Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02_Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation_PA2022-0180
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT March 2, 2023 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) ▪Limited Term Permit SITE LOCATION: 94 Hartford Drive [NH] APPLICANT: WSP USA OWNER: Bayridge Park Homeowners Association PLANNER: Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner 949-644-3212, jtran@newportbeachca.gov LAND USE AND ZONING •General Plan Land Use Plan Category: RM (Multiple Residential) •Zoning District: PC24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community, Area 8) PROJECT SUMMARY A limited term permit for the construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system for a term of 12 months. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system will consist of a 20-foot width by 12-foot depth by 10-foot height treatment system building, an underground pipe network (approximately 2,400 linear feet), and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation. The project requests a 3.2-foot separation distance where the required separation is 8 feet between buildings and encroachment in the 5-foot front setback per the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards. This item was continued from the January 26, 2023, Zoning Administrator meeting. RECOMMENDATION 1)Conduct a public hearing; 2)Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15330 - Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Substances) and under Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3)Adopt Draft Zoning Administrator Resolution No. _ approving Limited Term Permit (Attachment No. ZA 1). 1 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) Zoning Administrator, March 2, 2023 Page 2 Tmplt: 01/18/23 DISCUSSION Background •From 1957 to 1993, Ford Motor Company operated the Ford Aeronutronic facility on approximately 200 acres bound by Bison Avenue to the north, MacArthur Boulevard to the east, Ford Road to the south, and Jamboree Road to the west. On-site operations included the research, engineering, and manufacturing of aerospace systems. •As part of on-site operations and as common practice at the time, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were used to clean the metal parts of the operating equipment. •The facility was demolished between 1993 and 1996 and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), the leading regulatory agency for the former Ford Aeronutronic facility and related off-site areas, has conducted remediation work to address the environmental impacts of the facility operations. Remedial technologies such as bioremediation, excavation, disposal of soils & groundwater, and soil vapor treatment systems were used. •Ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions continued, and the site was subsequently rezoned and redeveloped for residential purposes in the 1990s. •Although remediation actions were previously conducted, the SARWQCB has determined that further remediation is necessary due to more stringent regulatory standards and advances in equipment sensitivity and detection limits. Project Description •The soil vapor extraction system and treatment system, as described in a Remedial Design and Implementation Plan and approved by the SARWQCB on January 28, 2022, consists of 13 vapor extraction wells, 2,400 feet of piping, and a treatment system housed in a prefabricated steel building with a floor area of 240 square feet. A vacuum pump (also known as a “blower”) will extract vapor from the soil through the wells and deliver it to the treatment system where granular activated carbon removes the VOCs and then clean vapor is discharged into the atmosphere. Coordination with the South Coast Quality Air Management District (SCQAMD) has commenced and a permit for the release of volatile organic compounds into the air in small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems will be obtained. •The treatment system building will house the treatment system, which is comprised of four (4) vacuum pumps, one (1) heat exchanger, associated carbon vessels, holding tanks, and pumps. 2 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) Zoning Administrator, March 2, 2023 Page 3 Tmplt: 01/18/23 •The treatment system building would provide a separation from the adjacent residential structure ranging from 3-feet to 4-feet 6-inches, where the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards require a minimum separation of 8 feet between structures. The building would also encroach approximately 5 feet into the required 5-foot front setback adjacent to Country Club Drive. •The location of the treatment system within the prefabricated steel building will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it has been identified as the most feasible and least impactful location (See Alternative Locations Studied section). The location is also adjacent to Country Club Drive and will not encroach on or obstruct the public utility easement or easement for emergency and security ingress and egress. The location will not obstruct any windows or doors of the residence of Hartford Drive. The separation between structures ranges from 3 feet to 4 feet 6 inches and no venting will be located on the side facing the residence of 94 Hartford Drive. An existing air conditioning compressor located between the existing residence and the proposed treatment system will be relocated to allow for the placement of the treatment system building. Aesthetics •Given its location, the treatment system building will be most visible to the adjacent residents of 94 Hartford Drive and to the residents of the One Ford Road community that takes access from Country Club Drive (Attachment ZA 2). As designed and conditioned, the treatment system building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive and landscaped with new xeriscape plantings to help soften the visual impacts from the adjacent private street. Noise Impact •An Acoustical Engineering Analysis was prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group updated February 8, 2023. The predicted noise level in the Acoustical Engineering Analysis at the exterior of the treatment system building and adjacent residences of 92 and 96 Hartford Drive on the property is 48.8 dBA which is consistent with the allowable exterior noise standards of 55 dBA from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and 50 dBA from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am in Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The predicted noise level at 61 Hillsdale Drive, the nearest off-site residence, is calculated to be 34.9 dBA. Therefore, the treatment system building is expected to meet the requirements of the City’s regulations for both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property (Attachment ZA 3). 3 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) Zoning Administrator, March 2, 2023 Page 4 Tmplt: 01/18/23 •The Acoustical Engineering Analysis includes an Addendum dated February 10, 2023, to address a concern raised regarding the potential conflict between the recommendation to provide an airtight construction at all exterior walls and the treatment system building utilizing venting louvers. The Addendum addresses the discrepancy and clarifies that in the context of the acoustical analysis, “airtight” refers to the sealing of joints between the building and penetrations, such as between the building and louvers. Such seals will be provided in the structure. The treatment system building will incorporate venting louvers for weather protection. The interior design of the building will incorporate the use of sound foam and sound blankets to be installed to create a sound deadening plenum to eliminate the line of sight for sound to escape through the venting louvers. •To ensure compliance with the City’s noise standards, Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring an acoustic audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation, and a subsequent audit after installation. The treatment system building will be built and tested off-site, including the installation of sound deadening methods to decrease the exterior noise levels from the treatment system. The building will be tested off-site to meet the allowable exterior noise standards per the NBMC and will not be transported to the site for installation until the sound level is less than or equal to 50 dB at all points 3-feet from the building, including at the louvers. After installation of the prefabricated building, testing will be conducted to ensure the building continues to meet the required noise standard. Alternative Locations Studied •The applicant has prepared an exhibit illustrating alternative locations that were considered but rejected either due to community opposition or site infeasibility. In total, seven (7) options were considered, including alternative locations at the Bayridge Community, along the Bison Avenue landscape parkway, and additional locations along the Country Club Drive parkway. The factors considered included: disruption to the neighborhood, proximity to homes, impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, and power connection complexity. These factors were reviewed on a scale from low, medium, high, to infeasible. Six (6) of the options encountered infeasibilities due to either impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, or power connection complexity that are summarized in Attachment ZA 4. Due to these infeasibilities the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected. 4 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) Zoning Administrator, March 2, 2023 Page 5 Tmplt: 01/18/23 Public Outreach Overall Outreach The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ford, and WSP has conducted an extensive outreach program since 2018 that spanned 11 residential communities and 8 commercial properties. The public outreach targeted specific communities within the project area, including Bayridge Park (Attachment B of Attachment ZA 5). The project- wide outreach included: •Fact sheets distributed via US mail to over 1,800 addresses and to a project email list with over 300 emails. •Work notices notifying communities of upcoming work for soil vapor extraction and testing as directed by the SARWQCB. •Signed access agreements to allow testing to measure contaminants found in indoor air. •Several websites detailing the project overview and frequently asked questions, a project YouTube page hosting all recordings of community meetings since November 2020, and availability of key technical and community outreach documents on the SARWQCB website. Bayridge Park Outreach Specific activities were conducted with the Bayridge Park community to bring awareness to the proposed clean up plan and allow for the community to voice concerns regarding the project. The outreach for the community included: •A 30-day public comment period held by SARWQCB from June 7 to July 9, 2021, that described the site and environmental conditions, possible remediation technologies, and the selection of the soil vapor extraction treatment system as the preferred method of remediation. Prior to the public comment period, a postcard was mailed to the community on May 12, 2021, and a fact sheet was distributed via US mail and email on June 3, 2021. During the virtual public meeting on June 10, 2021, the community voiced concerns about the concept plans for the five (5) soil vapor treatment system buildings shown in Attachment ZA 4. The raised concerns were regarding the impact to the community from construction activities, parking reduction, and visual impacts. •Due to the concerns raised from the community, it was decided, in coordination with the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association and residents, that the treatment system was reduced to one (1) larger treatment system building located outside of the common areas of the Bayridge Park community. The community was notified of these changes to the concept plans in August 2021 via distribution of a Response to Comments from the SARWQCB. 5 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) Zoning Administrator, March 2, 2023 Page 6 Tmplt: 01/18/23 •In October 2021, the residents of the Bayridge Park community were notified via US mail and email from the HOA representative for a meeting to be held to provide additional information on the design of the soil vapor extraction system. On November 4, 2021, an in-person meeting was held at the Bayridge Park community where 13 residents were in attendance. Continued concerns were expressed regarding the design of the treatment system and the overall level of impact to the community. •Since conceptualizing alternative locations for the soil vapor treatment system, seven (7) potential locations were considered where six (6) of the seven (7) locations included infeasible impacts for various reasons previously discussed. •Since August 2022, monthly emails have been sent to over 170 residents of the community to inform residents of the work completed, upcoming work, anticipated impacts, and upcoming community meetings. •A Zoning Administrator Hearing with the City of Newport Beach for this project was scheduled to be held on January 26, 2023 and a public notice was posted on-site and mailed to all residences within a 300 foot radius of the construction site on January 13, 2023. The public notice was also published in the Daily Pilot on January 14, 2023. In anticipation of the Zoning Administrator Hearing, a pre- construction meeting with the community was held on January 18, 2023, to provide more information on the construction of the soil vapor extraction system. Residents were notified of the meeting via US mail and email in November 2022 and a subsequent notification was sent via US mail and email in January 2023 of a relocation of the pre-construction meeting. Sixteen residents attended the meeting with similar concerns regarding the construction inconveniences and location of the treatment system building. •Substantial public correspondences with concerns from the community were received from January 24 to January 26, 2023, (Attachment A of Attachment ZA4)and in order to adequately address these public correspondences, the applicant requested a continuance from the scheduled January 26, 2023, Zoning Administrator Hearing. A “Response to Comments” was prepared by Ford and WSP dated February 10, 2023, to address the concerns raised from the public correspondences (Attachment ZA 4). Ford and WSP has attempted to work individually with the residents who submitted public correspondences to the project to resolve concerns prior to the construction of the system. To date, the residents have declined to engage in conversation with the applicant and a summary of the outreach conducted is seen in Attachment C and D of Attachment ZA 5. 6 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) Zoning Administrator, March 2, 2023 Page 7 Tmplt: 01/18/23 One Ford Road Homeowners Association Outreach Due to the placement of the treatment system building that is adjacent to Country Club Drive, the One Ford Road Homeowners Association was contacted since the community’s entrance is accessed along Country Club Drive. On December 9, 2022, an email was sent to the HOA outlining the construction activities that will impact access along Country Club Drive and the approximate timeline for these construction activities. The One Ford Road Homeowners Association will be notified in writing at least seven (7) days prior to construction activities and flagmen/cones will be utilized to help traffic safely navigate past the construction activities (Attachment ZA 6). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances) and under Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The Class 30 exemption allows minor cleanup actions taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous waste or substance which are small or medium removal actions costing $1 million or less. The cleanup action shall not require the onsite use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit, or the relocation of residences or businesses. The action shall not involve the potential release into the air of volatile organic compounds as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25123.6, except for small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems which have been permitted by the local Air Quality Management District. The cleanup action must be consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements such as off-site disposal, and air quality rules, and approved by the regulatory body with jurisdiction over the site. The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system is consistent with the intent of the Class 30 exemption for minor cleanup actions as it proposes to mitigate the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil without the use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit. The project will not relocate any residences or businesses. A permit will be obtained by the South Coast Quality Air Management District (SCQAMD) for the release of volatile organic compounds into the air in small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems. The estimated valuation of the project will not exceed $1 million. The project is consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements and is approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 7 Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation (PA2022-0180) Zoning Administrator, March 2, 2023 Page 8 Tmplt: 01/18/23 The Class 8 exemption allows actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system for soil vapor remediation has been mandated by the State of California Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will remediate the existence of volatile organic compounds observed in the soil in order to protect the environment as well as the residents of the community. No construction activities or relaxation of standards that would cause environmental degradation are proposed and the project is consistent with the intent of the Class 8 exemption. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways), including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. APPEAL PERIOD: An appeal or call for review may be filed with the Director of Community Development within 14 days following the date of the action. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planning Division at 949-644-3200. Prepared by: JM/jt Attachments: ZA 1 Draft Resolution ZA 2 Vicinity Map ZA 3 Acoustical Engineering Analysis and Addendum ZA 4 Alternative Location Analysis ZA 5 Response to Comments and Outreach Overview ZA 6 Outreach to the One Ford Road Community ZA 7 Project Plans Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner 8 Attachment No. ZA 1 Draft Resolution 9 RESOLUTION NO. ZA2023-### A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LIMITED TERM PERMIT FOR A SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM LOCATED AT 94 HARTFORD DRIVE [NH] (PA2022-0180). THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1.An application was filed by Emily Miller of WSP USA, in regards to the property located adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive, and legally described Lot 4 of Tract No. 12164 requesting approval of a Limited Term Permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system. The applicant requests a limited term permit for the construction of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system for a term of 12 months. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system will consist of a 20-foot width by 12-foot depth by 10-foot height treatment system building, an underground pipe network (approximately 2,400 linear ft), and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation. The project requests a 3.2-foot separation distance where the required separation is 8 feet between buildings and encroachment in the 5-foot front setback per the PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community) development standards. 2.The subject property is designated Multiple Residential (RM) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC24) Zoning District. 3.The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 4.A public hearing was originally scheduled on January 26, 2023, online via Zoom. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). The Zoning Administrator indicated that the matter would not be considered at that time and was continued to the meeting of March 2, 2023. 5.A public hearing was held on March 2, 2023, online via Zoom. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Zoning Administrator at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1.This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances) and under Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the 10 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-### Page 2 of 11 01-17-23 Environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Class 30 exemption allows minor cleanup actions taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous waste or substance which are small or medium removal actions costing $1 million or less. The cleanup action shall not require the onsite use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit, or the relocation of residences or businesses. The action shall not involve the potential release into the air of volatile organic compounds as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25123.6, except for small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems which have been permitted by the local Air Quality Management District. The cleanup action must be consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements such as off-site disposal, and air quality rules, and approved by the regulatory body with jurisdiction over the site. 3. The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system is consistent with the intent of the Class 30 exemption for minor cleanup actions as it proposes to mitigate the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil without the use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit. The project will not relocate any residences or businesses. Coordination with the South Coast Quality Air Management District (SCQAMD) has commenced and a permit for the release of volatile organic compounds into the air in small-scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems will be obtained. The project is consistent with all applicable state and local environmental permitting requirements and is approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. SCQAMD, as the lead agency, will adopt this CEQA exemption with their authorization of the project scope. 4. The Class 8 exemption allows actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. 5. The proposed soil vapor extraction and treatment system for soil vapor remediation has been mandated by the State of California Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the required ongoing monitoring of groundwater and site conditions of the former Ford Facility. The project will remediate the existence of volatile organic compounds observed in the soil in order to protect the environment as well as the residents of the community. No construction activities or relaxation of standards that would cause environmental degradation are proposed and the project is consistent with the intent of the Class 8 exemption. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: 11 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-### Page 3 of 11 01-17-23 Finding: A. The operation of the limited duration uses at the location proposed and within the period specified would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the requested limited duration use; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The treatment system building will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive, along Country Club Drive, outside of common residential areas of the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association. The building will be visually hidden from residents’ sight as much as possible. The building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units along Hartford Drive. A new xeriscape landscape will be planted in and around the new treatment system building, which will help soften the visual impact of the structure. 2. An Acoustical Engineering Analysis was prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group dated February 8, 2023. The predicted noise level in the Acoustical Engineering Analysis at the exterior of the treatment system building and adjacent residences of 92 and 96 Hartford Drive on the property is 48.8 dBA which is consistent with the allowable exterior noise standards of 55 dBA from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and 50 dBA from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The predicted noise level at 61 Hillsdale Drive, the nearest off-site residence, is calculated to be 34.9 dBA. Therefore, the treatment system building is expected to meet the requirements of the City’s regulations for both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property. To ensure compliance with the City’s noise standards, Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring an acoustic audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation, and a subsequent audit after installation. 3. To minimize impacts to the community from noise and construction, the treatment system building will be conditioned to be constructed off-site. The acoustic audit of the prefabricated building will be conducted off-site to ensure it complies with the City’s noise standards prior to transportation of the treatment system building to the building site. After installation of the treatment system building on-site, a subsequent acoustic audit will be conducted to further ensure the building complies with the City’s noise standards. 4. The wall of the treatment system building adjacent to the building at 94 Hartford Drive will be constructed with a two (2)-hour fire rated wall in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) and Building Division standards and policies. Construction plans will be reviewed for compliance with the CBC and Building Division before building permit issuance. 12 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-### Page 4 of 11 01-17-23 5.The building will be secured to the concrete pad with anchors chosen for the earthquake risk parameters of the City of Newport Beach area. The treatment system building will additionally be secured with a monitoring system that will safely shut down the system in the event of an earthquake or other unforeseen natural disasters and an operations manager will be alerted of the shutdown. The treatment system will be monitored and inspected for potential damages prior to restart. 6.The treatment system is designed to meet the standards of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for the release of VOCs into the air at a level that is protective of the health of the community. The treatment system will incorporate two (2) granular activated carbon filters that will remove VOCs in the soil before the air is discharged from the treatment system. Continuous monitoring will be conducted as required by SCAQMD and findings will be reported to SCAQMD and the Water Board and will be made available to the public. Finding: B.The subject lot is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the limited duration use without material detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the lot; Facts in Support of Finding: 1.The subject lot is within Planning Area 8 (Attached Residential) of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community, which is approximately 12 acres in size. The proposed building will be located adjacent to the residence of 94 Hartford Drive and Country Club Road and will not negatively impact on-site vehicular circulation. 