10 - Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) — Newport Beach City Council, July 25, 2023 (part 1 of 4)

Q �EwPpRT

CITY OF
s NEWPORT BEACH
`q44:09 City Council Staff Report
July 25, 2023
Agenda Item No. 10
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner, [email protected] PHONE: 949-644-3212
TITLE: Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180)
ABSTRACT:

For the City Council's consideration is an appeal of the Planning Commission's June 22, 2023, decision to deny the appeal, uphold and affirm the Zoning Administrator's approval of a limited term permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system. The system consists of a 20-foot-wide by 12-foot-deep by 10-foot-high treatment system building, an underground pipe network (approximately 2,400 linear ft.), and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation for a term of approximately 12 months. A limited term permit is requested to allow a 3.2-foot separation distance between the treatment system building and the nearest residential structure where the required separation is eight feet between buildings and to allow the treatment system building to encroach into the 5-foot front setback per the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards.

The appeal was filed by Amy Santella, Kevin Solomita, Leslie Pratt, and Lee Healy (adjacent residents) objecting to the location of the soil vapor extraction and treatment system building due to safety concerns.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Conduct a de novo public hearing;
b) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15330/Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), under Section 15308/Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and under Section 15303/Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
c) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-42, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Denying an Appeal and Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a Limited Term Permit for a Soil Vapor Extraction and Treatment System Located at 94 Hartford Drive [NH] (PA2022-0180). 10-1

Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180)
July 25, 2023

Page 2 ends

DISCUSSION:

Background
From 1957 to 1993, Ford Motor Company operated the Ford Aeronutronic facility on approximately 200 acres bound by Bison Avenue to the north, MacArthur Boulevard to the east, Ford Road to the south, and Jamboree Road to the west for aerospace and electronic research, development and production. As part of on -site operations and as common practice at the time, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were used to clean the metal parts of the operating equipment. The facility was demolished between 1993 and 1996 and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) oversaw site cleanup and remediation to address the environmental impacts of past facility operations before the site was redeveloped for residential purposes in the 1990s.

Although remediation efforts were made, in 2016, the Water Board's environmental screening levels were updated due to advances in equipment sensitivity and detection limits and to comply with more stringent regulatory standards. The level of VOCs found in 2016 and continuing today were determined to be above the screening levels warranting action. Indoor air sampling was conducted within the Bayridge Park community (Attachment B), and it was determined there is a need to install a soil vapor extraction and remediation system to mitigate vapor intrusion. The applicant is working on behalf of Ford at the direction of the Water Board.

Project Description
The soil vapor extraction (SVE) and treatment system, as described in a Remedial Design and Implementation Plan and approved by the Water Board on January 28, 2022, consists of 13 vapor extraction wells, 2,400 feet of piping, and a treatment system housed in a prefabricated steel building with a floor area of 240 square feet. A vacuum pump (also known as a "blower") will extract vapor from the soil through the wells and deliver it to the treatment system where granular activated carbon removes the VOCs and then clean vapor is discharged into the atmosphere. Coordination with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has commenced and a permit for the release of VOCs into the air in small-scale in situ SVE and treatment systems will be obtained.

The treatment system building will house the treatment system, which is comprised of four vacuum pumps, one heat exchanger, associated carbon vessels, holding tanks, and pumps.

The treatment system building would provide a separation from the adjacent residential structure ranging from 3 feet to 4 feet 6 inches, where the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards require a minimum separation of 8 feet between structures. The building would also encroach approximately 5 feet into the required 5-foot front setback adjacent to Country Club Drive.
10-2

Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180)
July 25, 2023

Page 3 ends

The location of the treatment system within the 10-foot-tall, prefabricated steel building will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it has been identified as the most feasible and least impactful location. The location is also adjacent to Country Club Drive and will not encroach on or obstruct the public utility easement or easement for emergency and security ingress and egress. The location will not obstruct any windows or doors of the residence at 94 Hartford Drive. The separation between structures ranges from 3 feet to 4 feet 6 inches and no venting will be located on the side facing the residence at 94 Hartford Drive. An existing air conditioning compressor located between the existing residence and the proposed treatment system will be relocated to allow for the placement of the treatment system building. Project plans are included as Attachment J.

Figure 1 - Soil Vapor Extraction and Treatment System layout within the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association
Biso�tiAverrue
I
f CMcater}IOJCf
Parct l 10
gayrldga Park HomeowtrarsAssocla
r
- Extraction pipes
The detection of residual VOCs in the soil gas have potential to cause harm to the residents of the Bayridge Park community where soil gas may move through the building's foundations and impact the indoor air quality of these homes. The proposed treatment system building will use an SVE and treatment system to remediate the presence of VOCs found in this residential development.

Prior Hearings and Decisions
Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision
On March 2, 2023, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider the project.

During the hearing, the applicant provided a presentation to discuss the various components of the project including: project background, community outreach and concerns, an alternative locations analysis map, safety, timeframe, and remediation. 10-3

Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180)
July 25, 2023

Page 4 ends

Three members of the public spoke in opposition to the selected location of the treatment system building. After considering all public comments and findings, both written and oral, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. ZA2023-010, approving Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). The minutes from this hearing are included as Attachment C.

Appeal of the Zoning Administrator Decision
On March 14, 2023, Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision citing safety concerns related to the location of the SVE and treatment system building and its proximity to the residents. The appeal cited six factors of concern: location, timeframe, safety, quality of life, air quality monitoring, and home values. The appellants own and reside at 94 Hartford Drive.

May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Hearing
On May 18, 2023, the Planning Commission held a de-novo hearing to consider the appeal. For reference, the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment D, which includes a detailed project description, project plans, overview of the appeal, alternatives analysis, and public outreach efforts.

At the hearing, the Planning Commission received a detailed presentation from staff and the applicant, including an update to the proposed location of the proposed treatment system building which needed to avoid impacts to an underground City water line. Five members of the public expressed their concerns with the proposed location of the treatment system building. No representative from the Homeowners Association (HOA) was present at the meeting to communicate the complex decision to approve the building location that was presented. Ultimately, the Planning Commission continued the item and directed the applicant and the appellant to further discuss the alternative locations with the HOA board. The draft minutes from this hearing are provided as Attachment E.

June 22, 2023, Planning Commission Hearing and Decision On June 22, 2023, the Planning Commission reopened the public hearing. The June 22, 2023, Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment F, which includes a summary of the Planning Commission hearing held on May 18, 2023, and information related to the revised location of the treatment system building. After considering all public comments and findings, both written and oral, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2023-023 (Attachment No. PC 1), approving Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). The minutes from the hearing are included in this report as Attachment G.

Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision
On July 5, 2023, Amy Santella, Kevin Solomita, Leslie Pratt, and Lee Healy filed an appeal (Attachment H) of the Planning Commission's decision citing the same objections that were cited on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. 10-4

Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180)
July 25, 2023

Page 5 ends

Applicants Response to Appeal
To assist the City Council with its discussion, the applicant has prepared a thorough Response to Comments document that includes a summary response to the main concerns raised by the appellants. The document also includes detailed responses to all comments and questions raised by the Planning Commission and the public at the May 18, 2023, hearing (Attachment 1). The response provided from the applicant further explains the safety in the design of the soil vapor extraction system and the stringent air quality standards dictated and permitted by SCAQMD. The Response to Comments includes a discussion regarding the current risks to the community, safety of the SVE system, feasibility of the alternative locations, and outreach to the community.

Consideration towards the alternative locations provided in the response explains that the proposed location is the best choice to allow for remediation work that quickly addresses vapor intrusion in the community.

Staff Response to Appeal
The main impacts to the community with the installation of the treatment system building are related to aesthetics, noise, location and safety. Measures have been taken by the applicant to ensure these impacts are minimized and that all required permits shall be obtained to ensure compliance with all safety concerns.

Aesthetics
Given its location, the treatment system building will be most visible to the adjacent residents of 94 Hartford Drive and to the residents of the One Ford Road community that take access from Country Club Drive. As designed and conditioned, the treatment system building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive and landscaped with new xeriscape plantings to help soften the visual impacts from the adjacent private street.

Noise Impact
An Acoustical Engineering Analysis was prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group and updated February 8, 2023, to ensure the building will be designed to comply with the allowable exterior noise standards of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC).

Conditions of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring an acoustic audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation and a subsequent audit after installation. The treatment system building will be built and tested off -site, including the installation of sound deadening methods to decrease the exterior noise levels from the treatment system. Further details regarding the methods to ensure minimal noise impacts are detailed in Attachment PC 6 of Attachment D.
10-5

Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180)
July 25, 2023

Page 6 ends

Alternative Locations Studied
In total, seven options were considered, including alternative locations at the Bayridge Park Community, along the Bison Avenue landscape parkway, and additional locations along the Country Club Drive parkway. The factors considered included: disruption to the neighborhood, proximity to homes, impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, and power connection complexity. These factors were reviewed on a scale that included low, medium, high and infeasible. Six of the options encountered infeasibilities due to either impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, or power connection complexity that are summarized in Attachment PC 7 of Attachment D. Due to these considerations, the location of the proposed treatment building adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected.

Safety
Safety concerns with the proposed treatment system building located 3 feet from the residents at 94 Hartford Drive were expressed. The proximity will meet building and safety standards and the applicant has managed to reposition the vent as far from 94 Hartford as possible. The applicant also provided information detailing the soil vapor remediation process and the monitoring steps that will be followed to ensure the system will be operated in accordance with the permit requirements set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). In staff's opinion, concerns about the safety of the treatment system have been addressed by the applicant and delaying the system's installation further is more concerning given the potential health implications for a larger number of homes in the community.
a I,*a_ym I ►yi U_To 9
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15330/Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), under Section 15308/Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and under Section 15303/Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180)
July 25, 2023

Page 7 ends

The action shall not involve the potential release into the air of VOC as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25123.6, except for small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems which have been permitted by the local Air Quality Management District (AQMD). The cleanup action must be consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements such as off -site disposal, and air quality rules, and approved by the regulatory body with jurisdiction over the site.

The Project is consistent with the intent of the Class 30 exemption for minor cleanup actions as it proposes to mitigate the presence of VOC in the soil without the use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit. The Project will not relocate any residences or businesses. Coordination with the Water Board has commenced and a permit for the release of VOC into the air in small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems will be obtained. The Project is consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements and is approved by the Water Board.

The Class 8 exemption allows actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption.

The Project has been mandated by the Water Board as part of the required ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions of the former Ford Facility. The Project will remediate the existence of VOC observed in the soil in order to protect the environment as well as the residents of the community. No construction activities or relaxation of standards that would cause environmental degradation are proposed and the Project is consistent with the intent of the Class 8 exemption.

The Class 3 exemption allows the construction of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.

The Project proposes the construction of a small 240-square-foot treatment system building for the purpose of soil vapor remediation. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system is intended to remediate the presence of VOCs for the residents in the Bayridge Park community.

The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not applicable.

The Project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource.
10-7

Resolution No. 2023-42: Appeal of a Limited Term Permit for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180)
July 25, 2023

Page 8 ends

NOTICING:

Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways), including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A — Resolution No. 2023-42
Attachment B
— Vicinity Map
Attachment C
— Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes from March 2, 2023 Attachment D
— Planning Commission Staff Report from May 18, 2023
Attachment E
— Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from May 18, 2023 Attachment F
— Planning Commission Staff Report from June 22, 2023
Attachment G
— Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from June 22, 2023 Attachment H
— Appellant's Appeal Application from July 5, 2023
Attachment I —
Applicant's Response to Comments
Attachment J —
Project Plans
10-8

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2023- 42
A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN

APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A LIMITED

TERM PERMIT FOR A SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION AND
TREATMENT SYSTEM LOCATED ADJACENT TO 94
HARTFORD DRIVE [NH] (PA2022-0180)
WHEREAS, an application was filed by WSP USA ("Applicant"), requesting approval of a limited term permit along Country Club Drive and adjacent to the property located at 94 Hartford Drive, and legally described as Lot 4 of Tract No. 12164 ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Property is located within the area that was formerly the Ford Aeronutronic facility operated by Ford Motor Company from 1957 to 1993 for aerospace and electronic research, development, and production;
WHEREAS, volatile organic compounds ("VOC") were used to clean the metal parts of the operating equipment as part of the on -site operations of Ford Motor Company; WHEREAS, the facility was demolished between 1993 and 1996 and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Water Board"), the leading regulatory agency for the former Ford Aeronutronic facility and related off -site areas, has overseen remediation to address the environmental impacts of the facility operations including bioremediation, excavation, disposal of soils and groundwater, as well as soil vapor treatment systems; WHEREAS, the site was subsequently rezoned and redeveloped for residential purposes in the 1990s and ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions continues;
WHEREAS, although remediation actions were previously conducted, the Water Board has determined that further remediation is necessary due to more stringent regulatory standards and advances in equipment sensitivity and detection limits; WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a limited term permit to construct a soil vapor extraction and treatment system consisting of a treatment system building that has a 20-foot width by 12-foot depth by 10-foot height, an underground pipe network (approximately 2,400 linear ft.), and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation located within the setback of Country Club Drive with a 3.2-foot separation from 94 Hartford Drive where the required setback is 8 feet for a term of approximately 12 months ("Project"); 10-9

Resolution No. 2023-

Page 2 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, the Property is designated Multiple Residential (RM) by the General Plan Land Use Element and located within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC- 24) Zoning District;
WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone, therefore, a coastal development permit is not required;
WHEREAS, a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator was originally scheduled on January 26, 2023. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). The Zoning Administrator continued the item to the meeting of March 2, 2023;
WHEREAS, at the continued public hearing held on March 2, 2023, evidence both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Zoning Administrator at this hearing;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. ZA2023-010 approving Limited Term Permit PA2022-0180; WHEREAS, on March 14, 2023, Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision objecting to the location of the soil vapor extraction and treatment system building based on safety concerns due to the proximity to the residents;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2023, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California.

A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 of seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter

20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. The Planning Commission continued the meeting to June 22, 2023;
WHEREAS, at the continued public hearing held on June 22, 2023, evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing;
10-10

Resolution No. 2023-

Page 3 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2023-023 (4 ayes, 2 nays, 1 recusal) upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of Limited Term Permit PA2022-0180; WHEREAS, on July 5, 2023, Amy Santella, Kevin Solomita, Leslie Pratt, and Lee Healy filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision objecting to the location of the soil vapor extraction and treatment system building based on safety concerns due to the proximity to the residents; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on July 25, 2023, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows:

Section 1: The City Council has considered the decision of the Planning Commission and determined that modifications to the Project made by the City Council, if any, are not major changes that require referral back to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation.

Section 2: The City Council does hereby uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Limited Term Permit PA2022-0180 based upon the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit 'A" and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "B," which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.

Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
10-11

Resolution No. 2023-

Page 4 of 5 ends

Section 5: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15330 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), under Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.

Section 15330 exempts minor cleanup actions taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous waste or substance which are small or medium removal actions costing $1, million or less. The cleanup action shall not require the onsite use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit, or the relocation of residences or businesses. The action shall not involve the potential release into the air of VOC as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25123.6, except for small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems which have been permitted by the local Air Quality Management District (°AQMD"). The cleanup action must be consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements such as off -site disposal, and air quality rules, and approved by the regulatory body with jurisdiction over the site. The Project is consistent with the intent of Section 15330 for minor cleanup actions as it proposes to mitigate the presence of VOC in the soil without the use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit and the cost of often the facility is under $1 million. The Project will not relocate any residences or businesses. Coordination with the Water Board has commenced and a permit for the release of VOC into the air in small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems will be obtained. The Project is consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements and is approved by the Water Board.

Section 15308 actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. The Project has been mandated by the Water Board as part of the required ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions of the former Ford Facility. The Project will remediate the existence of VOC observed in the soil in order to protect the environment as well as the residents of the community. No construction activities or relaxation of standards that would cause environmental degradation are proposed and the Project is consistent with the intent of the Section 15308.
10-12

Resolution No. 2023-

Page 5 of 5 ends

Section 15303 exempts the construction of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. The Project proposes the construction of a small 240- square-foot treatment system building for the purpose of soil vapor remediation. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system is intended to remediate the presence of VOCs for the residents of the Bayridge Park community. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not applicable. The Project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource.

Section G: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.

ADOPTED this 25th day of July, 2023.

NOAH BLOM
Mayor
ATTEST:

Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Aaro & Harp U, Zo 23 we
City ttorney
Attachments: Exhibit "A" — Findings In Support of Limited Term Permit PA2022-01 Exhibit "B" — Conditions of Approval
10-13

EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF LIMITED TERM PERMIT PA2022-0180
In accordance with Section 20.52.040(G) (Limited Term Permits) of the NBMC, the following findings, and facts in support of findings are set forth as follows:

Finding:

A. The operation of the limited duration uses at the location proposed and within the period specified would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the requested limited duration use; Facts in Support of Finding:

1. The treatment system building will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive, along Country Club Drive, outside of common residential areas of the Bayridge Park Homeowner's Association. The building will be visually hidden from residents' sight as much as possible. The building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive. A new xeriscape landscape will be planted in and around the new treatment system building, which will help soften the visual impact of the structure.

2. An Acoustical Engineering Analysis was prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group dated February 8, 2023. The predicted noise level in the Acoustical Engineering Analysis at the exterior of the treatment system building and adjacent residences of 92 and 96 Hartford Drive on the Property is 48.8 dBA which is consistent with the allowable exterior noise standards of 55 dBA from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and 50 dBA from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am in the NBMC. The predicted noise level at 61 Hillsdale Drive, the nearest off -site residence, is calculated to be 34.9 dBA. Therefore, the treatment system building is expected to meet the requirements of the City of Newport Beach's ("City") regulations for both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property.
10-14

4. To minimize impacts to the community and adjacent residences from noise and construction, Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring the treatment system building to be constructed off -site and an acoustic audit of the unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation. The intent of the off -site acoustic audit is to ensure it complies with the City's noise standards prior to transportation to the building site. After installation of the treatment system building on -site, a subsequent acoustic audit will be required to be conducted to further ensure the building complies with the City's noise standards.

5. The wall of the treatment system building adjacent to the building at 94 Hartford Drive will be constructed with a two hour fire rated wall in accordance with the California Building Code ("CBC") and Building Division standards and policies. Construction plans will be reviewed for compliance with the CBC and Building Division before building permit issuance.
f. The building will be secured to the concrete pad with anchors chosen for the earthquake risk parameters of the Newport Beach area. The treatment system building will additionally be secured with a monitoring system that will safely shut down the system in the event of an earthquake or other unforeseen natural disasters and an operations manager will be alerted of the shutdown. The treatment system will be monitored and inspected for potential damages prior to restart.

7. The treatment system is designed to meet the standards of AQMD for the release of VOCs into the air at a level that is protective of the health of the community. The treatment system will incorporate two granular activated carbon filters that will remove VOCs in the soil before the air is discharged from the treatment system. As stated by the Applicant, total VOC concentration will be measured using a real-time monitor at least once a day for the first seven days of operation to confirm the system is operating as designed and within permit specifications which are set to be protective of public health. Subsequent monitoring will continue weekly, or more frequently as required by AQMD. All findings will be reported to the Water Board and will be made available to the public. Laboratory samples will be collected and analyzed on a frequency required by AQMD to confirm the efficacy of the granular activated carbon filter vessels and the treatment system overall.
10-15

8. The treatment system includes multiple redundancies to ensure concentrations of organic compounds released from the exhaust stack, if any, are below the AQMD emission limits. These emission limits are based on risk calculations that consider the most sensitive populations, including infants and young children. As stated by the Applicant, the vapors emitted are not acutely toxic. However, concentrations higher than the screening levels are currently being detected in the indoor of many homes in the Bayridge Park community and can cause effects over time which constitutes an urgency to implement remediation methods in the community.

Finding:

B. The subject lot is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the limited duration use without material detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the lot;
Facts in Support of Finding:

1. The Property is within Planning Area 8 (Attached Residential) of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC-24) Zoning District, which is approximately 12 acres in size.

The proposed building will be located within the setback of Country Club Drive and adjacent to the residence of 94 Hartford Drive and Country Club Road and will not negatively impact on -site vehicular circulation.

2. As conditioned, the treatment system building will require an acoustic audit prior to transportation of the building onto the Property and after installation on -site to ensure it meets the allowable exterior noise standards of the NBMC.

3. The treatment system will be located within a new prefabricated building, which is 20 feet by 12 feet and 240 square feet in size. The building is 10-feet 2-inches to the top of the roof and 13-feet 5-inches to the top of the air exhaust. The existing dwelling is two stories and the proposed treatment system building will be visually hidden from the residents of the Bayridge Park community as much as possible.

4. The treatment system building will be located on private property and will not impact pedestrian or vehicular access along Country Club Drive. 10-16

5. Given its location, the treatment system building will be most visible to the adjacent residents of 94 Hartford Drive and to the residents of the One Ford Road community that takes access from Country Club Drive. As designed and conditioned, the treatment system building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive and landscaped with new xeriscape plantings to help soften the visual impacts from the adjacent private street.

6. Locations along Bison Avenue, a public right-of-way, were considered for the Project; however, the area was determined to not provide adequate space for the placement of the building. Significant grading into the slope would be required to install the building and the construction of new retaining walls would be needed to not impact the structural integrity of the existing retaining walls surrounding the Bayridge Park community. Given that this is a temporary project, this alternative was deemed infeasible.

7. Additional locations along Country Club Drive were considered providing a greater separation from 94 Hartford Drive. Unfortunately, the landscape parkway was either too narrow to accommodate the facility or too steep, requiring significant grading that would impact the condition of the Bayridge Park community and structural integrity of the existing retaining walls surrounding the community.

8. Alternative locations were considered within the Bayridge Park community within landscaped areas that provided adequate building separation from residents. These areas would require significant removal of existing trees within the community and the placement of the treatment system building will cause a disruption to existing drainage and creek beds. Additionally, placement of the treatment system building in these areas will create heavy visual impacts within the community and remove much needed parking for the residents.

9. In total, seven options were considered for the location of the soil vapor extraction system where the factors included: disruption to the neighborhood, proximity to homes, impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, and power connection complexity. These factors were reviewed on a scale from low, medium, high, to infeasible. Six of the options encountered infeasibilities due to either impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, or power connection complexity. Due to these infeasibilities, the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected.
10-17

Finding:

C. The subject lot is adequately served by streets or highways having sufficient width and improvements to accommodate the kind and quantity of traffic that the limited duration use would or could reasonably be expected to generate; Facts in Support of Finding:

1. The proposed treatment system building will be located adjacent to an existing private street, which is an entryway into the One Ford Road community. The building location is within an existing sloped and landscaped area that will not interfere with any circulation drive aisles.

2. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system will require ongoing on -site monitoring and maintenance that will consist of one or two field staff visiting the site approximately once a month to collect samples and perform maintenance as needed. No large commercial vehicles are required for monthly monitoring and maintenance and no impact or increase in traffic is expected.

3. Carbon changeouts that require a vacuum truck and one truck trailer and boom lift attachment parked on Country Club Drive are to take place two times per year for four to six hours at a time. This routine maintenance has a low frequency and will not completely obstruct the traffic circulation on Country Club Drive. Country Club Drive is a private street in a private community and is not subject to additional permits from Public Works. The Bayridge Park Homeowner's Association and One Ford Road Homeowner's Association will be notified at least seven days before maintenance.

Finding:

D. Adequate temporary parking to accommodate vehicular traffic to be generated by the limited duration use would be available either on -site or at alternate locations acceptable to the City Council; and
10-18

Fact in Support of Finding:

1. Planning Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC-24) Zoning District requires a minimum of two guest parking spaces per cluster unit development where cluster unit development is defined as a combination or arrangement of attached or detached dwellings and their accessory structures on contiguous or related building sites. As conditioned, field staff performing on -site monitoring and maintenance will utilize the on -site guest parking spaces within the Bayridge Park Community during monthly visits.

2. Fact 3 in support of finding C is incorporated here by reference.

Finding:

E. The limited duration use is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the Municipal Code, and other City regulations.

Facts in Support of Finding:

1. The limited term permit would allow the limited duration use to deviate from setback requirements and building separation requirements of the PC-24 Zoning District pursuant to Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the NBMC.

2. The temporary treatment system building with an approximate one-year duration is conditioned to comply with all other applicable provisions of the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other City regulations.

3. The treatment system building is conditioned to comply with all applicable provisions of the City's allowable exterior noise level. Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring an acoustic audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation, and a subsequent audit after installation.
10-19

EXHIBIT "B"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Division
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval).

2. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.

3. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be caused the revocation of this limited term permit.

4. This Limited Term Permit may be modified or revoked by the Zoning Administrator if determined that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained are detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained to constitute a public nuisance.

20.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions) of the Zoning Code. A letter requesting the extension shall be submitted to the Planning Division no later than thirty (30) days before the expiration date of this permit.

6. Upon completion of this soil remediation project, the applicant is required to obtain a demolition permit from the City's Building Division and the site shall be returned to its former conditions prior to construction.

7. The treatment system building shall be designed with a gable roof and provide siding painted to match colors that are architecturally compatible with surrounding residential units.

8. Maintenance vehicles shall utilize residential guest spaces within the Bayridge Park community with approval from the Bayridge Park Homeowner's Association when working at the soil vapor extraction system and treatment facility.

Homeowner's Association and the One Ford Road Homeowner's Association in writing at least seven (7) days before performing maintenance.

10. Prior, to the issuance of building permits, the A/C unit serving 94 Hartford shall be relocated so that it does not interfere with the building separation between the prefabricated building and the residential unit.

11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project plans shall be modified to demonstrate that any disturbed landscape areas shall be replanted with water - efficient landscaping by Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscaping).

12. Prior to the issuance of a final building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Permit to Construct (P/C) from the South Coast Quality Air Management District.

13. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in the area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require additional review from the Planning Division and may require an amendment to this Limited Term Permit or the processing of a new Limited Term Permit.

14. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits.

15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall demonstrate the restoration of surrounding landscaping to provide further screening for the treatment system building.

