No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 23 - Exhibit 23 - Additional CorrespondenceExhibit No. 23 Additional correspondence '2.3 . I THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY BLANK Z 3lZ Date: Q P 1L b 0% To: Members of the Newport Beach City Council Keith D. Curry Leslie Daigle Nancy Gardner Michael F. Henn. Steve Rosansky Edward D. Selich Don Webb RE: Mitigation Measures for Hoag Hospital Honorable Members of the Council: As you are aware, on April 16th the City Council will hold public hearings on Hoag Hospital's compliance with the Development Agreement (DA). Consideration will also be given to various amendments to the DA. As Hoag's closest neighbor, the residents of Villa Balboa are very supportive of the hospital's healthcare mission. Among our residents are many employees, volunteers, and patients of the hospital. However, our proximity also subjects us to many negative impacts, as the hospital has gradually grown from a small community facility into a huge regional medical center. As a result of Hoag's intense focus on its healthcare mission, it sometimes forgets the impact its nearly continuous construction and 2417 operations have on the west Newport Beach area. The upcoming negotiations and vote on amending the DA offer a rare, opportunity for the City to enhance this important document, which after all, was created to balance the hospital's request for wide latitude to develop its upper and lower campuses with the need to provide protections to the surrounding community. As we approach the meeting on April 16th, please give consideration to the following: Cogeneration Plant — The cogeneration plant Hoag built on its lower campus frequently emits billowing cooling tower and engine exhaust plumes, both of which are unsightly and degrade the quality of life in the west Newport Beach area. Because the plumes were not disclosed to the City or the Coastal Commission during the permitting process, no supplemental environmental impact report was prepared as was required by the DA. Further, Hoag's verbal and written statements over the last several years led residents to believe that no plumes would be visible from the plant during normal operations. Inclusion of "plume abatement" equipment is a standard feature of plants built in environmentally sensitive locations throughout California, the United States, and globally. Such equipment was included in the Hoag plant by its designers, but unfortunately was pulled out by hospital personnel to modestly reduce costs. 131.3 On March 20th, after weeks of study, the Planning Commission voted to recommend mitigation of the cogeneration plant plumes. We urge you to support the installation of new, fully plume- abated cooling towers to definitively deal with the cooling tower plumes. Intermediate measures are unlikely to bring about a resolution that is consistent with the physical beauty and high quality of life associated with Newport Beach. By installing the best available technology, Hoag can categorically put this issue behind it. We also ask you to support the implementation of one or more of the methods outlined in the Fluor report to mitigate the engine exhaust plumes. Noise — The hospital is currently out of compliance with the DA limitations on noise at the loading dock. Noise from the cogeneration plant is audible day and night, and substantially exceeds the City Noise Ordinance. Those standing in Sunset View Park are subjected to particularly high noise levels. We urge you to vote to require full mitigation of these noise sources as part of any modification of noise limitations currently in the DA. Lower Campus Li hung — Hoag's current lower campus lighting is out of compliance with the DA. The City is currently considering measures to bring the lighting back into compliance. One concept under consideration is to turn off lower campus parking lights in the late evening when the parking lot is not utilized. This is consistent with the City's practice in its own City Hall parking lot, and with "Dark Sky" initiatives around the country. Please consider adding language to the DA to include this approach. Roof -top Parking — The hospital has proposed building multi -level parking structures on the lower campus. These structures would include roof -top parking, which would be nearly flush with the nearby bluff. This would subject those standing in Sunset View Park or living in nearby residences to the air pollution, noise, and bright lights of cars operating at close proximity. Please consider an amendment to prohibit roof -top parking on the lower campus. Other issues of concern to local residents include keeping landscaping and trees on the lower campus in compliance with the DA, and elimination of the condensate plume which emanates from the Cancer Center. Building protections for the wider community into the DA sets the stage for sensitive, sustainable growth for Hoag. This ultimately serves the interests of the residents, the City, and the hospital. Thank you for your consideration of the issues described above. Sincerely, Name: Address: /v 23,1 Date:l lU To: Members of the Newport Beach City Council Keith D. Curry Leslie Daigle Nancy Gardner Michael F. Henn Steve Rosansky Edward D. Selich Don Webb RE: Mitigation Measures for Hoag Hospital Honorable Members of the Council: a. r, 5 G`r`'�( As you are aware, on April 10h the City Council will hold public hearings on Hoag Hospital's compliance with the Development Agreement (DA). Consideration will also be given to various amendments to the DA. As Hoag's closest neighbor, the residents of Villa Balboa are very supportive of the hospital's healthcare mission. Among our residents are many employees, volunteers, and patients of the hospital. However, our proximity also subjects us to many negative impacts, as the hospital has gradually grown from a small community facility into a huge regional medical center. As a result of Hoag's intense focus on its healthcare mission, it sometimes forgets the impact its nearly continuous construction and 2417 operations have on the west Newport Beach area The upcoming negotiations and vote on amending the DA offer a rare opportunity for the City to enhance this important document, which after all, was created to balance the hospital's request for wide latitude to develop its upper and lower campuses with the need to provide protections to the surrounding community. As we approach the meeting on April 10h, please give consideration to the following: Cogeneration Plant — The cogeneration plant Hoag built on its lower campus frequently emits billowing cooling tower and engine exhaust plumes, both of which are unsightly and degrade the quality of life mi the west Newport Beach area. Because the plumes were not disclosed to the City or the Coastal Commission during the permitting process, no supplemental environmental impact report was prepared as was required by the DA. Further, Hoag's verbal and written statements over the last several years led residents to believe that no plumes would be visible from the plant during normal operations. Inclusion of "plume abatement" equipment is a standard feature of plants built in environmentally sensitive locations throughout California, the United States, and globally. Such equipment was included in the Hoag plant by its designers, but unfortunately was pulled out by hospital personnel to modestly reduce costs. On March 20th, after weeks of study, the Planning Commission voted to recommend mitigation of the cogeneration plant plumes. We urge you to support the installation of new, fully plume - abated cooling towers to definitively deal with the cooling tower plumes. Intermediate measures are unlikely to bring about a resolution that is consistent with the physical beauty and high quality of life associated with Newport Beach. By installing the best available technology, Hoag can categorically put this issue behind it. We also ask you to support the implementation of one or more of the methods outlined in the Fluor report to mitigate the engine exhaust plumes. Noise — The hospital is currently out of compliance with the DA limitations on noise at the loading dock. Noise from the cogeneration plant is audible day and night, and substantially exceeds the City Noise Ordinance. Those standing in Sunset View Park are subjected to particularly high noise levels. We urge you to vote to require full mitigation of these noise sources as part of any modification of noise limitations currently in the DA. Lower Campus Lighting — Hoag's current lower campus lighting is out of compliance with the DA. The City is currently considering measures to bring the lighting back into compliance. One concept under consideration is to turn off lower campus parking lights in the late evening when the parking lot is not utilized. This is consistent with the City's practice in its own City Hall parking lot, and with "Dark Sky" initiatives around the country. Please consider adding language to the DA to include this approach. Roof -top Parking — The hospital has proposed building multi -level parking structures on the lower campus. These structures would include roof -top parking, which would be nearly flush with the nearby bluff. This would subject those standing in Sunset View Park or living in nearby residences to the air pollution, noise, and bright lights of cars operating at close proximity. Please consider an