attachment G
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from June 22, 2023
10-582
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2023
REGULAR MEETING — 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER — 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Secretary Klaustermeier
III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Curtis Ellmore, Vice Chair Mark Rosene, Secretary Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Brady Barto, Commissioner Tristan Harris, Commissioner Jonathan Langford, and Commissioner Lee Lowrey
ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Brad Sommers, Assistant Planner Jenny Tran, Associate Planner Joselyn Perez, and Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Mosher recommended the Planning Commissioner Handbook prepared by the Institute for Local Government and highlighted the section on ex parte communications and site visits.
V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None
VI. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2023
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Motion made by Commissioner Langford and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the minutes of the May 18, 2023, meeting with Mr. Mosher's edits.
AYES:
Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, and Rosene NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Lowrey
ABSENT:
None
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 AERONUTRONIC FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION APPEAL (PA2022-0180) Site Location: Near 94 Hartford Drive
Summary:
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's March 2, 2023, decision to approve a limited term permit for the construction and operation of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system. The project includes construction of a 20-foot wide by 12-foot deep by 10-foot-high treatment system building, an underground pipe network of approximately 2,400 linear feet, and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation. The applicant is requesting a limited term permit to operate the soil vapor extraction and treatment system for a term of approximately 12 months. A limited term permit is requested to allow a 3.2-foot separation between the treatment system building and nearest residential structure where the required separation is
10-583
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2023
8 feet between buildings, and to allow the treatment system building to encroach into the 5-foot front setback.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a de novo public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-023 denying the appeal and upholding and affirming the Zoning Administrator's Approval of a Limited Term Permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system filed as PA2022-0180.
Chair Ellmore announced that this item was continued from the May 18 Planning Commission meeting to understand from the Homeowners Association (HOA) how the proposed location was chosen. He asked for new information and indicated that the Planning Commission supports the remediation effort.
Assistant Planner Tran provided a brief recap of the appeal and noted the purpose of the continuance to further address safety concerns, alternate locations, and additional input from the HOA Board regarding the location selection.
With the exception of Vice Chair Rosene who met with the applicant to discuss alternative locations and the appellant and Commissioners Harris and Langford who spoke with the applicant's representative, the remaining Commissioners had no ex parte communications.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Kenn Conner, WSP, introduced the team and members of the Bayridge HOA, reviewed the key points related to the permit, application, location determinants, community outreach, and urgency. Furthermore, he shared a remediation area map and Bayridge Park soil vapor extraction (SVE) system outline, key responses to comments/questions, location justification, alternative #4 location map, location analysis, and community support. Mr. Connor agreed to the conditions of approval.
Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Board, clarified their authority as a State agency.
Enrique Sanchez, Bayridge HOA President, apologized for not attending the May 18 Planning Commission meeting.
In response to Commissioner Langford's questions, Mr. Sanchez provided an overview of the location selection process and authority, structure, and election rules of the HOA.
Commissioner Harris utilized the Bayridge Park SVE system slide to question an alternative parking area location, and in response to his inquiries, Mr. Sanchez indicated that backlash from residents at the HOA meetings, inconvenience, and the best recommendation are what stopped the alternative location in the parking area from being a viable alternative. He noted unit counts and configurations of those units within complex.
Commissioner Barto noted a narrow versus distributed community impact approach by using the proposed location and, in response to his inquiry, Mr. Conner indicated that the location selection was driven by
10-584
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2023
engineering issues, trench size, utility conflicts, and space requirements and multiple locations would only take care of a small number of extraction wells.
Amy Santella, appellant, indicated that the original proposal by the engineers included five sites and was turned down by the HOA due to the impact on parking. She believes it remains a viable alternative, reviewed the HOA parking policy, clarified her support of the remediation, disclosed conversations with WSP and the Santa Ana Regional Water Board and HOA responses to her outreach, suggested alternate site feasibility is not being considered, reported having not received the requested residential treatment system evidence -based example and data, utilized slides to show photos of residential treatment systems, and asked the City to support evidence -based research and data before agreeing to the location.
Kevin Santella utilized a presentation to review the alternative analysis summary, address infeasibilities, discussed the Bison Avenue, Country Club Drive, Bayridge Park, Brittany/Hartford locations and configuration options, and replayed proposed location details.
Mr. Sanchez indicated that the HOA is focused on remediation and what is best for the neighborhood, noted a temporary one-year permit, and relayed interest in resolving the matter as soon as possible for 22 families.
Leslie Pratt believed that the HOA had not made any effort to contact the residents involved and hoped the Commission would consider all the reasons provided to make the best decision.
Mr. Conner indicated that the original five locations were proposed with the understanding that a power drop location would be closely located, the current proposed location is the only spot where the power drop location is available, current mitigation efforts are short term, SVE is a long-term remedy to lowering risks of vapor intrusion, and analysis revealed engineering, utility, clearance, and trench size and depth challenges for every other location.
In response to Chair Ellmore's questions, Mr. Conner relayed community outreach details and noted the proposed location decision came down to the power drop location indicated by SoCal Edison and power drop feasibility is a result of COVID and post-COVID challenges, and timeline to change locations.
In response to Commissioner Harris' questions, Mr. Conner clarified that the alternative locations were provided at a time when WSP thought more power drop locations were an option, but in July 2022 SoCal Edison came back with one feasible location. He noted that the power drop on Belcourt Drive will be shared by a trench with another treatment system running under Country Club Drive to the fire lane area. Mr. Conner clarified that the HOA never stated that the parking spaces could not be used for the project.
In response to Vice Chair Rosene's question, Mr. Conner indicated that WSP is working with SoCal Edison and an electrical engineer to stamp the drawings. Vice Chair Rosene expressed his disbelief that by using the alternative parking lot located approximately 98 feet from the proposed location it would delay the project three years.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Barto questioned the incongruity from an electrical perspective, thought the matter has a high impact on a specific residence for a general good and wondered if Ford has taken the opportunity to discuss this with residents, and struggled with the matter.
Vice Chair Rosene recognized the remediation is necessary, the current proposed location is what remains after the "right thing" to do passed, changing the location would not take three years, and no guarantee for a one-year remediation. He thought that no review took place, and the appellant and Planning Commission are in a difficult position.
Secretary Klaustermeier concurred with Vice Chair Rosene and thought the matter was outside the purview of the Planning Commission and perhaps better passed to the City Council.
10-585
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2023
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill stated, and Chair Ellmore concurred, that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a decision for health and safety reasons and the matter can be appealed or called for a review by the City Council.
Commissioner Harris echoed the same sentiments as the other Commissioners, noted that it is not the job of the Planning Commission to make value judgments, thought the decision by the HOA is convenient for the majority and within their purview, expressed disappointment with the HOA decision, and indicated he cannot vote against the permit.
Commissioner Langford thought the HOA deliberated accordingly and supported the permit approval.
Chair Ellmore stated that the information about the power drops was new information to the Planning Commission, expressed disappointment for the proposed location choice, and supported the permit to address the health and safety issues.
Motion made by Chair Ellmore and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the item as recommended by staff.
AYES:
Barto, Ellmore, Langford, and Rosene
NOES:
Harris and Klaustermeier
RECUSED:
Lowrey
ABSENT:
None
ITEM NO. 3 MILLER RESIDENCE (PA2023-0017)
Site Location: 22 Bay Island
Summary:
A coastal development permit (CDP) to allow the demolition of an existing single -unit dwelling and the construction of a new, 4,566-square-foot, three (3)-story single -unit dwelling, adjustment to the off-street parking requirements with a parking management plan, and an increase to the allowed building height to 28 feet for flat portions of the roof and 33 feet for the sloped portions of the roof in accordance with Use Permit No. UP3618. The design includes hardscape, drainage facilities, and landscaping. With approval of the height allowance, the project complies with all applicable development standards.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-024 approving a Coastal Development Permit for the demolition and reconstruction of a single -unit dwelling (PA2023-0017).
Assistant Planner Tran utilized a presentation to introduce the proposal for a Coastal Development Permit, Parking Management Plan, and height increase up to 33 feet and noted the proposal is not a variance and the Use Permit allows for a height increase. She reviewed the vicinity map, building sites, Use Permit Development Standards, height increase with Planning Commission approval (west and south elevations), Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan Development Standards, Parking Management Plan, offsite parking aerial photo, building site map that is part of the approved use permit and proposed site plan, encroachment condition of approval, and recommended action.
10-586
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2023
In response to Vice Chair Rosene's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell relayed the parking requirements for Title 20 and Title 21 and golf cart parking accommodations to satisfy on -site compliance with Title 21.
No ex parte communications were reported by the Commission.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Nicole Thompson, Brandon Architects, indicated that they will comply with the setback/encroachment requirement and agreed to the conditions of approval.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
Motion made by Vice Chair Rosene and seconded by Secretary Klaustermeier to approve the item as recommended by staff.
AYES:
Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
ITEM NO. 4 NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (PA2023-0082)
Site Location: Generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, Birch Street and Bristol Street North
Summary:
An amendment to Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan (PC-11) to change the minimum affordable housing percentage of the Residential Overlay from thirty percent (30%) to fifteen percent (15%).
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this Amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-025 recommending approval of a Planned Community Development Plan Amendment to modify the minimum inclusionary affordable housing percentage to the City Council.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell used a slide presentation to introduce the public hearing to modify the Newport Place Planned Community text requested by the City Council that is related to a reduced Affordable Housing inclusionary percentage to from 30 percent to 15 percent. He reviewed the vicinity map, Newport Place background, residential overlay and Land Use Plan, proposed amendment details, California Environmental Quality Act exemption, recommended actions, and next steps.
In response to Secretary Klaustermeier's question, Deputy Director Campbell relayed that lower affordable housing is defined by State law and the area median income (AMI) and clarified that the amendment would reduce the required amount of affordable housing without changing the affordability level.
10-587
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2023
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill reviewed the AMI amounts for very low income, low income, and moderate income based on a four -person family.
In response to Secretary Klaustermeier's question, Deputy Director Campbell explained the State Density Bonus Law parameters to achieve a 15 percent minimum affordability, as per State law.
In response to Commissioner Langford's question, Deputy Director Campbell thought that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) would agree that 15 percent is compliant with the Housing Element.
No ex parte communications were reported by the Commissioners.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher relayed that no discussion on the matter took place with the City Council, no order was given to the Planning Commission, a request was made by Council Member Weigand, the Council issued an amendment related to the affordability percentage, and his interpretation that the item is about whether the percentage should be lowered and to what percentage. Furthermore, he suggested that the amendment would create an inconsistency with the Housing Element and the airport area.
Nancy Scarbrough reviewed the 2022 Keyser Marston Associates Inclusionary Housing Financial Evaluation which states that 15 percent is the most mathematically, efficient, and advantageous percentage to use to get the 50 percent density bonus; however, she thought that more sites would be needed for planning or building by reducing the percentage, the total unit development would double, and HCD approved the Housing Element with 30 percent affordable housing. As a result, she questioned if lowering the percentage to 15 percent is in the best interest of the City.
Deputy Director Campbell indicated that the study revealed that 30 percent is likely infeasible for most projects and creates a hurdle and thought 15 percent affordable is supported by the analysis, eliminates an impediment, and boosts future production in the Newport Place area above the Density Bonus Law on its own. He noted the related challenges and a good balance for the community and recommended the action.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
Motion made by Commissioner Langford and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the item as recommended by staff.
AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Langford, and Rosene NOES: None
RESUSED: Harris and Lowrey
ABSENT: None
ITEM NO. 5 NEWPORT VILLAGE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (PA2023-0071)
Site Location: 1550 Avocado Avenue at the corner of Avocado Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road
Summary:
Consistent with the City Council's initiation on April 25, 2023, the proposed amendment to the Newport Village Planned Community (PC-27) Development Plan would add "recreational facilities" as an allowed use within the area designated as Area 1. Area 1 encompasses the 2.43-acre property at the corner of Avocado Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road that is developed with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) transit facility and surface parking lot.
Recommended Action:
10-588
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2023
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find the amendment is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines). The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-026, recommending the City Council approve a Planned Community Development Plan Amendment allowing recreational facilities in Area 1 of the Newport Village Planned Community.
