Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
17 - Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Appeal (PA2022-063)
Q �EwPpRT CITY OF s NEWPORT BEACH `q44:09 City Council Staff Report October 14, 2025 Agenda Item No. 17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Jaime Murillo, Acting Community Development Director - 949-644- 3209, jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner - 949-644-3312, jperez@newportbeachca.gov TITLE: Resolution No. 2025-66: Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Appeal (PA2022-063) ABSTRACT: For the City Council's consideration is an appeal of the Planning Commission's July 17, 2025, approval of a conditional use permit and adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (SCH No. 2024120012) to allow the construction and operation of a new renewable natural gas processing plant and pipeline interconnection facility at the closed Coyote Canyon Landfill located at 20662 Newport Coast Drive. An appeal was filed on July 30, 2025, by the law firm Adams, Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of Orange County Residents for Responsible Development alleging that the project has the potential for significant and unmitigated environmental impacts related to air quality, public health, hazards, greenhouse gas, and noise that were not adequately studied and mitigated by the initial study/mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project, and that the Planning Commission violated the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) in its approval. RECOMMENDATIONS: a) Conduct a de novo public hearing; and b) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-66, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Denying an Appeal and Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approve a Conditional Use Permit to Construct and Operate a Landfill Gas -to -Energy Facility at 20662 Newport Coast Drive (PA2022-063). DISCUSSION: The project site is located within the greater boundary of the closed Coyote Canyon Landfill (CCL), which received municipal solid waste from 1963 to 1990 and officially closed on May 7, 2003. The Coyote Canyon Landfill is at the northeastern edge of the City's boundaries within Newport Coast. It is owned by the County of Orange and is maintained by Orange County Waste & Recycling (OCWR). 17-1 Resolution No. 2025-66: Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Appeal (PA2022-063) October 14, 2025 Page 2 As shown below in Figure 1, the landfill boundary occurs on both sides of Newport Coast Drive and consists of four distinct areas: (1) the main canyon landfill, located immediately west of Newport Coast Drive and addressed as 20661 Newport Coast Drive; (2) and (3) the east and south canyon landfilling areas, located east of Newport Coast Drive and with no specific address; and (4) the project site, also located east of Newport Coast Drive, at the top of a ridge, and addressed as 20662 Newport Coast Drive. S t - ..East. Canyon Coyote Canyon Landfill main canyon] Project Site r • j Figure 1, Coyote Canyon Landfill areas The entire landfill footprint, including the project site, is located within the Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conversation Plan (NCCP/HCP) for the Central and Coastal Subregions of Orange County. The NCCP/HCP is a multi -species habitat conservation plan designed to protect sensitive plant and animal species by preserving existing habitat areas. The project site is designated as an existing use by the NCCP/HCP. Surrounding land uses include the landfill areas described above, an Irvine Ranch Water District pumping station, and undeveloped open space. The nearest sensitive receptors are Sage Hill School, located approximately 1,400 feet to the north, and the Tesoro residential community, located approximately 1,250 feet to the south. The project site has historically been the primary location for managing landfill gas (LFG), including a former LFG-to-energy facility. The original LFG-to-energy facility operated from 1988 to 2015 and converted LFG into electricity. The facility was removed as part of the Coyote Canyon Gas Recovery Demolition and Telecom Update (PA2016-091) (SCH No. 2016081012) because the quality of the LFG became inadequate for conversion into 17-2 Resolution No. 2025-66: Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Appeal (PA2022-063) October 14, 2025 Page 3 energy with the technology available at the time. In 2018, OCWR released a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking the highest qualified proposal for handling LFG at the site. The Applicant was selected through the RFP process and was offered an option agreement with the County to construct a new LFG-to-energy facility. The project site is currently improved with emergency generators, above ground storage tanks, two 65-foot faux eucalyptus cell towers (telecoms), power panels and switchgear, a blower pad, and four flares that continuously burn off LFG generated by the landfill. There is a small operational support building used by OCWR staff and three parking spaces. The project site is surrounded by a 12-foot-tall perimeter block wall, trees, with coastal sage scrub beyond. Project Description Biofuels Coyote Canyon Biogas, LLC, on behalf of Archaea Energy, Inc. (Applicant) proposes the construction and operation of a new renewable natural gas (RNG) processing plant and a pipeline interconnection facility, collectively referred to as the "RNG Facility". The RNG Facility would treat LFG that is currently being flared off by OCWR through a proprietary process and would inject the RNG into SoCal Gas infrastructure through an existing, onsite, tie-in point. The RNG would not be stored onsite, nor would the RNG Facility replace OCWR's existing LFG collection system or flares. The existing flares would be used to combust any LFG that cannot be sent to the RNG Facility, like in the event of a scheduled shut down for maintenance, an unscheduled shutdown arising from an irregularity, or excess quantities of LFG. From a physical design standpoint, the RNG Facility would have a total footprint of approximately 38,500 square feet, concentrated on the eastern side of the project site, and would be composed of pipe racks, various vessels and tanks, a new flare tower, a thermal oxidizer, and other miscellaneous processing equipment. The new flare tower will be approximately 40 feet high, as measured from finish grade, and will be fully enclosed with no flames visible from it. Equipment ranges in height from approximately 5 feet, 6 inches above finish grade to a maximum height of 60 feet above finish grade. Most equipment would be screened by the existing 12-foot-tall perimeter wall apart from the vessels, tanks, flare tower, pipe rack, and thermal oxidizer. The tallest piece of RNG Facility equipment, the thermal oxidizer, is proposed at a height of 60 feet above finish grade. It is important to highlight that all equipment will be below the 65-foot height of the adjacent faux -eucalyptus telecoms. As shown below in Figure 2, the Applicant proposes enhanced aesthetic treatment of the equipment, consisting of camouflage paint, to help the RNG Facility blend in with the surroundings. Photographic simulations from additional vantage points are available as Attachment B. 17-3 Resolution No. 2025-66: Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Appeal (PA2022-063) October 14, 2025 Page 4 Figure 2, Visual Simulation of the RNG Facility with camouflage motif, taken from Newport Coast Drive, north of its intersection with San Joaquin Hills Road. Other project components include a new control room building, striping for two new parking spaces, new internal access routes, utility upgrades including the installation of an additional fire hydrant, a water tank, a septic tank, oil/water separator, storm drain, and new underground power and telecommunication lines. The RNG Facility would operate 24 hours per day, seven days a week, with an annual scheduled shutdown for plant maintenance. The faux eucalyptus telecoms, along with existing OCWR infrastructure, would be protected in place and not affected by the current project. Project plans are available as Attachment C. Construction is anticipated to take nine months and would include the demolition and rerouting of existing water and condensate lines, general site preparation, rough and fine grading, pipeline trenching and installation, soil hauling, vertical construction, paving, architectural coating, landscaping, and punch list/closeout items. In compliance with the City's requirements and as conditioned, construction would occur from 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on federal holidays. The Applicant will implement a traffic control plan during demolition and construction, which must be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Applicant proposes notifying nearby residential community members at least one week prior to the start of construction activities with broader notifications required through various means, including placing signs at road crossings, indicating that large trucks may be present. 17-4 Resolution No. 2025-66: Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Appeal (PA2022-063) October 14, 2025 Page 5 The primary laydown area for material deliveries is proposed on the project site with a secondary laydown area proposed within an already disturbed portion of the main landfill area, across Newport Coast Drive. Vehicle parking for construction employees would be provided in the secondary laydown area, and a shuttle would transport crews daily to and from the project site. The project site is within the special purpose Open Space (OS) Zoning District. Like the OS General Plan category, the OS District is intended to provide areas to maintain and protect the community's natural open and landscaped open space areas. "Major Utilities" are allowed within the OS District, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). All facts to support the required findings to approval a CUP are presented in detail within Exhibit "F" of Attachment A. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City Council Policy K-3, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the project. Prior to taking action on the project, the City Council must first review, consider, and adopt the IS/MND (Exhibit "A", Attachment A). The draft IS/MND includes the Notice of Intent (NOI), Initial Study (IS), Environmental Analysis, and Appendices. Based upon the analysis of the IS, the environmental categories within which the project would have either no impact or less than significant impact were: Aesthetics, Agricultural/Forest Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Recreation, and Utilities/Service Systems. The environmental categories which the project would have potentially significant impacts were: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Waste, Public Services, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire. Specific mitigation measures have been required to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. The IS/MND was completed and circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on November 27, 2024, and concluded on January 13, 2025. Five comment letters were received during the comment period. Two of the five letters received were from public agencies (California Department of Transportation and the South Coast Air Quality Air Management District), one letter was received from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, and two letters were received from the law firm Adams, Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJ&C) on behalf of California Unions for Reliable Energy. Although not required for an IS/MND by the CEQA Guidelines, those letters have been catalogued and are responded to as part of the Final MND (Exhibit "B", Attachment A). The comments received did not result in changes to the project of a substantive nature. Based on the entire environmental review record, the project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact on the environment. 17-5 Resolution No. 2025-66: Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Appeal (PA2022-063) October 14, 2025 Page 6 Planning Commission Hearing and Decision The project was originally scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 2025. In response to the public hearing notice, a comment letter was submitted on May 21, 2025, by ABJ&C on behalf of Orange County Residents for Responsible Industry. The project was removed from calendar, and the meeting was canceled to allow additional time for City staff to review the comment letter. It was determined that the comments provided in ABJ&C letter dated May 21, 2025, were already adequately responded to in the Response to Comments (RTC) included in the final MND and no additional analysis or changes to the Project would be required. On July 17, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing to consider the project. The Planning Commission received one letter in advance of the hearing, but after the deadline for submitting written comments, and two oral comments during the hearing. The letter was submitted by the ABJ&C law firm also on behalf of Orange County Residents for Responsible Industry and expressed concern about the Project's potential for unmitigated significant impacts. Oral comments were received from Aidan Marshal, on behalf of Orange County Residents for Responsible Development, and Jim Mosher, expressing similar concerns regarding the potential for impacts. Following receipt of public comments and deliberation, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2025-008 by a unanimous vote to approve the project and adopt the IS/MND. The staff report, resolution and meeting minutes are provided as Attachment D, E and F, respectively. An appeal was filed on July 30, 2025, by the ABJ&C law firm on behalf of Orange County Residents for Responsible Development (Appellant) and is provided as Attachment G. The appeal alleged the following deficiencies regarding the IS/MND (as summarized): a) Air quality impacts from fugitive emissions and leaks are significant and unmitigated; b) Public health and hazards impacts are significant and unmitigated; c) Greenhouse gas emissions may be significant and unmitigated; d) Health risk impacts from construction emissions are underreported, relying on a 9- month construction schedule; and e) Construction noise impacts are significant and unmitigated. The Appellant also alleges the Planning Commission abused its discretion and violated Section 20.52.020(F) of the NBMC in approving the Project for the following reasons (as summarized): 17-6 Resolution No. 2025-66: Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Appeal (PA2022-063) October 14, 2025 Page 7 a) The Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to find that the project would not harm public health, safety, or welfare, specifically related to air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts; b) The project may not be adequately served by fire protection services, especially in the case of worst -case scenario jet fires; and c) The project is inconsistent with the General Plan policies, particularly those related to reducing construction -related air quality emissions. Response to Appeal Most of the environmental concerns raised in the July 30, 2025, appeal letter were previously addressed in the RTC included as part of the Final IS/MND. A Technical Memorandum is provided as Attachment H and is incorporated into the resolution to identify where each recent comment is addressed in the RTC. However, the Appellant correctly noted that the Planning Commission staff report mistakenly stated a 12-month construction period. The project proposes a nine -month construction schedule and the IS/MND relies on a nine -month construction schedule, as stated in the RTC. The current staff report reflects the correct duration. The allegation that the Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to conclude the Project would not harm public health, safety, or welfare is not supported. The IS/MND contains technical studies including an Air Quality Impact Analysis, Noise Impact Analysis, and Preliminary Site Consequence Analysis that evaluated the potential impacts to health and safety. The IS/MND and RTC demonstrate that, with mitigation measures, the Project would have less than significant environmental impacts and no known substantial adverse effects on human health. The allegation that the Project would not be adequately served by fire protection services is also not supported. The Newport Beach Fire Department ("NBFD") was consulted during preparation of the IS/MND, reviewed the Project's fire protection measures, and raised no objections. The NBFD provided detailed input and technical recommendations, which were incorporated into the Project's design, MMRP, and Conditions of Approval. Regarding construction -related air quality impacts, the Appellant noted that Condition of Approval No. 33 in Planning Commission resolution No. PC2025-008 permitted up to 30 minutes of idling for trucks and equipment, conflicting with General Plan Policy NR 8.1. This condition was a standard condition for implementing best available control measures. As noted in the RTC, nonessential idling will be limited to five minutes, consistent with California Air Resources Board Rule 2485. The Conditions of Approval have been updated accordingly. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. 17- 7 Resolution No. 2025-66: Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Appeal (PA2022-063) October 14, 2025 Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: As described in detail above, an IS/MND (SCH No. 2024120012) has been prepared in connection with the Project. The IS/MND states that, with mitigation measures incorporated, the Project will not result in a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, the Project would qualify for two exemptions under CEQA, based on location, prior use, and environmental benefits. First, the project is statutorily exempt under Section 21094.5 of the California Public Resources Code. This exemption applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has already been certified for a previous project, and the proposed project is similar in nature without introducing new or more severe environmental impacts than those previously analyzed. In this case, the earlier LFG-to-energy facility was reviewed as part of Addendum No. 84-104 to EIR No. 507 (SCH No. 82082004) (Exhibit "G," Attachment A). While the former facility converted LFG into electricity, the Project would perform the same basic function, converting LFG into RNG. No new or more significant environmental impacts have been identified beyond what was already evaluated in the prior environmental review. Second, the project is also categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. This section exempts actions taken by regulatory agencies to ensure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment, particularly when those actions involve established environmental protection procedures. Instead of flaring off LFG to the atmosphere, the Project will convert LFG into RNG, which will be injected into the SoCal Gas system. NOTICING: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways), including the Applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Lastly, the City emailed the notice of hearing to interested parties that had requested notification. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Resolution No. 2025-66 Attachment B — Visual Simulations Attachment C — Project Plans Attachment D — July 17, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment E — Resolution No. PC2025-008 Attachment F — July 17, 2025, Planning Commission Minutes Attachment G — Appeal Application Attachment H — City Appeal Response Letter 17-8 Attachment A Resolution No. 2025-66 17-9 RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A LANDFILL GAS -TO -ENERGY FACILITY AT 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE (PA2022-063) WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City Charter, of the City of Newport Beach ("City"), vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the City Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California; WHEREAS, an application was filed by Biofuels Coyote Canyon Biogas, LLC, on behalf of Archaea Energy, Inc. ("Applicant"), concerning property located at 20662 Newport Coast Drive, and legally described as a Portion of Block 128, Tract No. 361 of Irvine's Subdivision ("Project Site"), requesting approval of a conditional use permit ("CUP"), - WHEREAS, the Project Site is located within the greater boundary of the closed Coyote Canyon Landfill ("CCL"), which is owned by the County of Orange ("Owner") and maintained by Orange County Waste & Recycling ("OCWR"); WHEREAS, the Project Site has historically been the primary location for dealing with landfill gas ("LFG"), including a former LFG-to-energy operation; WHEREAS, the previous LFG-to-energy facility operated from 1988 to 2015 and was removed as part of the Coyote Canyon Gas Recovery Demolition and Telecom Update (PA2016-091) (State Clearinghouse Number ["SCH No."] 2016081012), as the quality of the LFG became inadequate for conversion to energy with the technology of the time; WHEREAS, the Project Site is currently improved with emergency generators, above ground storage tanks, two 65-foot-tall faux eucalyptus cell towers ("Telecom Facilities"), a power panel and switchgear, a blower pad, and flares that currently burn off the LFG generated by CCL along with a small operational support building in the center of the site used by OCWR staff and three parking spaces; 17-10 Resolution No. 2025- Page 2 of 7 WHEREAS, the Project Site is surrounded by a 12-foot-tall perimeter block wall, with trees and coastal sage scrub that are part of the Central Subregion of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conversation Plan for the Central and Coastal Subregions of Orange County beyond; WHEREAS, the Applicant requests to construct and operate a new renewable natural gas ("RNG") processing plant and a pipeline interconnection facility (collectively referred to as the "RNG Facility") to convert LFG generated by the CCL into a pipeline - quality natural gas equivalent with the RNG being transferred from the facility into SoCal Gas infrastructure for use in their system through an existing onsite tie-in point ("Project"); WHEREAS, other Project components include a new control room building, new internal access routes, utility upgrades including installation of an additional fire hydrant, a water tank, septic tank, oil/water separator, storm drain for off -site disposal of stormwater, and new underground power and telecommunication lines, all within the boundary of the 12- foot-tall perimeter block wall; WHEREAS, the Project Site is categorized as Open Space (OS) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is located within the Open Space (OS) Zoning District; WHEREAS, the Project meets the definition of a "Major Utility," as provided in Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC and is allowed within the OS District, subject to the approval of a CUP; WHEREAS, the Project Site is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, no coastal development permit is required; WHEREAS, a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024120012) ("IS/MND"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference was prepared for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines set forth in Title 14 in the California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq., and City Council Policy K-3; WHEREAS, the draft IS/MND was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period beginning on November 27, 2024, and ending on January 13, 2025; WHEREAS, five public comment letters were received during the public review period consisting of two letters from public agencies (California Department of Transportation and the South Coast Air Quality Air Management District), one letter from the Gabrielei)o Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, and two letters from the law firm Adams, Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo ("ABJ&C"); 17-11 Resolution No. 2025- Page 3 of 7 WHEREAS, although not required by the CEQA Guidelines for an IS/MND, those comment letters were catalogued and responded to as part of the final IS/MND in the Response to Comments ("RTC') which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B," and incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, the City provided formal notice on December 5, 2023, to Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project Site; WHEREAS, the City received no responses within the 30-day period; however, a tribal contact for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, requested consultation during the previously described public comment period of the IS/MND; WHEREAS, mitigation measures to address potential impacts to and the protection of Tribal Cultural Resources were included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C," and incorporated herein by reference, to the satisfaction of the tribe; WHEREAS, based on the entire environmental review record, the Project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact on the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings associated with the Project; WHEREAS, additionally, the long-term environmental goals will not be compromised by the Project nor are there cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the Project so that the Project, with implementation of the MMRP, will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level, - WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2025, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing; WHEREAS, the final MND, which includes the IS, public comments, RTC, and the MMRP, was considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the Project; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2025-008 by a unanimous vote (4 ayes, 0 nays, and 3 absent), approving the Project and adopting the final MND inclusive of the IS, RTC, and the MMRP; 17-12 Resolution No. 2025- Page 4 of 7 WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by ABJ&C alleging that the Project has the potential for significant and unmitigated environmental impacts related to air quality, public health, hazards, greenhouse gas, and noise, and that substantial evidence did not support the Planning Commission's approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 14, 2025, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by, the City Council at this hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council does hereby uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the CUP filed as PA2022-063, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "E," supported by the facts and findings set forth in in Exhibit "F," both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Additionally, the Planning Commission acted within its discretion in approving the Project for the following reasons as described in greater detail below: a. Substantial evidence exists that the Project would not harm public health, safety, or welfare, specifically related to air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts; b. The Project will be adequately served by fire protection services, especially in the case of worst -case scenario jet fires; and c. The Project is consistent with the General Plan policies, including those related to reducing construction -related air quality emissions impacts. Approval of the Project is supported by substantial evidence that the Project would not harm public health, safety, or welfare based on the evidence provided in IS/MND and RTC. With mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact on the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings associated with the Project. The Project would be adequately served by fire protection services. The Newport Beach Fire Department ("NBFD") was consulted during the preparation of the IS/MND and participated in the review of the Project's fire protection measures. NBFD did not object to the Project and provided detailed input and technical recommendations that were incorporated into the Project's design, MMRP, and Conditions of Approval. 17-13 Resolution No. 2025- Page 5 of 7 Lastly, related to construction -related air quality impacts, the Appellant identified that Condition of Approval No. 33 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 allowed for idling up to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment, conflicting with Policy NR 8.1 of the General Plan. Condition of Approval No. 33 was a standard condition, intended to implement best available control measures during construction. As described in the RTC, nonessential idling of off -road equipment shall be limited to five minutes, consistent with California Air Resources Board Rule 2485, and the Conditions of Approval have been updated. Section 2: The City Council has considered the decision of the Planning Commission and determined that the IS/MND adequately considers and mitigates potential impacts related to air quality, public health, hazards, greenhouse gas, and noise, as raised by ABJ&C. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024120012) attached hereto as Exhibit "A," Response to Comments attached hereto as Exhibit "B," and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C," and incorporated by reference. The City Council finds that the issues raised related to the IS/MND are not new and were both previously and adequately addressed in the RTC. A Technical Memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference describes where in the RTC the comments from the appeal letter dated July 30, 2025, have been addressed. Moreover, the Project is statutorily and categorically exempt as set forth in Sections 3 and 4 of this resolution. Section 3: The Project is statutorily exempt under Section 21094.5 of the California Public Resources Code which exempts projects where an environmental impact report was certified for a planning level decision in which case, the approval of the infill project is limited to the effects on the environment that (A) are specific to the project or to the project site and were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental document, or (B) substantial new information shows the effects will be more significant than described in the prior environmental document. The Project Site is located within the greater boundary of the closed CCL. The Project Site has historically been used as a renewable energy facility. Specifically, from 1988 to 2015, the Project Site consisted of a facility that converted landfill gas generated by the landfill into electricity. Addendum No. 84-104 to Environmental Impact Report No. 507 (SCH No. 82082004), both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "G," was certified in 1984. Addendum No. 84-104 analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the prior LFG project. The Project involves the same activities as the prior LFG- conversion in that it would operate as an RNG Facility that converts LFG generated by the CCL. Since Addendum No. 84-104 analyzed the issues on appeal, the Project is statutory exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21094.5 of the California Public Resources Code. 17-14 Resolution No. 2025- Page 6 of 7 Section 4: Finally, the Project is categorically exempt under Section 15308 as set forth in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines") which exempts actions taken by regulatory agencies to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. The Project is exempt under Section 15308 in that, instead of flaring exhaust into the atmosphere, the LFG generated by the CCL into a pipeline -quality natural gas equivalent with the RNG being transferred from the facility into SoCa► Gas infrastructure for use in their system through an existing onsite tie-in point. Section 5: The City Council further finds that modifications to the Project made by the City Council, if any, are not major changes that require referral back to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. Section 6: The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. Section 7: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 17-15 Resolution No. 2025- Page 7 of 7 Section 9: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 14th day of October, 2025. Joe Stapleton Mayor ATTEST: Molly Perry Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Aaron C. arp City Aftoypey Attachment(s): Exhibit "A" — Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024120012) Exhibit "B" — Response to Comments Exhibit "C" — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit "D" — Technical Memorandum Exhibit "E" — Conditions of Approval Exhibit "F" — Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit "G" — Addendum IS 84-104 to EIR 507 (SCH No. 82082004) for Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas Recovery Permit LGR 84-1 17-16 EXHIBIT "A" INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SCH NO. 2024120012 File available via link due to size: https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3088533&dbid=0&repo=CNB 17-17 EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSE TO COMMENTS File available via link due to size: https:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3162801 &repo=CNB&dbid=0 17-18 EXHIBIT "C" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 17-19 May 2025 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program State Clearinghouse No. 2024120012 Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project City of Newport Beach Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Contact: Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach Newport Beach, California 92660 949.644.3312 jperez@newportbeachca.gov Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: Dina El Chammas Gass, Senior Associate 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com ® PLACEWORKS 17-20 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Section Pao 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM..................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................2 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION....................................................................................................................................4 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.....................................................................................................................4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS..............................................6 May 2025 17-21 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Page ii PlaceWorks 17-22 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), State Clearinghouse No. 2024120012. The MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the City of Newport Beach Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for the Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project(proposed project) and is therefore responsible for implementing the MMRP. The MMRP has been drafted to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 as a fully enforceable monitoring program. The MMRP consists of the mitigation program and the measures to implement and monitor the mitigation program. The MM" defines the following for the mitigation measures outlined in Table 2-1, Mitigation Monitoring Requirements. Definition of Mitigation. The mitigation measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to take for mitigation. May. 2025 Pad,, 1 17-23 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction ■ Responsibility for Implementation. Unless otherwise indicated, the project applicant (Archaea Energy) is the party responsible for implementing the mitigation. Responsibility for Oversight. Since the project site is owned by the County of Orange and operated by OCWR, OCWR will have oversight responsibility for implementation of the project's mitigation measures. OCWR's technical consultants will perform related monitoring tasks in their respective areas of expertise and under the direction of the environmental monitor manager. OCWR's mitigation monitoring team, consisting of the environmental monitor manager and technical subconsultants, is responsible for monitoring the implementation/compliance with all adopted mitigation measures. A major portion of the team's work is in -field monitoring and compliance report preparation. OCWR will also be responsible for first phase dispute resolution. Once OCWR prepares compliance reports, the reports will be submitted to the City for review and final approval. Responsibility for Monitoring. The City of Newport Beach will have the final responsibility for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. The City will be responsible for overall program administration, final compliance report review, dispute resolution, and document/report clearinghouse. If disputes cannot be resolved between OCWR and the project applicant, the City will arbitrate the final resolution of disputes. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, the City will be the official entity who grants the permit or authorization called for in the mitigation measure. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from local, state, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. ■ Time Frame. A time frame is provided for performance of each mitigation measure and/or documentation of implementation. The numbering system in Table 1 corresponds with the numbering system used in the IS/MND. The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the mitigation measure has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Newport Beach. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City of Newport Community Development Department. 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY The Landfill Gas to Energy Plant project (proposed project) involves the installation and operation of a new renewable natural gas (RNG) processing plant and a pipeline interconnection facility (collectively referred to as the RNG facility). The proposed RNG facility would be constructed under a lease agreement with OC Waste & Recycling (OCWR), within the boundary of the closed Coyote Canyon Landfill (CCL), which is owned by the County of Orange and operated by OCWR. The project site is 4.14 acres and surrounded by a 12-foot perimeter wall. The proposed RNG facility would have a total footprint of 38,500 square feet (0.88 acres) and would convert existing landfill gas into a pipeline -quality natural gas equivalent. The pipeline interconnection facility would be approximately 6,000 square feet, and the RNG processing plant would be approximately 32,500 square feet. The interconnection facility would include a point of receipt (POR) skid to monitor the quality of the RNG and an 8-inch pipeline extension dedicated to transfer of the RNG from the POR to the Page 2 P1aceWorks 17-24 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction existing fossil natural gas pipeline tie-in point, owned by SoCalGas, in the western part of the site. Other project components include new internal access routes and utility and infrastructure improvements. These improvements would include installation of a fire hydrant, an on -site water tank, a septic tank system for the proposed control room, a storm drain for off -site disposal of stormwater, and new underground power and telecommunication lines. Project implementation requires a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City of Newport Beach (City). May 2025 Page 3 17-25 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is in the northeastern portion of Newport Beach in Orange County, California. The 4.14-acre project site is at the top of a hill at 20662 Newport Coast Drive within the boundary of the closed CCL. The project site is on a previously established level building pad, enclosed by a 12-foot perimeter wall with surrounding trees on all sides. The pad was previously developed with a landfill gas -to -energy plant which has since been demolished. The area immediately outside the perimeter wall that could be affected by the implementation of the proposed project includes understory species and viewshed trees. The trees are a mix of native and non-native species consisting of eucalyptus, Peruvian peppers, myporiums, white alders, western sycamores, and coast live oak. The project site can be accessed from State Route (SR-) 73, approximately 0.2 mile to the east via Newport Coast Drive, and from SR-1, approximately 2.7 miles to the south via Newport Coast Drive. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The level of significance is identified for each impact in the MND. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on definitions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines: ■ No impact. The project would not change the environment. ■ Less than significant. The project would not cause any substantial, adverse change in the environment. ■ Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Initial Study includes mitigation measures that avoid substantial adverse impacts on the environment. ■ Significant and unavoidable. The project would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 1.4.