amendment to prohibit roof -top parking on the lower campus. Other issues of concern to local residents include keeping landscaping and trees on the lower campus in compliance with the DA, and elimination of the condensate plume which emanates from the Cancer Center. Building protections for the wider community into the DA sets the stage for sensitive, sustainable growth for Hoag. This ultimately serves the interests of the residents, the City, and the hospital. Thank you for your consideration of the issues described above. Sincerely,� /� S'eO /,l 1 �el z Name: Address: a70 23.4 Date: To: Members of the Newport Beach City Council Keith D. Curry Leslie Daigle Nancy Gardner Michael F. Henn Steve Rosansky Edward D. Selich Don Webb RE: Mitigation Measures for Hoag Hospital Honorable Members of the Council: As you are aware, on April 16t' the City Council will hold public hearings on Hoag Hospital's compliance with the Development Agreement (DA). Consideration will also be given to various amendments to the DA. As Hoag's closest neighbor, the residents of Villa Balboa are very supportive of the hospital's healthcare mission. Among our residents are many employees, volunteers, and patients of the hospital. However, our proximity also subjects us to many negative impacts, as the hospital has gradually grown from a small community facility into a huge regional medical center. As a result of Hoag's intense focus on its healthcare mission, it sometimes forgets the impact its nearly continuous construction and 24n operations have on the west Newport Beach area. The upcoming negotiations and vote on amending the DA offer a raze opportunity for the City to enhance this important document, which after all, was created to balance the hospital's request for wide latitude to develop its upper and lower campuses with the need to provide protections to the surrounding community. As we approach the meeting on April 16th, please give consideration to the following: Cogeneration Plant — The cogeneration plant Hoag built on its lower campus frequently emits billowing cooling tower and engine exhaust plumes, both of which are unsightly and degrade the quality of life in the west Newport Beach area. Because the plumes were not disclosed to the City or the Coastal Commission during the permitting process, no supplemental environmental impact report was prepared as was required by the DA. Further, Hoag's verbal and written statements over the last several years led residents to believe that no plumes would be visible from the plant during normal operations. Inclusion of "plume abatement" equipment is a standard feature of plants built in environmentally sensitive locations throughout California, the United States, and globally. Such equipment was included in the Hoag plant by its designers, but unfortunately was pulled out by hospital personnel to modestly reduce costs. On March 20th, after weeks of study, the Planning Commission voted to recommend mitigation of the cogeneration plant plumes. We urge you to support the installation of new, fully plume- abated cooling towers to definitively deal with the cooling tower plumes. Intermediate measures are unlikely to bring about a resolution that is consistent with the physical beauty and high quality of life associated with Newport Beach. By installing the best available technology, Hoag can categorically put this issue behind it. We also ask you to support the implementation of one or more of the methods outlined in the Fluor report to mitigate the engine exhaust plumes. Noise — The hospital is currently out of compliance with the DA limitations on noise at the loading dock. Noise from the cogeneration plant is audible day and night, and substantially exceeds the City Noise Ordinance. Those standing in Sunset View Park are subjected to particularly high noise levels. We urge you to vote to require full mitigation of these noise sources as part of any modification of noise limitations currently in the DA. Lower Campus Lighting — Hoag's current lower campus lighting is out of compliance with the DA. The City is currently considering measures to bring the lighting back into compliance. One concept under consideration is to turn off lower campus parking lights in the late evening when the parking lot is not utilized. This is consistent with the City's practice in its own City Hall parking lot, and with "Dark Sky" initiatives around the country. Please consider adding language to the DA to include this approach. Roof -ton Parking — The hospital has proposed building multi -level parking structures on the lower campus. These structures would include roof -top parking, which would be nearly flush with the nearby bluff. This would subject those standing in Sunset View Park or living in nearby residences to the air pollution, noise, and bright lights of cars operating at close proximity. Please consider an amendment to prohibit roof -top parking on the lower campus. Other issues of concern to local residents include keeping landscaping and trees on the lower campus in compliance with the DA, and elimination of the condensate plume which emanates from the Cancer Center. Building protections for the wider community into the DA sets the stage for sensitive, sustainable growth for Hoag. This ulti at y serve he interests of the residents, the City, and the hos ' Thank you yur corns ration of the issues described above. Sincerely, v � Name: Address: IjY✓R� 94 4a� 273A) bq CD Cn O < n � � O .O� O b' CD CD w CD CD C w K O CD ti CD CL �• �0 CD CD O CCDD G w Z w w O °g, 0 oa CL w CD � CD 4 CD CD , C. 0 CL CD CD .a S a ° CD RD v r. o ? CD C O 0• a W a . o ° w CD s CD W b CD 8o CD, ° CD E CD 0 °,s � G Q O C CD CD ti CD . Y � W oN E. Q. O r• w ro N C CD a F .o � CD a o 0 g o r CD 0 CD 6E1� CD ° y'4 GO CD ° " a wo° a CD • CD 5 - a Er o CD 0 � �°nCD CD 0 y �o w A. f CD `�- CD CD 0 a Y CD CD C CD a o�d�oi wow 0o� o �o d E N c x CD o' w Q"Rj x 4°..d c c co C0D � N CaD ,� pi 0 � Oq - W �q CD 4 0 'C3 "CD W w w 9� (1 �O�yJ r. ��•'•• N CD C G '+ K O CD n < O r1 W O R 'C N w w CD C CD 0 CD 0 CD CD o p CD o. C o CD c a a is w E4 Y a ti CD CD w CD ° Z CD tz� r ] 0 0 CD M CD CD o o ow Er w cs CD ° CD w O CD s CD c W CD o a o s 0 CD s CD CD o c 8 c 00 c s�'�• y 0 0 B CAD ° CD o CD o' CD i ID CD CD CD CD Un -� 0. CD CD CD C On March 20th, after weeks of study, the Planning Commission voted to recommend mitigation of the cogeneration plant plumes. We urge you to support the installation of new, fully plume- abated cooling towers to definitively deal with the cooling tower plumes. Intermediate measures are unlikely to bring about a resolution that is consistent with the physical beauty and high quality of life associated with Newport Beach. By installing the best available technology, Hoag can categorically put this issue behind it. We also ask you to support the implementation of one or more of the methods outlined in the Fluor report to mitigate the engine exhaust plumes. Noise — The hospital is currently out of compliance with the DA limitations on noise at the loading dock. Noise from the cogeneration plant is audible day and night, and substantially exceeds the City Noise Ordinance. Those standing in Sunset View Park are subjected to particularly high noise levels. We urge you to vote to require full mitigation of these noise sources as part of any modification of noise limitations currently in the DA. Lower Campus Liehtina — Hoag's current lower campus lighting is out of compliance with the DA. The City is currently considering measures to bring the lighting back into compliance. One concept under consideration is to turn off lower campus parking lights in the late evening when the parking lot is not utilized. This is consistent with the City's practice in its own City Hall parking lot, and.with "Dark Sky" initiatives around the country. Please consider adding language to the DA to include this approach. Roof -top Parking — The hospital has proposed building multi -level parking structures on the lower campus. These structures would include roof -top parking, which would be nearly flush with the nearby bluff. This would subject those standing in Sunset View Park or living in nearby residences to the air pollution, noise, and bright lights of cars operating at close proximity. Please consider an amendment to prohibit roof -top parking on the lower campus. Other issues of concern to local residents include keeping landscaping and trees on the lower campus in compliance with the DA, and elimination of the condensate plume which emanates from the Cancer Center. Building protections for the wider community into the DA sets the stage for sensitive, sustainable growth for Hoag. This ultimately serves the interests of the residents, the City, and the hospital. Thank you for your consideration of the issues described above. Sincerely, Name:�.1�UUQ�V�, Address: 2- v �307 23 -w Nancy M. Knight 270 Cagney Lane, No 301 Newport. Beach, California 92663 April 3, 2008 The Hon. Edward D. Selich and Members ofthe City Council City of Newport Beach ;300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach. CA 92663 Re: Hoag Hospital Ladies and Gentlemen: ,As a resident of Newport Beach ftr fifty t.wo years i have watched with pride the development of Hoag. Hospital from a 75 -bed commUrlity facility where the gust two of my fo -& children were burn to a 498 -bed ret ionat medical center. It's a fine hospital but not a good neighbor. .Inview'of Iloag Hospital's failure to comply with the 1992 Development ,,Agreement, negotiated to protect the nearby residential communities, l urge: the t-'. v Council to require all feasible mitigation measures when Considering 1h_- hospital's request for amendments. 