Associate Planner Joselyn Perez utilized a presentation to review a vicinity map, surrounding land uses, the existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) site, the proposed amendments to PC-27, staff recommendation, and next steps.
No ex parte communications were reported by Commissioners.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher noted two grammatical errors and questioned if Area 1 is truly large enough for a field as stated in Section 3, whether the night lighting of the courts would be consistent with the development plan and the residential uses to the east, and if the amendment would be contrary to promoting alternative means of transportation by eliminating existing parking spaces at the transit facility.
Deputy Director Campbell clarified that night lighting is referring to security and overnight lighting and any lighting to illuminate a sport court would be evaluated at the time a project comes forward. He agreed that a "field" may not be the right wording and suggested removing it. Mr. Campbell explained that as part of the amendment, required parking for the transit facility and any future recreational use will be evaluated when a project comes forward. Lastly Mr. Campbell shared a conversation from his earlier meeting with OCTA regarding the site and how current survey results indicate only a 30 percent utilization on average of the existing parking lot.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
In response to Vice Chair Rosene's question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill noted that there are exemptions that could and should apply in this scenario.
Motion made by Commissioner Harris and seconded by Commissioner Langford to approve the item as recommended by staff.
AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Vill. DISCUSSION ITEMS
ITEM NO. 6 NEW VISITOR -SERVING ACCOMMODATIONS MU-W2 AND MU-CV/15T" ST Site Location: Various properties located in Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square and mixed -use areas on 15t" Street, Agate Avenue, and Marine Avenue
Summary:
10-589
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2023
At City Council's request on May 23, 2023, Planning Commission was directed to identify opportunities for to modify Titles 20 and 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to facilitate new visitor serving accommodation opportunities within the MU-W2 and MU-CV/15t" Street zones. The request also included several considerations: 1) applicability to multi -unit residential developments with 20 or more residential units under common ownership, 2) requirement for professional management, 3) requirement for project amenities, and 4) where there are no parking impacts that could reduce the availability of parking in residential neighborhoods.
Recommended Action:
1. Receive public comment;
Find recommended actions exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
3. Form an ad hoc committee consisting of three Planning Commissioners appointed by the Chair to develop a recommendation for the Planning Commission to consider and forward to the City Council; or
4. Instruct staff to prepare a report focusing on the topic that will be reviewed by all the Planning Commissioners at a future date.
Deputy Director Campbell utilized a presentation to provide an overview of the City Council's direction to facilitate new visitor serving accommodation opportunities within the MU-W2 and MU-CV/15t" Street zones, vicinity map, and background on the MU-W2 and MU-CV/15t" Street zones. He asked the Planning Commission to either establish an ad hoc subcommittee or direct staff to prepare a report with code amendments.
Jim Mosher thought the Planning Commission does not have enough information to move forward and suggested the item be added to the City Council agenda for discussion and direction.
Chair Ellmore, Vice Chair Rosene, and Commissioner Barto supported a report prepared by staff.
Motion made by Commissioner Barto and seconded by Chair Ellmore to instruct staff to prepare a report focused on the matter for review by the Planning Commission at a future date.
AYES:
Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES:
None
RECUSED:
Langford
ABSENT:
None
IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
None
ITEM NO. 8 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS
WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA
Deputy Director Campbell reported that the July 6 Planning Commission meeting is the annual meeting with three items and officer elections scheduled, City Council will appoint two commissioners by the next meeting, three items are anticipated for the July 20 meeting, and City Council approved the VE Zone amendment with changes to the side yard encroachment.
10-590
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1 B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1 EE0153B Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2023
ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
Commissioner Lowrey requested an excused absence on August 17th.
Commissioner Barto requested a possible excused absence on July 6th.
Vice Chair Rosene requested a possible excused absence on July 20th.
X. ADJOURNMENT - With no further business, Chair Ellmore adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
The agenda for the June 22, 2023, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, June 15, 2023, at 12:28 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City's website on Thursday, June 15, 2023, at 12:15 p.m.
C—_ C:77�_�
Curtis Ellmore, Chair
Tom. H444-4
Tristan Harris, Secretary
10-591
Attachment H
Appellant's Appeal Application from July 5, 2023
10-592
Appeal Application
City Clerk's Office
100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
949-644-3005
Clerk's Date & Time Stamp
Appeals are time sensitive and must be received by the City Clerk specified time period from a decision or final action by a decision -maker. It is advisable to consult with the Department managing the issue if there is question with regards to appealing an action. This is an appeal of the:
❑ (CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Planning Commission - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Zoning Administrator Action to the Planning Commission - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Coastal Development Application CDP Appeal from Zoning Admin to the Planning Commission (only if appeal is solely based on the CDP portion of the application) — No Fee ,,(CDD222)Planning Commission Action to the City Council - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (CDD222)Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (CDD — Planning) - $940 ❑ (CDD222)Hearing Officer Action to the City Council - $1715 ❑ (CDD223)Building Official/Fire Marshal Action to the Building/Fire Board of Appeals - $1715 ❑ (CDD224)Chief of Police Action on an Operator License to the City Manager - $946 ❑ (RSS073)City Manager Action on a Special Events Permit to the City Council - $1823 ❑ (HBR001)Harbormaster Action to the Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (HBR001)Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (Harbor Department) - $940 ❑ (PBW018)Public Works Director Action to Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (PBW018)Harbor Commission Action to City Council (Public Works Department) - $940 ❑ Other - Specify decision -maker, appellate body, Municipal Code authority and fee:
Appellant Information:
Name(s): Leslie Pratt (949-394-2708), Amy Santella & Kevin Solomita (908-370-7003), Address: 92 Hartford Dr, 94 Hartford Dr,
City/State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: see above
Appealing Application Regarding:
Name of Applicant(s): WSP USA
Lee Healy (949-887-1220)
96 Hartford Dr
Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Date of Final Decision: 6H22/2023
Project No.: PA2022-0180 Activity No: n/a
Application Site Address:
94 Hartford Dr, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Description of application: Construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system consisting of a 20 foot width by 12 foot depth by 10 foot height treatment system building for 12 months.
Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit, proposed to be 3 feet away from 94 Hartford Drive, violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. No studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. Please see attached for continued information. (& c.k6
Signature of
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: 20— 0�;Qw I .
City Clerk 5"IV6
cc: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff, File � 7M23
F.IUserslClerMSharedtFormsOppeal Appllcatlon
Updated 11/2021
10-593
July 5, 2023
The City Council
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Letter of Objection for Limited Term Permit Approval to Construct the Soil Vapor Extraction on System Building at Bayridge, Newport Beach
Dear City Council Members:
This matter is regarding the Soil Vapor Extraction System Building proposed by WSP, an environmental consultancy for its client, Ford Motor Company. Several Newport Beach communities are built on land polluted by Ford Aerospace decades ago by its Aeronutronic division, to include Bayridge, a community of 166 homes located at Jamboree and Bison.
We have been objecting with the NB Planning Commission since January on the proposed location of the extraction building, very close to our homes at 92, 94 and 96 Hartford Drive. The Commission, reluctantly and not unanimously, gave approval for the temporary permit at the June 22 meeting.
To clarify: no one objects to the soil vapor extraction. It is a solution to the problem. We object to the placement of it so close to our three homes. WSP does not know how long the system could be in place —it could easily exceed the proposed year. Experts have told us that the system can be noisy and pipes can leak. The operation will be 24/7. We still have not seen examples of this sort of extraction system next to a home, despite promises from WSP. Only an old, vacant military base from decades ago.
The original Wood/WSP proposal was to have five locations, rather than one central extraction system. The Board objected to that because of disruption of the complex and loss of parking spaces. The proposed location WAS NOT the original plan. It was an effort by Ford's contracted consultancy to appease the Board and get the job done. There are other options as to the location and we do not believe it will take two -three years to relocate the structure. We are entitled to safety and quiet enjoyment of our homes and believe that will be disrupted with this location of the extraction system building.
Sincerely,
Lee H-ea L�
Lee Healy
92 Hartford Drive
Newport Beach CA 92660
949.760.3054
10-594
P of l3
Regarding the City of Newport Beach: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180
Location: 94 Hartford Drive
Dear Newport Beach City Council Members:
In addition to our appeal letters previously submitted, we would like to state the following:
Along with our neighbors, we strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit to clean up the chemicals from the former Ford Aeronutronics facility. We are not asking to stop the remediation; we are asking to change the location based on lack of evidence -based data.
The unit is proposed to be THREE FEET away from 94 Hartford Drive, violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. The location is arbitrary and capricious and was NOT the original proposal by Ford/WSP. It was stated multiple times in community meetings, the original project summary on the Newport Beach City website, and by the Newport Beach City Assistant Planner that the original proposal of 5-6 smaller extraction units were turned down by the HOA/Board due to loss of parking spots.
1. Location
• The original project summary/zoning administrator staff report posted on the city website was changed after our objections were received. Prior to the January 261 meeting, the document stated:
"The treatment system will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it has been identified as the most feasible location to reduce the visual impact from surrounding resid en ts. "
• This statement shows the primary reason was for aesthetics and this original document DID NOT mention that other locations studied were not feasible.
Multiple community outreach meetings by Ford/WSP stated that other locations could not be used due to parking. All meeting recordings are available on www.fordnbfacts.com
• AFTER our objections were received, the new amended project summary for March 2" d included alternative locations studied and states "Due to these infeasibilities the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected."
10-595
• The Newport Beach City Assistant Planner confirmed on 2/23/23 via phone call that other locations were rejected by the HOA/Board due to parking spots. • It was never disclosed at the Bayridge pre -construction meeting that the structure was 3 feet from a home, violating the setback distance. • Per discussion with the Newport Beach City Fire Marshal, this is unique and unusual that a structure like this would be so close to a home.
• There is significant risk involved with having the structure in such proximity to a home.
There is no buffer zone if any of the electrical equipment malfunctions, a fire starts insides, there is a natural disaster, etc. The Fire Marshal also stated that there is usually some leniency with "temporary permits." This is, again, unacceptable to overlook safety due to something being "temporary."
• It was never disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive violating the 8-foot separation distance UNTIL the Public Notice for the permit application was posted. Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the public notice is unacceptable and did not provide enough time for residents to be fully aware of the entire impact of the system.
2. Remediation, Timeline, and Data:
• We have never stated that we oppose the remediation. In fact, we have always stated in writing, since our original objections were sent in January, that we are NOT trying to stop the remediation. We are objecting to the current location of the treatment system placed 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive. We have requested examples of residential treatment systems and still have not been provided with this data.
• We are continuously assured by Ford/WSP that the soil vapor extraction unit is "safe" in a residential neighborhood, 3 feet away from a home. Despite this, we HAVE NOT been provided with any real -life examples of residential treatment systems, let alone 3 feet away from a home. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home.
• On 3/13/23 per email, I asked Jessica Law and Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff for residential examples of SVE systems, to see how close they were to houses, as well as to compare the 3-foot proximity to our home. Per email responses below:
1. Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff, PE, WSP, on 3/13/23 sent 2 examples of dry cleaners, no residential communities. Daniela noted that the SVE system from Sunny Dry Cleaners is located 500 feet away from residences. This is not comparable to 3 feet.
Daniela noted that the SVE system at Campus Cleaners is located 100 feet away from residences. This is also not comparable to 3 feet.
10-596
o-C 13
2. Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, on 3/15/23 per email:
"I have not had an opportunity to follow up on this yet, but it is on my list of things to do." We have not received any further information to date.
In addition, per phone conversation on 5/16/23 at 11:21 AM with WSP Candace Jantzen- Marson, Assistant Vice President, WSP, I brought up this concern again, and no residential examples could be given. Candace stated that these SVE systems are more common in commercial and industrial areas. How is this comparable to a residence? Again, we are continuously "assured" this is "OK" and "permitted," without ANY data to back up these claims. Ford/WSP has not been able to provide us with any evidence - based examples; this is unacceptable.
