HomeMy WebLinkAbout35 - Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049) - Correspondence (SOS Park)0
P: (626) 314-3821 Mitchell M. Tsai
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Law Firm
VIA EMAIL
August 26, 2025
City of Newport Beach
City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Received after Agenda Printed
August 26, 2025
Item No. 35
139 S. Hudson Ave., Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
RE: City of Newport Beach — City Council — Appeal of Planning
Commission Action — Ford Road Townhomes Project (Planning Case
No. PA2025-0049) (Agenda Item No. 35)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of Save Our Sports Park ("S.O.S. Park"), our Office is submitting this
correspondence in support of the Appeal of the City of Newport Beach ("City")
Planning Commission's ("Commission") action on July 3, 2025 approving a major
site development review and vesting tentative tract map for a 27-unit townhome
project near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon
Drive intersection and identified as the "Ford Road Townhomes" project (Planning
Case No. PA2025-0049) (Resolution No. 2025-55) (Agenda Item No. 35) ("Project").
S.O.S. Park is an organization of Newport Beach residents committed to the
protection of the City's natural environment and resources and promotion of
responsible and thoughtful development and planning in the City. Individual
members of S.O.S. Park live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding
communities and may be directly affected by the Project.
The City describes the proposed Project as "27-unit residential townhome
development includes two-, three-, and four -bedroom units ranging from 1,916 to
2,989 square feet each, with attached two -car garages... Units would be distributed
within four detached, four-story buildings with a maximum structure height of 47 feet
and 11 inches above the established grade. Along with the private garages, the project
will provide 10 uncovered guest parking spaces, and two uncovered delivery spaces
for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces. Vehicular access would be provided from Ford
Road, through a shared driveway with the adjacent AT&T facility located at 1650
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 2of13
Ford Road. Offsite improvements include the installation of a gate restricting access
to the neighboring AT&T property and the relocation of an existing wireless
telecommunications monopole onto the neighboring AT&T property." (See August
26, 2025, City Council Staff Report, pp. 2-3)
Pursuant to Chapter 20.64 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, our office
asserts and raises the following grounds to support this appeal:
I. City Council has Authority to Reverse the Action, Require Additional
Information or Analysis, or Impose Conditions that Mitigate Impacts
From the outset, it is important to remind members of the Newport Beach City
Council of the scope of their legal authority with regards to the Project's appeal. As
acknowledged by City Staff, City Council is not required to automatically deny the
appeal and merely affirm the Planning Commission action. (See August 26, 2025, City
Council Staff Report, p. 4) ("The City Council is not bound by the Planning
Commission's prior decision on the SDR or limited to the issues raised by the
appeal.").
On the contrary, City Council may take a variety of actions concerning the Project
following the appeal hearing, including, reversing the Planning Commission's prior
approval, requiring City Staff or the Project applicant to provide additional
information or analysis regarding issues raised by the appeal, and imposing conditions,
changes, or modifications that address or mitigate the Project's impacts. Pursuant to
Section 20.64.030(C)(3) of the NBMC, City Council's review "shall be de novo" and
"not bound by the decision that has been appealed or called for review, or limited to
the issues raised on appeal or at the lower hearing." Additionally, Section
20.64.030(D) of the NBMC outlines that City Council's potential actions concerning
an appeal may include to "affirm, affirm in part, or reverse in whole or in part the
action"; "adopt additional conditions of approval to address issues or concerns raised
during the hearing"; "deny the permit approved by the previous review authority";
and "refer the matter to the previous review authority for further consideration" when
"new or different evidence is presented on appeal or review."
The City Council should grant the appeal, deny the Project, require that the Project be
revised to address or mitigate the impacts raised by this appeal, and require additional
information and analysis regarding the Project's compliance with CEQA and eligibility
for an exemption.
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 3of13
II. The Project was Approved in Violation of CEQA as the Cit,�properly
Failed to Evaluate the Impacts of Removing and Replacing the Monopole and
Other Facility Improvements
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that a public agency may
not divide a single project into smaller individual subprojects to avoid responsibility
for considering the environmental impact of the project as a whole. Orinda Assn V.
Board of Supervisors, 182 Cal. App. 3d 1145, 1171 (1986). Thus, "the requirements of
CEQA cannot be avoided by chopping up proposed projects into bite -size pieces
which, when taken individually, may have no significant adverse effect on the
environment." Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growtb, Inc. V. City of Sonora (2007)
155 Cal.AppAth 1214, 1223 (2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Partitioning a project into parts is referred to as "improper piecemealing" and occurs
when "the reviewed project legally compels or practically presumes completion of
another action." Planning & Conservation League v. Dept. of rater Resources, 98
Cal.App.4th 726, 752 (2024) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Here, the Project would require relocation of an existing wireless monopole as well as
other facility improvements, which should be evaluated as a component of the
Project's environmental review to avoid improper piecemealing under CEQA.
Specifically, the Project would require a number of offsite improvements including
but not limited to "installation of a gate restricting access to the neighboring AT&T
property and relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications monopole onto
the neighboring AT&T property, " (See August 26, 2025 City Council Staff Report p.
3). None of these additional offsite improvements have been exempted from CEQA
environmental review by the City. Relocating the existing monopole represents a
substantial development action that likely merits additional environmental analysis and
review. Relocating the monopole will occur as a result of and in the context of
developing the Ford Road Townhomes Project and should therefore be analyzed as
part of the Project — before approval. Suggesting that environmental review for the
monopole relocation may occur after the present Project is already approved would
likely represent improper piecemealing in violation of CEQA. Beyond acknowledging
that the monopole relocation will need to occur, the City does not provide additional
analysis regarding the issues or impacts flowing from that action, including potential
environmental impacts, as required by CEQA.
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 4of13
A. The Project Fails to Qualify for an Exemption under PRC section
21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183
Public Resources Code section 21083.3 limits environmental review for development
of parcels zoned for a particular density or designated in a community plan for which
an environmental impact report was certified for "to effects upon the environment
which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as
significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new
information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental
impact report." See also CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
The Project fails to qualify for a CEQA exemption pursuant to these aforementioned
sections because the City has failed to examine the impact of removing and resiting
the monopole and other offsite improvements as required by the Project. The
monopole relocation may also constitute "new information" of "substantial
importance" under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164 that was not evaluated in
any prior environmental review and therefore requires preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR. Although the Project relies on purported consistency with the
Housing Implementation Program EIR (PA2022-0245) (SCH No. 2023060699), that
EIR did not address or analyze the relocation of the existing wireless monopole or
other offsite improvements that the Project now requires.
B. The Project Fails to Qualify to be Exempt from CEQA
Environmental Review Pursuant to PRC section 21080.66
On appeal, the City has attempted to retroactively apply the newly created CEQA
exemption from AB 130 to the Project. Public Resources Code section 21080.66
exempts urban infill projects that are consistent with a general plan and zoning
ordinance as well as any applicable local coastal program provided that the subject to
exceptions for projects sited within a coastal zone, adjacent to a freeway, designated
farmland, wetlands, fire -severity zones, hazardous waste sites, earthquake zones, flood
zones, or sensitive habitat.
For a project to utilize the statutory exemption found within Public Resources Code
Section 21080.66, formal notice to each California Native American tribe that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site must be given within 14 days
of the application being deemed complete or within 14 days of notification that the
project is eligible for an exemption under Section 21080.66. Here, the Staff Report
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 5of13
concedes that the Project has not completed consultation with Native American
trihes, as it concedes that the City only consulted with tribes regarding its Housing
Element Implementation Program EIR. However, PRC section 21080.66 specifically
requires that the City consult at the project level with Native American tribes. As such,
the exemption cannot be applied to the Project until sufficient evidence is provided to
establish compliance with the statute's requirements.
The Project as a matter of law fails to qualify to be exempt from CEQA
environmental review under section 21080.66 as the Project is inconsistent with the
City's General Plan, specifically its Housing Element, as well as zoning and design
requirements. Moreover, the Project includes numerous off -site improvements,
including relocation of the wireless monopole that are not encompassed under the
urban infill exemption pursuant to PRC section 21080.66.
Additionally, section 21080.66 requires that all projects include a Phase 1 evaluation as
a condition of approval. The City has failed to provide any such evidence to support
the required Phase 1 will be performed. While the project applicant include a phase 1
in their original CEQA Section 15183 Memorandum, the report itself is deficient. The
report only evaluates one ofthe two APNs on the Project site, 458-361-10. The
second APN 458-361-02, is known as 4302 Ford Road. The included Phase 1
evaluation notes that "[t]he subject site is not listed in the EDR Radius Map Report.
However, the adjoining AT&T building at the address of 4302 is listed for generating,
storing, and/or disposing of hazardous waste as well as operating a 6,000-gallon
double -walled diesel UST used in association with the emergency generator." (Phase 1
Report, p. 12.) Here, the excluded parcel was clearly used for hazardous waste
purposes. As such, an updated Phase 1 is necessary to evaluate the entire project site
to satisfy the requirements of the purported CEQA exemption.
Finally, the City fails to provide substantial evidence to support its findings that the
Project does not fall within any of the location -based exceptions from PRC section
21080.66's urban infill exemption, including projects sited within a coastal zone,
adjacent to a freeway, designated farmland, wetlands, fire -severity zones, hazardous
waste sites, earthquake zones, flood zones, or sensitive habitat.
Indeed, a search on the State Water Resources Control Board indicates that a large
portion of the area surrounding the former Ford Aeronutronic Property is involved in
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 6of13
ongoing remediation efforts.' The site was referred to the Water Board after the
Department of Toxic Substances Control closed the initial cleanup case.' As such, the
proximity to the active hazardous waste remediation calls into question whether the
Project is even eligible for the 21080.66 exemption. As noted in the 2025 Community
Fact Sheet, "VOCs associated with past operations have been found in soil, soil gas
(vapors found beneath the surface) and groundwater both on- and off -Site. On -Site
assessment and remediation activities were completed in 1997 and off -Site
investigations are ongoing under the oversight of the Santa Ana Water Board."
(Community Fact Sheet No. 14, pg. 1.) Without evidence to support the finding that
the Project site has been evaluated and eliminated from potential contamination from
the Ford site, the CEQA exemption cannot apply.
III. The Project Fails to Comply with the City's Multi -Unit Objective Design
Standards and Thus Precludes the Necessary Findings for a Site Development
Review (SDR)
The project, as proposed, would fail to comply with at least four, but potentially more,
of the City's adopted Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards ("MODS"), as codified
in Section 20.48.185 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). These MODS
are intended to ensure that new multi -unit residential development is compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods and their stated purpose is to "ensure the highest
possible design quality and to provide a baseline standard for all new multi -unit
development in Newport Beach." NBMC Section 20.48.185.
The NBMC provides that deviations from MODS may only be approved if the
reviewing authority performs a discretionary "Site Development Review" regarding
the project's inconsistencies. Specifically, under NBMC Section 20.48.185.A., a project
that is inconsistent with the MODS must undergo a Site Development Review prior
to project approval pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.080.F. The reviewing
authority's findings must be supported by evidence, which the applicant bears the
burden of establishing.
While the NBMC allows for deviations from the MODS in certain limited
circumstances, the City has failed to perform the necessary findings supported by
' See Ford Aeronutronic Property, Case No. 1880200; available at: htWs://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
profile report?orderby=s.submit date&global id=SL188023848&mvtab=sitedocuments#sitedocuments
' See Ford Aerospace & Communications, Case No. 30370015; available at: htWs://www.envirostor.dtsc.
ca.gov/public/profile report.asp?global id=30370015
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 7of13
sufficient analysis and evidence to substantiate the permissibility of the Project's
inconsistencies with the MODS. The Commission's justification is likely not
consistent with the intent of the MODS or even with the State's housing laws, which
generally require objective standards to be applied uniformly.
The number of MODS the Project is requesting relief from is apparently in flux. In
its July 3, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, the Planning Commission
acknowledged that the Project fails to satisfy at least four of the MODS, but
nonetheless characterized these deviations as "minor" and explained that "[t]hough
the project requests minor deviation of four objective design standards, the project
still more than complies with the intent the objective design standards therefore the
deviations are appropriate." (See July 3, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, p.
19). Recently, in the August 26, 2025 City Council Staff Report, the City explains
that "the proposed project complies with 49 of the 52 applicable standards in the
ODS." (p. 5).
Following this appeal, the Project applicant has apparently "further revised the Project
to comply with two additional Objective Design Standards, NBMC Sections
20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards — Landscape and Paving Zone) and
20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length). As to the
"Private Driveway Standards — Landscape and Paving Zone," the Project's site plan
has been adjusted to meet the four -foot minimum landscaping zone and as to the
"Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length," the Project's measurements
have been clarified to show that the average building width across all levels is 143'-4",
which is below the 150' standard." (See August 26, 2025 City Council Agenda,
Attachment I, Applicant Appeal Response Letter).