'Tbe plumes emanating from the cogeneration plant on the lower campus are unsightly, not only for all the West Newport neighboring communities but l:or• those entering the city along Pacific Coast Highway and those who enjoy the Sunset View Park. Hoag hospital assured Villa Balboa residents at meetings and by n-ra.il that after a testing phase there would be no visible plumes. I-lad Hoag Hospital disclosed the plumes to the City when obtaining permits for the cogeneration plant. 1 am sure that a supplemental environmental impact report and plume abatement equipment would have been required. Instead. the hospital removed such equipment originatlyh i:nclucied in the plant's dcsispn irr nrder save a few dollars. Sure it will be expensive for Hoag to install Tww cooling 23,11 towers Nvith proper equipment, but a review of the public[\, avndable tax filings (Form 990) dernonstrates that the hospital can afford to do, what. should have been done when the plant was built. Hoag Hospital has failed to meet the noise restrictions in the Development Agreement. Proposals presented at the Planning Commission is the first attempt to deal with the noise issue and should be implemented as soon as possible, particularly before any new construction begins on the upper campus. The hospital has installed stadium lighting on the .lower campus and has spent the last six months assuring the neighbors that the lighting would be changed to be in compliance with the Development Agreement. I would to suggest that the City mandate that the lower campus lights be turned off at 9 pm and turned on at whatever hour staff' arrives to open. the Child Care Center. The lower campus is for daytime out - patient visits and it is a waste of energy to have the Iights on all night. Any amendments to the Development Agreement should prohibit roof top parking on any structure to be built on the lower campus. Of utmost concern is enforcement of the mitigation measures contained in the Development Agreement. Something as simple as maintenance of trees to comply with height restrictions, for example, has occurred only when the press covered the issue. In addition to annual reviews with public hearings, there must be some way to require the hospital to comply with the governing agreements. Residents of Villa Balboa appreciate the time the Planning coninnission took to listen to our concerns. We now look to the City Council to balance the interests of all the residents in the area when considering Ioag's request for amendments to the Development Agreement. Very truly yours, Nancy M. Knight 23 ,12 95 t4 � m le. / r7 WvV qja /a8 COGENERATION FACILITY FACTS THIS COGENERATION PLANT provides ESSENTIAL UTILITIES AND SERVICES TO OPERATE THE HOSPITAL and precludes impacts to patient services during an electricity brown out or blackout. FACTS: Q. What is the Cogen? A. The Cogen is a green facility that creates clean environmentally friendly electricity from natural gas to reduce Hoag's reliance on electricity. Using natural gas to create electricity reduces Hoag's "carbon footprint" while providing Hoag a more efficient and consistent energy source (See Exhibit "A" attached). The Cogen provides: 65 % -85% of Hoag Hospital's electricity for power and lighting 50% of the Hospital's needs for chilled water for cooling the buildings 25% of the Hospital's needs for hot water for building heating 2. Q. Is the Cogen operating with permits? A. The Cogen Plant is allowed under the Hoag Hospital Master Plan approved by the City of Newport Beach. AQMD, OSHPD (Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development) and the California Coastal Commission have also approved the fully permitted Cogen facility. 3. Q. What is the plume? A. The "Plume" is water vapor generated by the cooling towers and occurs only a few days a year (December to February or March seems to be the most relevant time of year for the generation of water vapor from the cooling towers) for a limited period, mostly during the morning hours when there is (a) a low ambient air temperature (generally below 55 °F) and (b) a high ambient relative humidity (generally above 65 %). Water vapor from the cooling towers was tracked for a 90 day period from April 20, 2007 to June 24, 2007 with findings showing less than 12 days where a significant water vapor was visible and during those days the average duration was 1.5 hours occurring between 7:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. During the winter months the occurrences may be more frequent in the morning hours, however such events vary depending on the micro climate (temperature and humidity). 4. Q. Is the plume a health risk or is it an aesthetic concern? A. The City's environmental health risk assessment expert has determined that the water vapor from the cooling towers is treated pursuant to proper protocols with multiple biocides and is not hazardous and does not create a health concern - -it is water vapor. The issue is primarily an aesthetic one. Updated 4/07/08 2 13 641184.07/OC H4081 -04 W- 7-08/gs"dmms 5. Q. Are cooling towers commonly fitted with "plume abatement "? A. Cooling towers are a common component in the chilled water systems for major projects. The cooling towers are used to remove heat from engine intercoolers and chillers and when the warm water passes through the cooling towers heat is rejected which creates the water vapor. Therefore it is the cooling towers not the Cogen Plant that creates the water vapor. Cooling towers are found all along the coast. Major hotels like the Balboa Bay Club have cooling towers. In the case of the Balboa Bay Club, there is no plume abatement system installed and there was no mitigation measure required in the EIR for a facility that is located in the Coastal Zone and is located below existing residential development. The City's and Hoag's engineering experts have been unable to identify any cooling towers in the California coastal zone with plume abatement systems. 6. Q. Will a plume abatement system (i) increase Hoag's energy use, or (ii) have a negative impact on the environment? A. Any system that is installed to reduce the water vapor plume will negatively impact the energy efficiency of the plant. This means it takes lots of energy to run an abatement system, the equivalent of the electrical use of 80 to 300 residential homes, depending on the mitigation approach, just for the operation of a system to reduce the water vapor plume during the few hours of the limited days a year the plume is visible. More importantly any plume abatement system will significantly increase Hoag's "carbon footprint ". The plume abatement systems evaluated by Fluor would increase Hoag emissions of carbon dioxide by between 111,000 and 150,000 lb /year. Q. Did engineering experts review the options for plume abatement? A. Hoag retained the services of 3 independent, highly experienced engineering firms (Syska Hennesy, Bock Engineering, Optimum System Solutions, Inc.) and 4 contractors (McCarthy Contractors, ACCO, Air Treatment and Control Air Conditioning Corporation) to review possible methods to reduce the water vapor plume. These engineers have independently reviewed options for the last 18 months and have worked cooperatively with the residents and the City to explore alternatives. The City of Newport Beach retained Fluor to further review possible methods. All of the experts reviewed 4 options and unanimously agree there is NO OFF THE SHELF FIX to reduce the water vapor plume. All of the engineers agree any mitigation system will need to be a custom fix for the Hoag facility: a. Option 1: operational change to reduce the plume by 5 to 15 %- Hoag has offered to implement this modification at its cost. A modest capital cost, an increase of utility cost as well as an estimated 67,500 lb /per year increase of Carbon Dioxide emissions; b. Option 2: retrofit a pump system to lower the water temperature in the cooling towers. Capital cost for this option is estimated at $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a 10 to 20% reduction (implemented in conjunction with Option 1). Increase utility cost as well as an estimated 135,000 lb /per year increase of Carbon Dioxide emissions; Z3.1L4 841184.07/OC H4081 -041!47- 08/gsm/mms. -2- C. Option 3A: install an air cooled heat exchanger in a 40'x 50' walled enclosure (approx. 25' high) in the area near PCH -- which includes fans needed for the air cooled heat exchanger which will have noise impacts that have not yet been measured. The cost for this Option 3A was established by 3 independent cost estimates (Syska: $5.74M =6.6M) (Fluor: $4.2M -5.5M) (McCarthy /Control Air Conditioning Corporation: $6.7M -7.2M) (cost estimates are plus or minus 30 %) for the full system implemented in conjunction with Option 1, the estimate of the reduction in the potential plume is approximately 50% at full load utilization. There will be a significant energy loss (loss of plant efficiency) for Hoag, an increase in utility cost (equivalent of approximately 240 residential homes) as well as an estimated 111,000 lb /per year increase of Carbon Dioxide; and d. Option 3: replace existing towers with new towers equipped with plume mitigation system (wet/dry tower) - cost approx $7.9 - 93M. The estimate of plume reduction is approximately 70% at full load utilization with a significant energy loss for Hoag, an increase utility cost (equivalent of approximately 300 residential homes) as well as an estimated 150,000 lb /per year increase of Carbon Dioxide emissions and 500 lb /year of Nitrous Oxide. 