We are appalled that the one example given by WSP that they are claiming is "residential," shows a BOARDED -UP home. It was not mentioned in the comments by WSP that the home was boarded up (please see below). In fact, the military base was CLOSED DOWN in 1994 due to contamination. The clean-up system took place in 2004. (ht ps.-Ilortordcleanup. com/about/fort-ord-and-brat-histoUI Per WSP Response to Appeal 4/7/23: "Here is another example of an SVE system that was not in Orange County, but was in a residential neighborhood in an area of California with similar regulatory requirements"
Photograph 2-6
Granulated Activated Carbon Units
�._ ................ . . ..` -
Above photo that Ford/WSP sent to us and stated is a "residential example:" a boarded -up home on a vacant, shut down military base.
http://docs.fortordcleanup.com/ar_pdfs/AR-0UCTP-
0011. I/Vol u mej R I/Vol u mejAppend ix_G/Ap pendix_G_P hotos. pdf 10-597
L4a�_i3
• Ford dumped these chemicals in the 1960s and residents have been living here since the 1980s with zero knowledge of the vapor intrusion occurring until recent years!
• It was never stated by Ford/WO that changing to other locations would add an additional 2 years to the project until the June 81" meeting. In fact, the alternative analysis discussed at the March Zoning Administrator Meeting states that one location cannot be used due to timeframe — it "would increase construction by 2 months." How did 2 months turn into 2 years?
• Again, we have never asked Ford/WSP to stop remediation, we understand the necessity. However, we have asked for residential examples of SVE systems to have evidence -based data of the safety placing a system 3 feet away from a home before. This still has not been provided to us!
• No studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. We are being asked to trust that this is safe, despite ANY data!
• Per Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Board 6/8/23 Community Meeting:
"We want, the regulatory agency/Water Board, we always want to see actual data. " We still have not been provided with any data!
• Regarding a temporary permit of 12 months, it was stated multiple times in community meetings that this unit will be in place for 1 year. However, at the 2/22/23 community meeting, it was stated that there will be —I+ year of remediation implementation and then "-2+ years" of monitoring to determine if additional remediation is needed. Photo below from PowerPoint from community meeting, can be found on www.fordnbfacts.com .
~1+ year*
—2+ years
Remedy
Post
mplementation
Remediation
Monitoring
rimC'1a-13n
rcm_iy
t n .r_n_s
F: zi-ta n anC
cn to t-r
cm_dy
- adn: c" t
—=d at c- s
..a a-r�a--cr
• Per Kenn Connor, Professional Engineer WSP, at 2/22/23 meeting: the system will be on "for a year, then turn it off, then maybe turn it back on later." • Furthermore, it is impossible to quantify the amount of chemicals in the ground and how much additional remediation will be needed after this treatment starts. 10-598
9 o_F t 3
• It was stated at the 2/22/23 meeting by Jessica Law: "in historical remediations, we've seen at other sites, we cleaned up, got their good bill of health, and we come back later, and concentrations increased." Although she also states they have confidence in this remediation, there is no guarantee. 2/22/23 Jessica Law also stated: "It is still important to confirm, because assumptions can be wrong, and so from the regulatory perspective, we don't like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we want them always confirmed with analytical data."
3. Information reaardint! continued decision:
The original project document by WSP did not have an alternative analysis UNTIL our objections were received. After our objections were received by WSP in January, all of a sudden, an alternative analysis was written to show different locations were infeasible, except 94 Hartford. All of these changes can be verified by the City of Newport Beach archives via the city website.
• Option #1 on the alternative analysis shows 5 small systems in parking lots is INFEASIBLE due to parking. The HOA could implement multiple parking alternatives such as: enforcing residents park in garages to free up exterior spaces, allow residents to park in the vacant "vacation parking" near Jamboree, where there are always extra spots.
The HOA could assign parking spot numbers TEMPORARILY to ease parking concerns, since WSP keeps assuring us this is TEMPORARY. Parking has been valued over safety in this situation. This is completely unacceptable that "parking spots" cancel out this entire location.
Option #2 shows infeasibility due to "disruption of mature landscaping." However, the proposed location at 94 Hartford DOES NOT show that the mature pine tree (taller than our home) and other trees and mature landscaping will be removed from OUR home and disrupt the view from our main living area window. Why was this not included on the alternative analysis for the option with our home?
Option #3 again shows infeasibility due to PARKING SPOTS. There are MULTIPLE ways to mitigate parking and have the system AWAY from residences! Parking is a simple fix compared to all the unknowns of having a system 3 feet away from a home.
Did Ford hire a parking consultant to alleviate this concern? We just came up with multiple realistic options in the paragraph above in less than 5 minutes. Again, as stated before, we are shocked that Ford/WSP, the City of Newport Beach, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Bayridge HOA value parking over the unknowns of a massive system 3 feet away from a home.
• After May 18' meeting, decision was continued by the planning commission to fiuther discuss the alternative locations with the HOA Board. 10-599
U cif i 3
June 1, 2023: Email sent to Kenn Conner VP WSP, Mike Barnes WSP, Jenny Tran City of Newport Beach, asking for update on the continuance to discuss alternate locations with the HOA.
• New rendering of 94 Hartford Drive sent with no mention of discussion of alternate locations/continuance with HOA. No residential examples of systems provided by WSP.
June 5, 2023: Comprehensive letter sent to the HOA board asking for update on continuance/ work with WSP after city meeting on discussing alternative locations
• As of June 21, 2023: No response has been received from HOA Board • June 8, 2023: Bayridge Community Meeting with WSP: HOA Board asked for update on continuance:
• Quote from Enrique HOA Board President: "This came by recommendation. If I understand, they calculated the system, and the system runs efficiently in that location. That what's it came down to." • June 21, 2023: 94 Hartford Drive Homeowner Meeting with Kenn Conner VP WSP and Mike Barnes WSP:
• Extensive discussion with WSP regarding our questions for the system, including information about the slab/water main line, exhaust stack facing the street, and other safety concerns. Per Kenn, he understands our concerns and would place this in another location if he had one. He also respects the appeal process that has been taking place.
4. Air Ouality Monitoring
We expressed concern that there is no real-time/ continuous monitoring to ensure the air quality levels are acceptable for a residential home. This is essential for the entire duration of the project.
Ford Response 2.6: In accordance with the Air District Permit, total VOC concentration will be measured using a real-time monitor (such as a photoionization detector) at least once a day for the first seven days of operation to confirm the system is operating as designed and within permit specifications which are set to be protective of public health. Following the first seven days, monitoring will continue weekly or more frequently if required by the Air District. In addition to the real-time monitoring, analytical sampling will be conducted at least once a month and analyzed by an independent laboratory in accordance with the Air Districts Rule 304.
Samples will be analyzed for specific VOCs to verify compliance with the permit and reported to the Air District. All data will also be reported to the Water Board and be available to the public on the State Water Boards document repository geotracker.ca.gov. 10-600
- ] a 13
• This response only shows that real-time monitoring will occur ONCE a day for the first seven days; after it will be weekly or more frequently if required. • We confirmed with Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Board, that the photoionization detector stated above is NOT "lab quality." This confirms that there is no real-time monitoring that accurately shows the total VOC concentration emitted 3 feet from our home.
We understand that it can be remotely shut off; however, the above response from Ford/WSP states that there is NO continuous air quality monitoring. If an activated carbon filter fails, toxic vapors can be expelled within 3 feet of our home prior to remote shut off. This is unacceptable to be this close to homes if there is no continuous air quality monitoring of VOCs.
• In addition, Ford/WSP response has changed from each meeting, showing discrepancies about this concern. At the January pre -construction meeting, it was stated there is no continuous monitoring. At the 2/22/23 meeting it was stated yes, there is continuous monitoring. Now their response in writing show no continuous monitoring again. • At 2/22/23 meeting, Jessica Law stated she understands the concerns regarding continuous air quality monitoring and stated a third -party engineer could possibly provide this, but not for the entire duration, due to cost. This was confirmed on a phone call on 2/27/23. Again, this is unacceptable to have residents exposed to possible VOCs emitted 3 feet from a home with NO CONTINUOUS monitoring. • Per South Coast Air Quality Management District: "Air contaminants pose health risks to those that are exposed to them. Students, along with the elderly, pregnant women, and persons with existing health problems, are particularly susceptible to health effects from toxic emissions that may occur from certain types of sources. These emissions sources may emit compounds that can cause a variety of health effects, including neurological, respiratory, and developmental effects as well as cancer. Several studies have shown that risk decreases dramatically with increased distance from sources of emissions."
• In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires public notice if "a facility applies to permit a new or modified emission source located within 1,000 feet from the outer boundary of a school." Children are known to be more susceptible to health effects from emissions. If schools have protections within 1,000 feet due to risks for children, how can this be placed THREE feet from a residential home?
5. Infeasibilities of 94 Hartford Drive:
• Each time our objections are received, and new questions are asked, Ford/WSP adds more infeasibilities to the list of other locations — without adding more to 94 Hartford 10-601
3of [3
Drive, even when new issues have been found, such as the water main line too close to the proposed location, altering the foundation of the building. • Back to the original proposal by WSP, the main reason cited for not choosing the 5 smaller treatment locations was loss of parking spots! After our objections were received in January, an alternative analysis was written by WSP, and the project summary was changed on the Newport Beach City website.
• Reasons why 94 Hartford Drive should also be infeasible include:
• Water main line too close to treatment building
• Encroachment agreement now needed for this location
• Air conditioner needs to be removed
• Multiple mature pine trees and landscaping need to be removed • 3 feet from a home, violating 8-foot setback requirements • No examples of SVE systems have ever been placed this close to a home occupied by residents
• Directly outside of a main living area window
• Too close to sidewalk, nearly touching the sidewalk
• Due to water main, now treatment building foundation will be constructed only of a slab and shall not be constructed with stem walls or deepened footings • Exhaust stack needs to face street (however it is still extremely close to a home) • Final exhaust stack must be approved by Air Quality Management District and permit has not been approved yet. Per Kenn Conner, WSP, AQMD may request the stack in a different location and has yet to be determined.
6. Plannina Commission:
Multiple members of the Cii, — arming 'on supporteathe appellants and stated their disapproval in regard to this system being too close to a home. The Planning Commission also commented on the alternate locations, challenging WSP on multiple locations —including the power drop that is stated to be "ONLY" available at 94 Hartford Drive. Per a Planning Commissioner, there are parking spots available 98 feet away from the proposed location. How is the power drop not available there?
• 94 Hartford was NOT the original proposal! There were other locations that were feasible BEFORE this was chosen.
7. City Indemnification:
• As stated in the Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-023, Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received: "the applicant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of 10-602
� 6� 13
action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the City's approval of the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation." • Due to this indemnification, there are no consequences to the City of Newport Beach whether they approve this or not. However, we do not know how in good faith and conscience the City of Newport Beach can approve this. The soil vapor extraction unit will be cleaning up contaminated soil THREE feet away from a home! As previously stated, NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. Ford/WSP have FAILED to provide examples of residential units and their claim of a "residential" example was a boarded -up home on a VACANT military base!
We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location for the soil vapor extraction system for all of the reasons stated above. We truly hope that the city will support its residents in wanting to see evidence -based research and data before agreeing to place a 240 square -foot remediation treatment building 3 feet from their home to clean up the soil contaminated by Ford Motor Company.
Respectfully,
Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
References:
All meeting quotations may be accessed on meeting recordings by date via hgps://v yw,fordnbfacts.com/communityoutreach
• AQMD Guiding Principles:
hqs:// www.agmd . gov/nav/about/initiatives/environmental-justice/ei-guiding-principles hqp:// www.Mmd.gov/nav/about/public-notices/pennittingpublic-notices 10-603
(�� 0 I
RE: Continuance Bayridge Park
First, I would like to reiterate for the thousandth time we are not objecting to the SVE system and cleanup. We are objecting to its placement 3 feet from a residents window. Clearly we need to put into perspective who is at fault here. I would like to remind people that Ford is the entity that has put all of Bayridge at risk. Ford is the only one we can blame, not the residents who are exercising their right to appeal. WE asked Ford, WSP and the HOA to find a solution that is favorable to all residents.
The City Planning Commission granted a continuance at the May 18th, 2023 council meeting.
They were appalled the HOA was not present and urged them to present the reasons why they deemed this was the only feasible spot.