16. Prior to the issuance of a building_._ permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division.

17. The treatment system unit shall be constructed off -site and prior to the transportation of the prefabricated treatment system unit to the project site and after Installation of the structure, an acoustic audit shall be performed to ensure that the noise level observed at the exterior of the structure meets the allowable exterior noise standards of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The results of the acoustic audit shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to final inspection of the building permit.
10-21

18. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified periods unless the ambient noise level is higher:

Between the hours of 7:00 AM
and 10:00 PM
Between the hours of 10:00
PM and 7:00 AM
Location
Interior
Exterior
Interior
Exterior
Residential Property
45dBA
55dBA
40dBA
50dBA
Residential Property located within
100 feet of a commercial pro ert
45dBA
60dBA
45dBA
54dBA
Mixed Use Property
45dBA
60dBA
45dBA
50dBA
Commercial Property
NIA
65dBA
NIA
60dBA

19. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner, or leasing agent.

20. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays.

21. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.

22. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits or authorization from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the South Coast Air Qualify Management District.

The project shall be designed, implemented, operated, and maintained in accordance with said permits or authorization from both agencies.

23. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorneys fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation including, but not limited to, Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating 10-22

or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.

Fire Department

24. A three (3)-foot wide walkway shall be provided on at least one (1) side of the lot from Country Club Drive for Fire Department access.

Building Division

25. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City -adopted version of the California Building Code.

26. A list of "good housekeeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures).

The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs.

In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs.

Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Division

27. All exhaust air shall terminate outside of the treatment system building in accordance with the requirements of California Mechanical Code 602.0.

28. Discharged liquid waste or sewage shall be connected properly to the drainage system of the premises in accordance with the requirements pursuant to California Plumbing Code, Chapter 7.

29. Prior to issuance of a buildinq permit, the applicant shall ensure the location of the exhaust is adequately sited away from any residential building openings. 10-23

Public Works Division

30. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit and enter into an encroachment agreement and approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office for the installation of the treatment system building.

31. The building foundation shall be constructed only of a slab and shall not be constructed with stem walls or deepened footings.
10-24

Attachment B
Vicinity Map
10-25

10-26

Attachment C
Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes from March 2, 2023 10-27

NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES
100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH
ZOOM
THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2023
REGULAR MEETING — 10:00 A.M.

CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m.

Staff Present (Remote): Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Zoning Administrator Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner
David Keely, Senior Civil Engineer

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2023
Action: Approved
IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 Spanos Residence Coastal Development Permit (PA2022-0214) Site Location: 2761 Bay Shore Drive Council District 6
Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that this project is to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new 1,977-square-foot two-story single-family residence with a 669-square-foot garage and 617-square-foot upper exterior terrace. She noted that the project includes a pool, 2,311 square feet of landscaped area, hardscape walls, and drainage facilities. Furthermore, she indicated that the property is within the R-1 Zoning district and RSD General Plan category and complies with all development standards, does not involve a change in land use, density, or intensity that results in an increased demand for public access. In addition, she relayed that the property is approximately 155 feet from Newport Bay and separated from the water by Bay Shore Drive and a row of existing residential development.

Ms. Tran noted that the project site is not located adjacent to a coastal view road, public viewpoint, public beach, or public accessway as identified in the Coastal Land Use Plan and the proposed development is consistent with the existing neighborhood and does not have the potential to visually impact the community from public views. She stated that the project is conditioned to provide a final landscape plan as part of the approval for the final building permits and staff recommends the approval of this application.

Zoning Administrator Zdeba clarified that while the project location is near Coast Highway, a coastal view road, it is in a segment that does not have a coastal view. He added that the community was developed in 1941, as a private gated community prior to the Coastal Act.

Zoning Administrator Zdeba opened the public hearing.

Tony Weiland, applicant, stated that he reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all the required conditions, noted the project is consistent with the neighborhood, smaller in size than the existing residence, set back 47 feet from the street, has no visual impact and improves views for neighbors, and the materials will match the existing neighboring house owned by the same owners. In response to Zoning Administrator Zdeba's question, Mr. Weiland confirmed that although the house is owned in common with the neighboring house, there will be no improvements across the lot line and no formal merging of the lots.

Page 1 of 4 ends

10-28

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 03/02/2023
Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, Zoning Administrator Zdeba closed the public hearing.

Zoning Administrator Zdeba noted the project is compatible with the allowable development envelope in the Bay Shores community, meets all the findings, is consistent with the Class 3 exemption, and the exemptions to the Class 3 exemption do not apply. He approved the project subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A." Action: Approved
ITEM NO. 3 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) Site Location: 94 Hartford Drive Council District 4
Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner, provided a project description stating that the request is to allow a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) and treatment system for a 12-month term within the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association.

The project would consist of approximately 2,400 linear feet of underground piping, 13 extraction wells, and a 12-foot by 10-foot treatment system building. The Limited Term Permit allows for a deviation from select development standards. She noted that the proposed location is adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive and Country Club Drive, the project proposes a three-foot separation between the building and an encroachment into the five-foot setback. The treatment system will use a blower to extract vapor from the soil through wells, and pipes will deliver the extracted vapors to the treatment system where granular activated carbon will remove the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and discharge clean vapor. She noted that the applicant is conditioned to obtain a permit from the South Coast Quality Air Management District (SCAQMD) for the release of treated vapors. She reviewed the remediation efforts of the former Ford Aeronutronic facility once located at the project site, including an overview of residential use rezoning, additional VOC remediation mandates by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board, the Acoustical Engineering Analysis, measures to reduce exterior noise, Newport Beach Municipal Code maximum allowable exterior noise levels, and measures to satisfy compliance with noise standards. Furthermore, Ms. Tran relayed an Alternative Location Analysis and six factors used to select the project site, public meetings by the applicant on November 4, 2021, and January 18, 2023, extensive public outreach by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ford, and WSP to those impacted from the remediation, project conditions that soften community impact, and Demolition Permit requirements upon completion of the soil remediation project.

Before opening the public hearing, Zoning Administrator Zdeba clarified that public comments are not to be used for questions and answers. He encouraged speakers to provide a list of all comments, concerns, and questions. He asked speakers to limit comments to four minutes and emphasized his interest in hearing thoughts and concerns on this matter.

Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff, WSP Project Manager, whose company is responsible for the environmental investigation and clean up associated with Ford former Aeronutronic facility, introduced the team, used a presentation to review the project background, human health impacts, project description, community engagement and concerns, and system safety. Jessica Law, the Case Manager from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, used the presentation to review the vapor intrusion health risks, investigation, short-term solutions, and SVE system, and displayed a map outlining the investigation and remediation areas.

Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff continued the presentation to relay the details of the Bayridge Park SVE System, project community outreach, community concerns, alternative location analysis map, location summary, parking impacts, location decision, system safety for air quality, safety in design, safety for electromagnetic fields, and SVE is a proven technology, and, lastly, the quality of life relative to noise and aesthetics and timeframe for remediation.

In response to Zoning Administrator Zdeba's question, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff confirmed four alternative locations were explored and three more locations at the City's request, that parking is a high priority for the HOA and the community based on feedback, and that the construction timeline would extend an additional six months to a year for the project if the parking area in the northwestern part of Bayridge Park is used to accommodate additional piping and trenching.

Page 2 of 4 ends

10-29

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 03/02/2023
At the request of Zoning Administrator Zdeba, Senior Civil Engineer Keely provided traffic safety information that deemed site five on Bison Avenue infeasible and confirmed that the Public Works Director is aware of the potential location and not supportive of site five for the reasons he outlined.

In response to Zoning Administrator Zdeba's questions, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff confirmed that site six lacked space on the southern portion of Country Club Drive and the northern portion has a grade difference and slope challenges. She thought the $1 million cost evaluation for the Class 30 exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is appropriate and stated with confidence that the project meets the exemption. Furthermore, she indicated that the project information phone line is a good contact method for the community and her willingness to share her cell phone number for questions or concerns. Emily Miller, WSP, clarified that the building plans will be updated to match the actual vent location. Ms. Law noted that facilities are typically located closest to the extraction well and have had no complaints.

Zoning Administrator Zdeba invited the public to speak.

Amy Santella noted a list of six main categories of concern that she submitted in writing. She identified there is a window on her unit that is missing from the plan and requested a continuance to have the distance of the missed window measured to meet the requirement prior to granting a permit. She objected to the project location and asked for it to be changed for the safety of her child. She requested that an external consultant review the infeasibilities, noted no real-time monitoring to show the total VOC concentration emitted from the building three feet from her home, suggested a longer project time frame and confirming assumptions with analytical data, requested data regarding safety and child and infant development, and asked the City to protect the well-being of her family and ensure the distance requirements.

Leslie Pratt concurred with Ms. Santella, shared her medical background and concerns, and asked to be treated fairly.

Lee Healy expressed concern for quality of life, noted the source of parking issues, inquired about an alternate location, and requested information about the closest open active SVE system.

Seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, Zoning Administrator Zdeba encouraged the applicant to address any concerns or questions raised.

In response to public comment, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff relayed that the northeast location was part of the analysis and deemed infeasible with HOA and public input and nearest SVE system is in the Newport North Shopping Center. Ms. Law noted that the SVE system at the Newport North Shopping Center is managed by the local oversight program, uses a chain link fence, and may not have noise dampening.

In response to Zoning Administrator Zdeba's inquires, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff and Ms. Miller concurred that the California Building Code for a SVE discharge is a minimum of three feet and the distance of the proposed building exceeds this and offers protection in any direction and agreed to provide an update. Ms. Law confirmed that agencies conduct substantial and significant SVE monitoring, reiterated the importance of getting this facility online, elaborated on the remediation timeline and health safety factors, and indicated that the soil gas plume would be contained. Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff noted that the understanding of who is impacted could change if the remaining 40 percent of the homes were sampled.

Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff of WSP stated that she had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all the required conditions. Furthermore, she agreed to a possible additional condition by the Zoning Administrator that would require the exhaust vent location be fully compliant with all codes and regulations, including distances from windows or other openings.

Zoning Administrator Zdeba closed the public hearing.

Page 3 of 4 ends

10-30

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 03/02/2023
tools have become more sensitive for a better reading of data with more science behind the potential impacts to health, and that the regulatory agencies involved would be closely monitoring the facility for safety and compliance. He clarified the 12-month temporary limited term permit would become effective at the issuance of the final building permit with the option, not a guarantee, of requesting a 12-month extension. He added that the Limited Term Permit could be revoked if the operation constituted a nuisance and that an additional public hearing and approval would be necessary if the project required more time than two years.

Zoning Administrator Zdeba highlighted the conditions of approval, including the additional condition regarding adequate separation of the vent from the window, walked through facts to support all the findings, and found the project to be exempt under Class 30 and Class 8 of CEQA. He approved the submitted project as the best option given the practical difficulties at alternative locations, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A." Zoning Administrator Zdeba informed the public that the decision is appealable to the Planning Commission within 14 calendar days, as outlined in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.

Action: Approved
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The hearing was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.

The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on February 23, 2023, at 4:30 p.m. on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on February 23, 2023, at 4:30 p.m.

JaKe Murillo
Zoning Administrator

Page 4 of 4 ends

10-31

Attachment D
Planning Commission Staff Report from May 18, 2023
10-32

PQR e. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
May 18, 2023
cCIFOP Agenda Item No. 2
SUBJECT: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) ■ Limited Term Permit
SITE LOCATION: 94 Hartford Drive [NH]
APPECANT: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
APPLICANT: WSP USA
OWNER: Bayridge Park Homeowners Association
PLANNER: Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner
949-644-3212, [email protected]

PROJECT SUMMARY
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's March 2, 2023, decision to approve a limited term permit for the construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system. The system consists of an underground pipe network (approximately 2,400 linear ft), 13 soil gas extraction wells, and a 240 square foot remediation treatment building for a term of approximately 12 months. A limited term permit allows a 3.2-foot separation distance between the treatment system building and nearest residential structure where the required separation is 8 feet between buildings and to allow the treatment system building to encroach into the 5-foot front setback per the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards.

RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a de novo public hearing;
2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-023 denying the appeal and upholding and affirming the Zoning Administrator's Approval of a Limited Term Permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system filed as PA202-0180 (Attachment No. PC 1). 10-33

10-34

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 2 ends

•
m L6
�a

LOCATION

ON -SITE

GENERAL PLAN
Multiple Residential (RM)

I ZONING
Aeronutronic Ford Planned
Community PC-24

CURRENT USE
Multi -Family Residential
NORTH
SOUTH
RM
Single Unit Residential
Detached (RS-D)
PC-24
PC-24
-Multi-Family Residential
Single -Unit Residential
EAST
RM
PC-24
F -Multi-Family Residential
WEST
RM
PC-24 =F
Multi -Family Residential
10-35

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 3 ends

INTRODUCTION
Project Setting and Background
The project site is located within the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association (HOA) community. This community is located within the area that was the former Ford Aeronutronic facility, north of the approximate location of the former facility building as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1— Former Ford Aeronutronic Property Vicinity Map Parcel 10', A1111k illl
I Y.i Aye°4e
/
/
/ d6-2Cj 16`2A
a / �
Former Ford f 3
Aeronutronic Facility / V�
Approz mate loc Lion
f of former Chip Storage 15 i
r Sin Area
It
/ 5 7 0 t
/ 4
Main Area L /!
C.7
11 �
` Former ATC Area
Big Canyon CreeK
I � \
— Approrlmate former Aeronutronic Facility
I__1
boundary
Property
Former facility
;Subject
Fnrmer fatuity building
Former drum storage
— ,
Former Aerothermal Chemical (ATC(
Hlstorlcal arroyo(b,,kf,d during
1 m -
development
;
/ m
r�
j r
\I
f
a zaa aaa
v Feet
PARCEL 10 SITE VICINITY MAP
Former Fard Aeronutronic Property
Newport Beach, California
Sourc E,,, DigilelGlob a. GaoE E: -slur Gacvrnob CN ES!hirb.s �S. L'S .VSCS 1—IR I D. IGN. anC IM1e I �1SIl pate W/Ol/'2023 rigure t Gis 11sar Lbrnmunrry
From 1957 to 1993, Ford Motor Company operated the Ford Aeronutronic facility on approximately 200 acres bound by Bison Avenue to the north, MacArthur Boulevard to the east, Ford Road to the south, and Jamboree Road to the west. The primary operation of the facility consisted of aerospace and electronic research, development, and production. As part of on -site operations and as common practice at the time, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were used to clean the metal parts of the operating equipment. The facility was demolished between 1993 and 1996 and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Water Board") oversaw site cleanup and 10-36

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 4 ends

remediation to address the environmental impacts of past facility operations.

Bioremediation, excavation, disposal of soils & groundwater, and soil vapor treatment systems have been used both on and off site. Ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions has continued since the site was redeveloped for residential purposes in the 1990s.

The level of VOCs found during the continued monitoring were at levels below the Water Board's environmental screening levels. However, in 2016, the Water Board's environmental screening levels were updated due to advances in equipment sensitivity and detection limits and to comply with more stringent regulatory standards. Due to the update, the level of VOCs found in 2016 and continuing today were determined to be above the screening levels warranting action.

The existing buildings do not have a vapor barrier designed to address VOCs and the Water Board has determined that the VOCs detected in soil gas could potentially intrude through cracks in building foundations and impact the indoor air quality. Indoor air sampling was conducted within the Bayridge Park community and they determined the need to install a soil vapor extraction and remediation system to mitigate vapor intrusion.

The applicant is working on behalf of Ford at the direction of the Water Board.

The treatment system building will house the treatment system, which is comprised of four vacuum pumps, one heat exchanger, associated carbon vessels, holding tanks, and pumps.

The treatment system building would provide a separation from the adjacent residential structure ranging from 3-feet to 4-feet 6-inches, where the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards require a minimum separation of 8 feet between structures. The building would also encroach approximately 5 feet into the required 5-foot front setback adjacent to Country Club Drive.

The location of the treatment system within the 10-foot tall prefabricated steel building will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it has been identified as the most feasible and least impactful location (See Alternative Locations Studied section). 10-37

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 5 ends

The location is also adjacent to Country Club Drive and will not encroach on or obstruct the public utility easement or easement for emergency and security ingress and egress.

The location will not obstruct any windows or doors of the residence of 94 Hartford Drive.

The separation between structures ranges from 3 feet to 4 feet 6 inches and no venting will be located on the side facing the residence at 94 Hartford Drive. An existing air conditioning compressor located between the existing residence and the proposed treatment system will be relocated to allow for the placement of the treatment system building.

Zonina Administrator Hearina and Decision
A noticed public hearing was held on March 2, 2023, online via Zoom. During the hearing, the applicant provided a presentation to discuss the various components of the project including: project background, community outreach and concerns, an alternative locations analysis map, safety, timeframe, and remediation. Three members of the public spoke in opposition to the selected location of the treatment system building. After considering all public comments and findings, both written and oral, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. ZA2023-010 approving Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). The minutes from this hearing are attached as Attachment No. PC 5.

Appeal of the Zoning Administrator Decision
On March 14, 2023, Ms. Amy Santella and Mr. Kevin Solomita filed a timely appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision citing safety concerns related to the location of the SVE and treatment system building and its proximity to the residents. The appeal cited six factors of concern: location, timeframe, safety, quality of life, air quality monitoring, and home values (Attachment No. PC 2). The appellants own and reside at 94 Hartford Drive.

On April 7, 2023, the applicant provided a written response to the appeal that addressed the concerns outlined in the Appellant's letter (Attachment No. PC 3). The response from the applicant addressed the six factors that were cited by the appellant and included examples of SVE systems within Orange County that are on commercial properties. The applicant explains that SVE systems are not unsafe for residential properties, but that most SVE systems are on commercial properties since contamination typically stems from commercial or industrial uses. The applicant also included an example of a SVE system on a residential property in Marina, California.

The detection of residual VOCs in the soil gas have potential to cause harm to the residents of the Bayridge Park community where soil gas may move through the building's foundations and impact the indoor air quality of these homes. The proposed treatment system building will use a SVE and treatment system to remediate the presence of VOCs found in this residential development.

Pursuant to Section 20.64.030(C)(3) (Conduct of Hearing), a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing. The prior decision of the Zoning 10-38

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 6 ends

Administrator to approve Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) has no force or effect. The Planning Commission is not bound by the Zoning Administrator's prior decision.

DISCUSSION
General Plan
The subject property is categorized as Multiple Residential (RM) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The RM land use category is intended to provide primarily for multi- family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The parcel is comprised of attached cluster unit developments as well as attached and detached single unit dwellings. The proposed treatment system building is located near a detached dwelling unit. The proposed SVE system is considered temporary and an accessory use to the primary function as a residential community.

Zoning Code
The property is designated as Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC- 24) Zoning District. This Planned Community was designated for residential development and for the expansion of Research and Development uses of the former Ford Aeronutronic Facility. Since the demolition of the facility, the Planned Community now provides for residential and ancillary uses only. The proposed temporary treatment system building is ancillary in use to the entire Bayridge Park HOA community and serves to provide a remediation method for the presence of VOCs.

Area 8 of the PC-24 Zoning District requires a minimum front yard setback of 5 feet from the back of sidewalk and a minimum of 8 feet separation from any primary residential structures. Pursuant to Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits), a limited term permit allows limited duration uses that might not meet the development or use standards of the applicable zoning district, but may otherwise be acceptable because of their temporary or limited nature. The purpose of the limited term permit is to allow the treatment system building to be located in the front setback and within 3.2-feet of the nearest residential structure due to the limited duration of the treatment system building. The use of the SVE and treatment system is ancillary to the residential uses as it is intended to remediate the presence of VOCs for the health and safety of the residents.

Limited Term Permit Findings
In accordance with Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), the Planning Commission must also make the following findings for approval of a LTP:

1. The operation of the requested limited duration use at the location proposed and within the time period specified would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a 10-39

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 7 ends

hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the requested limited duration use;

2. The subject lot is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the limited duration use without material detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the lot,

3. The subject lot is adequately served by streets or highways having sufficient width and improvements to accommodate the kind and quantity of traffic that the limited duration use would or could reasonably be expected to generate;

4. Adequate temporary parking to accommodate vehicular traffic to be generated by the limited duration use would be available either on -site or at alternate locations acceptable to the Zoning Administrator, and

5. The limited duration use is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the Municipal Code, and other City regulations.

The treatment system building is proposed to operate for a one-year duration to remediate the presence of VOCs in the community. If conditions warrant, the system can be extended one additional year. Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added to ensure the treatment system building will meet the allowable exterior noise levels of the NBMC to minimize any nuisances for the residents of the community. A permit from AQMD is required for the emission of vapors from the treatment system and the treatment system building is required to be reviewed by the Building Division, Life Safety Services Division (Fire Department), and Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Division to ensure the system will not endanger, jeopardize, or create a hazard to the health, interest, safety, and welfare of the public.

Seven locations were considered for the treatment system building that are analyzed in the Alternative Locations Studied section and in Attachment No. PC 7. The alternative locations analysis determined that the subject location was the most feasible due to the impacts on parking, significant grading, and voltage drops in power connection for the alternative locations.

Throughout the duration of the limited term permit, field staff will visit the site approximately once a month for monitoring and maintenance of the system and will utilize the guest parking spaces available on -site as conditioned. Additionally, maintenance requiring large commercial vehicles will be performed approximately two times during the year. During visits for monitoring and maintenance, the Bayridge Park HOA and One Ford Road HOA will be notified in writing at least seven days before performing maintenance.

The NBMC allows the deviations from the setback requirement and separation from building requirements of the PC-24 Zoning District with approval of a Limited Term Permit. 10-40

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 8 ends

Staff believes that facts exist in support of each finding, which are detailed in the attached draft Resolution for approval (Attachment No. PC 1).

Aesthetics
Given its location, the treatment system building will be most visible to the adjacent residents of 94 Hartford Drive and to the residents of the One Ford Road community that takes access from Country Club Drive. As designed and conditioned, the treatment system building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive and landscaped with new xeriscape plantings to help soften the visual impacts from the adjacent private street.

Noise Impact
An Acoustical Engineering Analysis was prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group updated February 8, 2023. The predicted noise level in the Acoustical Engineering Analysis at the exterior of the treatment system building and adjacent residences of 92 and 96 Hartford Drive on the property is 48.8 dBA which is consistent with the allowable exterior noise standards of 55 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. in Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) of the NBMC. The predicted noise level at 61 Hillsdale Drive, the nearest off -site residence, is calculated to be 34.9 dBA. Therefore, the treatment system building is expected to meet the requirements of the City's regulations for both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property (Attachment No. PC 6).

The Acoustical Engineering Analysis includes an Addendum dated February 10, 2023, to address a concern raised regarding the potential conflict between the recommendation to provide an airtight construction at all exterior walls and the treatment system building utilizing venting louvers. The Addendum addresses the discrepancy and clarifies that in the context of the acoustical analysis, "airtight" refers to the sealing of joints between the building and penetrations, such as between the building and louvers. Such seals will be provided in the structure. The treatment system building will incorporate venting louvers for weather protection. The interior design of the building will incorporate the use of sound foam and sound blankets to be installed to create a sound deadening plenum to eliminate the line of sight for sound to escape through the venting louvers.

To ensure compliance with the City's noise standards, Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring an acoustic audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation, and a subsequent audit after installation. The treatment system building will be built and tested off -site, including the installation of sound deadening methods to decrease the exterior noise levels from the treatment system. The building will be tested off -site to meet the allowable exterior noise standards per the NBMC and will not be transported to the site for installation until the sound level is less than or equal to 50 dBA at all points 3-feet from 10-41

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 9 ends

the building, including at the louvers. After installation of the prefabricated building, testing will be conducted to ensure the building continues to meet the required noise standard.

Alternative Locations Studied
The applicant has prepared an exhibit illustrating alternative locations that were considered but rejected either due to community opposition or site infeasibility. In total, seven options were considered, including alternative locations at the Bayridge Community, along the Bison Avenue landscape parkway, and additional locations along the Country Club Drive parkway. The factors considered included: disruption to the neighborhood, proximity to homes, impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, and power connection complexity. These factors were reviewed on a scale from low, medium, high, and infeasible. Six of the options encountered infeasibilities due to either impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, or power connection complexity that are summarized in Attachment No. PC 7. Due to these considerations, the location of the proposed treatment building adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected.

Public Outreach
Overall Outreach
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ford, and the applicant WSP has conducted an extensive outreach program since 2018 that spanned 11 residential communities and eight commercial properties. The public outreach targeted specific communities within the project area, including Bayridge Park (Attachment B of Attachment No. PC 8). The project -wide outreach included:
• Fact sheets distributed via US mail to over 1,800 addresses and to a project email list with over 300 emails.
• Work notices notifying communities of upcoming work for soil vapor extraction and testing as directed by the Water Board.
• Signed access agreements to allow testing to measure contaminants found in indoor air.
• Several websites detailing the project overview and frequently asked questions, a project YouTube page hosting all recordings of community meetings since November 2020, and availability of key technical and community outreach documents on the Water Board website.

Bayridge Park Outreach
10-42

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 10 ends

Specific activities were conducted with the Bayridge Park community to bring awareness to the proposed clean-up plan and allow for the community to voice concerns regarding the project. The outreach for the community included:
• A 30-day public comment period held by the Water Board from June 7 to July 9, 2021, that described the site and environmental conditions, possible remediation technologies, and the selection of the SVE and treatment system as the preferred method of remediation. Prior to the public comment period, a postcard was mailed to the community on May 12, 2021, and a fact sheet was distributed via US mail and email on June 3, 2021. During the virtual public meeting on June 10, 2021, the community voiced concerns about the concept plans for the five soil vapor treatment system buildings shown in Attachment No. PC 8. The raised concerns were regarding the impact to the community from construction activities, parking reduction, and visual impacts.
• Due to the concerns raised from the community, it was decided, in coordination with the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association and residents, that the treatment system was reduced to one larger treatment system building located outside of the common areas of the Bayridge Park community. The community was notified of these changes to the concept plans in August 2021 via distribution of a Response to Comments from the Water Board.
• In October 2021, the residents of the Bayridge Park community were notified via US mail and email from the HOA representative for a meeting to be held to provide additional information on the design of the SVE and treatment system. On November 4, 2021, an in -person meeting was held at the Bayridge Park community where 13 residents were in attendance. Continued concerns were expressed regarding the design of the project and the overall level of impact to the community.
• Since conceptualizing alternative locations for the treatment system building, seven potential locations were considered where six (of the seven locations included infeasible impacts for various reasons previously discussed. • Since August 2022, monthly emails have been sent to over 170 residents of the community to inform residents of the work completed, upcoming work, anticipated impacts, and upcoming community meetings.
• A Zoning Administrator Hearing with the City of Newport Beach for this project was scheduled to be held on January 26, 2023 and a public notice was posted on -site and mailed to all residences within a 300-foot radius of the construction site on January 13, 2023. The public notice was also published in the Daily Pilot on January 14, 2023. In anticipation of the Zoning Administrator Hearing, a pre - construction meeting with the community was held on January 18, 2023, to provide 10-43

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 11 ends

more information on the construction of the SVE system. Residents were notified of the meeting via US mail and email in November 2022 and a subsequent notification was sent via US mail and email in January 2023 of a relocation of the pre -construction meeting. Sixteen residents attended the meeting with similar concerns regarding the construction inconveniences and location of the treatment system building.
• Substantial public correspondences with concerns from the community were received from January 24 to January 26, 2023, (Attachment A of Attachment No.