However, even following these changes, the Project applicant has addressed only
some of the deviations from the MODS while acknowledging that others will remain
out of compliance. The Project applicant suggests that the "minor deviations of
the remaining two Objective Design Standards are supported by Findings H and I of
Resolution No. PC2025-012." Id.
While the Planning Commission purportedly performed the requisite Site
Development Review, it failed to make all of the necessary findings and to
substantiate those findings with sufficient evidence and analysis to permit the public
to verify the veracity of its conclusions. Findings H and I of Resolution No.
PC2025-012 generally merely restate the relevant MODS and their implications but
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 8of13
provide little additional analysis regarding why deviations thereof are justified or
warranted.
The Project, as proposed, is inconsistent with the MODS and incompatible with the
surrounding neighborhood based on the following existing issues:
1. Project's proposed height exceeds most nearby structures, towering
over surrounding community, and limiting or obstructing scenic
views;
2. Project's proposed massing and scale are bulky, prominent, and
generally incompatible with surrounding community;
3. Safety concerns from location or placement of project and its
proximity to public bike path, especially unit entry points facing
bike path, which could create risk of accidents involving
pedestrians and cyclists;
4. Traffic congestion and safety concerns created by Project access
points and driveway, including from vehicles entering and exiting
Project's parking area and pedestrian and vehicular traffic at
sidewalk adjacent to the driveway proposed at Ford Road;
5. Project could exacerbate congestion at and around nearby parks
that already regularly experience high traffic, especially seasonally;
and
6. Project would require removal or destruction of mature trees and
related habitat.
Thus, the City should require that Project be revised to comply with the remaining
MODS or require the Commission to prepare additional information and findings
that adequately support any deviations thereof.
IV. The Ci , Likely May Not Authorize a Lot Line Adjustment Involving Real
Property that the Project Applicant Does Not Yet Own
The project as currently proposed would require reconfiguring the lot line between
the proposed Project site and the adjacent AT&T Facility Property. However, a
key issue involving the requested reconfiguration of the lot lines is that it would entail
an adjustment of property that the Project applicant does not yet have ownership of
or hold title to. The July 3, 2035 Planning Commission Staff Report explains that
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 9of13
"[b]oth of these properties are currently owned by the Pacific Bell Telephone
Company and will comprise the project site." (p. 6). The Staff Report also suggests
that the Project applicant's acquisition of the property necessary for reconfiguration
of the lot line is still contingent upon certain future project entitlements. ("The future
ownership of the townhome site by the Applicant is contingent on securing
entitlements for residential development.") Id.
However, the City likely may not authorize a lot line adjustment involving real
property that a Project applicant does not yet even own or without including the
actual owner of the subject property. Instead, the proper course of action would
be for the Project applicant to first acquire ownership or title over the property before
the City can take any action on reconfiguring the lot lines. At minimum, the
present owner of the subject property should be included in any proceedings
concerning the lot line adjustment.
Thus, the City should reverse the lot line adjustment until the Project applicant can
establish ownership or direct City staff to provide additional analysis regarding why
the lot line adjustment is proper without first establishing the Project applicant's
ownership or involvement of the present owner.
V. The Project's Vesting Tentative Tract Map Should be Subject to a 14-Day
Appeal Period Due to Improper Noticing and is Improperly Based on
Inadequate Environmental Analysis
The Project requires a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) that the City describes to
"adjust the easterly property line between the project site and the AT&T Facility
property, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes, and to allow for an
airspace subdivision of the units for individual sale (i.e., for condominium purposes)."
(See July 3, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report). As the City has
acknowledged, the requested VTTM may not be approved unless the Commission
establishes certain findings, pursuant to NBMC Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings
for Action on Tentative Maps). S.O.S. Park asserts that approval of the VTTM is
improper because several of the required findings cannot be made.
First, S.O.S. Parks asserts that the VTTM should be subject to a 14-day appeal period
based on serious concerns regarding the City's improper noticing of the relevant
appeal timelines for the Project's VTTM and Site Development Review (SDR).
Specifically, the version of Resolution No. PC2025-01 that was included as
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 10 of 13
Attachment No. PC 1 to the July 3, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report states
only a 14-day appeal period. ("This action shall hecome final and effective 14 days
following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an
appeal is filed with the Community Development Director in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 20.64 (Appeals) of the NBMC.") (p. 26) (emphasis added).
However, the version of Resolution No. PC2025-01 that is now included as
Attachment E to the August 26, 2025 City Council meeting agenda corrects this prior
omission and now provides a 14-day appeal period for the SDR and 10-day appeal
period for the VTTM. Further, the Public Notice for the July 3, 2025 Planning
Commission does not clearly state the different appeal periods for the VTTM and
SDR and instead merely references the NBMC generally. ("Administrative procedures
for appeals are provided in the NBMC Chapter 20.64 (Appeals)."). The City's lack
of clear and consistent noticing may invalidate the appeal deadline and constitutes
serious due process concerns. Based on the City's improper noticing and potential
for members of the public to be misled regarding the relevant appeal periods relating
to this Project, the City should allow a 14-day appeal period of the VTTM for the
Project.
Second, the City likely cannot make the necessary findings required for the VTTM
because it is predicated on environmental conclusions that are legally questionable
given the City's determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA and
piecemealing of the monopole relocation. Under NBMC Section 19.12.070(A)(3), a
necessary finding is that "the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat." However, the City has not
performed any meaningful or significant environmental analysis for the Project
because it is largely relying on the Project being deemed consistent with the Housing
Element EIR and statutorily exempt from CEQA under PRC Section 21080.66.
Further, as explained above, the Project will require relocating an existing wireless
monopole yet this significant development action was not evaluated as part of the
Project's environmental review although it is likely highly relevant and material to the
overall Project. Failure to perform comprehensive environmental review on the
Project's overall potential impacts, including from a key component like the
monopole relocation, may likely represent improper piecemealing under CEQA.
The monopole relocation may also constitute "new information" of "substantial
importance" under CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15164 that was not evaluated in
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 11 of 13
any prior environmental review and therefore requires preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR, at minimum. The Housing Implementation Program EIR
(PA2022-0245) (SCH No. 2023060699) on which the Project relies, did not address or
analyze the relocation of the existing wireless monopole that the Project now requires.
Lastly, the City cannot make the necessary finding that the VTTM is consistent with
the General Plan because the Project underdelivers housing for the Project site as
contemplated by the City's Housing Element. Under NBMC Section 19.12.070(A)(1),
a necessary finding is that "the proposed map and the design or improvements of the
subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and
with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code." As
explained above, the Project fails to deliver any affordable housing units whereas the
City's 2021-2029 Housing Element calculates that the Project site would deliver 19
low-income units, 6 moderate -income units, and 39 above -moderate -income units.
Thus, the City may not make the necessary finding that the Project is consistent with
its General Plan or Housing Element. For the same reason, as explained, the City
would likely also be precluded from making a similar finding under the No Net Loss
Law that the Project is consistent with the General Plan/Housing Element.
Thus, the City should allow a 14-day appeal period for the VTTM and determine that
the necessary supporting findings have not yet been made.
VI. The City's Approval of the Project is Procedurally Improper as the City Failed
to Make Findings Pursuant to the No Net Loss Law
The State Planning and Zoning Law requires that each city and county ensure that its
housing element can accommodate, at all times throughout its five or eight -year
planning period, its remaining unmet share of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) and forbids a city or county from taking any action that would cause its
inventory of sites to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of its RHNA
needed for lower and moderate -income households. Cal. Gov. Code 5 65863(a).
Under this "No Net Loss Law," the City is responsible for ensuring that its housing
element sites inventory can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning
period, its remaining unmet share of RHNA. Id. Further, no city or county is
permitted to reduce the residential density for any parcel or to allow development at a
lower residential density unless it makes written findings supported by substantial
evidence that that the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan and that
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 12 of 13
the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet its RHNA.
Cal. Gov. Code 5 65863(b).
Here, the City failed to make findings under the No Net Loss that it is required to do
because the Project is inconsistent with the City of Newport Beach's Housing
Element since it underdelivers on housing for the Project Site and thus precludes the
City from making the necessary findings under the No Net Loss Law. Under the City
of Newport Beach Housing Element 2021-2029, the City determined that Project site
(APN 458-361-10) would provide the following number of housing units: 19 low-
income units, 6 moderate -income units, and 39 above -moderate -income units.
However, the present Project, as proposed, fails to deliver housing units for these
income levels or the overall number of units at the Project site as contemplated by the
City's Housing Element. As a result, the City would likely be precluded from making
the necessary finding that the Project "is consistent with the general plan, including
the housing element." Cal. Gov. Code 5 65863(b)(1)(A). The City fails to provide
substantial evidence, or any evidencee whatsoever, that approving the Project at
below its required density of
Additionally, the City would be required to demonstrate and point to other projects or
sites in the City's Housing Element that would be able to accommodate the housing
units the present Project fails to deliver. The City has not yet provided any analysis or
information to demonstrate that other housing sites within the City will be able to
compensate for the Project's inconsistency with the Housing Element. While
Resolution No. PC2025-012 contains reference to the No Net Loss Law, the
Resolution No. 2025-55 does not. Specifically, Resolution No. PC2015-12, Section
(1)(8), states that "[t]he Project does not include the construction of affordable
housing. However, the City's Sites Inventory within the City's 6th Cycle Housing
Element contains adequate other sites suitable for affordable housing opportunities
and therefore is consistent with the State's no net loss provisions." In contrast,
Resolution No. 2025-55 does not contain a similar or other reference to the No Net
Loss Law.
Thus, City Council should not affirm the Planning Commission's approval unless the
City can make and establish the necessary findings pursuant to the No Net Loss Law.
City of Newport Beach — Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
August 26, 2025
Page 13 of 13
VII. Conclusion
Based on the aforementioned grounds, S.O.S. Park respectfully requests that the City
Council exercise its legal authority in approving this appeal, reversing the Planning
Commission's approval of the Project, and directing City Staff and the Project
applicant to address the issues raised herein, along with any other actions the City
Council deems appropriate. S.O.S. Park remains open to discussions concerning
this Project.
Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact our Office if you have
any questions or further concerns.
Sincerely,
Omar Corona
Attorneys for Save Our Sports Park
Attached:
Attachment A - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; and
Attachment B - Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility Community Fact Sheet No. 14.
EXHIBIT A
'Air
—ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS INC —
z
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
for
1.061-acre Undeveloped Property
Undeveloped Portion of 4302 Ford Road
County of Orange • Newport Beach, California
This report has been prepared for:
Mr. Peter Zak
NCA Real Estate
Prepared: June 13, 2025
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................I
1.0
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1
2.0
PURPOSE................................................................................................................................................1
3.0
SCOPE OF SERVICES...........................................................................................................................1
4.0
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS..................................................................................................2
5.0
LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS.....................................................................................................2
6.0
GENERAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................3
6.1
SITE LOCATION AND GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................................... 3
6.2
CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY.................................................................................................. 3
6.3
PAST USES OF THE PROPERTY...................................................................................................... 3
6.4
CURRENT AND PAST USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES.................................................................. 3
7.0
SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS...........................................................................................4
7.1
PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING..............................................................................................................4
8.0
SITE DESCRIPTION AND INSPECTION..............................................................................................4
8.1
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES............................................................................................................5
8.2
NATURAL DRAINAGE.....................................................................................................................5
8.3
DISTURBED AREAS....................................................................................................................... 5
8.4
HYDRAULIC EQUIPMENT................................................................................................................5
8.5
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT...............................................................................................................6
8.6
WASTEWATER...............................................................................................................................6
8.7
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL...............................................................................................................6
8.8
WATER SUPPLY............................................................................................................................6
8.9
DESIGNATED WETLANDS...............................................................................................................6
8.10
ASBESTOS -CONTAINING MATERIALS(ACMS)................................................................................7
8.11
RADON......................................................................................................................................... 7
8.12
LEAD............................................................................................................................................ 7
8.13
ODORS......................................................................................................................................... 7
8.14
HEATING AND COOLING................................................................................................................. 7
8.15
STRESSED VEGETATION................................................................................................................ 7
9.0
INTERVIEWS, DATA GAPS, AND PRIOR REPORTS........................................................................8
9.1
INTERVIEWS.................................................................................................................................. 8
9.2
DATA GAPS.................................................................................................................................. 8
9.3
PRIOR REPORTS........................................................................................................................... 8
10.0 SITE HISTORY.....................................................................................................................................9
10.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVIEW................................................................ 9
11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE AND AGENCY FILE REVIEW..................................................12
11.1 REVIEW OF FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT DATABASES ............................. 12
11.2 CITY DIRECTORIES...................................................................................................................... 15
11.3 REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS................................................................................................ 16
12.0 VAPOR ENCROACHMENT SCREENING......................................................................................20
12.1 VES TIER I.................................................................................................................................20
12.2 VES TIER II................................................................................................................................ 20
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND -
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646
FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
13.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION..................................................................................................21
13.1 TITLE RECORDS.......................................................................................................................... 21
13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS.........................................................21
13.3 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE..........................................................................................................21
13.4 VALUATION REDUCTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.................................................................21
14.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 22
15.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 23
16.0 SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS..........................................................24
17.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS...................................................25
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Figures and Site Photographs
Appendix B: EDR Environmental Database Survey
Appendix C: Hazardous Substance Storage Container Information Form
Appendix D: Building Permits
Appendix E: Newport Beach Fire Department Records
Appendix F: Orange County Health Care Agency Records
Appendix G: Ford Aeronutronics Figures and Tables — 1000 Ford Road, Newport Beach
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc. (AEC) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
on a 1.061-acre property at the southeast intersection of Bonita Canyon Drive and MacArthur Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California. The subject undeveloped property is identified by the address of 4302 Ford
Road of which address is assigned to the existing AT&T facility to the east. Also, the subject site consists
of Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 458-361-10 (1.061-ac). In addition, the site is described
within a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19; Township 6 South, Range
9 West of the Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M).
The subject property is an approximately 1-acre trapezoidal -shaped parcel that is an undeveloped portion
of the adjoining AT&T facility. The subject site is located at the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard
and Bonita Canyon Drive. A partial northern border to the site is Bonita Canyon Drive; to the south by a
concrete -constructed bike/pedestrian trail and the Bonita Canyon Sports Park; to the west by similar
undeveloped ground; and to the east by the offsite perimeter -fenced AT&T facility developed with an
asphalt -paved parking lot, cell tower and building. The subject property is currently vegetated with patches
of ice plant and other ground cover, shrubs, and mature eucalyptus trees. Also, AEC observed a patch of
cactus in the central portion of the site, along with a barb wire -constructed fence that does not appear to
be protecting any item of importance. The southern portion of the site trends parallel to the existing
concrete -constructed bike/pedestrian path and rises in elevation from the west end to the east end
approximately 8-feet.