On June 8th at the community meeting we asked if a Board Member was present if they could explain why they believe this is the only feasible location. The HOA president states "this came by recommendation, they calculated the system and the system runs efficiently in that location.
Am I clear on that Ken?" This clearly shows who is making the decisions and his lack of input into this decision. Nothing about the safety of the system was mentioned.
At an earlier date when we asked a Board member to listen to our objections her response was " if you don't like it then move". This Board member who is making the final decision is a former employee of Ford and clearly demonstrates a conflict of interest. These are the only responses we have gotten from the HOA
"RE: Mike Barnes Correspondence: " I was the Program Manager on this project from 2017 up to April of last year. I've recently returned and assumed the same position, so am very familiar with the project and coming back up to speed quickly on what I've missed over the past year.
e recognize residents at 94 Hartfordrive have appealed the approval of this L-=--Ted I erm Permit due to concerns and perceptions about the safety of the Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVE system). Additionally, two more individuals located at 92 and 96 Hartford Drive have also expressed objections to the proposed location of the system. Ford's project team, the Bayridge Park HOA President, and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff have offered to meet with these residents individually and/or collectively multiple times to address their concerns. Unfortunately, these residents have declined our offers to meet and work collaboratively to find common ground.
Mike you have obviously not come up to speed on what you have missed over the coming year.
I met with you for almost an hour to discuss my objections to the proposed site at 94 Hartford on March 22, 2022 which you did not deny in our most recent correspondence June 7, 2023. At that time, you said I understand your objections, will relate them to Ford and will get back in touch with you. That was pretty much the last discussion we or anyone had regarding the proposed site 10-604
11 cF I
at 94 Hartford for the SVE system in May, 2022. Wood Environmental was acquired by WSP on June 3, 2022.
WSP Global Buys Wood's Environmental
Unit in $1.8B Deal
In addition I have had several conversations with Traci Craig and Jessica Law .How can you say we declined to meet to work with you. This statement is completely and undeniably false, when in fact we have been met with the very insubordination you are accusing of us. I have e-mails verifying these conversations. Our request for documentation has not been given to this day.
The original timeline presented by WOOD on November 4, 2021 is presented in this slide. See Attached Below.
As you can see the SVE system would have been installed in Q1-Q2 of 2022. Clearly the delay had nothing to do with the 94 Hartford appeal in January of 2023. The SVE system installation is now delayed till February of 2024.
FYI: In addition my unit was tested and TCE was present.
Sending the Vapor toward a Roadway:
Ken stated the vapors would be being sent toward a roadway. Unfortunately the wind doesn't always blow in one direction. On February 26th the winds uprooted a tree on Country Club Drive in close proximity to the proposed SVE system site. The tree fell against my condo. Country club drive is lined with very large trees. Who is to say this couldn't have fallen against the SVE system and endangering the waterline so close to its proximity
WE are NOT Realtors: When we ask about home values etc. Mike and Jessica's response was we are not realtors. Yes, but why are you inferring the burden belongs to the homeowner and or realtor, when clearly Ford is the one who has put us in this situation. We have to legally disclose all about this SVE system etc. under law and would be personally liable for not doing so. There is no guarantee when this moratorium on selling our houses will be over. Ford needs to answer this question.
Craig Communications Letters:
An anonymous renter shared with me the letter that John from Craig Communications drafted and wanted him to sign. The resident refused to sign as it clearly did not convene the message he wanted. People are signing these letters yet there is no mention they would be content having this system placed 3 feet from their window. It's not my problem since it's out of my sight shows the mentality that is being exhibited in this community. Once again we have received no documentation showing the proven safety of an operating SVE system this close to a residence. 10-605
12 c)-F 13
In conclusion, I cannot believe how appalling I find the comments of several of the residents including the president of the HOA, to blame three residents, who are taking the brunt of Ford, a multimillion dollar corporation's complete disregard for human safety and supporting their efforts to endanger us and protect themselves. Seriously, if they are so supportive of Ford, WSP and our HOA the SVE system should be placed three feet from their windows. I could never blindly support this unproven system with a clear conscience no matter whose home was being affected. Once again I believe the appellants have more than substantiated their claims and the application should be denied. It's not cost, it's not efficiency, it is the safety of human lives that Ford has jeopardized.
Regards,
Leslie Pratt
- i-
Iimirtary RemeUiat�o
-�h Schedule'
Oucaiion may change du,
- weather, permuting. antl otl•.er'a: �::•;
10-606
Of- (3
Attachment I
Applicant's Response to Comments
10-607
July 11, 2023
Project No. PA2022-0180
City of Newport Beach — City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]
Subject: Limited Term Permit Application Appeal
Dear City Councilmembers:
WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
555 12th Street, Suite 215
Oakland, California 94607
USA
T:1-510-663-4100
F:1-833-778-3465
www.wsp.com
WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (WSP) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the appeal application submitted to the City's Clerk's Office on July 5, 2023. We recognize residents at 92, 94, and 96 Hartford Drive have appealed the Planning Commission's June 22, 2023, approval of the Limited Term Permit due to concerns and perceptions about the safety of operating the Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVE System) treatment building near their homes. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Water Board) is requiring the use of SVE as part of the approved cleanup actions for the Bayridge Park community. The SVE System has been designed to safely remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found underground and will operate in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (Air District) permit requirements that protect public health and the environment.
On June 8, 2023, WSP provided the Planning Commission the attached Response to Comments (Attachment 1) on behalf of Ford Motor Company to respond to the comments and questions raised by residents of the Bayridge Park community and the Planning Commission during the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. The response describes in detail how the SVE System can operate safely behind 94 Hartford Drive and why this location was the only viable location out of the many alternatives analyzed. WSP provided a brief presentation at the June 22, 2023, Planning Commission meeting and addressed questions and concerns raised by the appellant and Planning Commissioners before the Commissioners voted to approve the Limited Term Permit. The Planning Commission reasoned that, "the operation of the limited duration uses at the location proposed and within the period specified would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the requested limited duration use."
The residents' July 5, 2023, appeal reiterates the same concerns made in response to the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting and responded to in Attachment 1. We recognize that each Councilmember is responsible for making the best possible decision for their constituents. To help in that decision, we offer the following summary based on our scientific understanding and experience:
10-608
City of Newport Beach — City Council
July 11, 2023
City of Newport Beach Limited Term Permit Scope: The Limited Term Permit was applied for to request approval for the temporary siting of the SVE System treatment building closer to an existing building than the 8-foot setback in the community development guidelines. The City Council — like the Planning Commission before it — is not deciding on the safety of the system location as that is under the authority of the Air District. The Air District has prepared its own draft Permit to Construct/Operate that lays out various requirements that must be followed to ensure that the SVE System safely operates in this location. The Air District will hold its own public comment period on the draft permit prior to its approval. Thus, the City's Limited Term Permit is an aesthetic decision about whether the building can be placed on a temporary basis three feet away from an existing building when the community's development guidelines require eight feet of separation. The design of the building with the three feet of separation meets all California Building Code requirements, so the eight feet of separation is simply one of aesthetics. In addition, construction of the treatment building will be completed off -site to limit impacts to the entire Bayridge Park community of 168 homes and have designed it to match the character of Bayridge Park. Attachment 2 provides an artist's rendering of the building.
2. Vapor Intrusion Risk to Community: The health and safety of all residents is of the utmost importance and is in fact why this work must be done. The VOCs currently present in sub- surface soil vapor are a known health risk to 22 homes experiencing vapor intrusion in Bayridge Park. These 22 homes only account for the property owners that have chosen to participate in the indoor air sampling program. Several homes opting out of the program may be experiencing vapor intrusion impacts and VOCs could continue to present health risks to these homes until remedial activities are implemented. The SVE System has been designed over the past 18 months working closely with the Santa Ana Water Board, the Air District, Southern California Edison, and the Bayridge Park HOA. Selecting an alternate location will lead to delays of up to two years because the components of the system will need to be redesigned, electrical infrastructure would need to be routed through Bayridge Park, and new permits will need to be applied for and secured through the Air District and the City of Newport Beach. It cannot be overstated the amount of time a redesign will take. These time delays would significantly increase the potential health related risks of Bayridge Park residents that are currently experiencing vapor intrusion in their homes, and, if the soil vapor plume moves because of lack of treatment, additional residents are at risk of vapor intrusion in the future. Further, primary chemicals of concern have not been detected above regulatory screening levels in samples collected from the 92, 94 and 96 Hartford Drive residences and no change is expected with the placement of the treatment building in this location.
3. Safety of SVE Systems: SVE is recognized in guidance by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corp of Engineers as an effective remediation technique for treating sites impacted by VOCs. SVE systems are heavily regulated by agencies such as the Water Board and Air District at sites all over the country, including 285 Superfund sites. When properly designed and operated, SVE systems are safe for site workers and the community, including sensitive groups such as infants, individuals that are 10-609
City of Newport Beach — City Council
July 11, 2023
immunocompromised or ill, and the elderly. In this case, vapors are treated using carbon, so no harmful chemicals or combustion sources are involved. The proximity of the SVE System treatment building is immaterial to the safety of, or the risk to, any of the residents. The location of the treated air discharge is the only point of compliance that is relevant with respect to the health and safety of the residents. VOCs will be entirely contained within the system which will reduce the concentrations so only clean air that meets the Air District's very stringent health protective standards is discharged. In addition, the Air District requires that the exhaust (where the air leaves the SVE System) must be placed at least 13 feet above ground and 15 feet away from any window or opening. Attachment 3, EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging, provides a detailed explanation of how SVE Systems work.
4. Location Feasibility: As part of the Santa Ana Water Board remedial design process, WSP conducted a feasibility analysis of multiple locations within the community. This was further refined by discussions with the Bayridge Park HOA, the Air District and Southern California Edison. Seven locations were studied and six were proven infeasible for the following engineering, scheduling, and safety reasons:
• Southern California Edison determined that the only feasible power source would come from the existing distribution vault on Belcourt Drive, which limits where we can place the treatment building since the size of the trenches within the Bayridge Park community would need to be increased significantly, which would cause conflicts with the existing utility clearance requirements and would greatly impact residents' ability to enter/exit their homes during construction.
• The ability to implement the SVE System quickly to begin to address the vapor intrusion problem for the 22 known homes currently experiencing indoor air impacts • The need to exhaust outside of Bayridge Park common areas to keep the exhaust 15 feet away from the nearest window or opening as required by the Air District • The proximity of other buildings, steep slopes or other existing features that would prevent the safe construction of the system.
As the above illustrates, parking was not and never has been the determining factor in the location of the treatment building. It was only taken into consideration in response to the feedback we received from the community during the various outreach opportunities described below. The selected location represents the best choice to allow for SVE remediation work to occur quickly to address vapor intrusion in the community.
5. Public Outreach and Community Support: The project team has executed a thorough outreach program over the past six years which gave the public multiple opportunities to provide input on the SVE System design through public comment periods, community meetings held at Bayridge Park, a website and a toll -free number. Attachment 4 provides a summary of the community outreach conducted to date. In fact, both the Bayridge Park HOA 10-610
City of Newport Beach — City Council
July 11, 2023
and multiple residents strongly support the proposed location and the plans to begin cleaning up the VOC impacts underground using the SVE System.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with more information on the planning of the SVE System and the reasoning behind selecting this location for the treatment building. We welcome the opportunity to meet with each of you to provide more information or to conduct a site walk so you can see the location firsthand. Please call Tracy Craig at 510-334-4866 to schedule a meeting. Thank you for your dedication and service to the Newport Beach community.