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant ■ Aesthetics ■ Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality ■ Energy ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Mineral Resources ■ Noise ■ Population and Housing ■ Recreation ■ Utilities and Serves Systems Page 4 PlaaWlorks 17-26 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction 1.4.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts That Can Be Mitigated, Avoided, or Substantially Lessened ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Geology and Soils ■ Hazards and Hazardous Waste ■ Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Public Services ■ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources ■ Wildfire May 2025 Page 5 17-27 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Reauirements Project -specific mitigation measures have been categorized in matrix format, as shown in Table 2-1. The matrix identifies the environmental factor, specific mitigation measures, schedule, and responsible monitor. The mitigation matrix will serve as the basis for scheduling the implementation of, and compliance with, all mitigation measures. May 2025 Page 6 17-28 PROJECT TITLE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CLIENT 3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements This page intentionally left blank. May 2025 Page 7 17-29 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Page 8 Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Measure 3.4 Biological Resources Responsibility for Imolementation Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility (Signature Required) Oversiaht for Monitoring (Date of Comoliance) 310-1 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Project 72 hours prior to OCWR City of Construction activities shall avoid the migratory bird nesting season Applicant's the construction Newport (typically February 1 through August 31) to reduce any potential Qualified Wildlife start date If Beach significant impact to birds that may be nesting in the project site. Biologist & construction Community Additionally, vegetation within the proposed impact area can be Construction activities must Development removed outside of the nesting season to minimize the potential for Contractors occur during the Department birds to nest in the impact footprint. If construction activities must migratory bird occur during the migratory bird nesting season, an avian nesting nesting season survey of the project site and within 500 feet of all impact areas must be conducted to determine the presence/absence of protected migratory birds and active nests. The avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to the start of construction in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If an active bird nest is found, the nest shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans, along with an appropriate buffer established around the nest, which shall be determined by the biologist based on the species' sensitivity to disturbance (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and special -status species). The nest area shall be avoided until the nest is vacated and the juveniles have fledged. The nest area shall be demarcated in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. On -site construction monitoring shall be conducted when construction occurs in close proximately to an active nest buffer. No project activities shall encroach into established buffers without the consent of a monitoring biologist. The buffer shall remain in place until it is determined that the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. BIO-2 Preconstruction Bat Survey and Avoidance. Prior to the removal of Project Prior to the OCWR City of trees that could support roosting bats during the maternity roosting Applicant's removal of trees Newport season (March through August), a bat biologist shall survey the areas Qualified that could Beach that could provide suitable roosting habitat for bats to confirm they Biologist & support roosting Community contain no potential maternity roosts. If a potential maternity roost is bats during the PlairWIorks 17-30 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitiaation Monitorina Reauirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Responsibility for Timing Oversight Responsibility for Monitorin Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance) present, the following measures shall be implemented to reduce the Construction maternity Development potential impact to special -status bat species to a less -than -significant Contractors roosting season Department level 1. Maternity Roosting Season Avoidance. All proposed construction activities that could impact suitable roosting habitat, including bat roost exclusion, shall occur outside the general bat maternity roosting season of March through August to reduce any potentially significant impact to maternity roosting bats. If the maternity roosting season cannot be avoided, then implement Items 2 and 3 below, prior to the maternity roosting season, to ensure no impacts occur to roosting bats during the exclusion process. 2. Replacement Roost Installation. If there is a potential or known maternity roost within a tree to be removed. replacement roost installation shall occur outside of the maternity roosting season At least one month prior to the exclusion of bats from a roost, the biologist shall procure and install bat boxes from a reputable vendor, such as Bat Conservation and Management, to allow bats sufficient time to acclimate to a new potential roost location The bat boxes shall be installed in close proximity to the trees and in an area that is in close proximity to suitable foraging habitat (i.e., near coast live oak woodland). Additionally, the bat boxes shall be oriented to the south or southwest, and the area chosen for the bat boxes must receive sufficient sunlight (at least 6 hours) to allow the bat boxes to reach an optimum internal temperature (approximately 90°F) to mimic the existing bat roost. The bat boxes shall be suitable to house crevice -roosting bat species and large enough to contain a minimum of 50 bats (e.g., Four Chamber Premium Bat House or Bat Bunker Plus). The bat boxes shall be installed on a minimum 20-foot-tall steel pole. The bat boxes should be installed under the guidance of the bat biologist. 3. Roost Exclusion. Roost exclusion must only occur outside of the maternity roosting season, and during the time when bats are May 2025 Page 9 17-31 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Page 10 Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Responsibility for Timing Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance) most active (early spring or fall) to increase the potential to exclude all bats from roosts and minimize the potential for a significant impact to occur by avoiding the maternity roosting season. Approximately 1 month after bat boxes have been installed, exclusion of the existing roost shall occur. The primary exit points for roosting bats shall be identified, and all secondary ingress/egress locations shall be covered with a tarp, wood planks, or other methods, as directed by the bat biologist, to prevent bats from leaving from other locations. The primary exit point shall remain uncovered to allow exclusion devices to be installed. Exclusion devices may consist of a screen (poly netting, window screen, or fiberglass screening), foam, wood, or backer rods installed at the primary exit point, so bats are not able to return to the roost after emerging. The exclusion devices shall be installed under the direction of the bat biologist and shall be installed at night to increase the potential that bats have already left the roost and are less likely to return. Once it is confirmed by the bat biologist that all primary and secondary exit/entrance points have been covered and the exclusion devices are properly in place, a one -week exclusion period shall commence. A passive acoustic monitoring detector shall be deployed during the one -week exclusion period to monitor if bat activity has decreased during the exclusion period. Periodic monitoring (one or two evenings) by the bat biologist during the exclusion period should also be conducted to observe if any bats are still emerging from trees to be removed. On the final night of the exclusion period, an active monitoring survey should be conducted to ensure that no bats are emerging from trees to be removed and to confirm that exclusion has been successful. Continued presence of roosting bats in trees that are to be removed shall require an adjustment to the exclusion devices and schedule. The exclusion devices may remain in place until the start of tree removal. After the initial bat survey, if any additional bats are found roosting in any proposed tree removal PlaceWlorks 17-32 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitiaation Monitorina Reauirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Responsibility for Timing Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance) locations, additional exclusion shall be required and follow the same methodology described in this mitigation measure. B10-3 Standard Mandatory Construction Conditions Mitigation Project Prior and during OCWR City of Measures. Applicant's construction Newport 1. To the extent practicable, no clearing of coastal sage scrub Monitoring activities Beach (CSS) habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers Biologist & Community shall occur during the breeding and nesting season Construction Development (February 15 through July 15). It is expressly understood Contractors Department that this provision and the remaining provisions of these "construction minimization measures" are subject to public health and safety considerations. These considerations include unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control, and emergency facility repairs. In the event of such public health and safety circumstances, the applicant shall provide United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with the maximum practicable notice (or such notice as is specified in the NCCP/HCP) to allow for capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any other CSS Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed and shall carry out the following measures only to the extent practicable in the context of the public health and safety considerations. 2 Prior to the commencement of clearing operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance. all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP/HCP, shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of clearing operations or other activities involving disturbance of CSS, a survey shall be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of May . 17-33 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Responsibility for Timing Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance) any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction/grading plans 3. A monitoring biologist, acceptable to the USFWS/CDFW shall be on site during any clearing of CSS. The applicant shall advise USFWS/CDFW at least 7 calendar days (and preferably 14 calendar days) prior to the clearing of any habitat occupied by identified species to allow USFWS/CDFW to work with the monitoring biologist in connection with bird flushing/capture activities. The monitoring biologist shall flush identified species (avian or other mobile identified species) from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush -clearing and earth -moving activities. If birds cannot be flushed, they shall be captured in mist nets, if feasible, and relocated to areas of the site to be protected or to the NCCP/HCP Reserve system. It shall be the responsibility of the monitoring biologist to ensure that identified bird species shall not be directly impacted by brush -clearing and earth -moving equipment in a manner that also allows for construction activities on a timely basis. 4. Following the completion of initial clearing/earth movement activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within such marked areas. 5. In areas bordering the NCCP Reserve System or Special Linkage/Special Management areas containing significant CSS identified in the NCCP/HCP for protection, vehicle transportation routes between cut -and -fill locations shall be restricted to a minimum number during consistent with project construction requirements. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on adjacent CSS identified in the NCCP/HCP for protection. Preconstruction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction supervisors, Purr' 17-34 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for Responsibility (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Oversi ht for Monitorin Date of Com fiance and equipment operators shall be conducted and documented to ensure maximum practicable adherence to these measures. 6. CSS identified in the NCCP/HCP for protection and within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves, as recommended by the monitoring biologist. BI0-4 Education Program. An education program (Worker Environmental Project Prior to OCWR City of Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all persons employed or otherwise Applicant's construction Newport working in the project area shall be administered before performing Qualified Beach impacts. The WEAP shall consist of a presentation from the Biologist & Community designated biologist that includes a discussion of the biological Construction Development resources and mitigation measures described in the California Contractors Department Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document. Interpretation for non- English -speaking workers shall be provided, and the same instruction shall be provided to all new workers before they are authorized to perform work in the project area. After completion of the WEAP, employees shall sign a form stating they attended the program and understand all protection measures. 810-5 Hazardous Waste. The applicant shall immediately stop work and, Project During OCWR City of pursuant to pertinent State and federal statutes and regulations, Applicant's & construction Newport arrange for repair and cleanup by qualified individuals of any fuel or Construction Beach hazardous waste leaks or spills at the time of occurrence, or as soon Contractors Community as it is safe to do so. Development Department BI0-6 BMPs to Avoid Indirect Impacts to Special -Status Resources. TolConstructiolnDuring OCWR City of reduce any indirect impacts to special -status biological resources ion Newport adjacent to construction and due to tree removals, best management Beach practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to control dust pollution, Community prevent discharge of potentially harmful chemicals, and prevent Development changes in hydrology. BMPs shall include, but not be limited to, Department May 2025 Page 13 17-35 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Page 14 Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitorina Reauirements Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for Responsibility (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Oversi ht for Monitorin Date of Com fiance installing erosion and sedimentation control devices, applying water to control dust, placing drip pans under equipment when not in use, refueling in designated areas, and containing concrete washout properly, among other practices. 3.5 Cultural Resources CUL-1 The project applicant shall retain an archaeological and Project During ground OCWR City of paleontological resource monitor to monitor the project's subsurface Applicant's disturbance and Newport areas during land disturbance from demolition and construction Archaeological construction Beach activities. If any archaeological or paleontological resources are and activities. Community discovered, the archaeological/paleontological monitor shall have the Paleontological Development authority to stop work, assess the resources found, and implement a Resource Monitor Department plan for the removal of the archaeological/paleontological resources if Enforcement, deemed significant. or the Director's Designee 3.7 Geology and Soils BI0-6 Refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-6 above. 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1 A Fuel Modification Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant Project Applicant Concurrent with OCWR City of and submitted to Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) for review project plan Newport and approval in concurrence with project plan approval and prior to approval and Beach any site disturbances. The Fuel Modification Plan shall follow NBFD prior to any site Community Guideline G.O2, including: disturbances Development a. Site Assessment conducted prior to conducting fire behavior Department & modeling and/or evaluations of potential wildfire hazard Newport b. Fire behavior evaluation that incorporates site -specific fuel, terrain, Beach Fire and weather inputs and may include modeling to support fuel Department modification zone specifications. c. Preparation of a Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan (CFMP) that provides the delineated zones, widths, planting requirements, PlaceWlorks 17-36 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Responsibility for TimingOversight Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance) topographic information, existing vegetation/fuels locations, proposed structure locations, proposed fuel modification zone locations. proposed treatment prescriptions, site photographs, results from fire behavior modeling efforts, and other information required under NBFD's Guidelines. This CFMP will be submitted to NBFD for review and comment. Once accepted, the Precise Fuel Modification Plan (PFMP) can be created. d. The PFMP will follow NBFD's Guidelines and include: I. Location and detail of permanent zone markers ii. Plant palette and spacing design in accordance with approved guidelines iii. Irrigation plans and specifications iv. Structure footprint or delineation of proposed development v. All applicable maintenance requirements and assignment of responsibility vi. Additional notes, as required by NBFD vii. Three sets of plans will be submitted for NBFD review e. A Technical Report shall accompany the CFMP and provide fire risk assessment information, fire behavior modeling results, WindNinja wind pattern analysis, and technical analysis of any proposed alternative approaches. f If necessary, an Alternative Materials & Methods (AM&M) report justifying any alternative approach or reduced fuel modification zone widths associated shall be required. The AM&M report examines the requirements, the deviation from the requirements, other mitigating site features (terrain, structure location, earthen berms, overall structural exposure, etc.) and provides additional measures, as necessary, to justify that the intent of the code requirements are being satisfied. AM&M reports provide scientific justifications that the proposed fuel modification shall provide equivalent function as the standard NBFD fuel modification area with the addition of proposed mitigation measures. per NBFD Guideline A- 01 May 2025 Page 15 17-37 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Page 16 Table 2-1 Mitiqation Monitorin Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for I Responsibility (Signature Required Measure 3.15 Public Services HAZ-1 Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 above. 3.17 Transportation TRANS-1 Prior to the initiation of demolition activities at the project site, the Project Applicant Prior to OCWR City of applicant shall prepare a traffic control plan for demolition and & Construction construction Newport construction. The traffic control plan shall include the staggering of Contractor activities Beach truck trips throughout the day on Newport Coast Drive, so that the Community minimum practicable number of truck trips will occur during the AM Development peak period, to reduce impacts as much as possible to Sage Hill High Department School and both the State Route 73 on and off -ramps at Newport Coast Drive. The traffic control plan shall also include measures that address safety hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians. TRANS-2 All demolition and construction vehicle drivers shall be informed that Construction During OCWR City of turning right on the red light at the traffic signal at the intersection of Contractor construction Newport the project site access road and Newport Coast Drive shall be activities Beach prohibited for the duration of demolition and construction activities. A Community sign shall be posted at the entrance to the intersection to remind Development drivers that they are prohibited from making a right -turn at the red light Department onto Newport Coast Drive. TRANS-3 For the duration of the demolition and construction activities, Construction During OCWR City of electronic signage shall be placed near Sage Hill High School to Contractor construction Newport inform drivers regarding the duration of the demolition and activities Beach construction activities and to indicate that large trucks may be present Community for the duration of construction and demolition activities. Development Department PlaceWlorks 17-38 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitiaation Monitorina Reauirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Responsibility for Timing Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance) TRANS-4 Construction spotters with walkie-talkies shall be assigned on both Construction During OCWR City of ends of the project site access road to guide trucks during project Contractor construction Newport demolition and construction activities. Trucks shall only be able to activities Beach travel in one direction on the one lane paved access road at a time. Community Trucks that are waiting to go up the access road shall wait across the Development street on the main canyon landfill property until the spotter informs Department them that it is safe to proceed up the access road to the project site. 3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Kizh Nation Prior to the OCWR City of Ground -Disturbing Activities The project applicant shall retain a Monitor, Project commencement Newport Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Applicant, City of of any ground- Beach Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to Newport Beach disturbing activity Community the commencement of any "ground -disturbing activity" for the subject Community and then during Development project at all project locations. "Ground -disturbing activity" shall Development these activities Department include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, Department, & auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, Construction and trenching. Contractors A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground -disturbing activity. The monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground -disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground -disturbing activities, soil types, cultural -related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources (TCR), including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe. May 2025 17-39 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Page 18 Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitorina Reauirements Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for Responsibility (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Oversight for Monitoring Date of Compliance) On -site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant that all ground -disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground -disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete, or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant and lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs. TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects Kizh Nation During OCWR City of (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial): Upon discovery of any TCRs, all Monitor and/or construction Newport construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall Kizh activities Beach cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not Archaeologist & Community resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh Construction Development monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh shall recover and retain Contractors Department all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe's sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes TCR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Kizh Nation During OCWR City of Funerary or Ceremonial Objects: Native American human remains Monitor and/or construction Newport are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and Kizh activities Beach in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary Archaeologist, Community objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Project Applicant Development Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If & Construction Department Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered Contractors or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. An Plat-eWlorks 17-40 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for Responsibility (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Oversi ht for Monitorin Date of Com liance discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. 3.20 Wildfire HAZ-1 Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 above. May 2025 Page 19 17-41 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 17-42 PLACEWORKS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE September 26, 2025 TO Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner ADDRESS Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 CONTACT 949.644.3312 jperez@newportbeachca.gov FROM Dina El Chammas Gass, Senior Associate SUBJECT Response to Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo 7/30/25 Appeal Letter Regarding the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project PROJECT NUMBER CNB-25.0 This memorandum has been prepared to address the letter dated July 30, 2025, from Adams, Broadwell, Joseph and Cardozo (ABJ&C) appealing the Newport Beach Planning Commission's July 17, 2025, decision to approve the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Project (PA2022-063) and adopt the project's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024120012). The draft IS/MND was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period beginning on November 27, 2024, and ending on January 13, 2025. ABJ&C submitted two letters dated December 23, 2024, and January 13, 2025. Responses to the comments raised in those letters were included in the Response to Comment (RTC) document dated May 2025. In response to a public hearing notice for the May 22, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, ABJ&C then submitted an additional comment letter dated May 21, 2025. This letter was submitted outside the public review period for the IS/MND, and therefore the responses were not included in the formal RTC, however a response to this letter was included as Attachment 6 to the Planning Commission staff report dated July 17, 2025. The majority of issues raised in the May 21, 2025, letter were already raised in the previous letters, for which responses were provided in the RTC. Similarly, the majority of issues raised in the July 30, 2025, appeal letter were already raised in the previous ABJ&C letters detailed above and responses have already been provided. The following responses refer to the original responses provided in the RTC, which is available on the City's website athttps://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3162801&repo=CNB&dbid=0; and in Attachment 6 of the July 17, 2025, staff report, available at https:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3175862&dbid=0&repo=CNB. 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 1 Santa Ana, California 92707 1 714.966.9220 1 PlaceWorks.com 17-43 PLACEWORKS Air Quality Impacts from Fugitive Emissions and Leaks ABJ&C once again notes that the proposed project would result in significant impacts from fugitive greenhouse gas emissions. This comment was addressed in the response to comment 02-11 in the RTC, and no additional issues were raised or substantiated. The RTC response describes the purpose of the project's Emergency Action Plan and South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 466 (Pumps and Compressors) which mitigate potential impacts from leaks through personal training; an inspection and monitoring program, including daily inspection rounds; and ongoing preventative maintenance. The site will also be equipped with leak detection sensors located throughout the site, alarms, and an automatic shutdown system. Public Health and Hazards Impacts ABJ&C again states that the risk of upset from fire, vapor clouds, and other accidents or operational upsets in systems such as the thermal oxidizer and flaring systems could result in significant impacts to public health. This comment was addressed in the response to comment 02-13 in the RTC. ABJ&C noted that a Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment was referenced in the IS/MND and that this document was not provided to the public until the Planning Commission's July 2025 Staff Report. This is not in violation of CEQA because the public did have access to the document before the Planning Commission public hearing, where they had the opportunity to voice comments on the document. The public can comment on the IS/MND during the public review period and at public hearings. The Preliminary Site Consequence Analysis was uploaded to the City's website and available for public review at: https:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3185637&dbid=0&repo=CNB. ABJ&C notes that the IS/MND underreported impacts on sensitive receptors by omitting them from its analysis. The Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment addresses impacts to the Sage Hill High School, car passengers on Newport Coast Drive, and car passengers on State Route (SR) 73. Car passengers on SR-73 are closer to the project site than the closest residential receptors. Since there would be no impacts to car passengers on SR-73, there would be no impacts to residential receptors. ABJ&C also notes that the Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment found significant impacts on the occupied county landfill building and surrounding vegetation. The Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment includes blast overpressure design requirements that mitigate impacts to the county building to less than significant. These measures will be implemented as part of the proposed project. Additionally, as shown in the response to comment 02-13 in the RTC, the fire risk to nearby vegetation is less than significant. The IS/MND includes mitigation measure HAZ-1 to reduce impacts from fires to less than significant. Mitigation HAZ-1 requires that a Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan (CFMP) be submitted to the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) for review and approval in concurrence with project plan approval and prior to any site disturbances. The CFMP for the project was prepared and included as Attachment 4 of the July 17, 2025, Staff Report. The NBFD has reviewed and approved the CFMP and since the proposed project does not include any new landscaping, a Precise Fuel Modification Plan is not required. Additionally, the non-combustible wall, which will function as both a radiant and convective heat barrier, provides an additional mitigating factor alongside the vegetation management measures. Greenhouse Gas Emission from Shutdowns ABJ&C notes that emissions associated with the annual shutdown and 10 potential shutdown days per year may result in significant GHG emissions. This comment was addressed in the response to comment 02-13 in the RTC. In the event of unplanned shutdowns, the system is designed so that all valves close, and landfill September 26, 2025 1 Page 2 17-44 PLACEWORKS gas (LFG) would be rerouted to the existing LFG enclosed flares, which are separately owned and operated by OC Waste and Recycling. This scenario is the equivalent of reverting to baseline conditions. Health Risk Impacts from Construction Emissions Are Underreported ABJ&C once again asserts that the health risk analysis relied on a 9-month completion timeline instead of 12 months, thus truncating the analysis of emissions exposure by 3 months. This comment was addressed in the responses to comments 02-11 and 02-20 in the RTC. Construction Noise Impacts ABJ&C once again notes that the proposed project would result in excessive noise levels to nearby sensitive receptors. This comment was addressed in the response to comment 02-24 in the RTC, and no additional issues were raised or substantiated in the most recent letter. Municipal Code Violations ABJ&C states that the Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to support the findings required for approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed project. ABJ&C notes that they provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project results in significant air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts. These comments have been addressed above. ABJ&C also notes that the project may not be adequately served by fire protection services and that NBFD may not be able to extinguish worst -case scenario jet fires because the fire protection measures that will be implemented as part of the project are not enforceable mitigation. Fire protection features that are federal, state, and local regulatory requirements or are part of the project design do not need to be included in the CEQA document as mitigation measures. However, the preparation of the Fuel Modification Plan was included as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 in the IS/MND. NBFD was consulted during the CEQA process and visited the site to mark the trees that need to be removed to ensure fire safety. The recommendation for the removal of trees is based on spacing, health, and species per direction from the Fire Marshal. A tree information matrix is in Appendix C of the IS/MND that shows which trees will remain and which will be removed. The CFMP prepared for the project was based on the Fire Marshal's tree removal directions and follows NBFD's Guideline G.02. The IS/MND and the CFMP were both reviewed by NBFD, and the final Fuel Modification Plan will be approved by the NBFD as part of the plan check process. Additionally, the preliminary Emergency Action Plan (EAP), which outlines fire hazards, techniques to control or extinguish fires, and emergency evacuation and response procedures, was included as Appendix H of the IS/MND. The final EAP would be reviewed and approved by NBFD as provided pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 32. NBFD is also involved in the development review process to ensure that necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are incorporated with the design of the project. Also, all site improvements and building construction would be reviewed and approved by NBFD before the City issues building permits and the certificate of occupancy. The Appellant identified that Condition of Approval No. 33 of the Planning Commission resolution No. PC2025-008 allowed trucks and heavy equipment idling up to 30 minutes, conflicting with Policy NR 8.1 of the General Plan. Condition of Approval no. 33 was a standard condition, intended to implement best available control measures during construction. As described in response to comment 02-16, nonessential idling of off -road equipment shall be limited to five minutes, consistent with California Air Resources Board Rule 2485, and the Conditions of Approval have been updated. September 26, 2025 1 Page 3 17-45 EXHIBIT "E" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) Planning Division The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may cause the revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. 4. No equipment shall exceed 35 feet in height above the finish grade, with the exception of the thermal oxidizer and the flare tower, which shall be limited to 60 feet and 40 feet above finish grade respectively. 5. RNG Facility equipment shall be coated with camouflaging paint as an enhanced aesthetic treatment. 6. Prior to final building permit inspection, the Applicant shall schedule an inspection with the Planning Division to verify the aesthetic treatment applied to the RNG Facility is acceptable. 7. Two parking spaces shall be provided for control room employees. 8. Secure and functional short-term bike parking shall be provided for control room employees. 9. Prior to building permit final inspection, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection with the Code Enforcement Division to confirm the facility is not excessively lit, except as deemed necessary for security lighting. 10. If in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, site illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources, the Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 11. Project signage shall be in conformance with Chapter 20.42 (Signs) of the NBMC. 17-46 12. PA2022-063 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions) of the NBMC, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 13. This Conditional Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained are detrimental to the public health, welfare, or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained to constitute a public nuisance. 14. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in the area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require subsequent Planning Division review and may require the processing of an amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new CUP. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a copy of the Resolution, including Conditions of Approval Exhibit 'F" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans. 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the CUP file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this CUP and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 17. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained by the approved fuel modification plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are I" or less at all property lines. 19. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 20. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control), under Sections 10.26.025 (Exterior 17-47 Noise Standards) and 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards), and other applicable noise control requirements of the NBMC. 21. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations) of the NBMC, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays, or Holidays. 22. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or leasing agent. 23. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in a trash enclosure (three walls and a self -latching gate) or otherwise screened from the view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. A trash enclosure shall have a decorative solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. 24. Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development and may require an amendment to this CUP. 25. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operating characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the NBMC to require such permits. 26. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility including, but not limited to, the Conditional Use Permit filed as PA2022-063. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit, or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant 17-48 shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Fire Department 27. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Fire Department. 28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Fire Master Plan showing fire department vehicle access, turn -around, fire hydrants, and other Fire Department appliances as applicable shall be submitted for review and approval. 29. The Project is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The Project is required to comply with the following for development in a wildland fire prone area: a. All new structures shall comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code for construction in a designated wildland area. b. A defensible space landscape plan/fuel modification plan is required to protect the facility from wildfires in accordance with City Guideline G.02 (Fuel Modification Plans and Maintenance Standards for Developments). The plan must include the area immediately outside the 12-foot perimeter wall. 30. A Hazardous Materials Inventory document is required. Both a paper and electronic version will be required for review by NBFD. 31. The flare tower shall be designed so that flames are not visible above the structure nor visible from the public right of way including Newport Coast Drive and State Route 73. 