The ESA process under ASTM (Current Standard E1527-21) was created to identify recognized
environmental conditions (RECs). The descriptive term "recognized environmental condition" is defined as
(1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a
release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on,
or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of
hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose
a material threat of a future release to the environment. The ESA process additionally identifies controlled
recognized environmental conditions as a REC resulting from a past release that has been addressed to
the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority with hazardous substances allowed to remain in place
subject to institutional controls. Also, a historical recognized environmental condition, i.e. an HREC is
defined as a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject
property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities and
meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without
subjecting the subject property to any controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property
use limitations). Finally, a de minimis condition is not a recognized environmental condition; however, AEC
will identify non-ASTM conditions which are considered de minimis and do not present a material risk of
harm to public health or the environment and would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought
to the attention of an appropriate governmental agency.
The results of this investigation have identified no de minimis conditions, no recognized environmental
conditions (REC), no controlled recognized environmental conditions, and no historical recognized
environmental conditions.
AEC has conducted this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at the approximately 1-acre undeveloped
portion of the property associated with 4302 Ford Road, Newport Beach, California (the Property) in
conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard El527-21. Any exceptions to, or deletions
from this practice are described in Section 5.0 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. Therefore, AEC recommends
that no further action is warranted.
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc. (AEC) was retained by Mr. Peter Zak of NCA Real Estate ("User"),
to prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at the approximately 1-acre undeveloped portion of
the property associated with 4302 Ford Road, Newport Beach, California (the "Property"). A location map
for the Property is presented as Figure 1 in Appendix A. This assessment was performed in conformance
with 40 CFR 312, Standards for Conducting All Appropriate Inquiries, and general conformance with ASTM
E1527-21.
2.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this assessment is to identify recognized environmental conditions located at the subject
site or adjacent properties which could present material risk of harm to public health or to the environment.
This assessment is intended to constitute appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the
property, as required to support the assertion of the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, and/or
bona fide prospective purchaser defenses to liability (collectively the Landowner Liability Protections, or
LLPs) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA a.k.a. Superfund), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) and the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.
If known or suspected contamination is identified, Users seeking to maintain Landowner Liability Protections
have responsibilities in addition to completing an AAI-compliant Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
These "continuing obligations" include taking "appropriate care" and "reasonable steps" with respect to
known or suspected releases of hazardous substances during the tenure of property ownership. In addition
to these requirements under Federal law there are also different requirements under state law with respect
to liability protections. On request, Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc. can provide support for clients
with continuing obligations, as appropriate.
3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
To evaluate the potential presence of recognized environmental conditions, this preliminary investigation
consisted of the following:
• Contacting appropriate regulatory agencies for hazardous materials information concerning the subject
site and surrounding areas located within an approximate 1-mile radius of the site boundaries. Inquiries
were made regarding documentation of: (a) toxic spills; (b) underground storage tanks; (c) the use,
storage (including aboveground storage tanks), generation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; (d)
the presence of disposal wells and/or leach fields, drain fields, and septic systems; and, (e) violations
of applicable environmental control standards;
• Conducting interviews and researching historical site usage for information regarding past or present
recognized environmental conditions;
• Reviewing selected database reports, maps, and aerial photographs for information pertaining to
potential sources or visual indications of soil and groundwater contamination;
• Conducting an on -site inspection and off -site reconnaissance to identify visible evidence of the
generation, use, storage, spills, or disposal of hazardous materials;
• Evaluating investigational findings and the preparation of a detailed report inclusive of findings and
recommendations.
1
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
4.0 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The information included in this report is intended for use exclusively as an assessment of potential
environmental and human health concerns at the project site. Data is generally obtained through telephone
conversations, personal interviews, public records, public information, general maps and aerial
photographs. These services have been rendered by Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc. (AEC) in
accordance with generally accepted practices by professional geologists and environmental specialists.
Also, the report has been prepared in accordance with the care and skill generally exercised by reputable
professionals, under similar circumstances, in this or similar localities. Because of the limited nature of this
investigation, the firm is precluded from providing a warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the presence
of hazardous materials that could potentially adversely affect the subject site.
This report is provided with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner to convey the
information and recommendations contained herein, to the appropriate regulatory agencies, as required.
The services performed in the scope of this project are for the sole use of our client. Others who seek to
rely on the findings contained within this report have a duty to determine the adequacy of the information
presented herein, for their time, location, and intended use.
5.0 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
This report presents the results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted by Advanced
Environmental Concepts, Inc. (AEC) for Mr. Peter Zak, NCA Real Estate (client), on the following
property:
1.061-acre Undeveloped Property
Undeveloped Portion of 4302 Ford Road
County of Orange • Newport Beach, California
No other properties were included within the scope of this assessment except as required for the off -site
reconnaissance and for the regulatory agency database and file review pertaining to potential sources of
offsite recognized environmental concerns. Historical information regarding the subject parcels is limited
to review of maps, public documents, interviews with personnel knowledgeable with the past and present
uses of the property, and aerial photography review.
The investigation focused on releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances or petroleum
products that could be considered a recognized environmental condition and/or a liability due to their
possible presence in significant concentrations (e.g., above acceptable limits set by the Federal or state
government) or due to the potential for contaminant migration through exposure pathways (e.g.,
groundwater). Materials that may contain substances which are not currently deemed hazardous by the
federal or state of California EPA were not considered as part of this study.
Unless specifically included in our scope of services, formal surveys for asbestos -containing materials,
lead -based paints, fire safety, vapor intrusion, indoor air quality, mold, and similar matters were not part of
this assessment. The Property was not "professionally" evaluated for compliance with land use, zoning,
wetlands (vernal pools, riparian habitat), or similar laws. This report is not intended to be an environmental
compliance audit.
Hazardous substances naturally occurring in plants, soils, and rocks, (e.g., heavy metals, naturally
occurring asbestos, or radon) are not typically considered in these investigations. Similarly, construction
debris (e.g., discarded concrete, asphalt) is not considered to be of concern unless observation determined
that hazardous substances are likely to be present in "actionable" concentrations.
Unless otherwise noted, sampling and laboratory analyses of soil, water, air, building materials, or other
media, were not performed as part of this investigation. Quantitative identification of hazardous substances
can only be accomplished through sampling and appropriate laboratory analysis.
2
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
AEC assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of information obtained from, compiled by, or provided by
third -party sources, such as regulatory agency listings. AEC assumes that information collected during this
environmental site assessment is accurate and correct. Unless warranted, information collected has not
been independently validated as part of this assessment.
The information regarding "purchase price" to "fair market value" is the responsibility of the User (40 CFR
312.22) and is not included in this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report.
The following limitations/restrictions were placed on AEC:
• There were no limiting factors that impeded access to AEC for the entire property.
6.0 GENERAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS
6.1 Site Location and General Site Description
The subject 1.061-acre undeveloped property is identified by the address of 4302 Ford Road of
which address is assigned to the existing AT&T facility to the east. Also, the subject site consists
of Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number (APN)' 458-361-10 (1.061-ac). In addition, the site is
described within a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19;
Township 6 South, Range 9 West of the Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M).
The registered owner(s) of the subject property are:
AT&T
311 S. Akard Street
Dallas, TX 75202
6.2 Current Use of the Property
The property is currently undeveloped and covered with vegetation consisting of grasses, ice plant,
cactus, shrubs and eucalyptus trees.
6.3 Past Uses of the Property
A historical aerial photograph review indicates the subject property was undeveloped rangeland
during 1938 and is on a west -facing hillslope between two ephemeral drainages. The subject
property has remained undeveloped to the present. Also, the site is the undeveloped portion of the
eastern adjoining AT&T facility.
6.4 Current and Past Uses of Adjoining Properties
The adjoining property was mostly native rangeland from prior to 1938 until the early 1960s when
a building was constructed near the south boundary, and also, a building was constructed near the
north boundary. By 1972, the adjoining offsite portion of the AT&T facility to the east was
constructed and Ford Road was improved to the south. Also, MacArthur Boulevard had been
present to the west of the site since prior to 1938. In addition, sometime around 2000 Ford Road
was terminated at the Sports Park and Bonita Canyon Drive was constructed. Residential
development to the south occurred during the mid-1980s and to the north occurred around 2000.
Currently, the immediately surrounding area consists of the following:
North: Bonita Canyon Drive forms a portion of the north boundary along with undeveloped ground.
3
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
South: The south boundary is a concrete -constructed bike/pedestrian path followed by the Bonita
Canyon Sports Park.
East: The east boundary consists of the offsite portion of the AT&T facility improved with an
asphalt -paved parking lot, cell tower and building.
West: The west boundary consists of similar undeveloped ground.
7.0 SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS
7.1 Physiographic Setting
The site is within the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Topographic coverage of
the site and vicinity is provided by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), 7.5-Minute Series "Newport
Beach, California" Quadrangle. According to the topographic map, the elevation of the site is
relatively level and at the same approximate topographic gradient as the nearby surrounding
properties. The site has an average elevation of 195-feet above mean sea level (msl). The nearest
large surface water body is the Newport Harbor, which is approximately 2.5-miles to the
southwest.2,3
The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California. The
Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province consists of a series of mountain ranges separated by
northwest trending valleys subparallel to faults that branch from the San Andreas Fault. Specifically,
the subject property is along the western margin of the Los Angeles Basin, an extensive sediment -
filled depression bound by the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the Pacific
Ocean to the west, the Palos Verdes Peninsula to the southwest, San Jose Hills to the south, Santa
Ana Mountains to the southeast, and the Puente and Chino Hills to the east. The structural history
of the Los Angeles Basin includes extension and strike -slip faulting followed by oblique contraction
via thrusting and strike -slip faulting.
The closest known currently established Holocene -age faults to the site are the North Branch Fault,
approximately 5.2 miles west, and an unnamed fault, approximately 13.4 miles west of the site.
The subject property within a seismically active area that has historically been affected by generally
moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion.
During 2017, Langan Geotechnical conducted a subsurface investigation in the central portion of
the subject property. The field investigation consisted of drilling three borings, identified as B-1
through B-3 and conducting two cone penetrometer tests (CPTs). Borings B-1 and B-3 were drilled
to 50' bgs. Boring B-2 was drilled to a depth of 70' bgs and CPT-1 and CPT-2 were advanced to
depths of 70' bgs. No groundwater was identified to the deepest drilled depth of 70' bgs.
8.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND INSPECTION
An inspection of the Property and reconnaissance of the surrounding area was conducted on June 9, 2025
by Jonathan Buck, Principal Geologist, of Advanced Environmental Concepts (AEC The subject property
is an approximately 1-acre trapezoidal -shaped parcel that is an undeveloped portion of the adjoining AT&T
facility. The subject site is located at the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive.
A partial northern border to the site is Bonita Canyon Drive; to the south by a concrete -constructed
bike/pedestrian trail and the Bonita Canyon Sports Park; to the west by similar undeveloped ground; and
to the east by the offsite perimeter -fenced AT&T facility developed with an asphalt -paved parking lot, cell
tower and building. The subject property is currently vegetated with patches of ice plant and other ground
cover, shrubs, and mature eucalyptus trees. Also, AEC observed a patch of cactus in the central portion
of the site, along with a barb wire -constructed fence that does not appear to be protecting any item of
importance. The southern portion of the site trends parallel to the existing concrete -constructed
bike/pedestrian path and rises in elevation from the west end to the east end approximately 8-feet.