Sincerely,
WSP USA Environment & Infrastructu i�FSSs o
v°e`�"'��ik�,
Ho. ssaz9 � z
a EXP. m
Kenn Conner, PE "'d 12/31120224� r Mike Barnes
Senior Vice President I/Northern Call rql C Vice President - Environmental Scientist Office Manager Program Manager
mb/kc/smm
https:Hwsponline.sharepoint.com/sites/wds-bayareadocusafe/ford motor company/newport beach/comm notices-mailings/19_citynb hearing_rtc/2023_07_11/nb_city council cover Itr_.docx
Attachments: Attachment 1 — Responses to Comments Raised at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting
Attachment 2 — Artist's Rendering of Treatment Building Attachment 3 — EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging Attachment 4 — Community Outreach Summary
10-611
ATTACHMENT 1
Responses to Comments Raised at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting 10-612
RESPONSE TO 5/18/23 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
BAYRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM
LIMITED TERM PERMIT APPEAL
Former Ford Aeronutronics Property, Newport Beach, CA
June 8, 2023
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is requiring Ford Motor Company (Ford) to safely remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in soil from historical aerospace research operations at the Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility. As part of this process, WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (WSP), as environmental consultants for Ford, applied for a Limited Term Permit for the construction of a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) treatment system building to the City of Newport Beach. SVE systems are a common engineering technology used to remove VOCs from soil vapor (the air in between soil particles) and are regulated for the protection of human health by the Air Quality Management District (Air District).
A City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Hearing was held on March 2, 2023, and the Limited Term Permit was approved. The Zoning Administrator's approval was appealed by the residents of 94 Hartford Drive. The appeal was heard at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting and a continuance was granted to June 22, 2023. The following provides a response to questions and comments raised during the hearing.
Planning commissioners that have questions or need more information may contact Jessica Law, Water Board Case Manager, at (951) 782-4381 or Jessica. Law(a)waterboards.ca.gov or Mike Barnes, WSP Program Manager, at (510) 326-1901 or.Michael.Barnes2(@-wsp.com.
TREATMENT BUILDING LOCATION ANALYSIS
COMMENT 1: How did you determine [the 94 Hartford Drive location] is the only location that the soil vapor can be mitigated from?
RESPONSE: As documented in the Water -Board approved Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan (cleanup plan) for the project, dated August 25, 2021, the SVE treatment system building is located as currently presented in the Limited Term Permit for construction. The only available space of sufficient size along County Club Drive is the current location which is located adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive.
At the request of the City, and in response to comments from the community, the Ford project team reviewed options for location of the treatment system and prepared an Alternative Location Analysis, Soil Vapor Extraction System, Bayridge Park (Parcel 10), dated February 15, 2023 and included in the Zoning Administrator's Staff Report, dated March 2, 2023. The results of this analysis are summarized below.
The analysis considered 7 options. These are described and evaluated below relative to the following criteria:
• Disruption to neighborhood
• Minimize impact to homes and proximity to treatment system • Permitting complexity (including whether permitting could be achieved within Water Board schedules)
10-613
Implementation complexity
Power connection complexity
Compliance with HOA access agreement to not impact parking Option 1 - Bayridge Park — 5 small systems in parking spots Originally, five small treatment systems occupying one parking space each were proposed in the Draft FS/RAP. A public comment period was held of the Draft FS/RAP from June 7 to July 9, 2021. Thirteen comments were received related to parking, and all objected to the treatment systems taking up parking spaces and the amount and duration of construction associated with the design. Therefore, in the final FS/RAP, the original design was replaced with one system which would limit impacts to parking and minimize construction duration and impacts. With other delays from utilities and power providers during COVID, this option was made infeasible because any permitting for this option would now delay the project for over 2 years.
Option 2 - Bayridge Park — landscaped areas
In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed in a landscaped area between homes.
This option was not feasible due to inaccessibility for construction equipment, need to remove mature landscaping, and limited access to provide ongoing operation and maintenance activities.
Option 3 - Bayridge Park — eastern portion
In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed in the eastern portion of the community.
This option was not feasible because it violated Ford's Remediation Agreement with the HOA which stipulates parking cannot be impacted. With other delays from utilities and power providers during COVID, this option was made infeasible because any permitting for this option would now delay the project for over 2 years.
Option 4 - Bayridge Park — northwest corner
This option requires the placement of larger conduits to carry power and the engineering and construction of which would be extremely complex and may not be possible given the dense network of underground utilities in the streets. Additionally, the permitting process would have to be restarted, adding up to two years to the project schedule. This delay will impact individuals' who are experiencing vapor intrusion in their homes, will likely allow soil vapor to spread impacting more homes, and will create environmental issues that take longer to remediate.
Option 5 - Along Bison Avenue
In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed on the south side of Bison Avenue. This option is infeasible for three reasons: 1) the City is concerned about interference of driver site lines along Bison Avenue, 2) construction of the system would take place on Bison Avenue and would impact traffic flow, 3) ongoing access to the treatment system for operation and maintenance activities would also impact traffic flow, and 4) there is a moratorium on construction in Bison Avenue.
Option 6 - Along Country Club Drive (portions north and south of 94 Hartford) In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed on the west side of Country Club Drive north or south of the 94 Hartford location. This location is not feasible due to lack of space and/or steep slopes.
Option 7 - Country Club Drive — adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive This option, which is presented in the final FS/RAP dated August 25, 2021, most closely satisfies all the criteria. This location has been vetted by the Water Board, the City of Newport Beach Zoning 10-614
Administration, Ford, WSP, the HOA, and members of the public to gain concurrence and avoid delay in implementation of the selected remedy to remediate soil vapor in Bayridge Park.
Residents closest to the location of this option have filed an appeal primarily due to questions about the safety of the SVE system. However, the Limited Term Permit is for the construction of the building.
The safe operation of the system is regulated by a permit issued by the Air District.
COMMENT 2: The moratorium on Bison. Is that the City's moratorium or set by another agency? RESPONSE: The City of Newport Beach has placed a five-year moratorium on trenching activities along Bison Avenue because the roads were recently repaved.
COMMENT 3: What was the pushback from the HOA on installing the system in the parking spots within the community?
RESPONSE: Ford has a Remediation Agreement with the HOA that stipulates parking cannot be impacted. Ultimately, though, this did not factor into the final decision for choosing a location. That decision was solely impacted by the continued delays in permitting that would have lasted another 2 years.
Please see the Response to Comment 1 for more details
COMMENT 4: We, the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive, strongly object to the location of our home as the location for the SVE system to clean up the contaminated soil from the former Ford facility. We are not asking to stop the remediation; we are asking to change the location based on the safety of our young toddler and we are expecting a newborn baby. The unit is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. The location is arbitrary and was not the original proposal by Ford/WSP.
RESPONSE: The Limited Term Permit being applied for is for a variance to the 8-foot separation - distance to place the treatment system building for one, and maybe, 2 years, if concentration levels are not reduced sufficiently to eliminate vapor intrusion. This location is not arbitrary. It was selected after an extensive review process involving many stakeholders and factoring in several key engineering and institutional constraints.
Seven locations were thoroughly evaluated and six of them were not feasible because of geographical, engineering, parking or schedule constraints. Regarding parking, Bayridge Park has extremely limited parking for current residents and just meets the City's minimum parking requirements. The most important factor at this point is the construction and remediation schedule as this system has been designed over the past two years with input from, and in coordination with the Water Board, the Air District and Southern California Edison (SCE). Selection of an alternate location will add at a minimum two years to the schedule. This schedule delay would be unacceptable because residents in 22 homes are living with concentrations of VOCs that can cause health effects over time. If the situation is not addressed as soon as possible, the vapors will continue to spread and additional homes may be impacted. It is also important to note that indoor impacts have not been detected in the 92, 94, and 96 Hartford residences.
The Air District is the primary regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the system is designed and operated in a manner that is fully protective of human health including infants, young children, and immunocompromised individuals.
Only air that meets the air quality standards dictated and permitted by the Air District will be discharged from the system. The SVE treatment system has been designed to operate in a residential area and includes multiple engineering redundancies to remove VOCs. There are two vessels which each 10-615
contain 2,000 pounds of granular activated carbon to adsorb the VOCs. The first vessel is designed to remove VOCs and the second vessel is in place as a redundancy. The granulated activated carbon will be replaced with new carbon when concentrations of VOCs are detected between the main and secondary vessels.
COMMENT 5: Regarding the location of the treatment system, the original project document by Ford/WSP did not have an alternative analysis until they received [the objections of the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive]. After they received our objections in January, all of a sudden, they had an alternative analysis that showed all the proposed locations were infeasible except the location by our house.
RESPONSE: An alternative analysis had been prepared and was part of the process going back to early 2021. The alternative analysis matrix was prepared from that process and was published later to translate a complex, multi -volume process to a readable context. The selected location is not arbitrary.
As with any engineering project of significance, a variety of analyses were conducted including finding the optimal location that meets various requirements including safety, accessibility, ease of construction and minimization of impacts. Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected.
COMMENT 6: Out of the seven proposed options, I [the owner of 94 Hartford Drive] wanted to address options one, three and four. Options one and three show the locations are infeasible due to parking. That should be enough! Basically, parking/accessibility is being put forth ahead of safety. Option one shows five small treatment systems in various parking spots while option three shows one larger treatment system that would use several parking spots. To resolve the parking issues, the HOA could implement multiple parking alternatives, such as forcing the residents to park in their garages, have residents park in the temporary vacation parking near Jamboree, or the HOA could assign temporary parking spots since this is going to be a temporary building.
RESPONSE: At no point was parking considered to be more important than safety. In fact, if the treatment unit building could not have been located in such a way to meet Air Board codes for height and distance from other openings, then the location would have been unsuitable. Safety has always been the number one priority.
Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected and Response to Comment 3 for a discussion on parking concerns.
COMMENT 7: Option four would place one larger system in the long-term parking in the northwest corner near Jamboree and Bison, and during the Zoning Administrator meeting, the alternative analysis read that this location could not be used because of timeframe issues and also the power connection complexity. It would increase construction by two months; however, this is the first appeal and we've already extended this whole process by five months.
RESPONSE: Based on our discussions with SCE, installation of the additional infrastructure required to support operation of an SVE system in the northwest corner is infeasible as it would cause significant delays. This delay would be unacceptable to the Water Board because 22 homes in the Bayridge Park community have indoor air impacts higher than screening levels which can cause health effects over time — any delay increases the possibility of vapors spreading and will take longer to remediate.
Additionally, this location would require deeper and larger trenches which would be infeasible to implement given existing underground infrastructure. Please see additional detail in the Response to Comment 1.
10-616
COMMENT 8: According to the analysis, the two -month extension would be a result of the power connection complexity, since they are routing all the electrical from the location behind our house, at 94 Hartford, and I find it hard to believe that there is only one source of electricity that needs to come from behind our house. There's electricity all throughout the community so I don't know why it all has to come from behind our house.
RESPONSE: As discussed in Response to Comment 1, getting electrical power to the treatment system is complex due to the available SCE infrastructure in the area. After extensive consultation with SCE for the past 1.5 years to identify a location with a direct connection to 3-phase power, the only feasible location is in the Belcourt Master HOA. This requires a transformer installation and power cables routed through Belcourt Terrace HOA and under Country Club Drive in a horizontally bored conduit, which will enter Bayridge Park at the fire lane adjacent to 94 Hartford.
COMMENT 9: At 1 p.m. [May 18, 2023], we, [the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive] were notified by the Assistant City Planner that the proposed treatment building would need to be moved eight feet north of where it was proposed at the Zoning Administrator meeting, making it in direct view of our dining room window and at a more problematic location than it was before.
We paid $1750 for this appeal for the location of the building, prior to this change, and per Jenny Tran, this system would be moved because of a water main and since there was a water main there, I would say that location is pretty infeasible as well.
RESPONSE: We apologize for the late notice. The water main location as recorded in the City's records and the location identified by a private utility locator were in conflict, so WSP performed potholing in consultation with the City to physically confirm the water main location on May 2 and 3, 2023. As a result, and in consultation with the City, we adjusted the SVE treatment system building location to allow access to the water main in the event of an emergency while still maintaining compliance with requirements of the California Building Code, the Air District, and avoiding encroachment into the sidewalk. The total height of the treatment system building is lower than the bottom of the second story window of the 94 Hartford residence, so although the roof of the building will be visible if you are looking directly out the window, it will not block the view or the light coming in through that window.