32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit: A final Emergency Action Plan (EAP) shall be reviewed and approved by NBFD. Building Division 33. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City -adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 34. The Applicant shall employ the following best available control measures ("BACMs") during construction: Dust Control 17-49 • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on -stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Emissions • Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off -road equipment. • Limit allowable idling consistent with California Air Resources Board regulations • Encourage carpooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. �Iacement Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Fill • The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. • Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve a 10% soil moisture content in the top six-inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 35. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP") and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 36. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a final Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP") for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices ("BMPs") to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 37. A list of "good housekeeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post -construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These 17-50 may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. 17-51 EXHIBIT "F" FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit In accordance with Section 20.52.020(F) (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, - Facts in Support of Finding: 2. The Project Site is categorized as Open Space (OS) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Open Space (OS) land use designation is intended to provide areas appropriate for a range of public and private uses to protect, maintain, and enhance the community's natural resources. This designation may also include incidental buildings, such as maintenance equipment and supply storage, which are not traditionally included in determining intensity limits. 3. The Project is consistent with the Open Space (OS) categorization, as it introduces new equipment and limited incidental structures within an already improved area of the CCL. The Project comprises less than one acre of the 375-acre CCL footprint and preserves the community's natural resources because it does not expand the footprint of the building pad and perimeter block wall at the top of the ridge. Additionally, the RNG Facility provides a net benefit to the existing Open Space (OS) by converting LFG generated by CCL into a pipeline -quality natural gas equivalent. 4. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the following policies of the General Plan: a. LU 1.3 (Natural Resources) and NR 17.1 (Open Space Protection): Requires the preservation of open space and habitat resources. The Project comprises less than one acre of the 375-acre CCL site and preserves the community's natural resources because it does not develop current open space and instead sites the new improvements adjacent to existing improvements within the existing walled -off area. All Project components are proposed within the perimeter wall. Additionally, the RNG Facility provides a net benefit to the existing Open Space (OS) by converting LFG generated by CCL into a pipeline - quality natural gas equivalent. b. LU 1.6 (Public Views): Requires protection, and where feasible, enhancement of significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, 17-52 canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points and NR 21.1 (Signs and Utility Siting and Design) which requires signs, utilities, and antennas be designed and sited to minimize visual impacts: The City's policies related to public reviews include Land Use Policy LU 1.3 which aims to preserve open space resources, beaches, harbors, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational, and habitat resources; Land Use Policy LU 1.6 which requires public views, including scenic and visual resources such as open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, the ocean, and the harbor, be preserved and where possible, enhanced from public vantage points; and Natural Resources Policy NR 23.1. The IS/MND analyzed views from three different viewpoints including looking southeast from Newport Coast Drive (just south of Sage Hill High School), northeast from Newport Coast Drive (just northeast of San Joaquin Hills Road), and north from the residences at Renata Street. Of note, Newport Coast Drive, the primary location for two of the three viewshed locations, is not a scenic highway and has motorists driving at higher rates of speed along this area. The viewshed simulations demonstrate that the Project design blends within the existing topography such that the Project complies with these policies. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 5 requires the Applicant to provide enhanced aesthetic treatment of the equipment to ensure the RNG Facility blends in with its surroundings. c. General Plan Policy LU 3.3 (Opportunities for Change - Coyote Canyon Landfill): Intends for the CCL to support a comprehensive vision that balances future land uses with environmental stewardship and public access. Future development should adapt the closed landfill as an area that supports a variety of outdoor recreational uses such as golf, hiking, and nature interpretation alongside housing opportunities with complementary nonresidential uses. The Project is proposed within an area of CCL where there are existing utilities, such as telecom facilities, and existing infrastructure for LFG collection and flaring. The Project is not located in an area of the CCL that is conducive for redevelopment into any of the aforementioned uses without the removal of the existing infrastructure. The Project does not prohibit the implementation of Policy LU 3.3 within other areas of CCL and instead sites new improvements in a complementary fashion with existing improvements. d. NR 3.9 (Water Quality Management Plan) and NR 4.4 (Erosion Minimization): Requires new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP') to demonstrate how runoff and erosion shall be minimized both during construction and post -construction. A WQMP was prepared for the Project by BKF Engineers, dated December 14, 2023. The Project implements Best Management Practices and is designed to prevent surface water from flowing over slope faces. e. NR 10.2 (Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan): Requires compliance with the policies of the NCCP/HCP. The Project is within an area of the NCCP/HCP that is acknowledged as an existing use and does 17-53 not expand the use beyond the existing perimeter wall. Temporary staging areas that will be used during construction of the Project for material deliveries and parking have been sited to avoid impacts to avoid coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and other native plant communities. The primary laydown area is proposed on the Project Site and the secondary laydown area is proposed within an already disturbed portion of the main landfill area, across Newport Coast Drive. Vehicle parking for construction employees will be provided in the secondary laydown area, and a shuttle would transport crews daily to and from the Project Site. A number of mitigation measures are incorporated in the MMRP, set forth in Exhibit B, to ensure the Project complies with the policies of the NCCP/HCP. 5. The Project is not located within a specific plan area. Finding: B. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project Site is within the Open Space (OS) Zoning District. The OS District is intended to both provide areas to maintain and protect the community's natural open space resources; and maintain and protect landscaped open space areas located within residential and non-residential developments, where no further development is allowed. 2. Pursuant to Table 2-14 (Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements) of Section 20.26.020 (Special Purpose Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements) of the NBMC, "Major Utilities" are allowed within the OS District, subject to the approval of a CUP. The Project meets the definition of a "Major Utility," as provided in Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC and is therefore allowed upon approval of this CUP. 3. Section 20.26.030 (Special Purpose Zoning Districts General Development Standards) of the NBMC specifies that development standards in the Open Space (OS) District shall be established during review of the required permit. The RNG Facility would have a total footprint of approximately 38,500 square feet and would be composed of pipe racks, various vessels and tanks, new flare tower, thermal oxidizer, and other miscellaneous processing equipment. Equipment ranges in height from approximately 5-feet, 6-inches above the existing grade to a maximum height of 60 feet above the existing grade. Apart from the vessels, tanks, flare, and pipe rack, which range in height from 30 feet to 40 feet above finish grade, most of the equipment will be screened by the existing perimeter wall. The tallest piece of RNG Facility equipment, the thermal oxidizer, is proposed at a height of 60 feet above finish grade. All equipment will be below the 65-foot height of the Telecom 17-54 Facilities. Condition of Approval No. 4 has been included to set height limits for specific equipment that exceeds 35 feet in height. 4. Given the Project is entirely within the perimeter of the wall and most equipment is setback approximately 12 feet from the wall to allow sufficient site circulation, no additional setbacks are proposed. Requiring additional setbacks from the property line would further constrain the layout of the RNG Facility and would likely result in taller equipment. As such, it is most appropriate to allow development to span the entire Project Site behind the perimeter wall. 5. The approximately 500-square-foot control room building is the only enclosed floor area proposed with the Project. Given it is clearly incidental to the RNG Facility, no maximum floor -area -to -land ratio is proposed. 6. The control room building will be staffed by one to two employees, per shift. Two parking spaces are proposed to accommodate the anticipated parking demand. There are access roads within the Project Site which provide sufficient vehicle staging areas in the event additional workers are ever required during a maintenance event or plant shut down. Finding: C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity, - Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project Site is located within the greater boundary of the closed CCL. The Project Site itself has historically been the primary location for dealing with LFG, including a former LFG-to-energy operation which operated from 1988 to 2015. While the quality of the LFG became inadequate for conversion to energy with the technology of the time, new technology is now available which allows for LFG to once again be utilized. 2. Land uses that are immediately adjacent to the Project Site include the landfill areas described above in Statement 2 of Section 1, an Irvine Ranch Water District ("IRWD") pumping station, and open space. 3. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are the existing Sage Hill School, located approximately 1,400 feet to the north, and single -unit residences in the Tesoro Community, located approximately 1,250 feet to the south. 4. A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project by LSA, dated July 17, 2024. The study found that neither the construction of the Project nor the long-term operation of the Project would result in noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors. 17-55 5. Long term operation of the Project will result in a negligible increase in the number of vehicles traveling to the Project Site. The Project is anticipated to generate eight average daily trips, well below the 300 average daily trip threshold provided in Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC to require the preparation of a traffic study. 6. Vehicle traffic will increase during the 9-month Project construction period. To reduce the temporary impacts to a less than significant level, the Project includes four traffic mitigation measures, which are included in the MMRP. For example, the Applicant must prepare a traffic control plan for demolition and construction which staggers truck trips throughout the day on Newport Coast Drive so that the minimum practicable number of truck trips will occur during the AM peak period (i.e., during student drop off for Sage Hill School). Through the implementation of these mitigation measures, the Project is not anticipated to negatively impact traffic within the surrounding area. 7. The Project is not anticipated to generate objectionable odors to the nearby community due to Project design and distance from sensitive receptors. While the RNG will be odorized prior to injection into SoCal Gas infrastructure, the odorization process is a sealed -loop system and there should be no release of odors. Construction activities may generate odors, but they would be temporary and typically confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. By the time any odorous emissions reach the nearby sensitive receptors, they would likely be diluted to be below the level of detection. 8. The Project introduces additional lighting for security purposes but is not anticipated to adversely affect ambient light conditions. The 12-foot perimeter wall and trees surrounding the project site should help shield lighting that could emanate from the Project Site. To ensure Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) of the NBMC, which requires all outdoor lighting be designed, shielded, aimed, located, and maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways, is implemented, Condition of Approval No. 10 allows the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 9. The historic use of the Project Site is LFG collection and processing. The previous LFG-to-energy facility operated at the Project Site from 1988 to 2015 and without notable incidents or code enforcement issues. The historic use of the site suggests the RNG Facility should also operate in a compatible way with the surrounding uses. Finding: D. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; 17-56 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project was reviewed by the City's Utilities Department, Public Works Department, and Building Division. All input and recommendations provided on implementation of the project if approved have either been incorporated into project design or have been included in the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit "F." 2. The Project was also reviewed by the Newport Beach Fire Department ("NBFD"). The NBFD provided recommendations and conditions, including vegetation removal, to ensure that the necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are incorporated. All recommendations are included in the MMRP and the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibits "B" and "F", respectively. 3. OCWR currently maintains the planted area outside the perimeter wall. As required by the NBFD, the Project would likely remove 28 trees to reduce the risk of fire associated with the Project. Condition of Approval No. 29 requires a Fuel Modification Plan to be reviewed and approved by the NBFD prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. An additional fire hydrant will be added to the Project Site to ensure the hydrant layout can meet hose -pull requirements and allow fire apparatus equipment and firefighting crews to deploy at a safe distance from the RNG Facility. The hydrant location was reviewed and accepted by the NBFD. 5. The Project includes a new, enclosed, flare tower to burn off -specification gas generated from the RNG refining process. The combustion of off- specification gas will occur within the flare tower, and no flames will be visible. The four existing OCWR flares will be protected in place and will be used to combust any excess LFG that is not sent to the RNG Facility or as a backup in the event the RNG Facility goes offline. The existing OCWR flares will not be retrofitted to conceal flames. The NBFD acknowledges that calls for service may be received related to the occasional visible flaring in the existing OCWR flares but does not anticipate calls for service to increase over what they receive under existing conditions. 6. The Project is required to comply with the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards. These codes impose design standards and requirements to minimize and mitigate fire and emergency response risk. Compliance with these codes and standards is ensured through the City's building permit review process. All construction would be subject to review and approval by the City's Building Division and NBFD prior to building permit and certificate of occupancy issuance. Finding: 17-57 E. Operation of the use at the proposed location would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. LFG is currently being flared off by existing site infrastructure. The Project will divert the LFG from the flares and into the RNG Facility to convert it into RNG through a proprietary process. The LFG will undergo moisture, particulate, and contaminant removal to be upgraded and compressed into pipeline quality RNG. Contaminants removed from the LFG will be destroyed in the thermal oxidizer. While the Project generally replaces existing LFG flaring, the Project still has the potential to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air. 2. An Air Quality Impact Analysis ("AQIA") was prepared for the Project by SCS Engineers, dated December 2023. The AQIA evaluated the offsite concentrations of criteria air pollutants that would be emitted by the Project. The net change in emissions from implementation of the Project would be lower than significance thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"). Projects below the SCAQMD significance thresholds are not expected to generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standards and should not be a risk to the health or general welfare of people residing or working nearby. 3. The operation of the Project would require the use of hazardous materials such as maintenance products, oils, acids, and gases. A full list of materials and quantities are included in Table 10 of the IS/MND. The Project will store hazardous materials in small enough quantities as to not require registration with the California Accidental Release Program and is not anticipated to endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public. Furthermore, specific protocols for the storage of hazardous materials are provided in Appendix H of the IS/MND and incorporate the use of double -walled tanks and secondary containment to conform with existing hazardous materials and hazardous waste laws and regulations set at the State and Federal level. 4. Construction activities would use hazardous materials including gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, hydraulic fluid, solvents, cleaners, sealants, welding flux, various lubricants, paint, and paint thinner. The materials used would be in small enough quantities and stored in accordance with best management practices, such as secondary containment, to not pose a significant safety hazard. Additionally, these activities would also be short-term, or one off, and would cease upon completion of the Project's construction phase. 17-58 5. A Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment was prepared for the Project to outline the potential for flammable vapor clouds, jet fire, and toxic vapor clouds and the possible effect they pose on the surrounding vegetation; public; the control room, and the existing OCWR building. The analysis found that through the implementation of emergency response procedures and compliance with applicable laws and regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant. 6. To help lessen any impacts to the surrounding area, the Applicant is required to notify neighboring residential community members at least one week prior to the start of construction. Broader notifications will be made through various means, including placing signs at road crossings in advance of construction. 7. Facts 4 and 7 in Support of Finding C are hereby incorporated by reference. 17-59 EXHIBIT "G" ADDENDUM IS 84-104 TO EIR 507 (SCH NO. 82082004) FOR COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY PERMIT LGR 84-1 File available via link due to size: https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2878238&dbid=0&repo=CNB 17-60 Attachment B Visual Simulations 17-61 Attachment C Project Plans 17-65 ARCHAEA ENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL RNG PROJECT 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 PROJECT INFORMATION LOCATION MAP OWNER/ BIOFUELS COYOTE CANYON BIOGAS, LLC PROJECT LANDFILL GAS UPGRADING FACILITY APPLICANT 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 DESCRIPTION HOUSTON, TX 77027 Ph: (346) 708-8272 ENGINEER BIOGAS ENGINEERING INC. ELECTRICAL ASPLUNDH 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE ENGINEER ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, PC 400, SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755 708 BLAIR MILL ROAD Ph: (562) 726-3565 WILLOW GROVE, PA 19090 Ph: (877) 844-5426 SURVEYOR D.WOOLLEY & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL TBD 2832 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITE A ENGINEER TUSTIN, CA 92780 (714) 734-8462 FAX (714) 508-7521 SITE WORK TBD ENGINEER OCCUPANCY CATEGORY GAS PROCESSING STRUCTURES — H-2 GAS PROCESSING EQUIPMENT — H-2 POWER DISTRIBUTION CENTER — S-2 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER PORTION OF 478-03-071 TOTAL DISTURBED AREA TOTAL SITE DISTURBED AREA — 0.884 ACRES (APPROX.) BENCHMARK BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL BUILDING AREA — 1552 SOFT CONSTRUCTION TYPE (PER CBC CHAPTER 6 SECTION 602) PIPE RACK GAS PROCESSING EQUIPMENT POWER DISTRIBUTION CENTER H2S VESSEL & CONDENSATE TANK — II B SITE FABRICATED STEEL STRUCTURE — II B MANUFACTURER SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT — II B (PRE FABRICATED MODULAR STEEL BUILDING) VICINITY MAP N N.T.S. PROJECT LOCATION N N 3 ""`' g m ` - ICATES AR O �n r e� �LOCATION EA, N DETAIL CROSS REFERENCING CONVENTION 'SECTION' OR 'DETAIL' IDENTIFICATION LETTER OR NUMBER SHEET NUMBER ON WHICH 'SECTION' OR 'DETAIL' IS DRAWN OR SHEET NUMBER WHERE SECTION OR DETAIL IS TAKEN FROM THIS PROJECT IS BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88) GPS DERIVED. STATIONS AND RESPECTIVE ELEVATIONS CONSTRAINED TO ARE: LGWD GRID ELEVATION = 398.32' (ELLIPSOID HEIGHT = 293.3337') OCCUPANCY LOAD MAX. (PER CBC CHAPTER 10 SECTION 1004.1) CONFIDENTIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CENTER — 3 TOPOGRAPHY NOTE: DATE:BASD07 8OPO-202�RNISHED BY D.WOOLLEY &ASSOCIATES NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 60% DESIGN REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION DRN BY CHK BY APRVJBY OWNER: ARCHAEA ENGINEER: BIOG A S TITLE SHEET 10 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP AK TP AHJ03 20 2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW ss TP AENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. o / / ENGINEERING RNG PROJECT �+ 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE T.7 HOUSTON, TX 77027 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 NEWPORT BEACHCA 92657 Ph: (346) 708-8272 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM , _ b ARCHAEA ENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL RNG PROJECT 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 GENERAL INDEX SHEET General Drawings Sr No Drawing No Description Date Rev 1 TS TITLE SHEET 03/20/2023 2 2 GO.00 COVER SHEET 03f20/2023 2 3 GO.01 GEN ERAL I N DEX SHEET 03/20/2023 2 4 G2.00 SITE PLAN 03/20/2023 4 5 G2.01 RIGHT-OF-WAYS/RESTRICTION5 03/20/2023 2 6 G2.02 UTILITIES PLAN 03/20/2023 2 7 G2.03 LEASE AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION & PLAT 03/20/2023 2 8 G2.04 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ASH 1 OF 2) 03/20/2023 2 9 G2.05 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (SH 2 OF 2) 03f20/2023 2 10 G2.06 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (SH 3 OF 3) 03/20/2023 2 11 G3.01 AREA CLASSIFICATION FOR RNG (SCG NOT INCLUDED) 03/20/2023 1 12 G3.02 DEMOLITION PLAN 03/20/2023 1 13 G4.01 PLANT ELEVATION VIEW SOUTH ELEVATION -LOOKING PLAN NORTH 03/20/2023 2 14 G4.02 PLANT ELEVATION VIEW NORTH ELEVATION -LOOKING PLAN SOUTH 03/20/2023 2 1s G4,03 PLANT ELEVATION VIEW EAST ELEVATION -LOOKING PLAN WEST 03f20/2023 2 16 G4,04 PLANT ELEVATION VIEW WESTELEVA71ON-LOOKING PLAN EAST 03f20/2023 2 17 GS.01 SoCalGas POINT OF RECEIPT P&ID - LEGEND & PRESSURE BLOCK 03/20/2023 2 1$ G5.02 SOCaIGa$ POINT OF RECEIPT P&ID - ODORIZER SYSTEM 03/20/2023 2 19 G5.03 SoCalGas POINT OF RECEIPT SITE PLAN 03f20/2023 2 20 G5.04 SoCalGas POINT OF RECEIPT PLOT PLAN 03/20/2023 2 21 G6.00 EXISTING PIPES & CABLES (FOR UG SERVICES SURVEY) 03/20/2023 2 22 G6.01 FIRE MASTER PLAN 03f20/2023 2 CONFIDENTIAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 60% DESIGN REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION URN BY CHK BY APRV BY OWNER: ARCHAEA ENGINEER: BIOG A S GENERAL INDEX SHEET I,p 10/20/2022 ISSUED FOR 30% SUBMITTAL SK TP TW HJ 03/20/2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP AG ENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. 20ENGINEERING 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400 RNG PROJECT HOUSTON, TX 77027 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE GO.01 Ph: (346) 708-8272 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 B �® EXISTING RECLAIM WATER REP EXISTING CONCRETE DRAINAGE DITCH G4.O2 \ ' EXISTING WALL 12 INCH CMU BLOCK (TYPICAL ALL SIDES) C, � EFH EXISTING POWER PANEL E5 6-4`11�� 0 12' OCWR RESERVED ACCESS ROUTE (TYPICAL) SO. CAL. GAS EGRESS D G4.04 �J\PJ J® 5�7� 44m �O 7 25 28 31 CE8N O� \ GENERATOR I_ /I ® —r— SO -CAL GAS ABOVE GROUND ' PIPELINE \ 0 \ E6 \ �♦ O EXISTING ABOVEGROUND PIPES \ E7 ♦♦♦ ® EXISTING ♦ CELL TOWER \ ♦ ® E3 \ a — SO -CAL GAS \♦ EFH \ EXISTING ♦♦ \ PIPELINE EXTENSION ♦ — AND TIE IN ♦♦♦ AFH ---------------- r J --- > EXISTING H ALL GENERATOR ° E2 ° G4.04 E L G4 01 VIEW WITHOUT WALL L TABLE 1: EQUIPM ENT LIST S.NO. DESCRIPTION 1 2 I YPI, 41 F E, D CO MPRI, SSO K TYPE R2 FE ED CO MPRE SSOR 3 TYPE 41 CO MPR E SSO R F EE D OI L COOLER 4 1YPk 91 COMPRESSOR FEkD AF Ik RCOO LLR 5 H25 REMOVAL V ESSEL 6 LN2 PAD 7 TYPF R2 F F F D CO MPRF SST] R 01L COOLFR 8 TYPE R2[ E E D CO MPRE SSO R AFTE ROOD LE 9 TSA PRE-TREATME NT SKI 1❑ CHILLFR 11 12 1 SA A DSORB , R V, SSE L A (6' DI A-) TSA A DSORB E R V E SSE L B(6DNA-I 13 MEMBRANESKID 14 VOC PO USHI N G V E SSEL 15 TYPF R7 RFCYCLF CO MP RFSSOR 16 17 1 YPk 41 RLCYCLE CO MP RLSSOR OI L COO LE K ITYPERI RECYCLE COMPRESSOR AFTERCOOLER 18A DEO%O SKiD 4.0 REV DATE DESCRIPTION 10 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP 2.0 09/23/2022 12/16/2022 ISSUED FOR REVIEW Ad 03/20/2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW TABLE 1 - MI1I DM FNT 1 IST S.ND. DESCRIPTION 19 ❑[[ SPECIFICATION GAS [LAKE 20 NRD ISUFFLR VLSSLL 21 COMPRESSED Al R REC E IVER 22 NRU W/AOSORBF RS 23 P1 IpRU VAC. RNJ SF SKID 24 RS NRU VAC RINSL OIL COOLER 25 PS NRU VAC. RINSE AFTERCOOLER 2S W2 NRU VAC- RINSE SKID 27 P2 NRU VAC RINSE OIL COOLER 28 W2 NRU VAC- RINSE AFTERCOOLER 29 P3 NRU VAC. RINSF SKID 30 03 NRU VAC RINSE OIL COOLER 31 R3 NRU VAC. RINSE AFTERCUOLER 32 AI NRU DRYER VESSEL 33 R2 NRU DRYER VFSSFI 34 03 NRu DRYER VESSEL 3s 111 L R M AL OXI DI 2LR 36 O I LY WATE R SE PARATOR 37 POWER DISTRIBUTION E-HOUSE 38 POWER DISTR 18UT10N E-HOUSE &0P DEN BY CHK BY I APRV BY AK TP AG AK TP AG SS TP AG SS I TP AG �� -- — a—y u O 100'-0„ —---------- 54 19 PROJECT BOUNDARY LIMITS PARKING SPOT SCG POINT OF RECEIPT 9' X 20' EXISTING.HH Hid PARKING SPOT BUILDING r� 9' X 20' E1 U PARKING SPOT 9'X20' EFH RESERVED FOR SO. CAL GAS METERING STATION ACCESS ROAD SEE SCG DRAWING 34250 FOR DETAIL I SO. CAL. GAS & RNG PLANT PROPOSED SO. CAL. GAS PIPE ROUTE (UNDERGROUND) 12' OCWR RESERVED ACCESS ROUTE (TYPICAL) 4.0 TABLE I: - S.NO. DESCRIPTION 39 TRANSFORMERS 40 OPE R ATO RICON TROL SF IE LT[R 41 STAGE u I I N LET PARTIC U LATE F I LTER 42 H2SSK10 43 uTI_ITV IN T[RT I[ SW ITCI(GEAR 44 TSA D LOWDOWN TA N K 30,000 G al 4 47 4S 49 NER CONDENSATE TANK PAR K I NG AR EA NRU RINSE COMPRESSOR INLET FILTER 5D NRU VACUUM COMPRESSOR INLET FILTER 51 NRU RINSE COMPRESSOR INLET FILTERS 52 NRU VACUUM COMPRESSOR INLET FILTER S EA E A GE 5,7 I FG SUMP 55 SU MP CON DFN SATE PUMP 56 FIOW MFTFR 57 CON DEN SATE TA N K P U MP 58 GAS C.HRO MATO GRAPH TABLE 2 - F YISTI N r F()I I IDMFNTS 5.N0. DESCRIPTION F1 F XISTI NG RV I I DI NG L2 LXIS I I NG A l l GLNLH A 1DR L3 LXISTING CELL TOWLR E4 ES E XISTI N[i E ME RGE N CY GE HE RATOR LXIS I ING POWER PAN LL EL E7 F8 EXISITN[i PAD EXISITNC TANK FX15TI NG FL AR E9 EXISTING, BLOWERS PAO L10 LXISI ING PROPANL TANK Ell EXISTI N[i SWI TC H GEAR PLANT F TRUE NORTH .02 G NORTH 34.O3 J 3A A122, S 0 3 w 0 20 40 a GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET c� SCALE 1" = 16'-0" z X W / EXISTING CELL TOWER E3 LEGENDS EFH-EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT RETAINED EFH O AFH-ADDED FIRE HYDRANT AFH 0 GAS LINES — — — — — — PROJECT BOUNDARY LIMITS — — SO. CAL. GAS METERING STATION LIMITS CONFIDENTIAL TOPOGRAPHY NOTE: BASED ON TOPO FURNISHED BY D.WOOLLEY & ASSOCIATES DATE: 07-28-2022. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 60% DESIGN REVIEW OWNER: A RC H A EA ENGINEER: BIOGAS SITE PLAN )(X ENERGY DRAWING NO. COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL 4444 ENGINEERING RING PROJECT HOUSTON, TX IM700270AD, SUITE G450 2321 E. SIGNAL HILBL,HCAT9O755,, PITE 400 h: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G2.0�_L,E Ph: (346) 708-8272 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 PLANT NORTH TRUE NORTH 3A R122, 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE 1" = 16'-0" CONFIDENTIAL TOPOGRAPHY NOTE: BASED ON TOPO FURNISHED BY D.WOOLLEY & ASSOCIATES DATE:07-28-2022. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 607. DESIGN REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION DRN BY CHK BY APRVJBY OWNER: ARC' !AEA ENGINEER: BIOGAS1 p 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP AK TP AnfjCfjRIGHT-OF-WAYS/RESTRICTIONS 03 20 2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP A)(XENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. 20 / / ENGINEERING 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400 RING PROJECT HOUSTON, TX 77027 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G2,01 Ph: (346) 708-8272 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 EXISTING TIE IN TO SCG PIPELINE LEGENDS EXISTING RECLAIM WATER REP EXISTING RECLAIM WATER ABOVEGROUD PIPE EXISTING CONCRETE DITCH PROPOSED 2" CONDENSATE LINE O----------------- EXISTING 10" SEWER LINE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- EFH FSC . - -- ® -I--------------------- FSV `. 1 ® O \= o Fp NSF- ------------------ i ' ---------------------------------------------- - li------- T - - - - - - - - - - -I \ \Ff��o N\F�p� it O I I 01 ❑ ❑ El El❑ O O O I I \ ill \ \ I O I UNDERGROUND 12" LFG SUPPLY lo ' I FSV l FSV jFSC EFH Il'I I 0 I I l •� EXISTING FIRE LINE TO REMAIN (TYP.) O EXISTING MANHOLE (TYP.) FSV FSV ,i O ' 0 a EXISTING MANHOLE -- - (TYP.) EXISTING BUILDING ❑ ® o FSV 1 FSV l =__; =�� _ _�� __ - - - - - - EFH NOTE-1 J ii `I EXISTING 4" SEWER LINE IT PROPOSED UNDERGROUND II 6" PRODUCT GAS j NOTE-2 yl L. -== == _-___-_----------------- AFH O - EXISTING ATT GENERATOR 0 , a EFH-EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT RETAINED EFH AFH-ADDED FIRE HYDRANT AFH GAS LINES ----------- UTILITIES LINE - - - - - - - - UTILITIES LINE (EXISTING) PROPOSED FIRE LINE EXTENSIONEXISTING FIRE FIRE LINE TO REMAIN ----------- - /- PROJECT BOUNDARY LIMITS (TYP.) NOTE:- 1. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO ROUTING OF THE EXISTING FIRE WATER LINE (REFER TO THE LEGEND) 2. EXISTING UG UTILITIES TO BE FIELD VERIFIED BY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO PROJECT EXECUTION. G� PLANT NORTH TRUE NORTH 3A A122, 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE 1" = 16'-0" CONFIDENTIAL TOPOGRAPHY NOTE: BASED ON TOPO FURNISHED BY D.WOOLLEY & ASSOCIATES DATE:07-28-2022. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 60% DESIGN REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION DEN BY CHK BY APRV BY OWNER: ARC' !AEA ENGINEER: BIOGAS 10 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP AK TP AG nFjCEj UTILITIES PLAN 03 20 2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP AG )(XENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. 20 / / ENGINEERING 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400 RING PROJECT HOUSTON, TX 77027 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G2.02 Ph: (346) 708-8272 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 - ( IIl I ©- Ia m I0m I0m 04M IffllIll z � g ARCIHAEA ENERGY � i n i is i �z i �5 i 9s COYOTE CANY�McLANQ ELLILL RNG PROJECT RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS PROJECT B.C. SIX 1al.03.74 EXHIBIT "B" EXHIBIT "B" D.WOOdICy &ASSOGi!l6P.Sw THENCE SOUTH 55° 31' 40" EAST 240.76 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT LAND SOAVSPA'C AND MAPPING CURVE CONCAVED WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; m�^; LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT „A„ THENCE ALONG SAID TANGENT CURVE SOUTHEASTERLY, SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY 31.42 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'W'; ,ir i NP�*Ge \ 6 JS e HP THENCE SOUTH 34° 28' 20" WEST 133.89 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT n \ 5633 "PezPy' °�`K > NF \ \'s�' Ny.OF4ryf \ scA.: I' = so' FOR LEASE PURPOSES PARCEL 1 CURVE CONCAVED NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID TANGENT CURVE SOUTHWESTERLY, WESTERLY, AND NORTHWESTERLY 31.42 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90° 00' 00"; C cz 6) >aa 4'or p S° .q 1. = al AF \\�3 'fir a S V't'f j? 9� y /tq�P} p3 mI 00p, ^ Hb OlDH'QF \ T.P.0.6. zROfb q^ \ M Rf f ry fNrx4A \\ �' Po4" \ \ o ?4 Ee Cf`f THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 128 THENCE NORTH 55° 31' 40" WEST 147.58 FEET; �. \ °e �"Raz'O i - / p0� QIo T / 'lagy�s \ a p 4 q't, qc tioti. S OF IRVINE'S SUBDMSION AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF FILED IN BOOK 1, THENCE NORTH 34° 28' 20"EAST 71.70 FEET; f�R'IS' PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORD MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, AND BEING A PORTION OF THE LAND CZ 3 r 0g 9oO � e�Ao� CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF IRVINE, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPLE CORPORATION THENCE NORTH 55°3F40" WEST 93.18 FEET; .y6Gj� !DO a p 4zz BEING THE PARCEL SHOWN AS "EXCEPTION PARCEL 4", AS DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "GIFT DEED PRESERVATION AREA L: PA 27 DETACHMENT (16, THENCE NORTH 34° 28' 20" EAST ]02.19 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; p� j �� QePfl49J 'ICR !g 1N �6JT9yQ'`2C�F`S � 1y5. B AREA PORTION)", RECORDED MAY 1.1 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20020413370 IN SAID THE ORANGE COUNTY RECORDER, AND BEING DESCRIBED MORE CONTAINING AN AREA OF 0.884 ACRES OR 39,491 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. �1 I �� i i �.' `fp�'n„ �PF� 'I/?Fq /-"�r,b6Aq `YCQ ^FcT '931gR0 A a �' OFFICE OF PARTICULARLY AS FOLLOWS: SUBJECT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHTS,i5NJ3.77 S j , P.O.C. °o RIGHTS OF WAY, AND OTHER MATTERS OF RECORD, IF ANY. N'LY TERMINUS OF 3000.00' RADIUS CURVE 3 COMMENCING ON THE CENTERLINE OF NEWPORT COAST DRIVE (FORMERLY o PELICAN HILLS ROAD) AT THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE EXHIBIT 'B' ATTACHED AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. e l �" O p BB kIl OF A 3000.00 FEET RADIUS CURVE CONCAVED WESTERLY, HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 2,232.28 FEET WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42° 38' 00" AS SHOWN ON A THIS REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY ."w' o� e ;j O 3 9g9' ''s• S?�. MAP THEREOF FILED IN BOOK 119, PAGES 25 THROUGH 29 OF RECORDS OF DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS' I Sg7I ^^tiry qc ' SURVEYS,BEING RECORD OF SURVEY NO.86-1077, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, AND BEING AT STATION 154+33.77 PER ACT. 4O �AROIN HILLS gpgp 11 �"'ti `SQLFS gSac m°j fey / ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR ALIGNMENT NOTES A/SW-IRV 2500-2509, PAGES I-10; ASS: THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID NEWPORT COAST DRIVE NORTH 01° 41' 00" WEST 1,560.70 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF EXCEPTION PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID GIFT DEED, BEING MARKED WITH A ` ' IIMJ -'. �ryM $ry bO i J�� h� •tip c e7 FOUND2-1/2 INCH PUNCHED BRASS DISC STAMPED"L.S. 4965"DOWN 2.0 FEET INA MONUMENT WELL AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF FILED IN BOOK 144, PAGES 31 THROUGH 36 OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS, BEING RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 91-1128, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; PRELIMINARY s < , 7>•..y,, T3cM �',• - LEGEND: - CENTERLINE MONUMENT - g pP March 11. 2022 Op _ A.P.N. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER P.O.C. — POINT OF COMMENCEMENT --- — CENTERLINE c? 2 CURVE DATA TABLE I THENCE LEAVING THE CENTERLINE OF SAID NEWPORT COAST DRIVE LAL15 DAVID E. WOOLLEY, FEB 7304 DATED -:- R.o.w. - RIGHT-OF-WAY ---- LOT LINE SOUTH 63°36'15"EAST 1,322.W FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; END OF DESCRIPTION T. P.O.B.- TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ---- TIE LINE SCALE: 1-=500 O.R. - OFFICIAL RECORDS - PROPOSED LEASE AREA cl A=90.00'00"R=20.00'L=31.42• 7 / �D. WOO//ey 8i ASSOO/ate$" PROPOSED LEASE AREA AT COYOTE CANYON GENERATING PLANT POR110N OF A.P.N. 47e-010J1 S.. I OF 2 SCALE: 1' 500' lWjD.Wool%y &Associates" PROPOSED LEASE AREA AT COYOTE CANYON GENERATNG PLANT PORnory of A.Prv. ale-o3-o7, SHEET 2 OF 2 SCALE: 1" = 50' fmxw � PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DRAWN: JOM CHECKED: DEW PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DRAWN: JOM CHECKED: OEW �IRWEGI mszw A..i° s°ireA �i`rr"e'.eBOz p1 ITNaaeaee 2932 WALNUT AVENUE, AIl1E A 2M WALNUT AVENUE SUITE A s IA 12711 aAT-/z2ooz 11/22 22002 22- PAGEI OF2 PAGE2oF2 snrv, GA sz�eo b+a>73a-easz w...aw°OIIe1•.aOm LEGAL DESCRIPTION , b+aj"/3a-aasz ..w.a.°°ney.z°m LEGAL DESCRIPTION 0 REV DATE DESCRIPTION o 10 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP i 20 03/20/2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY AK TP AG SS I TP AG L , a CONFIDENTIAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 60% DESIGN REVIEW A RC H A EA ENGINEER: LEASE AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION & PLAT C T SHEET TITLl§iNfilN!EERENERGYREVI T DRAwING No. STHEMEBI S3z WTE+CANYO 321 E. 2 $SiJ RNG PM, SCALE: TX 77027 BIOGAS, LLCl. _ S 3 -8272 MAIL' C TL A NFWPORT P,!� hMNG O. -1 ARCHAEA ENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL RNG PROJECT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AT COYOTE CANYON GENERATING PLANT PROPOSED LEASE AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRID COORDINATES: NORTH WEST FIELD LATITUDE LONGITUDE CONVERGENCE COMBINATION POINT III NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION (H-M-S) (H-M-S) ANGLE SCALE X ELEV - FACTOR SBCC 2147751.75 6131651,74 406.37 33-33-10.795341-117-39-41.310240-0-46-32.27 0.99996142 0.99998597 0.99994739 233 2170350.81 1082985.33 782.54 33-36-47.464912-117-49-20.321213-0-51-50.45 0.99991598 0.99996802 0.99993399 240 2170279.44 6083207.96 782.55 33-36-46.791604-117-49-17.680399-0-51-48.99 0.99996596 0.9999680, 0.99993398 3001 2170403.13 1082951,71 782.03 33-36-47.976921-117-49-20,7315a1-0-51-50.67 0.99996599 0.99996804 0.9999311 3002 2170371.17 6082926.71 782.20 33-36-47.657062-117-49-21.022010-0-51-50,83 0.99996598 0.99996803 0.99993402 3G03 2170379.50 6053OB2.15 7B2.08 33-36-47.762617-117-49-19.185735-G-51-49.82 0.99996598 0,99996804 099993402 LINE DATA: 11 - ss el'7 RECORD REFERENCES: NOTES R1 - GIFT DEED REC. MAY 16. 2002 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20020413370. O.R. SEE SHEET 2 FOR SITE TOPO. LAND AREA. CURVE DATA AND LEGEND. R2 - GRANT DEED REC. NOV. 30. 2006 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2006000801749. O.R. R3 - RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 86-1077. RS.B. 119/25-29 SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAIL "A". R4 - RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 91-1128, R.S.B. 144/31-36 IRS - ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR ALIGNMENT NOTES A/SW-IRV 2500-2509, PAGES 1-10. R6 - IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION M.R. t/88 R7 - CENTERLINE TES PER DWACONTROL POINT DETAIL. 