Newport Beach City Council
July 25, 2023

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. 71 10-358

Jenny Tran
City of Newport Beach
February 10, 2023

The two comments received from the City are addressed below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provide airtight construction at all exterior walls with acoustical or other non -hardening sealant at floor plates.
' Construction Noise Handbook, Federal Highway Administration, 2006 z https://glassed.vitroglazings.com/topics/determining-the-right-glass-for-the-right-acoustics 72 10-359

Jenny Tran
City of Newport Beach
February 10, 2023

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 shiooed from the factory until the 15-minute Lea is less than or eaual 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. 7S 10-360

Jenny Tran
City of Newport Beach
February 10, 2023

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
1����Q Qr> OF E S S/p�`,k
yni co
L
z m
CML
ST\ �F CAL4F��
Yanchar Design and Consulting Group
Carl J. Yanchar
Senior Associate Engineer -Environmental President
FEH5A5�rp,N-�
c3 e C 91417 �
AV- * y� E7� 613012024
p ?►
sad CIV3� �P
Daniela Ham -Nazaroff, PE OFCAUf
Associate Engineer
He/cjy/dhn/mm
https://woodplc.sharepoint.com/teams/fordnb/shared documents/general/04 engtech/sve design/p10/permits/city design std-permit/bldg permit/limited term/city comment-response/acoustic study/2023_02_10_newport_acoustic study add ndm_wsp-yanchar.docx Attachments: 1. Acoustical Engineering Analysis, Soil Vapor Extraction System, 94 Hartford Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, October 15, 2022; revised with minor amendments February 8, 2023.

2. Drawing No. 6011-01 — Building Layout, H2K Technologies, Inc. 12/2022.
74 10-361

Yanchar Design & Consulting Group
ATTACHMENT 1
Acoustical Engineering Analysis
7'5 10-362

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

YANCHAR DESIGN & CONSULTING GROUP
26741 Portola Parkway, Suite 1 E, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Tel: 949.770.6601 Fax: 949.770.6575 E-mail: carl(a�yanchardesign.com 70 10-363

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

77 10-364

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 FIGURE 1 -- SITE VICINITY
FIGURE 2 - PROJECT SITE

7 g 10-365

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM / 94 HARTFORD, NEWPORT BEACH October 15, 2022 FIGURE 3 - ENLARGED PROJECT SITE

7� 10-366

' �r + � ��'� - ----ter

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

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

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

TABLE 1

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

21 10-368

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

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

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

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

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

22 10-369

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2S 10-370

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R4 10-371

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following General Plan goals apply to this project:

Goal N4, Minimization of Non -Transportation -Related Noise, is focused on minimizing noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors.
• Policy N4.1, Stationary Noise Sources, requires the enforcement of interior and exterior noise standards outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance.

Policy N4.6, Maintenance or Construction Activities, requires the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work -related activities.

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

25 10-372

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

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

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

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

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

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

go 10-373

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

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NON -VEHICULAR NOISE

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

Source: Newport Beach 2022

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

g7 10-374

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

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

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

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

TABLE 3

AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Date
Time
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
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:

R L = 10 Logto ( Y 10 (Le + 10)
=i
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.

22 10-375

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

PREDICTED SOUND LEVEL AT BUILDING EXTERIOR

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

41.0 41.0

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-Lpl
= 10 log (R2 / Ri)2
= 20 log (R2 / Ri)
Where
dL = difference in sound pressure level (dBA)
Lpi = sound pressure level at location 1 (dBA)
Lp2 = sound pressure level at location 2 (dBA)
Ri = distance from source to location 1 (ft)
R2 = distance from source to location 2 (ft)
This level was determined to be 23.9 dBA which is considerably lower than the minimum ambient noise level during night hours as tabulated in Table 3. This calculation is included in Table 5.

g9 10-376

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

DUE TO VACUUM PUMPS AND HEAT EXCHANGER
Vacuum
Vacuum
Vacuum
Vacuum
Heat
Equipment
Pump 1
Pump 2
Pump 3
Pump 4
Exchanger
A Weighted Sound Level Rating
74 74
74 74
77 Building Sound Transmission Loss
33 33
33 33
33 Inverse Square Law Attenuation

25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5

25.5 Estimated A Weighted Sound Pressure Level

15.5 15.5
1 15.5

15.5 18.5
Estimated Combined Exterior A Weighted
Sound Pressure Level

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

This level was determined to be 34.9 dBA.

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

This calculation is contained in Table 6.

TABLE 6

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

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

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

34.9

TI
0 10-377

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

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

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

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

9 1- 10-378

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

MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS GENERATED

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

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

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.

92 10-379

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

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

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

9 10-380

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

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

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

The two nearest condominiums on the property directly adjacent to 94 Hartford are 92 and 95 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 51 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

94 10-381

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

APPENDIX A

9 '5 10-382

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

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

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

Acoustic; Acoustical:

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

Airborne Sound:

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

Ambient Noise:

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

Attenuation:

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

Average sound level (Leq):

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

Unit: decibel.

Background noise:

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

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL):

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

Day -Night Sound Level (Ldn):

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

90 10-383

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

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

Energy Equivalent Level (Leq):

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

Field Impact Insulation Class (FIIC):

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

Field Sound Transmission Class (FSTC):

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

Frequency (Hz):

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

Impact Isolation Class (IIC):

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

Noise:

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

Noise level:

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

Noise reduction (NR):

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

97 10-384

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

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

Normalized Noise Isolation Class (NNIC):

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

Outdoor -Indoor Transmission Class (OITC):

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

Octave Band - 1/3 Octave Band:

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

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

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

Sound Absorption Coefficient:

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

Sound Level:

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

g 10-385

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

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

Sound Transmission Class (STC):

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

Structure -Borne Sound:

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

Statistical Distribution Terms:

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

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

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

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

99 10-386

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

APPENDIX B

100 10-387

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

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

101 10-388

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

APPENDIX C

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SUBMITTALS

102 10-389

AIRT=CH" 3BA9620
Features:
• Cooler running, outboard bearing
provides maintenance -free
operation
• Environmentally friendly oil -free
technology
• Extremely quiet operation
Performance Curve for Vacuum
Vacuum/Pressure
Regenerative
Blower
• All motors are standard TEFC with
Class F insulation, UL recognized,
CE Compliant
Explosion -Proof motors available
• Custom construction blowers are
available
• Rugged die-cast aluminum
construction
Performance Curve for Compressor
500
500
Hz
-
400
72 72 Hz
60Hz I/J
50 Hz
3] Hz
400 _
E
300
300
>
200
T
200
U
aS
m
U
100
U
a3
M
U
100
C
O
0 C
O
t
0 M
rn
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
=5
U)
0 50
Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H2O1
50 50
40 40
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Pressure 0
J
30 = 30
I/J
c
20 ° 20
n�
E a1
0 10 c a 10
o E
a
0 3 � 0
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 a a 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4 Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H201 Pressure 0 500 500
400 400
300 I/ J 300
J
o a 200 0 a 200
a) 100 D a) 100
�> >
E o 0 E° 0
0 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 P- o 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4 Vacuum Total pressure difference Ap [inch H2O1 Pressure 0 AI RT=CH® RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070 WWW.AIRTECHUSA.COM TEL: (888) 222-9940 FAx1(O�569-169610-390 da�777�
3BA9620-0416

AIRT=CH"
Dimensions
2 o s-s
17 7
�3
IIILET
�1
FNPT
DUT FT
it,@
L ■1
Selection & Orderinq Data - Type 3BA9620
3BA9620
M 7 —
Vacuum/Pressure
Regenerative
Blower
3BA96207AT66
Curve
Order
Frequency
Rated
Input
Input
Permissable Total
Sound
Weight
Letter
Number
(Hz)
Power (HP)
Voltage (V)
Current (A)
Differential Pressure
Level
(Ibs)
dB(A)
Vacuum Pressure
Inch H2O Inch H2O
1-50/60 IP155 insulation material class F
I
3BA96207AT66
50 14.75
200D...
240D
345Y...415Y

38.OD/22.OY
-212
253
70 320
3BA96207AT66
60 16.90
220D...
250D
415Y...460Y

38.OD/22.OY
-217
212
74 320
1 3BA96207AT66
87 25.50
345D...
415D

39.51)
-204
120
84 320
J
3BA96207AT86
50 20.10
200D...
240D
345Y...415Y

53.OD/31.OY
-212
357
70 370
J
3BA96207AT86
60 23.20
220D...
250D
415Y...460Y

53.OD/30.5Y
-217
325
74 370
J 3BA96207AT86
AI RT=CH®
da�777�
87 34.80 345D...

RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070
415D 51.5D
WWW.AIRTECHUSA.COM
-204 253 84 370
TEL: (888) 222-9940 FAX�(0--569-169610-391
3BA9620-0416

AA Series Heat Exchanger I Xchanger
https-//xchanger.cony/products/aa-series-heat- exchanger/ XCHA►IIGERke - Made In USA
AA Series Heat Exchanger
AA Sews heal exchangers Cool ww prpsslrm gas 51reaht5 with ohrhienl air These cohrPa[I alf Loolld units ale Weal For Iggpohl ruin Ilrhlted ateess fo cuoling Wmat and nave significantly rower operating cos8 compared to -real entilaingers Nat rectuive a cacNng water system. Iraq Feature I eFc; 29Urs5u VAC. 9 pro" molar. a heave-dury cncing ran and an DSHA appRM=4 ran guam Alternate nnrllors are ay.%AhW won mciu I The ftxnaLL nova arf vLmurr rrarnC are galYan(wo 5 i uM our Irnamaive online w'm to get a fast anal accurate gaotel
common APPlrrannns
AnereWllrlg Rools type IrolaryJobe) and multistage Cenlrlluoa3 blowers used In pneum l c cuny"rg. blogas. voafaeam melnage, and wastewater aeraMn syslelre con construction
The akinrNnum plate Nn heal eiichanger core s furnace biased wnn anema1mg finnan flow thanneis Prorxas gas flows in hprlmnlal charmeJs, ana arnb"I. W Nhg 2N FIOA%UPaaiq Ihrdlagh Wnlgk Channels. Ttw protect stream eolers and twl^ IN%gh retlarrgdlal aiuftnhum headrr5 p141Cr4 are WoLd Ip me cnf
Operoflonel Con Crderiilon5
The process stream TIUst be littered to ensure particulate we not ObsfrUCf the passages If nlecessarp toe mxe Bide can usually be cleaned Venn a 5 IW waler wash ihk proce5 cnan08Js-z,,xntl not M con ginered cleanable+Jue to MaIr Wig encloed 16W length Installation COnsld yrdGvns
PwN41ing flop such ae that predLiGed by rotary Inpe inci er 51,nuln tie dampeneu dy a lraormmd eNenw AA Sens hear ea'enarrg¢rs.yissipa�e neat from IM process :arlam b Ihu ambI&LI erlwronolent TrcW WO de5lg fled for ouldodn Instalialioh Ir ImAatied Irldoor4 urn ar nu VIUWd be very' well YenllsaEe7
PerfonharlCp
Xrharrger en gInaer use 3 cofnpiper mWel lb ana!WO-- MMI r=xrnaNdr pelformanr o:e5elr on Ilia Less auaNgle engrneerinlg prarhl-.e A dalat»sa wph ran perrormaFxe dMa asli us 10-sate[t the nest fan for Ilse appllcaieon Models
AA-25o AA"N). AA,5up. A -75t1. AA -tow AA+1750 AA-2gW nafz73e a AAason special CnAfiaumnor5
Can be T]uno on our Custom De Nns gage
Air Goofed flea: exchanger (Lrower attercooler! c rrr,Mlc drawing and lyplc8f configurations Sample data sheet
111
our
]I 9II,0E$AT
—
II Il CUT
PusH
TrIRWGH
IN PAIL. our
IN
�r
>'ARA4IEL
Captured by FreShot Pro: 09 October 2022, 08:00:25
h ttps: / / g e tfiresh ot. cum
1-05 10-392

AA Series Heat Exchanger I Xchanger
h ttps: / /xch a n g er. c o m/ prod ucts/ a a-series-h ea t-exchanger/ Gallery
Product Applications
nA
. C9erles
. NP canes
LC Senes
M 5—
. tV Salee
Request a Quote!
Cdnlaol � lodey 1. dlecues ypui heel
exchange. o, 14-of a .cool& appGtanon
�ilh a "a en9lneei ar ow YRaracM
onifne fans to gel a Fes[ and accurate geor&
r{are u aquF%[ arsperiFcagons M —,r by
emallq Send Rio IMoQKPlwW.ecm
M ApPlleatlrms <Nmm MH 18M< "0
request and .IR rypically respond m40n one
badness dey
f�ra�r rn ape.R nhh an anpf—dew?
Glue ue a mill 19521 931T65'_r
Captured by FreShot Pro: 09 October 2022, 08:00:25
h ttps: / / g e tfiresh ot. com
10 0 10-393

Electrical data

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

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

72.5 15.0

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

46.0 6.4

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

63.0 7.9

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

74.0 9.0
1 0.7

11.9 14
14 1 132/126
40/38
20 " Permissible limits of the voltage range at which the unit will operate satisfactorily. Operation outside these limits may result in unit failure.

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

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

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

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

NOMINAL AIRFLOW
CFM
L/S
BTUH
kW
SIZE

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

6.7 2.34

10.30 20,700

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

7.0 2.33

10.40 21,031

6.2 2.86
FG3ASA024
800
380
23,000

6.7 2.40

9.70 20,023

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

10.3 3.76

10.40 31,600

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

10.5 3.71

10.50 32,320

9.5 4.50
FG3ASA036
1200
560
35,000

10.3 3.69

9.80 29,395

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

13.8 5.12

9.50 42,400

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

14.1 5.26

9.50 43,540

12.8 6.37
FG3ASA048
1600
750
46,000

13.5 5.20

9.10 41,100

12.0 6.30
FG3ASA060
1600
750
47,000

13.8 5.25

9.20 42,179

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

16.8 6.03

9.50 52,100

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

17.3 6.14

9.50 53,364

15.6 7.39
FG3ASA060
1850
950
56,500
1 16.6

6.00 1 9.40
1 51,286

15.0 1 7.23
* Tested Combination
NOTES:

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

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

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

A -weighted sound power (dBA)
UNIT
SIZE

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

63.0 65.0

67.0 63.5

59.0 50.5
036
74 58.0

64.0 67.5

67.0 66.0

64.5 59.0
048
1 75
1 55.5

63.0 66.5

68.0 68.0

65.0 59.5
060
1 75
155.5
1 64.0

69.0 67.0

67.5 65.5

60.0 107
10-394

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

APPENDIX D

PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING

PLAN AND DETAILS

L g 10-395

14 GAGE FORMED

STEEL ROOF' COPWITH
TRUSSES. 1:12�PffCH WOH
T AS
���
1' DRIP ROIL,
TOP AND 1 1/2' BOROM

TRUSS BRIDGING

ATE TNUSS AS
CON

CONDNUOUSLY
WELDED

FUNGES, STITCH WELD TO
ROOF, 24' OC
14 GAUGE STEEL

STITCX WELD N
i TO WAL AS
POss BI£ WHITE
ENS

TRUSS VENT TRUSSES

INNNING

WELDING SPACE
12" TYP.

MRFlAE
FIRE

AND SOUND

AND SW ND
T1 K CORNING
FIRE

MIIERM WOOL

AND SOUND

AND SOUND
3' TYP
INS

INSUTADON, )'

INSULADON L
14 GAGE MEL

WILL FORTED
SIEf1 WNL
PANELS. 1 1/2'
FUNDS
24' ON CENTER TYP
5/6' DPE X
SHEEINOCK, 1
2 IAYERS 5/B'
uYER

TYPE X SH
D
1" OR RAL
FlNM EXTERIOR
1 -ER 5/0'

ALONG BOTH SIDES
METE Up SIpNG
0 O O

TYPE X SHEETROCK TYP, WALL
COUNG 2 UYERS

PANEL DETAIL

RIG MIN SPRAY

SEMIS BETWEEN

CAULKED WITH AN

COMPLETELY SEAL

PANELS SHILL BE

INDUSTRIAL MILK TO
BUILDING ENN—
TYP. ROOF JOIST DETAIL
FORA INSUTATKIN —

UNDERSIDE OF
JOISTS 24'
BEFORE ID AND.

ROOF, SKID AND

IXIESUR ENMIFL FINISH

ENCLOSURE

SKID FLOOR
ON DE
ql CEMER WITH
3/ WELDS
1 1/2' FLANGE
CB%1I PDTH

IN WITH

ALL AROUND
AROUND
3/16' WELDS
AROUND

ALL ANOUND
24' MAX. WALL, PANEL WIDTH EXCEPT OVER DOOR
3/16' A-36 STEEL
1 1/2" TW,
DECK
3'
SPECIFICATIONS:
6'
WALL _
DESIGN PER 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE / ASCE 7-16
RISK CAT III, UNOCCUPIED BUILDING, TYPE IIB CONSTRUCTION.

WEMMDTD
—01NINCPANEL

1. WIND:

EXPOSURE: B
'� 0'
-E— MID
INTERIOR, 1 1/Y
4'X4'X3/B' PL W/3/6'
DESIGN WIND SPEED, MPH: 102

U) G WELD EMERY

GUSSETS BACK UP TO
TOPO FACTOR KZT: 1.0
3" qA
0'O.G
3/4WNEL.
3/4" CIA. HILD HAS-E B7

2. SEISMIC
SS:
uFr PaNr
HD ROD WITH 6"

0.313
S7: 01.08
�,
TYP. WALL PANEL SECTION

DETAIL EMBEOMEM USING HILTI
SOIL SITE CLASS: D DEFAULT
20' N.T.S.
12 i2" MI EDGE 200 3DISTANCE
SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: D
IE: 1.25
12 N.T.S.

V: 7.4KIP5

3. ROOF LIVE LOAD: 40 PSF

4. FLOOR LNE LOAD: 125 PSF OR A 2500 LB CONCENTRATED LOAD I i
j 1
17„
(2) 38' % 7 '

FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAD DESIGN BY OTHERS
T
16 GAGE
1' DIA HOLE
MIN 4000 PSI CONCRETE FOUNDATION/CONCRETE PAD
12 PoLYIIRflwwE
INSULATED �'

FOR ANCHORING

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

WNL PANEL STITCH
NICKEL Pu1ED

WELDED TO TOP OF

CONTANMENT UP
STEEL —ES

DNP EDGE WHN AND HARDWARE

IXIENIOR AND

DOOR WKEY
STITCH WELDED 10

SKID FLOOR

INTERIOR
CM33 AT DOOR OPENING JAMBS
FALL EIGHT AND C5X6.7 HEADER,

4.75"
1'
LOUVER OPENINGS FRIAED WRH 14 CAGE

FORMED STEEL CHANNEL TOP BOTTOM AND

STRCII WELD CHANNELS TO WALL PANELS,
3' DERN OF JAMBS PERPENDICUVR
SIDES, STITCH WELDED TO S—OUNDING
TO WALL PANEL (UKE A STUD). 5' DEPTX
1 1/2% 3/,6• FLOOR

WAIL PANELS
NOTE:

LOUVER —ON SHOWN ON SaETRIC IS

FROR GENERAL DETAL ONLY AND IS NOT
YERIICM FOR HEADER.

PLATE PoGllf ANGLE BEND

WELDED TO PERIMETER
CHWNEL, , 1/2' WELD
EPRESENTATIYE OF — IDUVER
UO TONS. SEE SHEET 6011-01 Fat
4" PAST CHANNE
EVERY 0' O.C.

M:TUM LOWER LOCATIONS.