4
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
8.1 Hazardous Substances
AEC did not identify any hazardous -classified substances and/or wastes on the subject property
during the site inspection. However, the adjoining offsite AT&T property to the east has had the
following hazardous substance inventory: diesel fuel, lead acid batteries, lead calcium batteries,
Freon 22, composite copper catalyst, and chem aqua 31155.
8.1.1 Storage Tanks
There are no fill tubes, vent pipes, dispenser islands, or other visual indication identifying
the current or former presence of underground storage tanks (USTs) at this site. However,
the developed portion of the site, which consists of the adjoining AT&T facility to the east,
operates a 6,000-gallon double -wall UST to fuel the emergency generator. There have
been no reported releases associated with the operation of this UST. Also, prior to the
installation of the 6,000-gallon diesel UST, the offsite AT&T facility operated a 5,000-gallon
UST initially installed in 1973. Both USTs were associated with the emergency generator
at the AT&T site.
Also, AEC did not observe any aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) at the site.
8.1.2 Stains or Corrosion
AEC did not identify any stains or corrosion on soil during this site assessment.
8.1.3 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
The subject property was evaluated to determine the potential for the release or handling
of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which is a group of manufactured chemicals
that have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s. These chemicals
break down slowly and are persistent in the environment. Common sources
of PFAS contamination include discharge of aqueous film -forming foam (AFFF) which
extinguishes petroleum -fueled fires, chrome plating where PFAS was used as a wetting
agent/fume suppressant, industries where textiles or other materials are coated with PFAS,
manufacture of PFAS for use as a stain or water repellant, and manufacture of
semiconductor or electronic devices. Additionally, wastewater treatment plants may
receive PFAS-contaminated wastewater which can then accumulate in biosolids that are
subsequently used as fertilizer, soil amendments, or sent to landfill. Land application of
biosolids or industrial wastewater can be sources of PFAS contamination.
Based on information reviewed during this assessment, no potential sources
of PFAS contamination were identified in connection with the subject property.
8.2 Natural Drainage
There are no surface water bodies or surface water drainages currently at the subject property.
Interior surface drainage is primarily to the northwest.
8.3 Disturbed Areas
The subject property is undeveloped and undisturbed. The site is covered with vegetation
consisting of grass, weeds, ice plant, cactus, shrubs and eucalyptus trees.
8.4 Hydraulic Equipment
There is no hydraulic equipment observed onsite.
5
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND -
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
8.5 Electrical Equipment
No electrical transformers were identified on the subject property. Regional electrical transformers
are owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE).4 According to information obtained
from SCE, all transformers within the SCE power distribution network suspected of containing
PCBs in concentrations exceeding 50 parts per million were removed and replaced by 1987.
Manufacture of PCB -containing electric power transformers was discontinued in 1984.
Testing of transformers for the presence of PCBs is not included within the scope of this
assessment; however, testing is not recommended based on the absence of a leaking transformer.
8.6 Wastewater
AEC did not observe any wastewater collection and/or disposal systems onsite.
8.6.1 Sewage Disposal Systems
AEC did not observe any sewage collection infrastructure onsite.
8.6.2 Pools of Liquid
AEC did not identify any areas of standing surface water during this site assessment.
8.6.3 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons
AEC did not identify any pits, ponds, or lagoons during this site assessment.
8.6.4 Drains and Sumps
AEC did not identify any drains or sumps during this site assessment.
8.7 Solid Waste Disposal
There was no indication of the current, or historical burial of solid waste onsite. Also, AEC did not
observe evidence of onsite solid waste disposal.
8.8 Water Supply
There are no drinking water wells observed onsite. In the future, domestic water will be provided
by the municipal water utility (City of Newport Beach).
8.9 Designated Wetlands
Under the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, wetlands6 are defined as "those areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs
and similar areas such as sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and
natural ponds.
Based on review of the subject site and surrounding areas, the property would not be classified as
a Designated Wetlands Area.
6
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
8.10 Asbestos -Containing Materials (ACMs)
Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) were commonly used in a wide variety of building products
such as roofing shingles, composite siding, linoleum flooring, acoustic ceiling tiles, furnace and
water heater exhaust piping and insulation, glues and mastics, stucco, joint compounds, and
composite wallboard prior to 1980; however, use of ACMs post 1980 is known to have occurred at
many locations. ACMs can be divided into material considered friable (easily crumbled or reduced
to powder) and non -friable. Friable ACMs are regulated as hazardous materials due to the elevated
long-term risk of developing lung cancer upon respiratory exposure and must be properly removed
prior to renovation or demolition of any structure containing these materials. Also, ACMs have also
been found in 'Transite' irrigation piping commonly used in many agricultural areas of California.
No indications of Transite irrigation piping were noted within the subject property during this
assessment. Based on the absence of construction onsite, asbestos is not suspected.
Asbestos sampling and laboratory analyses are beyond the scope of this site assessment, -
however, due to the absence of structures AEC does not recommends testing for asbestos.
8.11 Radon
Radon6 is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, naturally occurring radioactive gas formed by the decay
of uranium in soil and bedrock. Because uranium and radon occur naturally in varying amounts
within rocks and soils found throughout the United States, radon is present in all the air that we
breathe. Long-term exposure to elevated concentrations of radon in confined areas has been
associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. The present action levels require exposure to
concentrations of at least four picocuries/liter (4 pCi/L) of radon over an extended period of time.
The State of California Department of Health Services conducted radon surveys across portions of
Orange County, during 1990. Concentrations of radon in excess of 4 pCi/L were detected in some
limited areas of Orange County covered within these surveys. Orange County has been classified
as Zone 3 which has a predicted average indoor radon screening level of less than 2 pCi/L. Testing
in the area of the subject property (Zip Code 92660) indicated that out of 53 tests, none of the
concentrations were higher than 4 pCi/L.
Radon sampling and laboratory analysis is beyond the scope of this assessment, however,
sampling is not recommended based on the prior test results in the vicinity of the subject property.
8.12 Lead
According to information published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD),' approximately three out of every four pre-1978 buildings contain lead -based
paint and/or lead plumbing components. Based on the absence of construction onsite the presence
of lead -based paint is not suspected.
Lead sampling is not included within the scope of this site assessment; however, AEC does not
recommend sampling for lead based on the absence of lead -containing items or applications.
8.13 Odors
During AEC's site inspection, no obvious pungent or noxious odors identified at the property.
8.14 Heating and Cooling
There are no HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) units onsite.
8.15 Stressed Vegetation
AEC did not observe any areas with stressed vegetation during this site assessment.
7
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
9.0 INTERVIEWS, DATA GAPS, AND PRIOR REPORTS
9.1 Interviews
9.1.1 Interview with Owner and/or Site Representative
AEC did not conduct an interview with an AT&T representative. However, since the
property has continuously remained undeveloped, it is the opinion of AEC that the absence
of an interview is not considered a significant data gap and will not change the conclusions
and/or recommendations presented in this report.
9.1.2 Interview with User
The User, Mr. Peter Zak of NCA Real Estate, is only aware of any environmental concerns
if they are disclosed, to which he has received no adverse notifications to date.
9.1.3 Interview with Local Government Officials
AEC requested records from the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), the City
of Newport Fire Department, the City of Newport Building Department, the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
however, did not conduct personal interviews with these agencies since responses were
received electronically. Details of the file reviews are discussed in Section 11.3.
9.2 Data Gaps
A data gap is generally defined as a lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice
despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. Data gaps
may include insufficient historical information, the inability to interview person(s) with direct site
knowledge, or lack of access to all areas during the investigation.
Based on aerial photos and topographic maps for the subject site reviewed from years 1896
through 2024 in reasonably ascertainable intervals, there are no apparent file review data gaps
associated with the subject property. However, AEC did not conduct an interview with an AT&T
representative. Since the property has continuously remained undeveloped, it is the opinion of AEC
that the absence of an interview is not considered a significant data gap and will not change the
conclusions and/or recommendations presented in this report.
9.3 Prior Reports
AEC was given two Phase I reports to review prepared during 2015 and 2018 by Citadel
Environmental Services. The most recent report of 2018 identified the following:
"Based on a review of historical and present records, site interviews and Site reconnaissance,
Citadel believes that sufficient information was collected and evaluated for the Site to determine if
a REC, HREC, CREC, or a de minimis condition exists."
"Based on our review of these databases, reported release incidents that would represent RECs in
connection with the Site or a source of a release that would be likely to contribute to a vapor
intrusion condition was not identified. No evidence for designating the Site as a REC, CREC, or
HREC from reviews of historical documents and present Site conditions was found."
AEC concurs with this conclusion.
8
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
10.0 SITE HISTORY
10.1 Aerial Photograph and Topographic Map Review
Historical aerial photographs and topographic maps of the site were reviewed in order to determine
past site use. The documents were reviewed by an AEC representative who noted the following:
Map Date: 1896
Quad: Santa Ana
The subject property appears as undeveloped hilly ground on terrace deposits.
Map Date: 1902
Quad: Corona
Scale: 1 "=5,208'
Scale: 1 "=10,416'
The subject property still appears as hilly undeveloped ground on terrace deposits.
Map Date: 1935
Quad: Tustin/Newport Beach Scale: 1"=2,640'
Again, the subject property appears as undeveloped ground on terrace deposits and to the west
are marshes and the Back Bay.
Flight Date: 1938 Flyer: USDA Scale: 1 "=610'
The subject property and surrounding area appear to be undeveloped rangeland on the flank of a
foothill. There are two ephemeral drainages around the subject property. MacArthur Boulevard is
under construction west of the subject site.
Map Date: 1942 Quad: Santa Ana Scale: 1 "=5,208'
Again, the subject property appears as undeveloped ground on terrace deposits and to the west
are marshes and the Back Bay. The Bonita Reservoir is depicted offsite to the east and ephemeral
drainages are evident.
Flight Date: 1946 Flyer: USGS Scale: 1 "=610'
As before, the subject property and surrounding area appear to be undeveloped rangeland on the
flank of a foothill. Two ephemeral drainages continue to flank the property. MacArthur Boulevard
is visible west of the subject site.
Map Date: 1949/1950 Quad: Tustin et al. Scale: 1 "=2,000'
As before, the subject property appears as undeveloped ground on terrace deposits and to the
west are marshes and the Back Bay. The Bonita Reservoir is depicted offsite to the east and
ephemeral drainages are evident. MacArthur Boulevard trends north -south offsite to the west.
Flight Date: 1952 Flyer: USDA Scale: 1 "=610'
Again, the subject property and surrounding area appear to be undeveloped rangeland on the flank
of a foothill. Two ephemeral drainages continue to flank the property. MacArthur Boulevard is
visible west of the subject site.
Flight Date: 1963 Flyer: USGS Scale: 1 "=610'
The subject property appears to be developed with a structure along the south boundary. There is
an elongated strip of land along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard and west of the subject
property that appears to be a parking lot.
9
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
Map Date: 1965 Quad: Tustin et al. Scale: 1"=2,000'
By 1965 there are structures both to the north and south of the subject site. The subject site remains
undeveloped. Ford Road is visible trending west and the very large Ford Aeronutronics facility is
evident approximately 1,800-feet to the west. MacArthur Boulevard remains evident to the west of
the subject property.
Flight Date: 1972 Flyer: USGS Scale: 1 "=610'
The subject property is still undeveloped, however, appears to have been graded concurrent with
the grading and construction of the adjoining AT&T building and parking lot to the east. Ford Road
has been extended to the east of MacArthur Boulevard and a large residential tract has been
constructed along the south side of Ford Road. The very large Ford Aeronutronics facility is evident
approximately 1,800-feet to the west and there may be an overflow parking lot near the west
boundary of the site along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard.
Map Date: 1972 Quad: Tustin et al. Scale: 1"=2,000'
The subject property remains undeveloped with structures and to the south is a large residential
tract. The Ford Aeronutronics facility is still evident approximately 1,800-feet to the west. Ford Road
is along the south boundary and MacArthur Boulevard remains evident to the west of the subject
property.
Flight Date: 1977 Flyer: Brewster Pacific Scale: 1 "=610'
The subject property is still undeveloped and is bordered to the east by the AT&T building and
parking lot. Ford Road remains visible along the south side of the subject site as does the large
residential tract constructed along the south side of Ford Road. The very large Ford Aeronutronics
facility is still evident approximately 1,800-feet to the west and there may be a parking lot north of
the subject property associated with a cluster of structures north of Ford Road and along the east
side of MacArthur Boulevard.
Map Date: 1981 Quad: Tustin et al. Scale: 1"=2,000'
Again, the subject property remains undeveloped with structures and to the south is a large
residential tract. The Ford Aeronutronics facility is still evident approximately 1,800-feet to the west.