2" 32 �Y OOhpP S O 233 P� 5 730M CONTROL POINT PLAN NEW DETAIL i ;.mm) mm) n) �o a� €' DWA CONTROL POINT DESCRIPTIONS: 9 ' FOUND 2-1/2 INCH PUNCHED BRASS DISK STAMPED L.S. 4965 DOWN 2.0 FT IN MONUMENT WELL. E2 FOUND PN NAIL RECESSED IN AC 20 233 - SET 2° PUNCHED ALUMINUM DWA CONTROL DISK FLUSH IN CONCRETE WI THEIR RESPECTIVE POINT NUMBER. 240 - SE i 2° PUNCHED ALUMINUM DWA CONTROL DISK FLUSH IN CONCRETE WI THEIR RESPECTIVE POINT NUMBER. go 248 - SET 2° PUNCHED ALUMINUM DWA CONTROL DISK FLUSH IN CONCRETE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE POINT NUMBER. 308 - FOUND PK NAIL FLUSH IN AC. - 311 - FOUND NAG NAIL FLUSH IN AC. ✓_•8 O 3000 - FOUND MAG NAIL AND ALUMINUM WASHER STAMPED "GIS SURVEY CNPi, FLUSH IN AC. €? .B 3001 - FOUND MAG NAIL AND ALUMINUM WASHER STAMPED "GIS SURVEY CNPY. FLUSH IN AC. 3002 - FOUND MAG NAIL AND ALUMINUM WASHER STAMPED "GIS SURVEY CNPi. FLUSH IN AC. LATITUDE = 3336'46.791604° LONGITUDE _-117'49'17.680399" 9 MAPPING ANGLE _-0051'48.99" COMBINED FACTOR = 0.99993398 ELEVATION = 782.55' AT CONTROL POINT: Z¢O 107,}90.95'� ------------- ------ PURSUANT TO SECTION 8815.5 OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE ECFS \\ (LAPLACE CORRECTION NOT APPUED) **MAGNETIC DECLINATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL GEOPHYSICAL DATA CENTER AND \ \ WAS CALCULATED USING ME CURRENT WORLD MAGNETIC MODEL (WMM2015VZ) \ 6ttp: //www.n96C.noaa.9-/9e ..9-wM \ 500' 0' S00' 1000' I SCALE: 1" = 500' I BENCHMARK: THIS PROJECT IS BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88) GPS DERIVED. STATIONS AND RESPECTIVE ELEVATIONS CONSTRAINED TO ARE: � I LOAD - GRID ELEVATION = 40852' (ELLIPSOID HEIGHT = 293.3337') 1 BASIS OF BEARINGS & DATUM STATEMENT: \ \\ ME BEARINGS OF THE LINES SHOWN HEREIN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA \ \ \\ COORGINATE SYSTEM (CC583), ZONE V. 2017.50 EPOCH AND WERE DETERMINED BY GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (G.P.S.) TIES TO THREE CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE NETWORK (C.S.R.N.) STATIONS REFERRED TO AS LGWD, SBCC & ECFS. \ ECy/YYYYFS PUBLISHED HORIZONTAL ACCURACIES ON THESE STATIONS MEET OR EXCEED FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE (F.G.D.C.) 5-MIWMETER ACCURACY CLASSIFICATION PER FGDC-STD-007.2-1998. SAID C.S.R.N. POSITIONS WERE HELD "FIXED" HORIZONTALLY IN THIS SURVEY. / 1A TIE CCS83 GRID BEARING BETWEEN G.S.R.N. STATIONS LGWD AND SBCC BEING S43'43'27'E AS DERIVED FROM TUE POSITIONS FOR SAID STATIONS, IN SAID EPOCH, PUBLISHED BY THE CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE CENTER (C.S.R.C.) ON DECEMBER 29. 2017, WAS USED AS ME BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR MIS SURVEY. ALL VALUES ARE EXPRESSED IN U.S. SURVEY FEET (1 FOOT = 1200/3937 METERS). ALL UNEWORK SHOWN HEREIN IS GRID. TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES BY THE COMBINED FACTOR OF 0.99993398 (AT POINT 240. WITH ELEVATION OF 782.55 FEET AND CONVERGENCE ANGLE OF -0-51-48.99). SURVEYORS STATEMENT: BY ME OR UNDER MY THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE DIRECTION AT ME REQUEST OF ARCHAEA ENERGY SURVEY OMPLEIED ON: JULY 1, 2022 t+vUu/etDAVI E. W00 EV P.L.S. N0. 7304 IN FEBRUARY, 2022. OR Q I[J W F I W N I0 0000 ^ W N Zmv W QU x F zZ N DO DO 3F 00 I N M H0 00 a CONFIDENTIAL 607. DESIGN REVIEW REV I DATE DESCRIPTION DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY OWNER: ARCHAEA ENGINEER: BIOG A S TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (SH 1 OF 3) 10 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP AK TP AG HJ 03 20 2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP AG )(XENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. 4444 / /ENGINEERING RNG PROJECT HOUSTON, TX IM7R02ROAD, SUITE G450 2321 E. SIGNAL HILBL,HCAT907555 PITE 400 h: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G2.04 Ph: (346) 708-8272 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 17-1 ARCHAEA ENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL RNG PROJECT f\ 9 za a za ao• SCALE: 1" = 20' L— L L SEE DETAIL "A", SHEET 2 J TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AT COYOTE CANYON GENERATING PLANT PROPOSED LEASE AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA QOoL3oC .lo. @.n. m-FDumooD H1E@@G31oIEDD Ti=9A@ NOTES: CONTOUR INTERVAL IS OS FOOT WITH SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON A 20X25 FOOT GRID. THE MAPPING OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WAS NOT PART OF THE SURVEY REQUEST. COND20 RUNNING ALONG INTERIOR OF EXISTING BLOCK WALL NOT LOCATED. TOP OF EXISTING WALL NO LOCATED, BLOCK WALL p= ELEVATION = 794.3'. SEE SHEET 1 FOR GRID COORDINATES, DWA CONTROL Np POINT DETAIL, DWA CONTROL POINT DESCRIPTIONS, LINEz DATA, RECORD REFERENCES, AND SURVEYOR'S T STATEMENT. -Z SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAIL 'A'. 0 4 €z LAND AREA: EA. EXCEPTION PA 0 SQUARE FEET (GROSS) 4117.13J ACRES (GROSS) � Q PROPOSED LEASE AREA: 38.491 SQUARE FEET (GROSS) '^Y r W 0.884 ACRES (GROSS) y O N 'o CURVE DATA: Li q i z --: L. zN BENCHMARK: y Q THIS PROJECT IS THE NORTH AMERICAN Z BASED ON VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88) GPS DERIVED. O H STATIONS AND RESPECTIVE ELEVATIONS CONSTRAINED TO ARE: O Z J N 'H H W 3 LGWD - GRID ELEVATON = 408.52' (ELLIPSOID HEIGHT = 293.3337') f"1 � N M BASIS OF BEARINGS AND Do a DATUM STATEMENT: HE BEARINGS OF THE LINES SHOWN HEREIN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83), ZONE VI, 2017.50 EPOCH AND WERE DETERMINED BY GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (G.P.S.) TIES TO THREE CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE NETWORK (C.S.R.N.) STATIONS REFERRED TO AS LCWD, SBCC & ECFE. PUBLISHED HORIZONTAL ACCURACIES ON THESE STATIONS MEET OR EXCEED FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE (F.G.D.C.) 5-MILLIMETER Div ACCURACY CLASSIFICATION PER FGDC-STD-007.2-1998. SAID C.S.R.N. POSITIONS WEREHELD r W ea "FIXED" HORIZONTALLY S THE CCS83 GRID BEARING BETWEENN CSS.RY STATIONS LGWD AND SBCC BEING S43'43'27'E, AS DERIVED FROM = O i Y> Y THE POSITIONS FOR SAID STATIONS, IN SAID EPOCH, PUBLISHED BY THE CALFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE J p CENTER (C.S.R.C.) ON DECEMBER 29, 2017, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY. g U w Og4l 5C �jCi ALL VALUES ARE EXPRESSED IN U.S. SURVEY FEET (1 FOOT = 1200/3937 METERS). _ Z }} W }V F q d Z Z ALL LINEWORK SHOWN HEREIN IS GRID, TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES BY THE COMBINED FACTOR OF 0.99993395 POINT 240, U O 2 w U (AT W1T1 AN ELEVATION OF 782.55 FEET AND Q CONVERGENCE ANGIF OF-0-51-48.99). } Z o LEGEND: Ifo AC - ASPHALT. CONCRETE APN - ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER F BP - BOLLARD POST B.L. - BOUNDARY LINE C.L. - CENTERLINE N 00 CP - CONCRETE PAD Z E. - EAST EPB - ELECTRIC PULLBOX Q W 0 J FD. - FOUND FDC - FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION Q U FSV - FIRE SERVICE VALVE FH - FIRE HYDRANT FSC - FIRE SERVICE CONTROL NORTH NE. NORTHEAST O N Q 3 - s. SOU H p SCO - SEWER CLEANOUT SE. - SOUTHEAST f CC m ID SW. - SOUTHWEST (TYP) - TYPICAL w 3 p UMH - UTILITY MANHOLE W. - WEST WV - WATER VALVE V Q N p K = p U J UV UTILITY VALVE UVT - UTILITY VENT - CONCRETE PAVEMENT N M N ® - CONTROL POINT Q 0 O Z N . . NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CONFIDENTIAL 60% DESIGN REVIEW REV I DATE DESCRIPTION DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY OWNER: ARCHAEA ENGINEER: BIDG A (� TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (SH 2 OF 3) 10 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP AK TP AG HJ 03 20 2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP AG ENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. 4444 o / / ENGINEERING RNG PROJECT HOUSTON, TX IM7R02ROAD, SUITE G450 2321 E. SIGNAL HILBL,HCAT907555 PITE 400 h: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G2.05 Ph: (346) 708-8272 1 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 ARCHAEA ENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL RNG PROJECT 10 SCALE: 1" = 10', TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AT COYOTE CANYON GENERATING PLANT PROPOSED LEASE AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA P1r:TA11 A• RETAINING UV �GRAVEL' yp.4- ® � CP © FLARE CP AIR X 782.4' STATION BLOWERS O�OSPT X]82.1 EO PAD © CP UV ® FLARE STATION x ]B2z' EDGE OF PAVEMEN- (TYPICAL) X782.0' oP IF - BOP oP BPo®FSV X782.1' BP° %)!23- FH FSV BPsv V FSV FSVO BP BP sc 6. FSV FBP ��ENCT FN ASPHALT-� BPo LIGHTLIGHT pOL � ELECTRICAL DIRT 1p 10 PAINTMARK BLOCK FLARE CONTROL 1�~ EPB EMERGENCY CHAINUNK GENERATOR / T-MOBILE VERIZON X782.5- yR� CELLULAR Y ASPHALT CP / xxl2.Y 233- - X782.5' N J \ \ 119.8' X 7822' I\\ x ]ezm'� \ \ A s EPB a x ]e1.// Q BP° ° X ]81.9' BP B ° / E BE po / -GRAVEL) / BP° X]81.5' / FLARE STATION BP BP ®3000 BF X ]81.3' / I P YX]8WV X ]81.8' ASPHALT X I11// I 1 X]81.B' J X 782.3' I <I\ wON I \ GRID COORDINATES: NORTH WEST FIELD LATITUDE LONGITUDE CONVERGENCE COMBINATION POINT 8 NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION (H-M-S) (H-M-S) ANGLE SCALE X ELEV - FACTOR SBCC 2147751.75 6131651.74 406.37 33-33-10.795341 -117-39-41.310240 -0-46-32.27 0.99996142 0.99998597 0.99994739 LGWD ECFS 2180062.72 2181264.26 6100]48.5] 6208132.80 406.52 2739.69 33-38-26.137628 33-38-51.657060 -117-45-51.976020 -117-24-42.059595 -0-49-55.96 -0-38-18.12 0.99996842 0199996908 0.99998596 0.99987409 0.99995438 0,99984318 100 144 2171005.83 2170578.61 6001899.75 6081513.07 549.95 5]].23 33-36-53.781808 33-36-49.497842 -117-49-33.277228 -117-49-37.712626 -0-51-5].5] -0-52-0004 0.99996613 G99996603 0.99997915 0,9999]]84 0.99994528 0,99994387 233 240 2170350.86 2170279.44 6082985.33 6083207.96 782.54 782.55 33-36-47.464912 33-36-46.791604 -117-49-20.325293 -117-49-17.680399 -0-51-50.45 -0-51-48.99 0.99996598 G99996596 0.99996802 0.99996801 0.99993399 G99993398 248 308 2170505.30 2169060.73 6082962.68 6081999.62 781.58 623.81 33-36-48.989243 33-36-34.555499 -117-49-20.620583 -117-49-31.748907 -0-51-50.61 -0-51-56.73 0.99996601 G99996568 0.99996806 0.99997561 0.99993408 0.9999a129 311 3000 2171441.80 2170446.80 60B3226.28 6082979.57 566.65 781.31 33-36-58.292613 33-36-48.413100 -117-49-17.670965 -117-49-20.410452 -0-51-4-0 -0-51-50.50 0.99996623 G99996600 0.99997834 0,99996807 0.99994458 0,99993408 3001 3002 3003 2170403.13 2170371.17 2170379.50 6082951.76 6082926.71 6083082.15 782.03 782.20 782.08 33-36-4].9]6920 33-36-47.657062 33-36-47.762617 -11]-49-20.]31541 -117-49-21.022010 -11]-49-19.185)38 -0-51-50.67 -0-51-50.83 -0-51-49.82 0.99996599 0,99996598 0.99996598 0.99996804 0.99996803 0.99996804 0.99993403 0.99993402 0.99993402 ®WV DWA CONTROL POINT DESCRIPTIONS: 100 - FOUND 2-1/2 INCH PUNCHED BRASS DISK STAMPED L.S. 4965 DOWN 2.0 FT IN MONUMENT WELL. 144 - FOUND PK NAIL RECESSED IN AC 233 - SET 2" PUNCHED ALUMINUM DWA CONTROL DISK RUSH IN CONCRETE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE POINT NUMBER. 240 - SET 2" PUNCHED ALUMINUM DWA CONTROL DISK FLUSH IN CONCRETE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE POINT NUMBER. 248 - SET 2" PUNCHED ALUMINUM DWA CONTROL DISK FLUSH IN CONCRETE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE POINT NUMBER. 308 - FOUND PK NAIL FLUSH IN AC. 3000 - FOUND MAG NAIL AND ALUMINUM WASHER STAMPED "GIS SURVEY CNPT", FLUSH IN AC 3001 - FOUND MAG NAIL AND ALUMINUM WASHER STAMPED "GIS SURVEY CNPT", FLUSH IN AC. W02 - FOUND MAG NAIL AND ALUMINUM WASHER STAMPED "GIS SURVEY CNPT', FLUSH IN AC NOTES: CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 0.5 FOOT THE MAPPING OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WAS NOT PART OF THE SURVEY REQUEST. CONDUITS RUNNING ALONG INTERIOR OF EXISTING BLOCK WALL NOT LOCATED. TOP OF EXISTING BLOCK WALL ELEVATION = 794.3'. SEE SHEET 2 FOR LAND AREA AND CURVE DATA BENCHMARK: THIS PROJECT IS BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88) GPS DERIVED. STATIONS AND RESPECTIVE ELEVAPONS CONSTRAINED TO ARE: LGWD GRID ELEVATION = 406 52' (ELLIPSOID HEIGHT 293.333]') BASIS OF BEARINGS AND DATUM STATEMENT: THE BEARINGS OF THE LINES SHOWN HEREIN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83), ZONE M, 2017.50 EPOCH AND WERE DETERMINED BY GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (G.P.S.) TIES TO THREE CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE NETWORK (C.S.R.N.) STATIONS REFERRED TO AS LGWD, SBCC & ECFS. PUBLISHED HORIZONTAL ACCURACIES ON THESE STATIONS MEET OR EXCEED FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE (F.G.D.C.) 5-MILLIMETER ACCURACY CLASSIFICATION PER FGDC-STD-00].2-1998. SAID C.S.R.N. POSITIONS WERE HELD "FIXED" HORIZONTALLY IN THIS SURVEY. THE CCS83 GRID BEARING BETWEEN C.S.R.N. STATIONS LGWD AND SBCC BEING S43'027"E, AS DERIVED FROM THE POSITIONS FOR SAID STATONS, IN SAID EPOCH, PUBLISHED BY THE CAUFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE CENTER (C.S.R.C.) ON DECEMBER 29. 201], WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY. ALL VALUES ARE EXPRESSED IN U.S. SURVEY FEET (1 FOOT = 1200/3937 METERS). ALL LINEWORK SHOWN HEREIN IS GRID. TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES BY THE COMBINED FACTOR OF 0.99993MB (AT POINT 240, WITH AN ELEVATION OF 782.55 FEET AND CONVERGENCE ANGLE OF-0-51-48.99). LEGEND: AC - ASPHALTIC CONCRETE A - ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BP - BOLLARD POST B.L. - BOUNDARY LINE C.L. - CENTERLINE EPB - ELECTRIC PULLBOX ED. - FOUND FDC - FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FSV - FIRE SERVICE VALVE FH - FIRE HYDRANT FSC - FIRE SERVICE CONTROL SCO - SEWER CLEANOUT SE. - SOUTHEAST SW. - SOUTHWEST (TYP) - TYPICAL UMH - UTUTY MANHOLE W. WEST WV - WATER VALVE UV - UTILITY VALVE UVi - VTUTY VENT UIT - UTUTY VAULT - CONCRETE PAVEMENT ® - CONTROL POINT I ild o �(yZ" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CONFIDENTIAL 60% DESIGN REVIEW REV I DATE DESCRIPTION DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY OWNER: ARCHAEA ENGINEER: BIDG A (� TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (SH 3 OF 3) 10 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP AK TP AG HJ 03 20 2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP AG )(XENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. 4444 o / /ENGINEERING RNG PROJECT HOUSTON, TX IM7R02ROAD, SUITE G450 2321 E. SIGNAL HILBL,HCAT907555 PITE 400 h: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G2,06 Ph: (346) 708-8272 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 m EXISTING RECLAIM WATER BFP CP O EFH O� OQ' `FO OO \ 0'\EXISTING SWITCHGEAR EXISTING PROPANE TANK \ \ O r - - - - - - - LFG SUPPLY LINE (UNDERGROUND) I O O ° O o� o CEXISTINGo O EFH FLARE YARD EXISTING OO O D EMERGENCY � n GENERATOR SO -CAL GAS ABOVE GROUND PIPELINE n j `♦ � �♦ O � EXISTING ABOVEGROUND PIPES ♦\EXTENSION EXISTING CELL TOWER [§ D♦ EFH �♦ EXISTING CONCRETE DRAINAGE DITCH EXISTING POWER PANEL EXISTING ATT GENERATOR 12' 0 44 21 U AN PARKING NO PARKING v CAR PARKING 43 AFH 0 1 TO PARKING SPOT 9' X 20' EXISTING PARKING SPOT BUILDING 9'X20' PARKING SPOT 9' X 20' EXISTING WALL 12 INCH CMU BLOCK (TYPICAL ALL SIDES) ACCESS ROUTE (TYPICAL) SO. CAL. GAS EGRESS ON 40 � 1 a5 PROJECT BOUNDARY LIMITS ® e e e 17 25 28 16 32 09 RFH SCG POINT OF RECEIPT O ❑ 0 0 EFH 11 RESERVED FOR SO. CAL GAS METERING STATION ACCESS ROAD SEE SCG DRAWING 34250 FOR DETAIL SO. CAL. GAS & RING PLANT 11 RFH 10' PROPOSED SO. CAL. GAS PIPE ROUTE (UNDERGROUND) ----------------------- -------- ----------- 12' OCWR RESERVED ACCESS ROUTE (TYPICAL) TYPICAL FOR ALL HYDROCARBON (RAW BIOGAS/METHANE) THREADED OR FLANGED PIPE FITTINGS SCALE: NTS EXISTING CELL TOWER 0 LEGENDS a z v, w PLANT NORTH TRUE NORTH 3A A122, 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE 1" = 16'-0" HAZARDOUS AREA CLASS 1, DIVISION 2, GROUP D UNCLASSIFIED AREA NOTE:- 1. THE SHADED AREA DENOTES A HAZARDOUS AREA OF A 15 FT RADIUS FROM THE SOURCE OF THE LEAK PER NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE CLASS 1 DIVISION 2. CONFIDENTIAL TOPOGRAPHY NOTE: BASED ON TORO FURNISHED BY D.WOOLLEY & ASSOCIATES DATE:07-28-2022 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 607. DESIGN REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY OWNER: A R C H A E A ENGINEER: AREA CLASSIFICATION FOR RNG 1 p 03/20/2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP AG BIOGAS(SCG NOT INCLUDED) )(X ENERGY DRAWING N0. COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL 4444 ENGINEERING RING PROJECT HOUSTON, TX IM700270AD, SUITE G450 2321 E. SIGNAL HILBL,HCAT90755,, PITE 400 h: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G3.01 Ph: (346) 708-8272 1 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM INEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 EXISTING CONCRETE DITCH CO S LEXISTING SIDE WALL moo R e `- --- R O � X I I 0 � I 0 EXISTING SEWER LINE O I � X Xt ° EXISTING MANHOLE (TYP.) I .. EXISTNG BUILDING ® o ❑ X ❑3 0 NOTE:- 1. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO ROUTING OF THE EXISTING FIRE WATER LINE (REFER TO THE LEGEND). 2. EXISTING UG UTILITIES TO BE FIELD VERIFIED BY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO PROJECT EXECUTION. 3. DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM POTHOLING TO FIND OUT BURIED LINE DEPT. 4. TO MINIMIZE THE DOWNTIME OF THE POTABLE WATER AND FIRE WATER SYSTEM, THE PIPELINE SHUTDOWN SHALL ONLY BE TAKEN AFTER THE MODIFIED SECTION OF THE PIPELINE IS CONSTRUCTED AND TESTED AT THE SITE AND COMPLETED TO BE TIED IN WITH THE EXISTING PIPING. LEGENDS EXISTING WALL .......................... EXISTING FINISHED NISHED GRADE x782 -0' DEMOLITION AREA DESTURBED AREA WATER RISER FRI CLEANOUT CO MANHOLE OS 0 PLANT NORTH TRUE NORTH 3A R122, 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE 1" = 16'-0" CONFIDENTIAL TOPOGRAPHY NOTE: BASED ON TOPO FURNISHED BY D.WOOLLEY & ASSOCIATES DATE:07-28-2022. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 60% DESIGN REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION DEN BY CHK BY APRV BY OWNER: ARC' !AEA ENGINEER: BIOGAS ARCHAEA C I'1 DEMOLITION PLAN 1 0 03/20/2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP AG )(XENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. ENGINEERING RNG PROJECT HOUSTON,4444 TX IM700270AD, SUITE G450 2321 E. SIGNAL HILBL,HCAT90755,, PITE 400 h: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G3.02 Ph: (346) 708-8272 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 - E EL. 847'-0" (APPROX.) CELL TOWER TSA VESSEL (EXISTING) EL 816'-0" (4) FLARES BOP PANEL (EXISTING) BUILDING H2S REMOVAL VESSEL EL. 802'-0" (APPROX.) EL. 803'-9" EL. 794'-3" f^1 FT n n TOP OF EXISTING BOUNDARY WALL SITE GRADE ELEVATION EL. 782'-0" ' ' � (VARIES) SOUTH ELEVATION / SCALE - 1/16" = 1'-O" G2.00 CONDENSATE TANK i EL. 807'-6" THERMAL OXIDIZER El. 847'-0" EL. 843'-0" (APPROX.) FLARE EL. 823'-0" CELL TOWER (EXISTING) PIPERACK BOUNDARY WALL (EXISTING) EL. 847'-0" THERMAL OXIDIZER EL. 847'-0" (APPROX.) EL. 843'-0" (APPROX.) CELL TOWER (EXISTING) (4) FLARES (EXISTING) EL. 802'-0" (APPROX.) EL. 794'-3" TOP OF EXISTING BOUNDARY WALL SITE GRADE ELEVATION El. 782'-0" EXISTING ATT GENERATOR BOP PANEL BUILDING SCG METERING STATION - TEA VESSEL CONDENSATE - EL. 816'-0" TANK H2S REMOVAL VESSEL EL. 807'-6" PIPERCK EXISTING BUILDING 1. EXISTING SOUTH BOUNDARY WALL BEHIND RNG FACILITY NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. SOUTH ELEVATION / L SCALE - 1/16" = 1'-0" G2.00 FLARE CELL TOWER (EXISTING) BOUNDARY WALL (EXISTING) 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET CONFIDENTIAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 60% DESIGN REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION DEN BY CHK BY APRV BY OWNER: A RC H A EA ENGINEER: nIOG A PLANT ELEVATION VIEW 1 0 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP AK TP AG 6 H SOUTH ELEVATION - LOOKING PLAN NORTH 03 20 2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP Al)(XENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. o / / ENGINEERING 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400 RNG PROJECT HOUSTON, TX 77027 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G4.01 Ph: (346) 708-8272 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 _ �V/AML3) PI RA7'_n" PI RA7'_n" rI Ra7'—n" ri Raj—n" REV I DATE DESCRIPTION DEN BY CHK BY APRV BY 10 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP AK TP AG Xj p� 03/20/2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW I SS TP AG EAST ELEVATION / C SCALE — 3/32" = 1'-0" G2.00 1. EXISTING EAST BOUNDARY WALL BEHIND RNG FACILITY NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. EAST ELEVATION G SCALE — 3/32" - 1'—O" G2.00 OWNER: ARCHAEA )(X ENERGY 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 HOUSTON, TX 77027 Ph: (346) 708-8272 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTI0r, ENGINEER: BIOGAS in ENGINEERING 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM 0 10 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET CONFIDENTIAL 607. DESIGN REVIEW PLANT ELEVATION VIEW EAST ELEVATION - LOOKING PLAN WEST COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. RNG PROJECT 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G4.03 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 -17 �VAN IL�q k vAmlr 3) REV I DATE DESCRIPTION DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY 10 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP AK TP AG Xj p� 03/20/2023 1 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP AG WEST ELEVATION ( U 1 SCALE - 3/32" - 1'-0" G2.00 1. EXISTING WEST BOUNDARY WALL BEHIND RNG FACILITY NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. WEST ELEVATION H SCALE - 3/32" = 1'-O" G2.00 OWNER: ARC HA EA )(X ENERGY 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE C450 HOUSTON, TX 77027 Ph: (346) 708-8272 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER: BIOGAS 0 ENGINEERING 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM 0 10 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET CONFIDENTIAL 60% DESIGN REVIEW PLANT ELEVATION VIEW WEST ELEVATION - LOOKING PLAN EAST COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. RNG PROJECT 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G4.04 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 -17 ARCHAEA ENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL RNG PROJECT STRS. LEV. PRESSURE P G LOCATION CUSS F3 TER SERANATOR % SMYS INLET OUTLET DEICN FACTOR 0.5 "iu SILE: XXGC.XX" F 10.8% AT D. L OF TINE XXX 50 CAPACITY AT PRESS. NOTED/MCFH PSG8.1% AT MAOP OF LINE 46 REDS. METERS O INCHES W.C. RS-aa5 a I�/� CMACITY. %%X GAILONS 5.6% AT MAX. EXPECTED fi0 40 fi3.6 fi3.6 61 P, ®XI�\/I.. ���M ..n��m .. �I��/ iI BCADA PANEL' IF ' T NORM. OPERATING 50 3J fi fi3.fi 95 (NOTE4) PP, HMI ' MIN. EXPECTED 50 37 63.6 63.6 95 G }®�,i - RELIEF VALVE SET AT --- PSIG DEIGN LOPD 63.60 MCFH SERJ. RED. SET AT 4C PSIG MIN. FLOW RATE 44.10 MCFH IG MONITOR REG. SET AT 43 PSIG TOT. CONN. LOAD MCFH z 2 STANDBY REG. SET - PSIG W M ETT B 2 OVER PRESS. PI AT - of SET AT 85-PSIG AU. DELV. PRESS. 37 PSIG GENAWiM P G6TEGTR i NGH FAIL FAIL ? i 2 L�„LJ BIPP,-- MOOEM &M ' _ Hzsl rDPD ANuwPad-,, uc= G ETHERNET UPS /Rs2a2 wwwTRANCBVER AT . - - SFP P81G Stl! Y Y Y PPUG GET2 O1 1MC H10H®5 R X X ePo• tla• PIC GEN MART., I LOW WPGIG S1PP1+ I ____ aW/1VN3 tb/V1B/1 g e F Ipp c(NOOTERR SEPSETI V ICPL SAMPLE GA$ tla' aSET 6 py RSees 4 1la' DO p� Al 6sPPSIGapp { g MOE3 MOE'112 —PIG ATSIF L�„LJS'PP,1I4' ' PEN SES GE � Pt SET G 40PAG �L bT810 1121 H.V____ H�PP1 Spp, DSP, 6AMaER n CORROSION ODTOZr COLM m r 1 3 �a D D �PIN�} PN:,R. �_ _ P NBR GDDSD � a• A. DIA.FL D.L XXXPSIG For NO _ P 0 xr 10 DIA. MIN '+� MIN.OPXXXPBIG °V °pP NtO� - NC .2 CONOITKIN g a,mo.00Sn ° e F O MIN.0P ,6 PSIG ���/JJ����,,, MONITOR SEMCE r (NOTEn"� SET@2PRU -ON AS— I`L��',7'`L^'I 1 SET O NO NC60 PSIG LotnJ eroMorE„ IPURGE vnLVE f rsv� ,la• otor \'.�'au7\ ya• v4• SET 75 PSIG FROMODDRANTSKID ODONA -ON a NC NOTES: 1. THE ORIRCE METER RUN & FITTING DI GE SHALL COMPLY WITH SCG SPEC 76-64. 2. _ITCHING SOLENOID VPLVE FOR BOTH ODORANT PUMPS FAILURE, HIGH 12S, 12S ANALYZER FAULT AND OTHER PROCESS UPSET. J 3. NON -LATCHING SOLENOID VPLVE FOR HIGH 02, LOW/HIGH BTU, LOW/HIGH WOBBE INDIX, HIGH TODDCRUUNTSXD INERTE, HIGH CO2, LOW/HIGH TEMPERATURE AND HIGH -HIGH LIQUID LEVEL AT -OD. L____, 4. MULTIPLE VARABLE/VALUE COMMUNICATED OVER MODBUS, 5. PROCESS ISOIATON VPLVE - VPLVE WILL MODULATE TO MAINTAIN DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE AND r _ SHUT-IN FOR EVENTS RELATED TO NOTE 2 AND NOTE 3. a 6. PRODUCER INTERFACE THROUGH MODBUS - MULTIPLE V ABLE/VALUE COMMUNICATED. N M ]. SEE LEAD SHEET 0101-D.STD. 0102-D.STD. 01N-D.STD FOR P&ID SYMBOLCGY/NOTATON. FOR INSTRUMENT TAGGING ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS REFER TO TAG NAMING STANDARD 223.024J. B. HMI - LOCAL DISPLAY INTERFACE OF SITE Vµ1ABLE/ALARMS/INSTRUMENT STATUS. I 9. F THE LE1_ RISE µONE 20% THE LEL MONITOR TRIPS THE FAIN AND ACTNATES THE LOCAL STROBE. F THE LEL RISE ABOVE 4O% THE LEL MONITOR TRIPS THE AC AND BLOCKS GAS SUPPLY TO ALL µALYZERE THROUGH LOCAL SOLENOID VALVE BOX. 10. ALL IN —UNIT TAG NUMBERS ARE PREFlXED WITH 'CC-0.00-1-" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ISSUED FOR REVIEW „I 11. CHECK VALVE TO BE MOUNTED VERTICALLY. C 4 wee 6J F RE yI LI oPn]m POINT OF RECEIPT HHITF���'�,,1o.I. YTF,�u',�,,�I. �socames COYOTE CANYON Lo. 1S V-1 DD HH LW A� P, D OS/2]/22 011l IRG mL PP ISSUED FOR 60% RENEW 69385.000 —7.1 P&ID SP C 11/03/2, DTII AIJ SOL PP ISSUED FOR REVIEW 69395.0.1 — LEGEND & PRESSURE BLOCK B 10/05/21 OIIT AIJ SOL PP ISSUED FOR RENEW NOS5.000 tt ORTREACH OS/n/21 Dl1T AU SOL PP ISSUED FOR REVIEW 89M.oDU usx J6 303 ttuE�NoNE "N34250-2001-D-PID D CONFIDENTIAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 60% DESIGN REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY OWNER: ENGINEER: SoCalGas POINT OF RECEIPT 1 0 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP AK TP AG A RC HrA EA BIOGAS P&ID - LEGEND & PRESSURE BLOCK ENERGYDRAWING NO. 03 20 2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP AG)(X MENGINEERINGCOYOTE CANYON LANDFILL / / RNG PROJECT HOUSTON,4444 TX IM7R02ROAD, SUITE G450 2321 E. SIGNAL HILBL,HCAT907555 PITE 400 h: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G5.01 Ph: (346) 708-8272 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 1 DATE DESCRIPTION 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP 03/20/2023 1 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW ARCHAEA ENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL RNG PROJECT Pump, Gea CArm Purtp,Gee IXivan E]SANSIONTANK CAPAG- .., gN CAPAG- .., gP. (N(NOT"E: OTSR, .O.k.•55 SSE: ,p.O ...-SA DESIGN:p PSIG e F DESIGN: 2oD PSI. e CPPACITY. 9 IG CAPACITY. a gPSIG F A noN — — — — — _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ HHHH OpIXUJR INJEC,ION CABINET EKHAUSTTD I I svz - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --------------------- M. E s p,�I>sl I MOTE SI 20PIG Z NE— W.• EXPANSION TANK =N. ,a E" N.. PO LA, CAN RL NO 101, jlo g.a t; n s =s j F�, N MOTE al ' p 5 z /,• f PC ND E91 No — P-2100A NEGva• MOTE" /a,opoa.Nr VEROA1ETER T-2101A Vs 114- iffs N Np vn• NC s" - 9--------------------- --- I I II I I (NOTE 1) I--------- --J------------ .1. Ps. IY8a.Pa HL pz,AE� m VPNT FILTER (Pa101 s 1. N A, M0-4) OTEe"I MOEto) N- __ rvo MOTEn P-2r100B vERunETm NOG Pp +/^• T-2101B Pump TANK vz (NOTE.) ,p. V,4 PG NO NO va• ,] va• L------N6----------------------------J 0 olen[Te 7Ig pl2 SIZEGN DID :G OPEIRATING: PSIG • tai rMpiE91 t CAPAG— „9 gel PO I NBC sw, I (NOTE W P¢ (; I I I I I I I -----------------------� I F� WAS I I g Psv I D,D, m I ; --,N-?G---ENZ o-------------+ VAPOR REIu NLL I I o,H�B I o_oh vEn4-- � ,rzxva• va•.,rr I I ODDRAHHT��K TABLE 1 PIPELINE PRESSURE ACTUATION PRESSURE 100-200 psi (6.89 - 13.8 Bar) 30 psi(2.07 Bar) 200-500 psi (13.89-34.5 Bar) 40 psi (2.76 Bar) 500-900 psi (34.5-62.1 Bar) 60 psi(3.45 Bar) 900-1490 psi (62.1 - 99.3 Bar) 60 psi(4.14 Bar) Ap I I srP, I I I . it an.]z.o,o —--------------------------------— ISSUED FOR REVIEW 1. CONTROLLER. THE 2. THE RTU PODS ODORANT CONTROLLERS FOR PIVIA HORSES 485. 3. OVERROW PROTECTION WITH PRESSURE RELIEF THE IN THE GAP PSSEMBLY SET TO 25 PSIG. o,E POINT OF RECEIPT VALVE AS NEEDED. 4. SADJUEE SET POINTS. 5. SEE TABLE , FOR �/p pgpp/p COYOTE CANYON DURING B. VALVE IS OPEN DURING PURGING AND VENTING EVENT. ��/� SOCBIGeS P&ID ]. VALVE IS OPEN DURING START-UP AND CLOSED FOR NORMAL OPERATION. a. VALVE "V4' IS OPENED DURING STARED TO PRESSURIZE THE EXPANSION TANK TO 25 PSIG, VALVE IS THEN CLOSED AND REMAINS CLOSED DURING NORMAL OPERATION. J�Dn el�SeiW®p®gw ODORIZER SYSTEM WITH CONDITIONS TO BE VERIFIED WITH MANUFACTURER. 9. REGULATOR 10. RECULITOR PRE -CHARGED WITH NITROGEN TO SET -POINT OF 3p0 PSIG. OPTONAL HACK -PRESSURE REGULATOR IS USED FOR INJECTNG INTO SYSTEMS BELOW 275 PSIG. A 06/27/22 PP 65UED fOR BDR RE\fE'N s9395.000 RNONE owv o¢�: 303 r-us: NONE a...g NERMPORTCOASTDFNE NEWT eN 34250-2002-D-PID DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY AK TP AG SS TP AG OWNER: ARCHAEA )(X ENERGY 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 HOUSTON, TX 77027 Ph: (346) 708-8272 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER: BIOGAS 0 ENGINEERING 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM CONFIDENTIAL 60% DESIGN REVIEW SoCalGas POINT OF RECEIPT P&ID - ODORIZER SYSTEM COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. RNG PROJECT 20662 NEWPORTCOAST DRIVE G5.02 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 DATE DESCRIPTION 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP 03/20/2023 1 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW ARCHAEA ENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL RNG PROJECT Or----------------------------- III r _ uvl ______gyp � ICI Iii I® 'll III 71��41 10 Ihlr I Ip IWI I III IIII Llli I I 0 III III la II I I I I O I II ' O IF rJJ i I o° III III POINT OF RECEIPT II ;�illlll I ;Illlj I I ____ JII IIII IN ® 1111' IF A I'I ® I IIIII _ e I FOR PLOT PLAN SEE Dl 111---=-�Iltll 34250-3002-D-PIP ;�111 � IIII O o>R--ylllll II IDII 9 L---- ---- ----I---- a I 0 ' o SITE PLAN ISSUED FOR 60% REVIEW GENERAL NOTES: WHERE MSA OR REGULATOR STATIONS ARE EXPOSED TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, ,awl SoCa]Ges M POINT OF RECEIPT BIOME RULE 45 - COYOTE CANYON INSTALL REQUIRED GUARD POSTS PER GAS STANDARD 185.0008 AND STANDARD DRAWING 0413-D.STD TO PREVENT DAMAGE. lo' z0' w' ® �= w SITE PLAN SC4E: I" = 2W-0" 20662 N—OU COAST DR' NEW 1 BEAC :o9 34250-3001—D—PIP C DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY AK TP HAG G SS TP OWNER: ommm®�m�o)(X ARCHAEA ENERGY0 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 HOUSTON, TX 77027 Ph: (346) 708-8272 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER: BIOGAS ENGINEERING 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM CONFIDENTIAL 60% DESIGN REVIEW SoCalGas POINT OF RECEIPT SITE PLANRNG COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. 20662 NEWPOR PROJECT DRIVE G5.03 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 DATE DESCRIPTION 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP 03/20/2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW ARCHAEA ENERGY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL RNG PROJECT � �W mN� k fi 39 OW �o I far+Y I PLOT PLAN ISSUED FOR 60% REVIEW 1. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES, POINT OF RECEIPT mac. caslLvs BIOME RULE 45 - COYOTE CANYON oauu 0 HAIWA� t&33R1 ,nn o s 1v WAPD SOL aREox REVIEW v. DlsoLrxA mmi -uPLOT PLAN SOL Rao%REVIEW BSJBfi.oOo mxe. S. Lr SOL 893SS.OoO xo am. 3CJ ]a""' xaomcwttwa ma .ea3eE aoo _ � 34250-3002-D-PIP C Fill DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY AK TP PAC SS TP)(X OWNER: a I � fo oz fo m a of � 000 I 61 61 I I ARCHAEA ENERGY0 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 HOUSTON, TX 77027 Ph: (346) 708-8272 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER: BIOGAS ENGINEERING 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400RNG SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM -17 CONFIDENTIAL 60% DESIGN REVIEW SoCalGas POINT OF RECEIPT PLOT PLAN COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO. 20662 NEWPOR PROJECT DRIVE G5.04 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 1 O L EXISTING RECLAIM WATER BFP EXISTING 10" SEWER LINE SCE EXISTING RECLAIM WATER ABOVEGROUD PIPE EXISTING CONCRETE DITCH PME 4450 ° SCE CAPACITOR PAD O F ° ---------------------- --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - I ° ° --F—° FSV' ` I ° FSV FSC I OFl ------------------------------ —----------------------FSV_—a -- �J \ I FSV O O� EXISTING POWER LINES \ \ O I jlI\ (TYP.) \ I O o I FSV i�° FSV \ \ \ EXISTING 4" SEWER LINE O I FSC I� II � E O OD I� EXISTING FIRE LINE TO REMAIN (TYP.) / I °1 EXISTING — JI I I (TYP.) MANHOLE I i BUILDING SIN EXISTING MANHOLE (TYP.) I iiM EXISTING TIE IN <�' I I I IIII TO SCG PIPELINE FSVFSV I FSV } FSV-j IE=H ® //'//� i I r--J EFH FSC ' l ill EXISTING CABLE I ��IIII 1 TRENCH �� NOTE-2 p I� I L------ =----- II I-�I ------ - ------ ----- L-- _--}� ---/-- AFHE _---- _ ---- ---� EXISTING ATT r GENERATOR 7 LEGENDS EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT FH EFH-EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT RETAINED EFH AFH-ADDED FIRE HYDRANT AFH POWER LINES — — — — — — UTILITIES LINE ----------- FIRE LINE -- -- — FIRE SERVICE VALVE FSV FIRE SERVICE CONNECT FSC NOTE: •----------------- EXISTING 3" LANDFILL CONDENSATE LINE EXISTING 10" FIRE MAIN 7 EXISTING 6" POTABLE WATER LINE I_�I�Jt`J — -- -- —-7L FSV --------------III —L -- FSV III FIT FSV �� L l II ��ifi NOTE-1 I I I I I I II I I I I I I I� II I I I I I I I FSV FSV FSC F- G� PROJECT BOUNDARY LIMITS (TYP.) I� 1. LOCATE THE DISCARDED BURIED PIPE THAT WAS PART OF PREVIOUS PROJECT. 2. EXISTING UG UTILITIES TO BE FIELD VERIFIED. 3. THE UG SERVICES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE DRAWN BASED ON UNSCALED HAND SKETCHES, THEREFORE THE DURING THE UG SURVEY SPECIAL CARE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN TO IDENTIFY THE ACTUAL LOCATION. PLANT NORTH TRUE NORTH 3A R122, 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE 1" = 16'-0" CONFIDENTIAL TOPOGRAPHY NOTE: BASED ON TOPO FURNISHED BY D.WOOLLEY & ASSOCIATES DATE: 07-28-2022. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 607. DESIGN REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY OWNER: ENGINEER: EXISTING PIPES & CABLES 1 0 08/11/2022 ISSUED FOR CUP AK TP AG A RC H A EA BIOGAS (FOR UG SERVICES SURVEY) )(XENERGY DRAWING NO. 03 20 2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP AG RCOYOTE CANYON LANDFILL20 / /ENGINEERING 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400 RNG PROJECT HOUSTON, TX 77027 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G6.00 Ph: (346) 708-8272 1 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 F X�l ® �pQG�Qpp�Q�y�Q�F , EXISTING RECLAIM WATER BFP EXISTING CONCRETE DRAINAGE DITCH EFH EXISTING POWER PANEL E5 m- O 5 \ Ell EXISTING p p0 O SWITCHGEAR E10 `w \ \ EXISTING A \ PROPANE \ O TANK \ - - -LFG SUPPLY LINE (UNDERGROUND) 2 -- - - 4\ - - O O O O E9 E8 EXISTING O EFH a FLARE YARD '177 L E9 EXISTING o \ E8 O O EMERGENCY GENERATOR \ ® \ SO -CAL GAS ' ABOVE GROUND PIPELINE ^� *E6 O EXISTING ABOVEGROUND PIPES R3 E����� ® SO -CAL G v" EXISTING PIPELINE EXTENSION AND TIE IN �\ EXISTING � , CELL TOWER 0 '0 \ 6 ° \ E3 D �\ EFH `o EXISTING ATT GENERATOR 0 364'-9" 12' OCWR RESERVED ACCESS ROUTE (TYPICAL) SO. CAL. GAS EGRESS 5 7 2 4 21 47 O 42 O 10 5 16 24 CAR PARKING n n 48 ° NO PARKING CAR PARKING 37 38 48 43 391 L_@_1 a o� PARKING SPOT 9'X20' 0 PARKING SPOT 9' X 20' PARKING SPOT 9'X20' O5 0 0 28 31 J 32 > 27 33 30 34 14 53 13 23 26 29 11 g0 22 12 u 580 41 56 20 40 46 55 35 - - 19 4'-0" PROJECT BOUNDARY w WALKWAY LIMITS w 9 I a SCG POINT OF RECEIPT a EXISTING Ld BUILDING ® 0 0 ® ©El LIP O TYP. EFH II RESERVED FOR SO. CAL GAS METERING STATION o ACCESS ROAD II SEE SCG DRAWING 34250 FOR DETAIL I FIRE TRUCK SO. CAL. GAS & RNG PLANT 56'-10" TURNAROUND AREA h AFH - PROPOSED SO. CAL. GAS PIPE ROUTE (UNDERGROUND) E2 O 12' OCWR RESERVED ACCESS ROUTE (TYPICAL) 366'-1" LEGENDS G� EXISTING CELL TOWER E3 w 0 i 0 PLANT NORTH TRUE NORTH 3A A122, 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE 1" = 16'-0" NOTE:- 1. INSTALL WHITE STRIP AND REFLECTOR ON BOTH SIDE OF ROAD. 2. SPEED BUMPS ARE PROHIBITED. 3. THE GRADIENT FOR ACCESS ROADS SHALL NOT EXCEED 10%. 4. PROVIDE BOLLARDS FOR THE SAFETY OF THE INSTALLED EQUIPMENT. 5. THE NEW BOLLARDS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH REFLECTOR. 6. FLEXIBLE DELINEATOR POSTS 'ULINE H-4466Y' OR EQUAL. 7. REMOVAL BOLLARDS WITH REFLECTOR. 8. TIRE STOPS WITH REFLECTIVE STRIP 4" X 72" SMARTSIGN K2-1018 OR EQUAL. 9. REFLECTIVE OBJECT MARKER 12"X36" BLACK ON YELLOW ALUMINUM SMARTSIGN X-OM-3C OR EQUAL IN 5 PLACES. EFH-EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT RETAINED EFH AFH-ADDED FIRE HYDRANT AFH GAS LINES — — — — — — CONFIDENTIAL PROJECT BOUNDARY LIMITS - - So. cAL. GAS METERING — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 60% DESIGN REVIEW STATION LIMITS REV DATE DESCRIPTION DRN BY CHK BY APRV BY OWNER: �R�' l A r n ENGINEER: BIOGAS 1 0 12/16/2022 ISSUED FOR REVIEW SS TP AG )(XENERGY nfjCEj FIRE MASTER PLAN 03 20 2023 ISSUED FOR 60% DESIGN REVIEW SS TP AG COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL DRAWING NO.20 / /ENGINEERING 4444 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE G450 2321 E. 28TH STREET, SUITE 400 RNG PROJECT HOUSTON, TX 77027 SIGNAL HILL, CA 90755, Ph: (562) 726-3565 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE G6.01 Ph: (346) 708-8272 EMAIL: INFO@BIOGASENG.COM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 Attachment D July 17, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report File available via link due to size: https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/ DocView.aspx? id=3175862&dbid=0&repo=CNB 17-87 Attachment E Resolution No. PC2025-008 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081FC RESOLUTION NO. PC2025-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A LANDFILL - GAS -TO -ENERGY FACILITY AT 20662 NEWPORT COAST DRIVE (PA2022-063) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Biofuels Coyote Canyon Biogas LLC, on behalf of Archaea Energy Inc. ("Applicant"), concerning property located at 20662 Newport Coast Drive, and legally described as a Portion of Block 128, Tract No. 361 of Irvine's Subdivision ("Project Site"), requesting approval of a conditional use permit ("CUP"). 2. The Project Site is located within the greater boundary of the closed Coyote Canyon Landfill ("CCL"), which received municipal solid waste from 1963 to 1990 and officially closed on May 7, 2003. CCL is owned by the County of Orange ("Owner") and is maintained by Orange County Waste & Recycling ("OCWR"). The CCL boundary occurs on both sides of Newport Coast Drive and consists of four distinct areas: (1) the main canyon landfill, located immediately west of Newport Coast Drive and addressed as 20661 Newport Coast Drive; (2) and (3) the east and south canyon landfilling areas, located east of Newport Coast Drive and with no specific address; and (4) the Project Site, also located east of Newport Coast Drive and at the top of a ridge. The Project Site has historically been the primary location for dealing with landfill gas ("LFG"), including a former LFG-to-energy operation. 3. The previous LFG-to-energy facility operated from 1988 to 2015. It was removed as part of the Coyote Canyon Gas Recovery Demolition and Telecom Update (PA2016-091) (SCH number 2016081012) as the quality of the LFG became inadequate for conversion to energy with the technology of the time. 4. The Project Site is currently improved with emergency generators, above ground storage tanks, two 65-foot faux eucalyptus cell towers ("Telecom Facilities"), power panel and switchgear, a blower pad, and flares that currently burn off the LFG generated by CCL. There is a small operational support building in the center of the site used by OCWR staff and three parking spaces. The Project Site is surrounded by a 12-foot-tall perimeter block wall, trees, with coastal sage scrub beyond. 5. The Applicant proposes the construction and operation of a new renewable natural gas ("RNG") processing plant and a pipeline interconnection facility (collectively referred to as the "RNG Facility"). The RNG Facility will convert LFG generated by CCL into a pipeline - quality natural gas equivalent. This RNG would be transferred from the facility into SoCal Gas infrastructure through an existing onsite tie-in point. Other project components include 17-89 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 2 of 19 a new control room building, new internal access routes, utility upgrades including installation of an additional fire hydrant, a water tank, a septic tank, oil/water separator, a storm drain for off -site disposal of stormwater, and new underground power and telecommunication lines. The RNG Facility would operate 24 hours per day, seven days a week, with an annual scheduled shutdown for plant maintenance. The Telecom Facilities would be protected in place and not affected by the current application ("Project"). 