8. Q. Did the designers of the Cogen facility review plume mitigation options when it was designing the Cogen in 2002? Why was such system removed from the design? A. During the feasibility stage of design of the Cogen in 2002, the engineers evaluated options for water vapor mitigation. The engineers provided a cooling tower cost difference with and without plume abatement system. During this review process the engineers estimated the tower component difference to be approximately $390,000. However, it is important to understand this $390,000 is only a portion of the system required for plume mitigation. In addition to the plume abatement component for the towers the engineers described to Hoag that to support and implement such a system the plant would need to include additional major heat source equipment (increase boiler and -ancillary equipment size or add new equipment), additional steam and condensate piping, additional gas piping, additional electrical power, new control package, structural concrete platforms, related support systems, and an added 10 foot screen wall structure to the top of the towers (the Plume Reduction Support Systems). The design team considered multiple factors before they "value engineered" out the plume abatement system. Many factors were considered in the analysis and decision by Hoag that the system installation was not prudent including the loss of energy and significant reduction in plant efficiency, increase in noise due to the fan system, the fact that cooling towers were constructed up and down the California Coast and NONE that Hoag knew of had plume reduction systems, there were no examples of the plume reduction technology on cooling towers and therefore no guarantee as to outcome in the coastal zone, and the excessive capital cost to install a custom system. Please note the system costs today and in 2002 do not vary much (see estimates in Option 3). *L3 \S 84118C07/0C H4081- 04114- 7 -081gsnmms -3- 9. Q. Has Fluor built a plume abatement system in the California Coastal Zone? A. Plume abatement in a California Coastal Zone is so rare that Fluor was retained to review options. Notwithstanding Fluor's extensive experience they have not been able to identify ANY projects in the California Coastal Zone that they have worked on with plume abatement technology. Hoag retained several of the highest volume engineers and contractors in California to help identify such projects and they did not find examples anywhere in California - -SF Bay area to San Diego, except for 1 power plant in Carlsbad. 10. Q. How is methane in the area mitigated? A. Hoag has implemented a system which benefits the public by collecting methane from beneath City land and residential land on the other side of PCH. The methane deposit in the area is significant and Hoag previously supported a flare system to burn the methane. Currently methane is gathered on the lower campus and pumped to the upper campus where it is filtered, metered, and used to operate a boiler. Hoag currently does not burn off any unused methane though a flare. A by- product of the methane flare was a sulfur smell which has been eliminated. Are there examples of cooling towers in California with and without plume abatement? A. Examples of cooling towers in view sensitive coastal areas — none of these cooling towers have plume abatement systems: a. Balboa Bay Club — Newport Beach (2 cell unit from Marley) b. South Coast Medical Center - Laguna Beach C. Hyatt Huntington Beach (2 cell unit from Baltimore Air Coil) d. The Inn at Spanish Bay — Pebble Beach (Evapco units) e. Pebble Beach Lodge, Pebble Beach (Evapco units) f. Hyatt Mission Bay — San Diego Hilton — Huntington Beach h. Lowes Santa Monica Beach Hotel (Baltimore Air Coil units) 773A1 841184.07/OC H4081- 041 /4- 7- Wgsm/m s -4- EXHIBIT "A" Cogencra Cogeneration is a mechanical operation that uses one energy source to produce two separate forms of energy. in Hoag's application, natural gas is being used to'produce electricity and heat, which is then used to produce hot water and cbilied water. The construction of the Cogmcration.Plam on Hoag Hospital's Lower Campus is in direct response to the wave of power shortages California wtporienced in 1999 and 2000. Hoag Hospital was forced onto its back -up systems numerous times as the Southern California Edison system failed to meet the power needs of the hospital, the county, and the state as a whole. The Hoag Hospital Board of Directors issued a charge to the hospital management to insure no patient was put in jeopardy due to lower failure. The solution was for the hospital to generate its own power source, and to shift Southern California Edison to a back -up option, along with the diesel generators already on the hospital campus. The current system's redundancy ensures no surgeon at Hoag Hospital will be faced with the situation of having a patient receiving medical services or having surgery, and there be no power to run the lights or the sophisticated equipment needed to provide medical treatment to save a life. As the primary source of electricity for the 38 -acre hospital campus, the two -story, 24,000 squaro-foot Cogeneration facility houses generators capable of supplying as much as 4.5 megawatts of power which provides for 65 -85% of Hong Hospital's current and anticipated power needs. Additionally, the Cogeneration Plant provides the Women's Pavilion, and future hospital facilities on the Upper and Lower Campuses with chilled water. Hoag Hospital's Cogeneration Plant utilizes three 16 cylinder, 2,000 hp natural gas -fired reciprocated cagines as the primary,enorgy. source. Each engine is linked to a generator to produce olectricity, which, in parallel with Southem California F.diso% provides the hospital with the electricity it requires. The system, via Waste Heat Recovery Units, and absorption chillers, also produces chilled water which is pumped to the majority of buildings on campus to provide air conditioning. Finally, the system, via heat exchanges, provides hot water for the hospital. The bulk of the building construction took place during 2004 and 2005. The natural gas -fired engines, absorption chillers, electrical chiller, natural gas -fired boiler, and the four cooling towers associated with the Cogeneration Plant have been installed and are being used to support Hoag Hospital operations. (The fourth cooling tower was permitted by OSHPD and has been operational since November, 2007.) The City provided an Approval in Concept (AIC) for the Cogeneration project on September 17, 2002, and the California Coastal Commission approved the project on December 10, 2002. The adjacent neighbors were informed of the project as evidenced by minutes of the Villa Balboa Association .meeting on November 19, 2002. Coastal Development Permit No. 5-02 -325 was subsequently issued on June 12, 2003. Several permits were issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the Cogeneration Plant project The grading permit for the Cogeneration Plant was issued by the City on July 22, 2003, and project construction commenced on August 26, 2003. The Cogeneration Plant is fully operational and providing electricity, chilled water, and hot air for Hoag Hospital. The plant is fully permitted by all relevant agencies including the City of Newport Beach, the California Coastal Commission, OSHPD, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District Zgmd1 841184.07100 H4081 -041/4- 8-08 1g9m1mms EXHIBIT "A" President Emeritus: WEST NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATIONY Alan Silcock POST OFFICE BOX 14671 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659 -04671 President: www.westnewport.ora Paul Watkins April 2, 2008 West Oceanfront 7141556 -0800 City Council of Newport Beach Vice President: 3300 Newport Blvd Elliot Leonard Newport Beach, CA 92663 West Oceanfront 9491515 -4911 Re: Hoag Hospital Cogeneration Plant /Cooling Towers Secretary/Membership. Chris Garber Honorable Council Members: Lido Peninsula Resort 9491246 -8383 The West Newport Beach Association represents residents, homeowners, and FRstorian: business owners located in and around the West Newport' area. By bringing Mike Johnson together these diverse entities, our mission is to provide a united voice on issues Numbered Streers related to the social, economic, and environmental wellbeing of our community. 