Ford Road is along the south boundary and MacArthur Boulevard remains evident to the west of
the subject property.
Flight Date: 1985 Flyer: USDA Scale: 1"=610'
The subject property continues to be undeveloped and is bordered to the east by the AT&T building
and parking lot. Ford Road remains visible along the south side of the subject site as does the large
residential tract constructed along the south side of Ford Road. The very large Ford Aeronutronics
facility is still evident approximately 1,800-feet to the west and another residential development has
been constructed along the east side of the Ford facility and west side of MacArthur Boulevard.
There remains a parking lot north of the subject property associated with a cluster of structures
north of Ford Road and along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard.
Flight Date: 1990 Flyer: USDA Scale: 1 "=610'
The subject property continues to be undeveloped and is bordered to the east by the AT&T building
and parking lot. Ford Road remains visible along the south side of the subject site as does the large
residential tract constructed along the south side of Ford Road. The very large Ford Aeronutronics
facility is still evident approximately 1,800-feet to the west as well as the residential development
along the east side of the Ford facility and west side of MacArthur Boulevard. there may be a
parking lot north of the subject property associated with a cluster of structures north of Ford Road
and along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard.
10
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
Flight Date: 1994 Flyer: USGS/DOQQ Scale: 1"=610'
As before, the subject property continues to be undeveloped and is bordered to the east by the
AT&T building and parking lot. Ford Road remains visible along the south side of the subject site
as does the large residential tract constructed along the south side of Ford Road. The very large
Ford Aeronutronics facility is still evident approximately 1,800-feet to the west as well as the
residential development along the east side of the Ford facility and west side of MacArthur
Boulevard. there may be a parking lot north of the subject property associated with a cluster of
structures north of Ford Road and along the east side of MacArthur Boulevard.
Flight Date: 2003 Flyer: Google Scale: 1"=120'
The subject property continues to be undeveloped and covered with trees, shrubs and grasses.
The site is bordered to the east by the AT&T building, cell tower and parking lot. A bike trail, Sports
Park (under construction) and Ford Road remain visible along the south side of the subject site.
Bonita Canyon Drive is visible along the north boundary and MacArthur Boulevard is near the west
boundary.
Flight Date: 2011 Flyer: Google Scale: 1"=120'
The subject property continues to be undeveloped and covered with trees, shrubs and grasses.
The site is bordered to the east by the AT&T building, cell tower and parking lot. A bike trail, Sports
Park and Ford Road remain visible along the south side of the subject site. Bonita Canyon Drive
is visible along the north boundary and MacArthur Boulevard is near the west boundary.
Map Date: 2012 Quad: Tustin et al. Scale: 1"=2,000'
The area is densely developed with commercial and residential buildings; however, the subject
property remains undeveloped. Due to the density of development only surface streets and bodies
of water are depicted. MacArthur Boulevard is near the west boundary, Ford Road is near the
south boundary, and Bonita Canyon Drive is along the north boundary.
Flight Date: 2017 Flyer: Google Scale: 1"=120'
Again, the subject property continues to be undeveloped and covered with trees, shrubs and
grasses. The site is bordered to the east by the AT&T building, cell tower and parking lot. A bike
trail, Sports Park and Ford Road remain visible along the south side of the subject site. Bonita
Canyon Drive is visible along the north boundary and MacArthur Boulevard is near the west
boundary.
Map Date: 2021/2022 Quad: Tustin et al. Scale: 1"=2,000'
As before, the area is densely developed with commercial and residential buildings, however, the
subject property remains undeveloped. Due to the density of development only surface streets and
bodies of water are depicted. MacArthur Boulevard is near the west boundary, Ford Road is near
the south boundary, and Bonita Canyon Drive is along the north boundary.
Flight Date: 2024 Flyer: Google Scale: 1"=120'
The subject property continues to be undeveloped and covered with trees, shrubs and grasses.
The site is bordered to the east by the AT&T building, cell tower and parking lot. A bike trail, Sports
Park and Ford Road remain visible along the south side of the subject site. Bonita Canyon Drive
is visible along the north boundary and MacArthur Boulevard is near the west boundary.
11
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE AND AGENCY FILE REVIEW
11.1 Review of Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Government Databases
AEC contracted Environmental Data Resources (EDR)8 to perform database searches of readily
available Federal, State, and Local database information systems for the purpose of identifying
known recognized environmental conditions present on nearby properties which have the potential
to adversely impact the site being assessed in this study.
A database search for sites listed on various federal, state, tribal, and local databases in the area
around the Property was obtained. A description of each of the databases searched is included in
the report, which is attached as Appendix B. Among the databases included in the EDR report are
NPL (federal, tribal, and state -equivalent), proposed and delisted NPL, CORRACTS (RCRA
facilities subject to corrective actions), hazardous waste sites identified for investigation or
remediation (CERCLIS, State CERCLIS, VCP, Brownfields, Calsites, etc.), LUST, sites with
engineering controls, former CERCLIS (NFRAP), RCRA and state hazardous waste generators,
ERNS, SWLF, USTs, and Toxic Pits.
The review of the records satisfies all requirements as set forth in 40 CFR Section 312.26 (b) and
(c) with regard to the review of federal, tribal, and state government records of databases of such
government records and local government records and databases of such records pertaining to
both the subject property and the nearby or adjoining properties. Further, the search distances for
each particular database are as specified in 40 CFR 312.26.
Any known or suspected contaminated sites included on these lists within 0.25-miles of the
Property are discussed in the following text. As a general rule, sites beyond 0.25-miles are not
anticipated to impact a site significantly. Any sites beyond 0.25-miles with a high potential to impact
the Property are also discussed. (Please note: the distances and directions listed in this report have
been field verified and might not always match those in the EDR report.)
Sites such as TSD facilities, hazardous waste generators, HAZNET, FINDS, SQGs, LQGs, USTs,
HIST UST, RCRA violations, and TRIS facilities with toxic chemical releases (generally in
accordance with permitting requirements - into the air, water, or land as reported under SARA Title
III) use or store hazardous materials and thus may pose a potential problem in the event of a spill
or leak. However, unless these sites also appear in an agency list of contaminated sites, there is
no evidence of any problems at this time. Therefore, sites on these lists will not be discussed unless
on or in close proximity to the Property.
The subject site is not listed in the EDR Radius Map Report. However, the adjoining AT&T building
at the address of 4302 is listed for generating, storing, and/or disposing of hazardous waste as well
as operating a 6,000-gallon double -walled diesel UST used in association with the emergency
generator. Also, the database lists the former 5,000-gallon diesel UST that was installed in 1973
In addition, there are numerous offsite Cleanup Program Sites, active USTs and/or Leaking UST
sites within 1-mile of the subject property. The following table lists the number of sites according to
specific regulatory database information within the prescribed minimum search distance appearing
in the EDR Radius Map Report. A site of environmental significance is the offsite former Ford
Aeronutronics at 1000 Ford Road, in which the former facility operations has impacted subsurface
soil gas, soil and groundwater primarily with PCE and TCE.
The former Ford Aeronutronics facility has a street address of 1000 Ford Road, Newport Beach,
California and the east boundary of the former facility is approximately 1,800 feet west of the west
boundary of the subject property. AEC has reviewed the most recent Semi -Annual Vapor Intrusion
and Groundwater Monitoring Report: July — December 2024 prepared by WSP USA for the Ford
Motor Company that is dated February 13, 2025.
12
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
From 1957 to 1993, the Ford Motor Company (Ford) conducted aerospace science research,
development and production at the Ford Aeronutronics facility. These research, development and
production operations released volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil, soil gas and
groundwater. After closure and demolition of the former facility, Ford worked under regulatory
oversight to complete on- and off -Site investigations and on -Site remediation (cleanup) in
accordance with regulatory standards at that time. Following remediation, Ford has continued to
monitor groundwater and soil gas semi-annually under the oversight of the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
The Site has been divided into two areas described as the "Main Area" (area of the former Ford
development) and the "North Area" (area where drainage flows predominately to the north); in
addition to the "Big Canyon Area" (BCA), where drainage predominately flows to the south and
west. Also, there are smaller units referred to as "Parcels". The Parcels are residential communities
and commercial properties assigned a unique parcel identification number when referring to a
specific residential or commercial area. The North Area includes the area north of the Main Area,
the Main Area, and the ATC (Parcels 1 through 14, 21, Caltrans property and Bonita Creek). The
area south of the ATC was considered the BCA Area (Parcels 15 through 20, 22 through 24, and
Big Canyon Creek). The North Area and the BCA Areas were generally separated at Ford Road,
although Parcel 22 had been considered part of the BCA Area for recent phases of groundwater
investigation despite its location north of Ford Road. These definitions of the North Area and BCA
Area were based on major surficial features (e.g., Ford Road) and Parcel boundaries rather than
on hydrogeologic conditions or areas of COC impact in the subsurface. More than 15 new
groundwater monitoring wells have been constructed, gauged, and sampled in the general vicinity
of Ford Road and within Parcel 22 and the southern portion of Parcel 13 since early 2023 as part
of groundwater investigations or remedy implementation. Groundwater elevation data from these
new wells indicate the approximate location of a groundwater divide between the Bonita Creek and
Big Canyon Creek watersheds. This divide roughly corresponds to the topographic divide between
the watersheds within the southern portion of Parcel 13.
The subject property has been identified as being "upgradient" of the subsurface soil gas, soil and
groundwater contamination and is not listed with any assigned "Areas" or "Parcels" and the nearest
"Parcel" listed is the Belcourt Park Homeowners Association (Appendix G-WSP Figures 2, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12 & 14E).
In 2017, updated environmental regulations associated with lower comparative standards of
specific chemicals in soil gas triggered additional investigation and remediation onsite and offsite
to specifically address VOCs, mostly related to trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE)
in groundwater, soil gas and indoor air. Ford has been conducting ongoing monitoring of
groundwater, soil gas and indoor air since 2018 onsite and in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Indoor air sampling has been implemented in areas above the higher concentrations of VOCs to
evaluate if vapor intrusion is occurring. Vapor intrusion occurs when VOCs entrained in the
subsurface migrate into structures through cracks in the foundation, utility runs or through drain
systems and potentially impact the quality of indoor air.
The relatively recent ongoing monitoring has identified concentrations of VOCs in the subsurface
beneath the Bayridge Park and Belcourt Terrace communities at levels that required the installation
of mitigation measures and remediation to address vapor intrusion. In 2021, the Santa Ana Water
Board approved remedies for the Bayridge Park and Belcourt Terrace communities that include the
operation of soil vapor extraction (SVE) systems and monitoring of the natural breakdown process
of VOCs in groundwater. Once the vapor is extracted using a vacuum pump, it travels through
lateral piping into granulated activated carbon (GAC) canisters to "strip" the VOCs from the vapors.
The SVE systems in Bayridge Park and Belcourt Terrace have been operating since August 2024.
In Bayridge Park, the RWQCB also approved the installation of sub -slab depressurization (SSD)
systems to mitigate the risk of vapor intrusion. SSD systems prevent VOCs from entering a building
by creating a pressure difference between the area under the foundation and the interior of the
building. Ford has installed fourteen SSD systems in the Bayridge Park community to date.
13
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
Ford continues to monitor groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air to ensure the ongoing protection of
public health and the environment and evaluating that VOC concentrations are decreasing over
time. Ford prepares monitoring reports twice per year. Conclusions in this Semi -Annual Vapor
Intrusion and Groundwater Monitoring Report: July — December 2024 include:
o Groundwater: Concentrations of TCE and PCE (and the products these chemicals break down
into) indicates groundwater quality within the area of concern continues to improve.
o Soil gas: Concentrations of TCE and PCE are generally decreasing within the area of concern.
Concentrations of TCE on average are decreasing significantly in Bayridge Park and in Belcourt
Terrace where mitigation measures and/or remediation measures are present.
o Indoor air: Indoor air monitoring activities were conducted at 73 residential properties at least
once between July and December 2024. Air purifiers are currently operating at four properties
and SSD systems at fourteen properties. Air purifiers were offered to one additional property
during this time. When operational, the air purifiers and SSD systems are effectively protecting
against vapor intrusion at these properties.
Also, in response to updated screening levels, some areas not originally in the indoor air sampling
program will be evaluated to determine if vapor intrusion is a risk. Conditions in these areas may
need additional investigation, which could include indoor air sampling. Property owners will be
notified if their home needs additional investigation.