COMMENT 10: We were notified on Tuesday [May 16] by Candace, Assistant Vice President of WSP, that the building would be moved four feet to the south towards the water main, further showing we keep receiving conflicting information from Ford and WSP. Since the change affects the location of the exhaust from the treatment system, Ford and WSP should be required to file a completely new permit since this was not presented at the original Zoning Administrator meeting. This is an entirely new decision. This change should be reviewed adequately instead of completely shifting the building 5 hours before this meeting.
RESPONSE: We apologize for the confusion and are committed to transparent communications with you and the larger community. The treatment system building is being moved 8 feet to the north from the location presented to the Zoning Administrator on March 2, 2023. This location meets City requirements for access to the water main in case of an emergency and continues to meet the safety requirements of the California Building Code and Air District permit.
The focus of the Zoning Administrator/Planning Commission decision is solely on the location of the temporary treatment building as it relates to the City's aesthetic requirements of being 8 feet away from the nearest building in this community. This is not a requirement for the safety of the health of the community nor for building safety as the system meets the Air District requirements as stated above and the California Building Code requirement of 3 feet of separation from the nearest buildings. The Limited Term Permit has been requested because the treatment system building location does not meet the City's aesthetic guidelines for this community. Given that the movement of the building to 10-617
allow for safe access of the water main line still does not affect the health and safety requirements described above, this change is not an entirely new decision but a minor change to allow for access to the water main line. The City of Newport Beach staff has concurred with this decision.
COMMENT 11: 1 am the homeowner at 92 Hartford Drive, and I moved into Bayridge Park in 1987... there are about 7 or 8 parking spaces in the northwest section that would be perfect for this because it would be on the north end of the complex so it would take any exhaust away from residences and dissipate by the time it became a factor for anyone. ...If there is a 1% chance that human health can be impacted by machinery, then let's rethink this.
RESPONSE: Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected and Response to Comment 3 for a discussion on parking concerns.
COMMENT 12: There is an issue about the three-foot separation. We saw a diagram that was at
3.0 feet and then something at angle moving 8.5 feet and I don't know how you can be at 3 feet next to the building if you are at an angle and shoving it closer to the building. How is it still the same distance from the building?
RESPONSE: The building has been shifted to achieve the 3 feet of separation required in the California Building Code at the closest point between the proposed building and the existing building at 94 Hartford Drive. The building is not parallel with 94 Hartford, but the closest point is 3 feet away and the farthest point is approximately 4.5 feet.
COMMENT 13: If the location was moved to the northwest section of the complex, why would the piping have to go the long way around the streets when there is a much shorter connection to the wells diagonally. I think this was dismissed too easily.
RESPONSE: Trenching following a direct route to the SVE system is not possible given Bayridge Park's existing building locations, mature landscaping, underground sewer and water lines, community pool and other features.
COMMENT 14: 1 live at 96 Hartford, which is right next to 94, and I would see this from my living room. I am a two-time cancer survivor and am greater than 85% more likely to get cancer than the rest of the human population. ...I have been living at Bayridge since 1991 and I have lived there longer than almost 2/3rds of the community and have been exposed to this for probably 30 years. I have heart and other neuropathic conditions often seen with VOCs in groundwater and soil gas contamination. I agree with everything everyone else has said. The parking reasoning is ridiculous. They started this process a year ago and then they waited a whole year because they changed ownership of WSP.
RESPONSE: Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected and Response to Comment 3 for a discussion on parking concerns.
The acquisition of Wood by WSP did not play a role in the timing of this project nor did it delay the project; the project team has been actively navigating the extensive permitting process.
COMMENT 15: 1 think the powers that the Water Board has could overrule the HOA and put it in a place that was more viable and the concept of infeasibility in this discussion seems to range around financial issues. A retaining wall doesn't mean it is infeasible and that is disappointing. I feel this should be somewhere else and I think there are good options, but I would hate to see this dragged out longer because it does need to happen immediately. I would like to hear the Water Board come in and say this is the best location and this is where we want it, but I didn't hear that. I don't know how I can feel supportive of this application because I feel this isn't the right location and the appellant has a strong argument here. 10-618
RESPONSE: The Water Board requires the installation of the SVE system to remediate soil vapor as soon as feasible. Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected. The Planning Commission decision is solely on the location of the temporary treatment building as it relates to the City's aesthetic requirements of being 8 feet away from the nearest building in Bayridge Park. The Limited Term Permit has been requested because the treatment system building location does not meet the City's aesthetic guidelines for this community.
The system will only be allowed to operate if the Air District determines it will meet their requirements for the safe discharge of the treated vapors (as described in earlier responses), which will protect those living closest to the treatment building.
While we understand this may be a temporary inconvenience to the three nearby residents, it provides the quickest way to address the larger human health threat in the community of potential long-term exposure to VOCs.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
COMMENT 16: It was mentioned in some of the community letters that the exhaust would be coming out of the effluent stack. How does that exhaust level compare to the exhaust from a water heater or a clean -out vent from a sewer system at a house? Compare this in terms of the constituent concentrations/health risk.
RESPONSE: When properly designed and operated, SVE is intrinsically safe to site workers or the community. Treatment of the vapors involves no harmful chemicals that must be transported to the site.
VOCs are contained from extraction to treatment so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. Only clean air that meets air quality standards as dictated by the Air District is released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure VOCs have been removed. The Air Permit requires that the maximum discharge concentration is a 99% reduction from the maximum concentration of the vapor entering the system.
Water heater exhausts and/or clean -out vents from a sewer system are not permitted discharges. The SVE treatment system building exhaust will be a permitted discharge. The Air District, not the City of Newport Beach, is responsible for ensuring the system is designed and operated so that it is protective of human health. The SVE system will be maintained and monitored in accordance with Air Permit and Water Board requirements. Please refer to Response to Comment 4 for additional detail.
COMMENT 17: The monitoring [at the stack] I believe it said it was over the first 7 days of activation. What does the monitoring look like after that initial period? RESPONSE: The monitoring will be conducted daily over the first 7 days of activation to make sure the system is operating as designed. Based on this data, the Air District will determine the frequency of future monitoring to ensure that the system continues operating in a manner that is fully protective of public health.
COMMENT 18: So, you are [monitoring before the vapors enter the filters] in between the two filters and at the exhaust. Are you sampling the wells individually and in addition to the system? RESPONSE: Yes, the Water Board requires that we collect samples from the influent, midpoint, and discharge location, and that we monitor the SVE well locations to ensure the treatment system is operating as designed and to determine the effectiveness of the remediation.
COMMENT 19: Can you help me figure out if the exhaust is just air slightly coming out or like your dryer at home where it is shooting out or somewhere in between? 10-619
RESPONSE: The SVE system is designed to have a discharge flow rate of approximately 650 cubic feet per minute (cfm), which has been conditionally approved by the Air District.
Typically, a dryer will exhaust around 100 to 200 cfm.
COMMENT 20: We, [the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive], are continually assured by Ford and WSP that the SVE system is safe in a residential neighborhood three feet away from our home.
Despite this, we have not been able to be provided with any examples of residential treatment systems, let alone three feet away from a home. We were provided with three examples of treatment systems including two commercial drycleaning facilities — one that is 100 feet away and another 500 feet away from residences. We are absolutely appalled that the third example given by WSP, that they are claiming is residential, shows a boarded -up home on a vacant shut down military base. The military base was closed in 1994 due to contamination and the cleanup system took place in 2004. This is not in any way comparable to a residence with a newborn baby and toddler living, breathing and sleeping three feet away 24-hours a day.
RESPONSE: Although it is difficult to perceive this at first, the proximity of the treatment unit building is not related to the health and safety of the residents. The discharge point from the building is the only area of concern and will be the point of compliance for the Air Board permit. An example of how close the treatment unit building is to a residence is not a data point gathered by the Air District because the point of compliance is the discharge point. Therefore, as the treatment unit building will meet the criteria to obtain an Air District permit, the appellant needs only to look at the list of other SVE treatment units that have been permitted by the Air District that are part of the public domain to find the example that they seek. SVE systems are one of the most common ways to address soil vapor contamination in residential areas. This system has been designed so that VOCs from underground are contained from extraction to treatment so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. Only clean air that meets air quality standards is released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure VOCs have been removed. The Air District will require that we have an approved permit to operate this system, which will ensure we meet its requirements for safely operating the system in a residential area including the homes closest to the system.
COMMENT 21: Despite the Water Board's need for analytical data, we haven't been provided with any data to back up the claims they have been telling us. The photoionization detector was confirmed by Jessica Law to not be a lab quality sample. So, although it is a standard way to measure, it's not lab quality, and the lab samples actually take two to three weeks to come back.
RESPONSE: The use of photoionization detectors (PID) in the field to collect real-time data is an industry best practice and will help our project team understand and rapidly respond to changing field conditions. Additional data will be collected and sent to certified laboratories where it will undergo a quality assurance/control process that ensures the data is of the highest quality. The combination of these two approaches — real time data in the field and sending additional samples to a certified lab — meets Air District permit requirements and will provide a robust data set to make informed decisions about the SVE system management.
With all of the other safety factors involving the SVE treatment system and its various levels of dilution and treatment, the analytical testing is anticipated to be a confirmatory step for the PID usage onsite.
COMMENT 22: No studies have been conducted to show the safety of a SVE system within three feet of a home. There are too many unknowns as reiterated by the fact that no residential SVE units can be shown to us by Ford or WSP. We are being asked to be the guinea pigs when there are clearly other options that can be used. And due to the City indemnification by Ford, there are no consequences to the City of Newport Beach whether they approve this or not. However, we do not know how in good faith and conscience the City can approve this. 10-620
RESPONSE: The proximity of the SVE treatment unit building is immaterial to the safety of the residents. It is the exhaust location that matters. There are many devices which operate within a home such as a furnace, a refrigerator, an air conditioner compressor (outside), a vacuum cleaner, a dishwasher, a computer, etc., that are not measured by their location, but rather by the exhaust point.
The exhaust from the SVE treatment unit will meet the Air Board's criteria for location, height and concentration. This ensures safety for the residents near 94 Hartford.
The Water Board and the Air District are charged with protection of the entire community. While we do not have studies readily available due to the unique nature of the location and design of the SVE system, that does not mean that operating the treatment system in this location is unsafe. As stated before, the VOCs are contained from extraction to treatment and only clean air that meets the Air District's air quality standards will be released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure all harmful vapors have been removed or destroyed.
The system has been designed to meet the Air District requirements to receive a permit to operate.
These requirements take into consideration the location of the system in a residential neighborhood and its proximity to homes. Discharge limits are set to be protective of sensitive receptors. Operating the SVE system will allow Ford to remediate soil vapor and reduce the risk of long-term health impacts related to vapor intrusion in this community.
With regards to the City's responsibility under this approval, this Limited Term Permit is only to approve the location of the building as we do not meet the City of Newport Beach development guidelines for this area of an 8-foot separation between buildings. It is purely an aesthetic requirement.
COMMENT 23: It was a little surprising in the presentation to hear that the vapor is "not hazardous," which I heard. I don't know why the project is going on if it is not hazardous.
RESPONSE: The vapors underground are at levels that could be hazardous to public health with continued exposure over time, which is why the Water Board is requiring the construction and operation of the SVE system as soon as possible. During the presentation when the term "non -hazardous" was used, it was in discussion in context of the flammability of the chemicals, e.g., whether they could ignite or explode throughout the extraction and/or treatment process. This is not possible, and this is why they were called "non -hazardous."
The "danger" for this project is the long-term exposure (many hours each day over many years) to vapors which have intruded and concentrated inside the house. If the same vapors were encountered outside of the house in ambient air, there would not be any danger or hazard due to dilution and dispersion.
COMMENT 24: If the problem is the chemical in the groundwater and it is not being removed, only vapors from it, apparently the hope is that over time the groundwater will spread out enough, but the problem will still be there, but it will be so spread out that it won't be affecting anyone. I would be curious how long it would take without this project for the groundwater to spread out to that level.
RESPONSE: The concentrations currently present in soil gas are due to historical groundwater concentrations, which were much higher in the past than they are now. The VOCs at elevated concentrations in groundwater migrated upwards into the void spaces in the dry soil above the groundwater. Remedial activities were conducted between 1993 and 1996. In 1996, the former Ford facility received case closure for soil so no more active remediation was required, however the case was transferred to the Water Board for continued assessment and remediation of groundwater.