9491642 -3125 Treasurer: One issue of concern to our members is the impact that the Hoag cogeneration Ann Krueger plant /cooling towers are having on the west Newport Beach area. While we Newport Shares 9491642 -2646 recognize e and appreciate the many benefits Hoag Hospital brings gs to our city, � we believe it is reasonable to ask that those who maintain and operate facilities here be °lima's: asked to adhere to the highest standards of sensitivity to the community. As a Craig Bailey w coastal community with a reputation for exceptional beauty, maintaining such high Absentee Owners Liaison 9491193 -4630 standards is critical to maintaining our quality of life and economic vitality. Sharon Boles Superior Ave. Liaison Currently, the cogeneration plant /cooling towers emit visible cooling tower and 949645 -4752 engine exhaust plumes. Under certain atmospheric conditions, the cooling tower Ken Bryant plumes are extremely dense, and may rise over one hundred feet above the plant. NumbeSrrats Since the plant is located in the heart of the area we represent, they are visible from 9491644 -6266 a number of residential areas, parks, and major thoroughfares, including Pacific Coast Highway. As the byproduct of an industrial process, the visual impact is Mary Bryant Numbered streets unaesthetic, and not in keeping with the character of the area. The plumes that 9491644 -6266 come from the plant's exhaust stacks have a similar impact on those who use and Joann Larson enjoy Sunset View Park, or live near the plant. Numbered Streets 9491650 -5533 The C ommission recently voted to recommend that the co g eneration plant be retrofitted to definitively address the plumes. We urge the City Council to Newport port t i sland implement this recommendation by voting to deploy the best available technology Ne 9491933 -9817 to make the plant as compatible as possible with the surrounding community and Ann O'Flynn to also address the heat wave radiation and noise level issues. Balboa Coves 9491645 -8133 EvereaePhtlltps Best regards, Newport Shores 9491650 -7518 WMT NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATION Robert Rush RiverlNeptune 9491645 -2977 By. ` �y®•a•M� Barbara7%lbaulr Paul K. Watkins, Newport Shores President 9491642 -5843 PKWlbag VILLA BALBOA r April 2, 2008 Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915 Re: Hoag Memorial Hospital Master Plan Amendment Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Villa Balboa Community Association, I would like to urge the City Council to require Hoag Hospital to comply with the provisions of the 1992 Planned Community Development Agreement (PDCA) and the 1994 Development Agreement (DA) prior to allowing the hospital to transfer allowable square footage from the lower campus to the upper campus. Those agreements were negotiated to protect the neighborhoods existing before the hospital began its transformation from a community hospital to a regional medical center. The Villa Balboa Community of 449 condominiums with some 800 residents does not object to Hoag Hospital's request to transfer allowable square footage from the lower campus to the upper campus. We do object, however, to the fact that Hoag has failed to comply with the noise limitations in the PDCA and DA agreements, has constructed a cogeneration plant that emits large plumes of condensate and engine exhaust that obscure views of the Pacific Ocean and Newport Peninsula not only of our residents, but also of those who enjoy Sunset View Park. The fact that plumes would be a part of the plant's operations was not disclosed to the City, the Coastal Commission, or to the residents prior to construction of the facility. In fact, Hoag specifically represented. to residents on multiple occasions that there would be no plumes after the initial testing phase. There are also plumes coming from equipment associated with the Cancer Center on the lower campus. Residents were told that once the cogeneration plant was on line there would no longer be such plumes from the Cancer Center. While not as large and as opaque as those created by the cogeneration plant, these plumes are unsightly. Hoag Hospital has also not complied with the lighting restrictions in the agreements, which require concealment of light sources and minimization of light spillage and glare to the adjacent residences. For the last six months we have been assured that the lighting of the lower campus would be modified but to date we have seen no correction of the violation. We would also like the City to consider whether those lights should be left on all night. We note that the City Hall and nearby market turn off the lights at midnight. Since there are only outpatient facilities and the child care center on the lower campus we do not understand why the lights could not be Managing Agent: Villageway Management, Inc. P.O. Box 4708 • Irvine, CA 92616 -4708 • t949I 450 -1515 • FAX (949) 585 - 01462 �� turned off by 9:00 pm. We understand the need for early morning lighting at the child care center when staff arrives, but there should be no need for lights before 5 am. The hospital has failed to maintain trees in accordance with the height limitations, and has failed to provide additional landscaping promised to the residents of Villa Balboa at a meeting on March 14, 2007. The hospital has repeatedly violated provisions that restrict construction and related activities to the hours of 7 am to 6 pm during the week at 8 am to 6 pm on Saturdays. Hospital representatives have described Hoag a "living organism" and admit that construction will go on for the next ten years. We respectfully urge the City to require compliance with the agreements. With the transfer of patient care facilities from the lower to the upper campus, Villa Balboa residents anticipate that construction on the lower campus may include additional parking structures. The amendments to the PDCA and PA should include a prohibition against rooftop parking which will send exhaust fumes and lights directly into our first floor units and into Sunset View Park with the prevailing offshore breezes. Form 990 required of charitable organizations claiming exemption from taxation under Section 501C (3) of the Internal Revenue Code demonstrates that while the hospital is "non- profit" it generates substantial untaxed income which enables it to perform the remediation measures required in the agreements without in any way compromising the quality of health care services. Approximately eighteen months ago the Board of Directors of Villa Balboa appointed an Executive Committee to work with Hoag Hospital in an attempt to reach acceptable solutions to the problems cited above. The hospital engaged a public relations firm, Government Solutions, to meet with our committee. At first there appeared to be a willingness of the hospital's part to meet and work with our committee. However, Hoag effectively cut off communications in September, 2007, when they failed to agree to retrofit the cogeneration plant or implement specific promises made to Villa Balboa regarding a wide range of issues. Hoag Hospital is an asset to our community and the residents of Villa Balboa appreciate the quality of medical services the hospital provides. However, we believe that the City Council must enforce the provisions of the 1992 and 1994 agreements which were specially negotiated to protect the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the hospital as well as the Sunset View Park. We respectfully request that the city Council require Hoag Hospital to comply with the mitigation measures in the agreements and eliminate the cooling tower and engine exhaust plumes coming from the cogeneration plant within eighteen months as a condition for approval for amending the Development Agreement. Very truly ours Carleen Hallstead President 736310 Jackson I DeMarcoI Tidus Petersen I Peckenpaugh A L A W C O R P O R A T I O N Villa Balboa Homeowner's Association's Comments Regarding the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan Amendment Submitted By Alene M. Taber, Esq., AICP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission March 20, 2008 Noise Impact Mitigation Does Not Comply with CEOA The Noise Impact Mitigation Measures are Inadequate • Mitigation is improperly deferred; there is no assurance that the mitigation measures will ever be implemented • There are no performance standards Performance standards and plan components must be clarified. (for example, upgrades to sliding glass doors, balcony doors and stucco repair should be specified) • Unreasonable qualifications on HOAG's mitigation obligations related to window and building upgrades: (1) narrow scope of units to be covered; (2) cost limitations ($100,000); and (3) unreasonably short resident response time (2 weeks) • Cost limitations are arbitrary and improper; there is no analysis of whether mitigation can be carried out within cost limitations Estimcited mitigation costs should be fully funded by HOAG • Villa Balboa should not, be responsible for contracting and implementing HOAG's mitigation measures 2. Soundwall Is Not Adequately Analyzed and Defined as Mitigation Soundwall has not been described with sufficient detail to analyze its impacts The letter sent to the Villa Balboa homeowners was missing the page that describes the sound wall (Page 2); not sufficient public notice Feasibility and critical design analysis is deferred; insufficient information about whether sound wall can be sited as proposed, or if existing underground utilities or other constraints may prevent a sound wall at that location 3. Landscape Program is Inadequate • No performance standards or components are specified to guide landscape plan development • Landscape plan should be approved by planning commission not planning director • Like vegetation (tall, mature trees) should be planted on Villa Balboa's side of sound wall Irvine Office Westlake Village Office 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 www.jdtplaw.cofn