2.As conditioned, the treatment system building will require an acoustic audit prior to transportation of the building onto the property and after installation on-site to ensure it meets the allowable exterior noise standards of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3.The treatment system will be located within a new prefabricated building, which is 20 feet by 12 feet and 240 square feet in size. The building is 10-feet 2-inches to the top of the roof and 13-feet 5-inches to the top of the air exhaust. The existing dwelling is two (2)-stories and the proposed treatment system building will be visually hidden from the residents of the Bayridge Park community as much as possible. 4.The treatment system building will be located on private property and will not impact pedestrian or vehicular access along Country Club Drive. 5.Given its location, the treatment system building will be most visible to the adjacent residents of 94 Hartford Drive and to the residents of the One Ford Road community that takes access from Country Club Drive. As designed and conditioned, the treatment system building will be designed with a gable roof and provide exterior siding painted to match the architectural exterior of the surrounding residential units 13 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-### Page 5 of 11 01-17-23 along Hartford Drive and landscaped with new xeriscape plantings to help soften the visual impacts from the adjacent private street. 6.Locations along Bison Avenue, a public right-of-way, were considered for the project; however, the area was determined to not provide adequate space for the placement of the building. Significant grading into the slope would be required to install the building and the construction of new retaining walls would be needed to not impact the structural integrity of the existing retaining walls surrounding the Bayridge Park community. Given that this is a temporary project, this alternative was deemed infeasible. 7.Additional locations along Country Club Drive were considered providing a greater separation from 94 Hartford Drive. Unfortunately, the landscape parkway was either too narrow to accommodate the facility or too steep, requiring significant grading that would impact the condition of the Bayridge Park community and structural integrity of the existing retaining walls surrounding the community. 8.Alternative locations were considered within the Bayridge Park community within landscaped areas that provided adequate building separation from residents. These areas would require significant removal of existing trees within the community and the placement of the treatment system building will cause a disruption to existing drainage and creek beds. Additionally, placement of the treatment system building in these areas will create heavy visual impacts within the community and remove much needed parking for the residents. 9.In total, seven (7) options were considered for the location of the soil vapor extraction system where the factors included: disruption to the neighborhood, proximity to homes, impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, and power connection complexity. These factors were reviewed on a scale from low, medium, high, to infeasible. Six (6) of the options encountered infeasibilities due to either impact on parking, permitting complexity, implementation complexity, or power connection complexity. Due to these infeasibilities, the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected. Finding: C.The subject lot is adequately served by streets or highways having sufficient width and improvements to accommodate the kind and quantity of traffic that the limited duration use would or could reasonably be expected to generate; Facts in Support of Finding: 1.The proposed treatment system building will be located adjacent to an existing private street, which is an entryway into the One Ford Road community. The building location is within an existing sloped and landscaped area that will not interfere with any circulation drive aisles. 14 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-### Page 6 of 11 01-17-23 2. The soil vapor extraction and treatment system will require ongoing on-site monitoring and maintenance that will consist of one (1) or two (2) field staff visiting the site approximately once a month to collect samples and perform maintenance as needed. No large commercial vehicles are required for monthly monitoring and maintenance and no impact or increase in traffic is expected. 3. Carbon changeouts that require a vacuum truck and one (1) truck trailer and boom lift attachment parked on Country Club Drive are to take place two (2) times per year for 4 to 6 hours at a time. This routine maintenance has a low frequency and will not completely obstruct the traffic circulation on Country Club Drive. Country Club Drive is a private street in a private community and is not subject to additional permits from Public Works. The Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association and One Ford Road Homeowner’s Association will be notified at least seven (7) days before maintenance. Finding: D. Adequate temporary parking to accommodate vehicular traffic to be generated by the limited duration use would be available either on-site or at alternate locations acceptable to the Zoning Administrator; and Fact in Support of Finding: 1. Planning Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community requires a minimum of two (2) guest parking spaces per cluster unit development where cluster unit development is defined as a combination or arrangement of attached or detached dwellings and their accessory structures on contiguous or related building sites. As conditioned, field staff performing on-site monitoring and maintenance will utilize the on-site guest parking spaces within the Bayridge Park Community during monthly visits. Finding: E. The limited duration use is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the Municipal Code, and other City regulations. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The limited term permit would allow the limited duration use to deviate from setback requirements and building separation requirements of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC24) Zoning District pursuant to Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The temporary (one [1]-year duration) treatment system building is conditioned to comply with all other applicable provisions of the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other City regulations. 15 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-### Page 7 of 11 01-17-23 3.The treatment system building is conditioned to comply with all applicable provisions of the City’s allowable exterior noise level. Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 have been added requiring an acoustic audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity prior to installation, and a subsequent audit after installation. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1.The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances) and Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2.The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180), subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3.This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the Community Development Director by the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2023. Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Zoning Administrator 16 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-### Page 8 of 11 01-17-23 EXHIBIT “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division 1.The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 2.The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3.The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be caused the revocation of this limited term permit. 4.This Limited Term Permit may be modified or revoked by the Zoning Administrator if determined that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained are detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained to constitute a public nuisance. 5.This Limited Term Permit shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of final issuance of the building permit unless an extension of up to one (1) additional period of 12 months is granted by the Zoning Administrator in compliance with Section 20.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions) of the Zoning Code. A letter requesting the extension shall be submitted to the Planning Division no later than thirty (30) days before the expiration date of this permit. 6.Upon completion of this soil remediation project, the applicant is required to obtain a demolition permit from the City’s Building Division and the site shall be returned to its former conditions prior to construction. 7.The treatment system building shall be designed with a gable roof and provide siding painted to match colors that are architecturally compatible with surrounding residential units. 8.Maintenance vehicles shall utilize residential guest spaces within the Bayridge Park community with approval from the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association when working at the soil vapor extraction system and treatment facility. 9.Maintenance requiring large commercial vehicles shall be permitted to park on Country Club Road no more than two (2) times per calendar year unless otherwise required for health and safety. The applicant shall notify the Bayridge Park Homeowner’s Association and the One Ford Road Homeowner’s Association in writing at least seven (7)days before performing maintenance. 17 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-### Page 9 of 11 01-17-23 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the A/C unit serving 94 Hartford shall be relocated so that it does not interfere with the building separation between the prefabricated building and the residential unit. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project plans shall be modified to demonstrate that any disturbed landscape areas shall be replanted with water-efficient landscaping by Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscaping). 12. Prior to the issuance of a final building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Permit to Construct (P/C) from the South Coast Quality Air Management District. 13. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in the area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require additional review from the Planning Division and may require an amendment to this Limited Term Permit or the processing of a new Limited Term Permit. 14. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “A” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall demonstrate the restoration of surrounding landscaping to provide further screening for the treatment system building. 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 17. The treatment system unit shall be constructed off-site and prior to the transportation of the prefabricated treatment system unit to the project site and after installation of the structure, an acoustic audit shall be performed to ensure that the noise level observed at the exterior of the structure meets the allowable exterior noise standards of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The results of the acoustic audit shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to final inspection of the building permit. 18 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-### Page 10 of 11 01-17-23 18. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: Between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 19. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner, or leasing agent. 20. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 21. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 22. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorney’s fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s approval of Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation including, but not limited to, Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 19 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2023-### Page 11 of 11 01-17-23 Fire Department 23. A three (3)-foot wide walkway shall be provided on at least one (1) side of the lot from Country Club Drive for Fire Department access. Building Division 24. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City’s Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. 25. A list of “good housekeeping” practices will be incorporated into the long-term post- construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Division 26. All exhaust air shall terminate outside of the treatment system building in accordance with the requirements of California Mechanical Code 502.0. 27. Discharged liquid waste or sewage shall be connected properly to the drainage system of the premises in accordance with the requirements pursuant to California Plumbing Code, Chapter 7. 20 Attachment No. ZA 2 Vicinity Map 21 94 Hartford Drive [NH] VICINITY MAP 22 Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) 94 Hartford Drive [NH] Tmplt: 01/18/23 94 Hartford Drive [NH] 23 Attachment No. ZA 3 Acoustical Engineering Analysis and Addendum 24 Vanchar Design & Consulting Group February 10, 2023 Project 8622397107.03.3D 2674-1 Portola Parkvvay • Suite 1E Foothill Ranch. California 92610 94-9.770.6601 • 949.770.6575 fax vvvvvv.wave-space.com WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. 555 12th Street, Suite 215 Oakland, California 94607 USA T: 1-510-663-4100 F: 1-833-778-3465 www.wsp.com Jenny Tran, Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Bay B Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Limited Term Permit Application No. PA2022-0180 Acoustical Engineering Analysis - Addendum Soil Vapor Treatment System Bayridge Park Newport Beach, California Dear Jenny Tran: The purpose of the letter is to respond to comments from the City of Newport Beach (City) on the Acoustical Engineering Analysis Report (Acoustical Report), dated October 15, 2022, prepared by Yanchar Design & Consulting Group (Yanchar), and submitted as part of the requirements for issuing of a Limited Term Permit for a proposed soil vapor treatment system to be installed adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive in the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association property. The comments which were made verbally during a call with WSP staff on January 25, 2022 are summarized below: • Page 17 - the report says the closest sensitive receptor is 125 feet from construction activities. • The report specifies an "air tight" building, but then the isometric drawing shows louvers. The original report is attached to this addendum, updated with minor corrections. Most notably, the reference to 61 Hillside Drive has been changed to 61 Hillsdale Drive. In the Summary of Conclusions section we have clarified why 61 Hillsdale has been included in the analysis. None of these corrections impacts the conclusion of the report. 25 Jenny Tran City of Newport Beach February 10, 2023 Page 2 The two comments received from the City are addressed below: CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTOR On page 18 of the Acoustical Report, it is stated that: • The closest existing or planned noise-sensitive uses such as homes adjacent to the project site are more than 125 feet from the project boundary. These uses may be subject to short-term, intermittent, maximum noise generated by construction activities on site. Compliance with the construction hours specified in the City's Noise Ordinance would reduce the construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. That statement refers to the closest residence outside of the Bayridge Park property boundary, which is 61 Hillsdale Avenue, across Country Club Drive. The closest residence to construction activities is 94 Hartford Drive which will be 3 feet away from some aspects of construction. The work at the treatment system site will be in two phases. The first phase will last approximately 3- weeks and consist of site clearing, grading, excavation, pipelaying, compaction, and construction of a reinforced concrete pad. A second phase, lasting approximately one week will involve a crane placing a prefabricated treatment system building on the pad with a crane, and then anchoring it using anchors drilled into the slab. During construction, the noise adjacent to 94 Hartford may be as high as 90 decibels1. This noise will be attenuated by the residence's structure but could still be significant. The Outside-Inside Transmission Class of regular¼" monolithic class is 292, meaning that there will be a 29-decibels reduction of sound through the glass, assuming the window is closed. Therefore, the intermittent noise level inside 94 Hartford could be approximately 60 decibels - equivalent to the sound of an air conditioner; however an individual's perception of sound depends on factors such as the type of sound and its fluctuations. So what is tolerable to one person can be annoying to another. WSP will communicate construction schedule with residents and work with them individually to address concerns. Mitigations could include relocating residents during the work. SOUND MITIGATION THROUGH LOUVERS On page 19 of the Acoustical Report, one of the recommendations is to: • Provide airtight construction at all exterior walls with acoustical or other non-hardening sealant at floor plates. 1 Construction Noise Handbook, Federal Highway Administration, 2006 2 https://glassed.vitroglazings.com/topics/determining-the-right-glass-for-the-right-acoustics 26 Jenny Tran City of Newport Beach February 10, 2023 Page 3 In the context of acoustical analysis, "airtight" refers to the sealing of joints between the building and penetrations; such as between the building and the louvers. Such seals will be provided in the structure. However, we note the City's concern with sound escaping through the louver openings and address that below. The proposed treatment system building has venting louvers, as shown on the attached drawing. The main purpose of the louvers is for weather protection. They will provide some sound deadening, but the focus is inside the building to prevent noise from escaping through the louvers. On the air inlet side, on the back (northern) side of the building, the louvers are positioned where the carbon vessels sit. Sound foam will be installed on the column where the vessels meet and the wall where the louvers are located. This creates a sound deadening plenum on the inside the building and eliminates line of sight for the sound from the blowers to travel through the louvers as well. At the top of the plenum, sound blankets or another change of direction will be added as needed to minimize sound through the inlet louvers. For the discharge louvers, on the side facing the street, the same principal will be used. A sound deadening plenum will be created around the heat exchanger which will be the source of the air going out those louvers. The air and sound from inside the building will again have to travel a tortuous path and line of sight will be eliminated. The building and the treatment system will be constructed as a single unit at a factory in Minnesota. An Acoustic Audit of the prefabricated building and treatment system unit running at its maximum capacity will be conducted before it leaves the factory in accordance with the City's Equivalent noise level (Leq) requirement which involves measurement of a steady state noise level over 15 minutes. The unit will not be shipped from the factory until the 15-minute Leq is less than or equal to 50 dB at all points 3-feet from the building, including at the louvers. If required, additional sound reduction measures will be implemented to achieve the required level. Documentation of the Acoustic Audit can be provided to the City before startup of the treatment system. As a final confirmation, a second Acoustic Audit will be conducted after anchoring of the building and connection of permanent power. 27 Jenny Tran City of Newport Beach February 10, 2023 Page 4 It should be noted that the existing residential air conditioning unit adjacent to the treatment system may produce more noise than the treatment system, since the noise limit even for new air conditioning systems is 50 dB per the City's noise ordinance. If you need any further information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. Andi Hope Cox, PE Senior Associate Engineer-Environmental Yanchar Design and Consulting Group Carl J. Yanchar President Hc/cjy/dhn/mm https://woodplc.sharepoint.com/teams/fordnb/shared documents/general/04 engtech/sve design/p10/permits/city design std-permit/bldg permit/limited term/city comment-response/acoustic study/2023_02_10_newport_acoustic study addndm_wsp-yanchar.docx Attachments: 1. Acoustical Engineering Analysis, Soil Vapor Extraction System, 94 Hartford Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, October 15, 2022; revised with minor amendments February 8, 2023. 2. Drawing No. 6011-01 - Building Layout, H2K Technologies, Inc. 12/2022. Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff, PE Associate Engineer 28 Vanchar Design & Consulting Group ATTACHMENT 1 Acoustical Engineering Analysis 29 ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Soil Vapor Extraction System 94 Hartford Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 October 15, 2022 Updated February 8, 2023 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSUL TING GROUP 26741 Portola Parkway, Suite 1E, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Tel: 949.770.6601 Fax: 949.770.6575 E-mail: carl@yanchardesign.com. 30 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 2 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP IPROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is located on the Bayridge Park HOA property, Newport Beach, CA. as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. The property boundary is outlined in red. The Project consists of a Soil Vapor Extraction system with the mechanical equipment housed in a prefabricated metal building located adjacent to the residential building at 94 Hartford Drive. (see Figure 3). Four vacuum pumps and one heat exchanger will be located within the structure along with associated carbon vessels, holding tanks and pumps. (see appendix D) The manufacturer's noise specification for the blowers is 74 dBA and 77 dBA for the heat exchanger. (see appendix C) An existing Carrier air conditioning compressor is also located adjacent to the residential structure with a manufacturer's noise rating of 72 dBA. This condenser will be relocated slightly to the north. Since the residential building and air conditioning compressor are existing, it will be assumed that the interior noise specification of the California building code and the noise level of the condenser at the nearest property line are compliant. Only the new equipment housed in the new steel building will be addressed in this report with the impact if the new equipment combined with the existing condenser will be evaluated. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Noise measurements were collected on the morning of October 3, night of October 5, and morning of October 6, 2022 at the location of the planned treatment system building (Figure 3). The noise level predicted at three feet from the exterior of the building from the four vacuum pumps and single heat exchanger is 48.8 dBA, which is in accordance with the manufacturer's specification of 50 dBA. This level is equal or lower than some of the quietest outdoor air conditioning units. Based on the manufacturer's specification, the SVE system equipment building will meet the City of Newport Beach noise regulations at the adjacent residential structure at 94 Hartford at all hours. The residential building at 94 Hartford is on the same parcel as the SVE equipment building (see figure 2). Because the Newport Beach noise regulations specify the maximum acceptable levels at adjacent properties, calculations were also performed to predict the noise level of the SVE equipment building, existing air conditioning condenser and the combined sound level of the new equipment and the existing condenser at the nearest separate residential property at 61 Hillsdale Drive. This level was determined to be 34.9 dBA and the contribution of the new equipment is less than 0.5 dBA. This will result in an imperceptible change in ambient noise level. Therefore, the planned treatment system project is expected to meet the requirements for noise ordinance and comply with the City of Newport Beach noise regulations on both the same property and nearest adjacent residential property. 31 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 3 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP FIGURE 1 -- SITE VICINITY FIGURE 2 - PROJECT SITE 32 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 4 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP Future Treatment Svstem Buildinq FIGURE 3 - ENLARGED PROJECT SITE 33 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 5 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP FIGURE 4 - COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 34 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 6 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND Sound is described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by differentiating among frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is perceived to be twice as loud and 20 dBA higher is perceived to be four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Examples of various sound levels in different environments are illustrated in Table 1. TABLE 1 COMMON SOUND LEVELS AND TYPICAL NOISE SOURCES Noise Source A-Weighted Sound Level in Decibels Noise Environments Subjective Evaluations Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Reference Average Office 60 Quiet One-half as loud Suburban Street 55 Quiet Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet One-quarter as loud Large Transformer 45 Quiet Average Residence without Stereo Playing 40 Faint One-eighth as loud Soft Whisper 30 Faint Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearing 0 Very Faint Source: Compiled by YDCG 35 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 7 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue regarding community noise. The percentage of people claiming to be annoyed by noise generally increases with the environmental sound level. However, many factors also influence people's response to noise. The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence. Additionally, non-acoustical factors, such as the person's opinion of the noise source, the ability to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the predictability of the noise, all influence people's response. As such, response to noise varies widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses would range from "not annoyed" to "highly annoyed." RANGE OF NOISE Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (1) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time. NOISE DESCRIPTORS Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than the peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To accountfor this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite twenty-four-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., andthe addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and nighthours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. 36 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 8 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP SOUND PROPAGATION When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors: GEOMETRIC SPREADING Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. GROUND ABSORPTION The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receptor is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with areflective surface between the source and the receptor, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receptor such as softdirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. The effect due to wind conditions is typically 5 dB or less. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 ft) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Air temperature usually decreases with height. Temperature inversion is a reversal of the normal condition when cool air at the surface is overlain by a layer of hot air. This normally occurs in the evening and during the winter. Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. SHIELDING A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an "out of sight, out of mind" effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearby resident. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The FHWA does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. 37 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 9 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires on the roadway. According to the Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: the volume of the traffic, the speed of the traffic, and the vehicle mix within the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and a greater number of trucks. (3) A doubling of the traffic volume, assuming that the speed and vehicle mix do not change, results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. The vehicle mix on a given roadway may also have an effect on community noise levels. As the number of medium and heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise level impacts will increase. NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 12 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receptor. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. SOUND ASSESSMENT METRICS The description, analysis, and reporting of sound levels is made difficult by the complexity of human response to sound and the myriad of metrics that have been developed for describing sound impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify sound levels with respect to human response. Most of the metrics use the A-Weighted sound level to quantify sound impacts on humans. As previously identified, A-Weighting is a frequency weighting that accounts for human sensitivity to different frequencies. Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue regarding community noise. The percentage of people claiming to be annoyed by noise generally increases with the environmental sound level. However, many factors also influence people's response to noise. The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence. Additionally, non-acoustical factors, such as the person's opinion of the noise source, the ability to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the predictability of the noise, all influence people's response. As such, response to noise varies widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses would range from "not annoyed" to "highly annoyed." Because sound levels can vary over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of sound events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure sound is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental sound levels to within about plus or minus 0.1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental sound levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the sound source. Close to the sound source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. 38 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 10 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP REGULATORY SETTING Public agencies have established noise guidelines and standards to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise. The following discusses applicable noise regulations where potential project impacts could occur. STATE Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (California Building Standards Code) requires that residential structures, other than detached single-family dwellings, be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior CNEL with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN The City of Newport Beach General Plan's Noise Element is a tool for including noise control in the planning process in order to maintain compatible land use with environmental noise levels. It is the guiding document for the City's noise policy and is designed to protect residents and businesses from excessive and persistent noise intrusions. The Noise Element follows the revised State guidelines in Section 46050.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The element quantifies the community noise environment in terms of noise exposure contours for both near and long-term levels of growth and traffic activity. The project will not produce an increase in traffic and therefore will not produce an increase in traffic related noise levels. The following General Plan goals apply to this project: Goal N4, Minimization of Non-Transportation-Related Noise, is focused on minimizing noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. • Policy N4.1, Stationary Noise Sources, requires the enforcement of interior and exterior noise standards outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance. • Policy N4.6, Maintenance or Construction Activities, requires the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in-home hobby or work-related activities. Goal NS, Minimized Excessive Construction-related Noise, addresses construction noise. • Policy N5.1, Limiting Hours of Activity, promotes enforcing the limits on hours of construction activity; these limits are in Section 10.26.0350 of the City's Noise Ordinance, as discussed below. 39 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 11 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE The Noise Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from sources on private property by setting limits that cannot be exceeded at adjacent properties. The Noise Ordinance requirements are not applicable to mobile noise sources (such as heavy trucks) that are traveling on public roadways. Control of the mobile noise sources on public roads is preempted by federal and State laws. However, the Noise Ordinance does apply to vehicles while they are on private property. Section 10.26.025 of the Noise Ordinance specifies exterior noise levels that cannot be exceeded for a specified period of time at specified noise zones. The city-adopted exterior and interior noise level limits are presented in Table 2. If the ambient noise level exceeds the standards shown in Table 2, the ambient noise shall be the standard. These standards should not be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; or the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time. If the measurement location is on the boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone should apply. HEATING, VENTILLATION AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) UNITS Section 10.26.045 of the City's Noise Ordinance specifies that new permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where installations can be shown by computation, based on the sound rating of the proposed equipment, not to exceed an A-weighted sound pressure level of 50 dBA, or not to exceed an A-weighted sound pressure level of 55 dBA and be installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. 40 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 12 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP TABLE2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NON-VEHICULAR NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS Allowable Noise Level Zon e Noise Metric 7 AM to 10 PM (daytime) 10 PM to 7 AM (nighttime) Exterior Noise Standards Residential: Single- family, 2- or multi-family Leq (15 min) 55dBA 50dBA Lmax 75dBA 70dBA II Commercial Leq (15 min) 65dBA 60dBA Lmax 85dBA 80dBA 111 Residential Portions of Mixed- Use Properties Leq (15 min) 60dBA 50dBA Lmax 80dBA 70dBA IV Industrial and Manufacturing Leq (15 min) 70dBA 70dBA Lmax 90dBA 90dBA Interior Noise Standards Residential Leq (15 min) 45dBA 40dBA Lmax 65dBA 60dBA Residential Portions of Leq (15 min) 45 dBA 45dBA 111 Mixed- Use Properties Lmax 65 dBA 65dBA Leq: equivalent noise level; min: minutes; dBA: A-weighted decibels ' Lmax: highest sound level Note: If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. a Residential uses within 100 feet of a commercial property where noise is from said commercial property. Source: Newport Beach 2022 CONSTRUCTIOIN NOISE Section 10.26.0350 of the City's Noise Ordinance exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property from the City's Noise Ordinance standards shown in Table 2. These activities are subject to the provisions of Chapter 10.28, which prohibits construction activities that generate loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity except during weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM, and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. 41 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 13 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP NOISE MEASUREMENTS Some of the data from October 3 was skewed due to gardening activities in the immediate vicinity. Additional measurements were made on the night of October 5 and the morning of October 6. The measurement location and data are included in appendix F and G. These measurements are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Except for the gardening activities, most of the noise generated during the day was due to light truck traffic on Country Club Drive and occasional aircraft overflights. There was no traffic observed on Country Club Drive (see Figure 4) during the night. The majority of the increase in noise over the minimum was due to light traffic on Bison Avenue. NOISE CALCULATIONS Calculations were performed to quantify the expected transmission loss of the manufactured steel building using Insul software. (see appendix E) The individual estimated sound levels were combined using logarithmic addition according to the formula: Based on these calculations, the noise level predicted at the exterior of the building from the four vacuum pumps and single heat exchanger would be 48.8 dBA. This is in agreement with the manufacturer’s specification of 50 dBA. This calculation is included in Table 4. Date Time LAEQ LAmin LAmax LA25% 10/3/2022 9:03 56.5 44.8 70.3 54.6 10/5/2022 22:44 35.6 33.6 39.6 36.5 10/6/2022 10:39 55.2 35.9 67.3 57.1 42 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 14 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP TABLE 4 PREDICTED SOUND LEVEL AT BUILDING EXTERIOR DUE TO VACUUM PUMPS AND HEAT EXCHANGER Equipment Vacuum Pump 1 Vacuum Pump 2 Vacuum Pump 3 Vacuum Pump4 Heat Exchanger A Weighted Sound Level Rating 74 74 74 74 77 Building Sound Transmission Loss 33 33 33 33 33 Estimated Exterior A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 44.0 Estimated Combined Exterior A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 48.8 Calculations were also performed to predict the exterior noise produced by 4 vacuum pumps and 1 heat exchanger at the nearest separate residential property line at 61 Hillsdale Drive on the opposite side of County Club Drive. The combined exterior A weighted sound pressure level as calculated in Table 4 is reduced at 61 Hillsdale Drive due to inverse square law attenuation of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of the distance according to the formula: dL = Lp2 - Lp1 = 20 log (R2 / R,) Where dL = difference in sound pressure level (dBA) Lpt = sound pressure level at location 1 (dBA) Lp2 = sound pressure level at location 2 (dBA) R, = distance from source to location 1 (ft) R2 = distance from source to location 2 (ft) This level was determined to be 23.9 dBA which is considerably lower than the minimum ambient noise level during night hours as tabulated in Table 3. This calculation is included in Table 5. 43 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 15 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP TABLE 5 PREDICTED SOUND LEVELAT 61 HILLSDALE DRIVE DUE TO VACUUM PUMPS AND HEAT EXCHANGER I I A calculation was also performed to predict the noise level of the existing air conditioning condenser and then the combined sound level of the new equipment and the existing condenser at 61 Hillsdale Drive. This level was determined to be 34.9 dBA. The contribution of the new equipment is less than 0.5 dBA. This will result in an imperceptible change in the ambient noise level. This calculation is contained in Table 6. TABLE 6 LEVEL OF EXISTING HVAC CONDENSER AT 61 HILLSDALE DRIVE Equipment Carrier 38TUA024 A Weighted Sound Level Rating from Manufacturer Specification Data I 72 Equipment Location Factor I 3 Subtotal I 75 inverse Square Law Attenuation 40.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level of Existing Air Conditioning Condenser 34.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level of Existing Air Conditioning Condenser and New Equipment 34.9 Equipment Vacuum Pump 1 Vacuum Pump 2 Vacuum Pump 3 Vacuum Pump4 Heat Exchanger A Weighted Sound Level Rating I 74 74 74 74 77 Building Sound Transmission Loss I 33 33 33 33 33 inverse Square Law Attenuation 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 18.5 Estimated Combined Exterior A Weighted Sound Pressure Level 23.9 44 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 16 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS Noise levels from construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 85 dBA adjacent to the project site for very limited times. The activities include clearing the sire, pouring the foundation slab and placing the off-site manufactured building on the slab. Impacts from the proposed project would be potentially adverse; however, compliance with the City's construction hours requirement would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Short-term noise impacts would be associated with excavation and erecting of building on site during construction of the proposed project. Construction related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. Thesevarious sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 7 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels. 45 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 17 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP TABLE 7 MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 20 90 Crane 16 81 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79 Backhoe 40 78 Dozer 40 82 Excavator 40 81 Forklift 40 78 Paver 50 77 Roller 20 80 Tractor 40 84 Water Truck 40 80 Grader 40 85 General Industrial Equipment 50 85 Note: 1 - Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise I Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006. The closest existing or planned noise-sensitive uses such as homes adjacent to the project site are more than 125 feet from the project boundary. These uses may be subject to short-term, intermittent, maximum noise generated by construction activities on site. Compliance with the construction hours specified in the City's Noise Ordinance would reduce the construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. 46 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 18 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES To achieve the expected interior noise levels it is necessary that good construction techniques and good materials be used for construction of the building. A significant increase in noise levels over expected levels could occur if workmanship or materials are of inferior quality. This is especially true for the doors and louvers since they are the weakest acoustical element of the exterior shell. For the metal equipment building, we recommend that notes and details be included on the design drawings to ensure that the construction details achieve the insulation potential of the basic building assemblies. The following indicates the recommended additional notes and details: • Use permanently non-hardening sealant around perimeter of door and ventilation louver frames. • Select door and ventilation louver assemblies with effective nonporous gaskets or weatherstripping to minimize air infiltration and sound leakage. • Provide airtight construction at all exterior walls with acoustical or other non-hardening sealant at floor plates. • Use door jamb and head gasketing and door bottom gasketing at entry doors to seal the doors against weather and sound. • Caulk entry door thresholds as they are placed. • To the extent feasible, any penetrations in the exterior walls having a direct view should be minimized and sealed. Doors and ventilation louvers are treated separately. 47 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 19 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP CONCLUSION The sound level at the exterior of the prefabricated metal building was calculated to be 48.8 dBA. The manufacturer's specification is less than 50 dBA. Therefore the sounded propagated from the metal building will be less than the maximum permissible by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code at the closest residential property line and at the adjacent building at 94 Hartford. The two nearest condominiums on the property directly adjacent to 94 Hartford are 92 and 96 Hartford. Inverse square attenuation will reduce the 48.8 dBA level to less than 34.9 dBA when no outdoor air condenser is operating. This will result in an increase the ambient sound level at those structures to less than1 dBA which is less than significant. The level calculated at the nearest separate residential property line of 61 Hillsdale Drive is predicted to be 23.9 dBA. The increase in ambient sound level is calculated to be less than 0.5 dBA which is also less than significant. Therefore the proposed Project will meet the standards of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and the increase in ambient sound level will be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures will be required. Respectfully submitted, Yanchar Design & Consulting Group Carl J. Yanchar President 48 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 19 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP APPENDIX A 49 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 20 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP DESCRIPTION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA): The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the internationally standardized A-weighting filter or as computed from sound spectral data to which A-weighting adjustments have been made. A-weighting de-emphasizes the low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the average human ear. A-weighted sound levels correlate well with subjective reactions of people to noise and are universally used for community noise evaluations. Acoustic; Acoustical: Acoustic is usually used when the term being qualified designates something that has the properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics associated with sound waves (e.g., acoustic power); acoustical is usually used when the term which it modifies does not explicitly designate something that has the properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics of sound (e.g., acoustical material). Airborne Sound: Sound that travels through the air, as opposed to structure-borne sound. Ambient Noise: The prevailing general noise existing at a location or in a space, which usually consists of a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. Attenuation: The decrease in level of sound, usually from absorption, divergence, scattering, or the cancellation of the sound waves. Average sound level (Leq): The level of a steady sound which, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A- weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Unit: decibel. Background noise: The total noise from all sources other than a particular sound that is of interest (e.g., other than the noise being measured or other than the speech or music being listened to). Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The Leq of the A-weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 5 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and a 10 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn): The Leq of the A-weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 50 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 21 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP Decibel (dB): The decibel is a measure on a logarithmic scale of the magnitude of a particular quantity (such as sound pressure, sound power, sound intensity) with respect to a reference quantity. Energy Equivalent Level (Leq): The level of a steady noise which would have the same energy as the fluctuating noise level integrated over the time period of interest. Leq is widely used as a single-number descriptor of environmental noise. Leq is based on the logarithmic or energy summation and it places more emphasis on high noise level periods than does Lso or a straight arithmetic average of noise level over time. This energy average is not the same as the average sound pressure levels over the period of interest, but must be computed by a procedure involving summation or mathematical integration. Field Impact Insulation Class (FIIC): A single number rating similar to the IIC except that the impact sound pressure levels are measured in the field. Field Sound Transmission Class (FSTC): A single number rating similar to STC, except that the transmission loss values used to derive the FSTC are measured in the field. All sound transmitted from the source room to the receiving room is assumed to be through the separating wall or floor-ceiling assembly. Frequency (Hz): The number of oscillations per second of a periodic noise (or vibration) expressed in Hertz (abbreviated Hz). Frequency in Hertz is the same as cycles per second. Impact Isolation Class (IIC): A single number rating used to compare the effectiveness of floor-ceiling assemblies in providing reduction of impact generated sounds such as footsteps. It is derived from the measurement of impact sound pressure levels across a series of 16 test bands using a standardized tapping machine. Noise: Any disagreeable or undesired sound, i.e., unwanted sound. Noise level: Same as sound level. Usually used to describe the sound level of an unwanted sound. Noise reduction (NR): The difference in sound pressure level between any two points along a path of sound propagation. 51 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 22 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP Noise Isolation Class (NIC): A single number rating derived from measured values of noise reduction between two enclosed spaces that are connected by one or more paths. The NIC is not adjusted or normalized to a standard reverberation time. Normalized Noise Isolation Class (NNIC): A single number rating similar to the NIC, except that the measured noise reduction values are normalized to a reverberation time of 1/2 second. Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC): A single number classification, specified by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM E 1332 issued 1994), that establishes the A-weighted sound level reduction provided by building facade components (walls, doors, windows, and combinations thereof), based upon a reference sound spectrum that is typical of air, road, and rail transportation sources. The OITC is the preferred rating when exterior facade components are exposed to noise environments dominated by transportation sources. Octave Band -1/3 Octave Band: One octave is an interval between two sound frequencies that have a ratio of two. For example, the frequency range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz is one octave, as is the frequency range of 2000 Hz to 4000 Hz. An octave band is a frequency range that is one octave wide. A standard series of octaves is used in acoustics, and they are specified by their center frequencies. In acoustics, to increase resolution, the frequency content of a sound or vibration is often analyzed in terms of 1/3 octave bands, where each octave is divided into three 1/3 octave bands. Sound: (1) A change in air pressure that is capable of being detected by the human ear. (2) The hearing sensation excited by a change in air pressure. Sound Absorption Coefficient: The absorption coefficient of a material is the ratio of the sound absorbed by the material to that absorbed by an equivalent area of open window. The absorption coefficient of a perfectly absorbing surface would be 1.0 while that for concrete or marble slate is approximately 0.01 (a perfect reflector would have an absorption of 0.00). Sound Level: Ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of the square of the ratio of the frequency- weighted (and time- averaged) sound pressure to the reference sound pressure of 20 micro pascals. The frequency- weightings and time-weighting employed should be specified; if they are not specified, it is understood that A-frequency-weighting is used and that an averaging time of 0.125 is used. Unit: decibel (dBA). 52 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 23 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP Sound Pressure Level (SPL): The sound pressure level of sound in decibels is 20 times the logarithm to the base of 10 of the ratios of the RMS value of the sound pressure to the RMS value of a reference sound pressure. The standard reference sound pressure is 20 micro-pascals as indicated in ANSI S1.8-1969, "Preferred Reference Quantities for Acoustical Levels". Sound Transmission Class (STC): STC is a single number rating, specified by the American Society for Testing and Materials, which can be used to measure the sound insulation properties for comparing the sound transmission capability, in decibels, of interior building partitions for noise sources such as speech, radio, and television. It is used extensively for rating sound insulation characteristics of building materials and products. Structure-Borne Sound: Sound propagating through building structure. Rapidly fluctuating elastic waves in gypsum board, joists, studs, etc. Statistical Distribution Terms: Lgg and Lgo are descriptors of the typical minimum or "residual" background noise (or vibration) levels observed during a measurement period, normally made up of the summation of a large number of sound sources distant from the measurement position and not usually recognizable as individual noise sources. Generally, the prevalent source of this residual noise is distant street traffic. Lgo and Lgg are not strongly influenced by occasional local motor vehicle pass-bys. However, they can be influenced by stationary sources such as air conditioning equipment. Lso represents a long-term statistical median noise level over the measurement period and does reveal the long-term influence of local traffic. L10 describes typical or average levels for the maximum noise levels occurring, for example, during nearby pass bys of trains, trucks, buses and automobiles, when there is relatively steady traffic. Thus, while L10 does not necessarily describe the typical maximum noise levels observed at a point, it is strongly influenced by the momentary maximum noise level occurring during vehicle pass-bys at most locations. L1, the noise level exceeded for 1% of the time is representative of the occasional, isolated maximum or peak level which occurs in an area. L1 is usually strongly influenced by the maximum short-duration noise level events which occur during the measurement time period and are often determined by aircraft or large vehicle pass-bys. 53 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 24 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP APPENDIX B 54 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 25 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP COMMON SOUND LEVELS AND THE R NO-SE SOURCES Noise Source A-Weighted Sound Subjective Level in Decibels Environments Evaluations Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum 80 Loud 2 times as loud C eaner Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Average Office 60 Quiet One-half as loud Suburban Street 55 Quiet Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet One-quarter as loud Large Transformer 45 Quiet Average Residence without Stereo Playing 40 Faint One-eighth as loud Soft Whisper 30 Faint Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearing 0 Very Faint Source: Compiled by YDCG 55 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 Page 26 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP APPENDIX C MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SUBMITTALS 56 AIRT5CH® W @fJ!JfJ!JfNJ Vacuum/Pressure Regenerative Blower 3BA9620 3BA9620-0416 500 400 300 200 100 /J /J r c c n n r r 0 0 Q) eatures: Cooler running, outboard bearing All motors are standard TEFC with provides maintenance-free Class F insulation, UL recognized, operation CE Compliant Explosion-Proof motors available Environmentally friendly oil-free technology Custom construction blowers are available Extremely quiet operation Rugged die-cast aluminum construction r I Performance Curve for Vacuum Performance Curve for Compressor 500 400 I 300 ·> ·13 ct! ·> ·13 ct! 200 0. ct! Cl C 0 0. ct! Cl C 0 0 0 ::::, ::::, Cl) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Cl) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 ◄ Vacuum Total pressure difference- ressure ► 50 50 40 ii' 30 40 ii' 30 C ,Q 20 15. ¢:: E::::r,o.c (/) (/) C 0. E ::::, Q) 0. C ,Q 20 15. ¢:: :E:::, .cro (/) (/) C 0. E :, Q) 0. 