Investigations have been ongoing for both groundwater and soil gas since then, but there was no need 10-621
for active remediation until soil gas samples collected in 2018 detected VOCs above the revised 2016 Environmental Screening Levels.
This project is being conducted to address the movement of VOCs in soil vapor beneath the ground into indoor air inside residential properties. The current concentrations of VOCs in groundwater are lower than their historical maximums; soil vapor remediation has been identified as the method to reduce the potential for vapor intrusion. As discussed previously, indoor air concentrations of VOCs currently exceed screening criteria in 22 homes. The vapors are not acutely toxic, however concentrations higher than the screening levels can cause health effects over time, which is why the treatment system implementation is urgent.
The Water Board has approved monitored natural attenuation of groundwater due to the low levels present in groundwater at this time. This means groundwater will continue to be monitored to confirm that VOCs are naturally breaking down and degrading over time.
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
COMMENT 25: Is there a problem with the noise at the exhaust or is the noisy part of the system inside the treatment area?
RESPONSE: Noise is generated by the treatment system and not the discharge piping. This is why the treatment system is entirely contained inside a building with noise dampening features. We will test the building when off -site construction is completed to ensure it meets the City of Newport Beach's noise requirements and then test the system again when it is installed to ensure it continues to meet those requirements.
COMMENT 26: You mention Sunnyfresh Cleaners. I went over and stood there to see what that's like. What would you determine the noise is at that system? (I understand that's a commercial system). What does 50 decibels compare to?
RESPONSE: The exterior of the treatment system building will meet the City's noise requirement of 50 decibels. This is like the sound of a household refrigerator when it is in operation.
COMMENT 27: No one has mentioned anything about property values. I [the homeowner at 96 Hartford Drive] am 75 years old and have no husband or family members. My condo is my lifetime investment and if I am forced to senior or assisted living there is no guarantee as to when I will need to sell. It is quite predictable that my place and others would be unsellable or rentable with this toxic system right outside my window. ...The SVE system outside my condo would basically being destroying my savings account. With all the medical uncertainties, I cannot possibly continue to live here. Simply picking up and leaving comes with a high price.
Why should possibly three households of 166 be forced to abandon their homes in the face of these valid concerns. This is a community, we all pay homeowner dues, and should all be treated the same.
RESPONSE: Questions related to property values would be better answered by a real estate professional. However, the installation and operation of the SVE system will be treating the underlying environmental issue.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA) AND OUTREACH
COMMENT 28: Is there a representative of the HOA in attendance tonight? There are valid points about where this could be relocated, and I find it disappointing that the HOA could not be here tonight. I think that speaks volumes and couldn't support this. I feel like the HOA could have stepped up and made this work better for everyone.
10-622
RESPONSE: A representative of the HOA was not available at the May 18 meeting; however, we understand that he will attend the June 22 hearing.
COMMENT 29: Who owns the fee [to this land]. Is it the HOA or Ford? Did the HOA grant permission for the remediation to occur and the location of the treatment building? RESPONSE: The HOA owns the land and granted permission for the treatment building to be located there.
COMMENT 30: Please explain what the process with the HOA was [to select this location] and the nature of the contractual relationship between the HOA and the remediation team. Did the HOA endorse this location at the end of the process or was it just working together [with the Ford Newport Beach project team]?
RESPONSE: Ford/WSP have a Memorandum of Understanding for remediation work to occur which includes the HOA agreement for the design and placement of the SVE system.
COMMENT 31: Despite the lovely community outreach, it was never disclosed in writing that the unit was [three feet away from] our home [at 94 Hartford Drive] and it was never disclosed at the Bayridge Park pre -construction meeting as well, so the first time that we were notified as homeowners was when the public notice was staked on our front lawn by the City of Newport Beach. The mailers, the forms, etc. all come standard mail and there was never anything in writing sent formally via certified mail disclosing the location of the system.
RESPONSE: Visual renderings were provided at the community meetings in November 2021 and January 2023 that showed the proximity of the proposed treatment building to 94 Hartford Drive. These are also available on Ford's project website ( https://www.fordnbfacts.com/) and the Water Board's GeoTracker database(nttps://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=SL188023848).
COMMENT 32: The HOA isn't here tonight and I, [the resident at 92 Hartford Drive], would love to ask them why they are insisting on this because if this is approved, you're basically making my house unlivable at 92 Hartford. I can't live there knowing there is this exhaust that is the emanation point of 13 wells that take these toxins out of the ground and filter them with carbon and now I am supposed to be able to sleep at night?
RESPONSE: The Air District issues the permit to operate the SVE system and will only issue the permit if the system can operate safely and in a manner that is fully protective of public health. This system has been designed so that VOCs from underground are contained from extraction to treatment so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. Only clean air that meets Air District's standards is released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure VOCs have been removed to meet the standards dictated and permitted by the Air District. The Air District will require that we have an approved permit to operate this system, which will ensure we meet its requirements for safely operating the system in a residential area including the homes closest to the system.
Please refer to Response to Comment 4 for additional detail on the discharge limits and safety redundancies that are mandated by the Air District.
COMMENT 33: 1 [the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive] have shared all correspondence provided to the City and Planning Commission with the HOA and have received no correspondence back. We were also told by one of the HOA members when we voiced our concerns, especially in regard to our son, that we should move if we are not happy with the treatment location.
10-623
RESPONSE: Ford and WSP were not present during this conversation and are unable to comment on this.
COMMENT 34: The HOA is the one that the appellant should be talking to. They are the ones making the decision and dictating where this should go. ...I don't understand why they couldn't address some of the parking areas as well.
RESPONSE: Ford and WSP have worked closely with the HOA and have provided detailed information to the Bayridge Park community. Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for additional detail on how the location was selected.
SCHEDULE
COMMENT 35: There was an expectation that this system would only last for one year. ...What are our triggers for automatic extensions? What is the confidence level that this will only last for one year versus two or three? [What are the triggers for permit extension, if needed?] RESPONSE: Ford and WSP anticipate the system will operate continuously for one year. At the end of the first year, the Water Board will review the data collected and decide if the system should continue operation, operate intermittently, or shut down. Our goal is to operate under this permit for one year and, if necessary, apply for an extension of the Limited Term Permit for one additional year.
COMMENT 36: Worst case this remediation goes three years. If that doesn't achieve the lower levels that you want, what would be the next step?
RESPONSE: A site conceptual model has been created that shows levels and areas of contamination.
The model is based on hundreds of samples of soil, soil gas and groundwater collected over the past six years. Based on the site conceptual model and the SVE pilot test, the Water Board and Ford/WSP are confident that SVE will be able to treat the vapors found underneath the community effectively within a one -to -two-year period that is stipulated by the City of Newport Beach's permit. At the end of the two-year period the treatment system building will be dismantled and removed.
If the Water Board requires additional treatment after the two-year period, the Ford project team will work with the agency to determine the best methods to address residual levels of contamination.
COMMENT 37: We keep getting different answers from WSP and the Water Board on how long this will be in place. The last time I spoke with WSP it was supposed to be running for six months, today it is a year. At the February 22nd meeting, Kenn Conner the Senior Vice President of WSP, stated the system will be on for a year, then turn it off and maybe turn it back on later. It was also stated at this meeting by Jessica Law at the Water Board that in historical remediations we've seen other sites we've cleaned up and we come back later, and the concentrations increased. Although Jessica states she has confidence in this remediation, there is no guarantee. Jessica goes on to state it's still important to confirm because assumptions can be wrong, and from the regulatory perspective, we don't like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we always want them confirmed with analytical data.
RESPONSE: The Limited Term Permit from the City of Newport Beach allows the system to operate for one year and a maximum of two years, at which time the building and treatment system will be dismantled.
OVERALL PROJECT
COMMENT 38: When this was originally entitled, what was the time frame for mitigation monitoring of the wells? Is this in perpetuity?
10-624
RESPONSE: The Water Board has required ongoing soil gas and groundwater monitoring since the site was first remediated starting in 1990. The monitoring will continue until no further action levels are reached and the environmental case is closed. It is hard to estimate a timeframe to reach no further action, but we anticipate this will be between 10 and 20 years.
COMMENT 39: Are the monitoring wells that are out there currently a part of the original construction?
RESPONSE: Beginning in 2018, WSP installed monitoring wells to understand the extent of soil vapor and groundwater plumes and monitor how these are changing over time. These wells will continue to be used during remediation and monitoring.
COMMENT 40: In regard to the testing, not only did the testing become more efficient, but the VOCs levels also changed. Is that correct?
RESPONSE: Yes, the scientific understanding of how VOCs can affect public health has changed since the 1990s which led to the environmental screening levels used by the Water Board to become more conservative, or health protective, than when the original testing was done. Our scientific instruments used to test these VOCs have also become more efficient and are able to detect VOCs at lower levels than was possible in the 1990s.
COMMENT 41: You mentioned this is just soil vapor remediation, but you didn't touch on the groundwater, which I believe is [impacted] at 50 feet?
RESPONSE: The Water Board has approved monitored natural attenuation of groundwater due to the low levels present in groundwater at this time. This means groundwater will continue to be monitored to confirm that VOCs are naturally breaking down and degrading over time.
COMMENT 42: Does groundwater travel southwesterly?
RESPONSE: The former Ford facility is at the high point, so groundwater travels north towards Bonita Creek and south towards the Big Canyon Arroyo.
COMMENT 43: When you did test you determined [this part of Bayridge Park] is the location that is the most impacted?
RESPONSE: Yes, our recent testing has found that the past remediation was quite effective in the location of the former Ford facility, what is now One Ford Road. However, the remediation was limited to on -site areas and off -site remediation activities were not required at that time. Bayridge Park and Belcourt Terrace are located immediately north of the former Facility, and we see higher impacts here because no remediation was historically completed here.
MISCELLANEOUS
COMMENT 44: The Zoning Administrator has the discretion to refer items that come to him to you for an original hearing and the Zoning Administrator meetings are held in the morning via Zoom. It is very convenient for the applicants, but it is not very convenient for the people trying to interact and express their concerns on the items before him. So, it was unusual that this was not referred to you given it was known as a controversial issue. After more than a decade of attending Zoning Administrator meetings, this is the first one I ever saw where the applicant had a half hour, 45-minute presentation to explain something that would not be controversial enough to be approved by one person, the Zoning Administrator. 10-625
RESPONSE: Ford and WSP took this time to explain the scientific complexity of this project to allow the Zoning Administrator to have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. However, we do not see this permit approval as controversial. The Zoning Administrator, and now the Planning Commission, are ultimately deciding if the building can be placed closer than the 8 feet of separation required of buildings in this area under the City's development guidelines. This is a purely aesthetic requirement as this location meets the requirements of the California Building Code, and the Air District oversees the safety of the operation of the system. So, the City's purview is limited to deciding on whether to allow this building to be constructed even though it does not meet the aesthetic design guidelines of the neighborhood.
COMMENT 45: Although the only thing before you is the location of this treatment system building, the wells and the piping under the streets do not currently exist. That is all part of the project to come. Apparently, you are not weighing in on that.
RESPONSE: The location of the wells and the piping under the streets are being designed in accordance with City guidelines and do not require approval from the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to be installed. The well locations were approved by the Orange County Health Care Agency and are not dependent on the treatment system location. The piping layout will be approved by the City's Public Works Department once the Limited Term Permit has been approved. The Water Board has approved the SVE treatment system design, including well locations and piping layouts, to allow for the safe and effective implementation of the SVE system to remediate contaminants found in soil vapor and the HOA has approved of this design. HOA approval was a requirement of the Water Board's approval.
10-626
ATTACHMENT 2
EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging 10-627
'011 RVIO10Z0] M i i PN I to
61611611016
What Are Soil Vapor Extraction and
Air Sparging?
Both soil vapor extraction, or "SVE," and air sparging
extract (remove) contaminant vapors from below
ground for treatment above ground. Vapors are the
gases that form when chemicals evaporate. SVE
extracts vapors from the soil above the water table
by applying a vacuum to pull the vapors out. Air
sparging, on the other hand, pumps air underground
to help extract vapors from groundwater and wet soil
found beneath the water table. The addition of air
makes the chemicals evaporate faster, which makes
them easier to extract with another technology, such
as SVE.