PC 8) and in order to adequately address these public correspondences, the applicant requested a continuance from the scheduled January 26, 2023, Zoning Administrator Hearing. A "Response to Comments" was prepared by Ford and WSP dated February 10, 2023, to address the concerns raised from the public correspondences (Attachment No. PC 8). Ford and WSP has attempted to work individually with the residents who submitted public correspondences to the project to resolve concerns prior to the construction of the system. To date, the residents have declined to engage in conversation with the applicant and a summary of the outreach conducted is seen in Attachment C and D of Attachment No. PC 8.

One Ford Road Homeowners Association Outreach
Due to the placement of the treatment system building that is adjacent to Country Club Drive, the One Ford Road Homeowners Association was contacted since the community's entrance is accessed along Country Club Drive. On December 9, 2022, an email was sent to the HOA outlining the construction activities that will impact access along Country Club Drive and the approximate timeline for these construction activities.

The One Ford Road Homeowners Association will be notified in writing at least seven days prior to construction activities and flagmen/cones will be utilized to help traffic safely navigate past the construction activities (Attachment No. PC 9).

SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES
The Water Board has required Ford to address the VOCs in the soil before it becomes a significant issue. The proposed system is necessary to protect residents and the extensive alternatives considered suggest the proposed project is the least impactful to the overall community. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission may deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in a resolution for denial.

Should the Commission believe an alternative site is more suitable for the proposed facility, then the Commission can deny the application without prejudice to allow the applicant to pursue an identified alternative location. An alternative location cannot be approved at this meeting and a new application will need to be submitted in accordance with NBMC Sections 20.54.080 (Resubmittals).
10-44

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 12 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances) and under Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

The Class 30 exemption allows minor cleanup actions taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous waste or substance which are small or medium removal actions costing $1 million or less. The cleanup action shall not require the onsite use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit, or the relocation of residences or businesses. The action shall not involve the potential release into the air of volatile organic compounds as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25123.6, except for small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems which have been permitted by the local Air Quality Management District. The cleanup action must be consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements such as off -site disposal, and air quality rules, and approved by the regulatory body with jurisdiction over the site.

The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system is consistent with the intent of the Class 30 exemption for minor cleanup actions as it proposes to mitigate the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil without the use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit. The project will not relocate any residences or businesses. The system will be regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and emissions from the treatment system will meet applicable standards. The estimated valuation of the project will not exceed $1 million. The project is consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements and is approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system for soil vapor remediation has been mandated by the State of California Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will remediate the existence of volatile organic compounds observed in the soil in order to protect the environment as well as the residents of the community.

No construction activities or relaxation of standards that would cause environmental degradation are proposed and the project is consistent with the intent of the Class 8 exemption.
10-45

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 13 ends

The Class 3 exemption allows the construction of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.

The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not applicable.

The project location will not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways), including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code.

Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.

Prepared by:
a ;� -
Jenny Tran, AigrstdKlPlanner
J M/jt
Submitted by:
jk�4fl�
Jim Campbell
Deputy Community Development Director
Attachments: PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval
PC 2 Appeal Form
PC 3 Applicant's Response to Appeal
PC 4 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010
PC 5 Zoning Administrator Minutes from March 2, 2023
PC 6 Acoustical Engineering Analysis and Addendum
PC 7 Alternative Location Analysis
10-46

Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-0180) Planning Commission, May 18, 2023

Page 14 ends

PC 8 Applicant's Response to Comments and Public Outreach Overview
PC 9 Outreach to the One Ford Road Community
PC 10 Project Plans
10-47

10-48

Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution for Approval
10-49

10-50

Resolution No. PC2023-023 is not available at the time this went to publishing. The Resolution will be provided at a later time.
10-51

10-52

Attachment No. PC 2
Appeal Form
10-53

10-54

Appeal Application
City Clerk's Office
100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
949-644-3005
Clerk's Date & Time Stamp
Appeals are time sensitive and must be received by the City Clerk specified time period from a decision or final action by a decision -maker. It is advisable to consult with the Department managing the issue if there is question with regards to appealing an action. This is an appeal of the:
❑ (CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Planning Commission - $1715 X (CDD222)Zoning Administrator Action to the Planning Commission - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Coastal Development Application CDP Appeal from Zoning Admin to the Planning Commission (only if appeal is solely based on the CDP portion of the application) — No Fee ❑ (CDD222)Planning Commission Action to the City Council - $1715 ❑ (CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (CDD222)Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (CDD — Planning) - $940 ❑ (CDD222)Hearing Officer Action to the City Council - $1715 ❑ (CDD223)Building Official/Fire Marshal Action to the Building/Fire Board of Appeals - $1715 ❑ (CDD224)Chief of Police Action on an Operator License to the City Manager - $946 ❑ (RSS073)City Manager Action on a Special Events Permit to the City Council - $1823 ❑ (HBR001)Harbormaster Action to the Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (HBR001)Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (Harbor Department) - $940 ❑ (PBW018)Public Works Director Action to Harbor Commission - $1250 ❑ (PBW018)Harbor Commission Action to City Council (Public Works Department) - $940 ❑ Other - Specify decision -maker, appellate body, Municipal Code authority and fee:

Appellant Information:

Name(s): Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
Address: 94 Hartford Drive
City/State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: 908-370-7003 Email:

Appealing Application Regarding:
[email protected]
Name of Appllcant(s): wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, inc- Date of Final Decision: March 2, 2023 Project No.: PA2022-0180 Activity No.: N/A
Application Site Address: 94 Hartford Drive
Description of application: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation:

Limited term permit for the construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system for a term of 12 months.

Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit based on the safety of our child. The unit is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home, violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. It was never disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from our home unitl the public notice for the permit application was posted. Please see attached for continyed information.

Signature of Appellant:.x, L/� Date: ` % I y / 23
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:

Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: _M ptQc—w 20'L�. r
City rk a
cc: Department ire rDeputy Director, Staff, File F:IUserslClerkISharedlFormst4ppealApplication updated 11/2021
10-55

Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180
Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive March 14, 2023
Reason for Appeal:

To Whom It May Concern:

We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit to clean up the hazardous waste in the soil and groundwater from the former Ford Aeronutronics facility.

We are not asking to stop the remediation; we are asking to change the location based on the safety of our child.

Our concerns were not adequately addressed at the public hearing. We have not received ANY of the data that we have requested to show the SAFETY of the soil vapor extraction unit to be within 3 FEET of our home with our child. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home.

The unit is proposed to be THREE FEET away from our home, violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. The location is arbitrary and capricious and was not the original proposal by Ford/WSP. It was stated multiple times in community meetings, the original project summary, and by the Newport Beach City Assistant Planner that the original proposal of 5-6 smaller extraction units were turned down by the HOA/Board due to loss of parking spots.

It is absolutely unacceptable and appalling to have parking be valued over safety. As previously stated, NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. Without this data, it is unacceptable to ask us to be the guinea pigs of this major operation. How in good conscience can Ford/WSP, The Water Board, and the city grant a hazardous waste clean-up unit 3 feet from a home with a child? Per the South Coast Air Quality Management District, "all basin residents have the right to live and work in an environment of clean air, free of airborne health threats," and the "government is obligated to protect public health."
It was never even disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive, violating the 8-foot separation distance UNTIL the Public Notice for the permit application was posted.

Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the public notice is unacceptable and did not provide enough time for residents to be fully aware of the entire impact of the system.

We sent in our original objections prior to the January 261 public hearing. To date, we have not received any responses in writing sent directly to us and instead, found the responses buried in the city website archives. Please see below additional objections and data we are requesting and have a right to receive. After discussion with Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, we have a right to the requested data, and she would be asking questions like us. 1 Of 8
10-56

Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180
Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita

1. Location
• The original project summary/zoning administrator staff report posted on the city website was changed after our objections were received. Prior to the January 2611 meeting, the document stated:
"The treatment system will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it has been identified as the most feasible location to reduce the visual impact from surrounding residents. "
• This statement shows the primary reason was for aesthetics and this original document did not mention that other locations studied were not feasible. • Multiple community outreach meetings by Ford/WSP stated that other locations could not be used due to parking.
• After our objections were received, the new amended project summary for March 2" includes alternative locations studied and states "Due to these infeasibilities the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected."
• The Newport Beach City Assistant Planner confirmed on 2/23/23 via phone call that other locations were rejected by the HOA/Board due to parking spots. • It was never disclosed at the Bayridge pre -construction meeting that the structure was 3 feet from a home, violating the setback distance. • Per discussion with the Newport Beach City Fire Marshal, this is unique and unusual that a structure like this would be so close to a home.
• There is significant risk involved with having the structure in such proximity to a home.

There is no buffer zone if any of the electrical equipment malfunctions, a fire starts insides, there is a natural disaster, etc. The Fire Marshal also stated that there is usually some leniency with "temporary permits." This is, again, unacceptable to overlook safety due to something being "temporary" (for a minimum of 3 years).

Stated earlier, it was never disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive violating the 8-foot separation distance UNTIL the Public Notice for the permit application was posted. Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the public notice is unacceptable and did not provide enough time for residents to be fully aware of the entire impact of the system.
• The location of the exhaust was changed in renderings and pointed out by the Zoning Administrator during the public hearing. We are requesting that this be verified and looked at again. A window is missing on the plan.
10-57

Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180
Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
• We are requesting an external consultant who is not employed by Ford/WSP review the original plans that did not include having the system 3 feet from our home to determine these infeasibilities objectively.

2. Timeframe
• The Newport Beach City Assistant Planner confirmed via phone call on 2/23/23 that the 3-foot setback separation difference can possibly be exempt due to the nature of a temporary permit vs. a permanent structure.
• We strongly object that the city grants a temporary permit that disregards the setback distances and overlooks safety.
• Regarding a temporary permit of 12 months, it was stated multiple times in community meetings that this unit will be in place for 1 year. However, at the 2/22/23 community meeting, it was stated that there will be —I+ year of remediation implementation and then "-2+ years" of monitoring to determine if additional remediation is needed. —1+ year*
—2+ years
Remedy
Post
implementation
Remediation
Monitoring
• Per Ken Connor, Professional Engineer WSP, at 2/22/23 meeting: the system will be on "for a year, then turn it off, then maybe turn it back on later." • This shows this unit will be 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive for an UNKNOWN period, but a minimum of 3 years, further extending the time of exposure to all safety risks listed below. This is not transparent for what we were told of being in place for 1 year and then removed.
• Furthermore, it is impossible to quantify the amount of hazardous waste in the ground and how much additional remediation will be needed after this treatment starts. • It was stated at the 2/22/23 meeting by Jessica Law: "in historical remediations, we've seen at other sites, we cleaned up, got their good bill of health, and we come back later, and concentrations increased." Although she also states they have confidence in 10-58

Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180
Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
this remediation, there is no guarantee. 2/22/23 Jessica Law also stated: "It is still important to confirm, because assumptions can be wrong, and so from the regulatory perspective, we don't like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we want them always confirmed with analytical data."
• Ford/WSP cannot say definitively that this will last "1 year."

3. Safety
We requested data on the health effects of the proximity of electromagnetic fields of the system, specifically relating to child development, as we live at our home with our infant son. At the pre -construction meeting, it was stated that this —240 square foot structure will be "packed" with equipment to maximize the area of the shed. All this electrical and engineering equipment will emit electromagnetic fields and radiation. • In addition, per Jessica Law 2/22/23 meeting: "assumptions can be wrong, and so from the regulatory perspective, we don't like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we want them always confirmed with analytical data." We are in turn, asking for data, not assumptions of the safety of the proximity of this unit. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. • The response from Ford/WSP is the top Google search if you type in "EMIT and health." (Response from Ford/WSP below):
"The World Health Organization has studied the relationship between electromagnetic fields and human health extensively and concluded: "Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. " • The response from Ford/WSP above does not include anything specific regarding child development that we asked for. Please refer to the following studies that dispute the WHO's claim and specifically address major concerns with child development — associating cancer in children since children have developing nervous systems and their skull thickness is less than an adult, increasing the risk of radiation penetration.

Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180
Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
"A developing child's brain is vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation. The developing nervous system is more conductive and absorbs more electromagnetic energies than those of adults [4].

Therefore, different standards are required to protect children." "The skull thickness of adults is approximately 2 mm. However, the skull thickness of a 5-year- old child is approximately 0.5 mm and 1 mm in 10 years [39]. Therefore, radiation penetration is larger in children than in adults [39,40]. As a child's head diameter is smaller, the energy - absorbing "hot spots," the most sensitive parts of RF, are more pronounced [41]. Several engineering strategies to avoid the hazard of RF do not consider a child's head specificity [6] " (R2)
From Cancer.gov:
"Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to non -ionizing EMFs and risk of cancer in children (13-15). Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children." (R3)
From American Academy of Pediatrics: The SensitiviU of Children to Electromagnetic Fields "Consistent epidemiologic evidence of an association between childhood leukemia and exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields has led to their classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a "possible human carcinogen." Concerns about the potential vulnerability of children to radio frequency (RF) fields have been raised because of the potentially greater susceptibility of their developing nervous systems; in addition, their brain tissue is more conductive, RF penetration is greater relative to head size" (R4) • It was stated by Ken Connor, Professional Engineer at 2/22/23 meeting: this is "tried and true technology." Please provide data that shows that these systems have been within 3 feet of homes for 12 months or longer. We requested this information before and did not receive anything.
• We are also requesting data again that shows the efficacy of a larger unit. It was stated that the proposed unit was determined through 3-D computer modeling. Please provide real life examples of a unit of this size and within 3 feet of a home, size of the remediation zone, number of wells, and how long the system was in place. We would also like to see comparable areas of remediation and how long the SVE systems were in place.

4. Ouality of Life
• The hazardous waste unit directly next to our home will greatly impact our quality of life.

We previously stated that our air conditioner will need to be relocated, which we did not 5 0 -f 9
10-60

Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180
Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
agree to; as well as our home containing the original windows, 30+ years old, further increasing the noise impact.
• A response from Ford below:

Ford has contacted the person who made this comment in an attempt to address this concern. This will include covering the cost for the installation of a state-of-the-art air conditioner and having plans in place for temporary relocation, if needed. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. "
• We should not have to temporarily relocate from the home that we OWN and pay taxes to live here.
• This response shows that there is an issue acknowledged by Ford/WSP with the proximity and we would need to relocate.

Per 2/22/23 meeting: Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff, Associate Engineer WSP: "Based on feedback, a lot of people commented and called that design was too intrusive to neighbors' homes and livelihoods, and asked if we could reconsider and redesigned.

Worked with the HOA/Board to reduce the number of wells, feet of piping, and number of containers. The (original) containers were too impactful, ugly, disruptive." • The current design disrupts our home and livelihood and is intrusive to our home.

5. Air Ouality Monitoring
• We expressed concern that there is no real-time/ continuous monitoring to ensure the air quality levels are acceptable for a home with an infant inside. This is essential for the entire duration of the project.

Ford Response 2.6: In accordance with the Air District Permit, total VOC concentration will be measured using a real-time monitor (such as a photoionization detector) at least once a day for the first seven days of operation to confirm the system is operating as designed and within permit specifications which are set to be protective of public health. Following the first seven days, monitoring will continue weekly or more frequently if required by the Air District. In addition to the real-time monitoring, analytical sampling will be conducted at least once a month and analyzed by an independent laboratory in accordance with the Air Districts Rule 304.

Samples will be analyzed for specific VOCs to verify compliance with the permit and reported to the Air District. All data will also be reported to the Water Board and be available to the public on the State Water Boards document repository geotracker. ca.gov. 10-61

Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180
Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
• This response only shows that real-time monitoring will occur ONCE a day for the first seven days; after it will be weekly or more frequently if required. • We confirmed with Jessica Law that the photoionization detector stated above is NOT "lab quality." This confirms that there is no real-time monitoring that accurately shows the total VOC concentration emitted 3 feet from our home. • We understand that it can be remotely shut off; however, the above response from Ford/WSP states that there is NO continuous air quality monitoring. If an activated carbon filter fails, toxic vapors can be expelled within 3 feet of our home prior to remote shut off. This is unacceptable to be this close to homes if there is no continuous air quality monitoring of VOCs.
• In addition, Ford/WSP response has changed from each meeting, showing discrepancies about this concern. At the January pre -construction meeting, it was stated there is no continuous monitoring. At the 2/22/23 meeting it was stated yes, there is continuous monitoring. Now their response in writing show no continuous monitoring again.

At 2/22/23 meeting, Jessica Law stated she understands the concerns regarding continuous air quality monitoring and stated a third -party engineer could possibly provide this, but not for the entire duration, due to cost. This was confirmed on a phone call on 2/27/23. Again, this is unacceptable to have residents exposed to possible VOCs emitted 3 feet from our home with NO CONTINUOUS monitoring. • Per South Coast Air Quality Management District: "Air contaminants pose health risks to those that are exposed to them. Students, along with the elderly, pregnant women, and persons with existing health problems, are particularly susceptible to health effects from toxic emissions that may occur from certain types of sources. These emissions sources may emit compounds that can cause a variety of health effects, including neurological, respiratory, and developmental effects as well as cancer. Several studies have shown that risk decreases dramatically with increased distance from sources of emissions."
In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires public notice if "a facility applies to permit a new or modified emission source located within 1,000 feet from the outer boundary of a school." Children are known to be more susceptible to health effects from emissions. If schools have protections within 1,000 feet due to risks for children, how can this be placed THREE feet from our home with an infant?

6. Home Values
• After discussion with a California Real Estate Broker: our home value would be "destroyed" when we disclose there is a hazmat treatment facility directly outside of our 7 a.F 9
10-62

Appeal Application: Project File No.: PA2022-0180
Appellant Information: Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
main living area window. There would also be no possible way to quantify the loss due to this unique and unfortunate situation.
• Our view from our main living area window would change from a 50-70-year-old pine tree that birds and squirrels frequent, to a 20'x12'x10' shed/hazmat treatment facility, in addition to workers that will need to come in and out to maintain the facility. • Even if this structure is "temporary," there is no way of predicting if we will need to sell or rent out our home in the upcoming 3+ years that the structure will be in place (l+ year running, —2+ years monitoring per the reports); nor should we have to explain ourselves to Ford/WSP on whether or not we plan to move or rent out the home that we OWN. • We would need to disclose a soil vapor extraction unit is 3 feet away from our home that is cleaning out hazardous waste. What other homes have ever had a soil vapor extraction unit 3 feet away!? No one will buy our home for fair market value with this structure adjacent to our window.

WSP is one of the world's leading engineering professional services firms. We request the system be redesigned with their world -class engineers to a location that does not substantially affect the health, well-being, livelihood, and safety of a young family.

Respectfully,
Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
References:

All meeting quotations may be accessed on meeting recordings by date via hops:// www.fordnbfacts.com/communiiyoutreach
R1: hUs:// www.who.int/initiatives/the-international-emf-project R2: Jin-Hwa Moon, MD, PhD. Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children. Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics. National Library of Medicine. httos:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih gov/pmc/articles/PMC76421381 R3: hops:// www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic fields fact sheet R4: haps://publications M orgJpediatrics/article-abstract/116/2/e303/62886/The Sensitivity of Children to Electromap-netic?redirectedFrom=ful ltext
AQMD Guiding Principles: hops:// www.agmd.eov/nav/about/initiatives/environmental justice/ei- uiding_principles hn:// www.agmd.sov/docs/default-source/plannin air-quality-guidance/school guidance pdf hqp:// www.ggmd.gov/nav/abogt/public-notices/permitting-public notices 8 of g
10-63

10-64

Attachment No. PC 3
Applicant's Response to Appeal
10-65

10-66

RESPONSE TO APPEAL
BAYRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY OBJECTIONS PROJECT FILE NO. PA2022-0180 Former Ford Aeronutronics Property, Newport Beach, CA
April 7, 2023
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is requiring Ford Motor Company (Ford) to safely remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in soil from historical aerospace research operations at the Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility. As part of this process, WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (WSP), as environmental consultants for Ford, submitted an application for a limited term permit for the construction of a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system to the City of Newport Beach. SVE systems are a common engineering technology used to remove chemicals from soil and numerous SVE systems operate safely and efficiently in residential areas throughout the United States.

A City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Hearing (Hearing) for this project was held on March 2, 2023 and details for the project were made available for public comment as Agenda Item No.2 (02 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation PA2022-0180 (newportbeachca.gov)). The project was approved, but during the 10-day appeal period that followed the Hearing, one appeal was filed by residents of the Bayridge Park Community. This letter provides responses to the concerns issued by the Appellants. The concerns will be addressed in the upcoming Planning Commission Hearing on May 18, 2023.

In addition, Ford/WSP has been working individually with the residents who submitted public correspondences to resolve concerns prior to the construction of the system.

Comments from the Appellants have been reprinted in italics. The responses, clarifications, and formatting added by WSP is not in italics. Some comments provided by the appellants have been combined based on similarities between bullet points provided in the original letter that were better answered together. The original letter is attached for reference as Attachment 1.

APPELLANTS INFORMATION: AMY SANTELLA AND KEVIN SOLOMITA Comment (General): We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit to clean up the hazardous waste in the soil and groundwater from the former Ford Aeronutronics facility. We are not asking to stop the remediation; we are asking to change the location based on the safety of our child.

It is absolutely unacceptable and appalling to have parking be valued over safety. As previously stated, NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. Without this data, it is unacceptable to ask us to be the guinea pigs of this major operation. How in good conscience can Ford/WSP, The Water Board, and the city grant a hazardous waste clean-up unit 3 feet from a home with a child? Per the South Coast Air Quality Management District, "all basin residents have the right to live and work in an environment of clean air, free of airborne health threats, " and the "government is obligated to protect public health."
It was never even disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive, violating the 8-foot separation distance UNTIL the Public Notice for the permit application was posted. Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the public notice is unacceptable and did not provide enough time for residents to be fully aware of the entire impact of the system.

We sent in our original objections prior to the January 26th public hearing. To date, we have not received any responses in writing sent directly to us and instead, found the responses buried in the city website archives. Please see below additional objections and data we are requesting and have a right to receive. After discussion with Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, we have a right to the requested data, and she would be asking questions like us.

Comment 1.1: The original project summary/zoning administrator staff report posted on the city website was changed after our objections were received. Prior to the January 26th meeting, the document stated:
"The treatment system will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it has been identified as the most feasible location to reduce the visual impact from surrounding residents. "
Response to Comment 1.1: When substantial public comments were received before the January 26, 2023, Zoning Administration Hearing, WSP/Ford requested a continuance for the hearing to March 2, 2023 to address comments and provide additional information to support the responses. An Alternative Location Analysis and response to comments were provided to the City of Newport Beach, which was added to the zoning administrator staff report for the project.

Comment 1.2: This statement shows the primary reason was for aesthetics and this original document did not mention that other locations studied were not feasible. Multiple community outreach meetings by Ford/WSP stated that other locations could not be used due to parking. After our objections were received, the new amended project summary for March 2nd includes alternative locations studied and states 'Due to these infeasibilities the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected. " The Newport Beach City Assistant Planner confirmed on 2123123 via phone call that other locations were rejected by the HOA/Board due to parking spots.
10-68

Response to Comment 1.2: The Alternative Location Analysis includes the following criteria:
disruption to neighborhood, proximity to homes, impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, and power connection proximity. None of the alternatives were determined to be infeasible due to aesthetic concerns, rather by community concerns voiced early in the design process or engineering concerns (which included space constraints).

Lessening community impacts to the greatest degree possible was a guiding factor in designing the Water Board -required SVE system. Ford representatives worked closely with the Bayridge Homeowners Association (HOA) and community members to select this location and presented it to the community for review and comment through both fact sheets and at two separate community meetings held at Bayridge Park on November 4, 2021, and January 18, 2023. Fact sheets and meeting invitations were provided to all Bayridge Park owners and occupants. WSP is confident this system, as designed, will operate safely, quietly, and effectively.

Comment 1.3: It was never disclosed at the Bayridge pre -construction meeting that the structure was 3 feet from a home, violating the setback distance. Per discussion with the Newport Beach City Fire Marshal, this is unique and unusual that a structure like this would be so close to a home. There is significant risk involved with having the structure in such proximity to a home. There is no buffer zone if any of the electrical equipment malfunctions, a fire starts insides, there is a natural disaster, etc. The Fire Marshal also stated that there is usually some leniency with "temporary permits." This is, again, unacceptable to overlook safety due to something being "temporary" (for a minimum of 3 years). Stated earlier, it was never disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive violating the 8-foot separation distance UNTIL the Public Notice for the permit application was posted. Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the public notice is unacceptable and did not provide enough time for residents to be fully aware of the entire impact of the system.

Response to Comment 1.3: The location and construction of the SVE treatment system complies with all local and state building and fire safety codes. The SVE treatment system building is designed to meet the fire -rating criteria of the California Building Code for a building of this classification at a 3-foot separation from an existing residential building. The 8-foot setback developmental standard was set forth in a 1979 document (PC-24 - Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) that provided standards to follow during the development of the community and is more stringent than the requirements of local and state building and fire codes. A Limited Term Permit is a common process that the City uses to evaluate the if it is appropriate to approve a project that has elements that vary from the development standards.

The City Zoning Administrator approved the project during the Public Hearing on March 2, 2023 and concurred that the construction of the treatment system was an acceptable variance from the developmental standards.