03-: ct! 0 03-: ct! 0 (l_ (l_ 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 (l_ (l_ 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 ◄ Vacuum Total pressure difference- Pressure 500 500 400 400 300 I- 300 I- <I 200 <I 200 (/) ·c (/) ·c 'O :, Q) - >, 100 'O :, Q) - g>?, 100 § § E Cl E Cl I-Q) 0-- 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 I-Q) 0-- 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 ◄ Vacuum otal pressure difference- Pressure AIRT:::CH® RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070 WWW.AIRTECHUSA.COM TEL:(888)222-9940 FAX:(201)569-1696 'i',?'g\@(]£!(]£J[&i] 100 8 10 8 10 ·co ·co Q) 57 AIRT5CH® W @fJ!JfJ!JfNJ Vacuum/Pressure Regenerative Blower 3BA9620 3BA9620-0416 Dimensions ■ 3BA96207AT66 Selection & Ordering Data - Type 3BA9620 1-50/60 IP 155 insulation material class F 3BA96207AT66 50 14.75 200D...240D 345Y...415Y 38.0D/22.0Y -212 253 70 320 3BA96207AT66 60 16.90 220D...250D 415Y...460Y 38.0D/22.0Y -217 212 74 320 3BA96207AT66 87 25.50 345D...415D 39.5D -204 120 84 320 J 3BA96207AT86 50 20.10 200D...240D 345Y...415Y 53.0D/31.0Y -212 357 70 370 J 3BA96207AT86 60 23.20 220D...250D 415Y...460Y 53.0D/30.5Y -217 325 74 370 J 3BA96207AT86 87 34.80 345D...415D 51.5D -204 253 84 370 AIRT:::CH® RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070 WWW.AIRTECHUSA.COM TEL: (888) 222-9940 FAX: (201) 569-1696 'i',7g\@(]£!(]£J[&i] Curve Letter Order Number Frequency (Hz) Rated Power (HP) Input Voltage (V) Input Current (A) Permissable Total Differential Pressure Vacuum Pressure Inch H2O Inch H2O Sound Level dB(A) Weight (lbs) 58 Page 1 AA Series Heat Exd1anger I Xchanger https://xchanger.com/products/aa-serles-heat-exchanger/ Captured by FireShot Pro: 09 October 2022, 08:00:25 https://getfireshot.com AA Series Heat Exchanger AA 11eat ei,:,:h.a rs cool low pressu gas reams with ijmtJlen1 Ir These ccmpai:l alr unils art! laeaI ror IOC:aliOns 1"11'1 umlt(!O access 10 cooling "'' It!! and riave slgntncanll'j iower operating costs compared 10 rieal exchangers 1nal requfre a eoollng water system They real!Jre a TE.FC 230/.tSO VAC 3, pllase motor. a he.aw-duty coo,mg tan alld an OSHA approve<! fan guard A.tternate molors are a Hable upon reciuesl The !XMa!JSt l10()lj ar.c Yen1urt frame are gafvanlUCI steel Use our 1nH!!'act11J on1Ine rorm to get a anLl .accurate quotel Common Appllcalfons Anerrooilng Roots type {roEa:ry--lOl:>e) anel multistage centn!\Jgal ttfOOers used In pnei,.unanc cooveyfng. Ologas. coaJ-searn metnane, aoo wastei.i.'31.er aeratFoll sys1ems Core Const11.1cuon The i!l.Jm1rn1m plate-fin 11ea1 e:a:t.Jl;;inger core IS furn.Ke t:irazea v.tl'1 ariernatmg finl'led flt:Pw ttia:nn Process g,:15 rlot'-'5 m honwntal c11:3nnels, oEll'lO antl)Jent cOOirlg au' nows upr,ard lhro n ve,utal channels Th!. proceS!i slrie:am enll!!:I'! aM exits lhrough rectangu1ar a:Jum1riurn h;!ad'@r5. wtiii:n are v.-e a to the rore. OpeP'iltional Ccnsic:l@ratfoM Tlle p,locess- stream mus£ tie ruteced to ensure partk':llla.te wll not oDStruct lhe ssages rr necessary tne se slile can usually t>e cieane<I -v-llh a soapy wa1er was/1 The process cnannets should not De cons.Klered deana cJue to their iDng; enao:seo now length ln5t 11;,t1on Cons.1d•r.u1on,s P\.1 11 Plow, s-uc;h as that prDduced O)' rotary lcoe tnawers !ihould be Qaimpened by a- ctlambe.fe<I silencer AA Sel'IE!S heat e:(Change,5a ¢11ss1pa!e tl!!:!!l rrnm lhf! proc slreatn to om artdlil!nt envtrohmenl T are: design@CI rar ou1i100r lruitalalJOn 1r 1ns1an\XI IMOOl'!i thl!! i:lrea 5tJ.oukj b@- \ll!!!r 11.'el\len.hiaiecl Per10ffllilr'ICII:! xcnal'lger engIrie,e,s use a c:ompuler n'IOQel to a,n,;;11yte heat exchangef petformar,c:e baSed on the best ble engioeeri pradlCe A database with tan pelfo<manc:e 11c1:1a ale"''!. us to setecl ttie Dest fan ror tn.e a.ppllcallQn MOdll!!I'$. AA-:250, M-400, AA-500, AA-750. M-1000. AA-H50. M-2000 M-2750 &: AA-3500 special c0nfigur.it10ns Can tie roum:1 on our Custom Desagm. page Air coolea tieal exi::nanger (blC!Wer atteR:OOlef) metrlC drawing aoo conhg rllltlons 'o'u"n','," IN 1 IN. XcHANGER M:id• In tt,e USA 1....-chhere Go :,ij -"°""' fl'USH lHROLKilf ,.!!an cur P""-'l!n 59 Page 2 AA Series Heat Exd1anger I Xchanger https://xchanger.com/products/aa-serles-heat-exchanger/ Captured by Fii-eShot Pm: 09 Octobei- 2022, 08:00:25 https://getfireshot.com .. Qo. t, 0 0(10] 1t - l ._. 0 0001 H"l,-•F'-1',,.111,]!J · in ·2 •("-lu.il!,l\J< LOO.I) 'iUI EL"JIIMn LY •I " - _-_-_-_ _ ,, " _-_-71 Gallery Product Applicat.ions • MSenes • CSenes • HPSenes • LC Series • OC::k!fl!!ts • TV- . . 1 3 .,. t. \b nlac:I !,1IS !odi,y 1a cll!!IIC:U , your ar axd,a111J'Bf o, blowa, -aR9fi:::ooler appiel:llicm with a de.6ign enginea, Oil USB Olj" .-i101·o1ctira onl!ne form lei get ii la:;l and ai::;i::;urat-a quot Ha·ll:! ill request o, specificattons10 sl!Bd Ii)' en"!lll7SendJt:lo IMO@x com An ,ppnca1kir1& -wm rNt'H yow reqLHJSI am:! wllt typically r8:SpOfl(I m1t11n orie bu!3lnesE-de Prefli!r c,o speak 'Wllh an il!ll§lfneer ? Give us a caln [95,2) 933--2.589 Request a Quote! 60 E ectrica data UNIT SIZE- SERIES V/PH OPERVOLTS* COMPR FAN FLA MCA 60°C MIN WIRE SIZEt 75°c MIN WIRE SIZEt MAX LENGTH (FT) 6CJ'/75°Ct MAX LENGTH (m) 6CJ'/75°Ct MAX FUSE** OR CKTBKR AMPS Max Min LAA ALA 024-75 230-1 253 207 72.5 15.0 0.6 19.4 14 14 38/37 12/11 30 036-96 400-3 440 360 46.0 6.4 0.7 8.7 14 14 181/172 55/52 20 048-96 63.0 7.9 0.7 10.7 14 14 147/140 45/42 15 060-96 74.0 9.0 0.7 11.9 14 14 132/126 40/38 20 • Permissible limits of the voltage range at which the unit will operate satisfactorily. Operation outside these limits may result in unit failure. If wire is applied at ambient greater than 30°C (86°F), consult Table 310-16 of the NEC (ANSI/NFPA 70). The ampacity of nonmetallic-sheathed cable (NM), trade name ROMEX, shall be that of 60°C (140°F) conductors, per the NEC (ANSI/NFPA 70) Article 336-26. All motors/compressors contain internal overload protection. t American wire gage. :j: Length shown is as measured 1 way along wire path between unit and service panel for a voltage drop not to exceed 2%. •• Time-delay fuse. FLA - Fu Load Amps LRA - Locked Rotor Amps MCA - Minimum Circuit Amps ALA - Rated Load Amps Performance summary UNIT SIZE INDOOR MODEL NOMINAL AIRFLOW COOLING CAP @ 95°F (35°C) COOLING CAP 115°F (46°C) Rated Capacity Power kW Rated EER Rated Capacity Power kW CFM LIS BTUH kW BTUH kW 024-75 F(A,B)4(A,B)SF024* F(A,B)4(A,B)SF030 FG3ASA024 800 800 800 380 380 380 23,000 24,000 23,000 6.7 7.0 6.7 2.34 2.33 2.40 10.30 10.40 9.70 20,700 21,031 20,023 6.1 6.2 5.9 2.87 2.86 2.95 036-96 F(A,B)4(A,B)SF036* F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)042 FG3ASA036 1200 1200 1200 560 560 560 35,000 36,000 35,000 10.3 10.5 10.3 3.76 3.71 3.69 10.40 10.50 9.80 31,600 32,320 29,395 9.3 9.5 8.6 4.56 4.50 4.48 048-96 F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)048* F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)060 FG3ASA048 FG3ASA060 1600 1600 1600 1600 750 750 750 750 47,000 48,000 46,000 47,000 13.8 14.1 13.5 13.8 5.12 5.26 5.20 5.25 9.50 9.50 9.10 9.20 42,400 43,540 41,100 42,179 12.4 12.8 12.0 12.4 6.20 6.37 6.30 6.35 060-96 F(A,B)4(A,B)S(F,B)060* FB4(A,B)SB070 FG3ASA060 1850 1850 1850 950 950 950 57,500 59,000 56,500 16.8 17.3 16.6 6.03 6.14 6.00 9.50 9.50 9.40 52,100 53,364 51,286 15.3 15.6 15.0 7.26 7.39 7.23 * Tested Combination NOTES: 1. Ratings are net values reflecting the effects of circulating fan motor heat. Supplemental electric heat is not included. 2. Tested outdoor/indoor combinations have been tested in accordance with DOE test procedures for central air conditioners. Ratings for other combinations are determined under DOE computer simulation procedures. 3. Determine actual CFM values obtainable for your system by referring to fan performance data in fan coil or furnace coil literature. A-weighted sound power (dBA) UNIT SIZE STANDARD RATING TYPICAL OCTAVE BAND SPECTRUM (without tone adjustment) 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 024 72 53.5 63.0 65.0 67.0 63.5 59.0 50.5 036 74 58.0 64.0 67.5 67.0 66.0 64.5 59.0 048 75 55.5 63.0 66.5 68.0 68.0 65.0 59.5 060 75 55.5 64.0 69.0 67.0 67.5 65.5 60.0 7 61 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX D PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING PLAN AND DETAILS Page 32 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 62 □ □ ► TRUSS BRIDGING 14 GNJGE STm. STITCH WE.LO TO raussES LOCATE TRUSS CLOSE TO POSSIBLE WHILE AIMING WELOING SPACE CENTER 5/8" EETROCK lAYERS TYP WALL PANEL DETAIL JXP ROOF JOlST DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS· DESIGN PER 2019 CAI.JFORNIA BUILDING CODE / ASCE 7-16 RISK CAT Ill, UNOCCUPIED BUILDING, TYPE 11B CONSTRUCTION. 1. WIND: EXPOSURE: B DESIGN WINO SPEED, MPH: 102 TOPO FACTOR KZT: 1.O 2. SEISMIC SS: 1.313 S1: 0.468 SOS: 1.051 SOIL SITE CL.ASS: D DEFAULT SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: D R: 6.5 IE: 1.25 V: 7.4KIPS 3. ROOF LIVE LOAD: 40 PSF R19 MIN """'"' C6X13 PERIWETER FRAMING Willi 3/16" fll£T ALL AROUND 3/16" A-36 O<CK SEAMS Be:TWEE 9W.l. BE 4. FLOOR LIVE LOAD: 125 PSF OR A 2500 LB CONCENTRATED LOAD FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAO DESIGN BY OTHERS MIN 4000 PSI CONCRETE FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAO TO FULLY SUPPORT ENTIRE FLOOR AREA. OF SKID REVISIONS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE • DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY ► .... H2K PROJECT TITLE: DRA\r/lNG TITLE: TYP. CORNER BOLT DOWN DETAIL SHEET 1 OF 1 REV DESCRIPTION DATE OWN • DO NOT SCALE DRAWING DRAWN BY: MK l□ESIGNED BY: HK PROJECT MGR.: MK DATE: 10/04/2022 PROJECT NO.: 6011 AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE THE USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT 'NRITTEN PERMISSION. ► _ - _ _ _ - • 'a • Technologies, Inc. 7550 Commerc:e St, Corc:oran, MN 55340, Tel: 763-746-9900it)2011 \JOOO PLC SVE SYSTEM NE\JPDRT BEACH, CA VELDED STEEL ENCLOSURE ISOMETRIC CONSTRUCTION ETAIL RAVING FOR SOUND EVALUATION DRAWING NO.: 5011-08 ► 63 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX E PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING TRANSMISSION LOSS CALCULATIONS Page 34 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 64 Sound Insulation Prediction (v9.0.24) C I I STC 39 OITC 27 Program copyright Marshall Day Acoustics 2017 Margin of erro.- is generally within STC ±3 dB · Key No. 5935 Job Name INSUL Job No. Date:10/8/2022 File Name:insul Svstem description Panel 1 : 1 x 0.024 in Steel lnitials:cjyan Notes: Mass-air-mass resonant frequency= =106 Hz Panel Size = 8.9 ft x 13.1 tt Partition surtace mass= 368 lb/ft:! Frame: Steel Stud (16-20g) (:Jinx 1.5 in), Stud spacing 24 in: Cavity Width3 in, 1 x Fibreglass (10kg/rn3) Thickness 3.0 in Panel 2 · 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Boarc 60 55 50 45 2c' 40 ::!l ..9 35· ,g .i3 30 !, 1/1 C .. ·11 /,- I I I 15 10 5 0 63 125 I I 250 I• I 500 I I I 1000 -i 2000 4000 Frequency (Hz) I Transmission Loss (dB) STG39 Fl,mking.Um t I § 20 0 'I) 25 "Q freq.(Hz) TL(dB) TL(dB) 50 16 63 16 16 80 16 100 15 125 15 16 160 20 200 26 250 31 29 315 35 400 39 500 43 42 630 47 800 51 1000 53 52 1250 55 1600 56 2000 55 45 2500 40 3150 42 4000 45 44 5000 48 65 Sound Insulation Prediction (v9.0.24) 5 5 Program copyright Marshall Day Acoustics 2017 Margin of error· is generntly within STC :t3 dB -- Key No. 5935 Job Name Job No.: lnitials:cjyan Date:10/8/2022 File Name:insul Notes: INSUL Svstem description Panel 1 : 1 x 0.024 in Steel Mass-air-mass resonant frequency= =90 Hz Panel Size = 8.9 ft x 131 tt Partition surtace mass = 13.:2 lb/ft:! Frame: Cold tormed Steel Joist (1o-2Ug} (3.5 in x 1.5 in), Stud spacing :24 in, Cavity Width :J.54 in, 1 x Fibreglass (1Ukg/rn3) Thickness 2.4 ir Panei 2 · 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Boarc + 1 x 0.626 inType C Gypsum Board so-....-....-...-....-...-....-- .......,.................,.......,.......,.......,......,..-....,.......,......,.. , 1 75 -- -·-·--- 70 65 601--+--+--+-- i 55 .!::'.l1 50 ,Q 45, _;3 -40 !, 35 sl 30 C: 'I) 25 20 P-0-i:l 15 10 o- --- --- --- 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 Frequency (Hz) 4000 3150 51 4000 54 54 5000 57 I - Transmission Loss (dB) STG46 Fl,mking.Um t I STC 46 OITC 31 fre .(Hz) 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 TL(dB) TL(dB) 20 20 20 20 17 22 20 28 33 38 36 43 47 51 50 55 800 59 1000 67 67 1250 63 1600 64 2000 63 54 2500 50 66 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIX F MEASUREMENT LOCATION Page 37 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 67 MEASUREMENT LOCATION 68 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM/ 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 APPENDIXG MEASUREMENT DATA Page 39 YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP 69 1 Number 24 Start Date 10/3/2022 Start Time 9:05:44 AM End Time 9:14:09 AM Duration 00:08:25 Meas Mode Single Input Range Low Input Type Mic SPL Time Weight Fast LN% Freq Weight dBA Overload No UnderRange No Sensitivity 14.82mV/Pa LZeq 70.3 LCeq 69.5 LAeq 64.1 LZFmax 88.6 LCFmax 88.2 LAFmax 82.6 LZFmin 58.7 LCFmin 56.3 LAFmin 42.2 LZE 97.3 LCE 96.5 LAE 91.1 LZpk 96.0 LCpk 95.5 LApk 93.7 LAF1% 76.2 LAF2% 74.1 LAF5% 70.7 LAF8% 66.9 LAF10% 65.1 LAF25% 60.5 LAF50% 55.4 LAF90% 47.0 LAF95% 45.5 LAF99% 43.4 1/1 Oct. (dBA) 31.5 20.0 63 38.1 125 47.5 250 50.9 500 59.6 1000 59.4 2000 56.8 4000 50.4 8000 42.4 FFT (dBA) 70 2 0 -Inf 43.1 31.6 86.2 44.7 129.3 46.0 172.344.8 215.4 46.9 258.5 45.3 301.646.1 344.7 46.4 387.847.4 430.848.8 473.953.9 517 55.7 560.1 51.5 603.2 54.6 646.352.4 689.3 50.1 732.4 48.8 775.547.4 818.647.9 861.7 47.4 904.846.8 947.846.6 990.947.4 1034 48.5 1077.1 49.2 1120.2 49.9 1163.3 51.0 1206.3 53.9 1249.4 51.0 1292.5 46.1 1335.6 45.6 1378.7 45.8 1421.8 46. 7 1464.8 46.6 1507.9 45.3 1551 44.2 1594.1 44.2 1637.2 44.1 1680.3 43.6 1723.3 43.3 1766.4 43.8 1809.5 44.6 1852.6 44.5 1895.7 44.3 1938.8 44.3 1981.8 44.2 2024.9 44.5 2068 43.9 2111.1 42.9 2154.2 42.6 2197.3 42.4 71 2240.3 42.2 3 2283.4 41.7 2326.5 41.4 2369.6 42.0 2412.7 43.6 2455.8 42.7 2498.9 40.4 2541.9 39.2 2585 39.1 2628.1 38.8 2671.2 38.6 2714.3 38.6 2757.4 38.9 2800.4 39.2 2843.5 39.1 2886.6 39.4 2929.7 39.6 2972.8 39.0 3015.9 38.3 3058.9 38.3 3102 38.3 3145.1 37.6 3188.2 37.4 3231.3 37.3 3274.4 37.3 3317.4 37.1 3360.5 36.2 3403.6 36.1 3446.7 35.8 3489.8 35.2 3532.9 34.9 3575.9 35.1 3619 35.0 3662.1 34.9 3705.2 34.7 3748.3 34.2 3791.4 33.8 3834.4 33.5 3877.5 33.4 3920.6 33.2 3963.7 32.9 4006.8 33.0 4049.9 32.5 4092.9 32.0 4136 32.0 4179.1 31.6 4222.2 31.3 4265.3 30.8 4308.4 30.5 4351.4 30.2 4394.5 30.0 4437.6 29.9 72 4480.7 30.2 4 4523.8 29.9 4566.9 29.4 4609.9 29.5 4653 29.5 4696.1 29.6 4739.2 29.5 4782.3 29.4 4825.4 29.4 4868.5 29.8 4911.5 29.7 4954.6 29.6 4997.7 29.6 5040.8 29.5 5083.9 29.5 5127 29.3 5170 29.3 5213.1 29.2 5256.2 29.2 5299.3 29.0 5342.4 28.6 5385.5 28.3 5428.5 28.4 5471.6 27.9 5514.7 27.7 5557.8 27.3 5600.9 26.9 5644 26.4 5687 26.3 5730.1 25.8 5773.2 26.1 5816.3 25.7 5859.4 25.1 5902.5 24.5 5945.5 24.0 5988.6 24.0 6031.7 23.8 6074.8 23.9 6117.9 23.8 6161 23.9 6204 23.9 6247.1 23.7 6290.2 23.7 6333.3 24.3 6376.4 24.6 6419.5 24.8 6462.5 24.9 6505.6 25.3 6548.7 25.8 6591.8 26.3 6634.9 26.4 6678 26.7 73 5 6721 27.0 6764.1 27.1 6807.2 27.2 6850.3 27.4 6893.4 27.5 6936.5 27.5 6979.5 27.3 7022.6 27.2 7065.7 27.4 7108.8 27.5 7151.9 27.4 7195 27.2 7238.1 26.8 7281.1 26.5 7324.2 26.2 7367.3 25.9 7410.4 25.4 7453.5 25.2 7496.6 25.1 7539.6 24.8 7582.7 24.5 7625.8 24.0 7668.9 23.6 7712 23.3 7755.1 23.5 7798.1 23.4 7841.2 23.4 7884.3 23.7 7927.4 23.4 7970.5 23.6 8013.6 23.5 8056.6 23.0 8099.7 22.6 8142.8 22.5 8185.9 22.0 8229 21.7 8272.1 21.6 8315.1 21.5 8358.2 21.2 8401.3 20.9 8444.4 20.7 8487.5 20.6 8530.6 20.7 8573.6 20.6 8616.7 20.6 8659.8 20.6 8702.9 20.2 8746 20.3 8789.1 20.7 8832.1 20.6 8875.2 20.4 8918.3 20.5 74 6 8961.4 20.8 9004.5 20.6 9047.6 20.2 9090.6 20.1 9133.7 20.1 9176.8 20.3 9219.9 20.4 9263 20.3 9306.1 20.1 9349.2 20.0 9392.2 20.0 9435.3 19.8 9478.4 19.6 9521.5 19.6 9564.6 19.7 9607.7 18.9 9650.7 18.9 9693.8 18.9 9736.9 18.7 9780 18.4 9823.1 18.2 9866.2 18.2 9909.2 18.2 9952.3 18.1 9995.4 18.1 10038.5 17.8 10081.6 17.7 10124.7 17.6 10167.7 17.4 10210.8 17.3 10253.9 17.5 1029717.2 10340.1 16.7 10383.2 16.9 10426.2 17.2 10469.3 17.3 10512.4 17.1 10555.5 16.5 10598.6 16.2 10641.7 16.5 10684.7 16.7 10727.8 16.6 10770.9 16.5 1081416.7 10857.1 16.7 10900.2 16.3 10943.2 16.2 10986.3 15.7 11029.4 15.4 11072.5 15.3 11115.6 15.5 11158.7 15.2 75 7 11201.7 15.0 11244.8 15.0 11287.9 14.7 11331 14.3 11374.1 14.2 11417.2 14.2 11460.2 14.1 11503.3 14.1 11546.4 13.5 11589.5 13.2 11632.6 13.0 11675.7 12.3 11718.8 12.2 11761.8 11.9 11804.9 11.3 11848 11.1 11891.1 10.7 11934.2 10.7 11977.3 10.6 12020.3 10.3 12063.4 10.2 12106.5 9.8 12149.6 9.5 12192.7 9.1 12235.8 9.0 12278.8 8.6 12321.9 8.1 12365 8.0 12408.1 8.3 12451.2 8.2 12494.3 7.8 12537.3 7.6 12580.4 7.6 12623.5 7.6 12666.6 7.4 12709.7 7.4 12752.8 7.3 12795.8 7.1 12838.9 7.2 128827.0 12925.1 6.7 12968.2 6.7 13011.3 6.8 13054.3 7.1 13097.4 7.3 13140.5 7.1 13183.6 7.0 13226.7 7.2 13269.8 7.0 13312.8 6.9 13355.9 6.8 133996.6 76 8 13442.1 6.5 13485.2 6.3 13528.3 6.4 13571.3 6.3 13614.4 6.4 13657.5 6.7 13700.6 6.6 13743.7 6.3 13786.8 6.3 13829.8 6.4 13872.9 6.4 13916 6.4 13959.1 6.3 14002.2 6.3 14045.3 6.3 14088.4 6.0 14131.4 5.6 14174.5 5.4 14217.6 5.4 14260.7 5.1 14303.8 4.6 14346.9 4.4 14389.9 4.1 144333.6 14476.1 3.5 14519.2 3.4 14562.3 3.0 14605.4 3.0 14648.4 2.7 14691.5 2.3 14734.6 1.9 14777.7 1.7 14820.8 1.4 14863.9 1.0 14906.9 0.9 14950 0.5 14993.1 0.2 15036.2 0.0 15079.3 -0.5 15122.4 -0.7 15165.4 -1.0 15208.5 -1.1 15251.6 -1.3 15294.7 -1.6 15337.8 -1.8 15380.9 -2.1 15423.9 -2.4 15467 -2.6 15510.1 -2.8 15553.2 -2.9 15596.3 -3.1 15639.4 -3.3 77 9 15682.4 -3.8 15725.5 -4.1 15768.6 -4.2 15811.7 -4.4 15854.8 -4.9 15897.9 -5.3 15940.9 -5.3 15984 -5.6 16027.1 -6.0 16070.2 -6.2 16113.3 -6.4 16156.4 -6.8 16199.4 -7.1 16242.5 -7.1 16285.6 -7.4 16328.7 -7.4 16371.8 -7.6 16414.9 -8.0 16458-8.2 16501-8.3 16544.1 -8.3 16587.2 -8.6 16630.3 -8.8 16673.4 -8.7 16716.5 -8.7 16759.5 -8.7 16802.6 -8.9 16845.7 -9.1 16888.8 -9.1 16931.9 -9.0 16975 -8.7 17018-8.6 17061.1 -9.0 17104.2 -9.3 17147.3 -9.3 17190.4 -9.4 78 1 Number 27 Start Date 10/5/2022 Start Time 10:44:30 PM End Time 10:46:09 PM Duration 00:01:39 Meas Mode Single Input Range Low Input Type Mic SPL Time Weight Fast LN% Freq Weight dBA Overload No UnderRange No Sensitivity 14.82mV/Pa LZeq 57.9 LCeq 54.2 LAeq 37.5 LZFmax 69.4 LCFmax 63.2 LAFmax 59.0 LZFmin 52.2 LCFmin 49.9 LAFmin 34.0 LZE 77.9 LCE 74.2 LAE 57.5 LZpk 80.9 LCpk 80.2 LApk 80.2 LAF1% 42.4 LAF2% 39.1 LAF5% 37.9 LAF8% 37.5 LAF10% 37.3 LAF25% 36.4 LAF50% 35.7 LAF90% 34.8 LAF95% 34.7 LAF99% 34.3 1/1 Oct. (dBA) 31.5 13.2 63 25.6 125 26.9 250 25.7 500 27.0 1000 29.9 2000 31.2 4000 29.7 8000 29.6 FFT (dBA) 79 2 0 -Inf 43.1 23.3 86.2 29.6 129.326.9 172.323.4 215.421.9 258.5 21.5 301.619.4 344.719.8 387.819.2 430.818.2 473.920.3 517 19.3 560.119.3 603.2 20.4 646.3 19.2 689.3 19.4 732.419.6 775.5 19.0 818.619.8 861.720.4 904.820.1 947.819.2 990.919.0 1034 19.4 1077.1 19.2 1120.2 20.3 1163.3 20.2 1206.3 18.8 1249.4 18.1 1292.5 17.6 1335.6 18.3 1378.7 18.2 1421.8 16. 7 1464.8 16.5 1507.9 18.0 1551 18.5 1594.1 18.4 1637.2 17.8 1680.3 17.9 1723.3 17.1 1766.4 17.2 1809.5 18.1 1852.6 17.7 1895.7 15.8 1938.8 15.5 1981.8 16.3 2024.9 18.5 2068 19.0 2111.1 17.4 2154.2 16.3 2197.3 15.7 80 2240.3 15.8 3 2283.4 17.0 2326.5 16.5 2369.6 16.9 2412.7 16.3 2455.8 15.2 2498.9 16.2 2541.9 16.8 2585 16.5 2628.1 14.5 2671.2 14.3 2714.3 16.8 2757.4 19.8 2800.4 19.6 2843.5 17.4 2886.6 15.1 2929.7 15.8 2972.8 16.7 3015.9 13.7 3058.9 13.6 3102 15.4 3145.1 16.2 3188.2 15.8 3231.3 15.7 3274.4 13.0 3317.4 13.4 3360.5 15.1 3403.6 12.9 3446.7 11.1 3489.8 12.1 3532.9 12.6 3575.9 13.2 3619 15.0 3662.1 13.8 3705.2 12.3 3748.3 14.1 3791.4 12.4 3834.4 10.5 3877.5 12.2 3920.6 14.1 3963.7 12.2 4006.8 9.8 4049.9 10.2 4092.9 10.7 4136 14.4 4179.1 13.5 4222.2 11.6 4265.3 12.7 4308.4 11.7 4351.4 10.9 4394.5 12.1 4437.6 10.3 81 4480.7 10.4 4 4523.8 10.5 4566.9 8.3 4609.9 13.1 4653 16.3 4696.1 11.3 4739.2 8.5 4782.3 11.4 4825.4 15.4 4868.5 13.7 4911.5 8.3 4954.6 14.9 4997.7 16.0 5040.8 14.4 5083.9 14.9 5127 14.7 5170 9.0 5213.1 11.7 5256.2 12.5 5299.3 13.3 5342.4 12.5 5385.5 8.5 5428.5 12.2 5471.6 9.0 5514.7 7.0 5557.8 11.7 5600.9 12.2 5644 11.3 5687 10.0 5730.1 8.1 5773.2 6.9 5816.3 4.7 5859.4 7.6 5902.5 10.5 5945.5 8.8 5988.6 4.3 6031.7 6.4 6074.8 4.0 6117.9 5.8 6161 3.7 6204 5.7 6247.1 7.8 6290.2 4.0 6333.3 11.1 6376.4 10.4 6419.5 7.3 6462.5 6.1 6505.6 5.9 6548.7 7.5 6591.8 10.5 6634.9 11.1 6678 11.7 82 5 6721 15.3 6764.1 15.9 6807.2 16.6 6850.3 18.8 6893.4 19.2 6936.5 16.2 6979.5 13.4 7022.6 13.4 7065.7 15.1 7108.8 17.4 7151.9 16.5 7195 15.7 7238.1 16.8 7281.1 16.1 7324.2 15.7 7367.3 15.7 7410.4 17.0 7453.5 18.6 7496.6 18.6 7539.6 17.0 7582.7 15.5 7625.8 13.4 7668.9 13.5 7712 14.1 7755.1 13.4 7798.1 10.9 7841.2 8.0 7884.3 8.0 7927.4 7.8 7970.5 8.6 8013.6 11.5 8056.6 10.3 8099.7 7.5 8142.8 9.4 8185.9 8.3 8229 6.7 8272.1 8.1 8315.1 8.0 8358.2 7.6 8401.3 7.9 8444.4 8.6 8487.5 10.7 8530.6 11.8 8573.6 8.9 8616.7 7.5 8659.8 9.1 8702.9 8.4 8746 7.8 8789.1 8.6 8832.1 6.8 8875.2 5.3 8918.3 5.6 83 8961.4 5.6 6 9004.5 6.2 9047.6 7.6 9090.6 11.4 9133.7 11.9 9176.8 9.8 9219.9 6.9 9263 5.7 9306.1 5.4 9349.2 6.6 9392.2 7.3 9435.3 5.9 9478.4 5.1 9521.5 5.5 9564.6 4.5 9607.7 6.4 9650.7 6.0 9693.8 5.0 9736.9 5.3 9780 5.5 9823.1 4.8 9866.2 5.0 9909.2 6.5 9952.3 6.1 9995.4 7.1 10038.5 5.8 10081.6 4.1 10124.7 4.9 10167.7 4.5 10210.8 4.5 10253.9 4.2 102974.8 10340.1 4.1 10383.2 4.2 10426.2 4.3 10469.3 5.7 10512.4 4.7 10555.5 4.3 10598.6 3.9 10641.7 3.6 10684.7 4.0 10727.8 5.4 10770.9 5.0 108145.7 10857.1 5.6 10900.2 4.5 10943.2 3.6 10986.3 3.4 11029.4 3.1 11072.5 4.0 11115.6 5.2 11158.7 4.7 84 11201.7 2.7 7 11244.8 2.6 11287.9 2.8 11331 4.7 11374.1 5.2 11417.2 2.5 11460.2 3.2 11503.3 3.6 11546.4 4.4 11589.5 3.2 11632.6 1. 7 11675.7 1.1 11718.8 1. 6 11761.8 2.9 11804.9 2.0 118480.4 11891.1 1. 9 11934.2 1. 3 11977.3 1.0 12020.3 0.5 12063.4 0.2 12106.5 -0.7 12149.6 0.1 12192.7 1. 2 12235.8 0.9 12278.8 1. 9 12321.9 2.5 123651.2 12408.1 0.1 12451.2 0.6 12494.3 0.3 12537.3 -1.1 12580.4 -2.1 12623.5 -2.2 12666.6 -2.0 12709.7 -2.1 12752.8 -1.3 12795.8 -0.1 12838.9 -0.2 12882 -1.0 12925.1 -1.2 12968.2 -1.2 13011.3 -1.2 13054.3 -1.6 13097.4 -1.6 13140.5 -1.3 13183.6 -0.7 13226.7 -1.2 13269.8 -0.1 13312.8 -0.6 13355.9 -1.2 13399-1.2 85 1 Number 32 Start Date 10/6/2022 Start Time 10:39:05 AM End Time 10:42:50 AM Duration 00:03:45 Meas Mode Single Input Range Low Input Type Mic SPL Time Weight Fast LN% Freq Weight dBA Overload No UnderRange No Sensitivity 14.82mV/Pa LZeq 65.3 LCeq 64.1 LAeq 55.2 LZFmax 79.0 LCFmax 78.3 LAFmax 67.3 LZFmin 53.2 LCFmin 50.8 LAFmin 35.9 LZE 88.8 LCE 87.6 LAE 78.7 LZpk 84.5 LCpk 84.6 LApk 81.4 LAF1% 65.0 LAF2% 64.2 LAF5% 62.4 LAF8% 61.1 LAF10% 60.1 LAF25% 55.5 LAF50% 44.5 LAF90% 37.2 LAF95% 36.8 LAF99% 36.4 1/1 Oct. (dBA) 31.5 18.1 63 35.3 125 42.3 250 42.4 500 45.2 1000 51.3 2000 50.5 4000 43.5 8000 34.1 FFT (dBA) 86 2 0 -Inf 43.1 29.4 86.2 40.0 129.341.6 172.340.7 215.4 39.0 258.537.5 301.6 35. 7 344.734.7 387.835.2 430.8 36.5 473.937.3 517 37.8 560.1 38.4 603.2 39.0 646.3 39.5 689.3 40.1 732.4 40.2 775.5 40.4 818.641.0 861.741.8 904.842.2 947.842.4 990.941.8 1034 41.3 1077.1 41.0 1120.2 40.5 1163.3 40.4 1206.3 40.2 1249.4 40.3 1292.5 40.0 1335.6 39.8 1378.7 39.4 1421.8 39.3 1464.8 39.1 1507.9 39.3 1551 39.3 1594.1 39.5 1637.2 39.4 1680.3 39.1 1723.3 39.1 1766.4 39.0 1809.5 38.8 1852.6 38.8 1895.7 38.5 1938.8 38.3 1981.8 37.9 2024.9 37.6 2068 37.5 2111.1 36.9 2154.2 36.5 2197.3 35.9 87 2240.3 35.5 3 2283.4 34.9 2326.5 34.4 2369.6 33.8 2412.7 33.5 2455.8 33.2 2498.9 32.9 2541.9 32.7 2585 32.5 2628.1 32.5 2671.2 32.4 2714.3 32.2 2757.4 32.1 2800.4 31.9 2843.5 31.7 2886.6 31.5 2929.7 31.2 2972.8 31.1 3015.9 31.1 3058.9 31.1 3102 30.9 3145.1 30.8 3188.2 30.5 3231.3 30.3 3274.4 29.9 3317.4 29.8 3360.5 29.7 3403.6 29.6 3446.7 29.4 3489.8 29.4 3532.9 29.0 3575.9 28.5 3619 28.2 3662.1 28.2 3705.2 28.0 3748.3 27.6 3791.4 27.2 3834.4 26.9 3877.5 26.6 3920.6 26.3 3963.7 26.2 4006.8 25.9 4049.9 25.7 4092.9 25.6 4136 25.1 4179.1 24.8 4222.2 24.8 4265.3 24.6 4308.4 24.1 4351.4 23.7 4394.5 23.5 4437.6 23.6 88 4480.7 23.8 4 4523.8 23.5 4566.9 23.0 4609.9 23.0 4653 23.0 4696.1 23.0 4739.2 22.6 4782.3 22.6 4825.4 22.8 4868.5 22.5 4911.5 22.4 4954.6 22.3 4997.7 22.1 5040.8 22.0 5083.9 22.0 5127 21.8 5170 21.7 5213.1 21.5 5256.2 21.4 5299.3 21.3 5342.4 21.2 5385.5 21.4 5428.5 21.7 5471.6 22.1 5514.7 22.4 5557.8 21.3 5600.9 20.4 5644 19.8 5687 19.2 5730.1 18.4 5773.2 17.9 5816.3 17.6 5859.4 17.4 5902.5 17.2 5945.5 16.9 5988.6 16.5 6031.7 16.2 6074.8 15.8 6117.9 15.5 6161 15.7 6204 15.9 6247.1 15.9 6290.2 16.1 6333.3 16.4 6376.4 16.3 6419.5 16.4 6462.5 16.7 6505.6 16.7 6548.7 16.9 6591.8 17.4 6634.9 17.4 6678 17.4 89 5 6721 17.8 6764.1 18.2 6807.2 18.4 6850.3 18.7 6893.4 19.1 6936.5 19.2 6979.5 18.8 7022.6 18.9 7065.7 18.7 7108.8 18.6 7151.9 18.3 7195 18.0 7238.1 17.7 7281.1 17.5 7324.2 17.1 7367.3 16.8 7410.4 16.4 7453.5 16.2 7496.6 15.9 7539.6 15.6 7582.7 15.4 7625.8 15.1 7668.9 15.1 7712 15.1 7755.1 14.8 7798.1 14.4 7841.2 14.4 7884.3 14.4 7927.4 14.5 7970.5 14.2 8013.6 14.0 8056.6 13.8 8099.7 13.7 8142.8 13.7 8185.9 13.7 8229 13.7 8272.1 13.2 8315.1 13.0 8358.2 13.0 8401.3 12.6 8444.4 12.6 8487.5 12.5 8530.6 12.4 8573.6 12.2 8616.7 12.0 8659.8 11.9 8702.9 11.9 8746 11.9 8789.1 11.8 8832.1 11.9 8875.2 11.7 8918.3 11.8 90 8961.4 11.8 6 9004.5 11.5 9047.6 11.3 9090.6 11.3 9133.7 11.4 9176.8 11.3 9219.9 11.1 9263 11.0 9306.1 11.1 9349.2 11.3 9392.2 10.9 9435.3 11.0 9478.4 11.2 9521.5 10.9 9564.6 10.8 9607.7 10.8 9650.7 10.7 9693.8 10.8 9736.9 10.8 9780 10.7 9823.1 10.4 9866.2 10.4 9909.2 10.0 9952.3 9.8 9995.4 9.7 10038.5 9.5 10081.6 9.3 10124.7 9.5 10167.7 9.2 10210.8 9.1 10253.9 9.2 10297 9.1 10340.1 9.1 10383.2 9.1 10426.2 9.1 10469.3 9.0 10512.4 9.0 10555.5 8.8 10598.6 8.6 10641.7 8.8 10684.7 8.9 10727.8 8.6 10770.9 8.3 10814 8.4 10857.1 8.3 10900.2 8.2 10943.2 8.2 10986.3 8.1 11029.4 7.8 11072.5 7.6 11115.6 7.4 11158.7 7.4 91 11201.7 7.3 7 11244.8 7.0 11287.9 6.8 11331 6.7 11374.1 6.4 11417.2 6.1 11460.2 5.8 11503.3 5.7 11546.4 5.5 11589.5 5.2 11632.6 5.3 11675.7 4.9 11718.8 4.5 11761.8 4.2 11804.9 4 .1 118483.8 11891.1 3.6 11934.2 3.3 11977.3 3.2 12020.3 2.9 12063.4 2.9 12106.5 2.5 12149.6 2.3 12192.7 2.3 12235.8 2.1 12278.8 1. 8 12321.9 1. 6 12365 1.5 12408.1 1. 4 12451.2 1. 2 12494.3 1. 2 12537.3 1.1 12580.4 0.9 12623.5 0.9 12666.6 0.7 12709.7 0.5 12752.8 0.5 12795.8 0.6 12838.9 0.5 12882 0.3 12925.1 0.4 12968.2 0.4 13011.3 0.4 13054.3 0.4 13097.4 0.4 13140.5 0.4 13183.6 0.6 13226.7 0.7 13269.8 0.8 13312.8 0.7 13355.9 0.7 133990.9 92 13442.1 0.8 8 13485.2 0.9 13528.3 0.9 13571.3 0.8 13614.4 0.9 13657.5 0.9 13700.6 0.8 13743.7 0.8 13786.8 0.7 13829.8 0.7 13872.9 0.5 13916 0.4 13959.1 0.4 14002.2 0.1 14045.3 0.1 14088.4 0.1 14131.4 0.0 14174.5 0.0 14217.6 0.4 14260.7 0.3 14303.8 -0.5 14346.9 -0.8 14389.9 -0.9 14433 -1.3 14476.1 -1. 6 14519.2 -1. 6 14562.3 -1. 8 14605.4 -1. 