6. The Project Site is categorized as Open Space (OS) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is located within the Open Space (OS) Zoning District. 7. The Project Site is not located within the coastal zone and no coastal development permit is required. 8. Additionally, the entire Coyote Canyon Landfill, including the Project Site, are located within the Central Subregion of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conversation Plan (NCCP/HCP) for the Central and Coastal Subregions of Orange County. The NCCP/HCP is a multi -species habitat conservation plan designed to protect sensitive plant and animal species by preserving existing habitat areas in response to the construction of State Route 73. The Project Site is designated as an existing use by the NCCP/HCP. 9. A Public Hearing with the Planning Commission was previously scheduled and noticed for May 22, 2025, to review the Project. However, the Project was removed from the agenda and the meeting was cancelled. 10. A public hearing was held on July 17, 2025, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. A draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse Number 2024120012) ("IS/MND") have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines set forth in Title 14 in the California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq., and City Council Policy K-3. 2. The draft IS/MND were circulated for a 45-day comment period beginning on November 27, 2024, and ending on January 13, 2025. 3. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, the City provided formal notice on December 5, 2023, to Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project Site. The City received no responses within the 30-day period, however, a tribal contract for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission 07-29-24 17-90 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 3 of 19 Indians — Kizh Nation, requested consultation during the public comment period of the IS/MND. Mitigation Measures have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") to the satisfaction of the tribe to address potential concerns regarding the protection of Tribal Cultural Resources. 4. The MND, which includes the IS, public comments, and responses to comments as of the public hearing date, is being considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the Project. 5. The Planning Commission finds that the MND has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA and City Council Policy K-3. 6. The Planning Commission finds that the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. 7. Based on the entire environmental review record, the Project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact on the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The MMRP are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The IS/MND, MMRP, and Response to Comments attached as Exhibits "A", "B," and "C" respectively, are hereby adopted. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. 9. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time-consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.52.020(F) (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; Facts in Support of Finding: 07-29-24 17-91 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 4 of 19 The Project Site is categorized as Open Space (OS) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Open Space (OS) land use designation is intended to provide areas appropriate for a range of public and private uses to protect, maintain, and enhance the community's natural resources. This designation may also include incidental buildings, such as maintenance equipment and supply storage, which are not traditionally included in determining intensity limits. 2. The Project is consistent with the Open Space (OS) categorization, as it introduces new equipment and limited incidental structures within an already improved area of the CCL. The Project comprises less than one acre of the 375-acre CCL footprint and preserves the community's natural resources because it does not expand the footprint of the building pad and perimeter block wall at the top of the ridge. Additionally, the RNG Facility provides a net benefit to the existing Open Space (OS) by converting LFG generated by CCL into a pipeline -quality natural gas equivalent. 3. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the following policies of the General Plan: a. LU 1.3 (Natural Resources) and NR 17.1 (Open Space Protection): Requires the preservation of open space and habitat resources. The Project comprises less than one acre of the 375-acre CCL site and preserves the community's natural resources because it does not develop current open space and instead sites the new improvements adjacent to existing improvements within the existing walled -off area. All Project components are proposed within the perimeter wall. Additionally, the RNG Facility provides a net benefit to the existing Open Space (OS) by converting LFG generated by CCL into a pipeline -quality natural gas equivalent. b. LU 1.6 (Public Views): Requires protection, and where feasible, enhancement of significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points and NR 21.1 (Signs and Utility Siting and Design) which requires signs, utilities, and antennas be designed and sited to minimize visual impacts: The City's policies related to public reviews include Land Use Policy LU 1.3 which aims to preserve open space resources, beaches, harbors, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational, and habitat resources; Land Use Policy LU 1.6 which requires public views, including scenic and visual resources such as open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, the ocean, and the harbor, be preserved and where possible, enhanced from public vantage points; and Natural Resources Policy NR 23.1. The IS/MND analyzed views from three different viewpoints including looking southeast from Newport Coast Drive (just south of Sage Hill High School), northeast from Newport Coast Drive Oust northeast of San Joaquin Hills Road), and north from the residences at Renata Street. Of note, Newport Coast Drive, the primary location for two of the three viewshed locations, is not a scenic highway and has motorists driving at higher rates of speed along this area. The viewshed simulations demonstrate that the Project design blends within the existing topography such that the Project complies with these policies. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 5 requires the Applicant to provide enhanced aesthetic treatment of the equipment to ensure the RNG Facility blends in with its surroundings. 07-29-24 17-92 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 5 of 19 c. General Plan Policy LU 3.3 (Opportunities for Change - Coyote Canyon Landfill): Intends forthe CCL to support a comprehensive vision that balances future land uses with environmental stewardship and public access. Future development should adapt the closed landfill as an area that supports a variety of outdoor recreational uses such as golf, hiking, and nature interpretation alongside housing opportunities with complementary nonresidential uses. The Project is proposed within an area of CCL where there are existing utilities, such as telecom facilities, and existing infrastructure for LFG collection and flaring. The Project is not located in an area of the CCL that is conducive for redevelopment into any of the aforementioned uses without the removal of the existing infrastructure. The Project does not prohibit the implementation of Policy LU 3.3 within other areas of CCL and instead sites new improvements in a complementary fashion with existing improvements. d. NR 3.9 (Water Quality Management Plan) and NR 4.4 (Erosion Minimization): Requires new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP') to demonstrate how runoff and erosion shall be minimized both during construction and post -construction. A WQMP was prepared for the Project by BKF Engineers, dated December 14, 2023. The Project implements Best Management Practices and is designed to prevent surface water from flowing over slope faces. e. NR 10.2 (Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan): Requires compliance with the policies of the NCCP/HCP. The Project is within an area of the NCCP/HCP that is acknowledged as an existing use and does not expand the use beyond the existing perimeter wall. Temporary staging areas that will be used during construction of the Project for material deliveries and parking have been sited to avoid impacts to avoid coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and other native plant communities. The primary laydown area is proposed on the Project Site and the secondary laydown area is proposed within an already disturbed portion of the main landfill area, across Newport Coast Drive. Vehicle parking for construction employees will be provided in the secondary laydown area, and a shuttle would transport crews daily to and from the Project Site. A number of mitigation measures are incorporated in the MMRP, set forth in Exhibit B, to ensure the Project complies with the policies of the NCCP/HCP. 4. The Project is not located within a specific plan area. Finding: B. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; Facts in Support of Finding: 07-29-24 17-93 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 6 of 19 1. The Project Site is within the Open Space (OS) Zoning District. The OS District is intended to both provide areas to maintain and protect the community's natural open space resources; and maintain and protect landscaped open space areas located within residential and non-residential developments, where no further development is allowed. 2. Pursuant to Table 2-14 (Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements) of Section 20.26.020 (Special Purpose Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements) of the NBMC, "Major Utilities" are allowed within the OS District, subject to the approval of a CUP. The Project meets the definition of a "Major Utility," as provided in Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC and is therefore allowed upon approval of this CUP. 3. Section 20.26.030 (Special Purpose Zoning Districts General Development Standards) of the NBMC specifies that development standards in the Open Space (OS) District shall be established during review of the required permit. The RNG Facility would have a total footprint of approximately 38,500 square feet and would be composed of pipe racks, various vessels and tanks, new flare tower, thermal oxidizer, and other miscellaneous processing equipment. Equipment ranges in height from approximately 5-foot, 6-inches above the existing grade to a maximum height of 60 feet above the existing grade. Apart from the vessels, tanks, flare, and pipe rack, which range in height from 30 feet to 40 feet above finish grade, most of the equipment will be screened by the existing perimeter wall. The tallest piece of RNG Facility equipment, the thermal oxidizer, is proposed at a height of 60 feet above finish grade. All equipment will be below the 65-foot height of the Telecom Facilities. Condition of Approval No. 4 has been included to set height limits for specific equipment that exceeds 35 feet in height. 4. Given the Project is entirely within the perimeter of the wall and most equipment is setback approximately 12 feet from the wall to allow sufficient site circulation, no additional setbacks are proposed. Requiring additional setbacks from the property line would further constrain the layout of the RNG Facility and would likely result in taller equipment. As such, it is most appropriate to allow development to span the entire Project Site behind the perimeter wall. 5. The approximately 500-square-foot control room building is the only enclosed floor area proposed with the Project. Given it is clearly incidental to the RNG Facility, no maximum floor -area -to -land ratio is proposed. 6. The control room building will be staffed by one to two employees, per shift. Two parking spaces are proposed to accommodate the anticipated parking demand. There are access roads within the Project Site which provide sufficient vehicle staging areas in the event additional workers are ever required during a maintenance event or plant shut down. Finding: C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity, 07-29-24 17-94 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 7 of 19 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project Site is located within the greater boundary of the closed CCL. The Project Site itself has historically been the primary location for dealing with LFG, including a former LFG-to-energy operation which operated from 1988 to 2015. While the quality of the LFG became inadequate for conversion to energy with the technology of the time, new technology is now available which allows for LFG to once again be utilized. 2. Land uses that are immediately adjacent to the Project Site include the landfill areas described above in Statement 2 of Section 1, an Irvine Ranch Water District ("IRWD") pumping station, and open space. 3. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are the existing Sage Hill School, located approximately 1,400 feet to the north, and single -unit residences in the Tesoro Community, located approximately 1,250 feet to the south. 4. A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project by LSA, dated July 17, 2024. The study found that neither the construction of the Project nor the long-term operation of the Project would result in noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors. 5. Long term operation of the Project will result in a negligible increase in the number of vehicles traveling to the Project Site. The Project is anticipated to generate eight average daily trips, well below the 300 average daily trip threshold provided in Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC to require the preparation of a traffic study. 6. Vehicle traffic will increase during the 9-to-12-month Project construction period. To reduce the temporary impacts to a less than significant level, the Project includes four traffic mitigation measures, which are included in the MMRP. For example, the Applicant must prepare a traffic control plan for demolition and construction which staggers truck trips throughout the day on Newport Coast Drive so that the minimum practicable number of truck trips will occur during the AM peak period (i.e., during student drop off for Sage Hill School). Through the implementation of these mitigation measures, the Project is not anticipated to negatively impact traffic within the surrounding area. 7. The Project is not anticipated to generate objectionable odors to the nearby community due to Project design and distance from sensitive receptors. While the RNG will be odorized prior to injection into SoCal Gas infrastructure, the odorization process is a sealed -loop system and there should be no release of odors. Construction activities may generate odors, but they would be temporary and typically confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. By the time any odorous emissions reach the nearby sensitive receptors, they would likely be diluted to be below the level of detection. 8. The Project introduces additional lighting for security purposes but is not anticipated to adversely affect ambient light conditions. The 12-foot perimeter wall and trees surrounding the project site should help shield lighting that could emanate from the Project Site. To ensure Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) of the NBMC, which 07-29-24 17-95 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 8 of 19 requires all outdoor lighting be designed, shielded, aimed, located, and maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways, is implemented, Condition of Approval No. 10 allows the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 9. The historic use of the Project Site is LFG collection and processing. The previous LFG- to-energy facility operated at the Project Site from 1988 to 2015 and without notable incidents or code enforcement issues. The historic use of the site suggests the RNG Facility should also operate in a compatible way with the surrounding uses. Finding: D. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project was reviewed by the City's Utilities Department, Public Works Department, and Building Division. All input and recommendations provided on implementation of the project if approved have either been incorporated into project design or have been included in the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit "D." 2. The Project was also reviewed by the Newport Beach Fire Department ("NBFD"). The NBFD provided recommendations and conditions, including vegetation removal, to ensure that the necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are incorporated. All recommendations are included in the MMRP and the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibits "B" and "D," respectively. 3. OCWR currently maintains the planted area outside the perimeter wall. As required by the NBFD, the Project would likely remove 28 trees to reduce the risk of fire associated with the Project. Condition of Approval No. 29 requires a Fuel Modification Plan to be reviewed and approved by the NBFD prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. An additional fire hydrant will be added to the Project Site to ensure the hydrant layout can meet hose -pull requirements and allow fire apparatus equipment and firefighting crews to deploy at a safe distance from the RNG Facility. The hydrant location was reviewed and accepted by the NBFD. 5. The Project includes a new, enclosed, flare tower to burn off -specification gas generated from the RNG refining process. The combustion of off- specification gas will occur within the flare tower, and no flames will be visible. The four existing OCWR flares will be protected in place and will be used to combust any excess LFG that is not sent to the RNG Facility or as a backup in the event the RNG Facility goes offline. The existing OCWR flares will not be retrofitted to conceal flames. The NBFD acknowledges that calls for service may be received related to the occasional visible flaring in the existing 07-29-24 17-96 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 9 of 19 OCWR flares but does not anticipate calls for service to increase over what they receive under existing conditions. 6. The Project is required to comply with the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards. These codes impose design standards and requirements to minimize and mitigate fire and emergency response risk. Compliance with these codes and standards is ensured through the City's building permit review process. All construction would be subject to review and approval by the City's Building Division and NBFD prior to building permit and certificate of occupancy issuance. Finding: E. Operation of the use at the proposed location would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. LFG is currently being flared off by existing site infrastructure. The Project will divert the LFG from the flares and into the RNG Facility to convert it into RNG through a proprietary process. The LFG will undergo moisture, particulate, and contaminant removal to be upgraded and compressed into pipeline quality RNG. Contaminants removed from the LFG will be destroyed in the thermal oxidizer. While the Project generally replaces existing LFG flaring, the Project still has the potential to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air. 2. An Air Quality Impact Analysis ("AQIA") was prepared for the Project by SCS Engineers, dated December 2023. The AQIA evaluated the offsite concentrations of criteria air pollutants that would be emitted by the Project. The net change in emissions from implementation of the Project would be lower than significance thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"). Projects below the SCAQMD significance thresholds are not expected to generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standards and should not be a risk to the health or general welfare of people residing or working nearby. 3. The operation of the Project would require the use of hazardous materials such as maintenance products, oils, acids, and gases. A full list of materials and quantities are included in Table 10 of the IS/MND. The Project will store hazardous materials in small enough quantities as to not require registration with the California Accidental Release Program and is not anticipated to endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public. Furthermore, specific protocols for the storage of hazardous materials are provided in Appendix H of the IS/MND and incorporate the use of double -walled tanks and secondary containment to conform with existing hazardous materials and hazardous waste laws and regulations set at the State and Federal level. 07-29-24 17-97 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 10 of 19 4. Construction activities would use hazardous materials including gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, hydraulic fluid, solvents, cleaners, sealants, welding flux, various lubricants, paint, and paint thinner. The materials used would be in small enough quantities and stored in accordance with best management practices, such as secondary containment, to not pose a significant safety hazard. Additionally, these activities would also be short- term, or once off, and would cease upon completion of the Project's construction phase. 5. A Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment was prepared for the Project to outline the potential for flammable vapor clouds, jet fire, and toxic vapor clouds and the possible effect they pose on the surrounding vegetation; public; the control room, and the existing OCWR building. The analysis found that through the implementation of emergency response procedures and compliance with applicable laws and regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant. 6. To help lessen any impacts to the surrounding area, the Applicant is required to notify neighboring residential community members at least one week prior to the start of construction. Broader notifications will be made through various means, including placing signs at road crossings in advance of construction. 7. Facts 4 and 7 in Support of Finding C are hereby incorporated by reference. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH NO.2024120012) attached hereto as Exhibit "A", the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and the Response to Comments attached hereto as Exhibit "C", all of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the CUP filed as PA2022-063, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "D," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the NBMC. 07-29-24 17-98 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 11 of 19 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 17T" DAY OF JULY 2025 AYES: Harris, Langford, Reed, and Salene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Ellmore, Gazzano, and Rosene BY: Tiisfav, RA.v'v'iS Tristan Harris, Chair BY: ♦JVI IQLI IQI I LQI 1I11%dl U, VGI,I CLQI Y 07-29-24 17-99 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 12 of 19 1W0131r_1 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SCH NO. 2024120012 File available via link due to size: https:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3088533&dbid=0&repo=CNB 07-29-24 17-100 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 13 of 19 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 07-29-24 17-101 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC May 2025 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program State Clearinghouse No. 2024120012 Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project City of Newport Beach Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Contact: Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach Newport Beach, California 92660 949.644.3312 jperez@newportbeachca.gov Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: Dina El Chammas Gass, Senior Associate 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com ED PLACEWORKS 17-102 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC 17-103 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM..................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................2 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION....................................................................................................................................4 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.....................................................................................................................4 2. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .............................................. 6 May 2025 Page i 17-104 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Thi page intentionally left blank. Page ii PlaceVorks 17-105 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081FC 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), State Clearinghouse No. 2024120012. The MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the City of Newport Beach Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for the Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project(proposed project) and is therefore responsible for implementing the MMRP. The MMRP has been drafted to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 as a fully enforceable monitoring program. The MMRP consists of the mitigation program and the measures to implement and monitor the mitigation program. The MMRP defines the following for the mitigation measures outlined in Table 2-1, Mitigation Monitoring Requirements. ■ Definition of Mitigation. The mitigation measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to take for mitigation. May 2025 Page 9 17-106 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71 D90-EOE9-41 F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081 FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction ■ Responsibility for Implementation. Unless otherwise indicated, the project applicant (Archaea Energy) is the party responsible for implementing the mitigation. Responsibility for Oversight. Since the project site is owned by the County of Orange and operated by OCWR, OCWR will have oversight responsibility for implementation of the project's mitigation measures. OCWR's technical consultants will perform related monitoring tasks in their respective areas of expertise and under the direction of the environmental monitor manager. OCWR's mitigation monitoring team, consisting of the environmental monitor manager and technical subconsultants, is responsible for monitoring the implementation/compliance with all adopted mitigation measures. A major portion of the team's work is in -field monitoring and compliance report preparation. OCWR will also be responsible for first phase dispute resolution. Once OCWR prepares compliance reports, the reports will be submitted to the City for review and final approval. Responsibility for Monitoring. The City of Newport Beach will have the final responsibility for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. The City will be responsible for overall program administration, final compliance report review, dispute resolution, and document/report clearinghouse. If disputes cannot be resolved between OCWR and the project applicant, the City will arbitrate the final resolution of disputes. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, the City will be the official entity who grants the permit or authorization called for in the mitigation measure. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from local, state, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. ■ Time Frame. A time frame is provided for performance of each mitigation measure and/or documentation of implementation. The numbering system in Table 1 corresponds with the numbering system used in the IS/MND. The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the mitigation measure has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Newport Beach. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City of Newport Community Development Department. 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY The Landfill Gas to Energy Plant project (proposed project) involves the installation and operation of a new renewable natural gas (RNG) processing plant and a pipeline interconnection facility (collectively referred to as the RNG facility). The proposed RNG facility would be constructed under a lease agreement with OC Waste & Recycling (OCWR), within the boundary of the closed Coyote Canyon Landfill (CCL), which is owned by the County of Orange and operated by OCWR. The project site is 4.14 acres and surrounded by a 12-foot perimeter wall. The proposed RNG facility would have a total footprint of 38,500 square feet (0.88 acres) and would convert existing landfill gas into a pipeline -quality natural gas equivalent. The pipeline interconnection facility would be approximately 6,000 square feet, and the RNG processing plant would be approximately 32,500 square feet. The interconnection facility would include a point of receipt (POR) skid to monitor the quality of the RNG and an 8-inch pipeline extension dedicated to transfer of the RNG from the POR to the Page 2 PlaceWlorks 17-107 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction existing fossil natural gas pipeline tie-in point, owned by SoCalGas, in the western part of the site. Other project components include new internal access routes and utility and infrastructure improvements. These improvements would include installation of a fire hydrant, an on -site water tank, a septic tank system for the proposed control room, a storm drain for off -site disposal of stormwater, and new underground power and telecommunication lines. Project implementation requires a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City of Newport Beach (City). May 2025 Page 3 17-108 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71 D90-EOE9-41 F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081 FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is in the northeastern portion of Newport Beach in Orange County, California. The 4.14-acre project site is at the top of a hill at 20662 Newport Coast Drive within the boundary of the closed CCL. The project site is on a previously established level building pad, enclosed by a 12-foot perimeter wall with surrounding trees on all sides. The pad was previously developed with a landfill gas -to -energy plant which has since been demolished. The area immediately outside the perimeter wall that could be affected by the implementation of the proposed project includes understory species and viewshed trees. The trees are a mix of native and non-native species consisting of eucalyptus, Peruvian peppers, myporiums, white alders, western sycamores, and coast live oak. The project site can be accessed from State Route (SR-) 73, approximately 0.2 mile to the east via Newport Coast Drive, and from SR-1, approximately 2.7 miles to the south via Newport Coast Drive. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The level of significance is identified for each impact in the MND. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on definitions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines: ■ No impact. The project would not change the environment. ■ Less than significant. The project would not cause any substantial, adverse change in the environment. ■ Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Initial Study includes mitigation measures that avoid substantial adverse impacts on the environment. ■ Significant and unavoidable. The project would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 1.4.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant ■ Aesthetics ■ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ■ Air Quality ■ Energy ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Mineral Resources ■ Noise ■ Population and Housing ■ Recreation ■ Utilities and Serves Systems Page 4 PlaceWlorks 17-109 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction 1.4.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts That Can Be Mitigated, Avoided, or Substantially Lessened ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Geology and Soils ■ Hazards and Hazardous Waste ■ Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Public Services ■ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources ■ Wildfire May 2025 Page 5 17-110 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081FC 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Project -specific mitigation measures have been categorized in matrix format, as shown in Table 2-1. The matrix identifies the environmental factor, specific mitigation measures, schedule, and responsible monitor. The mitigation matrix will serve as the basis for scheduling the implementation of, and compliance with, all mitigation measures. May 2025 Page 6 17-111 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC PROJECT TITLE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CLIENT Thi page intentionally left blank. 3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements May 2025 Page 7 17-112 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71 D90-EOE9-41 F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081 FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Page 8 Table 2-1 Mitiaation Monitorina Reauirements Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for Responsibility (Signature Required) Mitiqation Measure Implementation Timinq Oversight for Monitoring (Date of Compliance) 3.4 Biological Resources BIO-1 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Project 72 hours prior to OCWR City of Construction activities shall avoid the migratory bird nesting season Applicant's the construction Newport (typically February 1 through August 31) to reduce any potential Qualified Wildlife start date If Beach significant impact to birds that may be nesting in the project site. Biologist & construction Community Additionally, vegetation within the proposed impact area can be Construction activities must Development removed outside of the nesting season to minimize the potential for Contractors occur during the Department birds to nest in the impact footprint. If construction activities must migratory bird occur during the migratory bird nesting season, an avian nesting nesting season survey of the project site and within 500 feet of all impact areas must be conducted to determine the presence/absence of protected migratory birds and active nests. The avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to the start of construction in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If an active bird nest is found, the nest shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans, along with an appropriate buffer established around the nest, which shall be determined by the biologist based on the species' sensitivity to disturbance (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and special -status species). The nest area shall be avoided until the nest is vacated and the juveniles have fledged. The nest area shall be demarcated in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. On -site construction monitoring shall be conducted when construction occurs in close proximately to an active nest buffer. No project activities shall encroach into established buffers without the consent of a monitoring biologist. The buffer shall remain in place until it is determined that the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. BIO-2 Preconstruction Bat Survey and Avoidance. Prior to the removal of Project Prior to the OCWR City of trees that could support roosting bats during the maternity roosting Applicant's removal of trees Newport season (March through August), a bat biologist shall survey the areas Qualified that could Beach that could provide suitable roosting habitat for bats to confirm they Biologist & support roosting Community contain no potential maternity roosts. If a potential maternity roost is bats during the PlaceWorks 17-113 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance present, the following measures shall be implemented to reduce the Construction maternity Development potential impact to special -status bat species to a less -than -significant Contractors roosting season Department level: 1. Maternity Roosting Season Avoidance. All proposed construction activities that could impact suitable roosting habitat, including bat roost exclusion, shall occur outside the general bat maternity roosting season of March through August to reduce any potentially significant impact to maternity roosting bats. If the maternity roosting season cannot be avoided, then implement Items 2 and 3 below, prior to the maternity roosting season, to ensure no impacts occur to roosting bats during the exclusion process. 2. Replacement Roost Installation. If there is a potential or known maternity roost within a tree to be removed, replacement roost installation shall occur outside of the maternity roosting season. At least one month prior to the exclusion of bats from a roost, the biologist shall procure and install bat boxes from a reputable vendor, such as Bat Conservation and Management, to allow bats sufficient time to acclimate to a new potential roost location. The bat boxes shall be installed in close proximity to the trees and in an area that is in close proximity to suitable foraging habitat (i.e., near coast live oak woodland). Additionally, the bat boxes shall be oriented to the south or southwest, and the area chosen for the bat boxes must receive sufficient sunlight (at least 6 hours) to allow the bat boxes to reach an optimum internal temperature (approximately 90°F) to mimic the existing bat roost. The bat boxes shall be suitable to house crevice -roosting bat species and large enough to contain a minimum of 50 bats (e.g., Four Chamber Premium Bat House or Bat Bunker Plus). The bat boxes shall be installed on a minimum 20-foot-tall steel pole. The bat boxes should be installed under the guidance of the bat biologist. 3. Roost Exclusion. Roost exclusion must only occur outside of the maternity roosting season, and during the time when bats are May 2025 Page 9 17-114 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71 D90-EOE9-41 F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081 FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Page 10 Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance most active (early spring or fall) to increase the potential to exclude all bats from roosts and minimize the potential for a significant impact to occur by avoiding the maternity roosting season. Approximately 1 month after bat boxes have been installed, exclusion of the existing roost shall occur. The primary exit points for roosting bats shall be identified, and all secondary ingress/egress locations shall be covered with a tarp, wood planks, or other methods, as directed by the bat biologist, to prevent bats from leaving from other locations. The primary exit point shall remain uncovered to allow exclusion devices to be installed. Exclusion devices may consist of a screen (poly netting, window screen, or fiberglass screening), foam, wood, or backer rods installed at the primary exit point, so bats are not able to return to the roost after emerging. The exclusion devices shall be installed under the direction of the bat biologist and shall be installed at night to increase the potential that bats have already left the roost and are less likely to return. Once it is confirmed by the bat biologist that all primary and secondary exit/entrance points have been covered and the exclusion devices are properly in place, a one -week exclusion period shall commence. A passive acoustic monitoring detector shall be deployed during the one -week exclusion period to monitor if bat activity has decreased during the exclusion period. Periodic monitoring (one or two evenings) by the bat biologist during the exclusion period should also be conducted to observe if any bats are still emerging from trees to be removed. On the final night of the exclusion period, an active monitoring survey should be conducted to ensure that no bats are emerging from trees to be removed and to confirm that exclusion has been successful. Continued presence of roosting bats in trees that are to be removed shall require an adjustment to the exclusion devices and schedule. The exclusion devices may remain in place until the start of tree removal. After the initial bat survey, if any additional bats are found roosting in any proposed tree removal PlaceWorks 17-115 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance locations, additional exclusion shall be required and follow the same methodology described in this mitigation measure. 