The location has been reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department.

The building is designed to meet the fire -rating criteria of the California Building Code for a building of this classification at a 3-foot separation from an existing residential building. There is 10-69

no leniency in the California Building Code requirements regardless of the expected lifetime of the building.

Comment 1.4: The location of the exhaust was changed in renderings and pointed out by the Zoning Administrator during the public hearing. We are requesting that this be verified and looked at again. A window is missing on the plan.

Response to Comment 1.4: The location of the exhaust was updated during the design process with the building manufacturers and is accurate on the rendering shown during the public hearing. The exhaust is located approximately 20 feet from the window on the back side of 94 Hartford. The rendering did not show the window on the side of the building near the fire lane because the window is farther over than the rendering shows, but the distance is approximately 30 feet from the stack. The Treatment System Building Elevation drawing, Attachment 2, has been updated to show distance to both windows. The California Mechanical Code requires environmental air duct exhausts to terminate not less than 3 feet from openings to the building.

Comment 1.5: We are requesting an external consultant who is not employed by Ford/WSP review the original plans that did not include having the system 3 feet from our home to determine these infeasibilities objectively.

Response to Comment 1.5: WSP designed this SVE system with community safety in mind and to carefully balance the need to conduct this work while minimizing impacts to the community. This included evaluating multiple locations to place the SVE treatment system, and after performing the analysis, this is the selected location. The location has been reviewed by objective third parties, including the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board that operates for the protection of human health and the environment, and the City of Newport Beach. If you would like to hire an external consultant to re-evaluate, we would support that process by meeting with them to explain the details of the Alternative Location Analysis.

SECTION 2: TIMEFRAME
Comment 2.1: The Newport Beach City Assistant Planner confirmed via phone call on 2123123 that the 3-foot setback separation difference can possibly be exempt due to the nature of a temporary permit vs. a permanent structure. We strongly object that the city grants a temporary permit that disregards the setback distances and overlooks safety. Regarding a temporary permit of 12 months, it was stated multiple times in community meetings that this unit will be in place for 1 year. However, at the 2122123 community meeting, it was stated that there will be - 1 + year of remediation implementation and then "-2+ years" of monitoring to determine if additional remediation is needed. Per Ken Connor, Professional Engineer WSP, at 2122123 meeting: the system will be on "for a year, then turn it off, then maybe turn it back on later." This shows this unit will be 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive for an UNKNOWN period, but a minimum of 3 years, further extending the time of exposure to all safety risks listed below. This is not transparent for what we were told of being in place for 1 year and then removed. Furthermore, it is impossible to quantify the amount of hazardous 10-70

waste in the ground and how much additional remediation will be needed after this treatment starts. It was stated at the 2122123 meeting by Jessica Law: "in historical remediations, we've seen at other sites, we cleaned up, got their good bill of health, and we come back later, and concentrations increased. " Although she also states they have confidence in this remediation, there is no guarantee. 2122123 Jessica Law also stated: "It is still important to confirm, because assumptions can be wrong, and so from the regulatory perspective, we don't like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we want them always confirmed with analytical data. " Ford/WSP cannot say definitively that this will last "I year. "
Response to Comment 2.1: WSP anticipates that once the system is operational, remediation can be completed within a year. This schedule is based on the results of mass removal seen during the three-week SVE Pilot Study in 2020 compared to the amount of mass estimated to in the subsurface (Final Feasibility Study dated 8/23/21) and current trends of soil gas concentrations in the area. Investigations, including soil vapor, groundwater, and indoor air sampling, have been ongoing since 2018 in Bayridge Park to aid in determining the location and quantifying the amount of organic chemicals in the ground. Once remedial goals are met or concentrations entering the treatment system have reached the point of diminishing returns, WSP will recommend decommissioning the system. Decommissioning and removal will require Water Board approval. It should be noted that the organic chemicals that are being remediated by this system are not classified as hazardous waste.

SECTION 3: SAFETY
Comment 3.1: We requested data on the health effects of the proximity of electromagnetic fields of the system, specifically relating to child development, as we live at our home with our infant son. At the pre -construction meeting, it was stated that this -240 square foot structure will be "packed" with equipment to maximize the area of the shed. All this electrical and engineering equipment will emit electromagnetic fields and radiation.

The response from Ford/WSP is the top Goog/e search if you type in "EMF and health. " (Response from Ford/WSP below):
"The World Health Organization has studied the relationship between electromagnetic fields and human health extensively and concluded: "Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. " The response from Ford/WSP above does not include anything specific regarding child development that we asked for. Please refer to the following studies that dispute the WHO's claim and specifically address major concerns with child development- associating cancer in children since children have developing nervous systems and their skull thickness is less than an adult, increasing the risk of radiation penetration. 10-71

From the World Health Organization:
"Concerns have been expressed that exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields at power frequencies (50/60 Hz) could lead to an increased incidence of cancer in children and other adverse health effects. The evidence comes primarily from residential epidemiological studies. These studies suggest that children exposed to ELF magnetic fields have an associated increased risk of leukemia. " (RI) From the National Library of Medicine/Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics:
"A developing child's brain is vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation. The developing nervous system is more conductive and absorbs more electromagnetic energies than those of adults [±]. Therefore, different standards are required to protect children. " "The skull thickness of adults is approximately 2 mm. However, the skull thickness of a 5- year- old child is approximately 0.5 mm and 1 mm in 10 years [39]. Therefore, radiation penetration is larger in children than in adults [39,40]. As a child's head diameter is smaller, the energy- absorbing "hot spots, " the most sensitive parts of RF, are more pronounced [41]. Several engineering strategies to avoid the hazard of RF do not consider a child's head specificity [6]. " (R2)
From Cancer.gov:
"Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to non -ionizing EMFs and risk of cancer in children (13-15). Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children. " (R3)
From American Academy of Pediatrics: The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields:
"Consistent epidemiologic evidence of an association between childhood leukemia and exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields has led to their classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a "possible human carcinogen. " Concerns about the potential vulnerability of children to radio frequency (RF) fields have been raised because of the potentially greater susceptibility of their developing nervous systems; in addition, their brain tissue is more conductive, RF penetration is greater relative to head size" (R4)
Response to Comment 3.1: Many appliances and equipment in and around our homes produce EMFs. This is also true of the electrical equipment that will operate inside of the SVE treatment system building. Once directly outside of the building, the intensity of the EMFs will be reduced greatly because the SVE treatment building will be constructed from steel, which is a recommended EMF shielding material. The intensity continues to drop sharply the farther away you are from the source. Every time you double the distance from the source, you lower the amount of radiation by four times. This is known as the inverse -square law. That is to say the intensity at one inch away from the blower versus 36 inches away from the blower is a 99% reduction, further reducing any potential exposure.
10-72

Comment 3.2: In addition, per Jessica Law 2122123 meeting: "assumptions can be wrong, and so from the regulatory perspective, we don't like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we want them always confirmed with analytical data." We are in turn, asking for data, not assumptions of the safety of the proximity of this unit. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. It was stated by Ken Connor, Professional Engineer at 2122123 meeting: this is "tried and true technology. " Please provide data that shows that these systems have been within 3 feet of homes for 12 months or longer. We requested this information before and did not receive anything.

Response to Comment 3.2: Soil vapor extraction systems are a common way to treat organic chemical vapors found in soil and operate safely, efficiently, and quietly at locations throughout the United States. The system planned for Bayridge Park is a top -of -the -line system designed to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (Air District) permit requirements, which are set at levels protective of the health of even the most sensitive individuals (e.g. immunocompromised individuals, seniors, children).

Here are a few examples of SVE systems, of similar size and visible to the public, that are currently in operation in Orange County. These examples are in commercial areas, not because SVE systems are unsafe in residential neighborhoods, but because most contamination stems from industrial/commercial operations. As Jessica mentioned, the design of the system at Bayridge Park has included additional noise abatement and aesthetic enhancements because it is planned for a residential area. So, please keep that in mind if you choose to see one of these systems.
• Sunny Fresh Cleaners #5 (GT ID: T10000017533), located at 2547 Eastbluff Drive, Irvine, CA: Former dry cleaner site that is currently a boutique yoga fitness studio. The site is located within Eastbluff Village Center retail shopping center that also includes a Ralph's grocery store, a Bank of America branch, and the Eastbluff Medical Walk-in and Urgent Care Center. This SVE system is located behind the boutique yoga fitness studio building, about 500 feet from residences, and across the street from tennis courts. The SVE system includes a blower and two carbon tanks, similar in size to the system's design at Bayridge Park.
• Campus Cleaners (GT ID: SLT8R0703954), located at 4515-A Campus Avenue, Irvine, CA: Former dry cleaner site located within Campus Drive shopping center, which is now a retail shopping center that includes Great Clips and several restaurants. This SVE system is next to one of the commercial buildings about 100 feet from residences. The location of the SVE System (Site 1 SVE System) is shown on Figure 2 of this report:
3Q22 Remedial Progress Report. The SVE system includes a blower and two carbon tanks, similar in size to the system's design at Bayridge Park. 10-73

Here is another example of an SVE system that was not in Orange County, but was in a residential neighborhood in an area of California with similar regulatory requirements. • Former Ford Ord (GT ID: DOD100196800), located in Marina, CA: Former carbon tetrachloride storage area within the former military base, which is now a residential development. The SVE system operated out of an unused garage in 2004. Photos of the SVE System are included in Appendix G this report: docs.fortordcleanup.com - /ar pdfs/AR-OUCTP-0011.1/Volume I -RI/. The SVE system includes a blower and two carbon tanks, although the carbon tanks are twice the size of the system design for Bayridge Park.

Comment 3.3: We are also requesting data again that shows the efficacy of a larger unit. It was stated that the proposed unit was determined through 3-D computer modeling. Please provide real life examples of a unit of this size and within 3 feet of a home, size of the remediation zone, number of wells, and how long the system was in place. We would also like to see comparable areas of remediation and how long the SVE systems were in place.

Response to Comment 3.3: The soil vapor extraction rate at each well, which is a rate based on known factors about the specific site conditions, such as soil type, groundwater table elevation, and data from the successful small scale pilot test, would be the same when using the 5 smaller SVE treatment units or the one larger SVE treatment unit. Computer modeling is considered an important tool in SVE design by the Army Corps of Engineers and is explained in detail in their Engineer Manual on SVE and Bioventing'. The modeling software used by a third - party expert, Mutch Associates, to interpret the data for this site is called ModFlow, which is used industry -wide for modelling the transport of groundwater and soil gas through the subsurface. The model is calibrated with site -specific, pilot test data and is the most effective way to predict the performance of the SVE technology at this specific location. Additional information about the model and the results are presented in the 2021 Remedial Design and Implementation Plan — Parcel 10 (available at.https:Hdocuments.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov /esi/uploads/geo report/4708529472/SL188023848.PDF)
SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE
Comment 4.1: The hazardous waste unit directly next to our home will greatly impact our quality of life. We previously stated that our air conditioner will need to be relocated, which we did not agree to; as well as our home containing the original windows, 30+ years old, further increasing the noise impact. A response from Ford below:
"Ford has contacted the person who made this comment in an attempt to address this concern. This will include covering the cost for the installation of a state -of the -art air ' United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing — Engineer Manual. June 3.
10-74

conditioner and having plans in place for temporary relocation, if needed. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. "
We should not have to temporarily relocate from the home that we OWN and pay taxes to live here. This response shows that there is an issue acknowledged by Ford/WSP with the proximity and we would need to relocate.

Response to Comment 4.1: This system was designed with community safety in mind and to carefully balance the need to conduct this work while minimizing impacts to the community. This SVE system is not a "hazardous waste unit"— it is a temporary remediation system to extract and clean up low levels of organic chemicals found in the soil and soil vapor to achieve cleanup goals, as directed by the Water Board. There are no hazardous wastes that are handled/processed/treated or generated by the SVE remediation system. We understand that this will be a temporary disruption for this resident and that is why Ford is willing to discuss options (i.e., new windows, temporary relocation, or other mitigation) to lessen this disruption.

Ford/WSP will continue to attempt to contact the person(s) who made these comments to address this concern.

Comment 4.2: Per 2122123 meeting: Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff, Associate Engineer WSP:
"Based on feedback, a lot of people commented and called that design was too intrusive to neighbors' homes and livelihoods, and asked if we could reconsider and redesigned.

Worked with the HOA/Board to reduce the number of wells, feet of piping, and number of containers. The (original} containers were too impactful, ugly, disruptive." The current design disrupts our home and livelihood and is intrusive to our home.

Response to Comment 4.2: The draft FS/RAP proposed an SVE system with 27 wells and 5 treatment systems. The public was notified of this proposed SVE system through a public comment period held from June 7 — July 9, 2021, a fact sheet announcing the comment period, which was distributed prior to the start of the comment period, and a public meeting held on June 10, 2021. Public comments received during the meeting and in subsequent emails did not support the proposed plan of 5 treatment buildings. After multiple additional rounds of design document review and public comment, and in consultation with the Bayridge Park HOA, the treatment systems were reduced to one and the location selected to house that larger system was outside of 94 Hartford Drive. This process continues to balance the need to conduct this work to provide long-term protection of public health and the environment, while minimizing impacts to the community. The system has been designed to operate safely, efficiently, and quietly in a residential area and will be regularly maintained and monitored to ensure it is operating as planned.
10-75

SECTION 5: AIR QUALITY MONITORING
General: We expressed concern that there is no real-time/ continuous monitoring to ensure the air quality levels are acceptable for a home with an infant inside. This is essential for the entire duration of the project.

Comment 5.1: This response only shows that real-time monitoring will occur ONCE a day for the first seven days; after it will be weekly or more frequently if required. We confirmed with Jessica Law that the photoionization detector stated above is NOT "lab quality." This confirms that there is no real-time monitoring that accurately shows the total VOC concentration emitted 3 feet from our home.

Response to Comment 5.1: The monitoring schedule for the system planned for Bayridge Park is designed to meet Air District permit requirements, which are set at levels protective of the health including sensitive populations (e.g., infants and children).

The Air District requires the use of an approved organic vapor analyzer that meets EPA Method 21 requirements, such as a photoionization detector (PID), to collect instantaneous data of organic compound concentrations at the inlet to the treatment system, between the two granular activated carbon (GAC) filter vessels, and at the exhaust stack. There are two in -line GAC filter vessels to provide a safety factor. If concentrations of organic compounds are detected at 50% of the discharge limits between the two GAC filters, the carbon media will be replaced. The SVE treatment system includes multiple redundancies to ensure concentrations of organic compounds entering the system are treated and not being emitted through the exhaust stack at concentrations over the effluent limits, which is located more than 15 feet from any residential windows. Per the California Mechanical Code, the required distance of an environmental exhaust from a building opening is 3 feet.

There will be laboratory samples collected and analyzed on a frequency required by the Air Permit and outlined in the Operation and Maintenance Manual to confirm the efficacy of the GAC treatment and the system overall. The Operation and Maintenance Plan will be available on geotracker.ca.gov before the SVE system is commissioned for operation. 10-76

Comment 5.2: We understand that it can be remotely shut off, however, the above response from Ford/WSP states that there is NO continuous air quality monitoring. If an activated carbon filter fails, toxic vapors can be expelled within 3 feet of our home prior to remote shut off. This is unacceptable to be this close to homes if there is no continuous air quality monitoring of VOCs.

Response to Comment 5.2: The SVE treatment system includes multiple redundancies to ensure concentrations of organic compounds released from the exhaust stack, if any, are below the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District (Air District) emission limits. The Air District emission limits are based on risk calculations that consider the most sensitive populations, including infants and young children. The main redundancy is there are two in -line GAC filter vessels that adsorb the organic compounds, and the carbon media will be replaced with virgin carbon when concentrations of organic compounds are detected in the first vessel. The vapors are not acutely toxic, however concentrations higher than the screening levels are being detected in the indoor air of many homes in the Bayridge Park community and can cause health effects over time, which is why the treatment system implementation is urgent.

Comment 5.3: In addition, Ford/WSP response has changed from each meeting, showing discrepancies about this concern. At the January pre -construction meeting, it was stated there is no continuous monitoring. At the 2122123 meeting it was stated yes, there is continuous monitoring. Now their response in writing show no continuous monitoring again.

At 2122123 meeting, Jessica Law stated she understands the concerns regarding continuous air quality monitoring and stated a third -party engineer could possibly provide this, but not for the entire duration, due to cost. This was confirmed on a phone call on 2127123. Again, this is unacceptable to have residents exposed to possible VOCs emitted 3 feet from our home with NO CONTINUOUS monitoring.

Response to Comment 5.3: The frequency of sampling will align with the Air District permit requirements, however Ford/WSP will base the schedule of replacing the GAC with clean media on the detections at the midstream sampling point. The system will be turned off as soon as there is a detection in the midstream at 50% of the inlet concentration until a carbon changeout is scheduled. This proactive carbon changeout approach is done out of an abundance of caution to ensure compliance with the Air District permit is met at all times.

Comment 5.4: Per South Coast Air Quality Management District: "Air contaminants pose health risks to those that are exposed to them. Students, along with the elderly, pregnant women, and persons with existing health problems, are particularly susceptible to health effects from toxic emissions that may occur from certain types of sources. These emissions sources may emit compounds that can cause a variety of health effects, including neurological, respiratory, and developmental effects as well as cancer. Several studies have shown that risk decreases dramatically with increased distance from sources of emissions. "In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires public notice if "a facility applies to permit a new or modified emission source located within 1, 000 feet from the outer boundary of a school. " Children are known to be more susceptible to 10-77

health effects from emissions. If schools have protections within 1,000 feet due to risks for children, how can this be placed THREE feet from our home with an infant? Response to Comment 5.4: The South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District (Air District) sets their Permits to Operate emission limits, which are required for this project, based on risk calculations that are designed to protect the most sensitive populations, including infants and young children. The measurements to confirm compliance with these emission limits are collected before the air is diluted with the ambient air outside of the treatment system, which is the most conservative location to measure effluent concentrations. The Air District has the right to deny or revoke the Permit to Operate if there is any concern about the efficacy of the air pollution control equipment.

The Air District's notification process is required of any construction within 1,000 feet of a school. That is just notification to keep families who attend the school (but may live further away) informed. The Air District can still grant a Permit to Operate to projects within 1,000 feet of a school as long as emissions limits will be met.

SECTION 6: HOME VALUES
Comment 6.1: After discussion with a California Real Estate Broker: our home value would be "destroyed" when we disclose there is a hazmat treatment facility directly outside of our main living area window. There would also be no possible way to quantify the loss due to this unique and unfortunate situation.

Response to Comment 6.1: This SVE treatment system is not a hazmat treatment facility. This project does not handle, generate, treat or transport any hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Ford/WSP has and will continue to add steps into this project to lessen community impacts during construction and operation of the SVE system.

Comment 6.2: Our view from our main living area window would change from a 50-70-year-old pine tree that birds and squirrels frequent, to a 20'x12'x10' shed/hazmat treatment facility, in addition to workers that will need to come in and out to maintain the facility.

Response to Comment 6.2: Ford/WSP has adjusted the planned aesthetic design based on feedback from the community to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive and landscaped with new xeriscape plantings to help soften the visual impacts from the adjacent private street. The pine tree removal was suggested by a professional arborist and will be replaced by healthy landscaping. Staff will be quiet and courteous during their operation and maintenance visits. WSP will work directly with impacted residents by providing a notice of work at least one week in advance of larger maintenance activities (i.e. carbon changeouts, decommissioning) that will happen at a lower frequency.

Comment 6.3: Even if this structure is "temporary, " there is no way of predicting if we will need to sell or rent out our home in the upcoming 3+ years that the structure will be in place (1 + 10-78

year running, -2+ years monitoring per the reports); nor should we have to explain ourselves to Ford/WSP on whether or not we plan to move or rent out the home that we OWN. We would need to disclose a soil vapor extraction unit is 3 feet away from our home that is cleaning out hazardous waste. What other homes have ever had a soil vapor extraction unit 3 feet away!? No one will buy our home for fair market value with this structure adjacent to our window.

Response to Comment 6.3: The Water Board, Ford and WSP have been conducting community outreach since the beginning of this project in 2018 and have provided a variety of information on environmental investigation and future remediation. During this time, several individuals expressed concern about declining home sale prices. To date, there has not been a decline in home sales or sale prices.

Ford will work directly with any Bayridge Park resident to fairly address any real property diminution resulting from the operation of this system should they decide to put their home on the market during the time the soil vapor treatment system is actively operating.

One of the primary goals, along with the protection of public health, is to achieve the remediation goals and obtain site closure from the Water Board, which will negate the future need for notification for home buyers.
10-79

10-80

Attachment No. PC 4
Adopted Zoning Administrator Resolution
No. ZA2023-010
10-81

10-82

RESOLUTION NO. ZA2023-010

A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A

LIMITED TERM PERMIT FOR A SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION AND
TREATMENT SYSTEM LOCATED AT 94 HARTFORD DRIVE [NH]
(PA2022-0180).

THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.

An application was filed by Emily Miller of WSP USA, in regards to the property located adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive, and legally described Lot 4 of Tract No. 12164 requesting approval of a Limited Term Permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system.

The applicant requests a limited term permit for the construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system for a term of 12 months. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system will consist of a 20-foot width by 12-foot depth by 10-foot height treatment system building, an underground pipe network (approximately 2,400 linear ft), and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation. The project requests a 3.2-foot separation distance where the required separation is 8 feet between buildings and encroachment in the 5-foot front setback per the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards.

2. The subject property is designated Multiple Residential (RM) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC24) Zoning District.

3. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone.

4. A public hearing was originally scheduled on January 26, 2023, online via Zoom. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). The Zoning Administrator indicated that the matter would not be considered at that time and was continued to the meeting of March 2, 2023.

5. A public hearing was held on March 2, 2023, online via Zoom. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Zoning Administrator at this hearing.

SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.

This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances) and under Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the 10-83

Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010
Paae 2 of 11
Environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

2. The Class 30 exemption allows minor cleanup actions taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous waste or substance which are small or medium removal actions costing $1 million or less. The cleanup action shall not require the onsite use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit, or the relocation of residences or businesses. The action shall not involve the potential release into the air of volatile organic compounds as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25123.6, except for small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems which have been permitted by the local Air Quality Management District. The cleanup action must be consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements such as off -site disposal, and air quality rules, and approved by the regulatory body with jurisdiction over the site.

3. The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system is consistent with the intent of the Class 30 exemption for minor cleanup actions as it proposes to mitigate the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil without the use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit. The project will not relocate any residences or businesses. Coordination with the South Coast Quality Air Management District (SCQAMD) has commenced and a permit for the release of volatile organic compounds into the air in small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems will be obtained. The project is consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements and is approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. SCQAMD, as the lead agency, will adopt this CEQA exemption with their authorization of the project scope.

4. The Class 8 exemption allows actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption.

5. The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system for soil vapor remediation has been mandated by the State of California Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the required ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions of the former Ford Facility. The project will remediate the existence of volatile organic compounds observed in the soil in order to protect the environment as well as the residents of the community. No construction activities or relaxation of standards that would cause environmental degradation are proposed and the project is consistent with the intent of the Class 8 exemption.

SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.

In accordance with Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings, and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
01-17-23
10-84

Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010
Paae 3 of 11
Finding:

2. An Acoustical Engineering Analysis was prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group dated February 8, 2023. The predicted noise level in the Acoustical Engineering Analysis at the exterior of the treatment system building and adjacent residences of 92 and 96 Hartford Drive on the property is 48.8 dBA which is consistent with the allowable exterior noise standards of 55 dBA from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and 50 dBA from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The predicted noise level at 61 Hillsdale Drive, the nearest off -site residence, is calculated to be 34.9 dBA. Therefore, the treatment system building is expected to meet the requirements of the City's regulations for both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property. To ensure compliance with the City's noise standards, Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring an acoustic audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation, and a subsequent audit after installation.

3. To minimize impacts to the community from noise and construction, the treatment system building will be conditioned to be constructed off -site. The acoustic audit of the prefabricated building will be conducted off -site to ensure it complies with the City's noise standards prior to transportation of the treatment system building to the building site. After installation of the treatment system building on -site, a subsequent acoustic audit will be conducted to further ensure the building complies with the City's noise standards.

4. The wall of the treatment system building adjacent to the building at 94 Hartford Drive will be constructed with a two (2)-hour fire rated wall in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) and Building Division standards and policies. Construction plans will be reviewed for compliance with the CBC and Building Division before building permit issuance.
01-17-23
10-85

Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010
Paae 4 of 11

5. The building will be secured to the concrete pad with anchors chosen for the earthquake risk parameters of the City of Newport Beach area. The treatment system building will additionally be secured with a monitoring system that will safely shut down the system in the event of an earthquake or other unforeseen natural disasters and an operations manager will be alerted of the shutdown. The treatment system will be monitored and inspected for potential damages prior to restart.

6. The treatment system is designed to meet the standards of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for the release of VOCs into the air at a level that is protective of the health of the community. The treatment system will incorporate two (2) granular activated carbon filters that will remove VOCs in the soil before the air is discharged from the treatment system. Continuous monitoring will be conducted as required by SCAQMD and findings will be reported to SCAQMD and the Water Board and will be made available to the public.

Finding:

1. The subject lot is within Planning Area 8 (Attached Residential) of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community, which is approximately 12 acres in size. The proposed building will be located adjacent to the residence of 94 Hartford Drive and Country Club Road and will not negatively impact on -site vehicular circulation.

2. As conditioned, the treatment system building will require an acoustic audit prior to transportation of the building onto the property and after installation on -site to ensure it meets the allowable exterior noise standards of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.

3. The treatment system will be located within a new prefabricated building, which is 20 feet by 12 feet and 240 square feet in size. The building is 10-feet 2-inches to the top of the roof and 13-feet 5-inches to the top of the air exhaust. The existing dwelling is two (2)-stories and the proposed treatment system building will be visually hidden from the residents of the Bayridge Park community as much as possible.

4. The treatment system building will be located on private property and will not impact pedestrian or vehicular access along Country Club Drive.

Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010
Paae 5 of 11
along Hartford Drive and landscaped with new xeriscape plantings to help soften the visual impacts from the adjacent private street.