TYP. CORNER BOLT DOWN DETAIL

REVISIONSUNLESS

SPECIFIED OTHERWISE
" 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.
♦
H2KISOMETRIC
�� TechnoLogies, Inc.
7550 Commerce St. Corcoran. MN 55340. Tel: 763-746-99000C)2011 PROJECT TITLE:

W000 PLC

SVE SYSTEM

NEWPORT BEACH, CA
DRAWING TITLE:

WELDED STEEL ENCLOSURE

CONSTRUCTION

DETAIL DRAWING FOR SOUND

EVALUATION
SHEET 1 OF 1
REV

DESCRIPTION
DATE
DWN
DRAWN BY. MK
DRAWING NO.:
6011-08
DESIGNED BY: MK
PROJECT MGR.: MK
DATE: IO/D4/2022
PROJECT NO.: 6011
10-396

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

APPENDIX E

PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING

TRANSMISSION LOSS CALCULATIONS

110 10-397

Sound Insulation Prediction (vg.0.24)
Program copyright Marshall Day Acoustics 2017
Margin of error is generally withi n STC t3 d8
Key No. 5935
Job Name:
lob No. Initials:cjyan
dated 0/8/2022
File Name:insul
Svstem description
Panel " 1 x 0-024 in Stee
Notes:

INSUL
STC 39
OITC 27
Mass -air -mass resonant frequency = =106 Hz
Panel Size = 8-9 It x 13.1 It
Partition surface mass = 3.68 IbN2
Frame. Steel Stud (15-20g) (3 in x 1.5 in Cavity W ), Stud spacing 24 in -. idth 3 in , 1 x FiOreglass (10kg!rn3) Thickness 3.0 it Panel 2 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Boarc
freq.(Hz)
TL(dB)
TL(dB)
50 16
63 16
16 8❑
16 100
15 125
15 1 :�
160
20 200
26 250
31 `.)
315
35 400
39 500
43 4_
630
47 800
51 1000
53 5.'
1250
55 1600
56 2000
55 4_:
2500
40 3150
42 4000
45 5000
48 30
15 10
15 is
r5
)0
Is
10 63 125 250 500 1000 2000
Frequency (H:!)
■ Transmission Loss (dB) STC39 Flanking Limit
4000
111 10-398

Sound Insulation Prediction (`✓9.0.24)
Program copyright Marshall Day Acoustics 2017
Margin of error is generally withi n STC t3 dB
. Key No. 5935
Job Name.
lob No. Initials:cjyan
Dated 0/8/2022
File Name:insul
Svstem description
Panel ` 1 x 0.024 in 5tee
Nc!es
'I �;:� INSUL
STC 46
UI-rC --),1
Mass -air -mass resonant frequency = =90 Hz
Panel Size = 8.9 ft x 13.1 R
Partition surface mass = 6.2 Vftc
Frame: Cold formed Steel Joist (16-20g)(3.5 in x 1.5 in 1, Slud socing 24 in ; Gavity_ Width 3.54 in , 1 x Fibreglass (10kgim3) Thickness 2.4 it Panel 2 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Boarc + 1 x 0.626 in Type C Gypsum Boarc freq.(Hz)
TL(dB)
TL(dB)
50 2C
63 2C
20 8❑
20 100
17 125
22 2,1
160
28 200
33 250
38 315
43 400
47 500
51 50
630
55 800
59 1000
61 E"
1250
63 1600
64 2000
63 51
2500
50 3150
51 4000
54 51
5000
57 AD
75 70
E5
i5o
55 a 50
J
C 45
40 35
36 a 25
20 15
10 5
0 N
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000
Frequency {Hz)
Transmission Loss (d3) STC 46 Flanking Limit 112
10-399

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

APPENDIX F

MEASUREMENT LOCATION

1-1 S 10-400

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

APPENDIX G

MEASUREMENT DATA

1-1 5 10-402

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
LNa Freq Weight
Overload No
UnderRange No
Sensitivity
LZeq 70.3
LCeq 69.5
LAeq 64.1
LZFinax 88.6
LCFinax 88.2
LAFinax 82.6
LZFmin 58.7
LCFmin 56.3
LAFmin 42.2
LZE 97.3
LCE 96.5
LAE 91.1
LZpk 96.0
LCpk 95.5
LApk 93.7
LAF1o76.2
LAF2o74.1
LAF5o70.7
LAF8o66.9
LAF10o 65.1
LAF25o 60.5
LAF50% 55.4
LAF90o 47.0
LAF95o 45.5
LAF990 43.4
1/1 Oct. (dBA)

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

14.82mV/Pa
1 1 1 10-403

0 -Inf

43.1 31.6

86.2 44.7
129.3 46.0
172.344.8
215.446.9
258.545.3
301.646.1
344.7 46.4
387.847.4
430.848.8
473.953.9
517 55.7
560.151.5
603.254.6
646.3 52.4
689.3 50.1
732.448.8
775.547.4
818.647.9
861.747.4
904.8 46.8
947.8 46.6
990.947.4
1034 48.5
1077.1 49.2
1120.2 49.9
1163.3 51.0
1206.3 53.9
1249.4 51.0
1292.5 46.1
1335.6 45.6
1378.7 45.8
1421.8 46.7
1464.8 46.6
1507.9 45.3
1551 44.2
1594.1 44.2
1637.2 44.1
1680.3 43.6
1723.3 43.3
1766.4 43.8
1809.5 44.6
1852.6 44.5
1895.7 44.3
1938.8 44.3
1981.8 44.2
2024.9 44.5
2068 43.9
2111.1 42.9
2154.2 42.6
2197.3 42.4
2 11 j 10-404

2240.3 42.2
2283.4 41.7
2326.5 41.4
2369.6 42.0
2412.7 43.6
2455.8 42.7
2498.9 40.4
2541.9 39.2
2585 39.1
2628.1 38.8
2671.2 38.6
2714.3 38.6
2757.4 38.9
2800.4 39.2
2843.5 39.1
2886.6 39.4
2929.7 39.6
2972.8 39.0
3015.9 38.3
3058.9 38.3
3102 38.3
3145.1 37.6
3188.2 37.4
3231.3 37.3
3274.4 37.3
3317.4 37.1
3360.5 36.2
3403.6 36.1
3446.7 35.8
3489.8 35.2
3532.9 34.9
3575.9 35.1
3619 35.0
3662.1 34.9
3705.2 34.7
3748.3 34.2
3791.4 33.8
3834.4 33.5
3877.5 33.4
3920.6 33.2
3963.7 32.9
4006.8 33.0
4049.9 32.5
4092.9 32.0
4136 32.0
4179.1 31.6
4222.2 31.3
4265.3 30.8
4308.4 30.5
4351.4 30.2
4394.5 30.0
4437.6 29.9
3 11 R 10-405

4480.7 30.2
4523.8 29.9
4566.9 29.4
4609.9 29.5
4653 29.5
4696.1 29.6
4739.2 29.5
4782.3 29.4
4825.4 29.4
4868.5 29.8
4911.5 29.7
4954.6 29.6
4997.7 29.6
5040.8 29.5
5083.9 29.5
5127 29.3
5170 29.3
5213.1 29.2
5256.2 29.2
5299.3 29.0
5342.4 28.6
5385.5 28.3
5428.5 28.4
5471.6 27.9
5514.7 27.7
5557.8 27.3
5600.9 26.9
5644 26.4
5687 26.3
5730.1 25.8
5773.2 26.1
5816.3 25.7
5859.4 25.1
5902.5 24.5
5945.5 24.0
5988.6 24.0
6031.7 23.8
6074.8 23.9
6117.9 23.8
6161 23.9
6204 23.9
6247.1 23.7
6290.2 23.7
6333.3 24.3
6376.4 24.6
6419.5 24.8
6462.5 24.9
6505.6 25.3
6548.7 25.8
6591.8 26.3
6634.9 26.4
6678 26.7
n
10-406

6721 27.0
6764.1 27.1
6807.2 27.2
6850.3 27.4
6893.4 27.5
6936.5 27.5
6979.5 27.3
7022.6 27.2
7065.7 27.4
7108.8 27.5
7151.9 27.4
7195 27.2
7238.1 26.8
7281.1 26.5
7324.2 26.2
7367.3 25.9
7410.4 25.4
7453.5 25.2
7496.6 25.1
7539.6 24.8
7582.7 24.5
7625.8 24.0
7668.9 23.6
7712 23.3
7755.1 23.5
7798.1 23.4
7841.2 23.4
7884.3 23.7
7927.4 23.4
7970.5 23.6
8013.6 23.5
8056.6 23.0
8099.7 22.6
8142.8 22.5
8185.9 22.0
8229 21.7
8272.1 21.6
8315.1 21.5
8358.2 21.2
8401.3 20.9
8444.4 20.7
8487.5 20.6
8530.6 20.7
8573.6 20.6
8616.7 20.6
8659.8 20.6
8702.9 20.2
8746 20.3
8789.1 20.7
8832.1 20.6
8875.2 20.4
8918.3 20.5
5 120 10-407

8961.4 20.8
9004.5 20.6
9047.6 20.2
9090.6 20.1
9133.7 20.1
9176.8 20.3
9219.9 20.4
9263 20.3
9306.1 20.1
9349.2 20.0
9392.2 20.0
9435.3 19.8
9478.4 19.6
9521.5 19.6
9564.6 19.7
9607.7 18.9
9650.7 18.9
9693.8 18.9
9736.9 18.7
9780 18.4
9823.1 18.2
9866.2 18.2
9909.2 18.2
9952.3 18.1
9995.4 18.1
10038.5 17.8
10081.6 17.7
10124.7 17.6
10167.7 17.4
10210.8 17.3
10253.9 17.5
10297 17.2
10340.1 16.7
10383.2 16.9
10426.2 17.2
10469.3 17.3
10512.4 17.1
10555.5 16.5
10598.6 16.2
10641.7 16.5
10684.7 16.7
10727.8 16.6
10770.9 16.5
10814 16.7
10857.1 16.7
10900.2 16.3
10943.2 16.2
10986.3 15.7
11029.4 15.4
11072.5 15.3
11115.6 15.5
11158.7 15.2
R
1 �1 10-408

11201.7 15.0
11244.8 15.0
11287.9 14.7
1133114.3
11374.1 14.2
11417.2 14.2
11460.2 14.1
11503.3 14.1
11546.4 13.5
11589.5 13.2
11632.6 13.0
11675.7 12.3
11718.8 12.2
11761.8 11.9
11804.9 11.3
1184811.1
11891.1 10.7
11934.2 10.7
11977.3 10.6
12020.3 10.3
12063.4 10.2
12106.5 9.8
12149.6 9.5
12192.7 9.1
12235.8 9.0
12278.8 8.6
12321.9 8.1
12365 8.0
12408.1 8.3
12451.2 8.2
12494.3 7.8
12537.3 7.6
12580.4 7.6
12623.5 7.6
12666.6 7.4
12709.7 7.4
12752.8 7.3
12795.8 7.1
12838.9 7.2
128827.0
12925.1 6.7
12968.2 6.7
13011.3 6.8
13054.3 7.1
13097.4 7.3
13140.5 7.1
13183.6 7.0
13226.7 7.2
13269.8 7.0
13312.8 6.9
13355.9 6.8
13399 6.6
7 1-22 10-409

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
E:?
12S 10-410

15682.4
-3.8
15725.5
-4.1
15768.6
-4.2
15811.7
-4.4
15854.8
-4.9
15897.9
-5.3
15940.9
-5.3
15984-5.6
16027.1
-6.0
16070.2
-6.2
16113.3
-6.4
16156.4
-6.8
16199.4
-7.1
16242.5
-7.1
16285.6
-7.4
16328.7
-7.4
16371.8
-7.6
16414.9
-8.0
16458-8.2
16501-8.3
16544.1
-8.3
16587.2
-8.6
16630.3
-8.8
16673.4
-8.7
16716.5
-8.7
16759.5
-8.7
16802.6
-8.9
16845.7
-9.1
16888.8
-9.1
16931.9
-9.0
16975 -8.7
17018-8.6
17061.1
-9.0
17104.2
-9.3
17147.3
-9.3
17190.4
-9.4
0 124 10-411

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
LNa Freq Weight
Overload No
UnderRange No
Sensitivity
LZeq 57.9
LCeq 54.2
LAeq 37.5
LZFinax 69.4
LCFinax 63.2
LAFinax 59.0
LZFmin 52.2
LCFmin 49.9
LAFmin 34.0
LZE 77.9
LCE 74.2
LAE 57.5
LZpk 80.9
LCpk 80.2
LApk 80.2
LAF1o42.4
LAF2o39.1
LAF5o37.9
LAF8%37.5
LAF10o 37.3
LAF25o 36.4
LAF50% 35.7
LAF90o 34.8
LAF95o 34.7
LAF990 34.3
1/1 Oct. (dBA)

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

14.82mV/Pa
1 1-25 10-412

0 -Inf

43.1 23.3

86.2 29.6
129.326.9
172.323.4
215.421.9
258.521.5
301.619.4
344.7 19.8
387.8 19.2
430.818.2
473.920.3
517 19.3
560.1 19.3
603.2 20.4
646.3 19.2
689.3 19.4
732.419.6
775.5 19.0
818.619.8
861.720.4
904.820.1
947.8 19.2
990.919.0
1034 19.4
1077.1 19.2
1120.2 20.3
1163.3 20.2
1206.3 18.8
1249.4 18.1
1292.5 17.6
1335.6 18.3
1378.7 18.2
1421.8 16.7
1464.8 16.5
1507.9 18.0
1551 18.5
1594.1 18.4
1637.2 17.8
1680.3 17.9
1723.3 17.1
1766.4 17.2
1809.5 18.1
1852.6 17.7
1895.7 15.8
1938.8 15.5
1981.8 16.3
2024.9 18.5
2068 19.0
2111.1 17.4
2154.2 16.3
2197.3 15.7
2 120 10-413

2240.3 15.8
2283.4 17.0
2326.5 16.5
2369.6 16.9
2412.7 16.3
2455.8 15.2
2498.9 16.2
2541.9 16.8
2585 16.5
2628.1 14.5
2671.2 14.3
2714.3 16.8
2757.4 19.8
2800.4 19.6
2843.5 17.4
2886.6 15.1
2929.7 15.8
2972.8 16.7
3015.9 13.7
3058.9 13.6
3102 15.4
3145.1 16.2
3188.2 15.8
3231.3 15.7
3274.4 13.0
3317.4 13.4
3360.5 15.1
3403.6 12.9
3446.7 11.1
3489.8 12.1
3532.9 12.6
3575.9 13.2
3619 15.0
3662.1 13.8
3705.2 12.3
3748.3 14.1
3791.4 12.4
3834.4 10.5
3877.5 12.2
3920.6 14.1
3963.7 12.2
4006.8 9.8
4049.9 10.2
4092.9 10.7
4136 14.4
4179.1 13.5
4222.2 11.6
4265.3 12.7
4308.4 11.7
4351.4 10.9
4394.5 12.1
4437.6 10.3
3 127- 10-414

4480.7 10.4
4523.8 10.5
4566.9 8.3
4609.9 13.1
4653 16.3
4696.1 11.3
4739.2 8.5
4782.3 11.4
4825.4 15.4
4868.5 13.7
4911.5 8.3
4954.6 14.9
4997.7 16.0
5040.8 14.4
5083.9 14.9
5127 14.7
5170 9.0
5213.1 11.7
5256.2 12.5
5299.3 13.3
5342.4 12.5
5385.5 8.5
5428.5 12.2
5471.6 9.0
5514.7 7.0
5557.8 11.7
5600.9 12.2
5644 11.3
5687 10.0
5730.1 8.1
5773.2 6.9
5816.3 4.7
5859.4 7.6
5902.5 10.5
5945.5 8.8
5988.6 4.3
6031.7 6.4
6074.8 4.0
6117.9 5.8
6161 3.7
6204 5.7
6247.1 7.8
6290.2 4.0
6333.3 11.1
6376.4 10.4
6419.5 7.3
6462.5 6.1
6505.6 5.9
6548.7 7.5
6591.8 10.5
6634.9 11.1
6678 11.7
n
122 10-415

6721 15.3
6764.1 15.9
6807.2 16.6
6850.3 18.8
6893.4 19.2
6936.5 16.2
6979.5 13.4
7022.6 13.4
7065.7 15.1
7108.8 17.4
7151.9 16.5
7195 15.7
7238.1 16.8
7281.1 16.1
7324.2 15.7
7367.3 15.7
7410.4 17.0
7453.5 18.6
7496.6 18.6
7539.6 17.0
7582.7 15.5
7625.8 13.4
7668.9 13.5
7712 14.1
7755.1 13.4
7798.1 10.9
7841.2 8.0
7884.3 8.0
7927.4 7.8
7970.5 8.6
8013.6 11.5
8056.6 10.3
8099.7 7.5
8142.8 9.4
8185.9 8.3
8229 6.7
8272.1 8.1
8315.1 8.0
8358.2 7.6
8401.3 7.9
8444.4 8.6
8487.5 10.7
8530.6 11.8
8573.6 8.9
8616.7 7.5
8659.8 9.1
8702.9 8.4
8746 7.8
8789.1 8.6
8832.1 6.8
8875.2 5.3
8918.3 5.6
5 J-)q 10-416

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

I S0 10-417

11201.7 2.9
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
11848 0.4
11891.1 1.9
11934.2 1.3
11977.3 1.0
12020.3 0.5
12063.4 0.2
12106.5 -0.7
12149.6 0.1
12192.7 1.2
12235.8 0.9
12278.8 1.9
12321.9 2.5
12365 1.2
12408.1 0.1
12451.2 0.6
12494.3 0.3
12537.3 -1.1
12580.4 -2.1
12623.5 -2.2
12666.6 -2.0
12709.7 -2.1
12752.8 -1.3
12795.8 -0.1
12838.9 -0.2
12882-1.0
12925.1 -1.2
12968.2 -1.2
13011.3 -1.2
13054.3 -1.6
13097.4 -1.6
13140.5 -1.3
13183.6 -0.7
13226.7 -1.2
13269.8 -0.1
13312.8 -0.6
13355.9 -1.2
13399-1.2
7 IS-1 10-418

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
LNa Freq Weight
Overload No
UnderRange No
Sensitivity
LZeq 65.3
LCeq 64.1
LAeq 55.2
LZFinax 79.0
LCFinax 78.3
LAFinax 67.3
LZFmin 53.2
LCFmin 50.8
LAFmin 35.9
LZE 88.8
LCE 87.6
LAE 78.7
LZpk 84.5
LCpk 84.6
LApk 81.4
LAF1o65.0
LAF2 0 64.2
LAF5o62.4
LAF8% 61.1
LAF10o 60.1
LAF25o 55.5
LAF50% 44.5
LAF90o 37.2
LAF95o 36.8
LAF990 36.4
1/1 Oct. (dBA)

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

14.82mV/Pa
1 1�2 10-419

0 -Inf

43.1 29.4

86.2 40.0
129.341.6
172.340.7
215.4 39.0
258.537.5
301.635.7
344.734.7
387.835.2
430.8 36.5
473.937.3
517 37.8
560.138.4
603.2 39.0
646.3 39.5
689.3 40.1
732.440.2
775.540.4
818.641.0
861.741.8
904.8 42.2
947.8 42.4
990.941.8
1034 41.3
1077.1 41.0
1120.2 40.5
1163.3 40.4
1206.3 40.2
1249.4 40.3
1292.5 40.0
1335.6 39.8
1378.7 39.4
1421.8 39.3
1464.8 39.1
1507.9 39.3
1551 39.3
1594.1 39.5
1637.2 39.4
1680.3 39.1
1723.3 39.1
1766.4 39.0
1809.5 38.8
1852.6 38.8
1895.7 38.5
1938.8 38.3
1981.8 37.9
2024.9 37.6
2068 37.5
2111.1 36.9
2154.2 36.5
2197.3 35.9
2 I ss 10-420

2240.3 35.5
2283.4 34.9
2326.5 34.4
2369.6 33.8
2412.7 33.5
2455.8 33.2
2498.9 32.9
2541.9 32.7
2585 32.5
2628.1 32.5
2671.2 32.4
2714.3 32.2
2757.4 32.1
2800.4 31.9
2843.5 31.7
2886.6 31.5
2929.7 31.2
2972.8 31.1
3015.9 31.1
3058.9 31.1
3102 30.9
3145.1 30.8
3188.2 30.5
3231.3 30.3
3274.4 29.9
3317.4 29.8
3360.5 29.7
3403.6 29.6
3446.7 29.4
3489.8 29.4
3532.9 29.0
3575.9 28.5
3619 28.2
3662.1 28.2
3705.2 28.0
3748.3 27.6
3791.4 27.2
3834.4 26.9
3877.5 26.6
3920.6 26.3
3963.7 26.2
4006.8 25.9
4049.9 25.7
4092.9 25.6
4136 25.1
4179.1 24.8
4222.2 24.8
4265.3 24.6
4308.4 24.1
4351.4 23.7
4394.5 23.5
4437.6 23.6
3 1 10-421

4480.7 23.8
4523.8 23.5
4566.9 23.0
4609.9 23.0
4653 23.0
4696.1 23.0
4739.2 22.6
4782.3 22.6
4825.4 22.8
4868.5 22.5
4911.5 22.4
4954.6 22.3
4997.7 22.1
5040.8 22.0
5083.9 22.0
5127 21.8
5170 21.7
5213.1 21.5
5256.2 21.4
5299.3 21.3
5342.4 21.2
5385.5 21.4
5428.5 21.7
5471.6 22.1
5514.7 22.4
5557.8 21.3
5600.9 20.4
5644 19.8
5687 19.2
5730.1 18.4
5773.2 17.9
5816.3 17.6
5859.4 17.4
5902.5 17.2
5945.5 16.9
5988.6 16.5
6031.7 16.2
6074.8 15.8
6117.9 15.5
6161 15.7
6204 15.9
6247.1 15.9
6290.2 16.1
6333.3 16.4
6376.4 16.3
6419.5 16.4
6462.5 16.7
6505.6 16.7
6548.7 16.9
6591.8 17.4
6634.9 17.4
6678 17.4
4 I SS 10-422

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
I S O 10-423

8961.4 11.8
9004.5 11.5
9047.6 11.3
9090.6 11.3
9133.7 11.4
9176.8 11.3
9219.9 11.1
9263 11.0
9306.1 11.1
9349.2 11.3
9392.2 10.9
9435.3 11.0
9478.4 11.2
9521.5 10.9
9564.6 10.8
9607.7 10.8
9650.7 10.7
9693.8 10.8
9736.9 10.8
9780 10.7
9823.1 10.4
9866.2 10.4
9909.2 10.0
9952.3 9.8
9995.4 9.7
10038.5 9.5
10081.6 9.3
10124.7 9.5
10167.7 9.2
10210.8 9.1
10253.9 9.2
10297 9.1
10340.1 9.1
10383.2 9.1
10426.2 9.1
10469.3 9.0
10512.4 9.0
10555.5 8.8
10598.6 8.6
10641.7 8.8
10684.7 8.9
10727.8 8.6
10770.9 8.3
10814 8.4
10857.1 8.3
10900.2 8.2
10943.2 8.2
10986.3 8.1
11029.4 7.8
11072.5 7.6
11115.6 7.4
11158.7 7.4
C.
1-�7 10-424

11201.7 7.3
11244.8 7.0
11287.9 6.8
11331 6.7
11374.1 6.4
11417.2 6.1
11460.2 5.8
11503.3 5.7
11546.4 5.5
11589.5 5.2
11632.6 5.3
11675.7 4.9
11718.8 4.5
11761.8 4.2
11804.9 4.1
118483.8
11891.1 3.6
11934.2 3.3
11977.3 3.2
12020.3 2.9
12063.4 2.9
12106.5 2.5
12149.6 2.3
12192.7 2.3
12235.8 2.1
12278.8 1.8
12321.9 1.6
12365 1.5
12408.1 1.4
12451.2 1.2
12494.3 1.2
12537.3 1.1
12580.4 0.9
12623.5 0.9
12666.6 0.7
12709.7 0.5
12752.8 0.5
12795.8 0.6
12838.9 0.5
12882 0.3
12925.1 0.4
12968.2 0.4
13011.3 0.4
13054.3 0.4
13097.4 0.4
13140.5 0.4
13183.6 0.6
13226.7 0.7
13269.8 0.8
13312.8 0.7
13355.9 0.7
133990.9
7 g 10-425

13442.1 0.8
13485.2 0.9
13528.3 0.9
13571.3 0.8
13614.4 0.9
13657.5 0.9
13700.6 0.8
13743.7 0.8
13786.8 0.7
13829.8 0.7
13872.9 0.5
139160.4
13959.1 0.4
14002.2 0.1
14045.3 0.1
14088.4 0.1
14131.4 0.0
14174.5 0.0
14217.6 0.4
14260.7 0.3
14303.8 -0.5
14346.9 -0.8
14389.9 -0.9
14433-1.3
14476.1 -1.6
14519.2 -1.6
14562.3 -1.8
14605.4 -1.9
14648.4 -2.3
14691.5 -2.5
14734.6 -2.8
14777.7 -2.9
14820.8 -3.0
14863.9 -3.4
14906.9 -3.6
14950-3.8
14993.1 -4.1
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
E:?
��� 10-426

15682.4
-7.4
15725.5
-7.9
15768.6
-8.2
15811.7
-8.2
15854.8
-8.6
15897.9
-8.7
15940.9
-8.8
15984-8.9
16027.1
-9.2
16070.2
-9.3
16113.3
-9.5
16156.4
-9.6
16199.4
-9.8
16242.5
-10.2
16285.6
-10.6
16328.7
-10.7
16371.8
-10.8
16414.9
-11.0
16458 -11.3
16501 -11.5
16544.1
-11.5
16587.2
-11.7
16630.3
-11.8
16673.4
-12.0
16716.5
-12.0
16759.5
-12.1
16802.6
-12.1
16845.7
-12.2
16888.8
-12.3
16931.9
-12.3
16975 -12.3
17018-12.4
17061.1
-12.6
17104.2
-12.5
17147.3
-12.6
17190.4
-12.6
0 1-4 0 10-427

13442.1 - 1 . 1
13485.2 -0.6
13528.3 -1.0
13571.3 -1.1
13614.4 -0.8
13657.5 -0.9
13700.6 -1.2
13743.7 -1.0
13786.8 -1.0
13829.8 -1.3
13872.9 -1.1
13916-0.8
13959.1 -0.8
14002.2 -0.5
14045.3 -0.0
14088.4 -0.6
14131.4 -1.4
14174.5 -0.6
14217.6 -0.6
14260.7 -1.7
14303.8 -2.3
14346.9 -1.6
14389.9 -2.1
14433-2.9
14476.1 -2.7
14519.2 -1.6
14562.3 -2.1
14605.4 -3.1
14648.4 -2.1
14691.5 -3.1
14734.6 -4.1
14777.7 -3.3
14820.8 -3.5
14863.9 -4.4
14906.9 -4.4
14950-4.3
14993.1 -4.0
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
1 1 10-428

15682.4
-8.1
15725.5
-8.4
15768.6
-8.6
15811.7
-9.1
15854.8
-9.2
15897.9
-9.3
15940.9
-9.0
15984 -9.1
16027.1
-9.3
16070.2
-9.3
16113.3
-9.6
16156.4
-10.3
16199.4
-10.2
16242.5
-10.3
16285.6
-10.3
16328.7
-9.8
16371.8
-10.1
16414.9
-11.0
16458 -11.3
16501 -11.2
16544.1
-11.0
16587.2
-11.5
16630.3
-11.8
16673.4
-10.7
16716.5
-11.0
16759.5
-12.2
16802.6
-11.6
16845.7
-10.7
16888.8
-11.9
16931.9
-11.7
16975 -11.1
17018-11.7
17061.1
-11.8
17104.2
-11.4
17147.3
-11.8
17190.4
-12.1
0 142 10-429

Yanchar Design & Consulting Group
ATTACHMENT 2
Drawing No. 6011-01 - Building Layout
14 3 10-430

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

DETAILS

TAILS OF SIZE DETERMINED IN PE CALCS
d)
r7 15'-10„
20 20'-9"

LAYOUT VIEW
D C'
15'-10"
7 XF.