13I0-3 Standard Mandatory Construction Conditions Mitigation Project Prior and during OCWR City of Measures. Applicant's construction Newport 1. To the extent practicable, no clearing of coastal sage scrub Monitoring activities Beach (CSS) habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers Biologist & Community shall occur during the breeding and nesting season Construction Development (February 15 through July 15). It is expressly understood Contractors Department that this provision and the remaining provisions of these "construction minimization measures" are subject to public health and safety considerations. These considerations include unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control, and emergency facility repairs. In the event of such public health and safety circumstances, the applicant shall provide United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with the maximum practicable notice (or such notice as is specified in the NCCP/HCP) to allow for capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any other CSS Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed and shall carry out the following measures only to the extent practicable in the context of the public health and safety considerations. 2. Prior to the commencement of clearing operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP/HCP, shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of clearing operations or other activities involving disturbance of CSS, a survey shall be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of May 2025 Page 91 17-116 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71 D90-EOE9-41 F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081 FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Page 12 Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction/grading plans. 3. A monitoring biologist, acceptable to the USFWS/CDFW shall be on site during any clearing of CSS. The applicant shall advise USFWS/CDFW at least 7 calendar days (and preferably 14 calendar days) prior to the clearing of any habitat occupied by identified species to allow USFWS/CDFW to work with the monitoring biologist in connection with bird flushing/capture activities. The monitoring biologist shall flush identified species (avian or other mobile identified species) from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush -clearing and earth -moving activities. If birds cannot be flushed, they shall be captured in mist nets, if feasible, and relocated to areas of the site to be protected or to the NCCP/HCP Reserve system. It shall be the responsibility of the monitoring biologist to ensure that identified bird species shall not be directly impacted by brush -clearing and earth -moving equipment in a manner that also allows for construction activities on a timely basis. 4. Following the completion of initial clearing/earth movement activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within such marked areas. 5. In areas bordering the NCCP Reserve System or Special Linkage/Special Management areas containing significant CSS identified in the NCCP/HCP for protection, vehicle transportation routes between cut -and -fill locations shall be restricted to a minimum number during consistent with project construction requirements. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on adjacent CSS identified in the NCCP/HCP for protection. Preconstruction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction supervisors, PlaceWorks 17-117 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for Responsibility (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Oversight for Monitoring Date of Compliance and equipment operators shall be conducted and documented to ensure maximum practicable adherence to these measures. 6. CSS identified in the NCCP/HCP for protection and within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves, as recommended by the monitoring biologist. 13I04 Education Program. An education program (Worker Environmental Project Prior to OCWR City of Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all persons employed or otherwise Applicant's construction Newport working in the project area shall be administered before performing Qualified Beach impacts. The WEAP shall consist of a presentation from the Biologist & Community designated biologist that includes a discussion of the biological Construction Development resources and mitigation measures described in the California Contractors Department Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document. Interpretation for non- English -speaking workers shall be provided, and the same instruction shall be provided to all new workers before they are authorized to perform work in the project area. After completion of the WEAP, employees shall sign a form stating they attended the program and understand all protection measures. 13I0-5 Hazardous Waste. The applicant shall immediately stop work and, Project During OCWR City of pursuant to pertinent State and federal statutes and regulations, Applicant's & construction Newport arrange for repair and cleanup by qualified individuals of any fuel or Construction Beach hazardous waste leaks or spills at the time of occurrence, or as soon Contractors Community as it is safe to do so. Development Department 13I0-6 BMPs to Avoid Indirect Impacts to Special -Status Resources. To Construction During OCWR City of reduce any indirect impacts to special -status biological resources Contractors construction Newport adjacent to construction and due to tree removals, best management Beach practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to control dust pollution, Community prevent discharge of potentially harmful chemicals, and prevent Development changes in hydrology. BMPs shall include, but not be limited to, Department May 2025 Page 93 17-118 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71 D90-EOE9-41 F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081 FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Page 14 Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for Responsibility (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Oversight for Monitoring Date of Compliance installing erosion and sedimentation control devices, applying water to control dust, placing drip pans under equipment when not in use, refueling in designated areas, and containing concrete washout properly, among other practices. 3.5 Cultural Resources CUL-1 The project applicant shall retain an archaeological and Project During ground OCWR City of paleontological resource monitor to monitor the project's subsurface Applicant's disturbance and Newport areas during land disturbance from demolition and construction Archaeological construction Beach activities. If any archaeological or paleontological resources are and activities. Community discovered, the archaeological/paleontological monitor shall have the Paleontological Development authority to stop work, assess the resources found, and implement a Resource Monitor Department plan for the removal of the archaeological/paleontological resources if Enforcement; deemed significant. or the Director's Designee 3.7 Geology and Soils B10-6 Refer to Mitigation Measure B10-6 above. 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1 A Fuel Modification Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant Project Applicant Concurrent with OCWR City of and submitted to Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) for review project plan Newport and approval in concurrence with project plan approval and prior to approval and Beach any site disturbances. The Fuel Modification Plan shall follow NBFD prior to any site Community Guideline G.02, including: disturbances Development a. Site Assessment conducted prior to conducting fire behavior Department & modeling and/or evaluations of potential wildfire hazard. Newport b. Fire behavior evaluation that incorporates site -specific fuel, terrain, Beach Fire and weather inputs and may include modeling to support fuel Department modification zone specifications. c. Preparation of a Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan (CFMP) that provides the delineated zones, widths, planting requirements, PlaceWorks 17-119 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance topographic information, existing vegetation/fuels locations, proposed structure locations, proposed fuel modification zone locations, proposed treatment prescriptions, site photographs, results from fire behavior modeling efforts, and other information required under NBFD's Guidelines. This CFMP will be submitted to NBFD for review and comment. Once accepted, the Precise Fuel Modification Plan (PFMP) can be created. d. The PFMP will follow NBFD's Guidelines and include: i. Location and detail of permanent zone markers ii. Plant palette and spacing design in accordance with approved guidelines iii. Irrigation plans and specifications iv. Structure footprint or delineation of proposed development v. All applicable maintenance requirements and assignment of responsibility vi. Additional notes, as required by NBFD vii. Three sets of plans will be submitted for NBFD review e. A Technical Report shall accompany the CFMP and provide fire risk assessment information, fire behavior modeling results, WindNinja wind pattern analysis, and technical analysis of any proposed alternative approaches. f. If necessary, an Alternative Materials & Methods (AM&M) report justifying any alternative approach or reduced fuel modification zone widths associated shall be required. The AM&M report examines the requirements, the deviation from the requirements, other mitigating site features (terrain, structure location, earthen berms, overall structural exposure, etc.) and provides additional measures, as necessary, to justify that the intent of the code requirements are being satisfied. AM&M reports provide scientific justifications that the proposed fuel modification shall provide equivalent function as the standard NBFD fuel modification area with the addition of proposed mitigation measures, per NBFD Guideline A- 01. May 2025 17-120 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71 D9O-E0E9-41 F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081 FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitiaation Monitorina Reauirements Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for Responsibility (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Oversight for Monitoring (Date of Compliance) 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality BI0-6 Refer to Mitigation Measure BI0-6 above 3.15 Public Services HAZ-1 Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 above. 3.17 Transportation TRANS-1 Prior to the initiation of demolition activities at the project site, the Project Applicant Prior to OCWR City of applicant shall prepare a traffic control plan for demolition and & Construction construction Newport construction. The traffic control plan shall include the staggering of Contractor activities Beach truck trips throughout the day on Newport Coast Drive, so that the Community minimum practicable number of truck trips will occur during the AM Development peak period, to reduce impacts as much as possible to Sage Hill High Department School and both the State Route 73 on and off -ramps at Newport Coast Drive. The traffic control plan shall also include measures that address safety hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians. TRANS-2 All demolition and construction vehicle drivers shall be informed that Construction During OCWR City of turning right on the red light at the traffic signal at the intersection of Contractor construction Newport the project site access road and Newport Coast Drive shall be activities Beach prohibited for the duration of demolition and construction activities. A Community sign shall be posted at the entrance to the intersection to remind Development drivers that they are prohibited from making a right -turn at the red light Department onto Newport Coast Drive. TRANS-3 For the duration of the demolition and construction activities, Construction During OCWR City of electronic signage shall be placed near Sage Hill High School to Contractor construction Newport inform drivers regarding the duration of the demolition and activities Beach construction activities and to indicate that large trucks may be present Community for the duration of construction and demolition activities. Development Department Page 16 PlaceWorks 17-121 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Oversight Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Compliance TRANS-4 Construction spotters with walkie-talkies shall be assigned on both Construction During OCWR City of ends of the project site access road to guide trucks during project Contractor construction Newport demolition and construction activities. Trucks shall only be able to activities Beach travel in one direction on the one lane paved access road at a time. Community Trucks that are waiting to go up the access road shall wait across the Development street on the main canyon landfill property until the spotter informs Department them that it is safe to proceed up the access road to the project site. 3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Kizh Nation Prior to the OCWR City of Ground -Disturbing Activities: The project applicant shall retain a Monitor, Project commencement Newport Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Applicant, City of of any ground- Beach Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to Newport Beach disturbing activity Community the commencement of any "ground -disturbing activity" for the subject Community and then during Development project at all project locations. "Ground -disturbing activity" shall Development these activities Department include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, Department, & auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, Construction and trenching. Contractors A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground -disturbing activity. The monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground -disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground -disturbing activities, soil types, cultural -related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources (TCR), including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the project applicantllead agency upon written request to the Tribe. May 2025 Page 17 17-122 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71 D90-EOE9-41 F1-A16A-5A8C5B5081 FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Page 18 Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for Responsibility (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Oversight for Monitoring Date of Compliance On -site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant that all ground -disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground -disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant and lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs. TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects Kizh Nation During OCWR City of (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial): Upon discovery of any TCRs, all Monitor and/or construction Newport construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall Kizh activities Beach cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not Archaeologist & Community resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh Construction Development monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh shall recover and retain Contractors Department all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe's sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. TCR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Kizh Nation During OCWR City of Funerary or Ceremonial Objects: Native American human remains Monitor and/or construction Newport are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and Kizh activities Beach in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary Archaeologist, Community objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Project Applicant Development Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If & Construction Department Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered Contractors or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. An PlaceWorks 17-123 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PLANT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Table 2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for Responsibility for Responsibility (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Oversight for Monitoring Date of Com liance discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. 3.20 Wildfire HAZ-1 Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 above. May 2025 Page 19 17-124 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 14 of 19 EXHIBIT C Response to Comments File available via link due to size: https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3162801 &repo=CNB&dbid =0 07-29-24 17-125 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 15 of 19 EXHIBIT D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) Planning Division 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may cause the revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. 4. No equipment shall exceed 35 feet in height above the finish grade, with the exception of the thermal oxidizer and the flare tower, which shall be limited to 60 feet and 40 feet above finish grade respectively. 5. RNG Facility equipment shall be coated with camouflage paint as an enhanced aesthetic treatment. 6. Prior to final building permit inspection, the Applicant shall schedule an inspection with the Planning Division to verify the aesthetic treatment applied to the RNG Facility is acceptable. 7. Two parking spaces shall be provided for control room employees. 8. Secure and functional short-term bike parking shall be provided for control room employees. 9. Prior to building permit final inspection, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection with the Code Enforcement Division to confirm the facility is not excessively lit, except as deemed necessary for security lighting. 10. If in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, site illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources, the Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 11. Project signage shall be in conformance with Chapter 20.42 (Signs) of the NBMC. 07-29-24 17-126 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 16 of 19 12. PA2022-063 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions) of the NBMC, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 13. This Conditional Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained are detrimental to the public health, welfare, or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained to constitute a public nuisance. 14. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in the area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require subsequent Planning Division review and may require the processing of an amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a copy of the Resolution, including Conditions of Approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans. 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Use Permit file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Use Permit and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 17. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained by the approved fuel modification plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. 19. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 20. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control), under Sections 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) and 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards), and other applicable noise control requirements of the NBMC. 07-29-24 17-127 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 17 of 19 21. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations) of the NBMC, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays, or Holidays. 22. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or leasing agent. 23. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in a trash enclosure (three walls and a self -latching gate) or otherwise screened from the view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The trash enclosure shall have a decorative solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. 24. Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development and may require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. 25. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operating characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the NBMC to require such permits. 26. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility including, but not limited to, the Conditional Use Permit filed as PA2022-063. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit, or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 07-29-24 17-128 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 18 of 19 Fire Department 27. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Fire Department. 28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Fire Master Plan showing fire department vehicle access, turn -around, fire hydrants, and other Fire Department appliances as applicable shall be submitted for review and approval. 29. The Project is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The Project is required to comply with the following for development in a wildland fire prone area: a. All new structures shall comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code for construction in a designated wildland area. b. A defensible space landscape plan/fuel modification plan is required to protect the facility from wildfires in accordance with City Guideline G.02 (Fuel Modification Plans and Maintenance Standards for Developments). The plan must include the area immediately outside the 12-foot perimeter wall. 30. A Hazardous Materials Inventory document is required. Both a paper and electronic version will be required for review by NBFD. 31. The flare tower shall be designed so that flames are not visible above the structure nor visible from the public right of way including Newport Coast Drive and State Route 73. Building Division 32. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City -adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 33. The Applicant shall employ the following best available control measures ("BACMs") during construction: Dust Control • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on -stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Emissions Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off -road equipment. Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment 07-29-24 17-129 Docusign Envelope ID: 16D71D90-EOE9-41F1-Al 6A-5A8C5B5081FC Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-008 Paae 19 of 19 Off -Site Impacts • Encourage carpooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. �Iacement Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Fill • The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. • Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve a 10% soil moisture content in the top six- inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 34. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 35. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 36. A list of "good housekeeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. 07-29-24 17-130 Attachment F July 17, 2025, Planning Commission Minutes 17-131 Docusign Envelope ID: 47010550-F784-46D7-B2D7-05810B6B5078 Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2025 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: ITEM NO. 4 Harris, Langford, None None Reed, and Salene Ellmore, Gazzano, and Rosene COYOTE CANYON LAN DFGI LL-GAS-TO-EN ERGY (PA2022-063) Site Location: 20662 Newport Coast Drive Summary: A request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction and operation of a new renewable natural gas processing plant and pipeline interconnection facility. The facility would convert landfill gas from the closed Coyote Canyon Landfill into a pipeline -quality natural gas equivalent, which would be transferred into SoCal Gas infrastructure through an existing onsite tie-in point. Additional project components include a new control room building, new internal access routes, utility upgrades including installation of an additional fire hydrant, a water tank, a septic tank, a storm drain for off -site disposal of stormwater, and new underground power and telecommunication lines. The facility would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with one scheduled annual shut down for maintenance. Existing onsite telecom facilities approved under PA2016-091 (SCH No. 2016081012) would remain in place and be unaffected by this application. This project was originally noticed for a Planning Commission meeting on May 22, 2025, and was removed from calendar. There have been no changes to the project since the previous Notice of Public Hearing. Recommended Actions: 1. Conduct a public hearing; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC2025-008, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH NO. 2024120012) and approving the Conditional Use Permit filed under PA2022-063. Senior Planner Joselyn Perez used a PowerPoint to present the project location, zoning and surrounding land uses, background of the Coyote Canyon landfill, existing site conditions, a project description, summarized the environmental review process which included preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Response to Comments received on the IS/MND. She concluded her presentation by summarizing the project, reviewing the written comment letter provided by the law firm Adams Broadwell Joseph Cardozo prior to public hearing, and indicated that the comments reflect those already received during the IS/MND public comment period which were adequately responded to in the Response to Comments portion of the IS/MND. In response to Commissioner Langford's inquiry, Senior Planner Perez confirmed there are no public trails through the area, and the property surrounding the site is owned by the City of Irvine. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill added that there has been some discussion about adding bike and/or pedestrian trails, but it has not been brought to fruition. All Commissioners reported having no ex Parte communications. Chair Harris opened the public hearing. Tyler Henson, Lead Manager of External Affairs for Archaea Energy, reported that they will be partnering with Orange County Waste and Recycling on the Coyote Canyon project, and Archaea is the largest RNG producer in the country. He presented on the company's safety protocols and benefits of RNG being collected from landfill gas, which would otherwise be burnt off. He acknowledged there will be temporary impacts during construction but expressed a commitment to work with the City throughout the process, adding they have already discussed the project with 17-132 Docusign Envelope ID: 47010550-F784-46D7-B2D7-05810B6B5078 Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2025 Sage Hill School regarding working the site's traffic around school drop-off and pickup times. He presented artist renderings of the completed facility. In response to Chair Harris' inquiry, Mr. Henson confirmed Archaea agrees with the recommended Conditions of Approval. In response to Commissioner Reed's inquiries, Mr. Henson reported that construction timelines could range between one and five years, depending on variables including the permitting process. He added they cannot offer a definitive timetable for how long the facility will operate, as it is determined by gas levels. In response to Secretary Langford's inquiry, Mr. Henson reported Archaea works with the local jurisdictions regarding the look of their site, adding their appearance can vary widely depending primarily on the remoteness of the locations. He expressed a willingness to work with Newport Beach on the facility's outward appearance. In response to Vice Chair Salene's inquiries, Mr. Henson confirmed he has seen the comment letter from the law firm referenced earlier by Senior Planner Perez and stated City staff's response to the letter is sufficient. He expressed a willingness to put non-interference with school traffic patterns into writing as a Condition of Approval. Aidan Marshall, speaking on behalf of Orange County Residents for Responsible Development, requested that staff prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) instead of an MND for CEQA compliance and to protect the health and safety of residents and workers. He stated his organization has responded in writing throughout the process with analysis from air quality and noise consultants agreeing the project would result in significant unmitigated air quality, public health, and noise impacts left unaddressed in the MND. He added that there are also health hazards to analyze and mitigate from a potential emergency at the facility, impacting its safe operation. Mr. Mosher expressed concerns about the project's thermal oxidizer, including the possibility of it collapsing during an earthquake, and creating potential damage to land owned by the City of Irvine. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill confirmed staff received the letter submitted by Adams Broadwell Joseph Cardozo and feels the comments had been adequately addressed. She added that there is a CEQA consultant who can further respond. Senior Engineer and project manager Dina El Chammas Gass, on behalf of PlaceWorks, confirmed that none of the comments in the Adams Broadwell Joseph Cardozo letter are new and have been previously responded to. She noted that the letter states there could be significant and unavoidable impacts, which is incorrect. She added that the off -site consequences analysis prepared for the project showed no significant impacts. She continued that the IS/MND includes a mitigation measure to enact a fuel modification plan to mitigate fire risks. She made note of the need to remove 28 trees at the request of the Newport Beach Fire Department to support the goal of preventing a fire in the facility from spreading beyond its walls or vice versa and mitigating fire risk. She reported the RNG Facility itself will be designed with many monitors and sensors to help ensure its safe operation and mitigate fire risk. Ms. El Chammas Gass noted there was a comment made about noise and added that a Noise Analysis was conducted for this project, which is included in the IS/MND, and sufficiently addresses that comment. Principal Nicole Vermilion, on behalf of PlaceWorks, clarified that the facility will have a closed system, so there will be no fugitive emissions unaddressed by the air quality permit through the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). She noted the South Coast AQMD is listed as a responsible agency, so it will have to approve the project along with Newport Beach. She expressed confidence in the conclusions of the MND. 17-133 Docusign Envelope ID: 47010550-F784-46D7-B2D7-05810B6B5078 Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2025 Senior Planner Perez stated, in response to Secretary Langford's earlier inquiry about the facility's exterior, staff reviewed both a light blue and camouflage print option for the exterior, with a final design to be determined in plan check. In response to Vice Chair Salene's earlier inquiry about Sage Hill School, she reported that staff have put a mitigation measure into the MND requiring a traffic control plan sensitive to the school. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Secretary Langford lauded the fact that there have been no incidents in the 30 years of operations by the previous facility, and bringing in newer technology to the new facility. He expressed an interest in the fuel modification plan, noting the NBFD has been doing a great job of removing trees at risk for fire. He requested of the applicant if, in addition to removing the trees, they could landscape to better help shield the walls from traffic on Newport Coast Drive. Motion made by Secretary Langford and seconded by Commissioner Reed to approve the Item as recommended. AYES: Harris, Langford, Reed, and Salene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Ellmore, Gazzano, and Rosene Vill. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA Deputy Director of Community Development Murillo reported that the August 7th Planning Commission meeting will review the Zenk residence on Bayview Drive in Corona del Mar. He reported that the City has received an appeal of the Ford Road Townhome project approved at the last meeting. He added it was filed by a law firm representing a group titled Save Our Sports Park. He reported that staff is working with the applicant to prepare the matter for City Council review. ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Reed reported he will not be able to attend the August 7th meeting. Chair Harris congratulated Commissioner Ellmore and his wife on the birth of twin sons. IX. ADJOURNMENT — With no further business, Chair Harris adjourned the meeting at 7:26 p.m. 17-134 Docusign Envelope ID: 47010550-F784-46D7-B2D7-05810B6B5078 Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2025 The agenda for July 17, 2025, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, July 11, 2025, at 9:35 a.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City's website on Friday, July 11, 2025, at 9:34 a.m. TVisfav, Rav'v'iS Tristan Harris, Chair Jonathan Langford, Secretary 17-135 Attachment G Appeal Application 17-136 Appeal Application City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949-644-3005 Clerk's Date & Time Stamp Appeals are time sensitive and must be received by the City Clerk within the specified time period from a decision or final action by a decision -maker. It is advisable to consult with the Department managing the issue if there is question with regards to appealing an action. This is an appeal of the: ❑ (CDD222) Community Development Director Action to the Planning Commission - $2116 ❑ (CDD222) Zoning Administrator Action to the Planning Commission - $2116 ❑ (CDD222) Coastal Development Application CDP Appeal from Zoning Admin to the Planning Commission (only if appeal is solely based on the CDP portion of the application) — No Fee ❑ (CDD222) Planning Commission Action to the City Council - $2116 ❑ (CDD222) Community Development Director Action to the Harbor Commission - $623 ❑ (CDD222) Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (CDD — Planning) - $498 ❑ (CDD222) Hearing Officer Action to the City Council - $2116 ❑ (CDD223) Building Official/Fire Marshal Action to the Building/Fire Board of Appeals - $1827 ❑ (CDD224) Chief of Police Action on an Operator License to the City Manager - $1033 ❑ (RSS073) City Manager Action on a Special Events Permit to the City Council - $1953 ❑ (HBR001) Harbormaster Action to the Harbor Commission - $622 ❑ (HBR001) Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (Harbor Department) - $498 ❑ (PBW018) Public Works Director Action to Harbor Commission - $1446 ❑ (PBW018) Harbor Commission Action to City Council (Public Works Department) - $691 ❑ Other - Specify decision -maker, appellate body, Municipal Code authority and fee: Appellant Information: Name(s): Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: Email Appealing Application Regarding Name of Applicant(s): Project No.: Application Site Address: Description of application: Date of Final Decision: Activity No.: Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): Signature of Appellant: a"` 45e45,-,— Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: 20 July 30, 2025 City Clerk cc: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff, File F:IUserslClerklSharedlFormslAppealApplication Updated 9/1' ff!137 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL CHRISTINA M. CARO ATTORNEYS AT LAW THOMAS A. ENSLOW KELILAH D. FEDERMAN 601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000 RICHARD M. FRANCO SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037 ANDREW J. GRAF TANYA A. GULESSERIAN DARION N. JOHNSTON TEL: (650) 589-1660 RACHAEL E. KOSS FAX: (650) 589-5062 AIDAN P. MARSHALL kfederman@adamsbroadwell.com ALAURA R. McGUIRE ISABEL TAHIR Of Counsel July 30, 2025 DANIEL L. CARDOZO MARC D. JOSEPH VIA HAND DELIVERY & EMAIL VIA EMAIL ONLY Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk City Councilmembers City of Newport Beach Bay E, 2nd Floor 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Email: lbrown@newportbeachca. gov SACRAMENTO OFFICE 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 TEL: (916) 444-6201 FAX: (916) 444-6209 Jaime Murillo, Deputy Director Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner Emails: murillo@newportbeachca.gov jperez@newportbeachca.gov Re: Appeal to City Council of Archaea Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project (SCH No. 2024120012; Project No. PA2022-063) Dear Ms. Brown, Councilmembers, Mr. Murillo, and Ms. Perez: Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.64.020(D), Orange County Residents for Responsible Industry ("Residents") hereby appeals the Newport Beach Planning Commission's ("Commission") July 17, 2025 decision to approve the Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project (PA2022-06; SCH No. 2024120012) ("Project").' Residents appeals all actions taken by the Planning Commission with regard to the Project on July 17, 2025, including the Commission's adoption of Resolution No. PC2025-008, adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024120012) and approval of the Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") filed under PA2022-063.2 This letter states the facts and basis for the appeal, as required by NBMC Section 20.64.030(B).3 This appeal is accompanied by the required appeal fee of $2,116.00, pursuant to the City's master fee schedule.4 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Agenda (Thursday July 17, 2025 — 6:00 PM); City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report, Agenda Item No. 4 (July 17, 2025). 2 Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") § 20.64.020(D); NBMC § 20.64.030(B)(1). 3 NBMC § 20.64.030(B). 4 NBMC § 20.64.030(B)(2); City of Newport Beach - Schedule of Rents, Fines and Fees Planning Fees, available at: https://www.newportbeachca. gov/home/showpublisheddocument/74913/638563868210800000. 7499-020acp 17-138 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 2 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is proposed by Biofuels Coyote Canyon Biogas LLC, on behalf of Archaea Energy Inc. ("Applicant"). The Project site is located at 20662 Newport Coast Drive in the City.5 The Project would be constructed under a lease agreement with OC Waste & Recycling ("OCWR"), within the boundary of the closed Coyote Canyon Landfill ("CCL" ), which is owned by the County of Orange and operated by OCWR.6 The Applicant proposes to develop the 4.14-acre Project site with a new renewable natural gas ("RNG") processing plant and a pipeline interconnection facility. The proposed RNG facility would have a total building footprint of 38,500 square feet composed of pipe racks, various vessels, a condensate tank, flare, thermal oxidizer, and other processing equipment. The first stage of primary treatment is covered by the existing landfill flaring facility on the Project site operated by OCWR. Landfill gas ("LFG") from the existing flare yard would be conveyed to the proposed RNG facility through a proposed underground LFG supply line for secondary and advanced treatment. The treated LFG would then be injected into SoCalGas infrastructure via the proposed pipeline interconnection facility. The interconnection facility would include a point of receipt ("POR") skid to monitor the quality of the RNG and an 8-inch pipeline extension dedicated to transfer the RNG from the POR to the existing fossil natural gas pipeline tie-in point in the western part of the site. Other Project components include vehicular access, installation of a fire hydrant, a water tank, a septic tank for the control room, and new underground power and telecommunication lines. II. BASIS FOR APPEAL Residents appeals the City Planning Commission's approval of the Project because the Commission abused its discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the Project in reliance on a deficient CEQA document and without substantial evidence to support the approval findings.? The specific reasons for the appeal are detailed herein and in Residents' prior comments to the City and Planning Commission, attached hereto.8 5 City of Newport Beach, Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration, Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project, (Nov. 27, 2024), p. 3, (hereinafter "MND"). 6 Id. at 15. 7 Code Civ. Proc § 1094.5(b); Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515. 8 Exhibit A — Letter from ABJC to City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, Agenda Item No. 4 Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility (SCH No. 2024120012; PA2022-063; PC2025-008) (July 17, 2025). 