Irvine, California 92614 Westlake village, California 91361 t 949.752.8585 f 949.752.0597 t 805.230.0023 f 805.230.0087 4. Potential feasible mitigation measures are improperly omitted • Enclosing loading dock and driveway • Relocation of loading dock Cogeneration Facility Impact Analysis Has Not Been Subiect to Public Review 5. Fluor Enterprises Report Was Not Included in the SEIR Circulated for Public Review • The City is making a decision without public review of the report in violation of CEQA; there must be adequate opportunity for public and Commissioners to review Flour Report • Fluor Report was made available only yesterday 6. HOAG Must Mitigate Existing and Future Increase in Cogeneration Plant Plumes and Assess All Potential Emissions • Plumes obstruct views from public park, encroach onto Villa Balboa property and may expose residents and the public to increased health risks Lighting Impacts Are Not Adequately Analyzed and Mitigated HOAG Must Comply With Existing Lighting Standards • Despite repeated complaints, HOAG maintains unshielded bright lights directed upward in the lower campus childcare parking lot The City Failed to Enforce HAOG's Mitigation and Enforcement Obligations 8. The City Must Specify Monitoring and Enforcement Obligations City has failed to comply with requirement for annual meeting to review HOAG's operations and failed to enforce HOAG's compliance with previously imposed noise, lighting and environmental review standards City Council should conduct the required review of HOAG's operations prior to considering HOAG's pending application City must clarify mitigation and enforcement obligations in order to prevent HOAG's continued noncompliance 9. City Must Prohibit Roof Top Panting Lots at the Lower Campus • Previously proposed roof top parking would result in impacts including glare, fumes and noise from vehicles and car alarms inconsistent and not compatible with the adjacent residential uses and public park 'Z�3Z if l °g M•. TL,6.+o (Adopted August 3, 1990)(Amended September 7, 1990)(Amended August 12, 1994) (Amended December 9, 1994)(Amended November 14, 1997) (Amended June 3, 2005)(Amended February 1, 2008) RULE 1110.2 EMISSIONS FROM GASEOUS - AND LIQUID - FUELED ENGINES (a) Purpose The purpose of Rule 1110.2 is to reduce Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and Carbon Monoxide (CO) from engines. (b) Applicability All stationary and portable engines over 50 rated brake horsepgwer (bhP1 are subject to this rule. (c) Definitions For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall apply: (1) AGRICULTURAL STATIONARY ENGINE is a non - portable engine used for the growing and harvesting of crops or the raising of fowl or animals for the primary purpose of making a profit, providing a livelihood, or conducting agricultural research or instruction by an educational institution. An engine used for the processing or distribution of crops or fowl or animals is not an agricultural engine. (2) APPROVED EMISSION CONTROL PLAN is a control plan, submitted on or before December 31, 1992, and approved by the Executive Officer prior to November 14, 1997, a ser.,.:.,.. all aeliMIS °° that was required bV subdiNision (d) of this rule as amended September 7 1990. (3) CERTIFIED SPARK - IGNITION ENGINES mean engines certified by California Air Resources Board (CARB) to meet emission standards in accordance with Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.5 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). (4) .EMERGENCY STANDBY ENGINE is an engine which operates as a temporary replacement for.primary mechanical or electrical power during 23.33 1110.2-1 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) periods of fuel or energy shortage or while the primary power supply is under repair. (5) ENGINE is any spark- or compression - ignited internal combustion engine, including engines used for control of VOCs, but not including engines used for self - propulsion. (6) EXEMPT COMPOUNDS are defined in District Rule 102 - Definition of Terms. (7) FACILITY means any source or group of sources or other air contaminant emitting activities which are located on one or more contiguous properties within the District, in actual physical contact or separated solely by a public roadway or other public right -of -way, and are owned or operated by the same person (or by persons under common control), or an outer continental shelf (OCS) source as determined in Section 55.2 of Title 40, Part 55 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 55). Such above - described groups, if noncontiguous, but connected only by land carrying a pipeline, shall not be considered one facility. Sources or installations involved in crude oil and gas production in Southern California Coastal or OCS Waters and transport of such crude oil and gas in Southern California Coastal or OCS Waters shall be included in the same facility which is under the same ownership or use entitlement as the crude oil and gas production facility on- shore. (8) LEAN -BURN ENGINE means an engine that operates with high levels of excess air and an exhaust oxygen concentration ofmater than 4 percent. (9S) LOCATION means any single site at a building, structure, facility, or installation. For the purpose of this definition, a site is a space occupied or to be occupied by an engine. For engines which are brought to a facility to perform maintenance on equipment at its permanent or ordinary location, each maintenance site shall be a separate location. (1_0 NET ELECTRICAL ENERGY nrcans the electrical enen-n produced by a gencrator. less the electrical energy consumed by any auxiliary eqLHPmcnt necessary to operate the engine generator ;md. if applicable. am heat recoycry equipment. such ac heat exchamacrs 1(4) NON -ROAD ENGINE is any engine, defined under 40 CFR Part 89, that does not. remain or will not remain at a location for more than 12 consecutive months, or a shorter period of time where such period is representative of normal annual source operation at a stationary source z3.3\A 1110.2-2 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) that resides at a fixed location for more than 12 months (e.g., seasonal operations such as canning facilities), and meets one of the following: (A) Is used in or on a piece of equipment that is self - propelled or serves a dual purpose by both propelling itself and performing another function (such as a mobile crane); or (B) Is used in or on a piece of equipment that is intended to be propelled while performing its function (such as lawn mowers and string trimmers); or (C) By itself, or in or on a piece of equipment, is portable or transportable, meaning designed to be and capable of being carried or moved from one location to another. Transportability includes, but is not limited to, wheels, skids, carrying handles, dolly, trailer, platform or mounting. (12) OPERATING CYCLE means a period of time within which a round of regularly recurring events is completed, and cannot be stopped without the risk of endangering public safety or health, causing material damage to the Nuipment or product. or cannot be stopped due to technical constraints. Economic reasons alone will not be sufficient to extend this time period. The operating cycle includes batch processes that may start and finish several times within a twentv -four hour period, in which case each start to finish interval is considered a complete c, c�le. 113) OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NOx) means nitric oxide and nitroecn dioxide (140) PORTABLE ENGINE is an engine that, by itself or in or on a piece of equipment, is designed to be and capable of being carried or moved from one location to another. Indications of portability include, but are not limited to, wheels, skids, carrying handles, dolly, trailer, platform or mounting. The operator must demonstrate the necessity of the engine being periodically moved from one location to another because of the nature of the operation. An engine is not portable if: (A) the engine or its replacement remains or will reside at the same location for more than 12 consecutive months. Any engine, such as a back -up or stand -by engine, that replaces an engine at a location and is intended to perform the same function as the engine being replaced, will be included in calculating the consecutive time period. In that case, the cumulative time of both engines, 1110.2 -3 j�j +35 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) including the time between the removal of the original engine and installation of the replacement engine, will be counted toward the consecutive time period; or (B) the engine remains or will reside at a location for less than 12 consecutive months where such a period represents the full length of normal annual source operations such as a seasonal source; or (C) the engine is removed from one location for a period and then it or its equivalent is returned to the same location thereby circumventing the portable engine residence time requirements. The period during which the engine is maintained at a designated storage facility shall be excluded from the residency time determination. (15 +) RATED BRAKE HORSEPOWER (bhp) is the rating specified by the manufacturer, without regard to any derating, and listed on the engine nameplate. (16) RICH -BURN ENGINE WITH A THREE -1\ AY CATALYST means an ew-nne d8siRned to overate near