S' SVE DISCHARG
NO L055 STACK WITH

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

ROOF VIEW
8„
VIEW B—D'
DISCHARGE VIL' Y11 A —A

LOUVERS
-WHITE TRIM
TYP.

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

RED WHITE

LOCKING INDUSTRIAL STYLE
VIEW D—D' DOOR KNOB
;HES TO HAVE
ASKET
�BRICATED
JVERS

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

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

THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY
AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OE 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.
7650 Commerce St. Corcoran. MN 56340, Tel: 763-746-9900 (C�2014

WSP USA ENVIRONMENT &
INFASTRUCTURE INC.

NEWPORT BEACH, CA
r

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

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

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

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

CHANGED STACK LOCATION ADDED DETAIL
1 8/22
MK
E

CHANGED TO MEAL SIDING
10/22
MK
PROJECT NO.: 6011
10-431

Attachment No. PC 7
Alternative Locations Analysis
1-4 5 10-432

1-4 0 10-433

Alternative Location Analysis
Soil Vapor Extraction System
Bayridge Park (Parcel 10)
Ford Soil Vapor Remediation
Project File No: PA2022-0180
February 15, 2023
1-47 10-434

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
ChoiM�q+d '
R
Outreach
• June 3, 2021-- Fact Sheet
mailed to community
• June 7 — July 9, 2021--Public
Comment Period
• June 10, 2021--Public Meeting
E:xpdanation
Existing groundwater monitoring well
Prnpased grou ndwater monito ring well
48 Soil gas probe location
d klutd-depth soil gas probe location
Sal Vapor Extraction montan ng paint
$
(installed and sampledl
• Grab ground water sample location
• Perimemr sail gas probe location
lsoconcentration lines based on the most
recent data (.fanuary-IRarch 2021j from
samples located B to 16 feet below ground
surface
Residential 7C E isoconoentration in
pw'm'
Proposed so] vapor extiaclion well pairs
SVE piping
❑ Proposed SVE Skid Location
Pssu med radius of influence of ttie
extraction well pair (70 ft radius)
0 LJ Elaundary of Parcel l 0-13ayridge Park
F
ALTERNATLVE 3 SO]L VAPOR EXTRACTION LAYOUT
PARCEL 10
Former Fard Aeronutronic Property
Newport Beach, California
Kul - r:t Mo. 9620297Sp7d.3C
WOC)d' Val: 04/W2011 Fgurt20
i4 2 10-435
ALTERNATLVE 3 SO]L VAPOR EXTRACTION LAYOUT
PARCEL 10
Former Fard Aeronutronic Property
Newport Beach, California
Kul - r:t Mo. 9620297Sp7d.3C
WOC)d' Val: 04/W2011 Fgurt20
i4 2 10-435

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

However, your proposed plan is so intrusive. My hope is that all interested parties... you, Wood, Ford, and our Board of Directors can come up with a plan that utilizes a smaller footprint, minimizes tearing up of our streets and minimizes the general disruption to our daily lives..." yJ Boards
j
.,,I +M hIINYNY4��
��iur Boaj ds
Santa Ana Regional Water OuaJlty Control Board
TO' VYhorn It May Concem
FROM- Jes-s4ca Law. P.G
Engineering Geotogisl
Sile Cleanup Program
DATE: August 25. 2021
SUBJECT: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PERTAINING TO PUBIJC: COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING THE DRAFT FEASIBILfTY
STUDYIREMEDIAL ACTION PLAN — PARCEC 10. FOR THE FORMER
FORD AERONUTRONICS FACILITY LOCATED AT 1000 FORD ROAD,
NEV+VPtJRT BEACH. CALIFORNIA
(GEOTRAC KER ID #SL199023OU: PCA #1080200)
1A INTRODUCTION
This Respowyaness Summary has been prepared by the Santa Ara Regional Water Qualify Cmu-N Board (WarerBoard) and responds to all public commerrts received during the 33-day pubk oofnment period on the Drarf Feasrbrlrfy StudylRerrredraf AcJian Plan — Parcel PO 6Draft FGiRAP) for the Former Ford Aeron Aronics Facility at 1000 Ford Road in Newport 8aach (Site). Parcel 10, aiso known as the Bayridge Park HDnieawners Association as located at the northem pDMcp of the Site. This Responsiveness 3umrpary has been incorporated as Appendix B to the Final FSIRAP.

2.0 BACKGROUND
Rayi idge Park (Parcel 10). which is IDcatec at the northern portion of the Site. comprises 11.5 acres Df she larger farmer 200-acre Ford Aeronutmnics facility. In 1979. the Parcel 10 properL-r was sold and developed into condominiums under t'te name of Bayi idge Parts_ The fom rer Ford A mnutronics facility pnnmdiy operated m All comments were responded to in a Responsiveness Summary included in the Final Draft of the FS/RAP August 25, 2021. 1- 4.9 10-436

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Locations considered
• Within Bayridge Park
• Along Bison Avenue
• Along Country Club Drive
Criteria Considered
• Disruption to neighborhood
• Construction duration
• Construction footprint within community walls
• Proximity to homes
• Proximity to windows, garages, vs walls
• Impact on parking
• Parking congestion worse in portions of the community than others • Permitting complexity
• Setbacks from public right of way
• Moratorium on Bison
• Implementation complexity
• Slope stability
• Disruption of mature landscaping
• Accessibility for construction equipment
• Power connection complexity
• Distance from source
• Voltage drop
ISO 10-437

FPP AM
" 4 '
Parking areas: 4k
Heavily impacted and/or close to
residences.

The HOA has denied use of any 0A
of these parking areas even for
temporary field visits. Staff park
offsite nd walk in.

IF
Parkingaconcerns raised at every
cmmunity meetin•lip Ado
og
Ik A,, 40b
4 IN&
A
6 t; IQJ
4 10
[Not Pictured]
#4

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- BAYRIDGE PARK
_. A
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
p
increase construction by —2 months
• Widening the trench to include
electrical conductors around Hartford
Drive creates conflicts with existing
utilities.
r ■f
HOA has said parking in northwest corner
is not as impacted. I C
Additional 5VE
Pipe Trenching
�i • T i
• �� 'Ned."?
}�
" Additional Electrical
Conduit Trenching
Ab. ANIL- i J�
15S 10-440

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS -BISON AVENUE

ALONG BISON AVE
• Locations on Bison Ave not feasible to
meet required ROW setbacks
• Would require significant grading and
potentially impact stability of existing
retaining walls.
• Moratorium along Bison for any
trenching work.
• Access from a major thoroughfare
View from intersection of Bison Ave and Country Club Drive looking west along Bison Ave 1 r
10-441

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- Country Club Drive

ALONG COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
• Reviewed all feasible locations along Country Club Drive. • Northern portion of Country Club Drive - toward Bison Avenue
• Middle Portion - Adjacent to 94 Hartford
• Southern portion of Country Club Drive -toward One Ford Road Community
1-55 10-442

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS- Country Club Drive
• Northern -Would require
significant grading and
potentially impact stability
of existing retaining walls.
• Southern -insufficient
space to maintain sidewalk
throughway
*-S.. �a aoa�v a
Northern
View from Bison Ave looking south along the sidewalk
between Country Club Drive and Bayridge Park
Southern#
r
View looking south along the sidewalk between Country
Club Drive and Bayridge Park approaching the One Ford
Road Gate
150 10-443

PROPOSED LOCATION ALONG COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
Worked with the Bayridge Park Homeowners
Association Board to select this location.
1-5 j 10-444

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

Proposed by City on 2/15/23
Disruption of mature landscaping and
BayridgePark-Landscaped
drainage
2 Areas between homes
Inaccessibility for construction equipment
High
hmm
High
Low
Medium
Infeasible
Medium
Does not solve the proximity to homes
issue
- Proposed by City on 2/15/23
Bayridge Park - 2-3 Parking
-All parking areas within project limits are
3 spots in eastern half of
restricted by HOA MOU
High
Medium
I nfeasibI91
Low
Low
Low
community.
-Parking impacts are concern at every public
meeting
Proposed by City on 2/15/23
Northwest corner parking area less
Bayridge Park -Larger
impacted
4 treatment system across
- Significantincreaseinlinearfeetof
High
Low
Medium
Low
High
Infeasible
parking spots - northwest
trenching required and construction duration
corner of neighborhood
_Voltage drop over additional distance not to
code
- Discussion with City about setback
Imr-
5 Bison Ave
requirements deemed this infeasible
Low
Low
Low
Infeasible
High
Medium
Bison construction moratorium
Northern proposed by City 12/21,
6 Along Country Club (norther
infeasible due to space limit and retaining
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Infea
wall impact
-Southern, infeasible due to lack of space
Public meeting 11/4/21 and 1/18/23
Country Club Drive -
City LTP process resulted in comments from
7 adjacent to 94 Hartford
3 nearest residents with concerns about the
Low
High
Low
Medium
Low
Low
(Final FS/RAP & RDI P)
location.
11 �g 10-445

FINAL FS/RAP
Final FS/RAP August 25,
Design updated per pub
comments
• 28 extraction wells
• 1 vapor treatment sy!
located outside of the
the community along
Club Drive
f
e'lii 7 448
Explena&M
Ex'a1lrggmun�wjbErrn,anlb3ring e'E'
—
-rocxszd gmundwaler montor ig Ka11
$
m Pnosed sail aapa 2x`rdc'Im wall palN
A
soli gas pnme ocaean
A
Mart -depth sail gas arc-e lacallan
soli Vat-Y Exlacllor rnDPI Og pant
3Lneta:lee and samv�edj
■
Slat?gsourd'NaWTSWalelacaL'an
*
PerrPre eo11 gas pr_.ae IaraLan
la000ncentrsilon linen broad on the most
recent data JJanuary-Marzh 20211 Prom
samples roca[ed 8 to 16 feel brrlow gm un d
eur[s
c3
�3rayTCE rc[ :icer.1m.mi n
—
SVE p:ping
❑
3roposed SVE enc.loalc-e
Assu'r'edrafts ClrrluLrc or -tea
extraction WH', pair (70.Rradil.s
L7,1
3mridary of PXCel 10 - Bapridge Part
ALTEMAT1VE3 SOH VAPOR EXTRACf1OFi LAYOUT
PARUL 10
Former €o:d Ae mn4tnonic Property
Newpwt Beach CAlkri i&
}�
Bx ru.i —. tax 962L3}7107aal
wood.
na. W,2.20) i r'!I— .20
1 �� 10-446

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

Location selected in
coordination with homeowners
association
Outreach
• November 4, 2021 - Public
Meeting on RDIP
• January 18, 2023 — Public
Meeting on construction
scheduling
C _
I V 1 {
.0 i f
Al � rl
I a{
auE
s+=.19.9e I
S-0a6nrnu9,ry II
la•.,r,Kn. �,., r i
�.tiE-9t'S P-0T
. r
�. SVE.16-W
t,
m
waci
Explanation
Existng groundwale• monitarng we.

Praposec grmmdwater rnon i6aring well
■ Sail gas pz0be taca,'icn
., Soil Vapor Ervactbn montodna pant
Permete• sn I gas prone lacaran
lsoconce ntratmn 1i ne5 based on the mass
recentdata (January -dune 2021), dashed
were in€erred
Res dental TCE isocancentralion In
pg•�Ma
`• $ Proposed soil vaparedm6on we:

C SVE piping
I0 Proposed SVE enclosure
CJ Soundary of Parcel 10 - Baprdge Park
Area of SVE RemediaMn ;11.100 pq+.,3
TCE)
Atbreviations
SVE = sail vapor extraction
TICE = trichlomethene
p pWm'= mlrnograms per chic meter
I
'N 501L VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM LAYCJT
IE PARCEL10
Former Ford Aeronuwonic gropert}
Newport Beach. Cal:farnia
i!i-- umc F^c:r Y. No SL::02�Jio
wood .,.nwru2• - 3
100 10-447

Attachment No. PC 8
Response to Comments and Public
Outreach Overview
1-01 10-448

1-02 10-449

L(Z_�d�

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 Z o3 10-450

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

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: 1 am a two-time survivor of cancer. / 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.).

ZOO' 10-451

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

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 A 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 1015 10-452

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

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://tinvurl.com/FordNBYouTube , an electronic repository at the State Water Board's GeoTracker website at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?qlobal 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 100 10-453

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

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 1 reread the City of Newport Beach Notice of Public Hearing. The notice states that the proposed project requests a 3.2-foot separation distance Z 07 10-454

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

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: 1 respectfully and strenuously object to the Bayridge/Ford treatment system building being placed at 94 Hartford Drive. IT IS TOO CLOSE TO HOMES AND NEEDS TO BE RELOCATED.

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.
102 10-455

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

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 3D 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 Z 09 10-456

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

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."' 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. ' 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.]
270 10-457

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

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.
1 j 1- 10-458

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

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?
1-7 10-459

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

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." 13 10-460

Responses to Comments
Bayridge Park Community Objections
February 10, 2023

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.
1-74 10-461

ATTACHMENT A

PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION
Remediation Project File No: PA2022-0180
175 10-462

From:

Sent: January 24, 2023 6:53 PM
To: CDD
Cc: Tran, Jenny
Subject: Objections for hearing
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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. 1 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.
z70 10-463

6. What will Ford do for the 4-6 residences DIRECTLY affected by this SVE system. z77 10-464

From:

Sent: January 25, 2023 6:15 AM
To: CDD
Cc: Tran, Jenny
Subject: Objections for hearing
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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. z72 10-465

From:

Sent: January 25, 2023 10:12 AM
To: CDD Zoom
Cc: Tran, Jenny
Subject: Time Sensitive: Public Hearing 1/26 Issues on Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning.

My name is- and I am a resident and original owner ate 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.
2�" 10-466

• 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.

IRO 10-467

From:

Sent: January 25, 2023 10:46 AM
To: CDD
Cc: Tran, Jenny
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing Comments for review 1/26/23: 94 Hartford Drive Project File No.: PA2022-0180
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning,
My name is- and I live ato 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 of this 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 ato 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. 121 10-468

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.
22 10-469

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,
I-RS 10-470

ATTACHMENT B

OUTREACH OVERVIEW
124 10-471

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://tinvud.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 2417.

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:/Igeotracker.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.
0 3 community -specific meetings to discuss a pilot test to determine if SVE was an appropriate remedial technology to address contaminants. 0 8 community -specific meetings to discuss health risk assessments, their results and next steps.
0 5 community -specific meetings to discuss draft remediation plans and provide opportunities for public comment.
0 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. 125 10-472

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 (FSIRAP). The FSIRAP 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 FSIRAP. In both the Response to Comments and the FSIRAP 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.
120 10-218

In addition to this outreach, FordMSP 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. 127 10-219

ATTACHMENT C

INFORMATION LINE CONTACT LOG
122 10-220

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
1g9 10-221

ATTACHMENT D

WSP HARTFORD RESIDENTS CONTACT LOG
20 0 10-222

ATTACHMENT D

WSP HARTFORD RESIDENTS CONTACT LOG
IA_Property_ID
CommunicatiorL.Date
Communication Time
Communiration_Medium
WSPStaff
Communication_tog_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:

[email protected]

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 VIVI 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 story e/movin ro ect.

10.48 12/1/2022
16:25
Phone
MLR
Left VM on both #&#39;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 1/10/2023
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.

20.48 2/23/2023
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- 7D03). 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.S0
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 REsidert 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 2/20/2023
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,

20.50 2/26/2023
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
1A5
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
lEmail
JIVILR
I Emailed resident re: scheduling 6 month resample.

10.52 11/10/2021
15:43
Email
MLR
Left VM re: scheduling6 month seasonal resample.

10.52 11/29/2022
11:31
Phone/email
JIVILR
I Left VM and sent followup email re: scheduling 6 month resample.

10.52 1/18/2023
14:46
Phone/email
JIVILR
I Left VM and sent email re: scheduling 6 month resample. 10-223

Z q �--' 10-224

Attachment No. PC 9
Outreach to the One Ford Road
Community
Z q 10-225

Zq4 10-226

From: HamannNazaroff, Daniela
To: smaauin(@oox.net
Cc: Jantzen-Marlon. Candace
Subject: Update for Environmental Remediation and One Ford Road Date: Friday, December 9, 2022 1:22:00 PM
Attachments: fia 03 prop sa 221209.ndf
0maae001.ona
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
Activity
Country Club Use
(subject to change)
Late January or early
Topographical survey &
2-3 person crew and small equipment in roadway.

February (approx. 2
utility locating
Traffic cones and flagger to manage traffic.
days)
Mid February (approx.

Mobilization of
1 vehicle to transport materials. Traffic cones
3 days)
temporary facilities.
around vehicle, but all work will be on the side of
he road so no other traffic management needed.

Early April (approx. 3
Landscaping removal
One lane blocked to give crew and equipment
Days)
and grading at treatment
adequate space to work. Some truck traffic in and
system site.
out of work zone for material transportation.
raffic flaggers will be stationed on either side of
he work zone to direct traffic.

Early April (approx. 3
Conduit crossing under
One lane at a time closed for potholing and
Days)
Country Club
monitoring of the horizontal drilling process. Traffic
laggers will be stationed on either side of the work
zone to direct traffic.

Mid April (approx. 5
Construction of concrete
1 concrete truck. Traffic cones around vehicle, but
days)
pad at treatment system
all work will be on the side of the road so no other
site
traffic management needed.

Late May (Approx. 2
Delivery of treatment
Large flatbed truck and crane to place building on
days)
system building
concrete pad. One lane blocked to give crew and
equipment adequate space to work. Trafficflaggers
10-227

will be stationed on either side of the work zone to
direct traffic.
1 day, semi-annually Maintenance events on 2 vehicles to perform work and transport materials after construction system equipment Traffic cones around vehicle, but all work will be on he side of the road so no othertraffic
management needed.

We will be able to provide more granularity on both the schedule and the traffic control plan for each activity asthe construction start date approaches. tilde planto maintain full transparency with the communityabout whatto 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 formerfacility 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, howeverthey have requested 8 additional groundwater monitoring wells and 9 additional soil gas probes be installed within the community to continue to monitorthe below - ground conditions and make sure any residual impacts continue to decrease naturally overtime. This is summarized in a report called the "Remedial Design Implementation Plan" (RDIP) and is available he re:
https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads eo_reportf2825709330f5L1SS023S 4S.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 S proposed groundwater monitoring wells are shown as green circles and will also be installed in the roads (not on private property)
o 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 laterthan 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 addition@ I 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 priorto that work later in the year.

Have a great weekend,
Daniela
Daniell Hamann-NaxarofP
Associate Engineer
PE CA C91417
SheEHerlHers
10-228

M+ 1 510-206-6571

WSP USA
555 12th Street, Suite 215
Oakland, CA
94607 USA
Wsp.com
x9 10-229

Igo 10-230
9o10-230

Attachment No. PC 10
Project Plans
10-231
1919

200
10-232

BAYRIDGE PARK (PARCEL 10)

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM

FORMER FORD AERONUTRONIC PROPERTY

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
i
—N—
du PROJECR
SITE

SITE LOCATION MAP
,,— PARCEL 10
N
11 . ... . ..... .....

I i mll immu Mill
-Irmliffiffilm Mill
nl.11mg ON mp-M
ml - immml 'j In
pv�wwwimww.
—N—
SITEEMT �c

LOCATION

SITE VICINITY MAP

SITE MAP
20-1
10-488

STR­
........... S ............. __T IS
T.E E--
O'T.E. oll
"I I IRI 1111
1-11 TI T11 11 T11 1111111R.

I IlEll TI:=,%1" =1"IET 111 —1 L—'
IaLICLS
1­ 11—TIIIT 11 "All —RI
uPlWsacq
I 111E " E"T 1111" 1 IL, TI E 11" 1111L IE 1111111 "ll"T"I" sxl
Ico
=T 11 �11 1, 711.11
4'l IT " T L L' 'E ST T, I E �I.TROII
1 1— lI 01,
=E. E
1101.

T._
.E,T.
"T E Rl.-Eo-T.Rl IURI-
-11—
I— 11111111111110" TI I" E111L 11 ==I 1. "
—11
MEI 11-1ED 111AL
202
ffel ENTOA

►
�.
..�. .�
�mME 1gg
_
I Am
"-' �_
„"'ICI,
-
_
�A�,!��►
I.
- Nul!I
,1 owlI�I�I
ON
fill
MKM
■1
I1�
203
10-490

LEGEND MONUMENT NOTES

TREATMENT

TEM SITE
111-114 4"
SYSol"
1W
-X
GRAPHIC SCALE 2,
FEET
-hp
61 REVISIONS UTILITYSTATEMENT PREPARED FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK ISITE INFORMATION RECORD .