The nearest Parcel to the subject property identified in the WSP reports as it relates to the Ford
Aeronutronics remediation is Parcel 14 of the Big Canyon Arroyo Area. The nearest soil gas well
to the subject property is SG-115 and the nearest groundwater monitoring well is P-77 (Appendix
G-WSP Figures 9-12 & 14E). As it relates to the Ford mitigation, there is no indication that soil gas
wells and/or groundwater wells have been installed within the boundaries of the subject property,
nor is there any indication that historical sampling has occurred on the subject property as it relates
to the Ford mitigation. The most recent offsite groundwater sampling was conducted in November
2024 and the results for the target VOCs of TCE and PCE from monitoring well P-77 indicated
ND<1.0 ug/L for PCE, ND<1 for TCE and ND<0.50 ug/L of Vinyl Chloride. However, there were
three dechlorination compounds detected consisting of cis 1,2-DCE at 66 ug/L, 1,2-DCE at 5.5 ug/L
and 1,4-Dioxane at 27 ug/L (Appendix G-WSP Figure 9 and Historical Groundwater Analytical
Results Table A-2). In addition, WSP has plotted isocons of their groundwater results and
determined that the analytical results specifically for PCE, TCE, Vinyl Chloride and cis 1,2-DCE
indicate there are no concentrations in groundwater of these "target' compounds beneath the
subject property (Appendix G-WSP Figures 10-12). Also, the target concentrations of PCE and
TCE in soil gas as analyzed form SG-115 indicate concentrations of PCE at the 15 ug/m3 residential
comparative standard during the sampling event conducted on December 19, 2018, however, has
been <8 ug/m3 in the remainder of the sampling events up to the last event conducted on February
4, 2022. In addition, TCE was ND<8 ug/m3 in all sampling events (December 19, 2018 to February
4, 2022).
The unrestricted land -use soil gas comparative value for PCE is 15 ug/m3, and there has been one
detection in the nearest offsite soil gas well at 15 ug/m3 (SG-115). The remainder of the detections
are below the comparative value. Also, there have been no detections of TCE in soil gas from SG-
115 at the indicated detection limit of ND<8 ug/m3. In addition, WSP has plotted isocons on their
groundwater results figures and determined that the analytical results for the target chlorinated
compounds have not migrated in groundwater beneath the subject property, and the subject
property is "upgradient" from the VOC plume. Therefore, AEC recommends no investigation for
soil gas, soil and/or groundwater is necessary beneath the subject property.
Databases Reviewed
Search Distance (SD)
Number of
Sites Within SD
Federal National Priorities List (NPL) Site List
1-Mile
0
14
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
Databases Reviewed
Search Distance (SD)
Number of
Sites Within SD
Federal Delisted NPL Site List
1-Mile
0
Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System CERCLIS
1/2-Mile
0
Federal CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
NFRAP Sites
1/2-Mile
0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS List
1-Mile
1
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTs TSD List
1/2-Mile
0
Federal RCRA Generators List
1/4-Mile
0
Federal Institutional/Engineering Control Registries
1/2-Mile
0
Federal ERNS List
On -Site
0
California and Tribal Lists of NPL Equivalent Hazardous
Waste Sites Identified for Investigation and/or Remediation
1-Mile
0
California and Tribal Lists of CERCLIS Equivalent Hazardous
Waste Sites Identified for Investigation and/or Remediation
1-Mile
1
California and Tribal Landfills or Solid Waste Facilities List
1/2-Mile
1
California and Tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tank
LUST Facility List
1/2-Mile
4
California and Tribal Registered Storage Tank Facility List
1/4-Mile
2
California and Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites
1/2-Mile
0
Local Brownfields Sites
1/2-Mile
0
Local Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites
On -Site to 1/2-Mile
0
Local List of Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Sites
On -Site to 1-Mile
1
Local List of Registered Storage Tanks
1/4-Mile
5
Local Land Records
On -Site to 1/2-Mile
0
Records of Emergency Release Reports
On -Site
0
Other Ascertainable Records/Cortese
On -Site to 1-Mile
34
11.2 City Directories
Historical City Directories were researched to determine historical use at the subject property. The
associated subject address of 4302 Ford Road was identified in the City Directories with the
occupant information listed in the table below. AEC's review of the some of the businesses listed
indicates they are not plotted correctly (Red Bluff Pizza, Neil Shouse & Associates, Bankers West
Funding, etc.). These businesses appear to have been located at the east end of Ford Road in the
Pavillion's Shopping Center. The only listing at the address of 4302 Ford Road since 1972 is the
AT&T facility.
4302 Ford Road
Date
Use
Source
1991
American Tele Share Corp; Office Support Task
Pacific Bell
Force Inc
1992
Amer Tele Share
Cole Information
2005
Nextel of California Inc; Fine Telecomminicat Inc;
Cole Information
Red Bluff Pizza Cafe; Priv E Recover Retreat
Neil Shouse & Assoc; Clear Advisory SVC;
2010
Commercial Mortgage Group Inc; Bankers West
Cole Information
Funding Brea
Neil Shouse & Associates; Law Offices of Sally
2014
Anne Cox; Eva Varro LLC; As Cemint Contractor
Cole Information
Inc; Darren M Colby Es
15
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
Date
Use
Source
Neil Shouse & Assoc; Advanced Dermatology
2020
Care Ctr
EDR Digital Archive
11.3 Regulatory Agency Records
11.3.1 Orange County Agricultural Commission9
The Orange County Agricultural Commissioner's Office maintains records of restricted
herbicides and pesticides registered for application to the subject site for a period of 5
years. Since there has been no historical or recent agricultural production on the subject
property there is no requirement for a Restricted Materials Permit.
11.3.2 City of Newport Beach Building Department10
The City of Newport Building Department maintains records of building permits issued for
construction undertaken within the City of Newport Beach. The online database was
researched for historical evidence of past site usage on June 5, 2025 and multiple permits
were identified for the adjoining offsite AT&T facility to east. The permits generally
pertained to the construction and various improvements of the cell site along with
alterations to the diesel generator UST at the AT&T facility. Lastly, two planning permits
were identified for the proposed 27 residential condominiums that will be constructed on
the subject property that currently adjoins the offsite AT&T facility to the west.
11.3.3 Orange County Heath Care Agency"
The Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) maintains records of underground
storage tanks (USTs) and incidents of unauthorized releases of hazardous materials from
underground storage tanks at the subject site and surrounding areas. AEC submitted a
records request on June 5, 2025 (#25-3295), and received an electronic response on June
11, 2025 indicating that several records are available for the adjoining offsite AT&T facility
to the east. These records include a California Environmental Reporting System (CERS)
submittal for AT&T California - LE129, located at 4302 Ford Road (CERS ID: 10478848 &
Facility ID: FA0024697). The document, submitted on May 28, 2025 by Michael Stuart of
Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California, outlines the facility's compliance
with applicable environmental regulations.
The OCHCA provided Hazardous Waste Generator Inspection Reports for AT&T California
- LE129 for the years 2018 and 2021 along with Hazardous Material Release Response
Plan (HMRRP) Inspection Reports for 2018 and 2021; these inspections indicated no
violations were identified.
In addition, the OCHCA provided records regarding the 6,000-gallon UST at the AT&T
facility. AEC reviewed Underground Storage Tank (UST) Inspection Reports during 2016,
2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, 2022, and 2023. A violation was noted in the October 11,
2022 inspection report for "failure to continuously monitor the interstitial space of a double -
walled tank with an audible and visual alarm system". It was reported that the green light
bulb on the TLS-350 panel was not operational and the leak detection system must
maintain continuous monitoring that activates an audible and visual alarm. Therefore, on
the same day as the inspection, the green bulb was replaced and all bulbs were verified
as operational and the violation was corrected. The most recent inspection on October 31,
2023 did not identify any violations for the UST. Lastly, Monitoring System Certification
Forms, Overfill Prevention Equipment Inspection Report Forms, and Spill Container
Testing Report Forms were also provided to AEC in addition to historical and current
Permits to Operate (PTO) the UST with the most recent permit set to expire June 30, 2025.
16
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
11.3.4 City of Newport Beach Fire Department12
The City of Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) maintains Hazardous Materials
Management Plans (HMMPs), Hazardous Materials inventories, and incidents of
unauthorized release of hazardous materials. AEC submitted a records request on June
5, 2025 (#630017) and on June 13, 2025, the NBFD provided several documents for the
adjoining offsite AT&T facility to the east regarding Business Emergency Plans and
Hazardous Material Disclosure forms. Also, there were listings for both the 5,000-gallon
diesel UST as well as the 6,0000-gallon replacement UST.
11.3.5 South Coast Air Quality Management District13
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) maintains records of permits
related to pollutant air emissions for facilities located throughout the SCAQMD. AEC
reviewed the online database on June 5, 2025 and did not identify any records for the
subject property.
11.3.6 California Department of Conservation — Geologic Energy Management
Division (CaIGEM)14
The site is not within the Administrative Boundary of an Oil and/or Gas Field. No onsite oil
or gas wells were identified on District Map No. W1-6.
11.3.7 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board15
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) maintains a database of
contaminated groundwater sites (GeoTracker). AEC has accessed GeoTracker to identify
if the subject property, or adjoining and/or nearby properties have former or current soil
and/or groundwater contamination from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). The
results of AEC's database review indicate that the subject property is not listed in the
database; however, the adjoining offsite property to the east is listed under AT&T California
— LE129 (#FA0024697) for operating a permitted UST. Also, AEC submitted a Public
Records Request to the RWQCB on June 5, 2025 and the email response from the file
review desk on the same day indicates that there are no additional records related to the
property other than what is listed in the GeoTracker database.
However, a site of environmental significance is the offsite former Ford Aeronutronics in
which the former facility operations has impacted subsurface soil gas, soil and groundwater
primarily with PCE and TCE.
The former Ford Aeronutronics facility has a street address of 1000 Ford Road, Newport
Beach, California and the east boundary of the former facility is approximately 1,800 feet
west of the west boundary of the subject property. AEC has reviewed the most recent
Semi -Annual Vapor Intrusion and Groundwater Monitoring Report: July — December 2024
prepared by WSP USA for the Ford Motor Company that is dated February 13, 2025.
From 1957 to 1993, the Ford Motor Company (Ford) conducted aerospace science
research, development and production at the Ford Aeronutronics facility. These research,
development and production operations released volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
soil, soil gas and groundwater. After closure and demolition of the former facility, Ford
worked under regulatory oversight to complete on- and off -Site investigations and on -Site
remediation (cleanup) in accordance with regulatory standards at that time. Following
remediation, Ford has continued to monitor groundwater and soil gas semi-annually under
the oversight of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
17
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
The Site has been divided into two areas described as the "Main Area" (area of the former
Ford development) and the "North Area" (area where drainage flows predominately to the
north); in addition to the "Big Canyon Area" (BCA), where drainage predominately flows to
the south and west. Also, there are smaller units referred to as "Parcels". The Parcels are
residential communities and commercial properties assigned a unique parcel identification
number when referring to a specific residential or commercial area. The North Area
includes the area north of the Main Area, the Main Area, and the ATC (Parcels 1 through
14, 21, Caltrans property and Bonita Creek). The area south of the ATC was considered
the BCA Area (Parcels 15 through 20, 22 through 24, and Big Canyon Creek). The North
Area and the BCA Areas were generally separated at Ford Road, although Parcel 22 had
been considered part of the BCA Area for recent phases of groundwater investigation
despite its location north of Ford Road. These definitions of the North Area and BCA Area
were based on major surficial features (e.g., Ford Road) and Parcel boundaries rather than
on hydrogeologic conditions or areas of COC impact in the subsurface. More than 15 new
groundwater monitoring wells have been constructed, gauged, and sampled in the general
vicinity of Ford Road and within Parcel 22 and the southern portion of Parcel 13 since early
2023 as part of groundwater investigations or remedy implementation. Groundwater
elevation data from these new wells indicate the approximate location of a groundwater
divide between the Bonita Creek and Big Canyon Creek watersheds. This divide roughly
corresponds to the topographic divide between the watersheds within the southern portion
of Parcel 13.
The subject property has been identified as being "upgradient" of the subsurface soil gas,
soil and groundwater contamination and is not listed with any assigned "Areas" or "Parcels"
and the nearest "Parcel" listed is the Belcourt Park Homeowners Association (Appendix G-
WSP Figures 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14E).
In 2017, updated environmental regulations associated with lower comparative standards
of specific chemicals in soil gas triggered additional investigation and remediation onsite
and offsite to specifically address VOCs, mostly related to trichloroethene (TCE) and
tetrachloroethene (PCE) in groundwater, soil gas and indoor air. Ford has been conducting
ongoing monitoring of groundwater, soil gas and indoor air since 2018 onsite and in the
surrounding neighborhoods. Indoor air sampling has been implemented in areas above the
higher concentrations of VOCs to evaluate if vapor intrusion is occurring. Vapor intrusion
occurs when VOCs entrained in the subsurface migrate into structures through cracks in
the foundation, utility runs or through drain systems and potentially impact the quality of
indoor air.
The relatively recent ongoing monitoring has identified concentrations of VOCs in the
subsurface beneath the Bayridge Park and Belcourt Terrace communities at levels that
required the installation of mitigation measures and remediation to address vapor intrusion.