stoichiometric conditions with a catalvtic control device that simultaneously reduces emissions of NOx. CO and Wk. (173) STATIONARY ENGINE is an engine which is either attached to a foundation or if not so attached, does not meet the definition of a portable or non -road engine and is not a motor vehicle as defined in Section 415 of the California Vehicle Code. (IL:.) TIER 2 AND TIER 3 DIESEL ENGINES mean engines certified by CARB to meet Tier 2 or Tier 3 emission standards in accordance with Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4 of the CCR. (19) USEFUL HEAT RECOVERED means the wastc heat recovered from the em'ine exhaust and'or coolim_ system that is put to productive use The \raste heat reemered may by assumed to be 100o useful unless the hot ±ater. Steam or other medium is Vented to the auuaSphere, or sent directly to a co)olin_* to\\er or other unproductive U.W. ('04 -+) VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) is as defined in Rule 102. (d) Requirements (1) Stationary Engines -I i,,,it : (A) Operators of stationary engines with an amended Rule 1110.1 Emission Control Plan submitted by July 1, 1991, or an Approved 1110.2 -4 133� Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) Emission Control Plan, designating the permanent removal of engines or the replacement of engines with electric motors, in accordance with subparagraph (d)(1)(13), shall do so by December 31, 1999, or not operate the engines on or after December 31, 1999 in a manner that exceeds the emission concentration limits listed in Table I: ' Parts per million by volume, cCorrected to 15% oxygen on a dry basis and averaged over 15 minutes. 2 Parts per million by volume, mMeasured as carbon con•ceted to 15% oxvacp on a dry basis and avcraied over the satnplim, time required by the test method. (B) The operator of any other stationary engine subject to this rule shall (i) Remove such engine permanently from service or replace the engine with an electric motor, or (ii) Not operate the engine in a manner that exceeds the emission concentration limits listed in Tabler4BI=F 11. TABLE II TABLE I NO,- rm]vd ' ALTERNATIVE TO ELECTRIFICATION CO mvd ' CONCENTRATION LIMITS A-n NO, blip = 500: 36 VOC 2000 CO (ppmvd )l (ppmvd)'=2 EFFECTIVE JULY 1 2010 (PPm�t 11 fit)(PI1mVd)' 30 1 bhp :? 500: 311 70 ' Parts per million by volume, cCorrected to 15% oxygen on a dry basis and averaged over 15 minutes. 2 Parts per million by volume, mMeasured as carbon con•ceted to 15% oxvacp on a dry basis and avcraied over the satnplim, time required by the test method. (B) The operator of any other stationary engine subject to this rule shall (i) Remove such engine permanently from service or replace the engine with an electric motor, or (ii) Not operate the engine in a manner that exceeds the emission concentration limits listed in Tabler4BI=F 11. TABLE II CONCENTRATION LEMTS NO,- rm]vd ' VOC mvd ' CO mvd ' `fir "�1 A-n i blip = 500: 36 250 2000 blip < 500: 45 CONCENTRATION LI'91TS EFFECTIVE JULY 1 2010 0,qn iyd11 \��)(< (ppnlVdl`' fit)(PI1mVd)' blip? 500: 11 1 bhp :? 500: 311 1 bhp > 500: 250 -2-,3 75-) 1110.2-5 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) bhp < 500: 45 bhp < 500: 250 1 blip < 500: 2000 CONCENTRATION LINIITS EFFECTIVE JULIA, 2011 NO. mvd VOC (ppmvdl' CO (pinnvd) ll 20 1 250 t Parts per million by volume, cE=orrected to 15% oxygen on a dry basis and averaged over 15 minutes. 2 Parts per million by volume, mMeasured as carbon. corrected to 15% oxygen on a dry basis and averaged over the sampling, tine required by the test nntbod. The concentration limits effective on and after Jul 1. 2010 shall not appl to o engines that operate less than 500 hours per Year or use less than 1 x 109 Britisl, Thermal Unit; (Btusl per year (higher heating value) of fuel. If the operator of a two-stroke engine equiptmd with an oxidation catalvst and insulated exhaust ducts and catalyst housing demonstrates that the CO and VOC limits effective on and after July 1. 2010 are not achievable, then the Executive Officer may. with United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval. establish technologicalhv achievable, case -by -case CO and VOC limits in place of the concentration limits effective on and after Julv 1. 2010. The case -by -case limits shall not exceed 250 ppmvd VOC and 2000 ppmvd CO. If the operator of an engine that uses non - pipeline quality natural gas demonstrates that due to the varying heating value of the gas a lamer averaging time is necessary, the Executive Officer may establish for the engine a longer averaging time, not to exceed six hours, for any of the concentration limits of Table II. Non - pipeline quality natural gas is agas that does not meet the gas specifications of the local ag s utility and is not supplied to the local gas utility. (C) Notwithstanding the provisions in subparagraph (d)(1)(B), the operator of any stationary engine tired by landfill or digestor gas io as deseribed •i � Table ".; shall not operate the engine in a manner that exceeds r»the emission concentration limits of Table 1110.2-6 Rule 1110.2 (Coot) (Amended February 1, 2008) Ill, provided that the facility monthly average bio as usage by the bio ag s engines is 90% or more, based on the higher heating value of the fuels used. The calculation of the monthly facility biogas use percentage may exclude natural gas fired during: any electrical outage at the facility: a Stage 2 or higher electrical ewer eg ncies called by the California Independent System Operator Corporation; and when a sewage treatment plant activates an Emergency Operations Center or Incident Command System, as part of an emergency response plan, because of either high influent flows caused by precipitation or a disaster. eoFFeeied ;o 15 PeFeeill 15 nl !IwLsn 00" the e'+ti1 ss ` 1:.,,'.i t N of The conccntration limits eftcclivc on and after July I. 2012 shall become clTective urovided the Executive Ofticcr conducts a tcchnololav asscssmcnl that eonfirtrts that the limits are achievable. and repots to the Governing Board by July 2010. at a regularly scheduled public mecting. The conccntration limits clTwive on and aticr Julv 1. 2012 shall not apply to cngincs that operate less than x00 hours per year or use IuS than I x 10° BRIS per vicar (higher healing value) of fuel. TABLE 111 CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR LANDFILL AND DIGESTOR GAS -FIRED ENGINES NO, Wgmyd ' COlppmvdl' bhp > 500: 36 x ECF� Landfill Gas: 40 Di -csior Gas: 250 x ECF' 2000 blip < 500: 45 x ECF' CONCENTRATION LIMITS EFFECTIVE JULY 1 2012 NO, mivd VOC g myL I CO (ppmvd)' 11 I i0 3s(1 Parts per million by volume, corrected to 15% oxvgcn on a dr\ basis and averaged over 15 minuteS. '' Parts per million by volume, mcaSUrcd as carbon. conrcicd to I5 "1 uxv�,cn on a do basis and a�rrased over the Sampline time Z 3.3°1 1110.2-7 Rule 1110.2 (Cont) (Amended February 1, 2008) rcguircd M the test method. FCF is the cfficiencv con'cetion factor. The ECF :hall be LO unless: ti) The cnt=.inc olmrator ]),,is nicasurcd the engine's nit specific energy consumption (4). in conipliance with ASMG Performance Test Code PTC 17 -1973, ai the averauc load ol,thc emwinc; and (ii) The ECF - corrected emission limit is made a condition of the cn�-inc's periiit to operate. The FCF is as follm%s: GCF — 9250 Btu'hp -hr Measured u in Btus•hp -hr Mea¢Ured U ,hall be Wsed on the lower hruini, Nnluc of the furl GCF shall not -bc less than 1.0. The Executive officer may glMve the burning of more than 10% natural gas in a landfill or digestor gas -fired engine when it is necessary, if, the only alternative to limiting natural gas to 10% would be shutting down the engine and flaring more landfill or di eg stor gas, or the engine requires more natural gas in order for a waste heat recovery boiler to provide enough thermal energy to overate a sewage treatment plant and other boilers at the facility are unable to provide the necessary thermal energy_. Once an engine ct�mplics mith concentration limits ctfcctiN'c on and alier JUI\- I, 2012. there shall be no liniit on the percentage of natural gas burned. CONCENTRATION LIMIT FOR.-MULA. 1110.2-8 2-70yo Rule 1110.2 (Cont) (Amended February 1, 2008) TABLE REF-FRENIC E LIMITS. .. 94ffRAtF"} -1401 +Vc 41111...�_gii k7-F 344 2-slo TL..., [flit -rnxrti --crc� 1110.2-9 Z3;-) Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) M. u (D) The operator of any new engine subject to subparagraph (e)(1 -2)(B) shall: (i) Comply with the requirements of Best Available Control Technology in accordance with Regulation XHI if the engine requires a District permit; or (ii) Not operate the engine in a manner that exceeds the emission concentration limits in Tabled I if the engine does not require a District permit. (F) By February 1, 2009. the operator of a spark- i_mited enainc without a Rule 218- approccd continuous emission iiimitorim. system (C'EMS) or a RCStUIatlDil XX (RF_C'LAIM)- approved CENTS shall equip and maintain the engine with an air -to -fuel ratio controller with an ox%een sensor and feedback comrol, or other equivalent technology approved by the Executive Officer. GARB and EPA. (FI New Non- Emerecnc%o Flectrical Generators (i). : All ne%% non- emcreencv enaincs dri%ine electrical ' venerators shall compht with the following emission standards: TABLE IV EMISSION STANDARDS FOR NEW ELECTRICAL GENERATION ENGINES Pollutant Emission Standard (Ibsf31!'1'-hr)t NOx 0.070 CO 0.20 voC' 0 -10- 1110.2-10 Z3,yZ Rule 1110.2 (Cont) (Amended February 1, 2008) 1. The axcrnwina time of the cmission standards is I minutes for NOx and CO and the sanding time required be the test method for VOC, except as dcscribcd in the follow ill'-' clause. 