NO. DATE REASONS By �.l N.1
03/02/22 JG R CALVADA
SUBMmax�xasrnwsITTAL
sunvevim
:33, 'r
Tt 1 800
F--
227-2600
E- Iese
SHEU 2 OF 4
204
10-491

mm�,Wrl
---- - ------
(FORD DR--
♦ 4--

FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AT

FUTURE TREATMENT SITE
REFER TO DRAWING G-5
CITY EASEMENT 6_0" ON EITHER SIDE

OF WATER LINE
I A-
WATER LINE (SEE NOTE 11 IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVESANITINI INEWER LINE 'AL' (SEE 'oTE I)

FIRE IGRAXT
STORM DMIN LINE (SEE NOTE 1)

ELECTRICAL PULL SIX
=,UE (SEE NOTE I STREET LIGHT KILL BOX
X NOTE Tl

TELECOB PULL BOX
TELECOB LINE (BE. NOT.

LIGHT POST
EATENIGGE PASS PROPERTY ,oN"AN, L..

AAHTTANY lElEl NA"lILE — LSGT
.T.SUX RAN AN—E lIlNGAJSON MINUIENI
IFIER-1 I SOIl GAS PROBE ATER FTERs PERIMETER SOIL GAS PROBE EXTENGE. LIGHT PONT 111UNIIAT11 11NIIINING WELL
•

WATER CONTROL VALVE
ITILTY IlGl— NOTES
1, IGY 01 NE-1 1—" ILLITTILISUNMENTS ARE FROM U11-111" 11 THE =S SYSTEM, . PPLESENTE. .1 I.P.—PINC S.-EY .1 SURFACE FEATURES ' A LEI E.H.N TILII ALI.—NT. ARE — AN -BUST NE, .. Al—UL 1. QEIER. —IF.R EM1111 MAP' '"WNI F"'ll"I ELEIIRLIAL NE—.Rl GUIPLEMENIC. .1 SUR-1 Or . RrACE FEATURES .I. A. INUIR-1— -UL-

3. SOIAL III UTILITY ILIINIENTI IRE rNGS, AN11ILT IFIRRATIl IN NAPI F�HTIREGSESUSTRIGS=RTWORI, SUPPLEMENTED 11 TOlOG-PlIC SURVEY 01 SURFACE A EAT&T UTILITY ILIGIMEHIS IRE IR01 ASIABLI WFOR111101 IN SCI—C IIIS SU= =S=NETWORK, S PPLEMENTED BY TOPOG—C SU— OF
VANHOLES.

W
"Ol"'REFER TO E.— NOTES ON DRAINING G�
X. ALL STREETS IN PARCEL 10 ARE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBUC UTIIJI EASEMENTS. rn
OW
IS
IS
C, z
�o I'm
Em
10-492

NO
3 ELEC= INI TELECOM LINES NOT DETECTED BY
F 3 cTEO BY GIONISION ON TrerzoAZDZA
MENT
E---- a_ wATEa uNE OETE
F FIELD VERIFY. mC
S. WIDTH OF CItt EASEMENT FROM CItt OF NEWVORT
-- E —__ — E -- _ _ eBACH vueuc=R oevARTMBNT_ ,g u -
E____E_1__E____
E ———— uuoBaGaouao uraav LOCATEa
9E HARTFDRD oNlE E — E — E_---
\\ E____B____E____
E
`SESNOUE3 E—_
94 HARTFORD DRIVE E----E----E----E--_ E
I
k I
N`GR ALLYCLOSEO n
AC UNIT \ SURFACING L — — — —
RO—------
I I ,
HI—E
CITY
BE IN
I ,T-' I EEy�33
2 I dab ° SEE NOTEClSEE F Tes�SEE NOTE1g5
o 0 2 ai=
oD°o°o
SEEN —
AREA
a o8
d
r—
.. .. ..
___—___—_—_
SAIR El

PIERTY BOUNDARY
'cRET PE` ,tN VATH coN

DIESTRI
e
� �
LEGEND

ICV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE
--- w-- WATER LINE (CITY OF NEWRORT BEACH)
--- E -- ELECTRIC LINE (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIsoN)
oo
'
---T-- TELECGN UNE(ATaT)
• FOuaoATIDN MoxUNENT

RASICRETESURFACING
�CATI
200
10-493

ezisnxu FEATURES

WATER LINE

NE STORM DRAIN LINE
\
qI"j
41 --E El.DING SHE
'`••
-��
GAs LINE
e AA.11—sE.ER NAHHDEE
Fi
!
c
a STORM DRAIN ruxxDLE

SEWERCI-EAN
—Ell
_ia•?s
I,
�' EXTENDED LIGHT rose
I
-ra , .'ems'---•-e.-;:.-.�....._-
n
i
■
------------
g�5 �E
m�
�y
z,
�e
w'
g
�'a
z
a
�a
0 00
i
Go
DATE 12-022
20Y'
10-494

ww
' IA
m—m
m
DIA
-=w----w----^--"----w_w____._-w----
DIA.
4^xe
�tl�-k
s oeceisN
eew_6 w
1 A s

HARTFORD DR
_-i---- -- w _
"_'i .. Ow- _-
"--p
uw
® caesswn�x rsv.

Aae-rm-
FAa wuxGrri
4" DIA. —A-
I
i exxoossveeaurt,owre.s
------------- _ _ _ _ ._ _ . -_
w•
Emu p=bscR,Ts-Fi
s"
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ 4_._ _ ,._ _ ---
r , w
i
m
su�cxe orca
_c- _c-
0 20 ouou 200
19 95
�p
-
-I--pew
WELL
suE evuux uxe
9 Igo_
SEE DING.
190
185 T
85 0+00
0+50 1+00 1 +5 0
Station

HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE
2+00 2+50 2+ 0
LEGEND
PH
sa= ax m
>
.:aEo. E.a�w ;' S^DIA. -s.9• ____
wHARTFORD .

MINIM MCOVER, 1.5 FEET
uT.LM" CLEARANCE
xEwrRnaa REOuesreo•
��
-5.0' '_ _ _ ®_ '
-
SOH 80 Fvc BOIL VAPOR
—"'— [xTRAcilou vnouuM urv[
�x
` g
g
m
, I
x,
$

PIPE BEND
n /f _- _ -__ _ __„____
.._ �..

W+E aRIEE CANNEtnaN
NOTES
f"Fss
s —I.N.R M.FNOEO FIFE
DEFLE"-`NCH
o!
a
f

CROSSES CONCRETE CROW DRAIN,

RE E ER AT
zW
,o
�6
N
ACCORDANCE WITH CITY ST ARO OErna les.
a
�i�.soea. eleay.
g
QO
<

4. DIAMETER
CAS ONDE PIPEOuEnErER w nur STHE O .
1 2 xwr RF IxrA
200 20 zoo
^_ ��`"A��a
!�8�
—it_
xxecrro �e,o-,
sEPnlaa,o«
�OxVry
m19
195 19 95
190,
.90 ' 19 190
18 p
LL
E I.
18 85

2. 0 3+00 3+50 6+p0 4+50 5+00 0*00 0+ 5
Slstion !Z"
HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE SVE-10-10 PPIROFILE
209,
10-495

20 205
—DEN—
21 -205
SEE MG
20'­ —
ao
.1 MA.—_
2W Do
i BE
_
200- _200
nnarwreorvorem—EM
195-
19,_ 190
III
C
N—E -
am sru�o"aooEr"iIs
E"WELL TC E SEE C-P D,
19 _�180 185 ­- ------- 1685
8+00 8 '90
Station

HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE
(CONTINUED)
.. 0 0.10
E"' "
SVE-10-06 PROFILE
01+00 O.il
S"'.'n

SVE-,,-O,PROF,LE
Ar
--- ---------
-I" DIA
8"
—E-
17 N11C HARTFORD
"I -
DIA.ar
-----------
asc
'DI
aN
-ir CIA.

RD
SE. III 1 -.1
---- ------- - ----E
N
8-5
201
20 200-
corn EEDA.-
11"NEI
2 00
19i
19,
.95
T-0
T-0.
]
0 T-0
sw
0 igo-
-
0—
110
185F)o
5i SO
B.00
6450
S"U"D HARTFORD NORTH PROFILE
+00
74500
.INI....CVFF,1SF­
16 FORGENERAL N­ REFERTOINAWINGGI.
26 P FIND RIN11"IN IIIINI-111
OEENOTACN_.E.,.NEC_._ DO
"o " RE LE.11EE A IFERS.1.111"ll .ENDE. PIPE DERLECT

3. WHERE TRENCH CROSSES CONCRETE CROSS
D N REMOVE GITTER By EAW_CUTTINS AT
VERI—LE
CTI.N NA-.. NINE

PIPE BEND

ED ME OR TEE CONNECTON
NEAREST JOINTS. FIELD VERIFY JOINT
ACC.PDANCREEPI'T.CCE -­ 7TAR�'NARD DETAIL
1W MATCHING EXISTNG WDTH.

CONDENSATE SEPARATORS ME THE SAME DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DIAMETER IN THAT 209
10-496

NOTES
LEGEND: FEET
C% 1
, MINIMUM COVER.1.5IS 11GUE
ffi UM
'
4 = e e ___m--- T- -L-- - y_ R---_n_ „_ - - - - EMPTION REWESTEO - 3. WHERE TRENCH CROSSES CONCRETE CROSS
u
-
cx°sscµaRo-u�� m
uTreRseexore WESTPORT °°°" 'CT"XnoxvncuuMiwE AT
of°.aeav NE].aesT aoluTs. rlEin vEalrvaDlur
— _•--`-,o— — ,o-r— ,p___ ,i r w.cv ___ _.._..—.._ ;
n..i
.„____.__®____m__
,.ro ..�..— _ .. PIPE BEND oETaa
.. ..�—..�..� ..�.._�—.hy— .}e nCCORDnNCE wITN Cm STnNonRo TCNING ExIBTwGwO,N.
6 DIP.___ a__„
,.00i, cDrv°ervsaTe ._ ._ __ L---„_-1_„__-„-__-„--_ M- --„- --I..-- ® wve OR TEE CONNECTION J �__ .,-1— M
sevuuTox -^^ "----"- "----"- 4. coM.Pry TE SEP—TORS SEETNE'E-F ---- oInMETERa rNE PIPE o_'F IN TNaT
SECTION.
�q
20 205
rc
sw°
a, °sc.Naay.n
rcxosseurres. see x°Tea
seanru*ox
2 /c.°sseuC.-x°Tea
--I
�-4
200
19 95
o
sre1=% LINE
Oe.0
ess0 Oe,ss conx
,me
90 0+00 0+80 1+00 Station +01+ 0 20 2+50 2+80

HARTFORD SOUTH PROFILE
$
m
„
,ow l wel.Ve,.�T. seeIT ww.w
RRE
4-DIA. 4- g HARTFOR
8' DIA
imw nP. ' = n eismx, '°vcsx �_ °ea n -2 w
1-2.81 —L.
•[ataAi ;I 1 L, �1�, 2
\A--4I&-P,'r-Rl - . ., — M
, axu
m�� Pie N Ex°xE a'
0 go
®IIIM ®..

B.
°wa o
20 20 205
m20 ssaDExxec.ro:,E,°o, a«T°xN,.,oxa - zoo
o
z
a
4 ^ ����a
ME
o—
ol. o,'ss ° ss
90 9a
E 121
2+80 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+80 5+pp 0*00 0*25 0+00 0+23
Station Station
HARTFORD SOUTH PROFILE SVE-10-04 -04 PROFILE SVE-10-05 PROFILE EEO;
10-497

BBE
r
m
A.
s
�
} _
D
1 _ _LEGEND.
�E�FQE
o
`
"EMP IDNG EnED
eENDrv�AGNNMLINE
CoPIPE
wvE OR TEE CONNECTION
a9 ® sc-,o-ots m, NOTES:
�_._ _
m
�d3
______..__.__.__ _ t rvERu NOTES, REPr_a TO oaMwirvc
T Poa cE
c-z.
/ z. cuavE PlPwc auuswNiDneD grvc MNcu=
`DIA. 3 HARTFORDQw
DOES nor ACHIEVE DECDeseN Fm
6'DIA. DGNMENT.
y Do NOT ExcEEDMMNUFMCTUREas
^ uc,Na re[ MMIMUM RECOMMENDED PIPE
�� � 2.9•°.Re� E. g^ DEFLECTION.
, WHERE TRENCH GRDEEEE CONCRETE
5a x
a ? - - ERIFr�D T DDMEI Er—ENMs D
' a �M" 3
CE
a i
UTT
___ GUARLDA
J
_

STANDARD TOHNG
a.e ow.sai casmoee� `—. Exe on. soi�wsanaee� COSTNGWDTH.

NDEN—E BRN—RS ARE THE BASE
CFTFR AS THE PIPE OIMMErERIry TRMT
u.D.
sEO„Orv.
a
20 20s 205
:EP..A.roR I—C IC
20 zoo zoo
�� .NOEaE -pew svE VMvsNMUNE ""�
19 19s 195
az
�_ ����a
/t ��g��
10 0ass 0ass 0M55 D 0 OR—
9 90
NNOD5+50
8+00 8+50 7+00 7+34 0+00 0+25
Station Station
HARTFORD SOUTH PROFILE SVE-10-11D PROFILE
DATE 12-022
10-498

-------------- ------------ L ------
A' DIA
4- 6A. WOODBURNE
N
AFxaTE F
V
.-j
-
-
a�a_SA
20205
o
IA-
2on, 200
�95
1 96,
B D, 0
0, x 0+50 1 Do 1.06
Station
WO.DBURNE PROFILE c;
LEGEND
MINIMUM —F. IS FEET
E EU.EMIClrH r=&E.

NSAT' cRo

SCHWPVCWILVAPOR
EXTRACTI.N VACUUM LINE
sN E E
IT] 11PPSENG
<anyg

ID ME OR TEE CONNECTION
4' DIA.

NES

OT FOR GENERI NOTES, REFER TO DI-VING
2 2U'R- FIlIlI RUNS MEN FITTNI A C A A.SNIN—E
llE'."% " E.1 lUESA'... ENT
1 1 N T C AN I —RE
C r—N.NEC ... ENDED PIPE Ja
PLECT
NI E
= 1 0
lAll NO AT NEAREST IOINTSEF ELD PEPLA. S.

IUIE' A '11ANIE "' " . a
ST.. L'S, AT. Z ARN D'— NIING
'ET'HG "NEPARATORE ARE THE SANIE 4 CONDENSATE S

DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DIAMETER IN THAT SECTION
[--�IAULT
'Al— —.ECT—PI
200, ,EA no 200, 200
N—
NE T.
19&
�95 95 19
OF
T�
—0
86, 1885
oto o-'w J'38 5 0, A
Station SIGNS' BRITTANY PROFILE SVE-1 0-11 PROFILE
U80A
WE
85 212

-N
-NDGN�M
IGFI 1. —11
—1
IF, 'I
200
0 svevncuun LINE
0-
190
Station

BRADBURY PROFILE
nS
sl
----------
T-

SE OROUGH
--------------asEE
orE CRcsa
LEGEND
10 —I.—SPASPEET
E-.E.- CL�EARANCE

REQUESTED
SEE
D_
SCH 80R_ ED—
EXTR—N IAC rUM L'INE

C NNELTTD
PIN
05 [D PIPE GEN.
_=E
CING"'
200

OR ME CONNECTON
NOTES
I GENERAL NOTES. REFER TO DINGG 2
N�I.RLN HEN FI.IING GLE

RIE P P' I
19 ax.
:C. LINE
195
DO' ES N.ENT
=.IT IIIEEG."I�N HE
. NUD'E. PIPE
CROSEIG CONCRETE 3IIENITIE
90 i
0-00
0 50 1.00
E'S"

SEABOROUGH PROFILE
190
1+50 1 W
CHOSEDRAIN,NEW GUTTER By
­ "N. ATN4GETJOjNM FIELD
VERIFY JOINT 1-0—ION: .1EllCE
�'TANDEA�'NDADCECO�ILDIA.C.—.,N.
"ET". "DTHE
CONDE—M E —RE ARE THE SANE DIAMETER AS THE PIPE DMETER IN THAT SECTION.
—SCALE
.

MST
11TE 1112
213
10-500

ETECTABLEWARNING
TAPE
MARKED
SVE VACILIUNE (PAV U.. PHALT
E.EN
PROFILE, 18'MIN STREN MATERIAL
:�— (CLSM)SCH � PVC PIPE PATCH
GTH
3- SAW CUT TO FULL DEPT
A CORE ' SANG DEGG NG FOR SEE NOTE'. N 1Y'
PLANET

RE DEE TABLE
(s[EPORAERY PVC

END CAP

PAOUND PIPE TATION
_.—_..__,_ (ev OTHERSI NG
NE IA
P.
-To
BuuOwc urvonnDN .—..A

RESIDENTIAL
WITH
Top OFFOR EACNFUL RGGND °NFG MALL
DETAa,
NOTE: sURFACE RESTOPATION IN ..........M.N vAVEmNr HUTI-ANDS APE OR WALHeD Pvc BENG MATCHEXIUING KwAYS TO ETECiABLE wuwING eeo DEG SC
'SVEVACU UNE' TO DRAwINO
TYPICAL SVE VACUUM LINE CONTv
TRENCH SECTION STRENGT Low
�� sL,ENU HMATERIAL VACUUM LINE ROFILEVIEW NT SYSTEM��
O,O . (cLsml

NORMAL WEIGHT

T H H CONCRETE
B MEER PER svE'� AND PROFILE DRA CIRCULAR CONCRETE COLLPR ELECTRICAL CONDUIT TRENCH SECTI"
CoNTROLL GLowssON Pwc
=H MATERIAL

0.1%MIN

SCH I IC III
D. PFA PLAN NNTE
24 wTURE SUMP
RISER8IA BO ZFACE ALLAROUND
COVER FACTORY MARKED'EVE "
3'

END CAP

CONDENSATE
Pvc

SEPARATOR DETAIL / L
LDCAT�DN PERPLAN

VACUUM LINE AT TREATMENT SYSTEM
PLAN VIEW 5
224
10-501

- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ARE
3 THE -L-S OF PRECr B= ==ONS -.1- S-El I
TH. -Wl g
V DIA, D—E HOLES .-S—N aE SES-S. I H- S.-
-2
1S. 1. 0
z
WELL

S' I I-

B- - - - - - -
COVER.
—RPRAMS -/ SVE WELLHEAD PLAN (TYP.) (13 TOTAL) TO SHOW H-OR U gg5 �g
.-PTT F LOE
L ID
T I 1W T— ER
SH . .......

G-1-1-11INT
........ -E .........
�XER THE E.-EER F
'oNl"LED LOW SR'EE 1.-L,
ERIr-
HIXD OPEN ARM . (L-, . . . . . . .......... 0
To-
....... Sri
FRAME
I*LD' "E, SEAL 11H
All,,_
—D 1-1LL
=O D CR f
00 PARTIAL SECTION SHOWING COVER MECHANISM 00.
4 0 WELL CASING 2=2
�ulN-SVE WELLHEAD SECTION
10-502
o

i,
---
-----------------
vrA�rv,alrvA��Esso�a�rv�.rvEw�k ,
j zo�ol
�RElrvsrwL.os�ITFIN,L
I _ j
IF----------- ____-- --
aAW
°� ° °` . .a °e $ <° ° . e , .° ° .TMM � °° •9° ° • ° a ° I n .D�' • a° smsw • • ° ° • a rvo NE LEGEND NOTES:
� (nccis�.s rROMI I�u�rorto oRrve arvivi oR
GRASSCRETE --w-- EX. WATERLINE FORGENERALEROSION ONTRLTO DRAWING G-2. ss J �IMPLEMENIN TE ACCORDANCE

NCEWI WITH
ON
FOOTPRINT OF FUTURE EX ELECTRIC LINE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.

WITH NOTES ON G-2
AND CITY REQUIREMENTS.
l TREATMENT SYSTEM 3. DURING TH DISABLED

DACCES PUBLIC ACCESS,
BUILDING --�- EX. TELECOM LINE INCLUDING DISABLED ACCESS, USING DIVERSIONS

IF NECESSARY,
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF VEGETATION TO BE 4. REM VEAND REPLACE

GRASSSCREEEDESIGN

WORK FOR TREATMENT REMOVED AC
SYSTEM BUILDING AN O INSTALLATION GUIDES. MATCH EXISTING CONSTRUCTION THICKNESS OF GRAVEL BASE.
216
10-503

awro a
�oE. G m s Eo oA mi a o.�
�o E�E, ENTP-101 P��aEl.. ta.01
i� 1 DETAIL OF STONE CURB
�. �E aEE �m �iEe
b­—N.—
Po
m
go
p
=
e s i e s , a z ossss. sr s s " s s . s e

TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING SITE CROSS-SECTION

J NORTH -SOUTH
I
i
I
�
� wsEo<re .oa GB �
I '
_
I I
- _sssw✓a.c opix
G
rtr s n �I
a
-
aen
—pb� sate
_ __ ________ 020
_____wEov
u�.e,voEmox oisiumsco�s
\ xnuu awvuuai C0/ /LLxEFutsNO
uNosCASN6 Nm.ESE
// / -
irvcio
D1_4c,om D / / sa,xoniw
/ /
R\
/ ,_•
_ - - �=m.ax
axa�
� Exton _
I rom �EiEt..�
I I sEvwwsasw
6 g
b
a�z
;s
O
yam
-
ioaa.xxs-,
.. �
_
�
/�
AR.R
L1� o µt�oa..rP.
------------

TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING SITE CROSS-SECTION
I a
e�msoxExcxox
1-022
21Y'
10-504

a \
\ !(
!)
!a
94 _TFO s m
a _TFO e o
a _TFO sDR.
}
}
\I(
` /f
SECOND
\ �(
_
- _n
m_
w_EXHAUST
-
aow
:
_
-STORY
\ /
—WINDOW
:
,e. _�EXI
q` )
(f §
ne
(
—EXISTING —

CONCRETE
q|
GAT`
SIDEWALK11.4
(
ft
ft
# R
x.
.
z \
45 2, ®
`
\\
aam
NEW CONSTRUCTION eem
gem NEW CONSTRUCTION oa<
p!