6. Locations along Bison Avenue, a public right-of-way, were considered for the project; however, the area was determined to not provide adequate space for the placement of the building. Significant grading into the slope would be required to install the building and the construction of new retaining walls would be needed to not impact the structural integrity of the existing retaining walls surrounding the Bayridge Park community. Given that this is a temporary project, this alternative was deemed infeasible.

9. In total, seven (7) options were considered for the location of the soil vapor extraction system where the factors included: disruption to the neighborhood, proximity to homes, impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, and power connection complexity. These factors were reviewed on a scale from low, medium, high, to infeasible. Six (6) of the options encountered infeasibilities due to either impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, or power connection complexity. Due to these infeasibilities, the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected.

Finding-
C. The subject lot is adequately served by streets or highways having sufficient width and improvements to accommodate the kind and quantity of traffic that the limited duration use would or could reasonably be expected to generate;
Facts in Support of Finding:

The proposed treatment system building will be located adjacent to an existing private street, which is an entryway into the One Ford Road community. The building location is within an existing sloped and landscaped area that will not interfere with any circulation drive aisles.
01-17-23
10-87

Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010
Paae 6 of 11

2. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system will require ongoing on -site monitoring and maintenance that will consist of one (1) or two (2) field staff visiting the site approximately once a month to collect samples and perform maintenance as needed. No large commercial vehicles are required for monthly monitoring and maintenance and no impact or increase in traffic is expected.

3. Carbon changeouts that require a vacuum truck and one (1) truck trailer and boom lift attachment parked on Country Club Drive are to take place two (2) times per year for 4 to 6 hours at a time. This routine maintenance has a low frequency and will not completely obstruct the traffic circulation on Country Club Drive. Country Club Drive is a private street in a private community and is not subject to additional permits from Public Works. The Bayridge Park Homeowner's Association and One Ford Road Homeowner's Association will be notified at least seven (7) days before maintenance.

Finding:

Planning Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community requires a minimum of two (2) guest parking spaces per cluster unit development where cluster unit development is defined as a combination or arrangement of attached or detached dwellings and their accessory structures on contiguous or related building sites. As conditioned, field staff performing on -site monitoring and maintenance will utilize the on -site guest parking spaces within the Bayridge Park Community during monthly visits.

Finding:

E. The limited duration use is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the Municipal Code, and other City regulations.

Facts in Suoaort of Findina:

The limited term permit would allow the limited duration use to deviate from setback requirements and building separation requirements of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC24) Zoning District pursuant to Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.

2. The temporary (one [l]-year duration) treatment system building is conditioned to comply with all other applicable provisions of the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other City regulations.
01-17-23
10-88

Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010
Paae 7 of 11

SECTION 4. DECISION.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances) and Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

2. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180), subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the Community Development Director by the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2O23. , AICP, Zoning Administrator
01-17-23
I i •

Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010
Paae 8 of 11
ANOW1l 3I ii1_m

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Division

1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval).

2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.

3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be caused the revocation of this limited term permit.

5. This Limited Term Permit shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of final issuance of the building permit unless an extension of up to one (1) additional period of 12 months is granted by the Zoning Administrator in compliance with Section 20.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions) of the Zoning Code. A letter requesting the extension shall be submitted to the Planning Division no later than thirty (30) days before the expiration date of this permit.

7. The treatment system building shall be designed with a gable roof and provide siding painted to match colors that are architecturally compatible with surrounding residential units.

9. Maintenance requiring large commercial vehicles shall be permitted to park on Country Club Road no more than two (2) times per calendar year unless otherwise required for health and safety. The applicant shall notify the Bayridge Park Homeowner's Association and the One Ford Road Homeowner's Association in writing at least seven (7) days before performing maintenance.
01-17-23
10-90

Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010
Paae 9 of 11

10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the A/C unit serving 94 Hartford shall be relocated so that it does not interfere with the building separation between the prefabricated building and the residential unit.

11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project plans shall be modified to demonstrate that any disturbed landscape areas shall be replanted with water -efficient landscaping by Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscaping).

12. Prior to the issuance of a final building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Permit to Construct (P/C) from the South Coast Quality Air Management District.

14. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits.

15. Prior to the issuance of a buildinq permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall demonstrate the restoration of surrounding landscaping to provide further screening for the treatment system building.

16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division.

17. The treatment system unit shall be constructed off -site and prior to the transportation of the prefabricated treatment system unit to the project site and after installation of the structure, an acoustic audit shall be performed to ensure that the noise level observed at the exterior of the structure meets the allowable exterior noise standards of Chapter

10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The results of the acoustic audit shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to final inspection of the building permit.
01-17-23
10-91

Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010
Paae 10 of 11

18. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter

10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified periods unless the ambient noise level is higher:

Between the hours of 7:00 AM
and 10:00 PM
Between the hours of 10:00
PM and 7:00 AM
Location
Interior
Exterior
Interior
Exterior
Residential Property
45dBA
55dBA
40dBA
50dBA
Residential Property located within
100 feet of a commercial property
45dBA
60dBA
45dBA
50dBA
Mixed Use Property
45dBA
60dBA
45dBA
50dBA
Commercial Property
N/A
65dBA
N/A
60dBA

22. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation including, but not limited to, Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
01-17-23
10-92

Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-010
Paae 11 of 11
Fire Department

23. A three (3)-foot wide walkway shall be provided on at least one (1) side of the lot from Country Club Drive for Fire Department access.

Building Division

24. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code.

25. A list of "good housekeeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs.

Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Division

26. All exhaust air shall terminate outside of the treatment system building in accordance with the requirements of California Mechanical Code 502.0.

27. Discharged liquid waste or sewage shall be connected properly to the drainage system of the premises in accordance with the requirements pursuant to California Plumbing Code, Chapter 7.

28. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall ensure the location of the exhaust is adequately sited away from any residential building openings. 01-17-23
10-93

10-94

Attachment No. PC 5
March 2, 2023, Zoning Administrator
Minutes
10-95

10-96

NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES
100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH
ZOOM
THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2023
REGULAR MEETING —10:00 A.M.

CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m.

Staff Present (Remote): Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Zoning Administrator Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner
David Keely, Senior Civil Engineer

Zoning Administrator Zdeba opened the public hearing.

Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, Zoning Administrator Zdeba closed the public hearing. 10-97

At the request of Zoning Administrator Zdeba, Senior Civil Engineer Keely provided traffic safety information that deemed site five on Bison Avenue infeasible and confirmed that the Public Works Director is aware of the potential location and not supportive of site five for the reasons he outlined. 10-98

Zoning Administrator Zdeba invited the public to speak.

Leslie Pratt concurred with Ms. Santella, shared her medical background and concerns, and asked to be treated fairly.

Lee Healy expressed concern for quality of life, noted the source of parking issues, inquired about an alternate location, and requested information about the closest open active SVE system.

Seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, Zoning Administrator Zdeba encouraged the applicant to address any concerns or questions raised.

Zoning Administrator Zdeba closed the public hearing.

Zoning Administrator Zdeba related to and expressed empathy for those who spoke. He stated that this is a difficult situation and reiterated the importance of finding an expeditious solution given the health concerns and regulatory agencies' directives. He indicated that, although the building is roughly three feet from the residential unit, it would be fully compliant with all building and safety, and fire code requirements. He noted that monitoring tools have become more sensitive for a better reading of data with more science behind the potential impacts to health, and that the regulatory agencies involved would be closely monitoring the facility for safety and compliance. He clarified the 12-month temporary limited term permit would become effective at the issuance 10-99

of the final building permit with the option, not a guarantee, of requesting a 12-month extension. He added that the Limited Term Permit could be revoked if the operation constituted a nuisance and that an additional public hearing and approval would be necessary if the project required more time than two years.

Action: Approved
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The hearing was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.

J ' e Murillo
Zoning Administrator
10-100

Attachment No. PC 6
Acoustical Engineering Analysis
and Addendum
10-101

10-102

Yanchar Design & Consulting Group
26o-
741 F tola Parkway - S'I E uite
Footl-�ill F1-1�, California 0261 O
049.770.0001 - 040.770.6575 fax
www.wave-s pace.com
WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
555 12th Street, Suite 215
Oakland, California 94607
USA
T:1-510-663-4100
F:1-833-778-3465
www.wsp.com
February 10, 2023
Project 8622397107.03.3D
Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner
City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
Planning Division
100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Bay B
Newport Beach, California 92660
Subject: Limited Term Permit Application No. PA2022-0180 Acoustical Engineering Analysis — Addendum
Soil Vapor Treatment System
Bayridge Park
Newport Beach, California
Dear Jenny Tran:

The purpose of the letter is to respond to comments from the City of Newport Beach (City) on the Acoustical Engineering Analysis Report (Acoustical Report), dated October 15, 2022, prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group (Yanchar), and submitted as part of the requirements for issuing of a Limited Term Permit for a proposed soil vapor treatment system to be installed adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive in the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association property.

The comments which were made verbally during a call with WSP staff on January 25, 2022 are summarized below:

Page 17 ends

activities.
• The report specifies an "air tight" building, but then the isometric drawing shows louvers.

The original report is attached to this addendum, updated with minor corrections. Most notably, the reference to 61 Hillside Drive has been changed to 61 Hillsdale Drive. In the Summary of Conclusions section we have clarified why 61 Hillsdale has been included in the analysis. None of these corrections impacts the conclusion of the report. 10-103

Jenny Tran
City of Newport Beach
February 10, 2023

Page 2 ends

The two comments received from the City are addressed below:

CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTOR
On page 18 of the Acoustical Report, it is stated that:

The closest existing or planned noise -sensitive uses such as homes adjacent to the project site are more than 125 feet from the project boundary. These uses may be subject to short-term, intermittent, maximum noise generated by construction activities on site. Compliance with the construction hours specified in the City's Noise Ordinance would reduce the construction noise impacts to a less than significant level.

That statement refers to the closest residence outside of the Bayridge Park property boundary, which is 61 Hillsdale Avenue, across Country Club Drive. The closest residence to construction activities is 94 Hartford Drive which will be 3 feet away from some aspects of construction. The work at the treatment system site will be in two phases. The first phase will last approximately 3- weeks and consist of site clearing, grading, excavation, pipelaying, compaction, and construction of a reinforced concrete pad. A second phase, lasting approximately one week will involve a crane placing a prefabricated treatment system building on the pad with a crane, and then anchoring it using anchors drilled into the slab.

During construction, the noise adjacent to 94 Hartford may be as high as 90 decibels'. This noise will be attenuated by the residence's structure but could still be significant. The Outside -Inside Transmission Class of regular'/4" monolithic class is 292, meaning that there will be a 29-decibels reduction of sound through the glass, assuming the window is closed. Therefore, the intermittent noise level inside 94 Hartford could be approximately 60 decibels — equivalent to the sound of an air conditioner; however an individual's perception of sound depends on factors such as the type of sound and its fluctuations. So what is tolerable to one person can be annoying to another.

WSP will communicate construction schedule with residents and work with them individually to address concerns. Mitigations could include relocating residents during the work.

SOUND MITIGATION THROUGH LOUVERS
On page 19 of the Acoustical Report, one of the recommendations is to:

Provide airtight construction at all exterior walls with acoustical or other non -hardening sealant at floor plates.
' Construction Noise Handbook, Federal Highway Administration, 2006 z https://glassed.vitroglazings.com/topics/determining-the-right-glass-for-the-right-acoustics 10-104

Jenny Tran
City of Newport Beach
February 10, 2023

Page 3 ends

In the context of acoustical analysis, "airtight" refers to the sealing of joints between the building and penetrations; such as between the building and the louvers. Such seals will be provided in the structure.

However, we note the City's concern with sound escaping through the louver openings and address that below.

The proposed treatment system building has venting louvers, as shown on the attached drawing. The main purpose of the louvers is for weather protection. They will provide some sound deadening, but the focus is inside the building to prevent noise from escaping through the louvers. On the air inlet side, on the back (northern) side of the building, the louvers are positioned where the carbon vessels sit. Sound foam will be installed on the column where the vessels meet and the wall where the louvers are located. This creates a sound deadening plenum on the inside the building and eliminates line of sight for the sound from the blowers to travel through the louvers as well. At the top of the plenum, sound blankets or another change of direction will be added as needed to minimize sound through the inlet louvers.

For the discharge louvers, on the side facing the street, the same principal will be used. A sound deadening plenum will be created around the heat exchanger which will be the source of the air going out those louvers. The air and sound from inside the building will again have to travel a tortuous path and line of sight will be eliminated.

The building and the treatment system will be constructed as a single unit at a factory in Minnesota. An Acoustic Audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity will be conducted before it leaves the factory in accordance with the City's Equivalent noise level (Leq) requirement which involves measurement of a steady state noise level over 15 minutes.

The unit will not be shipped from the factory until the 15-minute Leq is less than or equal to 50 dB at all points 3-feet from the building, including at the louvers.

If required, additional sound reduction measures will be implemented to achieve the required level. Documentation of the Acoustic Audit can be provided to the City before startup of the treatment system. As a final confirmation, a second Acoustic Audit will be conducted after anchoring of the building and connection of permanent power. 10-105

Jenny Tran
City of Newport Beach
February 10, 2023

Page 4 ends

It should be noted that the existing residential air conditioning unit adjacent to the treatment system may produce more noise than the treatment system, since the noise limit even for new air conditioning systems is 50 dB per the City's noise ordinance.

If you need any further information, please contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,
WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc
QVyOFESSIp��'L
y ,�AIDI CO
z
W649 z
CML
Andi Hope Cox, E cat�Fo
Senior Associate Engineer -Environmental
.vv- J
Daniela Ham -Nazaroff, PE
Associate Engineer
Yanchar Design and Consulting Group
Carl J. Yanchar
President
/9�,oFESS10,yq�
C 91417
W a
* Z6 ER,, 6/3012024 �C.)
O �
d' CIV11. Off/
0r FOFCALW
He/cjy/dhn/mm
https://woodplc.sharepoint.com/teams/fordnb/shared documents/general/04 engtech/sve design/p10/permits/city design std-permit/bldg permit/limited term/city comment-response/acoustic study/2023_02_10_newport_acoustic study add ndm_wsp-yanchar.docx Attachments: 1. Acoustical Engineering Analysis, Soil Vapor Extraction System, 94 Hartford Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, October 15, 2022; revised with minor amendments February 8, 2023.

2. Drawing No. 6011-01 — Building Layout, H2K Technologies, Inc. 12/2022.
10-106

Yanchar Design & Consulting Group
ATTACHMENT 1
Acoustical Engineering Analysis
10-107

ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Soil Vapor Extraction System
94 Hartford Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
October 15, 2022
Updated February 8, 2023

YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP
26741 Portola Parkway, Suite 1 E, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Tel: 949.770.6601 Fax: 949.770.6575 E-mail: carl6a yanchardesign.com 10-108

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located on the Bayridge Park HOA property, Newport Beach, CA. as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. The property boundary is outlined in red.

The Project consists of a Soil Vapor Extraction system with the mechanical equipment housed in a prefabricated metal building located adjacent to the residential building at 94 Hartford Drive. (see Figure 3).

Four vacuum pumps and one heat exchanger will be located within the structure along with associated carbon vessels, holding tanks and pumps. (see appendix D) The manufacturer's noise specification for the blowers is 74 dBA and 77 dBA for the heat exchanger. (see appendix C) An existing Carrier air conditioning compressor is also located adjacent to the residential structure with a manufacturer's noise rating of 72 dBA. This condenser will be relocated slightly to the north.

Since the residential building and air conditioning compressor are existing, it will be assumed that the interior noise specification of the California building code and the noise level of the condenser at the nearest property line are compliant. Only the new equipment housed in the new steel building will be addressed in this report with the impact if the new equipment combined with the existing condenser will be evaluated.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Noise measurements were collected on the morning of October 3, night of October 5, and morning of October 6, 2022 at the location of the planned treatment system building (Figure 3). The noise level predicted at three feet from the exterior of the building from the four vacuum pumps and single heat exchanger is 48.8 dBA, which is in accordance with the manufacturer's specification of 50 dBA. This level is equal or lower than some of the quietest outdoor air conditioning units.

Based on the manufacturer's specification, the SVE system equipment building will meet the City of Newport Beach noise regulations at the adjacent residential structure at 94 Hartford at all hours.

The residential building at 94 Hartford is on the same parcel as the SVE equipment building (see figure 2). Because the Newport Beach noise regulations specify the maximum acceptable levels at adjacent properties, calculations were also performed to predict the noise level of the SVE equipment building, existing air conditioning condenser and the combined sound level of the new equipment and the existing condenser at the nearest separate residential property at 61 Hillsdale Drive. This level was determined to be 34.9 dBA and the contribution of the new equipment is less than 0.5 dBA. This will result in an imperceptible change in ambient noise level.

Therefore, the planned treatment system project is expected to meet the requirements for noise ordinance and comply with the City of Newport Beach noise regulations on both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property.

Page 2 ends

10-109

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 FIGURE 1 -- SITE VICINITY
FIGURE 2 - PROJECT SITE

Page 3 ends

10-110

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 FIGURE 3 - ENLARGED PROJECT SITE

Page 4 ends

10-111

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 FIGURE 4 - COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE

Page 5 ends

10-112

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND
Sound is described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by differentiating among frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is perceived to be twice as loud and 20 dBA higher is perceived to be four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Examples of various sound levels in different environments are illustrated in Table 1.

TABLE 1

COMMON SOUND LEVELS AND TYPICAL NOISE SOURCES
Noise Source
A -Weighted Sound
Level in Decibels
Noise
Environments
Subjective
Evaluations
Near Jet Engine
140
Deafening
128 times as loud
Civil Defense Siren
130
Threshold of Pain
64 times as loud
Hard Rock Band
120
Threshold of Feeling
32 times as loud
Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few
Feet Away
110
Very Loud
16 times as loud
Pile Driver; Noisy Urban
Street/Heavy City Traffic
100
Very Loud
8 times as loud
Ambulance Siren; Food Blender
95 Very Loud
Garbage Disposal
90 Very Loud
4 times as loud
Freight Cars; Living Room Music
85 Loud
Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner
80 Loud
2 times as loud
Busy Restaurant
75 Moderately Loud
Near Freeway Auto Traffic
70 Moderately Loud
Reference
Average Office
60 Quiet
One-half as loud
Suburban Street
55 Quiet
Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in
Apartment
50 Quiet
One -quarter as loud
Large Transformer
45 Quiet
Average Residence without Stereo
Playing
40 Faint
One -eighth as loud
Soft Whisper
30 Faint
Rustling Leaves
20 Very Faint
Human Breathing
10 Very Faint
Threshold of
Hearin
0 Very Faint
Source: Compiled by YDCG

Page 6 ends

10-113

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue regarding community noise. The percentage of people claiming to be annoyed by noise generally increases with the environmental sound level. However, many factors also influence people's response to noise. The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence. Additionally, non -acoustical factors, such as the person's opinion of the noise source, the ability to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the predictability of the noise, all influence people's response. As such, response to noise varies widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses would range from "not annoyed" to "highly annoyed."

RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (1) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.

NOISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A -weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.

Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment.

Noise levels lower than the peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To accountfor this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite twenty -four-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time -of -day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., andthe addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and nighthours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound exposure.

Page 7 ends

10-114

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

SOUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors:

GEOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources.

Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source.

GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receptor is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with areflective surface between the source and the receptor, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receptor such as softdirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source.

ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. The effect due to wind conditions is typically 5 dB or less. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 ft) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation).

Air temperature usually decreases with height. Temperature inversion is a reversal of the normal condition when cool air at the surface is overlain by a layer of hot air. This normally occurs in the evening and during the winter. Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects.

SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an "out of sight, out of mind" effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line -of -sight to nearby resident. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line -of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The FHWA does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure.

Page 8 ends

10-115

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires on the roadway.

According to the Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: the volume of the traffic, the speed of the traffic, and the vehicle mix within the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and a greater number of trucks. (3) A doubling of the traffic volume, assuming that the speed and vehicle mix do not change, results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. The vehicle mix on a given roadway may also have an effect on community noise levels. As the number of medium and heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise level impacts will increase.

NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 12 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receptor. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source.

SOUND ASSESSMENT METRICS
The description, analysis, and reporting of sound levels is made difficult by the complexity of human response to sound and the myriad of metrics that have been developed for describing sound impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify sound levels with respect to human response.

Most of the metrics use the A -Weighted sound level to quantify sound impacts on humans. As previously identified, A -Weighting is a frequency weighting that accounts for human sensitivity to different frequencies.

Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue regarding community noise. The percentage of people claiming to be annoyed by noise generally increases with the environmental sound level. However, many factors also influence people's response to noise.

The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence. Additionally, non -acoustical factors, such as the person's opinion of the noise source, the ability to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the predictability of the noise, all influence people's response. As such, response to noise varies widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses would range from "not annoyed" to "highly annoyed." Because sound levels can vary over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time -varying events. This energy -equivalent sound descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of sound events of arbitrary duration.

The scientific instrument used to measure sound is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental sound levels to within about plus or minus 0.1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental sound levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the sound source. Close to the sound source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.

Page 9 ends

10-116

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

REGULATORY SETTING
Public agencies have established noise guidelines and standards to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise.

The following discusses applicable noise regulations where potential project impacts could occur.

STATE
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (California Building Standards Code) requires that residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior CNEL with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN
The City of Newport Beach General Plan's Noise Element is a tool for including noise control in the planning process in order to maintain compatible land use with environmental noise levels. It is the guiding document for the City's noise policy and is designed to protect residents and businesses from excessive and persistent noise intrusions. The Noise Element follows the revised State guidelines in Section 46050.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The element quantifies the community noise environment in terms of noise exposure contours for both near and long-term levels of growth and traffic activity.

The project will not produce an increase in traffic and therefore will not produce an increase in traffic related noise levels.

The following General Plan goals apply to this project:

Goal N4, Minimization of Non -Transportation -Related Noise, is focused on minimizing noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors.
• Policy N4.1, Stationary Noise Sources, requires the enforcement of interior and exterior noise standards outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance.
• Policy N4.6, Maintenance or Construction Activities, requires the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work -related activities.

Goal N5, Minimized Excessive Construction -related Noise, addresses construction noise. • Policy N5.1, Limiting Hours of Activity, promotes enforcing the limits on hours of construction activity; these limits are in Section 10.26.035D of the City's Noise Ordinance, as discussed below.

Page 10 ends

10-117

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
The Noise Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from sources on private property by setting limits that cannot be exceeded at adjacent properties. The Noise Ordinance requirements are not applicable to mobile noise sources (such as heavy trucks) that are traveling on public roadways. Control of the mobile noise sources on public roads is preempted by federal and State laws.

However, the Noise Ordinance does apply to vehicles while they are on private property. Section

10.26.025 of the Noise Ordinance specifies exterior noise levels that cannot be exceeded for a specified period of time at specified noise zones. The city -adopted exterior and interior noise level limits are presented in Table 2.

If the ambient noise level exceeds the standards shown in Table 2, the ambient noise shall be the standard. These standards should not be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; or the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time. If the measurement location is on the boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone should apply.

HEATING, VENTILLATION AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) UNITS Section 10.26.045 of the City's Noise Ordinance specifies that new permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where installations can be shown by computation, based on the sound rating of the proposed equipment, not to exceed an A -weighted sound pressure level of 50 dBA, or not to exceed an A -weighted sound pressure level of 55 dBA and be installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.

Page 11 ends

10-118

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 2

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NON -VEHICULAR NOISE

ORDINANCE STANDARDS
Zon
e
Noise
Metric
Allowable Noise Level
7AMto10
PM
(daytime)
10PMto7
AM
(nighttime)
Exterior Noise Standards
Residential: Single-
family, 2- or multi -family
Le 15 min
55 dBA
50 dBA
Lmax
75 dBA
70 dBA
II
Commercial
Le 15 min
65 dBA
60 dBA
Lmax
85 dBA
80 dBA
III
Residential
Portions of Mixed-
Use Properties
Le 15 min
60 dBA
50 dBA
Lmax
80 dBA
70 dBA
IV
Industrial and
Manufacturing
Le 15 min
70 dBA
70 dBA
Lmax
90 dBA
90 dBA
Interior Noise Standards
Residential
Leq (15 min)
45 dBA
40 dBA
Lmax
65 dBA
60 dBA
III
Residential Portions of
Mixed- Use Properties
Le 15 min
45 dBA
45 dBA
Lmax
65 dBA
65 dBA
Leq: equivalent noise level; min: minutes; dBA: A -weighted decibels; Lmax: highest sound level Note: If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard.
a Residential uses within 100 feet of a commercial property where noise is from said commercial property.

Source: Newport Beach 2022

CONSTRUCTIOIN NOISE
Section 10.26.035D of the City's Noise Ordinance exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property from the City's Noise Ordinance standards shown in Table 2. These activities are subject to the provisions of Chapter 10.28, which prohibits construction activities that generate loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity except during weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM, and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.

Page 12 ends

10-119

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Some of the data from October 3 was skewed due to gardening activities in the immediate vicinity.

Additional measurements were made on the night of October 5 and the morning of October 6.

The measurement location and data are included in appendix F and G. These measurements are summarized in Table 3.

TABLE 3

AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Date
Time
LAE4
LAmin
LAmax
LA25%
10/3/2022
9:03

56.5 44.8

70.3 54.6
10/5/2022
22:44

35.6 33.6

39.6 36.5
10/6/2022
10:39

55.2 35.9

67.3 57.1
Except for the gardening activities, most of the noise generated during the day was due to light truck traffic on Country Club Drive and occasional aircraft overflights.

There was no traffic observed on Country Club Drive (see Figure 4) during the night. The majority of the increase in noise over the minimum was due to light traffic on Bison Avenue.

NOISE CALCULATIONS
Calculations were performed to quantify the expected transmission loss of the manufactured steel building using Insul software. (see appendix E) The individual estimated sound levels were combined using logarithmic addition according to the formula:

L = 10 Log,, ( DO(Li /10)
=1
Based on these calculations, the noise level predicted at the exterior of the building from the four vacuum pumps and single heat exchanger would be 48.8 dBA. This is in agreement with the manufacturer's specification of 50 dBA. This calculation is included in Table 4.