SVE and air sparging are often used together. Both
methods are used for chemicals that evaporate
easily —like those found in solvents and gasoline.
These chemicals are known as "volatile organic
compounds," or "VOCs."
How Do They Work?
Extraction:
SVE involves drilling one or more extraction wells
into the contaminated soil to a depth above the water
table, which must be deeper than 3 feet below the
ground surface. Attached to the wells is equipment
Vapor Treatment
Building Clean
Compressor for Air
Air Sparging—\ Blower for SVE
Leaking Tank }
t, Vapor Vapor
Flow Flow
�^ti l ti / 1
water Contaminated Watei
Table Groundwater Table
Air Flow Air Flow
OUX010t10
(such as a blower or vacuum pump) that creates a
vacuum. The vacuum pulls air and vapors through
the soil and up the well to the ground surface for
treatment.
Sometimes the ground must be paved or covered
with a tarp to make sure that the vacuum does not
pull air from above into the system. Pulling in clean
air would reduce the efficiency of the cleanup. The
cover also prevents any vapors from escaping from
the ground to the air above.
Air sparging involves drilling one or more injection
wells into the groundwater -soaked soil below the
water table. An air compressor at the surface pumps
air underground through the wells. As air bubbles
through the groundwater, it carries contaminant
vapors upward into the soil above the water table.
The mixture of air and vapors is then pulled out of the ground for treatment using SVE.
Treatment:
Extracted air and contaminant vapors, sometimes
referred to as "off -gases," are treated to remove any
harmful levels of contaminants. The off -gases are
first piped from the extraction wells to an air -water
separator to remove moisture, which interferes with
treatment. The vapors are then separated from the
air, usually by pumping them through containers of
activated carbon. The carbon captures the chemicals
while clean air exits to the atmosphere. (See
Communitv Guide to Granular Activated Carbon
Treatment.)
Filter materials other than activated carbon may be
used. In a process called "biofiltration," tiny microbes (bacteria) are added to break down the vapors into
gases, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor.
Another option is to destroy vapors by heating them
to high temperatures.
How Long Will It Take?
Cleaning up a site using SVE or air sparging may
take several years. The cleanup time will depend on
Illustration of a combined air sparging and SVE system.
several factors that vary from site to site. For example, SVE and air sparging will take longer where:
• Contaminant concentrations are high.
• The contaminated area is large or deep.
• The soil is dense or moist, which slows the movement of vapors.
Are SVE and Air Sparging Safe?
When properly designed and operated, SVE and air sparging pose little risk to site workers or the community. Treatment of the vapors involves no harmful chemicals that must be transported to the site. Chemical vapors are contained from extraction to treatment so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. Only clean air that meets air quality standards is released.
The air released to the atmosphere following treatment may be sampled to make sure all harmful vapors have been removed or destroyed.
How Might They Affect Me?
You may notice some increased truck traffic as the equipment for SVE or air sparging is delivered and later removed. Installation of the systems involves drilling rigs and sometimes other heavy machinery to install wells, blowers and treatment equipment. Sheds or larger buildings may be built to house the treatment systems and keep operating noise to a minimum. Workers will visit these systems regularly to ensure they are working.
Why Use Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging?
SVE and air sparging are efficient ways to remove VOCs above and below the water table. Both methods can help clean up contamination under buildings and cause little disruption to nearby activities when in full operation. SVE and air sparging have been selected for use at Superfund sites and other cleanup sites across the country.
Jm-
Pipes transport vapors from the
underground SVE extraction well
to treatment.
Aboveground treatment system includes two tanks of
activated carbon.
NOTE: This fact sheet is intended solely as general information to the public. It is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States, or to endorse the use of products or services provided by specific vendors.
Office of Land and Emergency Management (5203P) I EPA-542-F-21-022 1 2021 1 www.clu-in.org an_FI)o
ATTACHMENT 3
Artist's rendering of treatment building
10-630
Parcel 10 Soil Vapor Extraction System Building
! l�
10-631
ATTACHMENT 4
Community outreach summary
10-632
Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary
June 6, 2023
The following lists outreach activities (that have occurred for the Bayridge Park community since the start of the project in 2018. Fact sheets are mailed and emailed to the community. Meeting invites are emailed a total of three times (initial email when document delivered via US Mail followed by two reminder emails) prior to each meeting.
Document
Distribution/Meeting Date
Location
Water Board Community Fact
May 2018
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #1
Bayridge Park
Sampling request letter
July 2018
Distributed sitewide, including
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
August 2018
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #1 Save the Date
Bayridge Park
Water Board Community Fact
September 2018
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #2
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
September 27, 2018
Civic Center Community Room
Session #1 (Open House)
100 Civic Center Drive
Water Board Information
October 2018
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #2 Meeting Invite
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
November 10, 2018
Civic Center Community Room
Session #2
Bayridge Park Session:
100 Civic Center Drive
3:00 — 4:30 p.m.
Water Board Information
February 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #3 Invite Letter
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
February 28, 2019
Civic Center Community Room
Session #3
100 Civic Center Drive
Water Board Information
April 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #4 Save the Date
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
May 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #4 Invite Letter
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
May 29, 2019
Civic Center Community Room
Session #4
Bayridge Park Session:
100 Civic Center Drive
6:30 — 8:00 p.m.
Water Board November 2019
September 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #5 Save the
Bayridge Park
Date
Water Board Information
October 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #5 Invite Letter
Bayridge Park
Water Board Community Fact
October 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #3
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
November 7, 2019
Civic Center Community Room
Session #5
100 Civic Center Drive
Water Board Community Fact
February 2020
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #4
Bayridge Park
Ford Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
February 2022
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Pilot Test Meeting Invite
residents
SVE Pilot Test HOA Meeting
March 4, 2020
Bonita Creek Community Room
3010 La Vida
10-633
Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary
June 6, 2023
Document
Distribution/Meeting Date
Location
Notice of Work: SVE Pilot Test
May 2020
Distributed to Bayridge Park
residents
Water Board Community Fact
August 2020
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #5
Bayridge Park
Water Board November 2020
September 2020
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #6 Save the
Bayridge Park
Date
Water Board November 2020
October 2020
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #6 Invite
Bayridge Park
Letter
Water Board Information
November 5, 2020
Zoom
Session #6
Water Board Human Health Risk
March 2021
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Assessment (HHRA) and SVE
residents
Pilot Test Community Meeting
Invite
Water Board HHRA and SVE
April 22, 2021
Zoom
Pilot Test Results Meeting
Water Board Community Fact
April 2021
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #6
Bayridge Park
Water Board Draft FS/RAP
May 2021
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Public Meeting Save the Date
residents
Water Board Draft FS/RAP Fact
June 2021
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Sheet
residents
Water Board Draft FS/RAP
June 7 —July 9, 2021
Comments could be provided
Public Comment Period
via mail, phone and email
Water Board Draft FS/RAP
June 10, 2021
Zoom
Public Meeting
Water Board July 2021
June 2021
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #7 Save the
Bayridge Park
Date
Water Board July 2021
July 2021
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #7 Invite
Bayridge Park
Letter
Water Board Community Fact
July 2021
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #7
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
July 29, 2021
Civic Center Community Room,
Session #7
100 Civic Center Drive, and
YouTube Livestream
Ford Remedial Design and
October 2021
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Implementation Plan (RDIP)
residents
Meeting Invite
Ford RDIP Meeting
November 4, 2021
Bayridge Park community pool
February 2022 Information
December 2021
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #8 Save the Date
Bayridge Park
10-634
Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary
June 6, 2023
Document
Distribution/Meeting Date
Location
February 2022 Information
January 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #8 Invite Letter
Bayridge Park
Water Board Community Fact
January 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #8
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
February 3, 2022
Zoom
Session #8
Notice of Work: Bayridge Park
February 2022
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Groundwater Monitoring Well
residents
Installation and Sampling
Notice of Work: Bayridge Park
April 2022
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Groundwater Monitoring Well
residents
Installation and Sampling
Water Board July 2022
June 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #9 Save the
Bayridge Park
Date
Water Board July 2022
July 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #9 Invite
Bayridge Park
Letter
Water Board Community Fact
July 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #9
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
July 27, 2022
Civic Center Community Room,
Session #9
100 Civic Center Drive, and
YouTube Livestream
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
August 2022
Distributed via email to
Update #1
Bayridge Park residents
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
October 2022
Distributed via email to
Update #2
Bayridge Park residents
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
November 2022
Distributed via email to
Update #3
Bayridge Park residents
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
December 2022
Distributed via email to
Update #4
Bayridge Park residents
Ford SVE Pre -Construction
December 2022
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Meeting Invite
residents
Water Board February 2023
December 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #10 Save
Bayridge Park
the Date
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
January 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #5
Bayridge Park residents
Ford SVE Pre -Construction
January 2023
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Meeting Invite #2 (Location
residents
Change)
Ford SVE Pre -Construction
January 18, 2023
Bonita Creek Community Room
Meeting
3010 La Vida
Water Board February 2023
January 2023
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #10 Invite
Bayridge Park
Letter
10-635
Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary
June 6, 2023
Document
Distribution/Meeting Date
Location
Water Board Community Fact
January 2023
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #10
Bayridge Park
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
February 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #6
Bayridge Park residents
Water Board Information
February 2023
Civic Center Community Room,
Session #10
100 Civic Center Drive, and
YouTube Livestream
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
March 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #7
Bayridge Park residents
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
April 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #8
Bayridge Park residents
Notice of Work: Utility
April 2023
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Potholing
residents
Water Board Sub -Slab
April 2023
Phone calls to residents within
Depressurization (SSD) System
Bayridge Park who are
Save the Date
experiencing vapor intrusion in
their home
Water Board SSD System
May 2023
Distributed to residents within
Meeting Invite Letter and SSD
Bayridge Park who are
Fact Sheet
experiencing vapor intrusion in
their home
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
May 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #9
Bayridge Park residents
Notice of Work: SVE Extraction
May 2023
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Well Installation
residents
Water Board SSD System
May 17, 2023
Residents within Bayridge Park
Meeting
who are experiencing vapor
intrusion in their home
SSD System Access Agreement
May 2023
Distributed to residents within
and What to Expect Handout
Bayridge Park who are
experiencing vapor intrusion in
their home
Ford Remediation Update
May 2023
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Meeting Invite
residents
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
June 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #10
Bayridge Park residents
Ford Remediation Update
June 8, 2023
Bayridge Park community pool
Meeting
10-636
Attachment J
Revised Project Plans
10-637
�6 A F E 94 HARTF RD DIVE SECOND FLOOR /
WINDOW
ACCESS GATE
NORMALLY CLOSED
$ GRAVEL EROSION
RELOCATED O PROTECTION
❑ AC UNIT w AC IT ADJUSTED M
GRASSCRETE L0 BUILDING LOCATION
\ SURFACING FUTURE PAD "t
LOCATION ------
- 020"
OFIRE LANE 9 9 � I
J6,��
`U I
� O
ORIGINAL PROPOSE
o 0 0`6001
o °o TREE REMOVAL
BUILDING LOCATIONLANDSCAPED
\ 3.8 ft
AREA
o0 00 TBD BY ARBORIST
°op a
opal
WATER MAIN LOCATED
EASEMENT BOUN RY AS
SHOWN ON TRACT AP 12164
ICV
ON 5/3/2023
-
EASEMENT BOUNDARY AS
SHOWN
SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 121664 + c_� ^j
'+ _ �� +V
_ + ^ BAYRE AT BOUNV
BOUNpARV
" EF F LU ENT STACK w PAY
+ + w
A M V
COIY£RETE PEDESTRIAN PATH'
^ w +
V
ICV
ICV ICV ICV
w + A
00�
0 5 10
Feet
GRASS
O
ED-
O V w y w
+ + w
+ V y +
P10 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING
PLAN VIEW
Former Ford Aeronutronic Property
Newport Beach, California
By: ENM Prj. No. 8622397107
®® Date: 5/17/2023 Figure 1
10-638