FRONT ELEVATION
� ELEVATION

LOOKING
_mG�m_MT
_ _E
_me_
l
§/\D
212
f0 5 5

v
,A
a ` Res
. w
STORM orsaN LINE

ELECTRIC LINE
GAS
TELECOM LINE eR BOUNMAR. U
i �il z SANURARI ­ER
oLe
RMOR,M MaN OLe
NET-
ENOPOST q }
WATER CONTROL VALVE rc F
IRRIOanox CONTROL VALVE
I - E,EEE,LIGHTFULL .. so w
TELEBeMPULLBOX y
° L BAN �n

FOUNDATION MONUMENT
SOIL GAS 11011
;oE
�7 MoxR ETE:ML LABPRMBeNEWCONSTRUCTION
a$
----------� _
MNBERRRMMNBB�EP�P�NR
o L��RE�a�.�ONMLL .€
D\ i ® AREARI:OMPLEPAWDIMORX ASPHAL CONCRETE e
_ 1 z,
�o
'� 4
�Ia GO I
JF
fi o RERLABEo BEEP�P�N�PLANANRPROXLeMRA,MN�B
INTO'g W O
Non s

1. weaTHER LMRAT ONT: EXA E Pave WHEN THE ATMOSPHERIC s > ti c, N
-- z MACHINE
NAULODUMP APPROXIMATELY 62603o FT OF FAILED
aUA^Op
C
a. CLEAN AND APPLv'�ACN COAIIFORPNOPEReONONO of NEW ASPHALT)" rCX"S110 OTR11nOu[ 11Bm SOFTOF PAVemeNTwTXUPTOTVAR 1
XALT IAF,H, COMPACTON� TXCNN 11NT OTASP
B. BNUM' EMENTBXALL CONSBT OFAINAL 11EOF -ANT SHOOREGATEANO -- -- _ _ I ®1 RTUMNOUSRNOERMuEEOURSE, ATRaLMxNO CONFORMI 0All COMPACTEO 'T` ON TXE PREPARED BASE COURSE AND PIACEO NCONFORMrvIMTX TXELNEB w Q j GRADESANOMMENsONSSN ON THE ORAWNBBORABDIRECTED B.THE _ s a a ENE
Bo .

BPXaLTTOMaMUMCOMPACTONUBNGMACXNERH! s
lip
--A IN NEasNEARL. MMMP� N
CONCRETE IA' IA' CUTS 'HALL IS 1ER=1 - ��. a EOFTHEEMMMEERE68ON8 M,:oNDICTICWaTERFL000TESTNTHEPRESEPARALLEL TO THE CENTERUNE OF THE 'REN NR1—LE oM'LETaNOFALLPA N�oPERTONs �s�E
F COC IWIIM NT XN FORMLr AND 1oRRe1T B RO BATHB No oEP
— _
,B a MO11MA ON'a°SIN;.OE'AE ,oaEaE AAR o°oPao oEAMINIMUM—N. ,z,z�B„ FHATXFR.F-Pe NTSWBLNUTXePe_mEU EUINTHIS E­
�9
10-506

mm- -z
vure N.R-
.TC>
Z x-
'All
l�NU.

WMW
]D
'zr
"E-
:mr.
xwxx
(er'- —El
11 1 Y=l
Z=
=o.IE
P—
z.
90 01
4:5
az >
z 2.
z
N—
�E
00 PPI- —E-
220
10-507

—R°°oUID DLUTON — —

SEPARATOR AIR VALVE FILTER FILTER
R—v
LOSE

BLOWERS
—
COOLER
PHASE

GRANULAR ACED
CARBON
§ $
a 4g
y
€a
$
To

ATMOSPHERE
ox
w
a�
g
51002

EXTRACTION WELLS
i
`
r 2
C 10p1B
y&y�
S
g�5
3 gig CI
PRIF
fQQ H

CENTRIFUGAL

GTORAGE TPNK CONTAINMENT
K
PUMP
Q
2:

O
N
W
U
O
a
2 3 -_ 4 5 i S
a
_ __
IVoI neVC Flow ate s f _ Ec1 DE7 ; a67 _S67-062_--- F£2_ Vol is Flw (acf,, Z5 1 93_3_ 7a7 97 94 7GQ
r+-let __ Ta _
-Tieg
1 Ei
TEmp. F; 50 6J 375
_ .._.._.._.___
�ressure
ICJ JE
gC
�yg�
8—
° 1ps�a; 10.5 1.04 I 15.5
f5.2 15.0 I
—T

14.7 I aae
_
[3e�sAi (I>,1 f 0054 C.05%1 f'065
Puss Pa a[ (t�hr] L 3013 301'!
0073 0672
303
OJ72
3J13 .-
iRFrscALE
_�613
F
Reawe 4.rmidy '; 1J:1 160 ti �
_3,013 1_
40 afs
55 R§L-a
10-508

BUILDING BOUN-Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � /` \ ,
TM -T. 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------
IIE� E =T=
V=V
AZT 1,
I-R
------------------------ --------------------------- I
222
10-509

GENERAL NOTES w
p�
KEY NOTES o �s
�g
q
uame.uu.oa..wcusews,i �> i.sioErsr.,rww:..srrww.si.ai manrvow .� IN ft o
a 4
1— 86223971
8£
.weow..wauxioni�.r w..w w?M :¢�� PS
gi
wimwa,wow�� £_
s
�n FF
223
10-510

a .eu
vac PANEL HER 1
. SEVE UNL T THNOJGH BaKOJT IN —CR
OEIAILI CR SIll
OEIERNINE0 11 HE uLcs
_
s'—ta"
13'-5" APPROX
12'
s
10'-2"
P.�HIIRIN
L
10 7,
20'

LAYOUT VIEW
VIEW B—B'

LOCIING
TEEL LAP SIDING, PA-ED sure ROCK VIEW D—D' DOOR KNOB TRIAL STYLE B'
B
STEEL PC.,C'
3'-6"
D
,�ELDED
e OUTER THE, PVC

MATERIAL
12 _ HAVE
L.D AN
15-10"

CLUSTUI EABRIEATED
e PIPE. PAD HATERIAL
Fr—
T
8„
B LDJv E'er

LOUVERS
4,-7„
A

ROOF VIEW
A'
GERRIN VIEW A —A'

LOUVERS
VIEW C—C' ERs ERs

AND TR N

REVISIONS
N�IMENOiONs ARE �NHINCH
• S

HE E MA MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY
ArvD SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF 12K
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BUYER SHALL HAVE TIE

USE OF MATERIOLS AND INFORMATION

IIN ION LNG
TAL
FOR THE "MIT"
THE EOJIPF IN solo BY
AND TECHNOLOGIES. INC. NOT TO BE
REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
♦
\ _
--►���
:H2K
—`� Technologies, Inc.
1550 Commerce St. Corcoran, MN 55340, Tel: 263-7C6-9900©2014 PROJECT TITLE:

WSP USA ENVIRONMENT &
INFASTRUCTURE INC.

NEWPORT BEACH, CA
RAWING TITLE:

OgUILDING LAYOUT
SHEET 1 OF 1
EV

DESCRIPTION
OaTE
own
RCASIONS PER SUBMmAL REVIEW
10/2
ORAwlrvc n0..
6�11—[)1
G

CHANGED TRLE BLOCK/LOUVER DIM
it/22
MK
DESIGNED BY: M
H
E wA1u NOTE
12/22
M
D
8/22

CHANGED TO METAL SIDING
10/22
JECT NO.. 5011
224
10-511

HOUR FIRE WALL THIS WALL
Mom

ARGON DISCHARGE TO STACK
O IPING FROM HEAT E—NGER

TO CARBON INLET
Y _ 2,_9,.

EL
ACCES
X'L--->
LAYOUT VIEW VIEW X—X'
VIEW Y—Y'
REVISIONS SE MATERIALS ARE PRQPRIETARr —► H2K RRD EET T,T E: RAW,NG T,T E:
� WSP USA ENVIRONMENT SHEET , of ,
ADDED s/22 x iicHrsio�ociESMIHc. E_F SHALL NA -HE ♦ & INFASTRUCTURE INC EOILOING I —NO NO, RB rtiPt PANEL

MK USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION ELEVATION
FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF wSTnLLING NEWPORT BEACH, CA ED011-03A c oCK/ANCHORS 11/22 M AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD By CROSS SECTIONS ,2/zz M N2K TEcnnoLoclEs. INC, NOT To BE �- Technologies, Inc 0 ADDED 2 HOUR FIRE RADNG H D REPRODUCED 'MiHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.

ECT NO.. 6 „ ommerce omomn. IN 55340. Tel. ]e}—]46-9900®2014 Vr
,L
IIII IIII �•�''
o
0 -_� �� ■
44 a
10-512

TYP. ROOF JOIST DETAIL
mo � °" \
tCxwSTM,Cnox.

NNG^CNPEO a,IIDING, ME nB
FYo
Low
TO —PTMm�RwR00R/GCEIaxCwNnwsED
20 1
TYP 2 HOUR FIRE RATED WALL PANEL SECTION DETAIL
� TYP. STANDARD WALL PANEL SECTION DETAIL
0 Un POTS TYP. W LL PANEL SECTION DETAIL
N.T.S.
am
TYP. CORNER ROLT DOWN DETAIL

REVISION

SE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY
iicwSioAoclESMlec. R_RONALL OF

USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION

FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING

AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY
NZN TECNNOWGES. INC. NOT TO DE
H2KWSP
�- Technologies, Inc
PRD"ET TITLE:

ENVIRONMENT &
INFASTRUCTURF INC.

NEwPaRT BEACH, CA
DRnvIND TITLE:

WELDED STEEL ENCLOSURE

ISOMETRIC CONSTRUCTION

DETAIL DRAWING

SHEET I DF
Ra
eEW i /zz
M�HFI
DRAvnNC No.:
6011-04
S/zz
M
NMR
C
12/22
MR
MGR.:
0 CNwGED SREETROCR DESCRIPDON
+z/zz
M N
DATE: of/Gz/zozz
PROJECT NO.. GOtt
REPRODUCED 'RTHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
7550 o—l- 11, C.-- MN 55340. Tel. 983-7-99000)2011
22c
10-513

/'oM aD '.E F.NEL NER
4 J2
2'
LLLLLLd
6"
20'

SKID FRAMEWORK
116' TOP PLATE FLOOR
6 3/ 1 6' 21DN ENTERONST
DrED ARDOR E

SKID HEIGHT DETAIL - NOT TO SCALE

SKID TOP PLATE
11 v Iv TNESE MATERwLs ARE PROPRIETARr ♦ SHEET t DF t
DIE wsP usA ENVIRONNENr a SKID WELDMENT
y//z2 W TECHNOLOGIES Mwc. euriR SHALL NAMEEZTHE �� iNFASTRUCTURE INC DRAwwc no..

E NF DETAILEW t0/22 MK USE OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INSTALLING H2ry NEWPORT BEACH, CA 50I1—g7B C EOCK/ANCHORS tt/22 M AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT SOLD BY t2/2z M H2K TECHNOLocIEs. wc. NOT To DE �- Technologies, Inc oanlcn un soli REPRODUCED —OUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Assn uN ssi,n r.l Tsi-TAs-nnnnml�nia 227
10-514

INCOMING POWER SUPPLY
.Tx Ma«MD
,I
Ex aA-JEs .
-------------------------
I
D
x •w�-}i
T TD P.— PANEL
I
,L
2 � �
-_
=
-
I
�-
s�na vea »x I i I�---,
1 F 0� y=
r-L -J
-�-
LK-�D.M
ssnw
ssNw
, � Cam:
-Jw
Irk �eLK_eNv¢i
3 {
0 { I
NEDTa.L a.a
—
5 RLK-,a
— �
x-.a——DR
�----- �Iso N
` aDL T
6 xEnT Exan eo.=PLA
FFa vunv a
56� R
9 �NM --
s
9 ELK-unv
A
12 -
�
I
Ij
Ij
I'
I'
Ij
Ij
I IPEK-�EA VR�
I
I
II
II
I
I
13 14
15 16
1]
1er-----
-
-
I j
I'
II
II
II
Ij
j
----------------------------------� M
II
II
II
II
I
I
L: —Ps-
_
o
0 "
1e
a
M o
D
TD Ma"T IN
--, 'XI, T L, LNED R. R
,NSTALLJN� ELEETa��J.NJ TD E.N. RNE „
�ET:P DPreaH�NPD R. -------- : �za.z4o�.c
JNET.LL�w ELEETaJU— .-
i r
REY

REVISIONS

DESCRIRTION
DIMENSIONSAREINxINCHEE
+

TIESE MATERIALS ARE PROPRIETARY

AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF NICK
TECHNOLOGIES. INC, euvER SHALL HAVE THE
sE of MATERIALS AND wvoRMATIo"
a°o THE LIMITED c`�c`EQUIPMENT"solo"eY

AND MAITECNTAINING

INC, NOT TO RE
REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
--�� H2K
----�
TN "..' U IES, In
g
ommecce orcomn, MN 55340, iel. 3-]46-9900©2022
PROJECT TILE:

WSP ENVIRONMENT &
INFASTRUCTURE INC.

NEWPORT BEACH, CA
DRA1MrvG TIME:

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
SHEET 2 OF e
A
RELEASE FOR SUBM11c"
oRAvnnc No.:
60 —22
UB
c
DESIc"I+EDRr: Rc
Rc
°A
220
10-515

Attachment No. PC 3
Draft May 18, 2023, Planning
Commission Minutes
10-516

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 2023
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 AERONUTRONIC FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION APPEAL (PA2022-0180) Site Location: Near 94 Hartford Drive
Summary:

An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's March 2, 2023, decision to approve a limited term permit for the construction and operation of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system. The project includes construction of a 20-foot wide by 12-foot deep by 10-foot-high treatment system building, an underground pipe network of approximately 2,400 linear feet, and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation. The applicant is requesting a limited term permit to operate the soil vapor extraction and treatment system for a term of approximately 12 months. A limited term permit is requested to allow a 3.2-foot separation between the treatment system building and nearest residential structure where the required separation is 8 feet between buildings, and to allow the treatment system building to encroach into the 5-foot front setback.

Recommended Action:

1. Conduct a de novo public hearing;
Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and

3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-023 denying the appeal and upholding and affirming the Zoning Administrator's Approval of a Limited Term Permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system filed as PA202-0180 (Attachment No. PC 1).

Commissioner Lowrey recused himself from Item No. 2 due to the project's proximity to his home.

Assistant Planner Tran used a presentation to review the appeal of the Aeronutronic Ford soil vapor remediation limited term permit, former Ford Facility map and background, vicinity map, project description, soil vapor extraction (SVE) and treatment system diagram, treatment system building location and design, Zoning Administrator action, appeal, water main and relocation of the treatment system building, alternative location considerations, concerns for timeframe, safety, quality of life, air quality monitoring, and home values, condition of approval, and recommended actions.

In response to Commissioner Harris' questions, Senior Civil Engineer Keely noted that the moratorium on Bison Avenue was issued by the City, lasts five years, and trenching in the public right-of-way would require extensive reconstruction of the street. Assistant Planner Tran indicated that the applicant and Homeowners' Association (HOA) agreed on the proposed location. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the applicant would need to request an extension in writing to extend the Limited Term Permit and the Community Development Director can issue an extension for up to one year. Commissioner Harris asked if a representative for the HOA was in attendance, and no one responded.

In response to Commissioner Langford's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated that the HOA has the authority to file the permit.

In response to Commissioner Rosene's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted that the Reginal Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has been working with Ford to remediate the site prior to the start of construction, Ford has met the standards, a methodology and threshold change, Ford's clean -

10-517

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 2023
up responsibility, the necessity of the permit to install the system and protect the residents, the testing efficiency, and volatile organic compound (VOC) level changes. He directed the questions to the RWQCB representative for greater clarity.

Except for Vice Chair Rosene who disclosed a phone call with the appellant, all Commissioners reported no ex parte communications.

Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.

Daniella Hamann-Nazaroff of WSP, environmental consultant for Ford Motor Company, introduced the team and used a presentation to review the remediation area map, background, and human health factors.

Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) case manager, summarized the impact on human health from exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE), exceedance levels detected in the subject area, support for active remediation, and diminishing rates.

Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff continued the presentation to explain the project description and Bayridge Park SVE system, community engagement and concerns, and location analysis, alternatives, and decision. She reviewed the system safety for air quality, design, and electromagnetic fields, noted the SVE proven technology, and relayed factors for quality of life relative to noise and aesthetics, an anticipated one-year remediation period, and a summary. Lastly, she agreed to the conditions of approval.

In response to Commissioner Barto's request, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff explained the working relationship between the applicant and the HOA and confirmed the HOA's agreement on the remediation location.

In response to Vice Chair Rosene's inquiry, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff noted that the ground water concentration levels are low and attenuating naturally, there are no plans for active remediation of the ground water, the water flow paths from the former Ford facility, and the reasons for the project site location.

In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff explained the push back from the HOA and community regarding taking away parking spots on Hartford Drive, the clean-up stages, and an intermittent pulse option at the end of the initial clean-up period.

In response to Commissioner Barto's question, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff relayed the process for soil vapor filtering and measuring the intake, middle, and effluent vapor levels to ensure permit discharge limits and public safety are being met. She noted an expectation of clean, breathable air emitted and explained the monitoring process.

In response to Commissioner Langford's question, Emily Miller of WSP, noted the flow rate coming into the blowers, a slowdown as it goes through the system and exits the stack, and no problem with exterior noise levels. Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff thought the stack flow speed at the exit would be less than what a dryer emits.

In response to Vice Chair Rosene's inquiry, Ms. Hamann-Nazaroff reported that noise suppression has been thought through very thoroughly to minimize the impact and WSP guarantees that the system meets noise requirements and is as quiet or more than the average dishwasher.

Amy Santella, the appellant, 94 Hartford Drive, objected to the location of the SVE system three feet from her family home and asked for the location to be changed for the safety of her family.

Kevin Santella, the appellant, 94 Hartford Drive, reviewed site location options one, three, and four and urged the Planning Commission to deny the request and have Ford adequately review the infeasibilities.

In response to Commissioner Langford's question, Mr. and Mrs. Santella confirmed that they are currently residing at 94 Hartford Drive.

In response to Chair Ellmore's inquiry, Ms. Santella noted conversations with the HOA, having shared the appeal letters with the HOA board by email with no correspondence in return, being told by the HOA that they

10-518

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 2023
should move if they are not happy with the SVE location, and not ever being formally notified by the HOA of the project or the three -feet distance from their home.

Larry Cano, 92 Hartford Drive, noted other locations for the SVE system, threat to human health, parking alternatives, and concern for his safety.

Jim Mosher noted the option of the Zoning Administrator to refer the matter to the Planning Commission given the item is controversial, clarified that the focus of the appeal is for the SVE location, expressed interest in how long it would take for the vapor to be remedied by ground water disbursement, questioned the distance of the SVE to the neighboring building and alternative site locations, and thought the northwest corner option was dismissed too easily.

Leslie Pratt, 96 Hartford Drive, reviewed her medical history and addressed her concerns for health, parking issues, and decreased property value.

Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated that comment letters from Mr. Cano and Lee Healy were received and incorporated in the public comments for the record.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the Zoning Administrator could have referred the matter to the Planning Commission, but it is unusual to do so, and he sees no flaw in the application process.

Ms. Santella stated that if the item is not going to be denied, then she is requesting a continuance of the item to review the new location due to the short notice provided of the location change and proximity and impact to their home.

Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.

Chair Ellmore stated that the Planning Commission will be making a decision on the land use and opine on the permit given the parameters they have as a body.

In response to Commissioner Barto's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained the new SVE location distance to 94 Hartford Drive and the street and that it is located on a private street.

Vice Chair Rosene expressed his disappointment that no HOA representative attended the meeting, inquired about the possibility of the RWQCB overruling the HOA to select a more viable spot, and thought the infeasibility claim was centered around financial issues, the SVE should be located elsewhere, and the remediation needs to begin. He was not supportive of the application and thought the appellant had a strong argument.

Commissioner Klaustermeier concurred with Vice Chair Rosene and did not support the application.

Commissioner Harris concurred with Vice Chair Rosene, noted the 8-foot change at the end and the impact and concern for the slope on Bison Avenue, and expressed interest in sending the matter back to the HOA or the County to dictate the location.

Commissioner Langford thought that as the applicant and fee landowner, the HOA has the rights to direct the process and project location, disagreed with the HOA not attending the meeting, believed the remediation needs to get done, and noted that he is usually supportive of private property rights and wished he knew more about what the HOA has done to help the matter and that the HOA should do the hard work instead of forcing the Planning Commission to decide.

Chair Ellmore thought that this matter is between the HOA and the appellant, expressed confusion for the parking issues, noted an increased property value after the clean-up, indicated that the remediation needs to get done, and relayed not being prepared to make a motion either way.

10-519

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 2023
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill notified the Commission that a tie vote would be equivalent to the lower body's decision being approved and offered an option to continue the item until the next meeting.

Motion made by Chair Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Harris to continue the item to the June 22, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, and implored the applicant and the appellant to talk with the HOA and ask them to return to the Planning Commission with the reason(s) why alternate locations are not plausible.

AYES:

Ellmore, Barto, Harris, Klaustermeier, and Rosene
NOES:

Langford
RECUSED:

Lowrey
ABSENT:

None
ITEM NO. 3 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION - NOISE -RELATED AMENDMENTS (PA2022-0201)
Site Locations: Various sites in the Newport Beach Airport Area bounded by Campus Drive, Jamboree Road, and Route 73, including portions of the Newport Beach Golf Course on Irvine Avenue, the YMCA on University Drive, and several sites in the Santa Ana Heights area.

Summary:

Amendments to Newport Beach General Plan Land Use and Noise Elements, Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards (PC-11), and the Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan (PC-60) to allow residential units identified by the certified 2021-2029 6th Cycle Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element to be located within the 65 dBA to 70 dBA CNEL noise contour areas specified by the 2008 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan, and as illustrated in the attached Noise Contours and Housing Opportunity Sites Map.

Recommended Action:

None. This item has been removed from the agenda.

STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM`IVO.4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
None
ITEM NO. 5 REPORTSY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANjNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA
Deputy Community Development Director Cam II announced that the City Council approved the timeshare and fractional home ownership code amendment and co ercial parking rate amendment, and a second reading of both amendments will take place at the June 23 City ouft4,meeting. He relayed that the General Plan Advisory Committee and General Plan Update Steering Committee mee s are canceled for June 7 due to a conflict with the Corona del Mar Residents Association annual meeting an a tentatively rescheduled for June 12.

Furthermore, he noted that the public hearing notice for this meeting was ued before the approved start time change and reflected a 6:30 p.m. start time and future Planning Commission me swill start at 6:00 p.m. Lastly, he announced that the Planning Commission meeting on June 8 is cancelled and the t meeting on June 22 will include an agenda item for the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2-0180).

ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES

10-520

Attachment No. PC 4
Revised Treatment System Building Plans
10-521

IT ADJUSTED

BUILDING LOCATION
FUTURE PAD a _
LOCATION —

SECOND FLOOR /
WINDOW
O
of

GRAVEL EROSION

PROTECTION
F�aeuNe � _ � ��
° z88� O 'ss �
�I
� o00o O

ORIGINAL PROPOSE
BUILDING LOCATIO \ PEo 0 o TREE REMOVAL — N— —

3.8 ft I vo�o0� 8 TBD BY ARBORIST
�,Noso
WATER MAIN LOCATED \ -OBRO
ON 5/3/2023
_wje� �BAYRI: PAeKeo�e
EFFLUENT­Ra'A,Ro _%0 - K
+
"
fn
0 5 10
Feet
s
P10 TREATMENT SYSTEM BUILDING

PLAN VIEW
Former Ford Aeronutronic Property
ONewport Beach, California
By. ENM Pd. No. 862239710
e
Date: 5/17/2023 Figure 1
10-522

Attachment No. PC 5
Response to Comments dated June 8,
2023
10-523

June 8, 2023
Project 862239710.01.1 B
City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]
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
Subject: Response to Comments
Ford Motor Company's Application for a Limited Term Permit for the Building that Will House a Soil Vapor Extraction System
Dear Planning Commissioners:

WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (WSP) appreciates the opportunity to provide the attached Response to Comments (Attachment 1) on behalf of Ford Motor Company which address issues raised at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. We recognize residents at 94 Hartford Drive have appealed the approval of this Limited Term Permit due to concerns and perceptions about the safety of the Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVE system) which has been designed to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found underground. Additionally, two more individuals located at 92 and 96 Hartford Drive have also expressed objections to the proposed location of the system. Ford's project team, the Bayridge Park HOA President, and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff have offered to meet with these residents individually and/or collectively multiple times to address their concerns. Unfortunately, these residents have declined our offers to meet and work collaboratively to find common ground.

While we understand the perceptions and concerns of these three of the 168 Bayridge Park households regarding the safety and location of this system, we see approval of this permit as a necessary and straightforward process. This is because we are simply seeking an exemption to the 8- foot setback to allow the treatment system building to be built and occupy the land for a one to two- year period per the terms of the permit. The building will then be dismantled and removed. This location meets all the requirements of the California Building Code and the property owner, the Bayridge Park HOA, has agreed to this location.

This project will also be permitted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (Air District) which will thoroughly evaluate and address the safety issues referenced by the appellant.

We recognize that each Planning Commissioner is responsible for making sound decisions that serve their constituents and promote and enhance the well-being of residents, visitors, property owners, and businesses of the City of Newport Beach. To help each commissioner make an informed decision, we offer the following summary which responds to five general themes cited by the appellants at the May 18th meeting:
10-524

City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission
June 8, 2023

1. "The health and safety of the appellants at 94 Hartford (and nearby residents) is being compromised because of parking spaces usage (per the HOA's priority)." Answer: False. The time delays involving the additional permitting that would be needed to place the treatment unit building in any of the parking space areas would significantly increase the potential health related risks of Bayridge Park residents that are currently experiencing vapor intrusion in their homes, and, if the soil vapor plume moves because of lack of treatment, those additional residents who could have vapor intrusion in the future. Currently, the residents in and near 94 Hartford are some of the safest individuals in the area because they reside on the second floor and they have a garage (open frequently) ventilated space below them; in this way, there is not a completed pathway for vapor intrusion. For these area residents, the only elevated risk from the soil vapor occurs when vapor intrusion is a completed pathway from underneath the building slab and builds in concentration inside a home over time. If the soil vapor daylights to open air outside the building, the soil vapor concentrations are so low that this does not pose an inhalation risk. Therefore, using the parking spaces would actually increase the risk to the appellants and to those currently experiencing vapor intrusion. The location was not chosen because parking spaces were not available; the location was chosen because it was the area that could be used the fastest and would be the safest for all involved.

2. "The health and safety of appellants is being compromised in order to address the health and safety of those affected by soil vapor intrusion elsewhere. "
Answer: The health and safety of all residents is of the utmost importance for this project. The installation and operation of the treatment unit building is essential to the protection of those individuals who are experiencing vapor intrusion. Any further delays potentially could cause more risk to those individuals. Because of the designs of the SVE, the treatment train, the building and the release of treated air, each step further dilutes and treats the soil vapor to sufficient levels that reduce risk to levels acceptable by EPA. The appellants are actually in one of the safest locations in Bayridge Park because they live in an area that does not exhibit vapor intrusion, their building construction is such that vapor intrusion is highly unlikely to happen, and the SVE and treatment unit building has many safety factors built in for their protection.

3. "Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) is not a safe operation and is only transporting the risk from one area and placing the some risk at 94 Hartford."
Answer: False. SVE is a commonly used remediation technique to treat VOCs by all California Air Board Districts and is a permitted activity across all of the Air Districts. In this instance, we chose air treatment by carbon for trapping VOCs for offsite disposal because it did not involve heating or flames which would increase the chances of a safety hazard. Every aspect of the SVE system and treatment dilutes and/or reduces the concentration of soil vapor throughout the system. The treated air that is exhausted from the treatment unit building will meet all Air Board standards which are very stringent and protective of human health. 10-525

City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission
June 8, 2023

4. "The close proximity of the SVE Treatment Unit Building to 94 Hartford intrinsically increases the risk for the residents near 94 Hartford."
Answer: False. The proximity of the SVE Treatment Unit Building is immaterial to the safety of or the risk to any of the residents. The location of the treated air discharge is the only data point that matters with respect to the health and safety of the residents. To allow for sufficient dispersion of the exhaust, it must be placed at least 13 feet above ground and 14 feet from any window or opening. The completed building will have an exhaust point which meets these criteria and a permit for operation will be secured from the Air District. This, along with the other safety factors mentioned above, will be sufficiently protective of health and safety for the residents at 94 Hartford and their neighbors. The other safety factor (not yet mentioned) is that the exhaust will be pointed toward a road. Much has been stated by the appellants and neighbors regarding "toxins"; the concentrations in the soil vapor do not reach the levels to be considered hazardous or toxic by nature. The SVE and treatment system only reduces those concentrations even further.

5. "The choice of the area behind 94 Hartford was personal in nature reflecting the HOA's preference for one group over another."
Answer: False. This did not happen during this process. Because of the limited space available, which is typical for most modern developments, the proposed location was selected for purely engineering and practical reasons. If anyone's safety had been compromised at any level, this project would have been stopped.

Here are some other facts that we wish to point out:

Safety of SVE systems: When properly designed and operated, SVE systems are safe to site workers and the community including fragile populations which include babies, young children, immunocompromised individuals, and seniors. Treatment of the vapors involves no harmful chemicals being transported to the site or any heat sources involving combustion. VOCs will be entirely contained from extraction to treatment within the treatment system building so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. The treatment system contains multiple engineering redundancies to ensure removal of VOCs prior to discharging clean air. Only clean air that meets stringent air quality standards as dictated and permitted by the Air District will be released.

Attachment 2, EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging, provides an explanation of how SVE systems work.

Vapor intrusion is occurring: Currently, people in 22 homes are living with concentrations of VOCs in indoor air that can cause health effects over time. If the situation is not addressed as soon as possible, the vapors may spread, and additional homes could be impacted. It is also important to note that indoor impacts have not been detected in the 92, 94, and 96 Hartford Drive residences.

Schedule delays: The system has been designed over the past 18 months in coordination with the Bayridge Park HOA, the Water Board, the Air District and Southern California Edison. Selecting an alternate location will lead to potential delays of up to two years. This delay could allow vapors to 10-526

City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission
June 8, 2023

spread causing the potential of vapor intrusion occurring in more homes and creating an environmental issue that will take longer to remediate.

Location analysis: The selection of this location was performed using the decision -making processes as outlined by EPA for such remediation projects and did not involve any arbitrary steps. Seven locations were studied and six were proven infeasible due to geographical, engineering, parking or schedule constraints. The selected location represents the best choice to allow for SVE remediation work to occur quickly to address vapor intrusion in the community.

Parking concerns: Public input to limit impacts to parking was taken into consideration but was not a determining factor in choosing this location. Bayridge Park has extremely limited parking for current residents and just meets the City's minimum parking requirements. Additionally, WSP and the HOA have an agreement that parking cannot be impacted.

Building aesthetic: The treatment system building will be constructed off -site to limit impacts and has been designed to match the character of Bayridge Park. Attachment 3 provides an artist's rendering of the building.

Period of operation: Every effort will be made to keep this effort to a limited time period. Our pilot test and other data give us every indication that this will be limited to 1-2 years, subject to the Water Board's review and acceptance of attained treatment levels.

Bayridge HOA and community support: The Bayridge Park HOA, which represents the 168 homes within the complex, is strongly in support of this location and the plans to remediate soil vapor safely, quickly, and effectively.

Public outreach: The Water Board and the Ford project team have executed an extensive outreach program over the past six years. The public was given multiple opportunities to provide input on the location of the treatment system building through public comment periods, community meetings held at Bayridge Park, a website and a toll -free number. Attachment 4 provides an overview of outreach conducted for this project.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information and welcome the opportunity to meet with each of you individually to provide further information. Thank you for your dedication and service.

Sincerely,
WSP USA Environment & Infrastr
h � D.55d19 z
�► izlsi/xuzu
Kenn Conner, PE dt� CIVti�-
Senior Vice President I/Northern if rnwi ' ub
Office Manager
Mike Barnes
Vice President - Environmental Scientist
Program Manager
10-527

City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission
June 8, 2023

mb/kc/smm
https://wsponIine.sharepoint.com/sites/wds-bayareadocusafe/ford motor company/newport beach/comm notices-mailings/19_citynb hearing_rtc/2023_06_08/p10 rtcs_wsp_.docx
Attachments: Attachment 1 — Responses to Comments Raised at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting
Attachment 2 — EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging
Attachment 3 —Artist's rendering of treatment building
Attachment 4 — Community outreach summary
Distribution: City of Newport Beach - Planning Commission Curtis Ellmore, Chair
Mark Rosene, Vice Chair
Sarah Klaustermeier, Secretary
Brady Barto
Tristan Harris
John Langford
Lee Lowrey
10-528

ATTACHMENT 1
Responses to Comments Raised at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting 10-529

RESPONSE TO 5/18/23 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/QUESTIONS

BAYRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM

LIMITED TERM PERMIT APPEAL
Former Ford Aeronutronics Property, Newport Beach, CA
June 8, 2023
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is requiring Ford Motor Company (Ford) to safely remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in soil from historical aerospace research operations at the Former Ford Aeronutronics Facility. As part of this process, WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (WSP), as environmental consultants for Ford, applied for a Limited Term Permit for the construction of a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) treatment system building to the City of Newport Beach. SVE systems are a common engineering technology used to remove VOCs from soil vapor (the air in between soil particles) and are regulated for the protection of human health by the Air Quality Management District (Air District).

A City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Hearing was held on March 2, 2023, and the Limited Term Permit was approved. The Zoning Administrator's approval was appealed by the residents of 94 Hartford Drive. The appeal was heard at the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting and a continuance was granted to June 22, 2023. The following provides a response to questions and comments raised during the hearing.

Planning commissioners that have questions or need more information may contact Jessica Law, Water Board Case Manager, at (951) 782-4381 or Jessica. Law(a-)waterboards.ca.gov or Mike Barnes, WSP Program Manager, at (510) 326-1901 or.Michael.Barnes2(@wsp.com.

TREATMENT BUILDING LOCATION ANALYSIS
COMMENT 1: How did you determine [the 94 Hartford Drive location] is the only location that the soil vapor can be mitigated from?
RESPONSE: As documented in the Water -Board approved Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan (cleanup plan) for the project, dated August 25, 2021, the SVE treatment system building is located as currently presented in the Limited Term Permit for construction. The only available space of sufficient size along County Club Drive is the current location which is located adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive.

At the request of the City, and in response to comments from the community, the Ford project team reviewed options for location of the treatment system and prepared an Alternative Location Analysis, Soil Vapor Extraction System, Bayridge Park (Parcel 10), dated February 15, 2023 and included in the Zoning Administrator's Staff Report, dated March 2, 2023. The results of this analysis are summarized below.

The analysis considered 7 options. These are described and evaluated below relative to the following criteria:

Disruption to neighborhood
Minimize impact to homes and proximity to treatment system Permitting complexity (including whether permitting could be achieved within Water Board schedules)
10-530

Implementation complexity
Power connection complexity
Compliance with HOA access agreement to not impact parking Option 1 - Bayridge Park — 5 small systems in parking spots Originally, five small treatment systems occupying one parking space each were proposed in the Draft FS/RAP. A public comment period was held of the Draft FS/RAP from June 7 to July 9, 2021. Thirteen comments were received related to parking, and all objected to the treatment systems taking up parking spaces and the amount and duration of construction associated with the design. Therefore, in the final FS/RAP, the original design was replaced with one system which would limit impacts to parking and minimize construction duration and impacts. With other delays from utilities and power providers during COVID, this option was made infeasible because any permitting for this option would now delay the project for over 2 years.

Option 2 - Bayridge Park — landscaped areas
In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed in a landscaped area between homes.

This option was not feasible due to inaccessibility for construction equipment, need to remove mature landscaping, and limited access to provide ongoing operation and maintenance activities.

Option 3 - Bayridge Park — eastern portion
In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed in the eastern portion of the community.

This option was not feasible because it violated Ford's Remediation Agreement with the HOA which stipulates parking cannot be impacted. With other delays from utilities and power providers during COVID, this option was made infeasible because any permitting for this option would now delay the project for over 2 years.

Option 4 - Bayridge Park — northwest corner
This option requires the placement of larger conduits to carry power and the engineering and construction of which would be extremely complex and may not be possible given the dense network of underground utilities in the streets. Additionally, the permitting process would have to be restarted, adding up to two years to the project schedule. This delay will impact individuals' who are experiencing vapor intrusion in their homes, will likely allow soil vapor to spread impacting more homes, and will create environmental issues that take longer to remediate.

Option 5 - Along Bison Avenue
In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed on the south side of Bison Avenue. This option is infeasible for three reasons: 1) the City is concerned about interference of driver site lines along Bison Avenue, 2) construction of the system would take place on Bison Avenue and would impact traffic flow, 3) ongoing access to the treatment system for operation and maintenance activities would also impact traffic flow, and 4) there is a moratorium on construction in Bison Avenue.

Option 6 - Along Country Club Drive (portions north and south of 94 Hartford) In this option, a single treatment system would be constructed on the west side of Country Club Drive north or south of the 94 Hartford location. This location is not feasible due to lack of space and/or steep slopes.

Option 7 - Country Club Drive — adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive This option, which is presented in the final FS/RAP dated August 25, 2021, most closely satisfies all the criteria. This location has been vetted by the Water Board, the City of Newport Beach Zoning 10-531

Administration, Ford, WSP, the HOA, and members of the public to gain concurrence and avoid delay in implementation of the selected remedy to remediate soil vapor in Bayridge Park.

Residents closest to the location of this option have filed an appeal primarily due to questions about the safety of the SVE system. However, the Limited Term Permit is for the construction of the building.

The safe operation of the system is regulated by a permit issued by the Air District.

COMMENT 2: The moratorium on Bison. Is that the City's moratorium or set by another agency? RESPONSE: The City of Newport Beach has placed a five-year moratorium on trenching activities along Bison Avenue because the roads were recently repaved.

COMMENT 3: What was the pushback from the HOA on installing the system in the parking spots within the community?
RESPONSE: Ford has a Remediation Agreement with the HOA that stipulates parking cannot be impacted. Ultimately, though, this did not factor into the final decision for choosing a location. That decision was solely impacted by the continued delays in permitting that would have lasted another 2 years.

Please see the Response to Comment 1 for more details
COMMENT 4: We, the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive, strongly object to the location of our home as the location for the SVE system to clean up the contaminated soil from the former Ford facility. We are not asking to stop the remediation; we are asking to change the location based on the safety of our young toddler and we are expecting a newborn baby. The unit is proposed to be 3 feet away from our home violating the 8-foot separation distance for this area. The location is arbitrary and was not the original proposal by Ford/WSP.

RESPONSE: The Limited Term Permit being applied for is for a variance to the 8-foot separation - distance to place the treatment system building for one, and maybe, 2 years, if concentration levels are not reduced sufficiently to eliminate vapor intrusion. This location is not arbitrary. It was selected after an extensive review process involving many stakeholders and factoring in several key engineering and institutional constraints.

Seven locations were thoroughly evaluated and six of them were not feasible because of geographical, engineering, parking or schedule constraints. Regarding parking, Bayridge Park has extremely limited parking for current residents and just meets the City's minimum parking requirements. The most important factor at this point is the construction and remediation schedule as this system has been designed over the past two years with input from, and in coordination with the Water Board, the Air District and Southern California Edison (SCE). Selection of an alternate location will add at a minimum two years to the schedule. This schedule delay would be unacceptable because residents in 22 homes are living with concentrations of VOCs that can cause health effects over time. If the situation is not addressed as soon as possible, the vapors will continue to spread and additional homes may be impacted. It is also important to note that indoor impacts have not been detected in the 92, 94, and 96 Hartford residences.

The Air District is the primary regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the system is designed and operated in a manner that is fully protective of human health including infants, young children, and immunocompromised individuals.

Only air that meets the air quality standards dictated and permitted by the Air District will be discharged from the system. The SVE treatment system has been designed to operate in a residential area and includes multiple engineering redundancies to remove VOCs. There are two vessels which each 10-532

contain 2,000 pounds of granular activated carbon to adsorb the VOCs. The first vessel is designed to remove VOCs and the second vessel is in place as a redundancy. The granulated activated carbon will be replaced with new carbon when concentrations of VOCs are detected between the main and secondary vessels.

COMMENT 5: Regarding the location of the treatment system, the original project document by Ford/WSP did not have an alternative analysis until they received [the objections of the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive]. After they received our objections in January, all of a sudden, they had an alternative analysis that showed all the proposed locations were infeasible except the location by our house.

RESPONSE: An alternative analysis had been prepared and was part of the process going back to early 2021. The alternative analysis matrix was prepared from that process and was published later to translate a complex, multi -volume process to a readable context. The selected location is not arbitrary.

As with any engineering project of significance, a variety of analyses were conducted including finding the optimal location that meets various requirements including safety, accessibility, ease of construction and minimization of impacts. Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected.

COMMENT 6: Out of the seven proposed options, I [the owner of 94 Hartford Drive] wanted to address options one, three and four. Options one and three show the locations are infeasible due to parking. That should be enough! Basically, parking/accessibility is being put forth ahead of safety. Option one shows five small treatment systems in various parking spots while option three shows one larger treatment system that would use several parking spots. To resolve the parking issues, the HOA could implement multiple parking alternatives, such as forcing the residents to park in their garages, have residents park in the temporary vacation parking near Jamboree, or the HOA could assign temporary parking spots since this is going to be a temporary building.

RESPONSE: At no point was parking considered to be more important than safety. In fact, if the treatment unit building could not have been located in such a way to meet Air Board codes for height and distance from other openings, then the location would have been unsuitable. Safety has always been the number one priority.

Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected and Response to Comment 3 for a discussion on parking concerns.

COMMENT 7: Option four would place one larger system in the long-term parking in the northwest corner near Jamboree and Bison, and during the Zoning Administrator meeting, the alternative analysis read that this location could not be used because of timeframe issues and also the power connection complexity. It would increase construction by two months; however, this is the first appeal and we've already extended this whole process by five months.

RESPONSE: Based on our discussions with SCE, installation of the additional infrastructure required to support operation of an SVE system in the northwest corner is infeasible as it would cause significant delays. This delay would be unacceptable to the Water Board because 22 homes in the Bayridge Park community have indoor air impacts higher than screening levels which can cause health effects over time — any delay increases the possibility of vapors spreading and will take longer to remediate.

Additionally, this location would require deeper and larger trenches which would be infeasible to implement given existing underground infrastructure. Please see additional detail in the Response to Comment 1.
10-533

COMMENT 8: According to the analysis, the two -month extension would be a result of the power connection complexity, since they are routing all the electrical from the location behind our house, at 94 Hartford, and I find it hard to believe that there is only one source of electricity that needs to come from behind our house. There's electricity all throughout the community so I don't know why it all has to come from behind our house.

RESPONSE: As discussed in Response to Comment 1, getting electrical power to the treatment system is complex due to the available SCE infrastructure in the area. After extensive consultation with SCE for the past 1.5 years to identify a location with a direct connection to 3-phase power, the only feasible location is in the Belcourt Master HOA. This requires a transformer installation and power cables routed through Belcourt Terrace HOA and under Country Club Drive in a horizontally bored conduit, which will enter Bayridge Park at the fire lane adjacent to 94 Hartford.

COMMENT 9: At 1 p.m. [May 18, 2023], we, [the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive] were notified by the Assistant City Planner that the proposed treatment building would need to be moved eight feet north of where it was proposed at the Zoning Administrator meeting, making it in direct view of our dining room window and at a more problematic location than it was before.

We paid $1750 for this appeal for the location of the building, prior to this change, and per Jenny Tran, this system would be moved because of a water main and since there was a water main there, I would say that location is pretty infeasible as well.

RESPONSE: We apologize for the late notice. The water main location as recorded in the City's records and the location identified by a private utility locator were in conflict, so WSP performed potholing in consultation with the City to physically confirm the water main location on May 2 and 3, 2023. As a result, and in consultation with the City, we adjusted the SVE treatment system building location to allow access to the water main in the event of an emergency while still maintaining compliance with requirements of the California Building Code, the Air District, and avoiding encroachment into the sidewalk. The total height of the treatment system building is lower than the bottom of the second story window of the 94 Hartford residence, so although the roof of the building will be visible if you are looking directly out the window, it will not block the view or the light coming in through that window.

COMMENT 10: We were notified on Tuesday [May 16] by Candace, Assistant Vice President of WSP, that the building would be moved four feet to the south towards the water main, further showing we keep receiving conflicting information from Ford and WSP. Since the change affects the location of the exhaust from the treatment system, Ford and WSP should be required to file a completely new permit since this was not presented at the original Zoning Administrator meeting. This is an entirely new decision. This change should be reviewed adequately instead of completely shifting the building 5 hours before this meeting.

RESPONSE: We apologize for the confusion and are committed to transparent communications with you and the larger community. The treatment system building is being moved 8 feet to the north from the location presented to the Zoning Administrator on March 2, 2023. This location meets City requirements for access to the water main in case of an emergency and continues to meet the safety requirements of the California Building Code and Air District permit.

The focus of the Zoning Administrator/Planning Commission decision is solely on the location of the temporary treatment building as it relates to the City's aesthetic requirements of being 8 feet away from the nearest building in this community. This is not a requirement for the safety of the health of the community nor for building safety as the system meets the Air District requirements as stated above and the California Building Code requirement of 3 feet of separation from the nearest buildings. The Limited Term Permit has been requested because the treatment system building location does not meet the City's aesthetic guidelines for this community. Given that the movement of the building to 10-534

allow for safe access of the water main line still does not affect the health and safety requirements described above, this change is not an entirely new decision but a minor change to allow for access to the water main line. The City of Newport Beach staff has concurred with this decision.