In 2021, the Santa Ana Water Board approved remedies for the Bayridge Park and Belcourt
Terrace communities that include the operation of soil vapor extraction (SVE) systems and
monitoring of the natural breakdown process of VOCs in groundwater. Once the vapor is
extracted using a vacuum pump, it travels through lateral piping into granulated activated
carbon (GAC) canisters to "strip" the VOCs from the vapors. The SVE systems in Bayridge
Park and Belcourt Terrace have been operating since August 2024. In Bayridge Park, the
RWQCB also approved the installation of sub -slab depressurization (SSD) systems to
mitigate the risk of vapor intrusion. SSD systems prevent VOCs from entering a building
by creating a pressure difference between the area under the foundation and the interior
of the building. Ford has installed fourteen SSD systems in the Bayridge Park community
to date.
Ford continues to monitor groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air to ensure the ongoing
protection of public health and the environment and evaluating that VOC concentrations
are decreasing over time. Ford prepares monitoring reports twice per year. Conclusions in
18
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646
FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
this Semi -Annual Vapor Intrusion and Groundwater Monitoring Report: July — December
2024 include:
o Groundwater: Concentrations of TCE and PCE (and the products these chemicals
break down into) indicates groundwater quality within the area of concern continues to
improve.
o Soil gas: Concentrations of TCE and PCE are generally decreasing within the area of
concern. Concentrations of TCE on average are decreasing significantly in Bayridge
Park and in Belcourt Terrace where mitigation measures and/or remediation measures
are present.
o Indoor air: Indoor air monitoring activities were conducted at 73 residential properties
at least once between July and December 2024. Air purifiers are currently operating at
four properties and SSD systems at fourteen properties. Air purifiers were offered to
one additional property during this time. When operational, the air purifiers and SSD
systems are effectively protecting against vapor intrusion at these properties.
Also, in response to updated screening levels, some areas not originally in the indoor air
sampling program will be evaluated to determine if vapor intrusion is a risk. Conditions in
these areas may need additional investigation, which could include indoor air sampling.
Property owners will be notified if their home needs additional investigation.
The nearest Parcel to the subject property identified in the WSP reports as it relates to the
Ford Aeronutronics remediation is Parcel 14 of the Big Canyon Arroyo Area. The nearest
soil gas well to the subject property is SG-115 and the nearest groundwater monitoring well
is P-77 (Appendix G-WSP Figures 9-12 & 14E). As it relates to the Ford mitigation, there
is no indication that soil gas wells and/or groundwater wells have been installed within the
boundaries of the subject property, nor is there any indication that historical sampling has
occurred on the subject property as it relates to the Ford mitigation. The most recent offsite
groundwater sampling was conducted in November 2024 and the results for the target
VOCs of TCE and PCE from monitoring well P-77 indicated ND<1.0 ug/L for PCE, ND<1
for TCE and ND<0.50 ug/L of Vinyl Chloride. However, there were three dechlorination
compounds detected consisting of cis 1,2-DCE at 66 ug/L, 1,2-DCE at 5.5 ug/L and 1,4-
Dioxane at 27 ug/L (Appendix G-WSP Figure 9 and Historical Groundwater Analytical
Results Table A-2). In addition, WSP has plotted isocons of their groundwater results and
determined that the analytical results specifically for PCE, TCE, Vinyl Chloride and cis 1,2-
DCE indicate there are no concentrations in groundwater of these "target" compounds
beneath the subject property (Appendix G-WSP Figures 10-12). Also, the target
concentrations of PCE and TCE in soil gas as analyzed form SG-115 indicate
concentrations of PCE at the 15 ug/m3 residential comparative standard during the
sampling event conducted on December 19, 2018, however, has been <8 ug/m3 in the
remainder of the sampling events up to the last event conducted on February 4, 2022. In
addition, TCE was ND<8 ug/m3 in all sampling events (December 19, 2018 to February 4,
2022).
The unrestricted land -use soil gas comparative value for PCE is 15 ug/m3, and there has
been one detection in the nearest offsite soil gas well at 15 ug/m3 (SG-1 15). The remainder
of the detections are below the comparative value. Also, there have been no detections of
TCE in soil gas from SG-1 15 at the indicated detection limit of ND<8 ug/m3. In addition,
WSP has plotted isocons on their groundwater results figures and determined that the
analytical results for the target chlorinated compounds have not migrated in groundwater
beneath the subject property, and the subject property is "upgradient" from the VOC plume.
Therefore, AEC recommends no investigation for soil gas, soil and/or groundwater is
necessary beneath the subject property.
19
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
11.3.8 Department of Toxic Substances Control16
AEC reviewed the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database
and determined that neither the subject property, nor any nearby properties (within 1,000-
feet) are listed in the database.
11.3.9 Office of the State Fire Marshal Pipeline Safety Division"
AEC located the subject property on the National Pipeline Mapping System and determined
that there are no natural gas or hazardous liquid pipelines on or bordering the subject
property.
12.0 VAPOR ENCROACHMENT SCREENING
ASTM Standard E 2600-22 Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in
Real Estate Transactions (VES) was used as guidance for conducting a VES for the subject property. The
purpose of the screening is to determine whether a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC) exists from
chemicals of concern (COC) that may migrate as vapors onto a property as a result of contaminated soil
and groundwater on or near the subject property. The screening involves a two -tiered approach to
assessing VEC risk as described below.
12.1 VES Tier I
12.1.1 Search Distance Test/Chemicals of Concern Test
The search distance test is conducted in conjunction with the Phase I ESA using ASTM
E1527 and involves a review of the regulatory database report and available historical
records to make a determination if any known or suspect potentially contaminated
properties exist within the Area of Concern (AOC). High risk sites are typically current and
former gas stations, former and current dry cleaners, manufactured gas plants, and
industrial sites (Brownfields). The AOC is defined by the approximate minimum search
distance of 1/3-mile surrounding the target property or 1/10-mile for petroleum hydrocarbon
products. Note: the default AOC may be expanded or reduced by AEC using experience
and professional judgement based on consideration of groundwater flow direction,
subsurface characteristics, surficial features and/or man-made features.
If no known or potentially contaminated sites with Contaminants of Potential Concern
(COPCs) exist within the AOC, a Vapor Encroachment Concern (VEC) does not exist and
no further inquiry is necessary. If the contamination is evident at the known site, or the
potentially contaminated site within the AOC consists of COPCs, then a VEC exists and
Tier II is recommended.
12.2 VES Tier II
12.2.1 Data Collection
Tier II applies numeric screening criteria to existing or newly collected soil, soil gas, and/or
groundwater testing results to provide greater certainty to whether or not a VEC exists
using non-invasive and invasive data collection. The non-invasive investigation includes
review of available regulatory files to identify the source of contamination and the migration
pathway of the COC. If this information is not accessible, invasive data collection can be
conducted and may include sampling of soil, soil gas, and/or groundwater on the target
property, target property boundary, and/or offsite.
20
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
12.2.2 Plume Test
The Plume Test assesses whether or not a plume is close enough to the property to result
in a VEC using information obtained from non-invasive data collection.
1. Critical Distance Determination — Determine lineal distance from property to edge of
plume in any direction (vertical, horizontal, lateral).
2. VEC exists if a plume of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi -volatile organic
compounds (S-VOCs), or Volatile Inorganic compounds or free petroleum product
accumulating above water table within 100-feet of the property or if a plume of
dissolved volatile petroleum hydrocarbons within 30-feet of the property.
A review of the soil gas, soil, and groundwater sampling reports prepared by WSP, et al.
for the offsite Ford Aeronutronics facility indicates the subject property is upgradient from
the historical chlorinated solvent release and that the chlorinated solvent plume has not
extended beneath the subject property. Therefore, it is the opinion of AEC that a Vapor
Encroachment Condition does not currently exist.
13.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
Specific information provided by the User is discussed below.
13.1 Title Records
A chain -of -title report was not provided to AEC for review.
13.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations
No information pertaining to environmental liens or activity/use limitations filed against the Property
was provided by the User or identified by AEC during this assessment.
13.3 Specialized Knowledge
The User has provided no historical investigation reports pertaining to the Property and/or the area
around the Property.
13.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
No information pertaining to Property valuation was provided by the User.
21
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
14.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
The results of this investigation have identified no de minimis conditions, no recognized environmental
conditions (REC), no controlled recognized environmental conditions, and no historical recognized
environmental conditions.
AEC has conducted this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at the approximately 1-acre undeveloped
portion of the property associated with 4302 Ford Road, Newport Beach, California (the Property) in
conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard E1527-21. Any exceptions to, or deletions
from this practice are described in Section 5.0 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. Therefore, AEC recommends
that no further action is warranted.
22
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
15.0 REFERENCES
1) Orange County Assessor; 500 S. Main Street, 2nd Floor; Orange, California 92868; (714) 834-
2727.
2) Geologic Map of California; State of California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation,
Division of Mines and Geology.
3) United States Geological Survey - 7.5 Series Topographic Quadrangle Map Publications (Corona,
Tustin, Santa Ana, Laguna Beach and Newport Beach Quadrangles, 7.5-, 15-, and 30-Minute
Series).
4) Southern California Edison; P. O. Box 410; Long Beach, California 90802; (310) 491-2391.
5) Wetlands Law Tests Government Plan; Gregor I. McGregor, Esq.; Environmental Protection
Volume 3, Number 9 - November 1992; Stevens Publishing Corporation; 225 North New Road;
Waco, Texas 76710; (817) 776-9000.
6) California Statewide Radon Survey Screening Results; State of California Department of Health
Services; 601 North 7th Street; Sacramento, California 95814; (916) 322-2040.
7) United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); 451 7th Street, S.W.;
Washington, DC 20410; (202) 708-1112.
8) EDR Environmental Data Resources; 6 Armstrong Road; Shelton, Connecticut 06484; (203) 783-
0300.
9) Orange County Agriculture Department & Commissioner; 1750 S. Douglass Road, Building D;
Anaheim, California 92806-6050; (714) 447-7100.
10) City of Newport Beach Building Department; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach, California
92663; (949) 644-3288.
11) Orange County Health Care Agency; 1241 E. Dyer Road, Suite 120; Santa Ana, California 92705;
(714) 433-6000.
12) Newport Beach Fire Department; 100 Civic Center Drive; Newport Beach, California 92660; (949)
644-3355.
13) South Coast Air Quality Management District; 21865 Copley Drive; Diamond Bar, California 91765;
(909) 396-2000.
14) State of California Department of Conservation — Geologic Energy Management Division; 4800
Stockdale Highway; Bakersfield, California 93309; (661) 322-4031.
15) Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board; 3737 Main Street, Suite 500; Riverside,
California 92501-3348; (951) 782-4130.
16) Department of Toxic Substances Control; (800) 728-6942;
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
17) Office of the State Fire Marshal Pipeline Safety Division; P.O. Box 944246; Sacramento, California
94244-2460; (916) 445-8477.
23
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
16.0 SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide our professional assistance
to Mr. Peter Zak and NCA Real Estate on this project. If you have any questions regarding this assessment
or if AEC can be of further service, please call us at (661) 395-1646.
In addition, I declare to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of
Environmental Professional as defined in Section 312.10 of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 312. 1
have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the
nature, history, and setting of the subject site. I have developed and performed the all -appropriate inquiries
in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR 312.
Sincerely,
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
This report has been prepared by: `" U.
RENEWAL DATE
t Prhan L. Buck rt
Principal Geologist a, 74W
4302 Ford Road
24
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc.
17.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
AEC staff is composed of three primary environmental professionals that perform Phase I Environmental
Site Assessments on a routine basis. Qualifications profile for these individuals is provided in the following
section.
Jonathan L. Buck
Mr. Buck received a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from the University of California, Santa
Barbara, in 1981 and was professionally engaged in the petroleum industry in various capacities through
1985. Mr. Buck joined the environmental industry in 1985 and formed Advanced Environmental
Concepts Inc. in 1989. Since its inception, AEC has been a full service environmental consulting firm
specializing in Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, UST programs, and soil and groundwater
assessment and cleanup programs. Mr. Buck is a State of California Registered Geologist (#7468) and
has performed numerous ESAs on diverse properties throughout California, Arizona, Oregon, and
Washington.
April J. Saceaux
Ms. Saceaux joined AEC in June 2008 and is in her seventeenth year as a Project Manager preparing
Environmental Site Assessments under the direct supervision of a California Registered Geologist.
Anthony R. Buck
Anthony Buck has five years of experience as a Project Manager under the direct supervision of a California
Registered Geologist. His environmental industry experience entails soil and groundwater characterization
studies, removal of soils impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons, groundwater monitoring well construction,
sampling and analysis as well as conducting Phase I Environmental Site Assessments.
25
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS WITH DESIGN IN MIND
220 E. TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 661/395-1646 FAX 661/395-1616
EXHIBIT B
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and
Ford Motor Company
Water Boards
wa o... o,Ro_eo.aos Community Fact Sheet No. 14
Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility — Newport Beach, CA
January 2025
Why Am I Receiving This?