9 14648.4 -2.3 14691.5 -2.5 14734.6 -2.8 14777.7 -2.9 14820.8 -3.0 14863.9 -3.4 14906.9 -3.6 14950 -3.8 14993.1 -4.1 15036.2 -4.2 15079.3 -4.5 15122.4 -4.6 15165.4 -4.9 15208.5 -5.1 15251.6 -5.4 15294.7 -5.7 15337.8 -5.9 15380.9 -6.0 15423.9 -6.2 15467 -6.3 15510.1 -6.3 15553.2 -6.4 15596.3 -7.0 15639.4 -7.3 93 15682.4 -7.4 9 15725.5 -7.9 15768.6 -8.2 15811.7 -8.2 15854.8 -8.6 15897.9 -8.7 15940.9 -8.8 15984 -8.9 16027.1 -9.2 16070.2 -9.3 16113.3 -9.5 16156.4 -9.6 16199.4 -9.8 16242.5 -10.2 16285.6 -10.6 16328.7 -10.7 16371.8 -10.8 16414.9 -11.0 16458 -11.3 16501-11.5 16544.1 -11.5 16587.2 -11.7 16630.3 -11.8 16673.4 -12.0 16716.5 -12.0 16759.5 -12.1 16802.6 -12.1 16845.7 -12.2 16888.8 -12.3 16931.9 -12.3 16975 -12.3 17018 -12.4 17061.1 -12.6 17104.2 -12.5 17147.3 -12.6 17190.4 -12.6 94 13442.1 -1.1 8 13485.2 -0.6 13528.3 -1.0 13571.3 -1.1 13614.4 -0.8 13657.5 -0.9 13700.6 -1.2 13743.7 -1.0 13786.8 -1.0 13829.8 -1.3 13872.9 -1.1 13916-0.8 13959.1 -0.8 14002.2 -0.5 14045.3 -0.0 14088.4 -0.6 14131.4 -1.4 14174.5 -0.6 14217.6 -0.6 14260.7 -1.7 14303.8 -2.3 14346.9 -1.6 14389.9 -2.1 14433 -2.9 14476.1 -2.7 14519.2 -1.6 14562.3 -2.1 14605.4 -3.1 14648.4 -2.1 14691.5 -3.1 14734.6 -4.1 14777.7 -3.3 14820.8 -3.5 14863.9 -4.4 14906.9 -4.4 14950-4.3 14993.1 -4.0 15036.2 -5.1 15079.3 -5.2 15122.4 -5.2 15165.4 -6.1 15208.5 -5.3 15251.6 -5.3 15294.7 -5.9 15337.8 -6.3 15380.9 -6.6 15423.9 -6.9 15467-7.1 15510.1 -7.3 15553.2 -7.3 15596.3 -7.6 15639.4 -7.6 95 15682.4 -8.1 9 15725.5 -8.4 15768.6 -8.6 15811.7 -9.1 15854.8 -9.2 15897.9 -9.3 15940.9 -9.0 15984 -9.1 16027.1 -9.3 16070.2 -9.3 16113.3 -9.6 16156.4 -10.3 16199.4 -10.2 16242.5 -10.3 16285.6 -10.3 16328.7 -9.8 16371.8 -10.1 16414.9 -11.0 16458 -11.3 16501-11.2 16544.1 -11.0 16587.2 -11.5 16630.3 -11.8 16673.4 -10.7 16716.5 -11.0 16759.5 -12.2 16802.6 -11.6 16845.7 -10.7 16888.8 -11.9 16931.9 -11.7 16975-11.1 17018 -11.7 17061.1 -11.8 17104.2 -11.4 17147.3 -11.8 17190.4 -12.1 96 Vanchar Design & Consulting Group ATTACHMENT 2 Drawing No. 6011-01 - Building Layout 97 HOUR FIRE \JALL THIS \JALL ONLY OVER FEED THJS CORNER 0 480 VAC PANEL ' 8' SVE INLET THROUGH 80XOUT IN FLOOR -s· / POINTS, TYP 4 CORNERS n n,, .. i::::::rCONTROI.Plff;L-oo..eu:()O()fl:I ETAILS OF SIZE DETERMINED IN PE CALCS E ,~,::,;,~I-=•-=•==1 5'-10" R/V5•H8 "ITE 1 RDDFI 3 -5APPROX 12' .---- ===i- , ---------- i l qtc 1 o'-2" HI_TE TRIM tYc!w.,rn t.' / ,YP TOSTK , . 10' 0 ) 20· ' 20'-9" ' J jo cj UL! u ' TEEL ooo• ;,';!, TLESDTY',/HLIETE LOCKING IND VIEW D-D' DOOR KNOB LAYOUT VIEW VIEW B-B' STEEL LAP SIDING, PAINTED SLATE ROCK B' r'vB . /ELDED STEEL ROOF V 3'-6" D >v 7 C' SVE DISCHARGE • NO LOSS STACK 'w'ITH E • OUTER PIPE, PVC MA TERI AL 12 ,... □OF HATCHES TO HAYE ' IO ANO GASKET USTOM FABRICATED 15'-10"1:%. I c:::==::J 6' SVE DISCHARGE 5' NO LOSS STACK \JITH 8' OUTER PIPE, PVC MATERIAL h LJ [g_ E :,J D' > cJ co< C cj u U I 8"_J_l 18' X 18' LOUVERS -4'-7"J I\ I\ \.'HITE LOUVERS A A' ANO TRJM ROOF VIEW ftZHf :ANGER VIEW A-A' VIEW c-c' (4) 18' X 18' LOUVERS LOUVERS \/HITE LOUVERS ANO TRIM REVISIONS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE ► .. PROJECT TITLE: □RAVING TITLE: SHEET l OF I * DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES * DO NOT SCALE DRAWING THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC BUYER SHALL HAVE THE USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY H2K TECHNOLOGIES, INC NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. ► .. H2K ► ► Technologies, Inc. 7550 Commerce St Corcoran, MN 55340, Tel: 763-746-9900©2014 \./SP USA ENVIRONMENT 2, INF A STRUCTURE INC. NE\./PORT BEACH, CA BUILDING LAYOUT REV DESCRIPTION DATE OWN F REVISIONS PER SUBMITTAL REVIEW 10/22 MK DRAWING NO. 5011-01 CHANGED TITLE BLOCK/LOUVER DIM 11/22 MK DESIGNED BY: MK ADDED FIRE WALL NOTE 12/22 MK PROJECT MGR.: MK CHANGED STACK LOCATION ADDED DETAIL 8/22 MK CHANGED TO METAL SIDING 10/22 MK PROJECT NO.: 6011 98 Attachment No. ZA 4 Alternative Location Analysis 99 Alternative Location Analysis Soil Vapor Extraction System Bayridge Park (Parcel 10) Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Project File No: PA2022-0180 February 15, 2023 100 , • June 7 - July 9, 2021--Public DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY/REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN {FS/RAP) Draft FS/RAP April 9, 2021 • 27 extraction wells • 5 soil vapor treatment systems distributed in parking spaces around the community Outreach -" ' I I I' I • June 3, 2021-- Fact Sheet mailed to community Comment Period • June 10, 2021--Public Meeting Explanation Existing {lmundw.ater monitoring wen -$-· Proposed groundwater monitcring well • So□gas,probe lo""ticm El Mulli-cleplh soil gas pre/be ioc.:,licm .L Soil Vapor Extl'aclion..manitoring p.cint (instal!ed and samp.1ecdil • Grab grmmdwa -r sample [O];Blior, Y Perimeter soLl,g,a.s probe locationi lsooonce:ntrationllines based on the most recent data IJ•nuary-Mareh 2021 j ft-om S3,Tt\J>lecs loca,ted 8! !o 16 lecel below goround surfa.ce Resi!len·a1TCE· -ooanoentrafion i,:, glm' Prop£Jsed s,al vapor e.xu.aclion well pairs SVE piping D Proposed SVE S!till Location 0 .-6.ssumed radius of imluence of the ex[riactian wetl pa1r (70 ft radius} \ 100 -c::=--=:= F-..ei A1TER:HATIIIE. 3 son VAPOR EXTRACTIOli LAYOUT PA.RC.EL 1'I Former Ford Aeronutronic Property -ewpo rt 'Beach Cali omii3 By. wood. l(LlJ ct Nci. l!lil0 .n71013. C >o..-. ---------- I 04'W!.o.!1 101 All comments were responded to in a Responsiveness Summary included in the Final Draft of the FS/RAP August 25, 2021. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED IN 2021 "No SVE Skids will be permitted within the complex. Locations within the exterior streetscapes/ROW will be considered subject to HOA, Ford & City agreement ...,, "The proposed five SVE skids stationed in the parking stalls approximately a year not only compound the parking shortage issue but are unsightly and will certainly affect the values of our homes...,, ''As a resident of the Bayridge community, I support a prompt remediation. However, your proposed plan is so intrusive. My hope is that all interested parties...you, Wood, Ford, and our Board of Directors can come up with a plan that utilizes a smaller footprint, minimizes tearing up of our streets and minimizes the general disruption to our daily lives...,, Comments Received During Public Comment Period • SVE Layout (12 comments) • Parking Impacts (13 comments) • Asphalt Impacts (13 comments) • Quality of Life Impacts (8 comments) • Request for More Information (5 comments) • Mitigation/Compensation (2 comments) • Other (4 comments) 102 Locations considered • Within Bayridge Park • Along Bison Avenue • Along Country Club Drive Criteria Considered • Disruption to neighborhood • Construction duration • Construction footprint within community walls • Proximity to homes • Proximity to windows, garages, vs walls • Impact on parking • Parking congestion worse in portions of the community than others • Permitting complexity • Setbacks from public right of way • Moratorium on Bison • Implementation complexity • Slope stability • Disruption of mature landscaping • Accessibility for construction equipment • Power connection complexity • Distance from source • Voltage drop ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 103 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS-BAYRIDGE PARK • Landscaped areas: • Congested and close to homes • Difficult for equipment access • Significant mature tree removal • Disrupt drainage/creek bed Low-lying drainage in open areas between buildings 104 -•, ALTERNATIVE ANALVSIS-BAVRIDGE PARK Parking areas: Heavily impacted and/or close to residences. • The HOA has denied use of any of these parking areas even for temporary field visits. Staff park '· offsite and walk in. • Parking concerns raised at every 105 Placement of the treatment system here is infeasible for the following reasons: • By doubling the length of the electrical conductors needed to power the system, the 3% maximum voltage drop code requirement cannot be met. • Risk of complaints from additional residents who previously did not have construction happening in front of their home during the community meetings. • Additional 1,450 feet electrical conduit and 850 feet of SVE piping would increase construction by ~2 months • Widening the trench to include electrical conductors around Hartford Drive creates conflicts with existing utilities. HOA has said parking in northwest corner is not as impacted. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS-BAYRIDGE PARK 106 107 ALONG COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE • Reviewed all feasible locations along Country Club Drive. • Northern portion of Country Club Drive - toward Bison Avenue • Middle Portion - Adjacent to 94 Hartford • Southern portion of Country Club Drive -toward One Ford Road Community ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- Country Club Drive Northern Middle Southern 108 View looking south along the sidewalk between Country Club Drive and Bayridge Park approaching the One Ford Road Gate Northern • Northern-Would require significant grading and potentially impact stability of existing retaining walls. • Southern-insufficient ◄ space to maintain sidewalk throughway Southern ◄ View from Bison Ave looking south along the sidewalk between Country Club Drive and Bayridge Park ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- Country Club Drive 109 Middle ◄ Worked with the Bayridge Park Homeowners Association Board to select this location. Looking north along the sidewalk on Country Club Drive adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive PROPOSED LOCATION ALONG COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 110 Option I Description Communications Disruption to Neighborhood Proximity to Homes Impact on Parking Permitting Complexity Implementation Complexity Power Connection Complexity 1 Bayridge Park- 5 small systems in parking spots (FS/RAP) - Community Mailer 6/3/21, Public comment 6/7-7/9/21, Public meeting 6/10/21 - HOA did not approve use of parking spaces. High Low Infeasible Low Medium Medium 2 Bayridge Park -Landscaped Areas between homes - Proposed by City on 2/15/23 - Disruption of mature landscaping and drainage - Inaccessibility for construction equipment - Does not solve the proximity to homes issue High High Low Medium Infeasible Medium 3 Bayridge Park - 2-3 Parking spots in eastern half of community. - Proposed by City on 2/15/23 - All parking areas within project limits are restricted by HOA MOU -Parking impacts are concern at every public meeting High Medium Infeasible Low Low Low 4 Bayridge Park - Larger treatment system across 3 parking spots - northwest corner of neighborhood - Proposed by City on 2/15/23 - Northwest corner parking area less impacted - Significant increase in linear feet of trenching required and construction duration -Voltage drop over additional distance not to code High Low Medium Low High Infeasible 5 Bison Ave - Discussion with City about setback requirements deemed this infeasible - Bison construction moratorium Low Low Low Infeasible High Medium 6 Along Country Club (northerr - Northern proposed by City 12/21, infeasible due to space limit and retaining wall impact -Southern, infeasible due to lack of space Low Medium Low Medium Infeasible Low 7 Country Club Drive - adjacent to 94 Hartford (Final FS/RAP & RDIP) - Public meeting 11/4/21 and 1/18/23 - City LTP process resulted in comments from 3 nearest residents with concerns about the location. Low High Low Medium Low Low ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Summary 111 FINAL FS/RAP ,'Ii----- f --- ......... I,. _/ 11'1 · -.---- Elcpl3E1alloo ♦ !!:lllS'll g-groun:...,,.,ater rn.onltartn w OOJ!(l&ed grooM ,•ateJ mo t'.M"1g well Pflll!IOEed 6-011 ,Ijl<li eru.ad!oo •welcl /lrs ill SoHga;s paJCJe'IDcaal:un !!:I M1I ep!□EGII ga;s prolle IOGatlOO .,, SoHvap,nr E:i:;\J.i!dlonmo .oong p t jlill;taHe.11a d samjl(ed) • Grall.groun.d·,ra:;!r &· pie klca n v Pertm:_ ,soil gas prooe iocat!,nn Final FS/RAP August 25, 2021 Design updated per public comments • 28 extraction wells • 1 vapor treatment system located outside of the walls of the community along Country Club Drive L.... J:s(!J¢onemtratto11llm1 ;,8 ba11E11'.Iom Ille most re0imt .llata [Janl3:Jr1-ll'UclJ W21],·rrnm samp!.is JIDc,a.81!l8 fo-1 rs&t .ll&low groun.11 81Ufil:6 l>.M en TC"E laOCOOi:errtl'illD n i'l tJg/rn? - S'l!E rig Prop,nsed S\IE e ciostse Aa-51:Tl=!d ra & D' u.ence o1'!he ,i,xtr 'it.'• palq7CI ral!fll!&) C,'J Soond""J' of Paree! HI - Ba d_gePar!< ALl'-ElliNA'flllE 3 SOll 1/AIPCil !XTRACTIO U.'rolJT PARCH1C . ............................... 0 D 0 . ..... -...- 112 \ REMEDIAL DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (RDIP) RDIP December 22, 2021 Additional design modifications incorporated to reduce number of wells/feet of trenching in the community while still achieving clean up goals • 13 extraction welIs • 1 soil vapor treatment system along Country Club Drive. Location selected in coordination with homeowners association Outreach • November 4, 2021 - Public Meeting on RDIP • January 18, 2023 - Public Meeting on construction scheduling E•planation EX3s · g gmundl.Yater-mo.nitorfig wel $- Proposed 11ro11ncfwal:er rnon itoriag 'WEIi ■ So gas probe locao<>n Soil Va?<Jr IExtlaclian mon._11.orin.g pOJnt • Pero eter so:il ga:s pco e.locatio□ 1'5,oc:onc.: rntrafiomlfne'i ha t:::d or11 th mo'il """91d;;b !J,inoai;y-Jun<' 2V21J, da rn•<I w n: inf n · Resirlentlal CE isocon oenlranon in gfml Prop-o:sed :soil vaporextr.action wel - SVE piping D P,op osed S\IE enolo5"re C:J Bounda,y of E'anoel 10 - Boyndge Par O Area of SVE Rernediaoon (" 1.moµofrn' TCE) Atbre'i'iations SVE = -soil 'lilapor extraction TCE = lrrollloroectherna i)g.rmat= microgram:; p:er rubic me,ter -=-=F,oa 't SOIUIAPOR EIClRACTION Sl'STEM LA!f'OUT PARCEt l0 - rnl:i!'F□rd Aeronm:mnk Pra;perey Newport Bi:!ach, (ailr.f,omi.:i 113 Attachment No. ZA 5 Response to Comments and Outreach Overview Tmplt: 01/18/23 114 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BAYRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY OBJECTIONS PROJECT FILE NO. PA2022-0180 Former Ford Aeronutronics Property, Newport Beach, CA February 10, 2023 The following responds to comments provided by the residents of Hartford Drive (Sites 10.48, 10.50, and 10.52) in response to Ford/WSP's application for a permit to construct the Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system (Attachment A). The SVE system is being constructed to safely remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in soil from historical aerospace research operations conducted by Ford Motor Company. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) requires this work to provide long-term protection of public health and the environment. SVE systems are a common engineering technology used to remove chemicals from soil and numerous SVE systems operate safely and efficiently in residential areas throughout the United States. The Water Board, Ford, and WSP have been conducting outreach in support of the environmental investigation and potential remediation related to the former Ford aerospace facility since 2018. A summary of the outreach conducted is included in the responses below (Response to Comment 1.4) and further details can be found in Attachment B: Outreach Overview, Attachment C: Information Line Contact Log, and Attachment D: WSP Hartford Residents Contact Log. In addition to these responses, Ford/WSP have attempted to work individually with these residents to resolve their concerns prior to the construction of the system. To date, the residents have declined to engage in conversation. COMMENTER #1, 10.52, BAYRIDGE PARK RESIDENT, FROM JANUARY 24, 2023, EMAIL Comment 1.1: The proposed SVE system is in very close proximity to my windows. I do not have air conditioning and thus have always needed to have my windows open during the summer and fall months for ventilation. The noise levels during construction and the running of the system will cause a very disquieting and stressful atmosphere. It is jeopardizing mine and my immediate neighbor's quality of life. Response 1.1: Lessening community impacts to the greatest degree possible was a guiding factor in designing the Water Board-required SVE system. Ford representatives worked closely with the Bayridge Homeowners Association (HOA) and community members to select this location and presented it to the community for review and comment through both fact sheets and at two separate community meetings held at Bayridge Park on November 4, 2021, and January 18, 2023. Fact sheets and meeting invitations were provided to all Bayridge Park owners and occupants. WSP is confident this system, as designed, will operate safely, quietly, and effectively with very little, if any, community disturbance. Minimizing Construction Impacts: To lessen impacts during construction, the building which houses the treatment system is being built off-site and is designed to blend in with the existing homes in the area. The sequence of events for construction of the treatment system and estimated task durations are anticipated to be as follows. These tasks will be conducted as part 115 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 2 of 12 of the overall construction schedule and there will be some breaks between the construction activities listed. • Fabricate building and treatment system as a unit in Minnesota - 7 months • Prepare treatment system area including removal of vegetation and paving - 3 days • Pour concrete pad on which building will sit - 1 day • Curing of the pad - 4 days • Place prefabricated building on the pad - 1 day • Treatment system connection and commissioning - 5 days • Architectural enhancements - 10 days • Landscaping - 5 days A work notice will be distributed via US mail to all Bayridge owners/occupants no less than 7 days in advance of system installation. Emails, phone calls, and door-to-door canvassing will be implemented, as needed, to keep community members informed of the progress and upcoming work. A dedicated community relations advocate will be present during installation to quickly respond and support finding resolution to concerns. Noise associations with the SVE System: Noise from the system, which will operate 24/7, will be at - and likely a bit lower - than noise levels allowed under the City of Newport Beach noise ordinance requirements. To lessen noise, the system will operate within an enclosed structure that includes sound attenuation insulation covering all four walls and the roof. An Acoustical Engineering Analysis prepared in October 2022 calculated that the noise level at the exterior of the system building will be 48.8 decibels, which is similar to the noise from a common household refrigerator (50 decibels) and consistent with the City of Newport Beach noise limits of 55 decibels from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and 50 decibels from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am (see Newport Beach Municipal Code [NBMC]). Furthermore, it is calculated that the presence of the treatment system will increase the existing ambient noise level adjacent to these residences by less than 1 decibel - a difference which is undetectable to the human ear. Ford has contacted the person(s) who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person(s) has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.2: I am a two-time survivor of cancer. I am greatly concerned regarding the exhaust fumes and safety of the SVE system. Since there are not going to be real time results as to air quality how can those directly affected be guaranteed all is operating safely. What if there is some type of natural disaster. Fires, earthquakes etc. could mean disastrous damage to the system, causing grave consequences. Response 1.2: Soil vapor extraction systems are a common way to treat organic chemical vapors found in soil and operate safely, efficiently, and quietly at locations throughout the United States. The system planned for Bayridge Park is a state-of-the-art system designed to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (Air District) permit requirements, which are set at levels protective of the health of even the most sensitive individuals (immunocompromised individuals, seniors, children, etc.). 116 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 3 of 12 A robust failure analysis has been conducted to evaluate the system's safety. The pipes are under vacuum so there is no risk of explosion or over-pressurization. The system will be set up with an uninterrupted power source to maintain operation in the event of a loss of power. The building itself is designed to meet all local and state building and fire code requirements. The wall closest to the adjacent building has a two-hour fire rating to protect from both the inside out, and outside in. The building will be secured to a concrete pad, which has been designed and reviewed by California professional structural engineers, using anchors chosen based on specific earthquake risk parameters of the Newport Beach area. The system will be remotely monitored 24/7 and set up with alarms that will immediately call the Operations Manager if the system is not operating properly. The treatment system includes built-in controls which will safely shut the system down in response to an unforeseen disturbance, such as an earthquake or other natural disaster. The built-in controls will notify a designated Operations Manager, electronically alerting this individual of a shutdown or other operational issues, which will trigger emergency response measures. Once the system is shut down, no vapors will be extracted from the ground and the system will not be under any vacuum or pressure that would force the movement or release of vapors. The system will be inspected for any damage or issues that could compromise the system or interior or exterior of the building. Once it is safe to turn the system back on, the Operations Manager will perform a series of tests throughout the piping network and treatment system to check for any cracked pipes or seal leaks that need to be repaired or replaced. Comment 1.3: This project is going to adversely affect all the community's property values. How can you justify only four properties taking the brunt of this and probably being unable to sell or rent during this project. There is no guarantee as to when someone might have to sell nor to the timing of this project. Response 1.3: The Water Board, Ford and WSP have been conducting community outreach since the beginning of this project in 2018 and have provided a variety of information on environmental investigation and future remediation. During this time, several individuals expressed concern about declining home sale prices. To date, there has not been a decline in home sales or sale prices. Ford has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern, including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. If requested, Ford will work directly with any Bayridge Park resident to fairly address any real property diminution resulting from the operation of this system should they decide to put their home on the market during the time the soil vapor treatment system is actively operating. Comment 1.4: Why were the residents not consulted or included in the discussion as to where this system belongs. The original plans were scratched due to concern over visitor parking, Instead, they have decided to place the system 3 feet away from a resident's window with and infant and within feet of two other residences. Response 1.4: The Water Board, Ford and WSP have conducted a comprehensive outreach program since 2018 which includes outreach to 11 residential communities and 8 commercial properties within the project study area. During this time, they have distributed 10 Water Board 117 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 4 of 12 project fact sheets via US mail and email to over 1,800 addresses; over 100 notices of work to support groundwater monitoring, soil vapor and indoor air investigation activities, and SVE pilot test and pre-construction activities; and held over 25 community meetings to support community understanding and input in the investigation and cleanup process. In addition, there is a project- specific webpage at www.fordnbfacts.com, a project YouTube page at https://tinyurl.com/FordNBYouTube, an electronic repository at the State Water Board's GeoTracker website at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global_ id=SL188023848, and a toll-free information line (833-949-3673) that community members can call 24/7 and receive a call back the same or next business day. Specific to Bayridge Park, the Water Board held a 30-day public comment period from June 7 to July 9, 2021 to accept comments on the draft cleanup plan, known as the draft Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan (FS/RAP). The draft FS/RAP describes site conditions and identifies soil vapor extraction as the most appropriate technology to remove vapors in soil below the community. The Water Board also held a virtual public meeting to discuss the draft FS/RAP and accept comments from residents on June 10, 2021. The comment period and public meeting were advertised by a save-the-date postcard sent to all residents in Bayridge Park and a Water Board fact sheet distributed prior to the start of the comment period. During the public meeting, the FS/RAP, was discussed in detail. Residents at the meeting and in comments emailed to the Water Board made it clear that they did not approve of the original plan of the 5 smaller soil vapor treatment systems in their community because it would cause increased construction activities, a reduction in parking spaces, and visual impacts. As a result, and in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA acting as the residents' representative, it was decided to have one treatment system outside of the common area. This decision was documented in the final FS/RAP as well as in a Response to Comments document, which was provided to all those who commented. Two additional meetings were held with Bayridge Park residents in November 2021 and January 2023. The November 2021 meeting was held poolside in their community and the January 2023 meeting was held at the nearby Bonita Creek Community Room, due to concerns of possible rain. During both meetings, the soil vapor treatment system location outside of the community was shared with residents (the resident at 96 Hartford attended both meetings and the resident at 92 Hartford attended the January 2023 meeting). While residents still had concerns about construction impacts and the overall design of the system, the revised location of the system was not questioned. A detailed overview of all outreach conducted in support of the project as well as specific outreach in the Bayridge Park community is included in Attachment B. Ford has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern, including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.5: The original unit included 5+ systems. Please provide information on the efficiency and safety of using 1 large system 3 feet away from residences. Response 1.5: The draft FS/RAP proposed an SVE system with 27 wells and 5 treatment systems. The public was notified of this proposed SVE system through a public comment period held from June 7 - July 9, 2021, a fact sheet announcing the comment period, which was 118 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 5 of 12 distributed prior to the start of the comment period, and a public meeting held on June 10, 2021. Public comments received during the meeting and in subsequent emails did not support the proposed plan of 5 SVE system treatment buildings. The Water Board and Ford take public comment seriously, and where possible given the parameters of the project, will make adjustments to work. Based on these concerns the system design was re-evaluated to determine if accommodations could be made while still meeting the remedial objectives of removing volatile chemicals from the soil beneath the community. Various design considerations were evaluated including reducing the number of soil vapor extraction wells, consolidation of the five treatment systems into one, adjusting operational parameters, and selecting equipment to minimize noise, among others. The revised design was further evaluated using software called MODFLOW which is widely used in the industry to evaluate soil vapor extraction performance. The model confirmed the revised design with 13 wells and one treatment system would meet remediation performance metrics. Based on the revised design and in close coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA and Bayridge Park residents, the location outside of the community and adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected. In October 2021, Bayridge Park residents were invited to attend a community meeting held on November 4, 2021, providing information on the planning of the Remedial Design and Implementation Plan (RDIP), which describes the SVE system installation and operation details including the revised location. During this meeting, only comments in support of the proposed treatment building location were received. On December 22, 2021, the RDIP was submitted to the Water Board and included a network of 13 extraction well locations tied into a SVE treatment system building adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive. The Water Board approved the RDIP on January 28, 2022. On January 18, 2023, Ford/WSP held another community meeting with Bayridge Park residents to discuss implementation of the SVE system and measures that would be taken to reduce construction impacts to the community. Again, no questions about the location of the treatment building system outside the community were asked and instead questions focused on the design of the building as well as construction impacts from the installation of the 13 wells within the community were the focus of comments. Ford takes community concerns seriously and has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern including, accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.6: What will Ford do for the 4-6 residences DIRECTLY affected by this SVE? Response 1.6: Ford has contacted the person(s) who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern in a manner that is satisfactory and allows this work to move forward. This may include installation of air conditioning units, temporary relocation, and other concessions. To date, the person(s) have declined to engage in conversation. Comment 1.7: After my initial submission I reread the City of Newport Beach Notice of Public Hearing. The notice states that the proposed project requests a 3.2-foot separation distance 119 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 6 of 12 where the REQUIRED separation is 8 feet between buildings. Please explain and add this concern to my previous submission. Response 1.7: This work is mandated by the Water Board to provide long-term protection of public health and the environment, and the system has been designed to operate safely and efficiently. For these reasons and as indicated in the City of Newport Beach January 26, 2023, Zoning Administrator Staff Report, the project's limited duration qualifies it for construction under a Limited Term Permit, which provides relief from the 8-foot setback developmental standard set forth PC-24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community). The PC-24 document provided standards to follow during the development of the community in 1979 but is more stringent than the requirements of local and state building and fire codes. The location and construction of the treatment system complies with all local and state building and fire safety codes. COMMENTER #2: 10.48, BAYRIDGE PARK RESIDENT, FROM JANUARY 25, 2023, EMAIL Comment 2.1: I respectfully and strenuously object to the Bayridge/Ford treatment system building being placed at 94 Hartford Drive. IT IS TOO CLOSE TO HOMES AND NEEDS TO BE RELOCATED. Response 2.1: The system location was selected, after multiple rounds of design document review and public comment and in consultation with the Bayridge Park HOA, to balance the need to conduct this work to provide long-term protection of public health and the environment while minimizing impacts to the community. The system has been designed to operate safely, efficiently, and quietly in a residential area and will be regularly maintained and monitored to ensure it is operating as planned. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.4 for additional details. Comment 2.2: The original plan of Wood/WSP was NOT to have 13 well installations with concentrated vapors converging into one building for treatment. They proposed 5 buildings closer to the hot spots, where the vapor would be diffused in different areas of the Bayridge complex. Response 2.2: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.5. Comment 2.3: Objections were raised to the original plan because of the taking up of parking spaces. Let's not make parking convenience a priority over health and safety. Response 2.3: This system was designed with community safety in mind and carefully balances the need to conduct this work while minimizing impacts to the community. The system includes multiple redundancies to ensure that all air discharged is at or below permit discharge limits, that the system will safely shut down in case of a natural disaster, that there will be no vibrations from the system's operation, and that sound will be below what is required in the City of Newport's noise ordinance in residential areas - in this case it will be no louder than a refrigerator. 120 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 7 of 12 The system is housed in a building that will blend with the existing community and once treatment is done and the Water Board determines the system is no longer needed - the building will be removed, and the area will be restored to like condition. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.5 for additional details. Comment 2.4: The proposed distance from the building and 94 Hartford is 3.2 feet, where 8 feet is the required separation. What if there is a fire inside the structure? An earthquake? Response 2.4: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.2 and response to Comment 1.7. Comment 2.5: Removal of toxins cannot be at 100%. All the toxic vapors being expelled within feet of our residences IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to our health and well-being. The problem is exacerbated by the prevailing onshore breezes that will move the vapor to the closest homes on Hartford Drive. The new model with one treatment system building was conceived through computer-generated 30 modeling that we must trust. Response 2.5: This system has been designed to operate safely in a residential environment and has redundancies to ensure that VOCs are treated and all air that is discharged is at or below the discharge limits in the Air District permit that are set at levels that are protective of the most vulnerable community members. The operation of the SVE system will be overseen by the Water Board and permitted by the Air District. For this specific system, two granular activated carbon filters will remove VOCs and the air that is discharged will be within the limits set by the Air District and monitored regularly to confirm it is protective of the health. Comment 2.6: We are being asked to put our faith in technology, with no real time monitoring. It was explained in the meeting that samples have to be taken off-site and analyzed, and there is a minimum of a two-week lag. Response 2.6: In accordance with the Air District Permit, total VOC concentration will be measured using a real-time monitor (such as a photoionization detector) at least once a day for the first seven days of operation to confirm the system is operating as designed and within permit specifications which are set to be protective of public health. Following the first seven days, monitoring will continue weekly or more frequently if required by the Air District. In addition to the real-time monitoring, analytical sampling will be conducted at least once a month and analyzed by an independent laboratory in accordance with the Air Districts Rule 304. Samples will be analyzed for specific VOCs to verify compliance with the permit and reported to the Air District. All data will also be reported to the Water Board and be available to the public on the State Water Boards document repository geotracker.ca.gov. Comment 2.7: Pipes can leak. Connectors can leak. There can be failures with the system, and this is occurring a few feet from where we live, sleep and breathe. Living in close proximity to this ongoing process is psychologically disturbing and deprives us of peace of mind. Response 2.7: This system has been designed to safely operate in a residential area and the operation will be overseen by the Water Board and Air District. Prior to operation, the pipes and 121 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 8 of 12 connections will be tested to ensure that they are operating efficiently and with no leaks. The piping underlying the streets is under vacuum meaning if there is a leak, the flow of air will be into the pipe, not out of it. The system will operate within all parameters of a permit issued by the Air District and will be regularly maintained and monitored to ensure it is functioning correctly. The impacted vapors already exist below ground and by implementing this remediation system the concentrations in the soil vapor will reduce the risk of intrusion (the process of impacted vapors infiltrating into overlying homes). The system is designed to protect human health and the environment. Ford understands that the location of the unit is distressing to the person who made this comment. Ford has contacted the person who made this comment in an attempt to address this concern, including accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 2.8: The noise factor so close to homes is another reason to relocate the building. Possible electrical humming from the equipment. Possible EMF fields. Response 2.8: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.1 regarding noise. The World Health Organization has studied the relationship between electromagnetic fields and human health extensively and concluded: "Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields."1 Ford has contacted the person who made this comment in an attempt to address this concern. This will include covering the cost for the installation of a state-of-the-art air conditioner and having plans in place for temporary relocation, if needed. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 2.9: The project is supposed to last a year. What if the testing at that point does not show results that are satisfactory to the Regional Water Quality Control Board? The timeframe could be extended. Response 2.9: The treatment system is anticipated to operate for approximately 12 months. At the end of that timeframe, the Water Board will review the data and determine if additional monitoring and/or remediation is needed. The Water Board may request the system continue to operate for some period of time after the first year (either continuously or in a pulsed fashion). But ultimately, the goal is to remove VOC mass from the subsurface, such that the treatment system can be taken down and the area restored in a timely manner. 1 Radiation: Electromagnetic fields (who.int) [ https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and- answers/item/radiation-electromagnetic-fields#:~:text=Some%20members%20of%20the %20public,fatigue%20and%201oss%20of%201ibido.] 122 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 9 of 12 Comment 2.10: What if we want to sell our homes or rent them out over the next 18+ months? Who would buy or rent with this situation? Our homes are NUMBER ONE FINANCIAL ASSET. Response 2.10: Should this commentor decide to put this property on the market during the 12 months this system is anticipated to operate, Ford will work with this owner to address this concern. Comment 2.11 and 2.12: A relocation of the treatment system building is imperative. Either go back to the original plan of 5 structures or find a better location, such as the corner of Bison & Country Club Drive, which is closer to garages, not homes, or the 7 parking spaces that border Jamboree that were fenced in and used as a construction yard for a past project. This is not acceptable, and we expect it to be changed. Thank you. Response 2.11 and 2.12: While we recognize that the person who made this comment feels this location is unacceptable, we are confident the system - as designed - can operate safely and effectively for a temporary period. This location was selected following 6 years of community engagement that included a 30-day comment period on the location, public meetings to discuss the location and impacts, and information available through fact sheets, websites and live video recordings of meetings. This location was selected in consultation with the Bayridge Park HOA and Bayridge residents that participated in the public outreach as described above in the response to Comment 1.5. COMMENTER #3: 10.50, BAYRIDGE PARK RESIDENT, FROM JANUARY 25, 2023, EMAIL Comment 3.1: As the primary residence impacted, we did not approve this system location and are requesting an alternate location due to the health and safety concerns listed below. We never received any certified mail regarding the project being directly adjacent to our home. Response 3.1: The Water Board, Ford and WSP have engaged in a 6-year public outreach process that included over 25 meetings, 10 fact sheets, recordings of meetings uploaded to YouTube, a project specific website, and toll-free information hotline. Fact sheets and meeting announcements were emailed and sent to owners/occupants via US mail as well as distributed by the Bayridge HOA, which maintains an email list of owners and occupants. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.4 for additional information. The person who made this comment moved into the community in 2020 and the listing of outreach conducted and contact log (Attachment B through D) demonstrates the extensive outreach conducted including conversations with the person who made this comment. Ford has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address this concern including, accommodating specific needs due to their proximity to the system during construction and operation. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 3.2: We understand the necessity of the remediation, however 94 Hartford was not the first proposed site. There are multiple sites available in the community that do not violate the building separation requirement. 123 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 10 of 12 Response 3.2: The location was selected in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA and Bayridge Park residents after an extensive public outreach process. Extensive discussions with the City of Newport Beach during the design process were also conducted in order to understand the basis of the separation requirement and whether a temporary structure closer to this would still be safe. This location was selected because it balances the need to do the work while minimizing impacts to the community to the greatest extent possible. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.5 and Comment 1.7 for additional information. Ford has contacted the person who made these comments in an attempt to address and resolve this concern. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 3.3: The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home, including the exhaust that will be adjacent to windows. The project summary states that the required building separation is 8 feet. a. Data must be provided to show the proposed system, violating the required separation distance: i. is deemed safe to be within 3 feet of a residential unit for the proposed length of time ii. the proximity does not adversely affect human health and child development iii. Please include information on the electromagnetic field and/or radiation from the unit and air quality standards from the exhaust b. What are the impacts on fire safety code and potential impacts of an earthquake or other natural disaster since the required separation distance is 8 feet? Response 3.3: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.7. a. There is one discharge point on the top of the building, and that discharge point is located approximately 20 feet away from the window of the 94 Hartford Drive residence. The system planned for Bayridge Park is designed to meet Air District permit requirements, which are set at levels protective of the health including sensitive populations (e.g., infants and children). Please refer to the response to Comment 2.6 for additional information on real-time and analytical monitoring and response to Comment 2.8 regarding electromagnetic fields. b. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.2 and Comment 2.7. Comment 3.4: It was stated at the pre-construction meeting that there are no "real time" results of the air samples taken from the exhaust. These samples must be analyzed at the lab. The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from a residence where an infant resides (the required separation is 8 feet). a. How can we be assured that the air quality is safe with an infant inside 24 hours a day? b. If there is a failure in the system, how long can the failure go undetected and what are the consequences? c. Will the residences directly impacted receive air purifiers, new windows, and enhanced monitoring? 124 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 11 of 12 i. Currently, our home has the original windows, installed 35+ years ago; these windows have the glass separated from the metal frame and do not properly seal out wind, dust, or noise. Having the treatment system 3 feet away from the home with this condition of windows will greatly impact quality of life inside the home, including sleep disruptions due to noise impact. Response 3.4: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.7 regarding building separation and the response to Comment 2.6 for additional information on real-time and analytical monitoring. a. The residence of the person who made this comment had their indoor air sampled one time in 2020. Concentrations of chemicals of concern from samples collected within the residence did not exceed regulatory screening levels. WSP has contacted the resident multiple times to request additional sampling as part of the Indoor Air sampling program being conducted for this project. It is recommended to have at least two rounds of sampling in two different seasons (6 months apart) in order to conduct a human-health risk assessment. Once the initial two or more rounds are conducted and the risk assessment is complete, the residence will be placed in a long-term monitoring program at a frequency determined by sampling results but expected to be annually. As with all properties within our Indoor Air Program, if concentrations in indoor air exceed regulatory screening levels as a result of vapor intrusion, air purifiers will be offered and sampling frequency will increase. b. The system will be monitored remotely 24/7 and will be set up with alarms to notify the Operations Manager immediately if the system is not operating properly. The system can be stopped remotely if needed. Please refer to Comment 1.2 for more details. c. Please refer to the response to Comment 1.1. Ford has attempted to contact the person who made this comment to discuss additional measures that can be taken to mitigate noise and monitor indoor air quality. To date, this person has declined to engage in conversation. Comment 3.5: The original proposal included 5-6 extraction units; please provide information on the safety of using 1 larger unit that is 3 feet away from a residence, where the required separation is 8 feet. It was stated that the efficacy of using 1 larger unit was determined by computer modeling. a. Please provide data on potential failures among these treatment systems and the impact of residential safety (for example, pipes, electrical failures, fire risk). Response 3.5: Please refer to the response to Comment 1.2 regarding safety and Comment 1.5 regarding design. Comment 3.6: The system unit will affect home values and quality of life. We did not buy our home with plans to have a treatment system directly outside of our main living area window. We will not be able to sell or rent out our home with this treatment system 3 feet away. As stated in the Zoning Administrator Staff Report: "the treatment system will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it has been identified as the most feasible location to reduce visual impact from surrounding residents." 125 Responses to Comments Bayridge Park Community Objections February 10, 2023 Page 12 of 12 a. This location does not reduce visual impact from our residence. This location directly impacts our quality of life and home. Per the renderings, a large pine tree will be removed that is currently in front of our living area window and the system will be directly visible from our main living area window. We have not received notification of this tree being removed. b. Our home was never entered to see the visual impact the system will have from our main living area and the sightlines from 94 Hartford Drive. c. The project summary also states our air conditioning unit "shall be relocated" prior to issuance of the building permits. We did not agree to this relocation of the air conditioning unit. We did not receive notification via certified mail of moving this air conditioning unit. d. The main concerns at the pre-construction meeting were related to construction inconveniences, parking, and aesthetics, instead of health and safety of residents with the system being adjacent to a home that violates the required separation distance. Response 3.6: Please see the following responses to your comments: a. Ford/WSP are attempting to work individually with these residents to resolve their concerns prior to the construction of the system. The system is temporary, and conditions will be restored upon completion of remediation and approval from the Water Board. To date, this person has declined to engage in conversation. b. See Response A above. c. Ford/WSP are attempting to work individually with these residents to resolve their concerns prior to the construction of the system. WSP has called or emailed the resident six times since May of 2022 to attempt to discuss the relocation of the AC Unit. d. Ford/WSP have designed a system that is safe to operate, protects the health of nearby residences and reduces construction impacts to the greatest extent possible. The location of the treatment system has been designed in a manner that will allow it to operate safely and not affect the health of the residents because all vapors will be treated with granulated active carbon prior to being released into the atmosphere. The carbon will effectively treat the vapor and remove the VOC contamination to levels allowed under the permit to operate by the Air District which are set at levels that are protective of sensitive populations. The system will be regularly maintained and monitored weekly to ensure it is operating as designed and overseen by Water Board and Air District staff. Please refer to the Response to Comment 1.7 regarding separation distance. 126 ATTACHMENT A PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION Remediation Project File No: PA2022-0180 127 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: January 24, 2023 6:53 PM CDD Tran, Jenny Objections for hearing Follow up Flagged RE: City of Newport Beach Notice of Public Hearing Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive Project File No: PA2022-0180 1. The proposed SVE system is in very close proximity to my windows. I do not have air conditioning and thus have always needed to have my windows open during the summer and fall months for ventillation. The noise levels during construction and the running of the system will cause a very disquieting and stressful atmosphere. It is jeopardizing mine and my immediate neighbors quality of life. 2. I am a two time survivor of cancer. I am greatly concerned regarding the exhaust fumes and safety of the SVE system. Since there are not going to be real time results as to air quality how can those directly affected be guaranteed all is operating safely. What if their is some type of natural disaster. Fires, earthquakes etc. could mean disastrous damage to the system, causing grave consequences. 3. This project is going to adversely effect all the communities property values. How can you justify only four properties taking the brunt of this and probably being unable to sell or rent during this project. There is no guarantee as to when someone might have to sell nor to to the timing of this project. 4. Why were the residents not consulted or included in the discussion as to where this system belongs. The original plans were scratched due to concern over visitor parking, Instead, they have decided to place the system 3 feet away from a residents window with and infant and within feet of two other residences. 5. The original unit included 5+ systems. Please provide information on the efficiency and safety of using 1 large system 3 feet away from residences. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 128 6. What will Ford do for the 4-6 residences DIRECTLY affected by this SVE system. 129 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: January 25, 2023 6:15 AM CDD Tran, Jenny Objections for hearing Follow up Flagged RE: 94 Hartford Ford Aeronutronic Soil Vapor Remediation Project File No: PA2022-0180 After my initial submission I reread the City of Newport Beach Notice of Public Hearing. THe notice states that the proposed project requests a 3.2 foot separation distance where the REQUIRED separation is 8 feet between buildings. Please explain and add this concern to my previous submission. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 130 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: January 25, 2023 10:12 AM CDD Zoom Tran, Jenny Time Sensitive: Public Hearing 1/26 Issues on Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Good morning. My name is and I am a resident and original owner at• Hartford Dr. Newport Beach in Bayridge. Below please find issues that I am raising with regard to the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation project at Bayridge (94 Hartford) in Newport Beach. Project file No: PA2022-0180 Thank you for your review of these points prior to the public hearing on January 26. • I respectfully and strenuously object to the Bayridge/Ford treatment system building being placed at 94 Hartford Drive. IT IS TOO CLOSE TO HOMES AND NEEDS TO BE RELOCATED. • The original plan of Wood/WSP was NOT to have 13 well installations with concentrated vapors converging into one building for treatment. They proposed 5 buildings closer to the hot spots, where the vapor would be diffused in different areas of the Bayridge complex. • Objections were raised to the original plan because of the taking up of parking spaces. Let's not make parking convenience a priority over health and safety. The proposed distance from the building and 94 Hartford is 3.2 feet, where 8 feet is the required separation. What if there is a fire inside the structure? An earthquake? • Removal of toxins cannot be at 100%. All the toxic vapor being expelled within feet of our residences IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to our health and well-being. The problem is exacerbated by the prevailing onshore breezes that will move the vapor to the closest homes on Hartford Drive. The new model with one treatment system building was conceived through computer-generated 3D modeling that we must trust. • We are being asked to put our faith in technology, with no real time monitoring. It was explained in the meeting that samples have to be taken off-site and analyzed, and there is a minimum of a two-week lag. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 131 • Pipes can leak. Connectors can leak. There can be failures with the system, and this is occurring a few feet from where we live, sleep and breathe. Living in close proximity to this ongoing process is psychologically disturbing and deprives us of peace of mind. • The noise factor so close to homes is another reason to relocate the building. Possible electrical humming from the equipment. Possible EMF fields. • The project is supposed to last a year. What if the testing at that point does not show results that are satisfactory to the Regional Water Quality Control Board? The timeframe could be extended. • What if we want to sell our homes or rent them out over the next 18+ months? Who would buy or rent with this situation? Our homes are NUMBER ONE FINANCIAL ASSET. • A relocation of the treatment system building is imperative. Either go back to the original plan of 5 structures or find a better location, such as the corner of Bison & Country Club Drive, which is closer to garages, not homes, or the 7 parking spaces that border Jamboree that were fenced in and used as a construction yard for a past project. • This is not acceptable and we expect it to be changed. Thank you. 132 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: January 25, 2023 10:46 AM CDD Tran, Jenny Notice of Public Hearing Comments for review 1/26/23: 94 Hartford Drive Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Good morning, My name is and I live at■Hartford Drive. Please see below for review prior to the public hearing on 1/26/23 for Project File No.: PA2022-0180. Please confirm receipt ofthis email. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Regarding the City of Newport Beach: Notice of Public Hearing -- Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive on Thursday, January 26, 2023: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Location: 94 Harford Drive To Whom It May Concern: We live at■Hartford Drive with our infant son. We have the following concerns regarding the soil vapor remediation treatment system that is proposed to be built directly next to our residence, violating the required separation of 8 feet between buildings. As the primary residence impacted, we did not approve this system location and are requesting an alternate location due to the health and safety concerns listed below. We never received any certified mail regarding the project being directly adjacent to our home. We understand the necessity of the remediation, however 94 Hartford was not the first proposed site. There are multiple sites available in the community that do not violate the building separation requirement. 1. The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home, including the exhaust that will be adjacent to windows. The project summary states that the required building separation is 8 feet. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 133 a. Data must be provided to show the proposed system, violating the required separation distance: i. is deemed safe to be within 3 feet of a residential unit for the proposed length of time ii. the proximity does not adversely affect human health and child development iii. Please include information on the electromagnetic field and/or radiation from the unit and air quality standards from the exhaust b. What are the impacts on fire safety code and potential impacts of an earthquake or other natural disaster since the required separation distance is 8 feet? 2. It was stated at the pre-construction meeting that there are no "real time" results of the air samples taken from the exhaust. These samples must be analyzed at the lab. The system is proposed to be 3 feet away from a residence where an infant resides (the required separation is 8 feet). a. How can we be assured that the air quality is safe with an infant inside 24 hours a day? b. If there is a failure in the system, how long can the failure go undetected and what are the consequences? c. Will the residences directly impacted receive air purifiers, new windows, and enhanced monitoring? i. Currently, our home has the original windows, installed 35+ years ago; these windows have the glass separated from the metal frame and do not properly seal out wind, dust, or noise. Having the treatment system 3 feet away from the home with this condition of windows will greatly impact quality of life inside the home, including sleep disruptions due to noise impact. 3. The original proposal included 5-6 extraction units; please provide information on the safety of using 1 larger unit that is 3 feet away from a residence, where the required separation is 8 feet. It was stated that the efficacy of using 1 larger unit was determined by computer modeling. a. Please provide data on potential failures among these treatment systems and the impact of residential safety (for example, pipes, electrical failures, fire risk). 4. The system unit will affect home values and quality of life. We did not buy our home with plans to have a treatment system directly outside of our main living area window. We will not be able to sell or rent out our home with this treatment system 3 feet away. As stated in the Zoning Administrator Staff Report: "the treatment system will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it has been identified as the most feasible location to reduce visual impact from surrounding residents." a. This location does not reduce visual impact from our residence. This location directly impacts our quality of life and home. Per the renderings, a large pine tree will be removed that is currently in front of our living area window and the system will be directly visible from our main living area window. We have not received notification of this tree being removed. b. Our home was never entered to see the visual impact the system will have from our main living area and the sightlines from 94 Hartford Drive. 134 c. The project summary also states our air conditioning unit "shall be relocated" prior to issuance of the building permits. We did not agree to this relocation of the air conditioning unit. We did not receive notification via certified mail of moving this air conditioning unit. d. The main concerns at the pre-construction meeting were related to construction inconveniences, parking, and aesthetics, instead of health and safety of residents with the system being adjacent to a home that violates the required separation distance. We respectfully request the system to be moved to an alternate location that does not violate the required building separation distance. There are multiple sites in the community that do not violate this. Respectfully, 135 136 ATTACHMENT B OUTREACH OVERVIEW The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), Ford and WSP have conducted a robust outreach program since 2018 that encompasses specific outreach activities for the entire project, which spans an area of 11 residential communities and 8 commercial properties, along with targeted outreach to specific communities within the project area, like Bayridge Park. Project-wide outreach has included: • 10 Water Board project fact sheets distributed via US mail to over 1,800 addresses within the project area and distributed via email to a project email list with over 300 emails. • 4 work notices notifying specific communities of upcoming work in their area, including groundwater monitoring well installation and sampling, soil vapor probe installation and sampling, soil vapor extraction (SVE) pilot test activities, and other activities as directed by the Water Board. • Signed access agreements and ongoing communications with over 350 homes and three commercial properties to test indoor air. Of the homes sampled, 29 have been offered air-purifying units as a short-term mitigation measure to reduce contaminants found in indoor air. • 2 Water Board community surveys to determine appropriate outreach methods in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. • A project-specific website at www.fordnbfacts.com that includes an overview of the project, investigations/findings, community outreach activities, FAQs and a repository for project documents. • A project YouTube page at https://tinyurl.com/FordNBYouTube hosting recordings of all community meetings held since November 2020. • A toll-free information line (833-949-3673) that community members can call 24/7. Hotline calls are returned the same or next business day and generally all questions are addressed within 1-2 business days. • An electronic repository containing all key technical and community outreach documents on the State Water Board's GeoTracker website at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global_id=SL188023848. • Over 25 community meetings broken down as follows: o 9 information sessions hosted by the Water Board that are open to all communities impacted by the project. Generally, these are held 1-2 times per year. o 3 community-specific meetings to discuss a pilot test to determine if SVE was an appropriate remedial technology to address contaminants. o 8 community-specific meetings to discuss health risk assessments, their results and next steps. o 5 community-specific meetings to discuss draft remediation plans and provide opportunities for public comment. o 3 community-specific meetings to discuss the implementation of the SVE system and accept input from residents. o Each of these meetings was noticed via a meeting save the date or invite postcard distributed via US mail and at least 2 email reminders distributed to HOA representatives and residents on the project email list. 137 As part of this larger outreach program, specific activities were conducted with Bayridge Park residents to ensure they were aware and able to comment on the proposed cleanup plan and the design of the SVE system. This outreach included: • A 30-day public comment period held by the Water Board from June 7 to July 9, 2021, on the draft cleanup plan, known as a draft Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan (FS/RAP). The FS/RAP describes the site and environmental conditions, possible remedial technologies to address environmental conditions, and the selection of SVE as the preferred remedial alternative. o A public meeting on the draft FS/RAP was first announced via a save the date postcard mailed on May 12, 2021, and the comment period was noticed via a Water Board fact sheet that was distributed via US mail and email on June 3, 2021. o The virtual public meeting was held on June 10, 2021. At this meeting and in subsequent emailed public comments, the community voiced concerns about having five smaller SVE treatment systems and their overall impact to the community, including increased construction activities, reduction in parking spaces and visual impacts. • The Water Board takes public input seriously and as a result of input received on the SVE system location it was decided, in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA and residents to have one treatment system outside of the common area. In August 2021, the Water Board distributed a Response to Comments to all those who provided comments and finalized the FS/RAP. In both the Response to Comments and the FS/RAP it was noted that the original design of five smaller SVE treatment systems would be readjusted to one large SVE treatment system outside of the community in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA. • On November 4, 2021, Ford and WSP held a poolside meeting with community residents to provide more information on the design of the SVE system and take community feedback. Residents were notified of this meeting via a postcard that was mailed via US Mail and emailed to HOA representatives in October 2021. Two meeting email reminders were distributed prior to the meeting date. 13 residents attended the meeting, including the resident at 96 Hartford, and as part of that meeting the current proposed location of the SVE treatment system was shown. The community expressed concerns around the design of the treatment system and the overall level of impact to the community during the construction and their feedback was taken into consideration. • In response to comments from Bayridge Park residents during the July 2022 project- wide Water Board community meeting, Ford and WSP began sending monthly email updates to residents of Bayridge Park to proactively inform them of the work recently completed in their community, upcoming work, anticipated impacts, and upcoming community meetings. These emails have been distributed monthly since August 2022 to over 170 residents in the community. • On January 18, 2023, Ford and WSP held a pre-construction meeting with community residents to provide more information on the construction of the SVE system. Residents were notified of this meeting via a postcard that was mailed via US Mail and emailed to residents in November 2022. This meeting was originally intended to be poolside in the community, but due to the possibility of heavy rains in January 2023, was re-located to the Bonita Creek Community Room. Residents were notified of this change via US Mail and email in early January 2023. An additional email reminder was sent the day before the meeting. 16 residents attended the meeting expressing similar concerns about construction inconveniences including a concern about the location and design of the SVE treatment system. 138 In addition to this outreach, Ford/WSP has been in communication with the residents of 92, 94 and 96 Hartford regarding indoor air sampling and the project's proposed SVE system in an attempt to ensure they had a good understanding of the proposed work and an opportunity to ask questions. To date, these residents have declined to engage in conversation. 139 ATTACHMENT C INFORMATION LINE CONTACT LOG 140 ATTACHMENT C INFORMATION LINE CONTACT LOG Resident at Property ID 10.52 • 1/18 - texted resident my contact information • 1/19 - received text with picture of Notice of Public Hearing. • 1/19 - called to explain that this was City's notice and she could provide comments but this was not a notice from WSP; discussed concerns; 2-time cancer survivor, too close, noise, emissions, causing her stress which is not good for her health • 1/20 - called and discussed possibility of meeting and indicated would be willing to meet; told her I would call once I had dates • 1/23 - left message • 2/5 - left message • 2/6 - received message stating not interested, this is a complex issue and along with two neighbors I am not open to discussing this system located within 3 feet when it is close to our residences. Resident at Property ID 10.50 • 1/27 - left message • 1/28 - emailed • 1/30 - emailed and called • 2/1 - discussed concerns on a high level; told her wanted to meet and would call to firm up dates • 2/5 - emailed about meeting; left messages • 2/6 - received email not interesting in meeting because location has not changed • 2/6 - sent email asking her to reconsider • 2/9 - received email stating did not want to meet Resident at Property ID 10.48 • 1/27 - left message • 1/28 - emailed • 1/30 - emailed • 2/6 - left message • 2/9 - email stating not interested in meeting 141 ATTACHMENT D WSP HARTFORD RESIDENTS CONTACT LOG 142 ATTACHMENT D WSP HARTFORD RESIDENTS CONTACT LOG IA_Property_lD Communication_Date Communication_Time Communication_Medium WSP Staff Communication_Log_Entry 10.48 10/12/2020 9:25 Phone MLR Called and spoke with resident to remind her of IA sampling appt this week. She provided updated email address: Leechealy@gmail.com 10.48 11/20/2020 2:12 Phone MLR Resident left VM asking about the work that is going on outside her home. 10.48 11/20/2020 3:05 Phone MLR Returned call and left VM for resident asking to let her know what questions she has and I will have someone from our team call her back. 10.48 8/26/2022 14:10 Email MLR Sent Resident an email re: scheduling annual resample. 10.48 10/13/2022 10:17 Phone/email MLR Left VM for Resident re: scheduling 1 year resample, and sent followup email. 10.48 11/8/2022 13:34 Phone MLR Called and spoke with Resident. She requested that I call back first week of December as they are in the middle of a big home storage/moving project. 10.48 12/1/2022 16:25 Phone MLR Left VM on both #'s re: scheduling annual resample. 10.48 12/1/2022 16:29 Text MLR Resident sent me a text that they are still not ready to schedule the sampling and requested that I call back after Christmas. 10.48 1/5/2023 14:58 Text MLR Sent Resident a text re: scheduling annual resample. 10.48 1/18/2023 15:41 Phone/email MLR Left VM and sent followup email to schedule annual resample. 10.48 1/23/2023 11:50 Email MLR Resident replied to email and scheduled annual resample for 2/2 & 2/3 at 11am. 10.48 1/23/2023 13:54 Email DHN Resident had reached out via email to Jessica Law on 1/23/23 with questions on the SVE system. Jessica forwarded email to DHN who responded to the list of questions and provided figures (where relevant). 10.48 1/23/2023 16:00 Email DHN Resident followed up to the email with one additional question. DHN provided the additional information requested. 10.50 6/29/2020 NULL Misc Note Wood Staff Resident (to move out by 6/29/2020) 10.50 6/17/2020 3:00 Phone DHN DHN-6/17/2020--Prospective buyer returned DHN's call. DHN walked her through the overall investgiation, TCE as it relates to preganant women, and ongoing work in Bayridge park. Realtor Karla Stagman returned DHN's call and we got the IA sampling scheduled for after the tenant has moved out on 6/29/2020. DHN discussed with Realtor the process, what happens if results are over screening levels, and the general scope of the investigation. Property will be vacant for sampling, access via lockbox. Realtor to send written permission for access while vacant. Realtor mentioned that the tenant (who is moving out) had candles. 10.50 7/14/2020 NULL Phone DHN DHN-7/14/2020--With the permission of the owner, DHN spoke with prospective buyer to share the results with her (908-370- 7003). She expects to close on the property on 7/17/2020 and says that will be their primary residence. I let her know we will be sending her an AA for seasonal sampling in winter 2020. 10.50 10/21/2021 14:19 Phone MLR Left VM for new owner re: scheduling 6 month seasonal resample. 10.50 10/21/2021 14:20 Email MLR Sent followup email re: scheduling 6 month seasonal resample. 10.50 5/13/2022 11:10 Phone MLR Left VM for Resident re: AC Unit relocation as part of the implementation of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 6/10/2022 14:06 Phone MLR Left VM for Resident re: AC Unit relocation as part of the implementation of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 8/3/2022 16:52 Phone MLR Left VM for Resident re: AC Unit relocation as part of the implementation of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 8/11/2022 14:47 Email MLR Sent email to REsident re: AC Unit relocation as part of the install of the treatment system bldg. 10.50 8/22/2022 10:48 Phone MLR Called to reach Resident re: AC unit relocation and was unable to leave a message as the mailbox was full. 10.50 1/20/2023 12:01 Phone DHN Left VM to Resident regarding questions on SVE SYstem and AC Unit. 10.50 1/20/2023 12:04 Email DHN Sent Resident email to answer some questions she had asked Jessica Law and requested her to call for further discussion, 10.50 1/26/2023 12:04 Phone DHN Left VM again trying to reach out to resident regarding her concerns on the SVE System. 10.52 3/5/2020 10:25 Phone MLR MLR-3/5/20-Leslie was at community meeting 3/4/20 and would like her air tested. Called and left VM on 1st# (called 2nd# and it was someone else's#) and explained IA sampling process and asked her to call back to schedule. 10.52 3/9/2020 1:45 Phone MLR MLR-3/9/20-resident returned call and scheudled IA sampling for 3/17 & 3/18/20 at 330pm. 10.52 10/22/2021 15:12 Email MLR Emailed resident re: scheduling 6 month resample. 10.52 11/10/2021 15:43 Email MLR Left VM re: scheduling 6 month seasonal resample. 10.52 11/29/2022 11:31 Phone/email MLR Left VM and sent followup email re: scheduling 6 month resample. 10.52 1/18/2023 14:46 Phone/email MLR Left VM and sent email re: scheduling 6 month resample. 143 Attachment No. ZA 6 Outreach to the One Ford Road Community Tmplt: 01/18/23 144 From: HamannNazaroff, Daniela To: smaguin@cox.net Cc: Jantzen-Marson, Candace Subject: Update for Environmental Remediation and One Ford Road Date: Friday, December 9, 2022 1:22:00 PM Attachments: _fig_03_prop_sg_221209.pdf image001.png Dear Steve, Thank you again for meeting with us on behalf of One Ford Road to discuss the upcoming construction activities on Country Club Drive. Additional details about the anticipated schedule and impact to the community are provided in this email. Please contact me with any questions or concerns you may have. We appreciate your continued cooperation and understanding. Construction at Bayridge Park/Belcourt Terrace and potential impact to Country Club Drive The following table lists all the planned activities and approximate timing of when construction vehicles and personnel will likely be on Country Club Drive. All of the dates listed are subject to change, but the HOA will be notified at least one week in advance by email of any of the events listed below or any other activities that may impact access on Country Club Drive. We anticipate that resident access through Country Club Drive will be maintained at all times. Flagmen/cones will be utilized, when needed, to help traffic safely navigate past the work zone. Approximate Timing (subject to change) Activity Country Club Use Late January or early February (approx. 2 days) Topographical survey & utility locating 2-3 person crew and small equipment in roadway. Traffic cones and flagger to manage traffic. Mid February (approx. 3 days) Mobilization of temporary facilities. 1 vehicle to transport materials. Traffic cones around vehicle, but all work will be on the side of the road so no other traffic management needed. Early April (approx. 3 Days) Landscaping removal and grading at treatment system site. One lane blocked to give crew and equipment adequate space to work. Some truck traffic in and out of work zone for material transportation. Traffic flaggers will be stationed on either side of the work zone to direct traffic. Early April (approx. 3 Days) Conduit crossing under Country Club One lane at a time closed for potholing and monitoring of the horizontal drilling process. Traffic flaggers will be stationed on either side of the work zone to direct traffic. Mid April (approx. 5 days) Construction of concrete pad at treatment system site 1 concrete truck. Traffic cones around vehicle, but all work will be on the side of the road so no other traffic management needed. Late May (Approx. 2 days) Delivery of treatment system building Large flatbed truck and crane to place building on concrete pad. One lane blocked to give crew and equipment adequate space to work. Traffic flaggers 145 will be stationed on either side of the work zone to direct traffic. 1 day, semi-annually after construction Maintenance events on system equipment 2 vehicles to perform work and transport materials. Traffic cones around vehicle, but all work will be on the side of the road so no other traffic management needed. We will be able to provide more granularity on both the schedule and the traffic control plan for each activity as the construction start date approaches. We plan to maintain full transparency with the community about what to expect and when. Additional Investigation within One Ford Road As you know, extensive cleanup/remediation was done within One Ford Road in the 1990s when the former facility was decommissioned and redeveloped to residential community. Based on the data collected in the past four years, the Water Board has agreed that no active remediation is needed within One Ford Road, however they have requested 8 additional groundwater monitoring wells and 9 additional soil gas probes be installed within the community to continue to monitor the below- ground conditions and make sure any residual impacts continue to decrease naturally over time. This is summarized in a report called the “Remedial Design Implementation Plan” (RDIP) and is available here: https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/2826709330/SL1880238 48.PDF. The document is long, so I have just attached the figure (Figure 3) that shows the proposed work. The 9 proposed soil gas probes are shown in yellow squares and will be installed within the roads (not on private property) The 8 proposed groundwater monitoring wells are shown as green circles and will also be installed in the roads (not on private property) The proposed locations may be adjusted slightly based on field conditions, underground utilities, or other constraints. The Water Board has requested that the work begin no later than February 20th, 2023. We will mail out a Notice of Work at least 1 week before the work is to begin to all residents within One Ford Road to describe the work and the schedule. That will provide folks with additional details about what to expect, number of days, etc. Throughout the rest of the year we will need to come back quarterly or semi-annually to sample from these locations. We will notify you prior to that work later in the year. Have a great weekend, Daniela Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff Associate Engineer PE CA C91417 She/Her/Hers 146 M+ 1 510-206-6571 WSP USA 555 12th Street, Suite 215 Oakland, CA 94607 USA wsp.com 147 Attachment No. ZA 7 Project Plans Tmplt: 01/18/23 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 Good morning, This is Lee Healy, original homeowner at 92 Hartford Drive in Bayridge. Please see attached for review prior to the public hearing on 3/2/23 for Project File No. PA: 2022-0180. I appreciate confirmation of receipt of this communication. Thank you, Lee Lee Healy 92 Hartford Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 LeeCHealy@gmail.com 949.760.3054 Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) From: Lee Healy <leechealy@gmail.com> Sent: March 01, 2023 8:12 AM To: CDD <CDD@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Tran, Jenny <jtran@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Public Hearing: Project File No. PA: 2022‐0180 OBJECTIONS TO PROJECT FILE #PA2022-0180, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC HEARING 3/2/23 This is an addendum to objections raised prior to the postponement of the January 26 public hearing on the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at Bayridge Park. By combing through the City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Agenda and clicking on “Staff Report” we found the “Ford Response to Comments” (dated February 10, 2023) to our earlier objections beginning on page 114 of a 179-compilation report. Why did Ford’s communications firm not send these to us directly or at the least a link to their answers? I requested responses to our concerns in a February 8 email to Tracy Craig. This lack of transparency is disheartening and seems symptomatic of Ford. As an original owner, we were never informed of the environmental issues of contaminated soil, soil gas and groundwaters at Bayridge. The Ford facility had been cited for chemical dumping as early as 1965. We choose not to meet with Ford/WSP to discuss concerns because without an impartial, expert third party, it would have been a session with the representatives trying to assuage our fears. The Ford responses cited a community meeting held Nov. 4, 2021 on the revised SVE system installation and new location for the now singular treatment system building. In the meeting agenda, and in the meeting itself (I watched it), the address of the location is never mentioned. The meetings have low attendance, to include those logging on. This comment in the responses is NOT true—watch the end with the attendees’ comments: “During this meeting, only comments in support of proposed treatment building location were received.” The responses also stated the Water Board approved the RDIP January 28, 2022. Why were the residents who would be most impacted by this installation not notified? What were you waiting for? And why was it another year before everything got back on schedule, with the city notice of a public hearing and the community meeting in the latter half of January 2023? In 2022 business was not at the disruptive levels we saw in 2020 or 2021 as a result of COVID. My objections remain the same: •The structure is too close to our homes when there is a better site that would take up a few parking placesaway from residences on the northeast section of the complex, where the system’s exhaust could drift toward Bison Ave. and away from residences (yes, it would require more trenching) •The disruptive nature of the entire process, with many unknowns on how the test results will play out, is unacceptable •There is a psychological impact of wondering if the system malfunctions and subjects us to toxic vapor. That is a direct impact on quality of life and quiet enjoyment of one’s property •The value of our homes will diminish for the duration of the remediation •There seems to be modeling based on assumptions to how it should perform rather than supporting data •There is no guarantee this will be finished in a year Despite all this, we understand the need for remediation and getting started to get it done and behind us. We know any changes will take more time, but feel the location of the treatment system building must be moved away from homes. Lee Healy 92 Hartford Dr. Newport Beach CA 92660 LeeCHealy@gmail.com March 1, 2023 Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) From:Amy Santella <amycsantella@gmail.com> Sent:March 01, 2023 9:54 AM To:Tran, Jenny Cc:CDD; Kevin Solomita; leechealy@gmail.com; lmpratt417@gmail.com; emily.miller@woodplc.com; Martinez, Savannah; jessica.law@waterboards.ca.gov Subject:Re: Notice of Public Hearing Comments for Review 3/2/23 Project File No.: PA: 2022-0180 Good morning Jenny, Thank you for your email and for sending the staff report. However, please refer to my previous email below. These are new objections that are written in response to the March 2nd staff report. I noted in my email below that the 1/26/23 staff report was changed after our original objections were received. The email I sent this morning contains new objections and additional concerns, as well as highlights the responses from Ford/WSP found on page 115 on. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Amy Santella On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 9:04 AM Tran, Jenny <jtran@newportbeachca.gov> wrote: Hi Amy, Thank you for your correspondence. The ITEM NO. 2 STAFF REPORT is available on the City’s website and is also attached. This will be presented at the public hearing tomorrow, March 2, 2023. The Staff Report includes Attachment ZA 5 Response to Comments and Outreach Overview on page 115 in response to the correspondences previously received and addresses your concerns below. Regards, Jenny Tran Assistant Planner Community Development Department Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) From: Amy Santella <amycsantella@gmail.com> Sent: March 01, 2023 7:52 AM To: CDD <CDD@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Tran, Jenny <jtran@newportbeachca.gov>; Kevin Solomita <kevin.solomita@gmail.com>; leechealy@gmail.com; lmpratt417@gmail.com Subject: Notice of Public Hearing Comments for Review 3/2/23 Project File No.: PA: 2022‐0180 Good morning, My name is Amy Santella, and along with my husband, Kevin Solomita, we are the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive. Please see below for review prior to the public hearing on 3/2/23 for Project File No. PA: 2022‐0180. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) Regarding the City of Newport Beach: Notice of Public Hearing -- Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive on Thursday, March 2, 2023: Project File No.: PA2022-0180 Location: 94 Harford Drive To Whom It May Concern: We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit to clean up the hazardous waste in the soil and groundwater from the former Ford Aeronutronics facility. We are not asking to stop the remediation; we are asking to change the location based on the safety of our child. The unit is proposed to be THREE FEET away from our home, violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. The location is arbitrary and capricious and was not the original proposal by Ford/WSP. It was stated multiple times in community meetings, the original project summary, and by the Newport Beach City Assistant Planner that the original proposal of 5-6 smaller extraction units were turned down by the HOA/Board due to loss of parking spots. It is absolutely unacceptable and appalling to have parking be valued over safety. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. Without this data, it is unacceptable to ask us to be the guinea pigs of this major operation. How in good conscience can Ford/WSP, The Water Board, and the city grant a hazardous waste clean-up unit 3 feet from a home with a child? Per the South Coast Air Quality Management District, “all basin residents have the right to live and work in an environment of clean air, free of airborne health threats,” and the “government is obligated to protect public health.” It was never even disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive, violating the 8-foot separation distance UNTIL the Public Notice for the permit application was posted. Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the public notice is unacceptable and did not provide enough time for residents to be fully aware of the entire impact of the system. We sent in our original objections prior to the January 26th public hearing. To date, we have not received any responses in writing sent directly to us and instead, found the responses buried in the city website archives. Please see below additional objections and data we are requesting and have a right to receive. After Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) discussion with Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, we have a right to the requested data, and she would be asking questions like us. 1.Location The original project summary/zoning administrator staff report posted on the city website was changed after our objections were received. Prior to the January 26th meeting, the document stated: “The treatment system will be located adjacent to the residence at 94 Hartford Drive as it has been identified as the most feasible location to reduce the visual impact from surrounding residents.” This statement shows the primary reason was for aesthetics and this original document did not mention that other locations studied were not feasible. Multiple community outreach meetings by Ford/WSP stated that other locations could not be used due to parking. After our objections were received, the new amended project summary for March 2nd includes alternative locations studied and states “Due to these infeasibilities the location adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive was selected.” The Newport Beach City Assistant Planner confirmed on 2/23/23 via phone call that other locations were rejected by the HOA/Board due to parking spots. It was never disclosed at the Bayridge pre-construction meeting that the structure was 3 feet from a home, violating the setback distance. Per discussion with the Newport Beach City Fire Marshal, this is unique and unusual that a structure like this would be so close to a home. Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) There is significant risk involved with having the structure in such proximity to a home. There is no buffer zone if any of the electrical equipment malfunctions, a fire starts insides, there is a natural disaster, etc. The Fire Marshal also stated that there is usually some leniency with “temporary permits.” This is, again, unacceptable to overlook safety due to something being “temporary” (for a minimum of 3 years). Stated earlier, it was never disclosed in writing that the unit was 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive violating the 8-foot separation distance UNTIL the Public Notice for the permit application was posted. Finding out this information ONLY by receiving the public notice is unacceptable and did not provide enough time for residents to be fully aware of the entire impact of the system. We are requesting an external consultant who is not employed by Ford/WSP review the original plans that did not include having the system 3 feet from our home to determine these infeasibilities objectively. 2.Timeframe The Newport Beach City Assistant Planner confirmed via phone call on 2/23/23 that the 3-foot setback separation difference can possibly be exempt due to the nature of a temporary permit vs. a permanent structure. We strongly object that the city grants a temporary permit that disregards the setback distances and overlooks safety. Regarding a temporary permit of 12 months, it was stated multiple times in community meetings that this unit will be in place for 1 year. However, at the 2/22/23 community meeting, it was stated that there will be ~1+ year of remediation implementation and then “~2+ years” of monitoring to determine if additional remediation is needed. Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) Per Ken Connor, Professional Engineer WSP, at 2/22/23 meeting: the system will be on “for a year, then turn it off, then maybe turn it back on later.” This shows this unit will be 3 feet from 94 Hartford Drive for an UNKNOWN period, but a minimum of 3 years, further extending the time of exposure to all safety risks listed below. This is not transparent for what we were told of being in place for 1 year and then removed. Furthermore, it is impossible to quantify the amount of hazardous waste in the ground and how much additional remediation will be needed after this treatment starts. It was stated at the 2/22/23 meeting by Jessica Law: “in historical remediations, we’ve seen at other sites, we cleaned up, got their good bill of health, and we come back later, and concentrations increased.” Although she also states they have confidence in this remediation, there is no guarantee. 2/22/23 Jessica Law also stated: “It is still important to confirm, because assumptions can be wrong, and so from the regulatory perspective, we don’t like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we want them always confirmed with analytical data.” Ford/WSP cannot say definitively that this will last “1 year.” 3.Safety We requested data on the health effects of the proximity of electromagnetic fields of the system, specifically relating to child development, as we live at our home with our infant son. At the pre- construction meeting, it was stated that this ~240 square foot structure will be “packed” with equipment to maximize the area of the shed. All this electrical and engineering equipment will emit electromagnetic fields and radiation. Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) In addition, per Jessica Law 2/22/23 meeting: “assumptions can be wrong, and so from the regulatory perspective, we don’t like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we want them always confirmed with analytical data.” We are in turn, asking for data, not assumptions of the safety of the proximity of this unit. NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. The response from Ford/WSP is the top Google search if you type in “EMF and health.” (Response from Ford/WSP below): “The World Health Organization has studied the relationship between electromagnetic fields and human health extensively and concluded: "Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields." The response from Ford/WSP above does not include anything specific regarding child development that we asked for. Please refer to the following studies that dispute the WHO’s claim and specifically address major concerns with child development—associating cancer in children since children have developing nervous systems and their skull thickness is less than an adult, increasing the risk of radiation penetration. From the World Health Organization: “Concerns have been expressed that exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields at power frequencies (50/60 Hz) could lead to an increased incidence of cancer in children and other adverse health effects. The evidence comes primarily from residential epidemiological studies. These studies suggest that children exposed to ELF magnetic fields have an associated increased risk of leukemia.” (R1) From the National Library of Medicine/ Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics: “A developing child’s brain is vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation. The developing nervous system is more conductive and absorbs more electromagnetic energies than those of adults [4]. Therefore, different standards are required to protect children.” Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) “The skull thickness of adults is approximately 2 mm. However, the skull thickness of a 5-year-old child is approximately 0.5 mm and 1 mm in 10 years [39]. Therefore, radiation penetration is larger in children than in adults [39,40]. As a child’s head diameter is smaller, the energy-absorbing “hot spots,” the most sensitive parts of RF, are more pronounced [41]. Several engineering strategies to avoid the hazard of RF do not consider a child’s head specificity [6].” (R2) From Cancer.gov: “Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to non-ionizing EMFs and risk of cancer in children (13–15). Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children.” (R3) From American Academy of Pediatrics: The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields: “Consistent epidemiologic evidence of an association between childhood leukemia and exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields has led to their classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a “possible human carcinogen.” Concerns about the potential vulnerability of children to radio frequency (RF) fields have been raised because of the potentially greater susceptibility of their developing nervous systems; in addition, their brain tissue is more conductive, RF penetration is greater relative to head size” (R4) It was stated by Ken Connor, Professional Engineer at 2/22/23 meeting: this is “tried and true technology.” Please provide data that shows that these systems have been within 3 feet of homes for 12 months or longer. We requested this information before and did not receive anything. We are also requesting data again that shows the efficacy of a larger unit. It was stated that the proposed unit was determined through 3-D computer modeling. Please provide real life examples of a unit of this size and within 3 feet of a home, size of the remediation zone, number of wells, and how long the system was in place. We would also like to see comparable areas of remediation and how long the SVE systems were in place. 4.Quality of Life Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) The hazardous waste unit directly next to our home will greatly impact our quality of life. We previously stated that our air conditioner will need to be relocated, which we did not agree to; as well as our home containing the original windows, 30+ years old, further increasing the noise impact. A response from Ford below: Ford has contacted the person who made this comment in an attempt to address this concern. This will include covering the cost for the installation of a state-of-the-art air conditioner and having plans in place for temporary relocation, if needed. To date, the person has declined to engage in conversation.” We should not have to temporarily relocate from the home that we OWN and pay taxes to live here. This response shows that there is an issue acknowledged by Ford/WSP with the proximity and we would need to relocate. Per 2/22/23 meeting: Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff, Associate Engineer WSP: “Based on feedback, a lot of people commented and called that design was too intrusive to neighbors’ homes and livelihoods, and asked if we could reconsider and redesigned. Worked with the HOA/Board to reduce the number of wells, feet of piping, and number of containers. The {original} containers were too impactful, ugly, disruptive.” The current design disrupts our home and livelihood and is intrusive to our home. 5.Air Quality Monitoring We expressed concern that there is no real-time/ continuous monitoring to ensure the air quality levels are acceptable for a home with an infant inside. This is essential for the entire duration of the project. Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) Ford Response 2.6: In accordance with the Air District Permit, total VOC concentration will be measured using a real-time monitor (such as a photoionization detector) at least once a day for the first seven days of operation to confirm the system is operating as designed and within permit specifications which are set to be protective of public health. Following the first seven days, monitoring will continue weekly or more frequently if required by the Air District. In addition to the real- time monitoring, analytical sampling will be conducted at least once a month and analyzed by an independent laboratory in accordance with the Air Districts Rule 304. Samples will be analyzed for specific VOCs to verify compliance with the permit and reported to the Air District. All data will also be reported to the Water Board and be available to the public on the State Water Boards document repository geotracker.ca.gov. This response only shows that real-time monitoring will occur ONCE a day for the first seven days; after it will be weekly or more frequently if required. We confirmed with Jessica Law that the photoionization detector stated above is NOT “lab quality.” This confirms that there is no real-time monitoring that accurately shows the total VOC concentration emitted 3 feet from our home. We understand that it can be remotely shut off; however, the above response from Ford/WSP states that there is NO continuous air quality monitoring. If an activated carbon filter fails, toxic vapors can be expelled within 3 feet of our home prior to remote shut off. This is unacceptable to be this close to homes if there is no continuous air quality monitoring of VOCs. In addition, Ford/WSP response has changed from each meeting, showing discrepancies about this concern. At the January pre-construction meeting, it was stated there is no continuous monitoring. At the 2/22/23 meeting it was stated yes, there is continuous monitoring. Now their response in writing show no continuous monitoring again. At 2/22/23 meeting, Jessica Law stated she understands the concerns regarding continuous air quality monitoring and stated a third-party engineer could possibly provide this, but not for the entire duration, due to cost. This was confirmed on a phone call on 2/27/23. Again, this is unacceptable to have residents exposed to possible VOCs emitted 3 feet from our home with NO CONTINUOUS monitoring. Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) •Per South Coast Air Quality Management District: “Air contaminants pose health risks to those that are exposed to them. Students, along with the elderly, pregnant women, and persons with existing health problems, are particularly susceptible to health effects from toxic emissions that may occur from certain types of sources. These emissions sources may emit compounds that can cause a variety of health effects, including neurological, respiratory, and developmental effects as well as cancer. Several studies have shown that risk decreases dramatically with increased distance from sources of emissions.” In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires public notice if “a facility applies to permit a new or modified emission source located within 1,000 feet from the outer boundary of a school.” Children are known to be more susceptible to health effects from emissions. If schools have protections within 1,000 feet due to risks for children, how can this be placed THREE feet from our home with an infant? 6.Home Values After discussion with a California Real Estate Broker: our home value would be “destroyed” when we disclose there is a hazmat treatment facility directly outside of our main living area window. There would also be no possible way to quantify the loss due to this unique and unfortunate situation. Our view from our main living area window would change from a 50–70-year-old pine tree that birds and squirrels frequent, to a 20’x12’x10’ shed/hazmat treatment facility, in addition to workers that will need to come in and out to maintain the facility. Even if this structure is “temporary,” there is no way of predicting if we will need to sell or rent out our home in the upcoming 3+ years that the structure will be in place (1+ year running, ~2+ years monitoring per the reports); nor should we have to explain ourselves to Ford/WSP on whether or not we plan to move or rent out the home that we OWN. We would need to disclose a soil vapor extraction unit is 3 feet away from our home that is cleaning out hazardous waste. What other homes have ever had a soil vapor extraction unit 3 feet away!? No one will buy our home for fair market value with this structure adjacent to our window. Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) WSP is one of the world’s leading engineering professional services firms. We request the system be redesigned with their world-class engineers to a location that does not substantially affect the health, well- being, livelihood, and safety of a young family. Respectfully, Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita References: All meeting quotations may be accessed on meeting recordings by date via https://www.fordnbfacts.com/communityoutreach R1: https://www.who.int/initiatives/the-international-emf-project R2: Jin-Hwa Moon, MD, PhD. Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children. Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics. National Library of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7642138/ R3: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet R4: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/116/2/e303/62886/The-Sensitivity-of-Children-to- Electromagnetic?redirectedFrom=fulltext AQMD Guiding Principles: https://www.aqmd.gov/nav/about/initiatives/environmental-justice/ej-guiding-principles http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/school_guidance.pdf http://www.aqmd.gov/nav/about/public-notices/permitting-public-notices Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) From:Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com> Sent:March 01, 2023 2:01 PM To:CDD Subject:Comment on ZA Item 2 (3/2/2023 meeting) Sorry to be a bit late with this, but with regard to Item 2 on the March 2, 2023, Zoning Administrator agenda ("Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180)") -- The list of "Ambient Noise Measurements" appearing as "Table 3" on handwritten page 42 does not appear to have printed correctly. Based on the references to it on that page and at the bottom of page 43, readers are supposed to be able to find in Table 3 a summary of noise readings obtained on three occasions (Oct. 3, 5 and 6, 2023). However, Table 3 contains a single line for "10/3/2022" at "9:03" (whether a.m. or p.m. is not indicated). Equally confusingly, more disturbingly, the numbers listed for that date and time in Table 3 have no discernible relation to the information in Appendix G (starting on page 70) which the table claims to summarize. In particular, page 70 says the measurements on October 3 were recorded from 9:05:44 to 9:14:09 a.m., which would not include "9:03." More importantly, the output recording printout in Appendix G lists LAeq = 64.1 (compared to 56.5 in Table 3), LAmin (listed as LAFmin) = 42.2 (compared to 44.8), LAmax (LAFmax) = 82.6 (compared to 70.3) and LA25% (LAF25%) = 60.5 (compared to 54.6). Nor do the numbers on the single line for "10/3/2022" in Table 3 match the corresponding numbers appearing in the recording printouts for October 5 (page 79) or October 6 (page 86). I would further note that even if Table 3 correctly summarized the readings, the durations of "ambient" noise sampling reported in Appendix G range only from a high of 8 minutes 25 seconds (October 3, with readers told to discount those observations due to nearby gardening activity) to to a low of 1 minute 39 seconds (October 5 night observation). Unless the effort was to determine the ambient noise level between isolated noise events (the Lmin, or perhaps better the LA99% or LA95%), I would suggest those intervals were not long enough to draw meaningful conclusions about the mix and magnitude of noise sources encountered on a typical day or night. -- Jim Mosher Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) From: Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: February 27, 2023 1:00 PM To: Webb, Dave (Public Works) <DAWebb@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Keely, David <DKeely@newportbeachca.gov>; Tran, Jenny <jtran@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: Ford Aeronutronics Solvency Cleanup Project Meetings Hey Dave, We are happy to discuss the proposed facility with Councilmember Grant or Mr. Kupferman. As to alternative locations, the applicant would need to speak to the feasibility of alternative locations. From your message, locating these facilities in the public right of way is not acceptable at this point. I will talk to the planner and we will call Councilmember Grant. Jim Campbell Deputy Community Development Director Community Development Department Office: 949-644-3210 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 From: Webb, Dave (Public Works) <DAWebb@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: February 27, 2023 12:47 PM To: Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Keely, David <DKeely@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: Ford Aeronutronics Solvency Cleanup Project Meetings Hi. Seimone/Jim, Talked to Robyn G today on this below item and question further, and looking into it I believe the item that Mr. Kupferman is referring to the placement of a temporary (ground water treatment) buildings is an item that is going to the Zoning Administrator this Thursday, March 2 ‐ item number 2. In looking at it I did not see how we (City) could really accommodate the placement of the treatment building in our R/W as there really is no space, as well as not sure how far the treatment building can be from the extraction wells. Robyn asked if one of you could call her to the discuss the ZA meeting and possible ability of condition state to better location the building – if there is such an ability to. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/zoning_administrator/current_ZA_agenda.pdf Thanks, Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) David Webb Director of Public Works Public Works Department Office: 949-644-3311 100 Civic Center Drve Newport Beach, CA 92660 From: Webb, Dave (Public Works) Sent: February 27, 2023 9:00 AM To: Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; Keely, David <DKeely@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: Ford Aeronutronics Solvency Cleanup Project Meetings Sure. I can call you this afternoon. Will need to better understand thos issue. Guessing it may be a CDD item (temporary buildings) Sent from my T‐Mobile 4G LTE Device ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: "Grant, Robyn" <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov> Date: 2/27/23 8:00 AM (GMT‐08:00) To: "Webb, Dave (Public Works)" <DAWebb@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: "Leung, Grace" <gleung@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Ford Aeronutronics Solvency Cleanup Project Meetings Hello Dave, Please see the attached email from Perry Kupferman regarding the Ford Aeronutronic site. Could we set a brief call Monday between 10 am and 2 pm or after 3 pm to discuss? Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180) Robyn Grant Council Member City of Newport Beach Cell: 949-697-0312 Office: 949-644-3004 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Newport Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. Begin forwarded message: From: Perry Kupferman <perrykup@gmail.com> Subject: Ford Aeronutronics Solvency Cleanup Project Meetings Date: February 25, 2023 at 1:33:11 PM PST To: rgrant@newportbeachca.gov [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mrs Grant, my wife and I attended the presentation this week at the Civic Center along with you. I have been attending presentations by the Santa Ana Water Board and Ford representatives from Wood regularly for five years while serving on the Belcourt Master HOA Board. As voiced by other attendees during the meeting this week, my concern is the unfortunate Wood decision to place three temporary buildings in Belcourt and Bayridge communities and too close to residents. As mentioned, temporary buildings should be placed along our side of Bison Avenue, or along Country Club Lane, or much nearer the Belcourt guard gate close to Bison which would all be further away from homes. Last month Wood mentioned a Newport Beach issued Moratorium which is being used out of context by Wood. Wood will be placing possibly dangerous temporary structures too close to residents. Thanks for attending this important meeting and for helping protect Newport Beach residents. Perry Kupferman 21 Hillsdale Drive, Newport Beach (c)9493150991 Zoning Administrator - March 2, 2023 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Limited Term Permit (PA2022-0180)