COMMENT 11: 1 am the homeowner at 92 Hartford Drive, and I moved into Bayridge Park in 1987... there are about 7 or 8 parking spaces in the northwest section that would be perfect for this because it would be on the north end of the complex so it would take any exhaust away from residences and dissipate by the time it became a factor for anyone. ...If there is a 1% chance that human health can be impacted by machinery, then let's rethink this.

RESPONSE: Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected and Response to Comment 3 for a discussion on parking concerns.

COMMENT 12: There is an issue about the three-foot separation. We saw a diagram that was at

3.0 feet and then something at angle moving 8.5 feet and I don't know how you can be at 3 feet next to the building if you are at an angle and shoving it closer to the building. How is it still the same distance from the building?
RESPONSE: The building has been shifted to achieve the 3 feet of separation required in the California Building Code at the closest point between the proposed building and the existing building at 94 Hartford Drive. The building is not parallel with 94 Hartford, but the closest point is 3 feet away and the farthest point is approximately 4.5 feet.

COMMENT 13: If the location was moved to the northwest section of the complex, why would the piping have to go the long way around the streets when there is a much shorter connection to the wells diagonally. I think this was dismissed too easily.

RESPONSE: Trenching following a direct route to the SVE system is not possible given Bayridge Park's existing building locations, mature landscaping, underground sewer and water lines, community pool and other features.

COMMENT 14: 1 live at 96 Hartford, which is right next to 94, and I would see this from my living room. I am a two-time cancer survivor and am greater than 85% more likely to get cancer than the rest of the human population. ...I have been living at Bayridge since 1991 and I have lived there longer than almost 2/3rds of the community and have been exposed to this for probably 30 years. I have heart and other neuropathic conditions often seen with VOCs in groundwater and soil gas contamination. I agree with everything everyone else has said. The parking reasoning is ridiculous. They started this process a year ago and then they waited a whole year because they changed ownership of WSP.

RESPONSE: Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected and Response to Comment 3 for a discussion on parking concerns.

The acquisition of Wood by WSP did not play a role in the timing of this project nor did it delay the project; the project team has been actively navigating the extensive permitting process.

COMMENT 15: 1 think the powers that the Water Board has could overrule the HOA and put it in a place that was more viable and the concept of infeasibility in this discussion seems to range around financial issues. A retaining wall doesn't mean it is infeasible and that is disappointing. I feel this should be somewhere else and I think there are good options, but I would hate to see this dragged out longer because it does need to happen immediately. I would like to hear the Water Board come in and say this is the best location and this is where we want it, but I didn't hear that. I don't know how I can feel supportive of this application because I feel this isn't the right location and the appellant has a strong argument here. 10-535

RESPONSE: The Water Board requires the installation of the SVE system to remediate soil vapor as soon as feasible. Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for a discussion of how the treatment system location was selected. The Planning Commission decision is solely on the location of the temporary treatment building as it relates to the City's aesthetic requirements of being 8 feet away from the nearest building in Bayridge Park. The Limited Term Permit has been requested because the treatment system building location does not meet the City's aesthetic guidelines for this community.

The system will only be allowed to operate if the Air District determines it will meet their requirements for the safe discharge of the treated vapors (as described in earlier responses), which will protect those living closest to the treatment building.

While we understand this may be a temporary inconvenience to the three nearby residents, it provides the quickest way to address the larger human health threat in the community of potential long-term exposure to VOCs.

HEALTH AND SAFETY
COMMENT 16: It was mentioned in some of the community letters that the exhaust would be coming out of the effluent stack. How does that exhaust level compare to the exhaust from a water heater or a clean -out vent from a sewer system at a house? Compare this in terms of the constituent concentrations/health risk.

RESPONSE: When properly designed and operated, SVE is intrinsically safe to site workers or the community. Treatment of the vapors involves no harmful chemicals that must be transported to the site.

VOCs are contained from extraction to treatment so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. Only clean air that meets air quality standards as dictated by the Air District is released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure VOCs have been removed. The Air Permit requires that the maximum discharge concentration is a 99% reduction from the maximum concentration of the vapor entering the system.

Water heater exhausts and/or clean -out vents from a sewer system are not permitted discharges. The SVE treatment system building exhaust will be a permitted discharge. The Air District, not the City of Newport Beach, is responsible for ensuring the system is designed and operated so that it is protective of human health. The SVE system will be maintained and monitored in accordance with Air Permit and Water Board requirements. Please refer to Response to Comment 4 for additional detail.

COMMENT 17: The monitoring [at the stack] I believe it said it was over the first 7 days of activation. What does the monitoring look like after that initial period? RESPONSE: The monitoring will be conducted daily over the first 7 days of activation to make sure the system is operating as designed. Based on this data, the Air District will determine the frequency of future monitoring to ensure that the system continues operating in a manner that is fully protective of public health.

COMMENT 18: So, you are [monitoring before the vapors enter the filters] in between the two filters and at the exhaust. Are you sampling the wells individually and in addition to the system? RESPONSE: Yes, the Water Board requires that we collect samples from the influent, midpoint, and discharge location, and that we monitor the SVE well locations to ensure the treatment system is operating as designed and to determine the effectiveness of the remediation.

COMMENT 19: Can you help me figure out if the exhaust is just air slightly coming out or like your dryer at home where it is shooting out or somewhere in between? 10-536

RESPONSE: The SVE system is designed to have a discharge flow rate of approximately 650 cubic feet per minute (cfm), which has been conditionally approved by the Air District.

Typically, a dryer will exhaust around 100 to 200 cfm.

COMMENT 20: We, [the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive], are continually assured by Ford and WSP that the SVE system is safe in a residential neighborhood three feet away from our home.

Despite this, we have not been able to be provided with any examples of residential treatment systems, let alone three feet away from a home. We were provided with three examples of treatment systems including two commercial drycleaning facilities — one that is 100 feet away and another 500 feet away from residences. We are absolutely appalled that the third example given by WSP, that they are claiming is residential, shows a boarded -up home on a vacant shut down military base. The military base was closed in 1994 due to contamination and the cleanup system took place in 2004. This is not in any way comparable to a residence with a newborn baby and toddler living, breathing and sleeping three feet away 24-hours a day.

RESPONSE: Although it is difficult to perceive this at first, the proximity of the treatment unit building is not related to the health and safety of the residents. The discharge point from the building is the only area of concern and will be the point of compliance for the Air Board permit. An example of how close the treatment unit building is to a residence is not a data point gathered by the Air District because the point of compliance is the discharge point. Therefore, as the treatment unit building will meet the criteria to obtain an Air District permit, the appellant needs only to look at the list of other SVE treatment units that have been permitted by the Air District that are part of the public domain to find the example that they seek. SVE systems are one of the most common ways to address soil vapor contamination in residential areas. This system has been designed so that VOCs from underground are contained from extraction to treatment so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. Only clean air that meets air quality standards is released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure VOCs have been removed. The Air District will require that we have an approved permit to operate this system, which will ensure we meet its requirements for safely operating the system in a residential area including the homes closest to the system.

COMMENT 21: Despite the Water Board's need for analytical data, we haven't been provided with any data to back up the claims they have been telling us. The photoionization detector was confirmed by Jessica Law to not be a lab quality sample. So, although it is a standard way to measure, it's not lab quality, and the lab samples actually take two to three weeks to come back.

RESPONSE: The use of photoionization detectors (PID) in the field to collect real-time data is an industry best practice and will help our project team understand and rapidly respond to changing field conditions. Additional data will be collected and sent to certified laboratories where it will undergo a quality assurance/control process that ensures the data is of the highest quality. The combination of these two approaches — real time data in the field and sending additional samples to a certified lab — meets Air District permit requirements and will provide a robust data set to make informed decisions about the SVE system management.

With all of the other safety factors involving the SVE treatment system and its various levels of dilution and treatment, the analytical testing is anticipated to be a confirmatory step for the PID usage onsite.

COMMENT 22: No studies have been conducted to show the safety of a SVE system within three feet of a home. There are too many unknowns as reiterated by the fact that no residential SVE units can be shown to us by Ford or WSP. We are being asked to be the guinea pigs when there are clearly other options that can be used. And due to the City indemnification by Ford, there are no consequences to the City of Newport Beach whether they approve this or not. However, we do not know how in good faith and conscience the City can approve this. 10-537

RESPONSE: The proximity of the SVE treatment unit building is immaterial to the safety of the residents. It is the exhaust location that matters. There are many devices which operate within a home such as a furnace, a refrigerator, an air conditioner compressor (outside), a vacuum cleaner, a dishwasher, a computer, etc., that are not measured by their location, but rather by the exhaust point.

The exhaust from the SVE treatment unit will meet the Air Board's criteria for location, height and concentration. This ensures safety for the residents near 94 Hartford.

The Water Board and the Air District are charged with protection of the entire community. While we do not have studies readily available due to the unique nature of the location and design of the SVE system, that does not mean that operating the treatment system in this location is unsafe. As stated before, the VOCs are contained from extraction to treatment and only clean air that meets the Air District's air quality standards will be released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure all harmful vapors have been removed or destroyed.

The system has been designed to meet the Air District requirements to receive a permit to operate.

These requirements take into consideration the location of the system in a residential neighborhood and its proximity to homes. Discharge limits are set to be protective of sensitive receptors. Operating the SVE system will allow Ford to remediate soil vapor and reduce the risk of long-term health impacts related to vapor intrusion in this community.

With regards to the City's responsibility under this approval, this Limited Term Permit is only to approve the location of the building as we do not meet the City of Newport Beach development guidelines for this area of an 8-foot separation between buildings. It is purely an aesthetic requirement.

COMMENT 23: It was a little surprising in the presentation to hear that the vapor is "not hazardous," which I heard. I don't know why the project is going on if it is not hazardous.

RESPONSE: The vapors underground are at levels that could be hazardous to public health with continued exposure over time, which is why the Water Board is requiring the construction and operation of the SVE system as soon as possible. During the presentation when the term "non -hazardous" was used, it was in discussion in context of the flammability of the chemicals, e.g., whether they could ignite or explode throughout the extraction and/or treatment process. This is not possible, and this is why they were called "non -hazardous."
The "danger" for this project is the long-term exposure (many hours each day over many years) to vapors which have intruded and concentrated inside the house. If the same vapors were encountered outside of the house in ambient air, there would not be any danger or hazard due to dilution and dispersion.

COMMENT 24: If the problem is the chemical in the groundwater and it is not being removed, only vapors from it, apparently the hope is that over time the groundwater will spread out enough, but the problem will still be there, but it will be so spread out that it won't be affecting anyone. I would be curious how long it would take without this project for the groundwater to spread out to that level.

RESPONSE: The concentrations currently present in soil gas are due to historical groundwater concentrations, which were much higher in the past than they are now. The VOCs at elevated concentrations in groundwater migrated upwards into the void spaces in the dry soil above the groundwater. Remedial activities were conducted between 1993 and 1996. In 1996, the former Ford facility received case closure for soil so no more active remediation was required, however the case was transferred to the Water Board for continued assessment and remediation of groundwater.

Investigations have been ongoing for both groundwater and soil gas since then, but there was no need 10-538

for active remediation until soil gas samples collected in 2018 detected VOCs above the revised 2016 Environmental Screening Levels.

This project is being conducted to address the movement of VOCs in soil vapor beneath the ground into indoor air inside residential properties. The current concentrations of VOCs in groundwater are lower than their historical maximums; soil vapor remediation has been identified as the method to reduce the potential for vapor intrusion. As discussed previously, indoor air concentrations of VOCs currently exceed screening criteria in 22 homes. The vapors are not acutely toxic, however concentrations higher than the screening levels can cause health effects over time, which is why the treatment system implementation is urgent.

The Water Board has approved monitored natural attenuation of groundwater due to the low levels present in groundwater at this time. This means groundwater will continue to be monitored to confirm that VOCs are naturally breaking down and degrading over time.

COMMUNITY IMPACTS
COMMENT 25: Is there a problem with the noise at the exhaust or is the noisy part of the system inside the treatment area?
RESPONSE: Noise is generated by the treatment system and not the discharge piping. This is why the treatment system is entirely contained inside a building with noise dampening features. We will test the building when off -site construction is completed to ensure it meets the City of Newport Beach's noise requirements and then test the system again when it is installed to ensure it continues to meet those requirements.

COMMENT 26: You mention Sunnyfresh Cleaners. I went over and stood there to see what that's like. What would you determine the noise is at that system? (I understand that's a commercial system). What does 50 decibels compare to?
RESPONSE: The exterior of the treatment system building will meet the City's noise requirement of 50 decibels. This is like the sound of a household refrigerator when it is in operation.

COMMENT 27: No one has mentioned anything about property values. I [the homeowner at 96 Hartford Drive] am 75 years old and have no husband or family members. My condo is my lifetime investment and if I am forced to senior or assisted living there is no guarantee as to when I will need to sell. It is quite predictable that my place and others would be unsellable or rentable with this toxic system right outside my window. ...The SVE system outside my condo would basically being destroying my savings account. With all the medical uncertainties, I cannot possibly continue to live here. Simply picking up and leaving comes with a high price.

Why should possibly three households of 166 be forced to abandon their homes in the face of these valid concerns. This is a community, we all pay homeowner dues, and should all be treated the same.

RESPONSE: Questions related to property values would be better answered by a real estate professional. However, the installation and operation of the SVE system will be treating the underlying environmental issue.

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA) AND OUTREACH
COMMENT 28: Is there a representative of the HOA in attendance tonight? There are valid points about where this could be relocated, and I find it disappointing that the HOA could not be here tonight. I think that speaks volumes and couldn't support this. I feel like the HOA could have stepped up and made this work better for everyone.
10-539

RESPONSE: A representative of the HOA was not available at the May 18 meeting; however, we understand that he will attend the June 22 hearing.

COMMENT 29: Who owns the fee [to this land]. Is it the HOA or Ford? Did the HOA grant permission for the remediation to occur and the location of the treatment building? RESPONSE: The HOA owns the land and granted permission for the treatment building to be located there.

COMMENT 30: Please explain what the process with the HOA was [to select this location] and the nature of the contractual relationship between the HOA and the remediation team. Did the HOA endorse this location at the end of the process or was it just working together [with the Ford Newport Beach project team]?
RESPONSE: Ford/WSP have a Memorandum of Understanding for remediation work to occur which includes the HOA agreement for the design and placement of the SVE system.

COMMENT 31: Despite the lovely community outreach, it was never disclosed in writing that the unit was [three feet away from] our home [at 94 Hartford Drive] and it was never disclosed at the Bayridge Park pre -construction meeting as well, so the first time that we were notified as homeowners was when the public notice was staked on our front lawn by the City of Newport Beach. The mailers, the forms, etc. all come standard mail and there was never anything in writing sent formally via certified mail disclosing the location of the system.

RESPONSE: Visual renderings were provided at the community meetings in November 2021 and January 2023 that showed the proximity of the proposed treatment building to 94 Hartford Drive. These are also available on Ford's project website ( https://www.fordnbfacts.com/) and the Water Board's GeoTracker database( https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=SL188023848).

COMMENT 32: The HOA isn't here tonight and I, [the resident at 92 Hartford Drive], would love to ask them why they are insisting on this because if this is approved, you're basically making my house unlivable at 92 Hartford. I can't live there knowing there is this exhaust that is the emanation point of 13 wells that take these toxins out of the ground and filter them with carbon and now I am supposed to be able to sleep at night?
RESPONSE: The Air District issues the permit to operate the SVE system and will only issue the permit if the system can operate safely and in a manner that is fully protective of public health. This system has been designed so that VOCs from underground are contained from extraction to treatment so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. Only clean air that meets Air District's standards is released. The air released to the atmosphere following treatment will be sampled to make sure VOCs have been removed to meet the standards dictated and permitted by the Air District. The Air District will require that we have an approved permit to operate this system, which will ensure we meet its requirements for safely operating the system in a residential area including the homes closest to the system.

Please refer to Response to Comment 4 for additional detail on the discharge limits and safety redundancies that are mandated by the Air District.

COMMENT 33: 1 [the homeowners at 94 Hartford Drive] have shared all correspondence provided to the City and Planning Commission with the HOA and have received no correspondence back. We were also told by one of the HOA members when we voiced our concerns, especially in regard to our son, that we should move if we are not happy with the treatment location.
10-540

RESPONSE: Ford and WSP were not present during this conversation and are unable to comment on this.

COMMENT 34: The HOA is the one that the appellant should be talking to. They are the ones making the decision and dictating where this should go. ...I don't understand why they couldn't address some of the parking areas as well.

RESPONSE: Ford and WSP have worked closely with the HOA and have provided detailed information to the Bayridge Park community. Please refer to Response to Comment 1 for additional detail on how the location was selected.

SCHEDULE
COMMENT 35: There was an expectation that this system would only last for one year. ...What are our triggers for automatic extensions? What is the confidence level that this will only last for one year versus two or three? [What are the triggers for permit extension, if needed?] RESPONSE: Ford and WSP anticipate the system will operate continuously for one year. At the end of the first year, the Water Board will review the data collected and decide if the system should continue operation, operate intermittently, or shut down. Our goal is to operate under this permit for one year and, if necessary, apply for an extension of the Limited Term Permit for one additional year.

COMMENT 36: Worst case this remediation goes three years. If that doesn't achieve the lower levels that you want, what would be the next step?
RESPONSE: A site conceptual model has been created that shows levels and areas of contamination.

The model is based on hundreds of samples of soil, soil gas and groundwater collected over the past six years. Based on the site conceptual model and the SVE pilot test, the Water Board and Ford/WSP are confident that SVE will be able to treat the vapors found underneath the community effectively within a one -to -two-year period that is stipulated by the City of Newport Beach's permit. At the end of the two-year period the treatment system building will be dismantled and removed.

If the Water Board requires additional treatment after the two-year period, the Ford project team will work with the agency to determine the best methods to address residual levels of contamination.

COMMENT 37: We keep getting different answers from WSP and the Water Board on how long this will be in place. The last time I spoke with WSP it was supposed to be running for six months, today it is a year. At the February 22nd meeting, Kenn Conner the Senior Vice President of WSP, stated the system will be on for a year, then turn it off and maybe turn it back on later. It was also stated at this meeting by Jessica Law at the Water Board that in historical remediations we've seen other sites we've cleaned up and we come back later, and the concentrations increased. Although Jessica states she has confidence in this remediation, there is no guarantee. Jessica goes on to state it's still important to confirm because assumptions can be wrong, and from the regulatory perspective, we don't like assumptions, they can give you a direction, but we always want them confirmed with analytical data.

RESPONSE: The Limited Term Permit from the City of Newport Beach allows the system to operate for one year and a maximum of two years, at which time the building and treatment system will be dismantled.

OVERALL PROJECT
COMMENT 38: When this was originally entitled, what was the time frame for mitigation monitoring of the wells? Is this in perpetuity?
10-541

RESPONSE: The Water Board has required ongoing soil gas and groundwater monitoring since the site was first remediated starting in 1990. The monitoring will continue until no further action levels are reached and the environmental case is closed. It is hard to estimate a timeframe to reach no further action, but we anticipate this will be between 10 and 20 years.

COMMENT 39: Are the monitoring wells that are out there currently a part of the original construction?
RESPONSE: Beginning in 2018, WSP installed monitoring wells to understand the extent of soil vapor and groundwater plumes and monitor how these are changing over time. These wells will continue to be used during remediation and monitoring.

COMMENT 40: In regard to the testing, not only did the testing become more efficient, but the VOCs levels also changed. Is that correct?
RESPONSE: Yes, the scientific understanding of how VOCs can affect public health has changed since the 1990s which led to the environmental screening levels used by the Water Board to become more conservative, or health protective, than when the original testing was done. Our scientific instruments used to test these VOCs have also become more efficient and are able to detect VOCs at lower levels than was possible in the 1990s.

COMMENT 41: You mentioned this is just soil vapor remediation, but you didn't touch on the groundwater, which I believe is [impacted] at 50 feet?
RESPONSE: The Water Board has approved monitored natural attenuation of groundwater due to the low levels present in groundwater at this time. This means groundwater will continue to be monitored to confirm that VOCs are naturally breaking down and degrading over time.

COMMENT 42: Does groundwater travel southwesterly?
RESPONSE: The former Ford facility is at the high point, so groundwater travels north towards Bonita Creek and south towards the Big Canyon Arroyo.

COMMENT 43: When you did test you determined [this part of Bayridge Park] is the location that is the most impacted?
RESPONSE: Yes, our recent testing has found that the past remediation was quite effective in the location of the former Ford facility, what is now One Ford Road. However, the remediation was limited to on -site areas and off -site remediation activities were not required at that time. Bayridge Park and Belcourt Terrace are located immediately north of the former Facility, and we see higher impacts here because no remediation was historically completed here.

MISCELLANEOUS
COMMENT 44: The Zoning Administrator has the discretion to refer items that come to him to you for an original hearing and the Zoning Administrator meetings are held in the morning via Zoom. It is very convenient for the applicants, but it is not very convenient for the people trying to interact and express their concerns on the items before him. So, it was unusual that this was not referred to you given it was known as a controversial issue. After more than a decade of attending Zoning Administrator meetings, this is the first one I ever saw where the applicant had a half hour, 45-minute presentation to explain something that would not be controversial enough to be approved by one person, the Zoning Administrator. 10-542

RESPONSE: Ford and WSP took this time to explain the scientific complexity of this project to allow the Zoning Administrator to have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. However, we do not see this permit approval as controversial. The Zoning Administrator, and now the Planning Commission, are ultimately deciding if the building can be placed closer than the 8 feet of separation required of buildings in this area under the City's development guidelines. This is a purely aesthetic requirement as this location meets the requirements of the California Building Code, and the Air District oversees the safety of the operation of the system. So, the City's purview is limited to deciding on whether to allow this building to be constructed even though it does not meet the aesthetic design guidelines of the neighborhood.

COMMENT 45: Although the only thing before you is the location of this treatment system building, the wells and the piping under the streets do not currently exist. That is all part of the project to come. Apparently, you are not weighing in on that.