7499-020acp 17-139 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 3 The City has not complied with CEQA. Residents' experts provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project results in significant, unmitigated air quality, public health, hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts which require the City to prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project pursuant to CEQA.9 CEQA requires the lead agency must prepare an EIR "whenever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment." 10 First, substantial evidence demonstrates that construction emissions and fugitive air pollutant emissions from leaks during Project operation may result in significant impacts absent additional analysis and mitigation in an EIR. Second, flammable vapor clouds, jet fire, and toxic vapor clouds from the Project would jeopardize the safety of nearby sensitive receptors, absent additional binding mitigation. Third, the annual shutdown and 10 potential shutdown days per year may result in significant emissions of powerful greenhouse gases. Fourth, construction of the Project for 12 months may result in significant health risk impacts, which was not analyzed in the MND and must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR. Finally, construction noise would result in adverse impacts to nearby sensitive noise receptors, and the MND does not mitigate noise to less than significant levels. The Planning Commission failed to resolve these issues or require preparation of an EIR before approving the Project, in violation of CEQA. The City has not complied with the Municipal Code or applicable land use laws. The Commission lacked substantial evidence to make the findings to support approval of the CUP pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.020(F) which mandates that a Conditional Use Permit may only be approved where "Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use." Here, the Project results in a significant public detriment due to potentially significant fugitive air emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, flammable and toxic vapor clouds, fire hazards, and construction noise. These impacts are not reduced to less than significant levels by the Project's mitigation measures or conditions of approval, and may therefore result in a significant public detriment to the community, including endangering nearby sensitive receptors at Sage Hill High School, located within 1,700 feet of the Project site and residences located within 1,385 feet of the Project site. 9 Pub. Res. Code ("PRC") §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CCR") §§ 15000 et seq. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 6 Cal.4th at 1123. 10 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 6 CalAth at 1123; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928. 7499-020acp 17-140 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 4 The Commission also lacked substantial evidence that the Project is consistent with the General Plan because the Project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval do not require compliance with, or in some cases, conflict with General Plan policies for reductions in air pollutant emissions." The Commission therefore abused its discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the CUP, in violation of Municipal Code Section 20.52.020(F). Residents respectfully requests that the City Council uphold this appeal, vacate the Planning Commission's approvals, and remand the Project to Staff to prepare a legally adequate EIR which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project's significant environmental and public health impacts before bringing the Project back for future approvals. A. Failure to Comply With CEQA 1. Air Quality Impacts from Fugitive Emissions and Leaks Are Significant and Unmitigated Residents' prior comments on the MND and to the Planning Commission provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project results in significant, unmitigated air quality impacts which require disclosure and mitigation in an EIR. Dr. Shukla's comments on the MND provided substantial evidence demonstrating potentially significant fugitive emissions associated with reasonably foreseeable leaks from Project equipment.12 But the final MND still failed to disclose or mitigate fugitive emissions from leaks in valves, pressure relief devices, flanges, connectors, and emissions during routine maintenance or operational interventions related to the Project's flaring system and closed -loop emissions system.13 The final MND failed to meaningfully to address the issue raised by Dr. Shukla or quantify the Project's potential fugitive emissions by simply asserting that there would be "no fugitive emissions" because the Project involves a closed - loop system.14 11 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality (2006), p. 4.2-20. ["Require developers to use construction equipment that use low polluting fuels, engines, and exhaust controls to the extent available and feasible."] 12 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, pp. 7 - 9. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 7. 7499-020acp 17-141 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 5 In particular, Dr. Shukla' comments on the MND and the May 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report explained that, although the Project is designed as a closed -loop system, "this design does not completely eliminate the potential for fugitive emissions. Closed systems are engineered to minimize leaks, but they are not inherently leak-free."15 Dr. Shukla referenced U.S. EPA and SCAQMD leak detection guidance which require consideration of potential fugitive emissions from components such as valves, flanges, compressors, and pump seals —even in enclosed and pressurized systems.16 Dr. Shukla explained that the final MND's unsupported conclusion that there would be "no fugitive emissions" lacked technical justification and may misrepresent the actual emissions profile of the facility.17 Neither the final MND, nor the Planning Commission's May or July 2025 Staff Report, resolved these issues. The record before the Commission failed to quantify fugitive emissions and failed to demonstrate that the Project's closed loop system would prevent them. The final MND simply relied on the unsupported conclusion that the Project would have no fugitive emissions.18 There was therefore no substantial evidence before the Planning Commission demonstrating that fugitive emissions would be less than significant, and the Commission ignored substantial evidence demonstrating that fugitive emissions may be significant and require a leak detection and reporting system. The Planning Commission's decision to adopt the MND and approve the Project without requiring an EIR violated CEQA. 2. Public Health and Hazards Impacts Are Significant and Unmitigated As detailed in Residents' comments on the MND, the Project results in significant fire and hazards impacts which the MND failed to disclose or mitigate, including risk of upset from fire, vapor clouds, and other accidents or operational upsets in systems such as the Project's thermal oxidized ("TOY) system and flaring systems.19 These events can lead to uncontrolled emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants, which have significant implications for air quality and public health.20 15 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, p. 14, citing U.S. EPA, Leak Detection and Repair Compliance Assistance Guidance Best Practices Guide; https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014- 02/documents/ldarguide.pdf. 16 Id. 17 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, p. 7. 18 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, p. 7. 19 Shukla MND Comments, pp. 24-25. 20 Shukla MND Comments, pp. 24-25. 7499-020acp 17-142 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 6 The MND referenced a Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment ("PSC") which was purportedly prepared to analyze the potential for flammable vapor clouds, jet fire, and toxic vapor clouds from the Project and the potential impact to nearby sensitive receptors.21 The MND relied on the PSC to conclude that risk of upset hazards would be less than significant.22 However, the PSC was not provided to the public until the Planning Commission's July 2025 Staff Report was released, in violation of CEQA's requirement that documents referenced and relied upon in the MND be made available for public review during the CEQA public comment period.23 Residents' subsequent review of the PSC confirmed that the PSC fails to adequately disclose or mitigate potential risks from fire, explosion and other catastrophic events at the facility. Residents described the PSC's inadequacies in their comments to the Planning Commission,24 but the Planning Commission failed to resolve the issues before approving the Project. As Residents' comments explained, Dr. Shukla concluded that the MND's analysis underreported impacts on sensitive receptors by omitting them from its analysis. Dr. Shukla explained that the MND considered only a limited subset of potential sensitive receptors, specifically Sage Hill High School and vehicle occupants on Newport Coast Drive and SR-73, and omitted evaluation of other nearby non-residential receptors, as well as the nearest residential areas, which are located within approximately 1,385 feet of the project site.25 This limited analysis was confirmed by the PSC's list of nearby receptors, which includes Sage Hill Highschool, Newport Coast Drive, California State Route 73/ San Joaquin Hills Transportation Toll Road, and the landfill county building.26 Of these receptors, the county building was the only close receptor identified in the PSC. By limiting its scope, the PSC did not adequately characterize the full extent of public exposure risks under potential accident scenarios and therefore did not provide a sufficient technical basis to support the MND's findings of less -than -significant impact.27 The Planning Commission relied on these unsupported findings to approve the Project. The PSC also identified significant impacts from risk of upset associated with fire and explosion, and recommended mitigation. Specifically, the PSC found 21 MND, p. 101, Responses, p. 1-110. 22 Id. 23 See Public Resources Code § 21092(b)(1) (stating that "all documents referenced in the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration" shall be made "available for review"); 14 Cal. Code Reg. § 15072(g)(4) (stating that all documents incorporated by reference in the MND ... "shall be readily accessible to the public"). 24 Exhibit A, p. 6. 25 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, p. 10, citing MND, p. 101. 26 PSC, p. 7. 27 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, p. 10. 7499-020acp 17-143 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 7 impacts on the occupied county landfill building and surrounding vegetation to be significant.28 The City's own report therefore provided the Planning Commission with substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that hazards impacts are significant. The PSC recommended mitigation to prevent catastrophic events from occurring, including: (1) Fire and gas detection; (2) Process control alarms; (3) Process control shutdowns (Pressure safety high -highs, (4) Pressure safety low -lows, composition analyzers); (5) Plant ESD (emergency shutdown) System; (6) Ignition Source Control, Hazardous Area Classification.29 However, the PSC's proposed mitigation measures were not included in the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") or the Project's conditions of approval. CEQA prohibits reliance on unenforceable measures or design features to mitigate these impacts; all mitigation must be incorporated into the MMRP.30 Dr. Shukla's comments and the evidence in the PSC provided the City with substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project's risk of upset remains potentially significant and unmitigated. The Planning Commission's decision to approve the Project and adopt the MND violated CEQA because the MND underreported potential hazards, ignored substantial evidence from Residents' expert documenting significant, unmitigated hazards impacts, relied on an inadequate PSC which did not disclose the full extent of the Project's impacts, and failed to incorporate mitigation recommended by the City's own experts into the Project's MMRP or conditions of approval. The Commission's approvals should be vacated and the City Council should require staff to prepare an EIR which protects public safety and complies with CEQA by disclosing and mitigating these impacts. 3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions May Be Significant and Unmitigated Residents' comments on the MND demonstrated that GHG emissions released during the annual shutdown and 10 potential shutdown days per year may be significant, but were not quantified in the MND or the Staff Report, and are not mitigated by measures in the MMRP or conditions of approval. The final MND provides that the proposed operating hours of the RNG facility would be 24 hours per day, seven days a week, with an annual scheduled 28 PSC, pp. 4-10. 29 PSC, p. 8. 30 Lotus v. Dept of Transp. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 651; CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2) (mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments). 7499-020acp 17-144 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 8 shutdown for plant maintenance.31 The final MND states, without support, that unplanned shutdowns are anticipated to be less than 10 times per year.32 Emissions associated with the annual shutdown and 10 potential shutdown days per year may result in significant GHG emissions, which the MND, Staff Report, and Draft Resolution fail to disclose or mitigate.33 An EIR must be prepared which adequately quantifies and mitigates potentially significant GHG emissions from Project operation. Due to the Project's significant GHG impacts, the Commission's approvals should be vacated and the City Council should require staff to prepare an EIR which adequately discloses and mitigates the Project's significant GHG impacts. 4. Health Risk Impacts from Construction Emissions Are Underreported Residents commented that the MND underreported the health risk associated with Project construction because the MND's health risk analysis relied on a 9-month completion timeline, truncating the analysis of emissions exposure by 3 months.34 Rather than correct the health risk analysis, the City responded in the Final MND by deleting references to 12 months and replacing them with references to 9 months.35 However, neither the MMRP or the Project's conditions of approval restrict Project construction to less than 12 months, and the Planning Commission Staff Report and Approval Resolution continued to refer to the Project's construction period as lasting "up to 12 months.1136 The Planning Commission therefore approved a project which may involve 12 months of Project construction, yet the MND only analyzed impacts from the first 9 months. Because the City has not analyzed the health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from exposure to construction emissions during the Project's projected 12- month construction period, the Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to conclude that the Project's construction health risk impacts would be less than significant. The health risk analysis should be revised in an EIR to analyze the full 12-month duration of Project construction, and require mitigation for impacts that exceed thresholds. 31 MND, p. 22. 32 Id. 33 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, p. 26. 34 MND, p. 69. 35 May 2025 Responses, p. 1-105. 36 Staff Report, p. 8; see also Draft Resolution, Finding No. C.6, p. 25 ("Vehicle traffic will increase during the 9-to-12-month Project construction period."). 7499-020acp 17-145 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 9 5. Construction Noise Impacts Are Significant and Unmitigated The Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to approve the Project or adopt the MND because the Project's construction noise impacts are significant and unmitigated. Residents' comments and acoustical expert Mr. Meighan's comments on the MND demonstrated that the Project results in significant adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors due to a significant noise increase above ambient noise levels. Neither the final MND, MMRP, conditions of approval, nor the July 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report resolved these issues. Mr. Meighan's comments provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that Project construction will result in a significant increase above the ambient noise levels to sensitive receptors at Sage Hill Highschool and residences on Renata Street, and that the MND relied on an excessively high and unsupported noise threshold to conclude that noise impacts would be less than significant.37 Therefore, there was no substantial evidence before the Planning Commission that construction noise impacts would be less than significant. 38 To the contrary, substantial evidence in the record before the Planning Commission supported a fair argument that the Project results in significant unmitigated construction noise impacts requiring preparation of an EIR. As Mr. Meighan's comments on the MND demonstrated, ambient daytime noise levels identified in the MND ranged from 38 to 48 dBA at the nearest noise measurement location to the single-family homes to the south.39 The MND found that the "combined construction noise levels from pipe installation and equipment installation would be 55 dBA Leq and 56 dBA Leq, respectively."40 Mr. Meighan explained that this would exceed the existing noise levels by 7 to 18 dB and result in a significant impact due to a "substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project.1141 A 10 decibel increase is perceived as a doubling of the sound and thus would cause a significant adverse impact on nearby sensitive receptors.42 Moreover, Mr. Meighan's comments explained that the Project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval do not mitigate the significant construction noise impact to less than significant levels. Mr. Meighan's comments demonstrated 37 Meighan Comments, p. 2. 38 MND, p. 127. 39 Meighan Comments, p. 2; MND, Appendix K Table F. 40 Meighan Comments, p. 2, citing MND, page 127. 41 MND, p. 123. 42 Meighan Comments, p. 2. 7499-020acp 17-146 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 10 that municipal code requirements in Condition 20 and 21 will not sufficiently mitigate the Project's significant adverse noise impacts due to the significant noise increase above ambient levels during Project construction.43 First, Mr. Meighan explained that Condition 20 does not apply for construction noise and therefore Condition 20 would not mitigate the Project's significant construction noise increase above ambient levels.44 Second, he explained that Condition 21 does not mitigate construction noise impacts to less than significant because Condition 21 only limits the hours of construction between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday.45 Mr. Meighan concluded that Condition 21 does not mitigate the Project's significant construction noise impacts because the Project's significant construction noise will occur during daytime hours.46 Neither the final MND, the Planning Commission Staff Reports, or the Project's conditions of approval include any additional mitigation to reduce the Project's significant noise impacts beyond those measures already required by municipal code. The measures therefore remain inadequate. Mr. Meighan's comments provided the City with substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that Project construction noise impacts remain significant and unmitigated. The Planning Commission's decision to adopt the MND and approve the Project without requiring an EIR violated CEQA. The City Council should uphold this appeal, vacate the Planning Commission's approvals, and remand the Project to staff to prepare a legally adequate EIR for public review and comment, which includes analysis and mitigation of the Project's significant noise impacts before bringing the Project back for further consideration. B. Municipal Code Violations The Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to support the findings required for approval of the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.020(F)(5). In particular, the Commission lacked substantial evidence to make the necessary finding that "[o]peration of the use at the proposed location would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use."47 43 Meighan Comments, p. 3. 44 Meighan Comments, p. 3. 45 Staff Report, Attachment 1, Draft Resolution to Approve the Project and Adopt the IS/MND. 46 Meighan Comments, p. 3. 47 NBMC Section 20.52.020(F)(5). 7499-020acp 17-147 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 11 First, Residents' comments on the MND provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project results in significant air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts which may jeopardize the public health and general welfare of the City. These impacts are not mitigated by the mitigation measures in the MMRP or the Project's conditions of approval. For instance, unmitigated flammable vapor clouds, jet fire, and toxic vapor clouds from the Project would jeopardize the safety of nearby sensitive receptors, absent additional mitigation. Construction air emissions and fugitive air pollutant emissions from leaks during Project operation are significant and unmitigated. Greenhouse gas emissions from the annual shutdown and 10 potential shutdown days per year may be significant, but are not mitigated by the final MND or conditions of approval. Finally, construction noise would result in severe adverse impacts to nearby sensitive noise receptors, but the Project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval do not mitigate the significant construction noise impact to less than significant levels. The Planning Commission abused its discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the CUP given the detrimental impacts of the Project on the "public convenience, health, interest safety, or general welfare" of the residents of the City.48 Second, the Project may not be adequately served by fire protection services. The record before the Commission lacks substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project would not result in a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare. Following the Applicant's request for clarification regarding whether the Project is adequately served by fire services, the Newport Beach Fire Department responded that "[t]he concern is not only an off - site fire reaching a facility but an on -site fire reaching the wildland urban interface, resulting [in] a fire expanding to the existing commercial and residential in the area." 49 The Fire Department recommended fuel modification measures which were implemented in the MND's Fuel Modification Plans pursuant to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.50 However, the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the mitigation measures for hazards and hazardous material impacts are sufficient to fully mitigate the significant hazards, fire, and wildfire impacts from the Project in the event of a fire, explosion, or other catastrophic equipment failure at the Project site. In particular, evidence in the record demonstrates that the Fire Department may not have the capacity to put out worst -case scenario jet fires from the Project. The Commission did not have substantial evidence to conclude that the Fire 48 NBMC Section 20.52.020. 49 MND, Appendix L Service Provider Questionnaire Responses, p. L-9. 50 MND, p. 106. 7499-020acp 17-148 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 12 Department has the capacity to put out "worst -case scenario jet fires [which] could affect vegetation up to 10 feet beyond the perimeter wall in the northeast portion of the site.1151 The final MND continued to conclude that, with the implementation of design features such as equipment layout, hazardous area classification, ignition source controls, fire and gas detection systems, process control alarms, process control shutdowns, and emergency shutdown systems... impact of jet fires to the surrounding vegetation would be less than significant."52 But, these measures are not included as enforceable mitigation. Fire impacts are not sufficiently mitigated to less than significant levels. The record before the Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project would not result in a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare. The Commission therefore abused its discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the CUP, in violation of Municipal Code Section 20.52.020(F). Third, the record does not demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the General Plan. NBMC Section 20.52.020(F)(1) requires that a conditional use permit may be approved only after first finding that "[t]he use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan." Residents' comments on the MND and to the Planning Commission explained that the Project did not demonstrate compliance with General Plan policies directed at reducing construction air quality impacts from projects built in the General Plan area. For example, the Responses assert that the Project would comply with Policy NR 8.1 because construction contractors would be required to comply with CARB Rule 2485, which restricts idling to 5 minutes.53 However, the Project's condition of approval No. 33 allows idling up to "30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment"54 — six times longer than CARB standards. These and other General Plan measures were not included in the Final MND or Conditions of Approval. The Planning Commission therefore abused its discretion by approving the CUP given the Project's nonconformance with General Plan policies. III. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, the Planning Commission abused its discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the CUP and the Project's MND after being presented with substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have potentially significant, unmitigated impacts on 51 MND, p. 101. 52 MND, p. 101. 5353 May 2025 Responses, p. 1-112. 54 Draft Resolution, p. 18. 7499-020acp 17-149 �, printed on recycled paper July 30, 2025 Page 13 air quality, greenhouse gases, public health, hazards and noise. The Planning Commission violated the City's Municipal Code by approving the Project's CUP after being presented with substantial evidence that the Project is detrimental hazards to public health, interest, safety, and the general welfare of persons residing and working near the Project and is not consistent with the General Plan. The City Council should uphold this appeal, vacate the Planning Commission's approvals, and remand the Project to staff to prepare an EIR to address the impacts identified by Residents and its experts. These actions are critical to ensure that the Project complies with CEQA and all applicable laws, and to ensure that the health and safety of City residents and workers is protected. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project. Attachments KDF:acp 7499-020acp Sincerely, Kelilah D. Federman 17-150 �, printed on recycled paper EXHIBIT A 17-151 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL SACRAMENTO OFFICE CHRISTINA M. CARO ATTORNEYS AT LAW THOMAS A. ENSLOW 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 KELILAH D. FEDERMAN 601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 RICHARD M. FRANCO SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037 TEL: (916) 444-6201 ANDREW J. GRAF ___ FAX: (916) 444-6209 TANYA A. GULESSERIAN DARION N. JOHNSTON TEL: (650) 589-1660 RACHAEL E. KOSS FAX: (650) 589-5062 AIDAN P. MARSHALL kfederman@adamsbroadwell.com ALAURA R. McGUIRE ISABEL TAHIR Of Counsel July 17, 2025 MARC D. JOSEPH DANIEL L. CARDOZO Via Email and Overnight Mail Chair Mark Rosene Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attn: Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner Attn: Jaime Murillo, Deputy Director 100 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Email: planningcommission@newportbeachca. ov; mrosene@newportbeachca.gov; tharris@newportbeachca.gov; dsalene@newportbeachca.gov; jlangford@newportbeachca.gov; cellmore@newportbeachca.gov; mgazzno@newportbeachca.gov; greed@newportbeachca.gov; jperez@newportbeachca.gov; murillo@newportbeachca.gov Re: Agenda Item No. 4 - Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy_ Facility (SCH No. 2024120012; PA2022-063; PC2025-008) Dear Chair Rosene, Commissioners, Ms. Perez and Mr. Murillo: On behalf of Orange County Residents for Responsible Industry ("Residents"), we submit these comments regarding the City of Newport Beach ("City") Planning Commission Meeting Public Hearing Agenda Item 4, the proposed Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project ("Project) for hearing on July 17, 2025.1 The Project is proposed by Biofuels Coyote Canyon Biogas LLC, on behalf of Archaea Energy Inc ("Applicant"). The Project site is located at 20662 Newport Coast Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The Project would be constructed under a lease agreement with OC Waste & Recycling ("OCWR"), within the boundary of the closed Coyote Canyon Landfill ("CCL"), which is owned by the County of Orange and operated by OCWR.2 1 City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission Agenda (Thursday, July 17, 2025 — 6:00 PM), available at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/planning commission/current agenda.pdf. 2 City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission Staff Report, July 17, 2025, Agenda Item No. 4, Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility (PA2022-063) 7499-019j 17-152 i.t printed on recycled paper July 17, 2025 Page 2 The Staff Report asks the Commission to approve the Project's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2024120012 ("MND") 3, including the MND, May 2025 Responses to Comments ("Responses11)4, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), (collectively with MND and Responses as "Final MND"), the Conditional Use Permit (PA2022-063) and Draft Resolution No. PC 2025-008 including Conditions of Approval 1 through 36 ("Conditions").5 Residents submitted detailed comments in January 20256 and May 20257, supported by expert comments, which demonstrated that the Final MND was substantially deficient and failed to fulfill its mandate under CEQA as an informational document. Residents' experts also provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project results in significant, unmitigated air quality, public health, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts which require the City to prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project pursuant to CEQA.8 Residents' comments were prepared with the assistance of air quality and hazards consultant Komal Shukla, Ph.D. of Group Delta Consultants, Inc. ("Shukla Comments'), and noise consultant Jack Meighan of Wilson Ihrig.9 https:Hnewportbeach.legistar.com/gateway. aspx?M=F&ID=aO28ab42 -b4ff-4018-a9be- 8323106755c0.pdf. 3 City of Newport Beach, Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration, Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project, (Nov. 27, 2024) available at: https://www.newportbeachca.aov/pin/CEQA REVIEW/Coyote%20Canyon%20Landfill%20Gas%20to %20Ener,-y%20Plant%2OProiect%20(P2022-063)/PA2022-063 PublicReview InitialStudy MND.pdf. 4 City of Newport Beach, Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project, Responses (May 2025), available at: https://www.newportbeachca.yov/pin/CEQA REVIEW/Coyote%20Canyon%20Landfill%20Gas%20to %20Eneray%20Plant%2OProiect%20(P2022-063)/PA2022-063 Response-to-Comments.pdf (hereinafter, "May 2025 Responses"). 5 Staff Report, Attachment 1, Draft Resolution No. PC2025-008 to Approve the Project and Adopt the IS/MND, available at: https:Hnewportbeach.leaistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=98663746-f4d2- 470b-8614-b632f37aa5c6.pdf. 6 May 2025 Responses, p. 1-35. 7 Staff Report, Attachment No. PC 5: Letter from ABJC to City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, Agenda Item 3 - Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility (SCH No. 2024120012; PA2022-063) (May 21, 2025). 8 Pub. Res. Code ("PRC") §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CCR") §§ 15000 et seq. 9 Mr. Meighan's response to the July 17, 2025 Staff Report is attached as Exhibit A: Letter from Jack Meighan to Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Archaea Landfill Gas Project IS/MND City of Newport Beach, California Comments on Noise Analysis (July 14, 2025) (hereinafter "Meighan Comments"). 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-153 July 17, 2025 Page 3 The Staff Report includes responses to ABJC's May 2025 Comments ("July Responses")10 which still fail to resolve the majority of issues raised in our comments, continue to rely on deficient analysis, and still fail to mitigate many of the Project's significant impacts, including significant air quality impacts from nitrogen oxide emissions (an ozone precursor), significant hazards and public health impacts from risk of upset at the facility, and significant noise impacts. An EIR must be prepared because substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project results in significant air quality, public health, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts from Project construction and operation. Moreover, the Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to make the findings required to approve the Project because the Project does not conform to local codes and results in significant, unmitigated impacts which constitute hazards to public health, interest, safety, and the general welfare of persons residing and working near the Project." Residents respectfully requests the Planning Commission continue this hearing and remand the Project to staff to prepare a legally adequate EIR which analyzes and mitigates the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts before the Project can be brought back for further consideration. The City cannot approve the Project until it complies with CEQA, the Municipal Code, and all other applicable land use laws to ensure that the Project proceeds safely and mitigates its significant environmental and public health impacts. I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST Orange County Residents for Responsible Industry is a coalition of individuals and labor organizations with members who may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards and environmental and public service impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Orange County residents, California Unions for Reliable Energy ("CURE"), and its local union affiliates and their members and their families. CURE is a coalition of labor organizations whose members encourage sustainable development of California's energy and natural resources. Residents was formed to advocate for responsible and sustainable industrial development in Orange County to protect public health and safety and the environment where Residents' members and their families live, work and recreate. 10 Staff Report, Attachment 6, Response to Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo 5/21/25 Comment Letter Regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project (July 9, 2025) (hereinafter, "July 2025 Responses"). 11 Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NMBC"), Section 20.52.020. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-154 July 17, 2025 Page 4 The individual members of Residents, and the members of its affiliated labor organizations, would be directly affected by the Project and may also work constructing the Project itself. They would therefore be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that may be present on the Project site. They each have a personal stake in protecting the Project area from unnecessary, adverse environmental and public health and safety impacts. Thus, Residents, its participating organizations, and their members stand to be directly affected by the Project's impacts. Residents supports the development of clean, renewable energy technology where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health and the environment. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live and recreate in the City and in Orange County. Continued degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduces future employment opportunities. Projects should avoid adverse impacts to natural resources and public health, and should take all feasible steps to ensure that unavoidable impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can energy development truly be sustainable. Finally, the organizational members of Residents are concerned with projects that can result in serious environmental harm without providing countervailing economic benefits. CEQA provides a balancing process whereby economic benefits are weighed against significant impacts to the environment. It is in this spirit we offer these comments. II. THE STAFF REPORT FAILS TO RESOLVE THE MND'S DEFICIENCIES A. Air Quality and Hazards Impacts Remain Significant and Unmitigated 1. Fugitive Emissions and Leaks The MND and Staff Report fail to resolve Dr. Shukla's comments addressing the Project's potentially significant, unmitigated air quality impacts from fugitive emissions. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-155 July 17, 2025 Page 5 Dr. Shukla's MND comments described potentially significant fugitive emissions associated with reasonably foreseeable leaks from Project equipment which the MND failed to disclose, including fugitive emissions from leaks in valves, pressure relief devices, flanges, connectors, and emissions during routine maintenance or operational interventions related to the Project's flaring system and closed -loop emissions system.12 The Final MND refused to address this issue or quantify the Project's potential fugitive emissions, simply asserting that there would be "no fugitive emissions" because the Project involves a closed -loop system.13 Dr. Shukla explained that this conclusion was incorrect and unsupported. She clarified that, although the Project is designed as a closed -loop system, "this design does not completely eliminate the potential for fugitive emissions. Closed systems are engineered to minimize leaks, but they are not inherently leak-free.1114 Dr. Shukla referenced U.S. EPA and SCAQMD leak detection guidance which require consideration of potential fugitive emissions from components such as valves, flanges, compressors, and pump seals —even in enclosed and pressurized systems.15 Dr. Shukla explained that the Final MND's unsupported conclusion that there would be "no fugitive emissions" lacked technical justification and may misrepresent the actual emissions profile of the facility.16 The Staff Report still fails to quantify fugitive emissions, and asserts that the Final MND resolved Dr. Shukla's comments, which is incorrect. There is therefore no evidence before the Planning Commission demonstrating that fugitive emissions would be less than significant, and the City's failure to require a leak detection and reporting system is likely to leave fugitive emissions significant and unmitigated. 2. Public Health Impacts and Hazards Associated with Risk of Upset Are Significant and Unmitigated Residents' comments on the MND identified significant fire and hazards impacts which the MND failed to disclose or mitigate, including risk of upset from fire, vapor clouds, and other accidents or operational upsets in systems such as the Project's thermal oxidized ("TOX") system and flaring systems.17 Dr. Shukla 12 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, pp. 7. 9. 13 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, p. 7. 14 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, p. 14, citing U.S. EPA, Leak Detection and Repair Compliance Assistance Guidance Best Practices Guide; https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014- 02/documents/ldarguide. Of. 15 Id. 16 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, p. 7. 17 Shukla MND Comments, pp. 24-25. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-156 July 17, 2025 Page 6 explained that these events can lead to uncontrolled emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants, which have significant implications for air quality and public health.18 The MND referenced a Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment ("PSC") which was purportedly prepared to outline the potential for flammable vapor clouds, jet fire, and toxic vapor clouds from the Project and the potential impact to nearby sensitive receptors.19 The MND relied on the PSC to conclude that risk of upset hazards would be less than significant.20 However, the City did not attach the PSC to the MND, and failed to provide it in response to multiple public record requests by Residents. The PSC has now been made available for the first time as an attachment to the Staff Report. Review of the PSC confirms that the Project's risk of upset hazards are potentially significant and may result in significant impacts if not properly mitigated. The PSC also continues to underreport potential hazards, and recommends mitigation that is not incorporated into the Project's MMRP or conditions of approval. Both Dr. Shukla's comments and the PSC therefore provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that risk of upset impacts remain potentially significant and unmitigated. Dr. Shukla previously explained that the MND's analysis considered only a limited subset of potential sensitive receptors, specifically Sage Hill High School and vehicle occupants on Newport Coast Drive and SR-73, and omitted evaluation of other nearby non-residential receptors, as well as the nearest residential areas, which are located within approximately 1,385 feet of the project site.21 This limited analysis is confirmed by the PSC's list of nearby receptors, which includes Sage Hill Highschool, Newport Coast Drive, California State Route 73/ San Joaquin Hills Transportation Toll Road, and the landfill county building.22 Of these receptors, the county building is the only close receptor identified in the PSC. Dr. Shukla explained that excluding other nearby receptors from the risk of upset analysis is problematic because the it does not consider impacts on all potentially affected sensitive receptors.23 By limiting its scope, the PSC did not adequately characterize the full extent of public exposure risks under potential accident scenarios and therefore does not provide a sufficient technical basis to support the MND's findings of less -than -significant impact. 18 Shukla MND Comments, pp. 24-25. 19 MND, p. 101, Responses, p. 1-110. 20 Id. 21 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, p. 10, citing MND, p. 101. 22 PSC, p. 7. 23 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, p. 10. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-157 July 17, 2025 Page 7 The PSC also identifies significant impacts from risk of upset associated with fire and explosion, and recommends mitigation. Specifically, the PSC finds impacts on the occupied county landfill building and surrounding vegetation to be significant.24 The City's own report therefore provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that hazards impacts are significant. The PSC next recommends mitigation to prevent catastrophic events from occurring, including: • Fire and gas detection • Process control alarms • Process control shutdowns (Pressure safety high -highs, Pressure safety low -lows, composition analyzers) • Plant ESD (emergency shutdown) System • Ignition Source Control, Hazardous Area Classification (Vapor cloud must find an ignition source to create jet fire depicted).25 However, the PSC's proposed mitigation measures are not included in the MMRP or the Project's conditions of approval. The City cannot rely on unenforceable design features to mitigate these impacts; all mitigation must be incorporated into MMRP if agency intends to rely on measures for a significance determination.26 The Project's hazards and public health impacts associated with risk of upset therefore remain significant and unmitigated. 3. The MND Failed to Analyze Construction Health Risk Impacts for the Project's Reasonably Forseeable Construction Period The MND originally stated that the Project's construction period was anticipated to take 12 months.27 Residents commented that the MND underreported the health risk associated with Project construction because the MND's health risk analysis relied on a 9-month completion timeline, truncating the analysis of emissions exposure by 3 months.28 24 PSC, pp. 4-10. 25 PSC, p. 8. 26 Lotus v. Dep't of Transp. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 651; CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2) (mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments). 27 MND, p. 38. 28 MND, p. 69. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-158 July 17, 2025 Page 8 Rather than correct the health risk analysis, the City responded in the Final MND by deleting references to 12 months and replacing them with references to 9 months.29 However, the Staff Report and Draft Planning Commission Resolution continue to refer to the Project's construction period as lasting "up to 12 months," 30 and neither the MMRP or the Project's conditions of approval restrict Project construction to less than 12 months. It is therefore reasonably foreseeable that Project construction may last up to 12 months. The City has not analyzed the health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from exposure to construction emissions during a 12-month construction period, and therefore lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the Project's construction health risk impacts are less than significant. The health risk analysis should be revised in an EIR to analyze the full 12-month duration of Project construction. 4. The City Has Not Demonstrated Compliance with General Plan Air Quality Policies Residents' MND comments explained that the Project did not demonstrate compliance with General Plan policies directed at reducing construction air quality impacts from projects built in the General Plan area. Specifically, Newport Beach General Plan Policy NR 8.1 requires the City to "Require developers to use construction equipment that use low polluting fuels, engines, and exhaust controls to the extent available and feasible." 31 Policy NR 8.2 requires the City to "Require developers maintain construction in good operating condition to minimize air pollutants." 32 Policy NR 8.3 requires the City to "Require developers to turn off construction equipment when not in use for an extended time period."33 Residents commented that the MND did not demonstrate conformance with these policies and the MND's mitigation measures did not require that the Applicant to use available low -emission construction equipment. The Responses to Comments assert that the Project complies with these General Plan Air Quality policies because existing clean air laws require the use of cleaner fuel and engines, and lower emissions thresholds, than were required in 2006 when the General Plan was adopted.34 This argument is specious and unsupported. The General Plan EIR concluded that construction air quality 29 May 2025 Responses, p. 1-105. 30 Staff Report, p. 8; see also Draft Resolution, Finding No. C.6, p. 25 ("Vehicle traffic will increase during the 9-to-12-month Project construction period."). 31 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality (2006), p. 4.2-20. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 See May 2025 Responses, pp. 1-111 to 1-112. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-159 July 17, 2025 Page 9 impacts would be significant and unavoidable, and explained that compliance with Policies 8.1 through 8.5 was intended to reduce impacts to the greatest extent feasible.35 The General Plan EIR also contemplated that "additional mitigation may also be required to further reduce emissions and potential impacts" associated with individual projects.36 Accordingly, the City must require all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project's construction emissions to the greatest extent feasible.37 The MND includes no air quality mitigation measures, and the City's assumption that existing laws, like CARB's low -emission vehicle standards and US EPA's phased -in Tier 4 standards, require the most stringent available mitigation is incorrect. For example, existing regulations do not currently require the use of Tier 4 Final construction engines (the cleanest and lowest emission construction equipment) because they are subject to phase -in requirements. U.S. EPA, and by agreement, GARB, have slowly adopted more stringent standards to lower the emissions from off -road construction equipment since 1994. Since 1994, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4 Interim, and Tier 4 Final construction equipment have been phased in over time.38 Tier 4 Final represents the cleanest burning equipment and therefore has the lowest emissions compared to other lower tiers, which are still utilized in many construction industry fleets.39 Without mitigation measures requiring the use of Tier 4 equipment for Project construction, it would not otherwise be required. And given that the MND underestimated construction health risk by up to 3 months, Tier 4 Final equipment may also be necessary to reduce health risks associated with the Project's construction emissions. The Project's conditions of approval may also thwart compliance with General Plan Air Quality policies. For example, the Responses assert that the Project would comply with Policy NR 8.1 because construction contractors would be required to comply with CARB Rule 2485, which restricts idling to 5 minutes.40 However, the Project's condition of approval No. 33 allows idling up to "30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment"41— six times longer than CARB standards. 35 Id. at p. 4.2-14. 36 Id. at p. 4-2-13. 37 PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15090(a), 15091(a), 15092(b)(2)(A), (B); Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 38 See https:Hww2.arb.ca.aov/resources/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-added-vehicle-restrictions-and-tier- phase -out-re quire ments. 39 Id. 4040 May 2025 Responses, p. 1-112. 41 Draft Resolution, p. 18. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-160 July 17, 2025 Page 10 The City lacks substantial evidence to support MND's conclusion that the Project complies with General Plan Air Quality policies. The City must include a detailed analysis and additional air quality mitigation measures in an EIR. 5. Emissions from the Annual Shutdown and Ten Potential Yearly Shutdowns Are Significant and Unmitigated by the MND, Staff Report, or Conditions of Approval Residents' comments on the MND demonstrated that air pollutant emissions released during the annual shutdown and 10 potential shutdown days per year may result be significant, but were not analyzed in the MND or the Staff Report, and are not mitigated by measures in the MMRP or conditions of approval in the Draft Resolution. The Final MND provides that the proposed operating hours of the RNG facility would be 24 hours per day, seven days a week, with an annual scheduled shutdown for plant maintenance.42 The Final MND states, without support, that unplanned shutdowns are anticipated to be less than 10 times per year.43 The Final MND further provides that existing "flares operated by OCWR would only be used as backup if the RNG facility goes offline, or to combust any excess LFG that is not used by the RNG processing plant.1144 An EIR must be prepared which adequately quantifies and mitigates potentially significant emissions from Project operation. Moreover, the MND and Staff Report before the Commission fails to analyze GHG emissions associated with the annual shutdown and unplanned shutdowns associated with Project operation. Emissions associated with the annual shutdown and 10 potential shutdown days per year may result in significant GHG emissions, which the MND, Staff Report, and Draft Resolution fail to adequately analyze or mitigate. An EIR must be prepared which adequately quantifies and mitigates potentially significant GHG emissions from Project operation. B. The Staff Report, MND and Conditions of Approval Still Fail to Disclose or Mitigate the Project's Significant Noise Impacts The Staff Report continues to ignore substantial evidence provided by Residents' noise consultant, Mr. Meighan, which supports a fair argument that the Project's construction noise impacts are significant and unmitigated. Mr. Meighan's comments demonstrated that the Project may result in significant adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors due to a significant noise increase above 42 MND, p. 22. 43 Id. 44 MND, p. 15. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-161 July 17, 2025 Page 11 ambient noise levels which is not mitigated by the measures in the MMRP or the Project's conditions of approval. Mr. Meighan explained that Project construction will result in significant increase above the ambient noise levels to sensitive receptors at Sage Hill Highschool and residences on Renata Street, and that the MND relied on an excessively high and unsupported noise threshold to conclude that noise impacts would be less than significant.45 These problems have not been corrected. As Mr. Meighan reiterates, ambient daytime noise levels identified in the MND ranged from 38 to 48 dBA at the nearest noise measurement location to the single-family homes to the south.46 The MND found that the "combined construction noise levels from pipe installation and equipment installation would be 55 dBA Leq and 56 dBA Leq, respectively."47 Mr. Meighan explained that this would exceed the existing noise levels by 7 to 18 dB and result in a significant impact due to a "substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project."48 As the MND shows, and as demonstrated in Mr. Meighan's comments, a 10 dBA increase is perceived as a doubling of the sound and thus would cause an adverse impact on nearby sensitive receptors.49 The MND did not disclose this significant noise impact, and the Staff Report continues to ignore it. The July Responses assert that Mr. Meighan's comment that the Project would result in excessive noise levels to nearby sensitive receptors "was addressed in the response to comment 02-24 in the Final MND, and no additional issues were raised or substantiated in the most recent letter."50 This is incorrect. The May 2025 Responses did not acknowledge the significant construction noise impacts identified by Mr. Meighan and did not add any additional mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The impacts therefore remain unaddressed. Moreover, Mr. Meighan explains that the Project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval do not mitigate the significant construction noise impact to less than significant levels. Mr. Meighan's comments demonstrate that municipal code requirements in Condition 20 and 21 will not sufficiently mitigate the Project's significant adverse noise impacts due to the significant noise increase above ambient levels during Project construction.51 45 Meighan Comments, p. 2. 46 Meighan Comments, p. 2; MND, Appendix K Table F. 47 Meighan Comments, p. 2, citing MND, page 127. 48 MND, p. 123. 49 Meighan Comments, p. 2. 50 July Responses 51 Meighan Comments, p. 3. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-162 July 17, 2025 Page 12 First, Mr. Meighan explains that Condition 20 does not apply for construction noise and therefore Condition 20 would not mitigate the Project's significant construction noise increase above ambient levels.52 Second, Condition 21 does not mitigate construction noise impacts to less than significant because Condition 21 only limits the hours of construction between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday.53 Condition 21 does not mitigate the Project's significant construction noise impacts because the Project's significant construction noise will occur during daytime hours.54 The Staff Report and proposed conditions of approval do not include any additional mitigation to reduce the Project's significant noise impacts beyond those measures already required by municipal code. The measures therefor remain inadequate. Mr. Meighan's comments provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that Project construction noise impacts remain significant and unmitigated. The City must prepare a legally adequate EIR for public review and comment, which includes analysis and mitigation of the Project's significant noise impacts before the Project can lawfully be approved. III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CANNOT MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT In accordance with Section 20.52.020 (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission must make the following findings for approval of a use permit: A. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan; B. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and Municipal Code; C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; D. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and 52 Id. 53 Staff Report, Attachment 1, Draft Resolution to Approve the Project and Adopt the ISIMND. 54 Meighan Comments, p. 3. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-163 July 17, 2025 Page 13 E. Operation of the use at the proposed location would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.55 The Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to make the findings required to approve the Project due to significant, unmitigated impacts which obstruct compliance with local codes and constitute hazards to public health, interest, safety, and the general welfare of persons residing and working near the Project.56 The Draft Resolution states that the Project "should not be a risk to the health or general welfare of people residing or working nearby."57 But this statement is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Residents' comments on the MND provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project results in significant air quality and health risk impacts which may jeopardize the public health or the general welfare of the City. These impacts are not mitigated by the mitigation measures in the MMRP or the Project's conditions of approval. The Planning Commission therefore lacks substantial evidence to support the findings required to approve the Project, and many of the Draft Resolutions proposed "Facts in Support of Finding" are wrong or unsupported by the record. For example, Dr. Shukla's comments explained that the MND's conclusion that total annual NOx emissions from all identified combustion sources would be less than significant was not supported by substantial evidence. The MND concluded that NOx emissions would be 3.996 tons per year(tpy),58 just marginally below the SCAQMD offset threshold of 4.0 tons per year.59 Dr. Shukla explained that any deviation from expected operating conditions could result in an exceedance of the offset threshold, triggering additional permitting requirements and 55 Staff Report, p. 11; NBMC Section 20.52.020. 56 Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NMBC"), Section 20.52.020. 57 Staff Report, Attachment 1, Draft Resolution, p. 27. 58 Refer to Pg. 68, Table 4: Comparison of Project Emissions to SCAQMD Offset Trigger Levels of Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project Initial Study/MND City of Newport Beach 59 Shukla 5/21/25 Comments, pp. 6-7. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-164 July 17, 2025 Page 14 mitigation.60 The Staff Report fails to rebut these conclusions or provide any new evidence demonstrating that NOx emissions would never exceed the threshold. The MND's less than significant conclusion therefore remains unsupported. Residents' comments on the MND identified significant fire and hazards impacts which the MND failed to analyze or mitigate. The PSC also acknowledges significant hazards impacts from risk of upset associated with fire and explosion at the Project site, and recommends mitigation. But the PSC's proposed mitigation measures are not included as enforceable measures in either the MMRP or the Project's conditions of approval. These hazards impacts therefore remain significant and unmitigated. The record before the Commission similarly lacks substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project would be adequately served by fire protection services. The Staff Report and July Responses fail to resolve this issue. The Applicant requested clarification from the Newport Beach Fire Department that the Project is adequately served by fire services.61 The Applicant stated "We understand the Fire Marshall has expressed concerns about the possibility of an offsite fire reaching the facility due to the surrounding dry vegetation.1162 The Newport Beach Fire Department stated that "[t]he concern is not only an off -site fire reaching a facility but an on -site fire reaching the wildland urban interface, resulting [in] a fire expanding to the existing commercial and residential in the area.1163 The Fire Department recommended fuel modification measures which were implemented in the MND's Fuel Modification Plans pursuant to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.64 However, the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the mitigation measures for hazards and hazardous material impacts are sufficient to mitigate potentially significant hazards, fire, and wildfire impacts from the Project. The record before the Planning Commission is also unsupported regarding whether the Fire Department has the capacity to put out "worst -case scenario jet fires [which] could affect vegetation up to 10 feet beyond the perimeter wall in the northeast portion of the site.1165 The Final MND concludes that, with the implementation of design features such as equipment layout, hazardous area classification, ignition source controls, fire and gas detection systems, process 60 Id. 61 MND, Appendix L Service Provider Questionnaire Responses, p. L-9. 62 MND, Appendix L Service Provider Questionnaire Responses, p. L-9. 63 Id. 64 MND, p. 106. 65 MND, p. 101. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-165 July 17, 2025 Page 15 control alarms, process control shutdowns, and emergency shutdown systems... impact of jet fires to the surrounding vegetation would be less than significant."66 associated with the hazardous materials which will be used onsite. But, these measures are not included as enforceable mitigation. Additionally, the Planning Commission cannot make the necessary findings for approval because the Resolution and the Final MND do not demonstrate compliance with conditions in the Newport Beach General Plan EIR including: i. Policy NR 7.2 Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. ii. Policy NR 8.1 Construction Equipment Require developers to use construction equipment that use low polluting fuels, engines, and exhaust controls to the extent available and feasible. iii. Policy NR 8.4 Non -Polluting and Non -Toxic Building Materials Require developers to use building materials, paints, sealants, mechanical equipment, and other improvements that yield low air pollutants and are nontoxic.67 The record before the Commission does not demonstrate that the Project is consistent with all applicable requirements of Municipal Code Section 20.52.020.68 The Planning Commission therefore lacks substantial evidence to make the necessary findings to approve the Conditional Use Permit. The Project's impacts on air quality, public health, hazards, and noise must be fully disclosed and mitigated to provide the substantial evidence needed to approve the Project. IV. CONCLUSION There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have potentially significant, unmitigated impacts on air quality, greenhouse gases, public health, hazards and noise. We urge the Planning Commission to continue this hearing and remand the Project to Staff to prepare an EIR to address the 66 MND, p. 101. 67 Newport Beach General Plan EIR, p. 4.19 - 4.21. http://newportbeachca.aov/PLN/General Plan/GP EIR/Volume 1/07 Sec4.2 Air Quality.pdf. 68 Staff Report, p. 8. 7499-019j i.t printed on recycled paper 17-166 July 17, 2025 Page 16 impacts identified by Residents and its experts. These actions are critical to ensure that the Project complies with CEQA and all applicable laws, and to ensure that the health and safety of City residents and workers is protected. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project. CMC:ljl 7499-019j Sincerely, Kelilah D. Federman Christina Caro 10 printed on recycled paper 17-167 EXHIBIT A 17-168 WILSON IHRIG ACOUSTICS, NOISE & VIBRATION July 141h, 2025 Kelilah Federman Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 SUBJECT: Response to Comments on Archaea Landfill Gas Project CALIFORNIA WASHINGTON NEW YORK WI #25-001 We are writing in response to the Response to Comments document for the Archaea Landfill Gas Project in the City of Newport Beach. The project involves the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new renewable natural gas processing plant and a pipeline interconnection facility. The approximately 4-acre site is located to the west of Newport Coast Drive and south of Highway 73. There are noise -sensitive uses flanking the site - Sage Hill School 1400 feet to the north and single- family houses as part of the Tesoro Crest gated community 1250 feet to the south. This letter is based on two documents - attachment number 6 of the Staff Report, prepared by Placeworks and dated July 9th 2025. This references the Response to Comments dated May 2024. Wilson Ihrig is an acoustical consulting firm that has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966. During our almost 58 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry -standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CadnaA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others. Adverse Effects of Noise' Although the health effects of noise are not taken as seriously in the United States as they are in other countries, they are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive. Noise -Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise -induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposed to high levels of industrial noise. Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased working capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any 1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/66217) 5900 HOLLIS STREET. SUITETI EMERYVILLE. CA 94608 (510)658-6719 1 WWW.WILSONIHRIG.COM 17-169 WILSON IHRIG Archaea Landfill Gas Project Response to Comments noise above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noise levels is to raise one's voice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result. Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by making it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been linked to increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increase in body movements, and other physiological effects. Not surprisingly, people whose sleep is disturbed by noise often experience secondary effects such as increased fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased work performance. Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human's bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the "fight or flight" response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease. Impaired Cognitive Performance. Studies have established that noise exposure impairs people's abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes) and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. This is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments. Document Contains Unreported Significant Construction Noise Impacts In our letter dated December 13t", 2024, we detailed how the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) contains unreported significant construction noise impacts, primarily due to construction noise lacking evaluation of a substantial increase. This concern - that construction noise would be considered significant if compared to thresholds based on existing noise levels - was not addressed and noise impacts remain significant and unmitigated. The MND states that the "combined construction noise levels from pipe installation and equipment installation would be 55 dBA Leq and 56 dBA Leq, respectively" (MND, page 127). Ambient daytime noise levels ranged from 38 to 48 dBA at the nearest noise measurement location to the single-family homes to the south (IS/MND, Table F of Appendix K). This would exceed the existing noise levels by 7 to 18 dB and result in a significant impact pursuant to CEQA since CEQA law requires project to avoid a "substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project" (MND, page 123). As noted in the MND, a 10 dBA increase is perceived as a doubling of the sound and thus would cause an adverse impact (MND, page K-5). The selected construction noise threshold of 80 dBA is 42 dBA higher than the baseline noise conditions and threshold does not appear to take into account the baseline condition. While no impact threshold for substantial increase is specified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan or Municipal Code, it is the responsibility of the project applicant to assess the noise increase over ambient levels against the human response observations noted in the IS/MND, or against a 3 dBA or 5 dBA limit that is typically identified by other jurisdictions as the impact threshold. Whether a 3, 5, or 10 dBA threshold is selected to evaluate the significance of a substantial increase, based on the construction noise analysis presented in the IS/MND the noise increase would be substantial and significant. The Project results in potentially significant noise impacts which must be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before the Project can be approved. Page 2 17-170 WILSON IHRIG Archaea Landfill Gas Project Response to Comments Conditions of Approval do not Mitigate Potential Noise Impacts The Project is required to comply with Conditions 20 and 21. Conditions 20 and 21 do not resolve the aforementioned increase above ambient noise, and thus construction noise still results in a significant impact. Condition 20 states that "noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control), under Sections 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) and 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards), and other applicable noise control requirements" of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. However, section 10.26.035.D states that "Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of any real property. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of Chapter 10.28 of this title" z meaning that Condition 20 does not apply for construction noise. Condition 21 states that construction activities "shall comply with Section 10.28.040" of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which exempts noise -generating construction activities from section 10.28. of the code as long as construction occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. This, again, does not change the potential impact of this project since all construction work is planned during daytime hours. As such, these two conditions do nothing to reduce the potential for impacts due to construction noise there are presented in both this and our previous letter. As such, we believe there is a potential for a significant impact, and the construction noise issue should be studied more thoroughly in an EIR. Very truly yours, WILSON IHRIG Jack Meighan Associate z Newport Beach Municipal Code 10.26.035 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/#!/NewportBeachlO/NewportBeachl026.html#10.26 Page 3 17-171 Attachment H City Appeal Response Letter 17-172 Q PLACEWORKS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE September 26, 2025 TO Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner ADDRESS Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 CONTACT 949.644.3312 jperez@newportbeachca.gov FROM Dina El Chammas Gass, Senior Associate SUBJECT Response to Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo 7/30/25 Appeal Letter Regarding the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Plant Project PROJECT NUMBER CNB-25.0 This memorandum has been prepared to address the letter dated July 30, 2025, from Adams, Broadwell, Joseph and Cardozo (ABJ&C) appealing the Newport Beach Planning Commission's July 17, 2025, decision to approve the Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Project (PA2022-063) and adopt the project's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024120012). The draft IS/MND was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period beginning on November 27, 2024, and ending on January 13, 2025. ABJ&C submitted two letters dated December 23, 2024, and January 13, 2025. Responses to the comments raised in those letters were included in the Response to Comment (RTC) document dated May 2025. In response to a public hearing notice for the May 22, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, ABJ&C then submitted an additional comment letter dated May 21, 2025. This letter was submitted outside the public review period for the IS/MND, and therefore the responses were not included in the formal RTC, however a response to this letter was included as Attachment 6 to the Planning Commission staff report dated July 17, 2025. The majority of issues raised in the May 21, 2025, letter were already raised in the previous letters, for which responses were provided in the RTC. Similarly, the majority of issues raised in the July 30, 2025, appeal letter were already raised in the previous ABJ&C letters detailed above and responses have already been provided. The following responses refer to the original responses provided in the RTC, which is available on the City's website athttps:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3162801&repo=CNB&dbid=0; and in Attachment 6 of the July 17, 2025, staff report, available at https:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3175862&dbid=0&repo=CNB. 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 1 Santa Ana, California 92707 1 714.966.9220 1 PlaceWorks.com 17-173 PLACEWORKS Air Quality Impacts from Fugitive Emissions and Leaks ABJ&C once again notes that the proposed project would result in significant impacts from fugitive greenhouse gas emissions. This comment was addressed in the response to comment 02-11 in the RTC, and no additional issues were raised or substantiated. The RTC response describes the purpose of the project's Emergency Action Plan and South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 466 (Pumps and Compressors) which mitigate potential impacts from leaks through personal training; an inspection and monitoring program, including daily inspection rounds; and ongoing preventative maintenance. The site will also be equipped with leak detection sensors located throughout the site, alarms, and an automatic shutdown system. Public Health and Hazards Impacts ABJ&C again states that the risk of upset from fire, vapor clouds, and other accidents or operational upsets in systems such as the thermal oxidizer and flaring systems could result in significant impacts to public health. This comment was addressed in the response to comment 02-13 in the RTC. ABJ&C noted that a Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment was referenced in the IS/MND and that this document was not provided to the public until the Planning Commission's July 2025 Staff Report. This is not in violation of CEQA because the public did have access to the document before the Planning Commission public hearing, where they had the opportunity to voice comments on the document. The public can comment on the IS/MND during the public review period and at public hearings. The Preliminary Site Consequence Analysis was uploaded to the City's website and available for public review at: https:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3185637&dbid=0&repo=CN B. ABJ&C notes that the IS/MND underreported impacts on sensitive receptors by omitting them from its analysis. The Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment addresses impacts to the Sage Hill High School, car passengers on Newport Coast Drive, and car passengers on State Route (SR) 73. Car passengers on SR-73 are closer to the project site than the closest residential receptors. Since there would be no impacts to car passengers on SR-73, there would be no impacts to residential receptors. ABJ&C also notes that the Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment found significant impacts on the occupied county landfill building and surrounding vegetation. The Preliminary Site Consequence Assessment includes blast overpressure design requirements that mitigate impacts to the county building to less than significant. These measures will be implemented as part of the proposed project. Additionally, as shown in the response to comment 02-13 in the RTC, the fire risk to nearby vegetation is less than significant. The IS/MND includes mitigation measure HAZ-1 to reduce impacts from fires to less than significant. Mitigation HAZ-1 requires that a Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan (CFMP) be submitted to the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) for review and approval in concurrence with project plan approval and prior to any site disturbances. The CFMP for the project was prepared and included as Attachment 4 of the July 17, 2025, Staff Report. The NBFD has reviewed and approved the CFMP and since the proposed project does not include any new landscaping, a Precise Fuel Modification Plan is not required. Additionally, the non-combustible wall, which will function as both a radiant and convective heat barrier, provides an additional mitigating factor alongside the vegetation management measures. Greenhouse Gas Emission from Shutdowns ABJ&C notes that emissions associated with the annual shutdown and 10 potential shutdown days per year may result in significant GHG emissions. This comment was addressed in the response to comment 02-13 in the RTC. In the event of unplanned shutdowns, the system is designed so that all valves close, and landfill September 26, 2025 1 Page 2 17-174 PLACEWORKS gas (LFG) would be rerouted to the existing LFG enclosed flares, which are separately owned and operated by OC Waste and Recycling. This scenario is the equivalent of reverting to baseline conditions. Health Risk Impacts from Construction Emissions Are Underreported ABJ&C once again asserts that the health risk analysis relied on a 9-month completion timeline instead of 12 months, thus truncating the analysis of emissions exposure by 3 months. This comment was addressed in the responses to comments 02-11 and 02-20 in the RTC. Construction Noise Impacts ABJ&C once again notes that the proposed project would result in excessive noise levels to nearby sensitive receptors. This comment was addressed in the response to comment 02-24 in the RTC, and no additional issues were raised or substantiated in the most recent letter. Municipal Code Violations ABJ&C states that the Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to support the findings required for approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed project. ABJ&C notes that they provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project results in significant air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts. These comments have been addressed above. ABJ&C also notes that the project may not be adequately served by fire protection services and that NBFD may not be able to extinguish worst -case scenario jet fires because the fire protection measures that will be implemented as part of the project are not enforceable mitigation. Fire protection features that are federal, state, and local regulatory requirements or are part of the project design do not need to be included in the CEQA document as mitigation measures. However, the preparation of the Fuel Modification Plan was included as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 in the IS/MND. NBFD was consulted during the CEQA process and visited the site to mark the trees that need to be removed to ensure fire safety. The recommendation for the removal of trees is based on spacing, health, and species per direction from the Fire Marshal. A tree information matrix is in Appendix C of the IS/MND that shows which trees will remain and which will be removed. The CFMP prepared for the project was based on the Fire Marshal's tree removal directions and follows NBFD's Guideline G.02. The IS/MND and the CFMP were both reviewed by NBFD, and the final Fuel Modification Plan will be approved by the NBFD as part of the plan check process. Additionally, the preliminary Emergency Action Plan (EAP), which outlines fire hazards, techniques to control or extinguish fires, and emergency evacuation and response procedures, was included as Appendix H of the IS/MND. The final EAP would be reviewed and approved by NBFD as provided pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 32. NBFD is also involved in the development review process to ensure that necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are incorporated with the design of the project. Also, all site improvements and building construction would be reviewed and approved by NBFD before the City issues building permits and the certificate of occupancy. The Appellant identified that Condition of Approval No. 33 of the Planning Commission resolution No. PC2025-008 allowed trucks and heavy equipment idling up to 30 minutes, conflicting with Policy NR 8.1 of the General Plan. Condition of Approval no. 33 was a standard condition, intended to implement best available control measures during construction. As described in response to comment 02-16, nonessential idling of off -road equipment shall be limited to five minutes, consistent with California Air Resources Board Rule 2485, and the Conditions of Approval have been updated. September 26, 2025 1 Page 3 17-175