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Water Board) and Ford Motor Company
(Ford) are distributing this fact sheet to provide information on Ford's ongoing environmental activities at
the former Ford Aeronutronics property at 1000 Ford Road, Newport Beach (Site). The Santa Ana Water
Board is the lead state agency overseeing environmental investigation and remediation activities. You are
receiving this fact sheet because you reside, work, or own property within or near the Site boundaries.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is vapor intrusion?
Vapor intrusion is a process where chemicals in the vapor phase can travel below ground in
soil gas and enter a building through cracks and other openings in a building's foundation and
potentially impact the quality of indoor air.
What are trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE)?
TCE is a chemical compound that was commonly used as an industrial solvent and metal
degreaser. PCE is a chemical compound commonly used in clothes dry cleaning and metal
degreasing. TCE and PCE are among a group of chemicals known as volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and are also considered chlorinated solvents, which evaporate easily, are
highly stable, and non-flammable at room temperature. Due to their widespread use, low levels
of TCE and PCE are common in urban areas.
Is my drinking water safe?
Your drinking water is safe to drink. Water is provided by the City of Newport Beach Public
Works and meets State and Federal standards for quality.
Site History and Investigation/Remediation Overview
Ford conducted aerospace and electronic research, development and production at the facility from 1957
to 1993 (see Figure 1). Ford has been working voluntarily under regulatory oversight since the early
1990s to address environmental impacts associated with these operations. VOCs associated with past
operations have been found in soil, soil gas (vapors found beneath the surface) and groundwater both on -
and off -Site. On -Site assessment and remediation activities were completed in 1997 and off -Site
investigations are ongoing under the oversight of the Santa Ana Water Board. Recent environmental work
has included:
• Determining the extent of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), specifically trichloroethene (TCE)
and tetrachloroethene (PCE), in groundwater and soil gas and how this is impacting indoor air
within some buildings in the vicinity of the Site.
- 1 -
Community Fact Sheet No. 14
Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility
January 2025
• Operation and maintenance of two soil vapor extraction (SVE) systems in the Bayridge Park and
Belcourt Terrace communities to help remove VOC contamination since August 7, 2024.
• Ongoing monitoring and maintenance of 14 sub -slab depressurization (SSD) systems in select
homes with impacted indoor air quality in the Bayridge Park community to temporarily improve the
quality of indoor air at those homes while the SVE systems work to remove contamination long-
term.
• Installing additional soil vapor probes and/or groundwater monitoring wells in the southern portion
of the Newport North Apartment Homes and Corsica Villas to support continued monitoring of
VOC contamination in groundwater and soil gas. Monitoring results will be used to evaluate the
plumes to determine if they are stable or moving and whether concentrations are reducing or
increasing overtime.
Additional details about current and past activities can be found at GeoTracker, the State Water Boards'
data management system, at
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report.as0global id=SL188023848 or Ford's webpage
for the Site at www.FordNBFacts.com.
What is the Current Vapor Intrusion Investigation Status?
• Much of the soil gas plume has been defined and will continue to be monitored two to three times a
year at 438 subsurface sampling locations. The soil gas data collected aids our understanding of
the soil gas plume stability and determines if concentrations at each sampling location are stable,
decreasing, or increasing, which helps the Santa Ana Water Board determine the next steps.
• As of December 31, 2024, approximately 390 residential properties and 3 commercial properties
have had their indoor air sampled. Low levels of PCE and TCE have been detected above
screening levels in the indoor air of 153 homes. Air -purifying units or SSD systems have been
offered to 33 of those properties where data suggested vapor intrusion was occurring based on
property -specific evaluations. The remaining properties with indoor air exceedances appear to
have indoor sources of VOCs (e.g., cleaning products, dry-cleaned clothes, scented candles, etc.)
• Additional soil gas and indoor air data will be used to prepare and submit addenda to the
previously submitted community -specific Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) reports to
evaluate properties that were not included in prior HHRA reports and to document changes in
previous risk calculations, as warranted. All HHRA reports, including addenda, are reviewed by a
toxicologist from the Santa Ana Water Board's sister agency, the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). For properties that have already been evaluated in a community -
specific HHRA or in a subsequent addendum, Ford will continue sampling soil gas and indoor air to
ensure conditions remain protective of human health. Sampling frequency for each property will be
either every six months, annually, every two years, or every five years, based on soil gas
concentrations.
What is the Status of the Remediation and Mitigation Activities in Bayridge Park and
Belcourt Terrace?
The Santa Ana Water Board has approved the Final Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plans (FS/RAPs)
and Remedial Design and Implementation Plans (RDIPs) for Bayridge Park and Belcourt Terrace where
remediation and mitigation activities are underway. The FS/RAPs evaluated different methods to address
groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air impacts based on the HHRAs and recommended the following
remedy to address conditions in these communities:
-2-
Community Fact Sheet No. 14
Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility
January 2025
• Ongoing monitoring of groundwater and/or soil gas to determine if concentrations are naturally
decreasing over time (i.e., monitored natural attenuation).
• Installing and operating a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system to remove VOCs in soil gas.
• Installing and operating SSD systems at properties where indoor air remains impacted by VOCs
due to vapor intrusion.
• Ongoing monitoring of indoor air to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed remedy at providing
long-term protection of human health (i.e., long-term monitoring).
The approved RDIPs provide detailed information on the design and implementation of the mitigation and
remediation measures in those communities to support the following work that has recently been completed.
Soil Vapor Extraction Systems
On August 7, 2024, Ford began operating two Soil Vapor Extraction
systems (SVE systems) in the Bayridge Park and Belcourt Terrace
communities. The SVE systems use a vacuum to extract soil gas
present below ground and draw it above ground into the treatment
building, where this vapor is treated to remove the VOCs before being
safely released into the atmosphere. Preliminary performance
evaluations indicate the SVE systems are operating as designed and
are effectively removing contamination from below the ground.
Ford will continue performing SVE system evaluations during the first
quarter of 2025. This data will be used to determine if the SVE
systems should continue running 24 hours a day or if they should be
turned on and off (pulsed) as needed to maximize efficiency, in
accordance with approved permits from the City of Newport Beach and Above: Photo the SVE System
the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The data will also be installed at Belcourt Terrace.
reviewed to determine if operating the SVE systems for one year will be
sufficient to remove enough VOC contamination to allow for the long-term protection of human health or if
the SVE systems will need to operate for a longer period of time. The Santa Ana Water Board will
determine whether to cease or continue operations after one year and whether the systems should
continue to operate 24 hours a day or if they should be pulsed. These determinations will be shared with
the residents of each community and be summarized in the next community fact sheet.
Sub -Slab Depressurization Systems
Fourteen sub -slab depressurization (SSD systems) are operating at
homes within the Bayridge Park community. These SSD systems have
replaced the air -purifying units previously operating in homes and
function by creating a pressure difference between the home's sub -slab
(area under the building foundation) and the inside of the building to
prevent vapor intrusion. SSD systems are a mitigation tool, meaning they
lessen the effects of vapor intrusion, while the SVE systems are a
remediation, or clean up, tool that will address the sources of
contamination. Preliminary performance evaluations indicate the SSD
system is effectively creating a pressure difference between the sub -slab
and the inside of the building. Ford plans to remove the SSD systems
after the SVE systems have effectively addressed the contamination
and there is no longer a risk of vapor intrusion.
Above: Photo of an SSD System
installed at Bayridge Park.
-3-
Community Fact Sheet No. 14
Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility
January 2025
Ford continues to monitor the SSD systems regularly and make adjustments, as needed. The Water
Board reviews Ford's monitoring data and associated adjustments to ensure the SSD systems are
operating properly and effectively.
Long -Term Monitoring
While the SVE and SSD systems are operating and after the eventual removal of these systems, Ford will
continue to monitor soil gas, groundwater, and indoor air long-term to ensure the selected remedies are
protective of the health of residents, the larger community, and the environment.
Remedial/Mitigation Strategies for the Other Communities in the Investigation Area
As requested by the Santa Ana Water Board, Ford has prepared community -specific Feasibility Studies
(FS), or Feasibility Studies/Remedial Action Plans (FS/RAP) based on findings of their HHRA report and
the Santa Ana Water Board's review of the HHRAs for other communities in the investigation area,
including One Ford Road, Newport North Apartment Homes, Corsica Villas, Sea Island, and Belcourt
Hills. Proposed remedies may include one or a combination of the following short and long-term options:
• Ongoing monitoring of groundwater and/or soil gas to determine if concentrations are naturally
decreasing over time (i.e., monitored natural attenuation).
• Installing and operating an SVE system to remove VOCs in soil gas.
• Conducting in -situ groundwater cleanup to reduce VOCs in groundwater.
• Installing and operating SSD systems at properties where indoor air remains impacted by VOCs
due to vapor intrusion.
• Ongoing monitoring of indoor air to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed remedy at providing
long-term protection of human health (i.e., long-term monitoring).
Additional details on FSs and RAPs can be found on past fact sheets and past public meeting recordings
listed on GeoTracker or Ford's Project webpage listed below.
The Santa Ana Water Board has approved the Final FS/RAPs for One Ford Road and the Final FSs for
Corsica Villas, Sea Island, Belcourt Hill, and the southern portion of the Newport North Apartment Homes.
The Santa Ana Water Board has also approved RDIPs for the One Ford Road community, Corsica Villas
Townhomes and the southern portion of the Newport North Apartment Homes. The agency is also
reviewing the Revised Draft FS for the northern portion of the Newport North Apartment Homes.
Monitored Natural Attenuation at the Southern Portion of Newport North Apartment Homes and
Corsica Villa Townhomes
In 2024, Ford began implementing the Santa Ana Water Board -approved remedies for the southern
portion of the Newport North Apartment Homes and the Corsica Villa Townhomes. The selected remedies
for both communities call for the monitored natural attenuation (MNA) of groundwater, soil gas and/or
indoor air. During this process, Ford will rely on natural processes to reduce the concentration of
contaminants in groundwater and soil gas and will continue conducting regular soil gas, groundwater
and/or indoor air sampling to ensure concentrations are decreasing and are not posing a risk to human
health or the environment. To support this monitoring, Ford installed seven monitoring wells and 20 soil
gas sampling locations.
Community Fact Sheet No. 14
Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility
January 2025
This is a form of passive, rather than active, remediation and was selected and approved since both the
southern portion of the Newport North Apartment Homes and the Corsica Villa Townhomes have lower
impacts in groundwater and soil gas compared to the Belcourt Terrace and Bayridge Court communities.
Data Gap Investigation Activities
Additional environmental investigations are being conducted to provide more information on the lateral
and vertical extent of PCE and TCE in soil gas and groundwater in the southern areas of the investigation
area, primarily in the Big Canyon Arroyo area. Work includes installing and sampling soil gas probes and
groundwater monitoring wells and collecting groundwater samples from multiple depths to support project
goals and objectives. This work began in December 2024 and will continue in 2025. Results from this
investigation are expected to be available online at GeoTracker in the second half of 2025 and will be
summarized in future fact sheets.
Community -Wide Meetings
As Ford and the Santa Ana Water Board move into a phase of this project that is less impactful to
community, the Santa Ana Water Board will hold annual community -wide meetings moving forward. The
next meeting will be in August 2025 and invitations will be distributed in advance. The Santa Ana Water
Board will continue to send fact sheet updates semiannually. Staff from the Santa Ana Water Board and
Ford's environmental consultant will continue to be available to answer questions or provide additional
information.
For More Information
GeoTracker is the State Water Boards' data management system for sites that impact, or have the
potential to impact, water quality in California. Investigation results, project documents, details about
past and planned field work, and previous public outreach materials and recordings from recent
meetings can be viewed and downloaded from GeoTracker online at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report. asp?global id=SL188023848.
Select reports pertaining to recent investigation activities may also be viewed and downloaded at
www.FordNBFacts.com (see Project Documents tab). For more information, you may also contact:
Santa Ana Water Board
Jessica Law, P.G.
Santa Ana Water Board Case Manager
(951) 782-4381
Jessica. Law(@waterboards.ca.gov
Ford Project Contact Information
Ford Project Information Line: (833) 949-3673
Ford Project Email: info Ford NBFacts.com
Ford Project Website: www.FordNBFacts.com
-5-
Community Fact Sheet No. 14
Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility
Big Canyon
Alroyo Area
Upper i,ewport Bay
1
r
C �� 1
i r
1
florll, Ares +�
}r 4
� r
i
` err �
�s� f
�A
e
Former Fofd •i ••! IIf ! i,
Aeronutronic Facility f Main Area i
L�ci fC
I
r,
e ,
ron caunvy C,u4 ~"•�_�
Explanation
Approximate North Area and Big Canyon Arroyo Historical arroyo
boundaries (the study area) [backfilled during
r
1 � Approximate location of former facility buildings development]
MW-1 —•_ Creek
Approximate former Aeronutronic Facility boundary
R Former facility property
January 2025
I
L —
7
6
0 400
Figure 1 — Map showing the Site and investigation area
800
Feet