RESPONSE: The location of the wells and the piping under the streets are being designed in accordance with City guidelines and do not require approval from the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to be installed. The well locations were approved by the Orange County Health Care Agency and are not dependent on the treatment system location. The piping layout will be approved by the City's Public Works Department once the Limited Term Permit has been approved. The Water Board has approved the SVE treatment system design, including well locations and piping layouts, to allow for the safe and effective implementation of the SVE system to remediate contaminants found in soil vapor and the HOA has approved of this design. HOA approval was a requirement of the Water Board's approval.
10-543

ATTACHMENT 2
EPA Community Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging 10-544

What Are Soil Vapor Extraction and
Air Sparging?
Both soil vapor extraction, or "SVE," and air sparging
extract (remove) contaminant vapors from below
ground for treatment above ground. Vapors are the
gases that form when chemicals evaporate. SVE
extracts vapors from the soil above the water table
by applying a vacuum to pull the vapors out. Air
sparging, on the other hand, pumps air underground
to help extract vapors from groundwater and wet soil
found beneath the water table. The addition of air
makes the chemicals evaporate faster, which makes
them easier to extract with another technology, such
as SVE.

SVE and air sparging are often used together. Both
methods are used for chemicals that evaporate
easily —like those found in solvents and gasoline.

These chemicals are known as "volatile organic
compounds," or "VOCs."
How Do They Work?
Extraction:

SVE involves drilling one or more extraction wells
into the contaminated soil to a depth above the water
table, which must be deeper than 3 feet below the
ground surface. Attached to the wells is equipment
Vapor Treatment
Building lean
Compressor for Air
Air Sparging —� blower far SUE —\ —
(such as a blower or vacuum pump) that creates a
vacuum. The vacuum pulls air and vapors through
the soil and up the well to the ground surface for
treatment.

Sometimes the ground must be paved or covered
with a tarp to make sure that the vacuum does not
pull air from above into the system. Pulling in clean
air would reduce the efficiency of the cleanup. The
cover also prevents any vapors from escaping from
the ground to the air above.

Air sparging involves drilling one or more injection
wells into the groundwater -soaked soil below the
water table. An air compressor at the surface pumps
air underground through the wells. As air bubbles
through the groundwater, it carries contaminant
vapors upward into the soil above the water table.

The mixture of air and vapors is then pulled out of the ground for treatment using SVE.

Treatment:

Extracted air and contaminant vapors, sometimes
referred to as "off -gases," are treated to remove any
harmful levels of contaminants. The off -gases are
first piped from the extraction wells to an air -water
separator to remove moisture, which interferes with
treatment. The vapors are then separated from the
air, usually by pumping them through containers of
activated carbon. The carbon captures the chemicals
while clean air exits to the atmosphere. (See
Community Guide to Granular Activated Carbon
Treatment.)
Filter materials other than activated carbon may be
used. In a process called "biofiltration," tiny microbes (bacteria) are added to break down the vapors into
gases, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor.

Another option is to destroy vapors by heating them
to high temperatures.

How Long Will It Take?
Cleaning up a site using SVE or air sparging may
take several years. The cleanup time will depend on
Illustration of a combined air sparging and SVE system.

several factors that vary from site to site. For example, SVE and air sparging will take longer where:
• Contaminant concentrations are high.
• The contaminated area is large or deep.
• The soil is dense or moist, which slows the movement of vapors.

Are SVE and Air Sparging Safe?
When properly designed and operated, SVE and air sparging pose little risk to site workers or the community. Treatment of the vapors involves no harmful chemicals that must be transported to the site. Chemical vapors are contained from extraction to treatment so they cannot be accidentally inhaled by anyone nearby. Only clean air that meets air quality standards is released.

The air released to the atmosphere following treatment may be sampled to make sure all harmful vapors have been removed or destroyed.

How Might They Affect Me?
You may notice some increased truck traffic as the equipment for SVE or air sparging is delivered and later removed. Installation of the systems involves drilling rigs and sometimes other heavy machinery to install wells, blowers and treatment equipment. Sheds or larger buildings may be built to house the treatment systems and keep operating noise to a minimum. Workers will visit these systems regularly to ensure they are working.

Why Use Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging?
SVE and air sparging are efficient ways to remove VOCs above and below the water table. Both methods can help clean up contamination under buildings and cause little disruption to nearby activities when in full operation. SVE and air sparging have been selected for use at Superfund sites and other cleanup sites across the country.

Pipes transport vapors from the
underground SVE extraction well
to treatment.

Aboveground treatment system includes two tanks of
activated carbon.

NOTE: This fact sheet is intended solely as general information to the public. It is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States, or to endorse the use of products or services provided by specific vendors.

Office of Land and Emergency Management (5203P) I EPA-542-F-21-022 1 2021 1 www.clu-in.org 10-546

ATTACHMENT 3
Artist's Rendering of Treatment Building
10-547

Parcel 10 Soil Vapor Extraction System Building
l
10-548

ATTACHMENT 4
Community Outreach Summary
10-549

Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary
June 8, 2023
The following lists outreach activities (that have occurred for the Bayridge Park community since the start of the project in 2018. Fact sheets are mailed and emailed to the community. Meeting invites are emailed a total of three times (initial email when document delivered via US Mail followed by two reminder emails) prior to each meeting.

Document
Distribution/Meeting Date
Location
Water Board Community Fact
May 2018
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #1
Bayridge Park
Sampling request letter
July 2018
Distributed sitewide, including
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
August 2018
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #1 Save the Date
Bayridge Park
Water Board Community Fact
September 2018
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #2
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
September 27, 2018
Civic Center Community Room
Session #1 (Open House)
100 Civic Center Drive
Water Board Information
October 2018
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #2 Meeting Invite
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
November 10, 2018
Civic Center Community Room
Session #2
Bayridge Park Session:
100 Civic Center Drive
3:00 — 4:30 p.m.

Water Board Information
February 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #3 Invite Letter
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
February 28, 2019
Civic Center Community Room
Session #3
100 Civic Center Drive
Water Board Information
April 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #4 Save the Date
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
May 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #4 Invite Letter
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
May 29, 2019
Civic Center Community Room
Session #4
Bayridge Park Session:
100 Civic Center Drive
6:30 — 8:00 p.m.

Water Board November 2019
September 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #5 Save the
Bayridge Park
Date
Water Board Information
October 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #5 Invite Letter
Bayridge Park
Water Board Community Fact
October 2019
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #3
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
November 7, 2019
Civic Center Community Room
Session #5
100 Civic Center Drive
Water Board Community Fact
February 2020
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #4
Bayridge Park
Ford Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
February 2022
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Pilot Test Meeting Invite
residents
SVE Pilot Test HOA Meeting
March 4, 2020
Bonita Creek Community Room
3010 La Vida
10-550

Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary
June 8, 2023
Document
Distribution/Meeting Date
Location
Notice of Work: SVE Pilot Test
May 2020
Distributed to Bayridge Park
residents
Water Board Community Fact
August 2020
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #5
Bayridge Park
Water Board November 2020
September 2020
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #6 Save the
Bayridge Park
Date
Water Board November 2020
October 2020
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #6 Invite
Bayridge Park
Letter
Water Board Information
November 5, 2020
Zoom
Session #6
Water Board Human Health Risk
March 2021
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Assessment (HHRA) and SVE
residents
Pilot Test Community Meeting
Invite
Water Board HHRA and SVE
April 22, 2021
Zoom
Pilot Test Results Meeting
Water Board Community Fact
April 2021
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #6
Bayridge Park
Water Board Draft FS/RAP
May 2021
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Public Meeting Save the Date
residents
Water Board Draft FS/RAP Fact
June 2021
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Sheet
residents
Water Board Draft FS/RAP
June 7 —July 9, 2021
Comments could be provided
Public Comment Period
via mail, phone and email
Water Board Draft FS/RAP
June 10, 2021
Zoom
Public Meeting
Water Board July 2021
June 2021
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #7 Save the
Bayridge Park
Date
Water Board July 2021
July 2021
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #7 Invite
Bayridge Park
Letter
Water Board Community Fact
July 2021
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #7
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
July 29, 2021
Civic Center Community Room,
Session #7
100 Civic Center Drive, and
YouTube Livestream
Ford Remedial Design and
October 2021
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Implementation Plan (RDIP)
residents
Meeting Invite
Ford RDIP Meeting
November 4, 2021
Bayridge Park community pool
February 2022 Information
December 2021
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #8 Save the Date
Bayridge Park
10-551

Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary
June 8, 2023
Document
Distribution/Meeting Date
Location
February 2022 Information
January 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Session #8 Invite Letter
Bayridge Park
Water Board Community Fact
January 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #8
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
February 3, 2022
Zoom
Session #8
Notice of Work: Bayridge Park
February 2022
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Groundwater Monitoring Well
residents
Installation and Sampling
Notice of Work: Bayridge Park
April 2022
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Groundwater Monitoring Well
residents
Installation and Sampling
Water Board July 2022
June 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #9 Save the
Bayridge Park
Date
Water Board July 2022
July 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #9 Invite
Bayridge Park
Letter
Water Board Community Fact
July 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #9
Bayridge Park
Water Board Information
July 27, 2022
Civic Center Community Room,
Session #9
100 Civic Center Drive, and
YouTube Livestream
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
August 2022
Distributed via email to
Update #1
Bayridge Park residents
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
October 2022
Distributed via email to
Update #2
Bayridge Park residents
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
November 2022
Distributed via email to
Update #3
Bayridge Park residents
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
December 2022
Distributed via email to
Update #4
Bayridge Park residents
Ford SVE Pre -Construction
December 2022
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Meeting Invite
residents
Water Board February 2023
December 2022
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #10 Save
Bayridge Park
the Date
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
January 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #5
Bayridge Park residents
Ford SVE Pre -Construction
January 2023
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Meeting Invite #2 (Location
residents
Change)
Ford SVE Pre -Construction
January 18, 2023
Bonita Creek Community Room
Meeting
3010 La Vida
Water Board February 2023
January 2023
Distributed sitewide, including
Information Session #10 Invite
Bayridge Park
Letter
10-552

Bayridge Park Community Outreach Summary
June 8, 2023
Document
Distribution/Meeting Date
Location
Water Board Community Fact
January 2023
Distributed sitewide, including
Sheet #10
Bayridge Park
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
February 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #6
Bayridge Park residents
Water Board Information
February 2023
Civic Center Community Room,
Session #10
100 Civic Center Drive, and
YouTube Livestream
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
March 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #7
Bayridge Park residents
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
April 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #8
Bayridge Park residents
Notice of Work: Utility
April 2023
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Potholing
residents
Water Board Sub -Slab
April 2023
Phone calls to residents within
Depressurization (SSD) System
Bayridge Park who are
Save the Date
experiencing vapor intrusion in
their home
Water Board SSD System
May 2023
Distributed to residents within
Meeting Invite Letter and SSD
Bayridge Park who are
Fact Sheet
experiencing vapor intrusion in
their home
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
May 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #9
Bayridge Park residents
Notice of Work: SVE Extraction
May 2023
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Well Installation
residents
Water Board SSD System
May 17, 2023
Residents within Bayridge Park
Meeting
who are experiencing vapor
intrusion in their home
SSD System Access Agreement
May 2023
Distributed to residents within
and What to Expect Handout
Bayridge Park who are
experiencing vapor intrusion in
their home
Ford Remediation Update
May 2023
Distributed to Bayridge Park
Meeting Invite
residents
Bayridge Park Monthly Work
June 2023
Distributed via email to
Update #10
Bayridge Park residents
Ford Remediation Update
June 8, 2023
Bayridge Park community pool
Meeting
10-553

Attachment No. PC 6
Public Correspondences
10-554

Planning Commission -"18, 2023
item No_ 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutmnic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-18D) From: Amy Sdntelld
To: Pldnniw Ccmmissibners; Trdn. Jenny
Cc: Kevin Solnmitd
Subject; Pldnnirng Commission Meeting Homeowner ubjectimr S.1B.23 Date: Mdy 17, 2023 1:CB;00 PM
Attachments: imdge.png
Pldnning Commission 5.0.23 Homeowner Obiections 94 Hartford CYive. [E XTER- AL E _'%LX1EL1 DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you reco =e the sender and know the content is safe.

Good aiternom
Please see below and attached objections for the Planning Commission meeting on Sr 1 8.'2.3.

Please confirm receipt of this email_
Thank you-
Respectfully -
Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
Regarding the City of Newport Beach: Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation at 94 Hartford Drive Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, May 18, 2023:

Project File No_: PA2022-0180
Location: 94 Harford Drive
To Whom It May Concern:

In addition to our appeal letter previously submitted, we would like to state the following:
6WWRIJ C 9.1111 wo M '
• e are continuously assured by Ford-WSP that the sail vapor extraction tout is -`safe" in a residential neighborhood, 3 feet away- frain a home_ Despite this, we HAVE NOT been provided -with any real -life examples of residential treatment systems_ let alone 3 feet away from a home_ NO studies ha3-e ever bee conducted to show the safety- of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. • On 3113123 per email_ I asked Jessica Law and Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff for residential examples of SSE systems_ to see how close they were to houses. as well as to compare the 3-foot proximity to our home_ Per email responses below:
1 _ Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff PE, W P, on 3/13/23 sent 2 examples of dry cleaners, no residential communities_ Daniela noted that the SVE system from Sunni- Dry Cleaners is located 500 feet away from residences_ This is not 10-555

Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) comparable to 3 feet. Daniela noted that the SVE system at Campus Cleaners is located 100 feet away from residences. This is also not comparable to 3 feet.

2. Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, on 3/15/23 per email: "I have not had an opportunity to follow up on this yet, but it is on my list of things to do." We have not received any further information to date. • In addition, per phone conversation on 5/16/23 at 11:21 AM with WSP Candace Jantzen-Marson, Assistant Vice President, WSP, I brought up this concern again, and no residential examples could be given. Candace stated that these SVE systems are more common in commercial and industrial areas. How is this comparable to a residence with a newborn baby and a toddler living, breathing, and sleeping 3 feet away, 24 hours a day vs. a commercial building or industrial setting? Again, we are continuously "assured" this is "OK" and "permitted," without any data to back up these claims. Ford/WSP has not been able to provide us with any evidence -based examples; this is unacceptable.
• We are appalled that the one example given by WSP that they are claiming is "residential," which shows a BOARDED -UP home. It was not mentioned in the appeal comments by WSP that the home was boarded up (please see below). In fact, the military base was CLOSED DOWN in 1994 due to contamination. The clean-up system took place in 2004. (htws:,/fortordcleanup.com/about/fort-ord-and-brae-historyl).

Per WSP Response to Appeal 4/7/23: "Here is another example of an SVE system that was not in Orange County, but was in a residential neighborhood in an area of California with similar regulatory requirements"
• This is NOT a comparative example to THREE feet away from a livable home with a newborn and a young toddler.
10-556

Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) Phato9re13h 2-6
Granulated Ar.livatcd G.irhon Units
Above photo that Ford/WSP sent to us, and stated is a "residential example:" a boarded -up home on a vacant, shut down military base.
http://docs.fortordcleanup.com/ar pdfs/AR-OUCTP-
0011.1/Volume_IRI/Volume I Appendix G/Appendix G Photos.pdf LOCATION:
• It was never disclosed at the Bayridge pre -construction meeting that the structure was 3 feet from a home, violating the setback distance. • 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. This distance greatly increases risk to our home.

The examples given to us by WSP show SVE systems at commercial sites, 100 feet away and 500 feet away from residences!
• 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. 10-557

Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) • 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 Jenny Tran confirmed on 2/23/23 via phone call that other locations were rejected by the HOA/Board due to parking spots.

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS REVIEW:
• The original project document by WSP did not have an alternative analysis UNTIL our objections were received. After our objections were received by WSP in January, all of a sudden, an alternative analysis was written to show different locations were infeasible, except 94 Hartford. All of these changes can be verified by the City of Newport Beach archives via the city website.
• During the Zoning Administrator meeting on March 2, 2023, the alternative analysis presented one location that cannot be used due to timeframe — it "would increase construction by 2 months." However, this first level appeal alone has already extended the project a minimum of 5 months. The original hearing was scheduled January 2023. It is now the end of May 2023. Perhaps the team should look at the area that cannot be done due to timing.
• Option #1 on the alternative analysis shows 5 small systems in parking lots is INFEASIBLE due to parking. The HOA could implement multiple parking alternatives such as: enforcing residents park in garages to free up exterior spaces, allow residents to park in the vacant "vacation parking" near Jamboree, where there are always extra spots. The HOA could assign parking spot numbers TEMPORARILY to ease parking concerns, since WSP keeps assuring us this is TEMPORARY. Parking has been valued over safety in this situation. This is completely unacceptable that "parking spots" cancel out this entire location. Instead, Ford/WSP has decided to put the system 3 feet away from a newborn baby and a toddler, when this has clearly never been done before.
• Option #2 shows infeasibility due to "disruption of mature landscaping." However, the proposed location at 94 Hartford DOES NOT show that the mature pine tree (taller than our home) and other trees and mature landscaping will be removed from OUR home and disrupt the view from our main living area window. Why was this not included on the alternative analysis for the option with our home? • Option #3 again shows infeasibility due to PARKING SPOTS. There are MULTIPLE ways to mitigate parking and have the system AWAY from residences! Parking is a simple fix compared to all the unknowns of having a system 3 feet away from a newborn baby and a young toddler at their most vulnerable time of 10-558

Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) development. Did Ford hire a parking consultant to alleviate this concern? We just came up with multiple realistic options in the paragraph above in less than 5 minutes.

Again, as stated before, we are shocked that Ford/WSP, the City of Newport Beach, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Bayridge HOA value parking over the unknowns of a massive system 3 feet away from where children and adults live 24 hours a day.

CITY INDEMNIFICATION:
• As stated in the Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-023, Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received: "the applicant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the City's approval of the Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation."
• Due to this indemnification, there are no consequences to the City of Newport Beach whether they approve this or not. However, we do not know how in good faith and conscience the City of Newport Beach can approve this. The soil vapor extraction unit will be cleaning up contaminated soil THREE feet away from a home with a newborn and young toddler that are in the residence 24 hours a day. As previously stated, NO studies have ever been conducted to show the safety of a soil vapor extraction unit within 3 feet of a home. Ford/WSP have FAILED to provide examples of residential units and their claim of a "residential" example was a boarded -up home on a VACANT military base!
• Also, 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. This has been confirmed by the water board and WSP.

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 10-559

Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) first seven days; after it will be weekly or more frequently if required. • We confirmed with Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, that the photoionization detector stated above is NOT "lab quality." This confirms that there is no real-time monitoring that accurately shows the total VOC concentration emitted 3 feet from our home.
• In the appeal response, Ford/WSP has offered to discuss new windows, a new air conditioning unit, and temporary relocation with us. Why is this the case if everything is ok to be next to our home? Furthermore, we have not agreed to the relocation of our air conditioning unit, which was stated would be completed by WSP prior to the permitting process.
• We strongly object to 94 Hartford Drive as the location of the soil vapor extraction unit to clean up the contaminated 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 young toddler and we are expecting a newborn baby soon. There are too many unknowns as reiterated by the fact that NO residential units can be shown to us by Ford/WSP. We are being asked to be the guinea pigs, where there are clearly other options that can be used, that are claimed to be "infeasible" due to PARKING.

Respectfully,
Amy Santella and Kevin Solomita
10-560

Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Item 2 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:

Jim Mosher (iimmosher(a)-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).

Item No. 2. AERONUTRONIC FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION
APPEAL (PA2022-0180)
The item is a bit confusing in that the Project Plans (Attachment PC 10) show a project extending over roughly half of Planning Area 8 (Bayridge Park), yet all that appears to be before the Commission is the proposed temporary 240 square foot treatment structure.

Regarding the Alternative Location Analysis for that structure (Attachment PC 7), when this was before the Zoning Administrator, it seemed improbable to me that the (HOA preferred?) location in the northwest corner of Planning Area 8, near the intersection of Bison and Jamboree (as shown on handwritten page 153), could be ruled out because of the length of electrical cabling required to power it and the attendant out -of -code voltage drop. Clearly, new vapor piping to that remote location would be needed, but since there are both homes and traffic lights in the vicinity, I would think a nearby power source, not requiring 1,450 feet of conduit, could be found.

Regarding the Acoustical Engineering Analysis and Addendum (Attachment PC 6), as a member of the City's General Plan Advisory Committee's Noise Element Subcommittee, I am particularly interested in ambient noise levels in our communities, and I found the consultant's treatment of that subject in Table 3 on handwritten page 88 quite confusing.

First, most of the numbers presented in that table do not match the data printouts provided in Appendix G (handwritten pages 115-142). Unless I am misreading the data sheets, the following corrections would be needed to make Table 3 agree with them:

Table 3: Ambient Noise Measurements (corrected)
Date
Time
LAEQ
LAmin
LAmax
LA25%
10/3/2022
9- 3 9:06
5" 64.1
44-.8 42.2
73 82.6
5" 60.5
10/5/2022
22:44
3" 37.5
3" 34.0
39 -6 59.0
3" 36.4
10/6/2022
10:39

55.2 35.9

67.3 57455.5
Second, the notes under Table 3 say that during the nighttime measurement on October 5, lasting only 1 minute and 39 seconds, most of the noise over the minimum came from "light traffic on Bison," while during the day (October 3 measurement, lasting 8 minutes and 25 seconds and October 6, lasting 3 minutes and 45 seconds) most of the noise was generated by gardening activity, light truck traffic on Country Club Drive and "occasional aircraft overflights." Unless additional samples were taken, my intuition would be such short samples are inadequate to establish meaningful ambient noise levels, since many of the noise sources cited are quite sporadic and a brief sample can be expected to be uncharacteristically high or low depending on whether, by chance, such events happened to occur during it or not. 10-561

Planning Commission - May 18, 2023
Item No. 2c - Additional Materials Received
Aeronutronic Ford Soil Vapor Remediation Appeal (PA2022-180) May 18, 2023, PC agenda Item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Additionally, instead of providing a time series of measurements that could be related, at least, to the readily -available historical record of aircraft flights, Appendix G provides a lengthy and much less useful audio frequency decomposition of the entire sample.

Regarding the Draft Resolution for Approval (Attachment PC 1), it appears to carry over many small errors from the one adopted by the Zoning Administrator. The Commissioners may wish to consider the following comments and suggested s*�=:t underline corrections to the passages shown in italics.

Title page (1 of 13):
• On the last line of the title block, I do not know what the "(NHI' following "94 HARTFORD DRIVE" means.
"1. An application was filed by WSP USA ("Applicant'); in regard to the property located adjacent to 94 Hartford Drive, and legally described as Lot 4 of Tract No. 12164 ("Property'); requesting approval of a limited term permit." "2. The Property is located within adjacent to the area that was formerly the Ford Aeronutronic facility operated by Ford Motor Company from 1957 to 1993. The primary operation of the facility consisted of aerospace and electronic research, development, and production. As part of on -site operations and as common practice at the time, volatile organic compounds ("VOC') were used to clean the metal parts of the operating equipment. The facility was demolished between 1993 and 1996 and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Water Board'), the leading lead regulatory agency for the former Ford Aeronutronic facility and related off -site areas, has overseen 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." [note: According to Figure 1 (handwritten page 4), Bayridge Park touches, but is outside the perimeter of the former Ford facility.]