Page 13 ends

10-120

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 4

PREDICTED SOUND LEVEL AT BUILDING EXTERIOR

DUE TO VACUUM PUMPS AND HEAT EXCHANGER
Vacuum
Vacuum
Vacuum
Vacuum
Heat
Equipment
Pump 1
Pump 2
Pump 3
Pump 4
Exchanger
A Weighted Sound Level Rating
74 74
74 74
77 Building Sound Transmission Loss
33 33
33 33
33 Estimated Exterior A Weighted
Sound Pressure Level

41.0 41.0

44.0 Estimated Combined Exterior A Weighted
Sound Pressure Level

48.8 Calculations were also performed to predict the exterior noise produced by 4 vacuum pumps and 1 heat exchanger at the nearest separate residential property line at 61 Hillsdale Drive on the opposite side of County Club Drive.

The combined exterior A weighted sound pressure level as calculated in Table 4 is reduced at 61 Hillsdale Drive due to inverse square law attenuation of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of the distance according to the formula:
dL = Lp2 - Lp I
= 10 log (R2 / Ri)2
= 20 log (R2 / Ri)
Where
dL = difference in sound pressure level (dBA)
Lpi = sound pressure level at location 1 (dBA)
Lp2 = sound pressure level at location 2 (dBA)
Ri = distance from source to location 1 (ft)
R2 = distance from source to location 2 (ft)
This level was determined to be 23.9 dBA which is considerably lower than the minimum ambient noise level during night hours as tabulated in Table 3. This calculation is included in Table 5.

Page 14 ends

10-121

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 5
PREDICTED SOUND LEVELAT 61 HILLSDALE DRIVE

25.5 25.5

25.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level

15.5 15.5
1 15.5

15.5 18.5
Estimated Combined Exterior A Weighted
Sound Pressure Level

23.9 A calculation was also performed to predict the noise level of the existing air conditioning condenser and then the combined sound level of the new equipment and the existing condenser at 61 Hillsdale Drive.

This level was determined to be 34.9 dBA.

The contribution of the new equipment is less than 0.5 dBA. This will result in an imperceptible change in the ambient noise level.

This calculation is contained in Table 6.

TABLE 6

LEVEL OF EXISTING HVAC CONDENSER
AT 61 HILLSDALE DRIVE
Equipment
Carrier
38TUA024
A Weighted Sound Level Rating from Manufacturer Specification Data
72 Equipment Location Factor
3 Subtotal
75 Inverse Square Law Attenuation

40.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level of Existing Air Conditioning Condenser

34.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level of Existing Air Conditioning Condenser and New Equipment

34.9

Page 15 ends

10-122

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS
Noise levels from construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 85 dBA adjacent to the project site for very limited times. The activities include clearing the sire, pouring the foundation slab and placing the off -site manufactured building on the slab. Impacts from the proposed project would be potentially adverse; however, compliance with the City's construction hours requirement would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Short-term noise impacts would be associated with excavation and erecting of building on site during construction of the proposed project. Construction related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed.

Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. Thesevarious sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 7 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels.

Page 16 ends

10-123

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 TABLE 7

MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS GENERATED

BY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Type of
Equipment
Acoustical
Use Factor'
Lmax at 50
Feet dBA
Concrete Saw
20 90
Crane
16 81
Concrete Mixer
Truck
40 79
Backhoe
40 78
Dozer
40 82
Excavator
40 81
Forklift
40 78
Paver
50 77
Roller
20 80
Tractor
40 84
Water Truck
40 80
Grader
40 85
General Industrial
Equipment
50 85
Note:
1 — Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006.

Page 17 ends

10-124

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
To achieve the expected interior noise levels it is necessary that good construction techniques and good materials be used for construction of the building. A significant increase in noise levels over expected levels could occur if workmanship or materials are of inferior quality. This is especially true for the doors and louvers since they are the weakest acoustical element of the exterior shell.

For the metal equipment building, we recommend that notes and details be included on the design drawings to ensure that the construction details achieve the insulation potential of the basic building assemblies. The following indicates the recommended additional notes and details:
• Use permanently non -hardening sealant around perimeter of door and ventilation louver frames. • Select door and ventilation louver assemblies with effective nonporous gaskets or weatherstripping to minimize air infiltration and sound leakage. • Provide airtight construction at all exterior walls with acoustical or other non -hardening sealant at floor plates.
• Use doorjamb and head gasketing and door bottom gasketing at entry doors to seal the doors against weather and sound.
• Caulk entry door thresholds as they are placed.
• To the extent feasible, any penetrations in the exterior walls having a direct view should be minimized and sealed. Doors and ventilation louvers are treated separately.

Page 18 ends

10-125

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

CONCLUSION
The sound level at the exterior of the prefabricated metal building was calculated to be 48.8 dBA.

The manufacturer's specification is less than 50 dBA. Therefore the sounded propagated from the metal building will be less than the maximum permissible by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code at the closest residential property line and at the adjacent building at 94 Hartford.

The two nearest condominiums on the property directly adjacent to 94 Hartford are 92 and 96 Hartford.

Inverse square attenuation will reduce the 48.8 dBA level to less than 34.9 dBA when no outdoor air condenser is operating. This will result in an increase the ambient sound level at those structures to less than1 dBA which is less than significant.

The level calculated at the nearest separate residential property line of 61 Hillsdale Drive is predicted to be 23.9 dBA. The increase in ambient sound level is calculated to be less than 0.5 dBA which is also less than significant.

Therefore the proposed Project will meet the standards of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and the increase in ambient sound level will be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures will be required.

Respectfully submitted,
Yanchar Design & Consulting Group
Carl J. Yanchar
President

Page 19 ends

10-126

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

APPENDIX A

Page 19 ends

10-127

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

DESCRIPTION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS
A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA):

The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the internationally standardized A -weighting filter or as computed from sound spectral data to which A -weighting adjustments have been made. A -weighting de-emphasizes the low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the average human ear. A -weighted sound levels correlate well with subjective reactions of people to noise and are universally used for community noise evaluations.

Acoustic; Acoustical:

Acoustic is usually used when the term being qualified designates something that has the properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics associated with sound waves (e.g., acoustic power); acoustical is usually used when the term which it modifies does not explicitly designate something that has the properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics of sound (e.g., acoustical material).

Airborne Sound:

Sound that travels through the air, as opposed to structure -borne sound.

Ambient Noise:

The prevailing general noise existing at a location or in a space, which usually consists of a composite of sounds from many sources near and far.

Attenuation:

The decrease in level of sound, usually from absorption, divergence, scattering, or the cancellation of the sound waves.

Average sound level (Leq):

The level of a steady sound which, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A - weighted sound energy as the time -varying sound.

Unit: decibel.

Background noise:

The total noise from all sources other than a particular sound that is of interest (e.g., other than the noise being measured or other than the speech or music being listened to).

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL):

The Leq of the A -weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 5 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and a 10 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Day -Night Sound Level (Ldn):

The Leq of the A -weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Page 20 ends

10-128

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Decibel (dB):

The decibel is a measure on a logarithmic scale of the magnitude of a particular quantity (such as sound pressure, sound power, sound intensity) with respect to a reference quantity.

Energy Equivalent Level (Leq):

The level of a steady noise which would have the same energy as the fluctuating noise level integrated over the time period of interest. Leq is widely used as a single -number descriptor of environmental noise. Leq is based on the logarithmic or energy summation and it places more emphasis on high noise level periods than does L50 or a straight arithmetic average of noise level over time. This energy average is not the same as the average sound pressure levels over the period of interest, but must be computed by a procedure involving summation or mathematical integration.

Field Impact Insulation Class (FIIC):

A single number rating similar to the IIC except that the impact sound pressure levels are measured in the field.

Field Sound Transmission Class (FSTC):

A single number rating similar to STC, except that the transmission loss values used to derive the FSTC are measured in the field. All sound transmitted from the source room to the receiving room is assumed to be through the separating wall or floor -ceiling assembly.

Frequency (Hz):

The number of oscillations per second of a periodic noise (or vibration) expressed in Hertz (abbreviated Hz). Frequency in Hertz is the same as cycles per second.

Impact Isolation Class (IIC):

A single number rating used to compare the effectiveness of floor -ceiling assemblies in providing reduction of impact generated sounds such as footsteps. It is derived from the measurement of impact sound pressure levels across a series of 16 test bands using a standardized tapping machine.

Noise:

Any disagreeable or undesired sound, i.e., unwanted sound.

Noise level:

Same as sound level. Usually used to describe the sound level of an unwanted sound.

Noise reduction (NR):

The difference in sound pressure level between any two points along a path of sound propagation.

Page 21 ends

10-129

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Noise Isolation Class (NIC):

A single number rating derived from measured values of noise reduction between two enclosed spaces that are connected by one or more paths. The NIC is not adjusted or normalized to a standard reverberation time.

Normalized Noise Isolation Class (NNIC):

A single number rating similar to the NIC, except that the measured noise reduction values are normalized to a reverberation time of 1/2 second.

Outdoor -Indoor Transmission Class (OITC):

A single number classification, specified by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM E 1332 issued 1994), that establishes the A -weighted sound level reduction provided by building facade components (walls, doors, windows, and combinations thereof), based upon a reference sound spectrum that is typical of air, road, and rail transportation sources. The OITC is the preferred rating when exterior facade components are exposed to noise environments dominated by transportation sources.

Octave Band - 1/3 Octave Band:

One octave is an interval between two sound frequencies that have a ratio of two. For example, the frequency range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz is one octave, as is the frequency range of 2000 Hz to 4000 Hz.

An octave band is a frequency range that is one octave wide. A standard series of octaves is used in acoustics, and they are specified by their center frequencies. In acoustics, to increase resolution, the frequency content of a sound or vibration is often analyzed in terms of 1/3 octave bands, where each octave is divided into three 1/3 octave bands.

Sound
(1) A change in air pressure that is capable of being detected by the human ear. (2) The hearing sensation excited by a change in air pressure.

Sound Absorption Coefficient:

The absorption coefficient of a material is the ratio of the sound absorbed by the material to that absorbed by an equivalent area of open window. The absorption coefficient of a perfectly absorbing surface would be 1.0 while that for concrete or marble slate is approximately 0.01 (a perfect reflector would have an absorption of 0.00).

Sound Level:

Ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of the square of the ratio of the frequency- weighted (and time - averaged) sound pressure to the reference sound pressure of 20 micro pascals. The frequency - weightings and time -weighting employed should be specified; if they are not specified, it is understood that A -frequency -weighting is used and that an averaging time of 0.125 is used. Unit: decibel (dBA).

Page 22 ends

10-130

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Sound Pressure Level (SPL):

The sound pressure level of sound in decibels is 20 times the logarithm to the base of 10 of the ratios of the RMS value of the sound pressure to the RMS value of a reference sound pressure. The standard reference sound pressure is 20 micro -pascals as indicated in ANSI S1.8-1969, "Preferred Reference Quantities for Acoustical Levels".

Sound Transmission Class (STC):

STC is a single number rating, specified by the American Society for Testing and Materials, which can be used to measure the sound insulation properties for comparing the sound transmission capability, in decibels, of interior building partitions for noise sources such as speech, radio, and television. It is used extensively for rating sound insulation characteristics of building materials and products.

Structure -Borne Sound:

Sound propagating through building structure. Rapidly fluctuating elastic waves in gypsum board, joists, studs, etc.

Statistical Distribution Terms:

L99 and L90 are descriptors of the typical minimum or "residual' background noise (or vibration) levels observed during a measurement period, normally made up of the summation of a large number of sound sources distant from the measurement position and not usually recognizable as individual noise sources. Generally, the prevalent source of this residual noise is distant street traffic. L90 and L99 are not strongly influenced by occasional local motor vehicle pass-bys. However, they can be influenced by stationary sources such as air conditioning equipment.

L5o represents a long-term statistical median noise level over the measurement period and does reveal the long-term influence of local traffic.

L,o describes typical or average levels for the maximum noise levels occurring, for example, during nearby pass bys of trains, trucks, buses and automobiles, when there is relatively steady traffic. Thus, while L,o does not necessarily describe the typical maximum noise levels observed at a point, it is strongly influenced by the momentary maximum noise level occurring during vehicle pass-bys at most locations.

Li, the noise level exceeded for 1 % of the time is representative of the occasional, isolated maximum or peak level which occurs in an area. L1 is usually strongly influenced by the maximum short -duration noise level events which occur during the measurement time period and are often determined by aircraft or large vehicle pass-bys.

Page 23 ends

10-131

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

APPENDIX B

Page 24 ends

10-132

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM 194 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

COMMON SOUND LEVELS AND THEIR NOISE SOURCES
Noise Source
A -Weighted Sound
Level in Decibels
Noise
Environments
Subjective
Evaluations
Near Jet Engine
140
Deafening
128 times as loud
Civil Defense Siren
130
Threshold of Pain
64 times as loud
Hard Rock Band
120
Threshold of Feeling
32 times as loud
Accelerating Motorcycle at a
Few Feet Away
110
Very Loud
16 times as loud
Pile Driver; Noisy Urban
Street/Heavy City Traffic
100
Very Loud
8 times as loud
Ambulance Siren; Food Blender
95 Very Loud
Garbage Disposal
90 Very Loud
4 times as loud
Freight Cars; Living Room
Music
85 Loud
Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum
Cleaner
80 Loud
2 times as loud
Busy Restaurant
75 Moderately Loud
Near Freeway Auto Traffic
70 Moderately Loud
Average Office
60 Quiet
One-half as loud
Suburban Street
55 Quiet
Light Traffic; Soft Radio
Music in Apartment
50 Quiet
One -quarter as loud
Large Transformer
45 Quiet
Average Residence without
Stereo Playing
40 Faint
One -eighth as loud
Soft Whisper
30 Faint
Rustling Leaves
20 Very Faint
Human Breathing
10 Very Faint
Threshold of Hearing
0 Very Faint
Source: Compiled by YDCG

Page 25 ends

10-133

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

APPENDIX C

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SUBMITTALS

Page 26 ends

10-134

AIRT=CH" 3BA9620
Features:
• Cooler running, outboard bearing
provides maintenance -free
operation
• Environmentally friendly oil -free
technology
• Extremely quiet operation
Performance Curve for Vacuum
Vacuum/Pressure
Regenerative
Blower
• All motors are standard TEFC with
Class F insulation, UL recognized,
CE Compliant
Explosion -Proof motors available
• Custom construction blowers are
available
• Rugged die-cast aluminum
construction
Performance Curve for Compressor
500
500
87 Hz
_
400
72 Hz
60Hz
50 Hz
400 _
3] Hz
I/J
E
300
300 `
' >
200
' T
200
U
(6
U
(6
m
100
M
100
U
U
C
O
0 O
16 0
t
0 0
rn
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
U)
0 50
c
0 n
E m
�o
� N
c c-
oo E
a� a
om
o- a
Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H2O1
50 50
40 40
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Pressure 0
J
30 = 30
I/J
c
20 ° 20
n�
E
10 a 10
o = _
a
0 3 0
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 a a 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4 Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H2O1 Pressure 0 500 500
400 400
300 I/ J 300
J
o a 200 0 a 200
(D 100 D a) 100
T >,
E o 0 E c0) 0
0 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 P- o 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4 Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H2O1 Pressure 0 AI RT=CH® RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070 WWW.AIRTECHUSA.COM TEL: (888) 222-9940 FAX: (201) 569-19135 3BA9620-0416

AIRT=CH"
Dimensions
3BA9620
1 IC20
11 r

3.1 FNPT
INLET
21,55
3"--
FNPT 8A
OUTLET i
Selection & Orderina Data - Tvae 3BA9620
Vacuum/Pressure
Regenerative
Blower
3BA96207AT66
Curve
Order
Frequency
Rated
Input
Input
Permissable Total
Sound
Weight
Letter
Number
(Hz)
Power (HP)
Voltage (V)
Current (A)
Differential Pressure
Level
(Ibs)
dB(A)
Vacuum Pressure
Inch H2O Inch H2O
1-50/60 IP155 insulation material class F
I I 3BA96207AT66 150 114.75 1 200D... 240D I 345Y...415Y I 38.OD/22.OY 1 -212 1253 170 1320 I 3BA96207AT66 60 16.90 220D... 250D 415Y...460Y 38.OD/22.OY L 217 212 74 320 I ObAHIoZU/AI Do 0t
J 3BA96207AT86 50
J 3BA96207AT86 60
J 3BA96207AT86 87
AIRT=CH®
Z5.ou
b45U...
415U
Sy.SU
-ZU4
IZU
04 SLU

20.10 200D...
240D
345Y...415Y

53.OD/31.OY
-212
357
70 370

23.20 220D...
250D
415Y...460Y

53.OD/30.5Y
-217
325
74 370

34.80 345D...

RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070
415D 51.5D
WWW.AIRTECHUSA.COM
-204 253 84 370
TEL: (888) 222-9940 FAX: (201) 569-1 996 136
3BA9620-0416

Page I
AA Series Heat Exchanger I Xchanger
https-//xchanger.com/products/aa-series-heater changer/

XCHANGERI
AA Series Heat Exchanger
AA Senes neat erchanpes 000l low pressure gas stream with aniblen+ air These compact air rAmed units are treat for In[auons we umlted acce;s in cooling wale-+ and have slgnmcanfly loner operating coos compared to hear acnartgers MA require a coming water sysrerr. They feat rre a TEPC nWASO VAC. 3 phase motor a heavy-duty cooing ran and ap OStW approeed fan guard. AAemate molom are auaaabte upon _ ,eclWsl The m0aw9t hood and venlun frame are galvanixgn Steel uxe our IraeraCtive omNe tomn to get aTesl and aCturalra quotel
common AppiwauGns
AAercooiing ROM type {mtaryanbe] and multistage centnlugal blowY'rs used In pmumanc mmv Wg. blogas, w"am rnemme, and wastewater aeraaon systems. �z r.:.
hlallb in:n6 w SA
Con Coostrucbon
Tne auminum piete fln heal emilanger cme is famace hrazed wAn allemenng tinned flow Vianneis Pnx_-,.. gas flows+n liprbpmal [flannels am ambleat coneng an Flows upnard. Mmugh vmrll[al chamwis TM process stream enters and eabs IMmugh recafigular aluminum rieadefs, which are welded to the care
Opembonal consideratlnns
The process stream must he Altered to ensure parbeulate M1 not obstruct lire passages. n necessary. the service slde can usuauy be cimned wlln a saapv wafer wash. TM process channels should not be cnrtmered cleanable due to trielr Jong enclosed Flom length.

Installation Convolintions
Pulsating now. such as that produced In rolary Inbp blcmers should be dalnwrxm by a chambered silencer AA Serves heat eeohangers dissipale heal from Vac process stream to the ambletrl ❑rvitohnleni Thew_ are designed For ouldoor 1f15Iaaallon If InMaRM Indoom. Me area Shouts be vary well Venlialed
venorrnance
%Charger engineers u52 d eodlplller model +e anatyre Heal exchanger per[omianoe 4a5ed an 1hP. bP-st dVaifablP. engineering prarnce A database with Fan pefformance data allows us tn. select the best fan for the applltafgn Models
AA-250, AAdhO, AA-5(). AA-75u- AA-i mid. AA-1750, AA-2000. AA-275d & AA--15Do 3WIal cormsoratlors
can be found on our custom Designs page
Air epow real ex narger (Dic wer af[enwoler) mmeW drawing antl tvprA contgurablans:

Sample dal@ sneer
m
our
�Igfloe$�}unai�Iilfr
IN II Ill CIIT
f+uSH
Ti1RW0H
IN 4AIE5 CUT
IN
our
rrvculFr
Captured by FireShot Pro: 09 October 2022, 08:00-25
h tt ps: / / g etfires h ot. com
10-137

Page 2 ends

AA Series Heat Exchanger I Xchanger
https-1/xchanger.com/products/aa-series-heahatchanger/
I�
Product Applications
. CSenes
HP Senes
LC Series
0C a—
i4 Serke
Request a quote!
C fflwt v lodny lc dlscuss Vow hear
exchongeror Mower atte¢oMBr apo"ion
uilh a design engineer, m use ou:aaracEne
online fNln Fo get a fasF and accurate q-k.-
Aare a request of spec=ifca['wns to send by
emall9 Send h to Ir&QxChOnyer.cgm
An apPllcatlpne cnyweer,.m renew ymn
requ l and wiV lypically respond i Kh1h one
buslness by
Prefer to speak w ih an engineer dl—liy'
Glue ue a -in f%li 93s:559
Captured by FireShot Pro: 09 October 2022, O8:OOc25
h tt ps: / / g etfires h ot. com
10-138

Electrical data

UNIT SIZE-
SERIES
WPH
OPER VOLTS*
COMPR
FAN
FLA
MCA
60°C
MIN
WIRE
SIZEt
75°C
MIN
WIRE
SIZEt
MAX
LENGTH
(FT)
6V/75°Ct
MAX
LENGTH
(m)
60°/75°Ct
MAX FUSE**
OR

CKT BKR AMPS
Max
Min
LRA
I RLA
024-75
230-1
253
207

72.5 15.0

0.6 19.4
14 14
38/37
12/11
30 036-96
400-3
440
360

46.0 6.4

0.7 8.7
14 14
181/172
55/52
20 048-96

63.0 7.9

0.7 10.7
14 14
147/140
45/42
15 060-96

74.0 9.0
1 0.7

11.9 14
14 132/126
40/38
20 " Permissible limits of the voltage range at which the unit will operate satisfactorily. Operation outside these limits may result in unit failure.

If wire is applied at ambient greater than 30°C (86°F), consult Table 310-16 of the NEC (ANSI/NFPA 70).

The ampacity of nonmetallic -sheathed cable (NM), trade name ROMEX, shall be that of 60oC (140°F) conductors, per the NEC (ANSI/NFPA 70) Article 336-26.

All motors/compressors contain internal overload protection. t American wire gage.
$ Length shown is as measured 1 way along wire path between unit and service panel for a voltage drop not to exceed 2%. ** Time -delay fuse.

FLA - Full Load Amps
LRA - Locked Rotor Amps
MCA -Minimum Circuit Amps
RLA - Rated Load Amps
Performance summary
COOLING CAP @ 95°F (35°C)
COOLING CAP 115°F (46°C)
Rated Capacity
Power
Rated
Rated Capacity
Power
UNIT

NOMINAL AIRFLOW
CFM
L/S
BTUH
kW
SIZE

INDOOR MODEL
BTUH kW
kW
EER
kW
F(A,B)4(A,B)SF024*
800
380
23,000

6.7 2.34

10.30 20,700

6.1 2.87
024-75
F(A,B)4(A,B)SF030
800
380
24,000

7.0 2.33

10.40 21,031

6.2 2.86
FG3ASA024
800
380
23,000

6.7 2.40

9.70 20,023

5.9 2.95
F(A,B)4(A,B)SF036*
1200
560
35,000

10.3 3.76

10.40 31,600

9.3 4.56
036-96
F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)042
1200
560
36,000

10.5 3.71

10.50 32,320

9.5 4.50
FG3ASA036
1200
560
35,000

10.3 3.69

9.80 29,395

8.6 4.48
F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)048*
1600
750
47,000

13.8 5.12

9.50 42,400

12.4 6.20
048-96
F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)060
1600
750
48,000

14.1 5.26

9.50 43,540

12.8 6.37
FG3ASA048
1600
750
46,000

13.5 5.20

9.10 41,100

12.0 6.30
FG3ASA060
1600
750
47,000

13.8 5.25

9.20 42,179

12.4 6.35
F(A,B)4(A,B)S(Fl3)060*
1850
950
57,500

16.8 6.03

9.50 52,100

15.3 7.26
060-96
FB4(A,B)SB070
1850
950
59,000

17.3 6.14

9.50 53,364

15.6 7.39
FG3ASA060
1850
950
56,500
1 16.6

6.00 1 9.40
1 51,286

15.0 1 7.23
* Tested Combination
NOTES:

1. Ratings are net values reflecting the effects of circulating fan motor heat. Supplemental electric heat is not included.

2. Tested outdoor/indoor combinations have been tested in accordance with DOE test procedures for central air conditioners. Ratings for other combinations are determined under DOE computer simulation procedures.

3. Determine actual CFM values obtainable for your system by referring to fan performance data in fan coil or furnace coil literature.

A -weighted sound power (dBA)
UNIT
SIZE

STANDARD
RATING
TYPICAL OCTAVE BAND SPECTRUM (without tone adjustment)
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
024
72 53.5

63.0 65.0

67.0 63.5

59.0 50.5
036
74 58.0

64.0 67.5

67.0 66.0

64.5 59.0
048
1 75
1 55.5

63.0 66.5

68.0 68.0

65.0 59.5
060
1 75
155.5
164.0

69.0 67.0

67.5 65.5

60.0 7
10-139

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

APPENDIX D

PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING

PLAN AND DETAILS

Page 32 ends

10-140

14 GAGE FORMED TRUSSES, 1:12�POCH WITH TO I
STEEL ROOF, CIP BOTTOM WITH 1' DRIP RML, TOP AND 1 1/2- TRUSS BRIDGING LOGTE 1RI155 AS CONTINUWSLY FIANCES, SDTCH WELD TO 14 CMIGE STEEL CLOSE TO WALL AS WELDED ROOF, 24' OC STITCH WELD TO POSSIBLE "a
TRUSS VENT TRUSSES WELDING SPACE 12' TYP.

OWENS CORNING

THERMAFBER FIRE

AND SOUND

INSULATON L
14 GA
WALL
STEEL
PANEL
/24,CENTER TYP
\�/ 1' DPoP RML
\\`-�/� uoNc BOTH sDEs

F, EXTERIOR
METAL LM SIgNG �
IAYER 5/8
B uKK TYP. WALL

PANEL DETAIL
0 0

RIG MIN SPRAY
SFAIAS BEIWEDA —E. SHILL BE

CAULKED WITH AN INDUSTRIAL CMILK TO
COMPLETELY SEAL BUILDING ENAMS_R
TYP. ROOF JOIST DETAIL

FORA INSUTATDN -

UNDERSIDE OF
24'
BEFORE PRIMING. NUDAR

ROOF, SKID AND ENCLOSURE

ENAMEL FINISH

SKID FLOOR

ON CENTER

ON CENTER WRH

TER WITH
3/ 8'FILff WELDB
1 1/2' F.ANGE

PERIMETER

FRAMING
G WRH

ALL MOUND
3/18' FLET WELOB
3116'

ML AROUND
24' MAX. WALL PANEL WIDTH IXCEPT OVER DOOR
3/IB' A-38 STEEL
1 1/2' TYP.

DECK
3'
SPECIFICATIONS:

DESIGN PER 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE / ASCE 7-16
6'

WALLFAMELS
TO
RISK CAT III, UNOCCUPIED BUILDING, TYPE US CONSTRUCTION.

I OOINNG PANEL

1. WIND:

EXPOSURE: B
1 Q'

EMERAND
INTERIOR,/2'
4-X4"X3/8" PL W/3/8-
DESIGN WIND SPEED, MPH: 102

NING WLD EVERY

GUSSETS BACK UP TO
TOPO FACTOR KZT: 1.0
3" qA
6' D.C.

CHANNEL.
3/4" DDL HIED HAS B7

2. SEISMIC
55: 1.313
LIFT PaHr
HOG ROD WITH 8"
ST: 0.468
7'
TYP. WALL PANEL SECTION

DETAIL EMBEDMENT USING HILTI
SOIL SITE CLASS: D DEFAULT
20' N.T.S.
12'
12 MI EDGE DISTANCE
SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: D
BE 1.25
12' N.T.S.

V: 7.4KIP5

3. ROOF LIVE LOAD: 40 PSF

4. FLOOR LIVE LOAD: 125 PSF OR A 250D LB CONCENTRATED
LOAD
i
j 17„
(2) 38' X 7

FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAD DESIGN BY OTHERS
IPOLVU�RETroHwmE
1" DIA HOLE
MIN 4000 PSI CONCRETE FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAD
12 IIASIIIATED �.

FOR ANCHORING

TO FULLY SUPPORT ENTIRE FLOOR AREA OF SKID
(R-5 rMCAL)
CENTERED IN 4"
PLATE

WNL PANEL BOTCH

NICKEL PIATED

WFIDED TO TOP OF
UP

COM R AND

IXTENIOR AN

STEEL IAIAIES
DOO R EDGE OJET W '— HARDWARE
DOOR
SKTCH WELDED 10

SKID FLOOR

INTERIOR

CSXSS AT ODOR OPENING JAMBS
FULL DOHT AND CB%8.7 HEADER,

4.75"
1"
FDRIME OPENINGS NNO_ T P 8 14 GAGE

FORMED CHANNEL TOP BOTTOM AND
3' WELD CHANNELS TO WALL PANELS,
3' DEPTH OF JAMBB PERPEND.
11 SIDES, STITCH WELDED TO SURROUNONG
5"
TO WALL PANEL (UKE A STUD). 5' DE
1 1/2' X 3/18' BOOR

WALL PANELS
NOTE'
LOUVEE ERN_ —ON BLOWN ON AND NOT IS

RROR GENERIL OETNL ONLY AND IS NOT
MBt11CAL FOR XEADD2.

PLATE RIGHT ANGLE BEND

WELTED TO PERIMETER
CHANNEL, 1 1/2' WELD
EPRESE S. SE OF SHEET $0 IDUVER
LOCATIONS. SEE SHEET 80t1-0t FOR
4" PAST CHANNE
EVERY 0' O.C.

RITUAL LOUVER LOCATONS.

TYP. CORNER BOLT DOWN DETAIL
T�
V I V

UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE
"DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
• DO NOi SCALE DRAWING

THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY
AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE

US E OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION
FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING~

AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY
H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE
REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
l
�� TechnoLogies, Inc.
7550 Commerce St. Corcoran. MN 55340. Tel: 763-746-99000C)201I PROJECT TITLE:

W000 PLC

SVE SYSTEM

NEWPORT BEACH, CA
DRAWING TITLE:

WELDED STEEL ENCLOSURE

ISOMETRIC CONSTRUCTION

DETAIL DRAWING FOR SOUND

EVALUATION

SHEET I OF I
REV

DESCRIPTION
DATE
DWN
DRAWN BY: MK
DRAWING NO.:
6011-08
DESIGNED 8Y: MK
PROJECT MGR.: MK
DATE: 10/D4/2022
PROJECT NO.: 6011

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

APPENDIX E

PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING

TRANSMISSION LOSS CALCULATIONS

Page 34 ends

10-142

Sound Insulation Prediction (v9.0.24)
Program copyright Marshall Day Acoustics 2017
Margin of error is generally within STC .+..3 clB
- Key No. 5935
Job Name:

Job No.: Initials:cjyan
Date:10/8/2022
File Name:insul
Svstem description
Panel 1 : 1 x 0.024 in Steel
Notes:

STC 39
OITC 27
Mass -air -mass resonant frequency = =106 Hz
Panel Size = 8.9 ft x 13.1 ft
Partition surface mass = 3.68 Iblft2
Frame: Steel Stud (16-20g) (3 in x 1.5 in ), Stud spacing 24 in; Cavity Width 3 in, 1 x Fibreglass (10kgrm3) Thickness 3.0 in Panel 2 : 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Board
freq.(Hz)
TL(dB)
TL(dB)
50 16
63 16
16 80
16 100
15 125
15 16
160
20 200
26 250
31 29
315
35 400
39 500
43 42
630
47 800
51 1000
53 52
1250
55 1600
56 2000
55 45
2S00
40 3150
42 4000
45 44
5000
48 60
55 50
45 9
M 40
e 35
0 30
25 2G
O
{/S
15 1C
ti
53 125 250 500 10c0 20-OC
Frequency (biz)
4 TCensmission Lags (ds) STC 39 FlanW,,g Limit
10-143

Sound Insulation Prediction (v9.0.24)
Program copyright Marshall Day Acoustics 2017
Margin of error is generally within STC t3 dB

1. Key No. 5935
Job Name:

Job No.: Initials:cjyan
Date:10/8/2022
File Name:insul
Svstem description
Panel 1 : 1 x 0.024 in Steel
Notes:

INSUL
STC 46
OITC 31
Mass -air -mass resonant frequency = =90 Hz
Panel Size = 8.9 ft x 13.1 ft
Partition surface mass = 6.2 Ib1ft2
Frame: Cold formed Steel Joist (16-20q) (3.5 in x 1.5 in ), Stud soacinq_ 24 in ; Cavity Width 3.54 in , 1 x Fibreglass (10kq/m3) Thickness 2.4 in Panel 2 : 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Board + 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Board freq.(Hz)
TL(dB)
TL(dB)
50 20
63 20
20 80
20 100
17 125
22 20
160
28 200
33 250
38 36
315
43 400
47 500
51 50
630
55 800
59 1000
61 61
1250
63 1600
64 2000
63 54
2500
50 3150
51 4000
54 54
5000
57 80
75 70
E5
so
55 a 50
J
45 40
35 � 30
0 25
20 15
10•
5 0
63 125 250 500 10c0 2000
Frequency (biz)
4 TCensmission Lags (d6) STC-06 Flanki,,g Limit
10-144

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

APPENDIX F

MEASUREMENT LOCATION

Page 37 ends

10-145

dour,
_vs
■
INto
4F
M-

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022

APPENDIX G

MEASUREMENT DATA

Page 39 ends

10-147

Number 24
Start Date 10/3/2022
Start Time 9:05:44 AM
End Time 9:14:09 AM
Duration 00:08:25
Meas Mode Single
Input Range Low
Input Type Mic
SPL Time Weight
LN% Freq Weight
Overload No
UnderRange No
Sensitivity
LZeq 70.3
LCeq 69.5
LAeq 64.1
LZFinax 88.6
LCFinax 88.2
LAFinax 82.6
LZFmin 58.7
LCFmin 56.3
LAFmin 42.2
LZE 97.3
LCE 96.5
LAE 91.1
LZpk 96.0
LCpk 95.5
LApk 93.7
LAF1o76.2
LAF2o74.1
LAF5o70.7
LAF8o66.9
LAF10o 65.1
LAF25o 60.5
LAF50% 55.4
LAF90o 47.0
LAF95% 45.5
LAF990 43.4
1/1 Oct. (dBA)

31.5 20.0
63 38.1
125 47.5
250 50.9
500 59.6
1000 59.4
2000 56.8
4000 50.4
8000 42.4
FFT (dBA)
Fast
dBA

14.82mV/Pa
1 10-148

0 -Inf

43.1 31.6

86.2 44.7
129.3 46.0
172.344.8
215.446.9
258.545.3
301.646.1
344.7 46.4
387.847.4
430.848.8
473.953.9
517 55.7
560.151.5
603.254.6
646.3 52.4
689.3 50.1
732.448.8
775.547.4
818.647.9
861.747.4
904.8 46.8
947.8 46.6
990.947.4
1034 48.5
1077.1 49.2
1120.2 49.9
1163.3 51.0
1206.3 53.9
1249.4 51.0
1292.5 46.1
1335.6 45.6
1378.7 45.8
1421.8 46.7
1464.8 46.6
1507.9 45.3
1551 44.2
1594.1 44.2
1637.2 44.1
1680.3 43.6
1723.3 43.3
1766.4 43.8
1809.5 44.6
1852.6 44.5
1895.7 44.3
1938.8 44.3
1981.8 44.2
2024.9 44.5
2068 43.9
2111.1 42.9
2154.2 42.6
2197.3 42.4
2 10-149

2240.3 42.2
2283.4 41.7
2326.5 41.4
2369.6 42.0
2412.7 43.6
2455.8 42.7
2498.9 40.4
2541.9 39.2
2585 39.1
2628.1 38.8
2671.2 38.6
2714.3 38.6
2757.4 38.9
2800.4 39.2
2843.5 39.1
2886.6 39.4
2929.7 39.6
2972.8 39.0
3015.9 38.3
3058.9 38.3
3102 38.3
3145.1 37.6
3188.2 37.4
3231.3 37.3
3274.4 37.3
3317.4 37.1
3360.5 36.2
3403.6 36.1
3446.7 35.8
3489.8 35.2
3532.9 34.9
3575.9 35.1
3619 35.0
3662.1 34.9
3705.2 34.7
3748.3 34.2
3791.4 33.8
3834.4 33.5
3877.5 33.4
3920.6 33.2
3963.7 32.9
4006.8 33.0
4049.9 32.5
4092.9 32.0
4136 32.0
4179.1 31.6
4222.2 31.3
4265.3 30.8
4308.4 30.5
4351.4 30.2
4394.5 30.0
4437.6 29.9
3 10-150

4480.7 30.2
4523.8 29.9
4566.9 29.4
4609.9 29.5
4653 29.5
4696.1 29.6
4739.2 29.5
4782.3 29.4
4825.4 29.4
4868.5 29.8
4911.5 29.7
4954.6 29.6
4997.7 29.6
5040.8 29.5
5083.9 29.5
5127 29.3
5170 29.3
5213.1 29.2
5256.2 29.2
5299.3 29.0
5342.4 28.6
5385.5 28.3
5428.5 28.4
5471.6 27.9
5514.7 27.7
5557.8 27.3
5600.9 26.9
5644 26.4
5687 26.3
5730.1 25.8
5773.2 26.1
5816.3 25.7
5859.4 25.1
5902.5 24.5
5945.5 24.0
5988.6 24.0
6031.7 23.8
6074.8 23.9
6117.9 23.8
6161 23.9
6204 23.9
6247.1 23.7
6290.2 23.7
6333.3 24.3
6376.4 24.6
6419.5 24.8
6462.5 24.9
6505.6 25.3
6548.7 25.8
6591.8 26.3
6634.9 26.4
6678 26.7
n
10-151

6721 27.0
6764.1 27.1
6807.2 27.2
6850.3 27.4
6893.4 27.5
6936.5 27.5
6979.5 27.3
7022.6 27.2
7065.7 27.4
7108.8 27.5
7151.9 27.4
7195 27.2
7238.1 26.8
7281.1 26.5
7324.2 26.2
7367.3 25.9
7410.4 25.4
7453.5 25.2
7496.6 25.1
7539.6 24.8
7582.7 24.5
7625.8 24.0
7668.9 23.6
7712 23.3
7755.1 23.5
7798.1 23.4
7841.2 23.4
7884.3 23.7
7927.4 23.4
7970.5 23.6
8013.6 23.5
8056.6 23.0
8099.7 22.6
8142.8 22.5
8185.9 22.0
8229 21.7
8272.1 21.6
8315.1 21.5
8358.2 21.2
8401.3 20.9
8444.4 20.7
8487.5 20.6
8530.6 20.7
8573.6 20.6
8616.7 20.6
8659.8 20.6
8702.9 20.2
8746 20.3
8789.1 20.7
8832.1 20.6
8875.2 20.4
8918.3 20.5
5 10-152

8961.4 20.8
9004.5 20.6
9047.6 20.2
9090.6 20.1
9133.7 20.1
9176.8 20.3
9219.9 20.4
9263 20.3
9306.1 20.1
9349.2 20.0
9392.2 20.0
9435.3 19.8
9478.4 19.6
9521.5 19.6
9564.6 19.7
9607.7 18.9
9650.7 18.9
9693.8 18.9
9736.9 18.7
9780 18.4
9823.1 18.2
9866.2 18.2
9909.2 18.2
9952.3 18.1
9995.4 18.1
10038.5 17.8
10081.6 17.7
10124.7 17.6
10167.7 17.4
10210.8 17.3
10253.9 17.5
10297 17.2
10340.1 16.7
10383.2 16.9
10426.2 17.2
10469.3 17.3
10512.4 17.1
10555.5 16.5
10598.6 16.2
10641.7 16.5
10684.7 16.7
10727.8 16.6
10770.9 16.5
10814 16.7
10857.1 16.7
10900.2 16.3
10943.2 16.2
10986.3 15.7
11029.4 15.4
11072.5 15.3
11115.6 15.5
11158.7 15.2
0 10-153

11201.7 15.0
11244.8 15.0
11287.9 14.7
1133114.3
11374.1 14.2
11417.2 14.2
11460.2 14.1
11503.3 14.1
11546.4 13.5
11589.5 13.2
11632.6 13.0
11675.7 12.3
11718.8 12.2
11761.8 11.9
11804.9 11.3
1184811.1
11891.1 10.7
11934.2 10.7
11977.3 10.6
12020.3 10.3
12063.4 10.2
12106.5 9.8
12149.6 9.5
12192.7 9.1
12235.8 9.0
12278.8 8.6
12321.9 8.1
12365 8.0
12408.1 8.3
12451.2 8.2
12494.3 7.8
12537.3 7.6
12580.4 7.6
12623.5 7.6
12666.6 7.4
12709.7 7.4
12752.8 7.3
12795.8 7.1
12838.9 7.2
128827.0
12925.1 6.7
12968.2 6.7
13011.3 6.8
13054.3 7.1
13097.4 7.3
13140.5 7.1
13183.6 7.0
13226.7 7.2
13269.8 7.0
13312.8 6.9
13355.9 6.8
13399 6.6
7 10-154

13442.1 6.5
13485.2 6.3
13528.3 6.4
13571.3 6.3
13614.4 6.4
13657.5 6.7
13700.6 6.6
13743.7 6.3
13786.8 6.3
13829.8 6.4
13872.9 6.4
13916 6.4
13959.1 6.3
14002.2 6.3
14045.3 6.3
14088.4 6.0
14131.4 5.6
14174.5 5.4
14217.6 5.4
14260.7 5.1
14303.8 4.6
14346.9 4.4
14389.9 4.1
144333.6
14476.1 3.5
14519.2 3.4
14562.3 3.0
14605.4 3.0
14648.4 2.7
14691.5 2.3
14734.6 1.9
14777.7 1.7
14820.8 1.4
14863.9 1.0
14906.9 0.9
14950 0.5
14993.1 0.2
13036.2 0.0
15079.3 -0.5
15122.4 -0.7
15165.4 -1.0
15208.5 -1.1
15251.6 -1.3
15294.7 -1.6
15337.8 -1.8
15380.9 -2.1
15423.9 -2.4
15467-2.6
15510.1 -2.8
15553.2 -2.9
15596.3 -3.1
15639.4 -3.3
PIP
10-155

15682.4
-3.8
15725.5
-4.1
15768.6
-4.2
15811.7
-4.4
15854.8
-4.9
15897.9
-5.3
15940.9
-5.3
15984-5.6
16027.1
-6.0
16070.2
-6.2
16113.3
-6.4
16156.4
-6.8
16199.4
-7.1
16242.5
-7.1
16285.6
-7.4
16328.7
-7.4
16371.8
-7.6
16414.9
-8.0
16458-8.2
16501-8.3
16544.1
-8.3
16587.2
-8.6
16630.3
-8.8
16673.4
-8.7
16716.5
-8.7
16759.5
-8.7
16802.6
-8.9
16845.7
-9.1
16888.8
-9.1
16931.9
-9.0
16975 -8.7
17018-8.6
17061.1
-9.0
17104.2
-9.3
17147.3
-9.3
17190.4
-9.4
0 10-156

Number 27
Start Date 10/5/2022
Start Time 10:44:30 PM
End Time 10:46:09 PM
Duration 00:01:39
Meas Mode Single
Input Range Low
Input Type Mic
SPL Time Weight
LN% Freq Weight
Overload No
UnderRange No
Sensitivity
LZeq 57.9
LCeq 54.2
LAeq 37.5
LZFinax 69.4
LCFinax 63.2
LAFinax 59.0
LZFmin 52.2
LCFmin 49.9
LAFmin 34.0
LZE 77.9
LCE 74.2
LAE 57.5
LZpk 80.9
LCpk 80.2
LApk 80.2
LAF1o42.4
LAF2o39.1
LAF5o37.9
LAF8%37.5
LAF10o 37.3
LAF25o 36.4
LAF50% 35.7
LAF90o 34.8
LAF95% 34.7
LAF990 34.3
1/1 Oct. (dBA)

31.5 13.2
63 25.6
125 26.9
250 25.7
500 27.0
1000 29.9
2000 31.2
4000 29.7
8000 29.6
FFT (dBA)
Fast
dBA

14.82mV/Pa
1 10-157

0 -Inf

43.1 23.3

86.2 29.6
129.326.9
172.323.4
215.421.9
258.521.5
301.619.4
344.7 19.8
387.8 19.2
430.818.2
473.920.3
517 19.3
560.1 19.3
603.2 20.4
646.3 19.2
689.3 19.4
732.419.6
775.5 19.0
818.619.8
861.720.4
904.820.1
947.8 19.2
990.919.0
1034 19.4
1077.1 19.2
1120.2 20.3
1163.3 20.2
1206.3 18.8
1249.4 18.1
1292.5 17.6
1335.6 18.3
1378.7 18.2
1421.8 16.7
1464.8 16.5
1507.9 18.0
1551 18.5
1594.1 18.4
1637.2 17.8
1680.3 17.9
1723.3 17.1
1766.4 17.2
1809.5 18.1
1852.6 17.7
1895.7 15.8
1938.8 15.5
1981.8 16.3
2024.9 18.5
2068 19.0
2111.1 17.4
2154.2 16.3
2197.3 15.7
2 10-158

2240.3 15.8
2283.4 17.0
2326.5 16.5
2369.6 16.9
2412.7 16.3
2455.8 15.2
2498.9 16.2
2541.9 16.8
2585 16.5
2628.1 14.5
2671.2 14.3
2714.3 16.8
2757.4 19.8
2800.4 19.6
2843.5 17.4
2886.6 15.1
2929.7 15.8
2972.8 16.7
3015.9 13.7
3058.9 13.6
3102 15.4
3145.1 16.2
3188.2 15.8
3231.3 15.7
3274.4 13.0
3317.4 13.4
3360.5 15.1
3403.6 12.9
3446.7 11.1
3489.8 12.1
3532.9 12.6
3575.9 13.2
3619 15.0
3662.1 13.8
3705.2 12.3
3748.3 14.1
3791.4 12.4
3834.4 10.5
3877.5 12.2
3920.6 14.1
3963.7 12.2
4006.8 9.8
4049.9 10.2
4092.9 10.7
4136 14.4
4179.1 13.5
4222.2 11.6
4265.3 12.7
4308.4 11.7
4351.4 10.9
4394.5 12.1
4437.6 10.3
3 10-159

4480.7 10.4
4523.8 10.5
4566.9 8.3
4609.9 13.1
4653 16.3
4696.1 11.3
4739.2 8.5
4782.3 11.4
4825.4 15.4
4868.5 13.7
4911.5 8.3
4954.6 14.9
4997.7 16.0
5040.8 14.4
5083.9 14.9
5127 14.7
5170 9.0
5213.1 11.7
5256.2 12.5
5299.3 13.3
5342.4 12.5
5385.5 8.5
5428.5 12.2
5471.6 9.0
5514.7 7.0
5557.8 11.7
5600.9 12.2
5644 11.3
5687 10.0
5730.1 8.1
5773.2 6.9
5816.3 4.7
5859.4 7.6
5902.5 10.5
5945.5 8.8
5988.6 4.3
6031.7 6.4
6074.8 4.0
6117.9 5.8
6161 3.7
6204 5.7
6247.1 7.8
6290.2 4.0
6333.3 11.1
6376.4 10.4
6419.5 7.3
6462.5 6.1
6505.6 5.9
6548.7 7.5
6591.8 10.5
6634.9 11.1
6678 11.7
n
10-160

6721 15.3
6764.1 15.9
6807.2 16.6
6850.3 18.8
6893.4 19.2
6936.5 16.2
6979.5 13.4
7022.6 13.4
7065.7 15.1
7108.8 17.4
7151.9 16.5
7195 15.7
7238.1 16.8
7281.1 16.1
7324.2 15.7
7367.3 15.7
7410.4 17.0
7453.5 18.6
7496.6 18.6
7539.6 17.0
7582.7 15.5
7625.8 13.4
7668.9 13.5
7712 14.1
7755.1 13.4
7798.1 10.9
7841.2 8.0
7884.3 8.0
7927.4 7.8
7970.5 8.6
8013.6 11.5
8056.6 10.3
8099.7 7.5
8142.8 9.4
8185.9 8.3
8229 6.7
8272.1 8.1
8315.1 8.0
8358.2 7.6
8401.3 7.9
8444.4 8.6
8487.5 10.7
8530.6 11.8
8573.6 8.9
8616.7 7.5
8659.8 9.1
8702.9 8.4
8746 7.8
8789.1 8.6
8832.1 6.8
8875.2 5.3
8918.3 5.6
5 10-161

8961.4 5.8
9004.5 6.2
9047.6 7.6
9090.6 11.4
9133.7 11.9
9176.8 9.8
9219.9 6.9
9263 5.7
9306.1 5.4
9349.2 6.6
9392.2 7.3
9435.3 5.9
9478.4 5.1
9521.5 5.5
9564.6 4.5
9607.7 6.4
9650.7 6.0
9693.8 5.0
9736.9 5.3
9780 5.5
9823.1 4.8
9866.2 5.0
9909.2 6.5
9952.3 6.1
9995.4 7.1
10038.5 5.8
10081.6 4.1
10124.7 4.9
10167.7 4.5
10210.8 4.5
10253.9 4.2
10297 4.8
10340.1 4.1
10383.2 4.2
10426.2 4.3
10469.3 5.7
10512.4 4.7
10555.5 4.3
10598.6 3.9
10641.7 3.6
10684.7 4.0
10727.8 5.4
10770.9 5.0
10814 5.7
10857.1 5.6
10900.2 4.5
10943.2 3.6
10986.3 3.4
11029.4 3.1
11072.5 4.0
11115.6 5.2
11158.7 4.7
C:
10-162

11201.7 2.9
11244.8 2.6
11287.9 2.8
113314.7
11374.1 5.2
11417.2 2.5
11460.2 3.2
11503.3 3.6
11546.4 4.4
11589.5 3.2
11632.6 1.7
11675.7 1.1
11718.8 1.6
11761.8 2.9
11804.9 2.0
11848 0.4
11891.1 1.9
11934.2 1.3
11977.3 1.0
12020.3 0.5
12063.4 0.2
12106.5 -0.7
12149.6 0.1
12192.7 1.2
12235.8 0.9
12278.8 1.9
12321.9 2.5
12365 1.2
12408.1 0.1
12451.2 0.6
12494.3 0.3
12537.3 -1.1
12580.4 -2.1
12623.5 -2.2
12666.6 -2.0
12709.7 -2.1
12752.8 -1.3
12795.8 -0.1
12838.9 -0.2
12882-1.0
12925.1 -1.2
12968.2 -1.2
13011.3 -1.2
13054.3 -1.6
13097.4 -1.6
13140.5 -1.3
13183.6 -0.7
13226.7 -1.2
13269.8 -0.1
13312.8 -0.6
13355.9 -1.2
13399-1.2
7 10-163

Number 32
Start Date 10/6/2022
Start Time 10:39:05 AM
End Time 10:42:50 AM
Duration 00:03:45
Meas Mode Single
Input Range Low
Input Type Mic
SPL Time Weight
LN% Freq Weight
Overload No
UnderRange No
Sensitivity
LZeq 65.3
LCeq 64.1
LAeq 55.2
LZFinax 79.0
LCFinax 78.3
LAFinax 67.3
LZFmin 53.2
LCFmin 50.8
LAFmin 35.9
LZE 88.8
LCE 87.6
LAE 78.7
LZpk 84.5
LCpk 84.6
LApk 81.4
LAF1o65.0
LAF2 0 64.2
LAF5o62.4
LAF8o61.1
LAF10o 60.1
LAF25o 55.5
LAF50% 44.5
LAF90o 37.2
LAF95% 36.8
LAF990 36.4
1/1 Oct. (dBA)

31.5 18.1
63 35.3
125 42.3
250 42.4
500 45.2
1000 51.3
2000 50.5
4000 43.5
8000 34.1
FFT (dBA)
Fast
dBA

14.82mV/Pa
1 10-164

0 -Inf

43.1 29.4

86.2 40.0
129.341.6
172.340.7
215.4 39.0
258.537.5
301.635.7
344.734.7
387.835.2
430.8 36.5
473.937.3
517 37.8
560.138.4
603.2 39.0
646.3 39.5
689.3 40.1
732.440.2
775.540.4
818.641.0
861.741.8
904.8 42.2
947.8 42.4
990.941.8
1034 41.3
1077.1 41.0
1120.2 40.5
1163.3 40.4
1206.3 40.2
1249.4 40.3
1292.5 40.0
1335.6 39.8
1378.7 39.4
1421.8 39.3
1464.8 39.1
1507.9 39.3
1551 39.3
1594.1 39.5
1637.2 39.4
1680.3 39.1
1723.3 39.1
1766.4 39.0
1809.5 38.8
1852.6 38.8
1895.7 38.5
1938.8 38.3
1981.8 37.9
2024.9 37.6
2068 37.5
2111.1 36.9
2154.2 36.5
2197.3 35.9
2 10-165

2240.3 35.5
2283.4 34.9
2326.5 34.4
2369.6 33.8
2412.7 33.5
2455.8 33.2
2498.9 32.9
2541.9 32.7
2585 32.5
2628.1 32.5
2671.2 32.4
2714.3 32.2
2757.4 32.1
2800.4 31.9
2843.5 31.7
2886.6 31.5
2929.7 31.2
2972.8 31.1
3015.9 31.1
3058.9 31.1
3102 30.9
3145.1 30.8
3188.2 30.5
3231.3 30.3
3274.4 29.9
3317.4 29.8
3360.5 29.7
3403.6 29.6
3446.7 29.4
3489.8 29.4
3532.9 29.0
3575.9 28.5
3619 28.2
3662.1 28.2
3705.2 28.0
3748.3 27.6
3791.4 27.2
3834.4 26.9
3877.5 26.6
3920.6 26.3
3963.7 26.2
4006.8 25.9
4049.9 25.7
4092.9 25.6
4136 25.1
4179.1 24.8
4222.2 24.8
4265.3 24.6
4308.4 24.1
4351.4 23.7
4394.5 23.5
4437.6 23.6
3 10-166

4480.7 23.8
4523.8 23.5
4566.9 23.0
4609.9 23.0
4653 23.0
4696.1 23.0
4739.2 22.6
4782.3 22.6
4825.4 22.8
4868.5 22.5
4911.5 22.4
4954.6 22.3
4997.7 22.1
5040.8 22.0
5083.9 22.0
5127 21.8
5170 21.7
5213.1 21.5
5256.2 21.4
5299.3 21.3
5342.4 21.2
5385.5 21.4
5428.5 21.7
5471.6 22.1
5514.7 22.4
5557.8 21.3
5600.9 20.4
5644 19.8
5687 19.2
5730.1 18.4
5773.2 17.9
5816.3 17.6
5859.4 17.4
5902.5 17.2
5945.5 16.9
5988.6 16.5
6031.7 16.2
6074.8 15.8
6117.9 15.5
6161 15.7
6204 15.9
6247.1 15.9
6290.2 16.1
6333.3 16.4
6376.4 16.3
6419.5 16.4
6462.5 16.7
6505.6 16.7
6548.7 16.9
6591.8 17.4
6634.9 17.4
6678 17.4
n
10-167

6721 17.8
6764.1 18.2
6807.2 18.4
6850.3 18.7
6893.4 19.1
6936.5 19.2
6979.5 18.8
7022.6 18.9
7065.7 18.7
7108.8 18.6
7151.9 18.3
7195 18.0
7238.1 17.7
7281.1 17.5
7324.2 17.1
7367.3 16.8
7410.4 16.4
7453.5 16.2
7496.6 15.9
7539.6 15.6
7582.7 15.4
7625.8 15.1
7668.9 15.1
7712 15.1
7755.1 14.8
7798.1 14.4
7841.2 14.4
7884.3 14.4
7927.4 14.5
7970.5 14.2
8013.6 14.0
8056.6 13.8
8099.7 13.7
8142.8 13.7
8185.9 13.7
8229 13.7
8272.1 13.2
8315.1 13.0
8358.2 13.0
8401.3 12.6
8444.4 12.6
8487.5 12.5
8530.6 12.4
8573.6 12.2
8616.7 12.0
8659.8 11.9
8702.9 11.9
8746 11.9
8789.1 11.8
8832.1 11.9
8875.2 11.7
8918.3 11.8
10-168

8961.4 11.8
9004.5 11.5
9047.6 11.3
9090.6 11.3
9133.7 11.4
9176.8 11.3
9219.9 11.1
9263 11.0
9306.1 11.1
9349.2 11.3
9392.2 10.9
9435.3 11.0
9478.4 11.2
9521.5 10.9
9564.6 10.8
9607.7 10.8
9650.7 10.7
9693.8 10.8
9736.9 10.8
9780 10.7
9823.1 10.4
9866.2 10.4
9909.2 10.0
9952.3 9.8
9995.4 9.7
10038.5 9.5
10081.6 9.3
10124.7 9.5
10167.7 9.2
10210.8 9.1
10253.9 9.2
10297 9.1
10340.1 9.1
10383.2 9.1
10426.2 9.1
10469.3 9.0
10512.4 9.0
10555.5 8.8
10598.6 8.6
10641.7 8.8
10684.7 8.9
10727.8 8.6
10770.9 8.3
10814 8.4
10857.1 8.3
10900.2 8.2
10943.2 8.2
10986.3 8.1
11029.4 7.8
11072.5 7.6
11115.6 7.4
11158.7 7.4
M.
10-169

11201.7 7.3
11244.8 7.0
11287.9 6.8
11331 6.7
11374.1 6.4
11417.2 6.1
11460.2 5.8
11503.3 5.7
11546.4 5.5
11589.5 5.2
11632.6 5.3
11675.7 4.9
11718.8 4.5
11761.8 4.2
11804.9 4.1
118483.8
11891.1 3.6
11934.2 3.3
11977.3 3.2
12020.3 2.9
12063.4 2.9
12106.5 2.5
12149.6 2.3
12192.7 2.3
12235.8 2.1
12278.8 1.8
12321.9 1.6
12365 1.5
12408.1 1.4
12451.2 1.2
12494.3 1.2
12537.3 1.1
12580.4 0.9
12623.5 0.9
12666.6 0.7
12709.7 0.5
12752.8 0.5
12795.8 0.6
12838.9 0.5
12882 0.3
12925.1 0.4
12968.2 0.4
13011.3 0.4
13054.3 0.4
13097.4 0.4
13140.5 0.4
13183.6 0.6
13226.7 0.7
13269.8 0.8
13312.8 0.7
13355.9 0.7
133990.9
7 10-170

13442.1 0.8
13485.2 0.9
13528.3 0.9
13571.3 0.8
13614.4 0.9
13657.5 0.9
13700.6 0.8
13743.7 0.8
13786.8 0.7
13829.8 0.7
13872.9 0.5
139160.4
13959.1 0.4
14002.2 0.1
14045.3 0.1
14088.4 0.1
14131.4 0.0
14174.5 0.0
14217.6 0.4
14260.7 0.3
14303.8 -0.5
14346.9 -0.8
14389.9 -0.9
14433-1.3
14476.1 -1.6
14519.2 -1.6
14562.3 -1.8
14605.4 -1.9
14648.4 -2.3
14691.5 -2.5
14734.6 -2.8
14777.7 -2.9
14820.8 -3.0
14863.9 -3.4
14906.9 -3.6
14950-3.8
14993.1 -4.1
13036.2 -4.2
15079.3 -4.5
15122.4 -4.6
15165.4 -4.9
15208.5 -5.1
15251.6 -5.4
15294.7 -5.7
15337.8 -5.9
15380.9 -6.0
15423.9 -6.2
15467-6.3
15510.1 -6.3
15553.2 -6.4
15596.3 -7.0
15639.4 -7.3
PIP
10-171

15682.4
-7.4
15725.5
-7.9
15768.6
-8.2
15811.7
-8.2
15854.8
-8.6
15897.9
-8.7
15940.9
-8.8
15984-8.9
16027.1
-9.2
16070.2
-9.3
16113.3
-9.5
16156.4
-9.6
16199.4
-9.8
16242.5
-10.2
16285.6
-10.6
16328.7
-10.7
16371.8
-10.8
16414.9
-11.0
16458 -11.3
16501 -11.5
16544.1
-11.5
16587.2
-11.7
16630.3
-11.8
16673.4
-12.0
16716.5
-12.0
16759.5
-12.1
16802.6
-12.1
16845.7
-12.2
16888.8
-12.3
16931.9
-12.3
16975 -12.3
17018-12.4
17061.1
-12.6
17104.2
-12.5
17147.3
-12.6
17190.4
-12.6
0 10-172

13442.1 - 1 . 1
13485.2 -0.6
13528.3 -1.0
13571.3 - 1 . 1
13614.4 -0.8
13657.5 -0.9
13700.6 -1.2
13743.7 -1.0
13786.8 -1.0
13829.8 -1.3
13872.9 -1.1
13916-0.8
13959.1 -0.8
14002.2 -0.5
14045.3 -0.0
14088.4 -0.6
14131.4 -1.4
14174.5 -0.6
14217.6 -0.6
14260.7 -1.7
14303.8 -2.3
14346.9 -1.6
14389.9 -2.1
14433-2.9
14476.1 -2.7
14519.2 -1.6
14562.3 -2.1
14605.4 -3.1
14648.4 -2.1
14691.5 -3.1
14734.6 -4.1
14777.7 -3.3
14820.8 -3.5
14863.9 -4.4
14906.9 -4.4
14950-4.3
14993.1 -4.0
13036.2 -5.1
15079.3 -5.2
15122.4 -5.2
15165.4 -6.1
15208.5 -5.3
15251.6 -5.3
15294.7 -5.9
15337.8 -6.3
15380.9 -6.6
15423.9 -6.9
15467 -7.1
15510.1 -7.3
15553.2 -7.3
15596.3 -7.6
15639.4 -7.6
PIP
10-173

15682.4
-8.1
15725.5
-8.4
15768.6
-8.6
15811.7
-9.1
15854.8
-9.2
15897.9
-9.3
15940.9
-9.0
15984 -9.1
16027.1
-9.3
16070.2
-9.3
16113.3
-9.6
16156.4
-10.3
16199.4
-10.2
16242.5
-10.3
16285.6
-10.3
16328.7
-9.8
16371.8
-10.1
16414.9
-11.0
16458 -11.3
16501 -11.2
16544.1
-11.0
16587.2
-11.5
16630.3
-11.8
16673.4
-10.7
16716.5
-11.0
16759.5
-12.2
16802.6
-11.6
16845.7
-10.7
16888.8
-11.9
16931.9
-11.7
16975 -11.1
17018-11.7
17061.1
-11.8
17104.2
-11.4
17147.3
-11.8
17190.4
-12.1
0 10-174

Yanchar Design & Consulting Group
ATTACHMENT 2
Drawing No. 6011-01 - Building Layout
10-175

HOUR FIRE WALL. THIS WALL ONLY.
1� EVE INLET THROUGH BOXOUT IN FLOOR
rJ
NPOINTS, TYP 4 CORNERS

DETAILS

TAILS OF SIZE DETERMINED IN PE CALCS
d)
r7 15,_1a„
20 20'-9"

LAYOUT VIEW
D C'
15'-10" �:

Z�: 6' EVE DISCHARG

NO LOSS STACK WITH

B' OU ER PIPE, PVC MATERIAL
D' C
A A'

ROOF VIEW
a
VIEW D—D'
DISCHARGE VIL' VV A —A

LOUVERS
-WHITE TRIM
TYP.

LAP SIDING, PAINTED SLATE ROCK
' 3-6"
PPROX
fED WHITE

LOCKING INDUSTRIAL STYLE

VIEW D-D' ODOR KNOB
;HES TO HAVE
ASKET
�BRICATED
JVERS

AND TRIM
REV
I\ L V 1 J 1 U I N J

DESCRIPTION
DATE
OWN
I * DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
* DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY
AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K
TECHNOLOGIES. INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE

USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION

FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING

AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY
H2KPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE R E
H2K
Techr Oo OgIeS, Inc.
�7550 Commerce St. Corcoran. MN 55340, Tel: 763-746-9900(C�2014

W SP USA ENVIRONMENT &
INFASTRUCTURE INC.

NEWPORT BEACH, CA

B U I L I N G LAYOUT
SHEET 1 OF 1
F

REVISIONS PER SVBMITTAL REVIEW
10/22
MK
DRAWING NO.:
6011-01
G

CHANGED TITLE BLOCK/LOUVER DIM
11/22
MK
DESIGNED BY: MK
H

ADDED FIRE WALL NOTE
12/22
MK
PROJECT MGR.: MK
D

CHANGED STACK LOCATION ADDED DETAIL
8/22
MK
E

CHANGED TO METAL SIDING
10/22
MK
PROJECT NO.: 6011
10-176

Attachment No. PC 7
Alternative Locations Analysis
10-177

10-178

Alternative Location Analysis
Soil Vapor Extraction System
Bayridge Park (Parcel 10)
Ford Soil Vapor Remediation
Project File No: PA2022-0180
February 15, 2023
10-179

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY/REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (FS/RAP)
Draft FS/RAP April 9, 2021
• 27 extraction wells
• 5 soil vapor treatment systems
distributed in parking spaces
around the community
ti 1�
/T Chortcrfi�d s
jr
Outreach '
• June 3, 2021--
Fact Sheet
mailed to community
• June 7 —July 9, 2021--Public
Comment Period
• June 10, 2021--Public Meeting
FL
L`
a
s
6 s �-
x � I rytik
� � i
9 r
Explanation
Existing groundwater mccito ing weir
Pr W ased groundwater monitoring veil
SW gas probe location
m
Muf-depth soil gas probe location
'$Uli WapoF ExtracLan monitoring paint
rinstalled and sampled!
•
CrabgFnundwater sample lncadan
•
Perimeter sni l gas probe loCatlon
Is000ncentralli" lines based on the most
recent
data (.lanuary-March 2021j from
samples located 0 to 143 feet below ground
surface
Residential 7CE isoconcentration in
pwm'
Proposed sel vapor extracton well pairs
SVE piping
❑
Proposed SVE Skid Location
Assumed radius of influence of the
0 extraction well pair (70 ft radius}
LJ
EloundaTy of Parael 10-Sayridge Park
N
C. 1'G
F2:

ALTERNATIVE 3 SOJL VAPOR EXTRACTION LAYOUT
PARCEL 10
FnmoerFord Aeronutronic Property
Newport Beach, California
By Y�ul P_Wrt No. 9624397Sp73.e�
wood. :"ee: 2�, Fza
10-180

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED IN 2021
Comments Received During Public Comment Period
• SVE Layout (12 comments)
• Parking Impacts (13 comments)
• Asphalt Impacts (13 comments)
• Quality of Life Impacts (8 comments)
• Request for More Information (5 comments)
• Mitigation/Compensation (2 comments)
• Other (4 comments)
"No SVE Skids will be permitted within the complex. Locations within the exterior streetscapes/ROW will be considered subject to HOA, Ford & City agreement..."
"The proposed five SVE skids stationed in the parking stalls approximately a year not only compound the parking shortage issue but are unsightly and will certainly affect the values of our homes..."
'As a resident of the Bayridge community, 1 support a prompt remediation.

However, your proposed plan is so intrusive. My hope is that all interested parties... you, Wood, Ford, and our Board of Directors can come up with a plan that utilizes a smaller footprint, minimizes tearing up of our streets and minimizes the general disruption to our daily lives..." Aw
1n; ,hall.
{lfated*�1r Board,. � .Ilex ry,�wlx114��
111MM. .M
W r}lyr.+� •.xlrSl•a
Santa Ana Regional Water QuaJity Control Board
TO- Whorn It May Concern
FROM: Jessica Law, P.G.

Engineering Cleotogist
Site Cleanup Program
DATE- August 25. 2021

SUBJECT- RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PERTAINING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

RECEIVED REGARDING THE DRAFT FEASIBILITY
STUDY+REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN —PARCEL 10, FOR THE FORMER
FOR❑ AERONLrfRON€CS FACILITY LOCATED AT 1000 FORD ROAD,

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
(GEOTRAC KER ID #SL1880238d$; PCA #1880200)

1.3 INTRODUCTION
This Responsiveness Summary has been prepared by the Santa Ana Regional Water QualityConM Board (Waterl3oard) and responds to all public comn3errts received during Me 33-day public comment period on the Dram Feasldilify StudylRerrrediai Action Plan — Percef 10 (Draft FSfRZAP) for the Former Ford Aeranutronics Facility at 1000 Ford Road in Newport Beach (Site). Parcel 10, also known as the Bayridge Park Horrmwners Association is located at the northern portion of the Site. This Responsiveness Summary has been incorporated as Appendix S to the Final FSIRAP_

2.0 BACKGROUND
Bayridge Park (Parcel 10), which is located at the northern portion of the Site, comprises 11.5-acres of the larger former 20G-acre Ford Aerortuh nics facility. In 1973, the Parcel 10 property was sold and developed into condominiums under the flame of Bayridge Park_ The forrrier Ford Aemnutronics facility primarily operated on All comments were responded to in a Responsiveness Summary included in the Final Draft of the FS/RAP August 25, 2021. 10-181

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Locations considered
• Within Bayridge Park
• Along Bison Avenue
• Along Country Club Drive
Criteria Considered
• Disruption to neighborhood
• Construction duration
• Construction footprint within community walls
• Proximity to homes
• Proximity to windows, garages, vs walls
• Impact on parking
• Parking congestion worse in portions of the community than others • Permitting complexity
• Setbacks from public right of way
• Moratorium on Bison
• Implementation complexity
• Slope stability
• Disruption of mature landscaping
• Accessibility for construction equipment
• Power connection complexity
• Distance from source
• Voltage drop
10-182

_, x "7 �Y T7 wW RC Pr
OR

7q
0 '040
t! �

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- BAYRIDGE PARK
Placement of the treatment system here is
infeasible for the following reasons:
• By doubling the length of the electrical
conductors needed to power the
system, the 3% maximum voltage drop
code requirement cannot be met.
• Risk of complaints from additional
residents who previously did not have
construction happening in front of their
home during the community meetings.
• Additional 1,450 feet electrical conduit `
and 850 feet of SVE piping would 4
increase construction by —2 months �.�•
• Widening the trench to include
electrical conductors around Hartford
Drive creates conflicts with existing
utilities..41
_
HOA has said parking in northwest corner
is not as impacted.Lit
Additional 5VE • ��''4
Pipe Trenching
Additional Electrical
f41 Conduit Trenching
Id
10-185

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS -BISON AVENUE

ALONG BISON AVE
• Locations on Bison Ave not feasible to
meet required ROW setbacks
• Would require significant grading and
potentially impact stability of existing
retaining walls.
• Moratorium along Bison for any
trenching work.
• Access from a major thoroughfare
Ir
■ r+• t / ,�
t .

X
r s
r
ACCESS RAMP FROM BISON T r
View from intersection of Bison Ave and Country Club Drive looking west along Bison Ave 10-186

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- Country Club Drive

ALONG COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
• Reviewed all feasible locations along Country Club Drive. • Northern portion of Country Club Drive - toward Bison Avenue
• Middle Portion - Adjacent to 94 Hartford
• Southern portion of Country Club Drive -toward One Ford Road Community
10-187

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- Country Club Drive
• Northern -Would require
significant grading and
potentially impact stability
of existing retaining walls.
• Southern -insufficient
space to maintain sidewalk
throughway
Northern
Jar w
i M

PROPOSED LOCATION ALONG COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
e

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS -Summary
Disruption to
Proximity to
Impact on
Permitting
Implementation
Power Connection
Option
Description
Communications
Neighborhood
Homes
Parking
Complexity
Complexity
Complexity
Bayridge Park- 5 small
- Community Mailer 6/3/21, Public comment
1 systems in parking spots
6/7-7/9/21, Public meeting 6/10/21
High
Low
Infeasible
Low
Medium
Medium
(FS/RAP)
HOA did not approve use of parking spaces.

Proposed by City on 2/15/23
Disruption of mature landscaping and
BayridgePark-Landscaped
drainage
2 Areas between homes
Inaccessibility for construction equipment
High
High
Low
Medium
Medium
Does not solve the proximity to homes
issue
- Proposed by City on 2/15/23
Bayridge Park - 2-3 Parking
-All parking areas within project limits are
3 spots in eastern half of
restricted by HOA MOU
High
Medium
I nfeasible
Low
Low
Low
community.
-Parking impacts are concern at every public
meeting
Proposed by City on 2/15/23
Northwest corner parking area less
Bayridge Park - Larger
impacted
4 treatment system across 3
- Significant increase in linear feet of
High
Low
Medium
Low
High
parking spots - northwest
trenching required and construction duration
corner of neighborhood
-Voltage drop over additional distance not to
code
- Discussion with City about setback
5 Bison Ave
requirements deemed this infeasible
Low
Low
Low
High
Medium
Bison construction moratorium
Northern proposed by City 12/21,
6 Along Country Club (norther
infeasible due to space limit and retaining
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Infeasible
Low
wall impact
-Southern, infeasible due to lack of space
Public meeting 11/4/21 and 1/18/23
Country Club Drive -
City LTP process resulted in comments from
7 adjacent to 94 Hartford
3 nearest residents with concerns about the
Low
High
Low
Medium
Low
Low
(Final FS/RAP & RDI P)
location.
11 10-190

FINAL FS/RAP
MW
Final FS/RAP August 25, 2
Design updated per public
comments
• 28 extraction wells
• 1 vapor treatment syst
located outside of the
the community along
Club Drive

ECOMMINM
E"ng graun41waber rr�anitaring wli:
+-roposed grDrrntlwater monnoe.-ig well
$ ProaoEetl Eall vapar47CIactim well pairs
UN Solt gas prate ,oaaton
Fj JWW"ei;Ah eall gas probe icoaCan
❑ Sall Vapar ExTwUon mork'aring pant
IbMtaAeR and sampiedj
• Grab tyraurdwalersan!Plelacartlan
Perm ever Eoll gas price lacat in
Isaconeeotratlon linen bseatl on the most
recent data {January -March 20211 Prom
ealnples Wr at8d 8 to 16 feat below grountl
cur.'s ce
4e9tlerllal TCE Is[curcentratrrxl In
— P$1n'
SVE pping
❑ Arcpawd S JE enema re
Amwred radua a' Intnuence of iAe
extraction wE;l pair k70 st aatllua}
L7,1 Boundary of Pared 10 - Bayridge Park
1 ALTERNATIVE 3 SOIL VAPOR UTILACTION LAYOUT
PA&ML 40
Fott[w Fad AoonuFmrk Property
BeifJti C�inmiia
Pk4wN.MEMM107331
Wood ored6n r 99- 20
10-191

REMEDIAL DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (RDIP)
RDIP December 22, 2021
Additional design modifications
incorporated to reduce number of
wells/feet of trenching in the
community while still achieving
clean up goals
• 13 extraction wells
• 1 soil vapor treatment system
along Country Club Drive.

Location selected in
coordination with homeowners
association
Outreach
• November 4, 2021 - Public
Meeting on RDIP
• January 18, 2023 — Public
Meeting on construction
scheduling
Ff isn rr pvu..
e`I
�r
S S'J E-16-It I
a-9V OT � Saabnrnuq.h
nrcr
Explanarlan
Exsting groundwater manitorng wel
-
Proposed groundwater monitoring well
■ Sail gas probe ibca8on
,a Soil Vapor Fxlraction monitoring print
■ Perimeter sad gas probe location
K ovonce ntratiGn liner based on the mart
rece nt data (Jan u ary.tune 2021). dashed
were inferred
Res -dental TCE isocancentration in
p9 m'
# Proposed sail vaparextra=n weR
— SVE piping
0 PmposedSVE enclosure
[J Boundary of Parcel 10 - Bayridge Park
Area of SVE Remediadon r>1.100 pghn'
TCE)
f
Abbneviations
511E = sail vapor exnetion
TCE = trichtonaethene
pglm'= mkrcgrams per wbie meter
S41L VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM LAYOUT
PARCEL10
Former Ford Aerorwtron is property
Newport Beach. Califomia
r'+olF]0.f9T1d7
wood.
10-192

Attachment No. PC 8
Response to Comments and Public
Outreach Overview
10-193

10-194

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
BAYRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY OBJECTIONS PROJECT FILE NO. PA2022-0180 Former Ford Aeronutronics Property, Newport Beach, CA
February 10, 2023
The following responds to comments provided by the residents of Hartford Drive (Sites 10.48,

10.50, and 10.52) in response to Ford/WSP's application for a permit to construct the Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system (Attachment A). The SVE system is being constructed to safely remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in soil from historical aerospace research operations conducted by Ford Motor Company. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) requires this work to provide long-term protection of public health and the environment. SVE systems are a common engineering technology used to remove chemicals from soil and numerous SVE systems operate safely and efficiently in residential areas throughout the United States.

The Water Board, Ford, and WSP have been conducting outreach in support of the environmental investigation and potential remediation related to the former Ford aerospace facility since 2018. A summary of the outreach conducted is included in the responses below (Response to Comment 1.4) and further details can be found in Attachment B: Outreach Overview, Attachment C: Information Line Contact Log, and Attachment D: WSP Hartford Residents Contact Log.

In addition to these responses, Ford/WSP have attempted to work individually with these residents to resolve their concerns prior to the construction of the system. To date, the residents have declined to engage in conversation.

COMMENTER #1, 10.52, BAYRIDGE PARK RESIDENT, FROM JANUARY 24, 2023, EMAIL Comment 1.1: The proposed SVE system is in very close proximity to my windows. I do not have air conditioning and thus have always needed to have my windows open during the summer and fall months for ventilation. The noise levels during construction and the running of the system will cause a very disquieting and stressful atmosphere. It is jeopardizing mine and my immediate neighbor's quality of life.

Response 1.1: Lessening community impacts to the greatest degree possible was a guiding factor in designing the Water Board -required SVE system. Ford representatives worked closely with the Bayridge Homeowners Association (HOA) and community members to select this location and presented it to the community for review and comment through both fact sheets and at two separate community meetings held at Bayridge Park on November 4, 2021, and January 18, 2023. Fact sheets and meeting invitations were provided to all Bayridge Park owners and occupants. WSP is confident this system, as designed, will operate safely, quietly, and effectively with very little, if any, community disturbance.

Minimizing Construction Impacts: To lessen impacts during construction, the building which houses the treatment system is being built off -site and is designed to blend in with the existing homes in the area. The sequence of events for construction of the treatment system and estimated task durations are anticipated to be as follows. These tasks will be conducted as part 10-195

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

Page 2 of 12 ends

Newport Beach City CouncilJuly 25, 2023

Newport Beach City Council
July 25, 2023