3. Mass cmissions of VOC shall be calculated ustne a ratio of 16 -04 pounds of VOC per lb-mole of carbon.. ii Eneincs subject to this subparagraph that produce combined heat and electrical power may include one mcaawatt -hoot- (M\\ —hi—) for each 3.4 million Btrls of usefid heat recoycred (MWh -hr), in addition to each MW -hr of net electricity roduced (M)Mg hr). The compliancc of such engines shall be based on the following equation: Lbs Lbs x Electrical Encr,y Factor(EEF) \1W-hr MW, -hr Where: Lbs; MNV -hr = The calculated cmissions that shall comply= with the cmission standards in Table IV Lb,j NINNY. hr— The short -tenn cngine emission limit in pounds per MW, -hr of net electrical cncr.V produced, avcra,cd oxcr 15 minutcs. The cnginc shall comply With this limit at all times. EEF =- The annual MW. -hrs of net electrical cnergy produccd divided by the sum of annual MW,: hrs plus annual MW,i, -hrs of useful heat recovered. The (nnginc operator shall demonstrate annually that the EEF is Icss than the value required Ior compliance. (iii) For combined heat and power cngincs, the shirt -term cmissiim limits in Ibs•MW, -hr and the maximum allowed annual EEF must be selected by operator and stated on the operaunc pernut- (iv) Notwithstandin, Rulc 2001, the trquiremcnis of this subparagraph shall apply to NOx cmissions from new non- 1110.2-11 23N?, Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) cmcracney cnaincs driving electrical- acncrators subicct to Regulation Xk (RECLAIM). (c) This subparauraph does not apply to: cnaincs installed prior to February 1, 2008: engines issued a permit to construct prior to February 1, 2008 and installed within 12 months of the date of the permit to construct; cnaincs for which an application is dccmcd complete by October I. 2007; engines installed by an elecu-ic utility on Santa Catalina Island: engines installed at remote locations without access to natural gas and electric power: engines used to supply electrical power to ocean -going vessels while at berth, prior to January 1, 2014; or landfill or digestor gas -fired cnaincs that meet the rcyuircmcnts of subparagraph (d)( I )(C'). (2) Portable Engines: (,N) T110 ....efa!01- ..f....,..3.....61. .....;... ...6'.,,..:. ,6'- .-. 1., .6.11. ,6 I -I 1110.2 -12 23 �� Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) TABLE A% T POPTA Uf C SPARK 1l:T?1TION FNGINE ,,\\ GONGr NTP ATWI LIMITS ITC **�� 1- -01 VGUG GO 80 240 176 ppm Pu.ed Wake L ,f P e,. : - "rr` !':.....,r.... Th... CO A ...1 i 7-h{%--1317}R4 -'CFO l 00 Fhb.. 41 ,.-h...h.,, -`. r Th-1 all 1 1 7 ,.,,.J n .I... Fee 6,::, ,d..., .:,,, 6,., ..,.....1 - tm�- rc:?rrt Than .0 Greateq- Than el, Pqttal To WO 535 P13H14 NO,. (7.0 g1blip !I!-). OF 440elial-geF Mid (A4) The operator of any portable engine generator subject to this rule shall not use the portable generator for: (i) Power production into the electric grid, except to maintain grid stability during an emergency event or other unforeseen event that affects grid stability; or (ii) Primary or supplemental power to a building, facility, stationary source, or stationary equipment, except during unforeseen interruptions of electrical power from the Z�A5 1110.2-13 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) serving utility, maintenance and repair operations, and remote operations where grid power is unavailable. For interruptions of electrical power, the operation of a portable generator shall not exceed the time of the actual interruption of power. This subparagraph shall not apply to a portable generator that complies with emission concentration limits of Table I and the other requirements in this rule applicable to stationary engines, (B) The operator of any1iortablc diesel ermine Shall comph with the applicable rcnuircments of the Subchantcr 7,5 Airbonu Toxic Control WaSLJIV for diesel particulatC matter in Chapter 1. Division 3, Title 17 of the Calilbrnia Codc of Rcl_ulatiols. (C) The operator of any portablc Spark- i_nitcd engine shall .come kith ncc applicable I-Cquircments of the Larec Spark Ignition Enuine Ficct Requirements, Article 2. Chapter 15. Division Titic 13 of the Calilbrnia Codc of Rcaulations. (e) Compliance ( I 1 Pkffla -I or The e...- J' ...,rtabl, ,.,..idl e., ....Neel ;o ,h, - ) i L s ti.,- ...h: ,1. .l :lien.' .dd deed (-B) , E.r zlrelnesettg+.,e --n,� "1aol a ,a 10 e0ffljll. W! .,t ,.J., «.1 Z3N1v 1110.2-14 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) consirue! ,.I ., . fn sfav 9 e antral ,... '_.,,,...'.,....II...L,.,..,.,d the..,.,..t .....:.......t ....,.:....:,..,....t...,,1 ffd ('C4 By Dee „L... ]1 9001) N'.1„ .,I{an. a6 0ie ..F :......... .....:.. ioiis .....d,.d q. 1:.,,a to a,,. c.....t:Ne 04411,..,.. dffd (12) Agricultural Stationary Engines: (A) The operator of any agricultural stationary engine subject to this rule and installed or issued a permit to construct prior to June 3, 2005 shall comply with paragraph (d)(1)(B) and the other applicable provisions of this rule in accordance with the compliance schedules in Table VI: TABLEaWe Vl COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR STATIONARY AGRICULTURAL ENGINES Action Required Tier 2 and Tier 3 Diesel Other Engines Engines, Certified Spark - Ignition Engines, and All Engines at Facilities with Actual Emissions Less Than the Amounts in the Table of Rule 219 e Submit notification of January 1, 2006 January 1, 2006 applicability to the Executive Officer Submit to the Executive March 1, 2009 September 1, 2007 Officer applications for permits to construct engine modifications, control equipment, or replacement engines Initiate construction of September 30, 2009, or 30 March 30, 2008, or engine modifications, control days after the permit to 30 days after the equipment, or replacement construct is issued, permit to construct engines whichever is later is issued, whichever is later 1110.2 -15 2Bfy� Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) Complete construction and January 1, 2010, or 60 days July 1, 2008, or 60 comply with applicable after the permit to days after the requirements construct is issued, permit to construct whichever is later is issued, whichever is later Complete initial source March 1, 2010, or 120 days September 1, 2008, testing after the permit to or 120 days after construct is issued, the permit to whichever is later construct is issued, whichever is later The notification of applicability shall include the following for each engine: (i) Name and mailing address of the operator (ii) Address of the engine location (iii) Manufacturer, model, serial number, and date of manufacture of the engine (iv) Application number (v) Engine type (diesel, rich -burn spark- ignition or lean-burn spark - ignition) (vi) Engine fuel type (vii) Engine use (pump, compressor, generator, or other) (viii) Expected means of compliance (engine replacement, control equipment installation, or electrification) (B) The operator of any new agricultural stationary engine that is not subject to the compliance schedule of subparagraph (e)(1 ?)(A) for existing engines shall comply with the requirements of subparagraph (d)(1)(D) immediately upon installation. i...n ,..i.... i fl! .. ..i, (),2) b.' i.,.,, .. . i 2006 ('_) ?dim- Aericultural Stmionary En <nes: (A) The operator of anv statiimary cnginc not meeting the requirements of subparaL)raplts (d)(I )(B) or (d)(1 )J C) that go into effect in 2010 or later, shall comph kith the cianphanec schedule in Table VI: 1110.2-16 Rule 1110.2 (Cont) (Amended February 1, 2008) TABLE VI COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR VON - AGRICULTURAL STAT}ONARY ENGINES Action Required Applicable Compliance Date Submit to the E.xecuticc Officer applications for permits to construct engine Twelve month: before the linal compliance dac modifications. control equipment, or replacement en es Initiate construction of eng,ine modifications. control Thrcc month< before the final compliance date. or cquipnunt, or replacement 60 days after the permit w engincS construct is issued, whichever is later . Complete construction and The final compliance date. comply with applicable requirements or 120 days alter the permit to eonSlruct is issued. whichever is later Complete initial Source tcstine 60 da\s alter the final compliance date in (d)(1 )(B) or(d)(I)(C). or I NO dad's after the permit to COIIStruc( iS i 'sued. Xchichever is later B) The operator of anv stationary cneinc that elects to amend a permit to operate to incorporate ECF-acjustcd cntission limits shall Submit to the Executne Ot)iccr an application for a change of permit conditions by August 1. 2008. and comply with cntission limits of the precious version of this rule until February 1. 2009 when the cneinc shall be in compliance with the cntission limits of this nilc. (C) The operator of om swiion :nv engine that is required to add operating, reM66011s to a perntit to opu'ate to ntcet the requirements of this rule. shall submit to the Executive Officer an application for a change of permit conditiow� bx August 1, 2008. 1110.2-17 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) ( ?) Stationary Enainc GEMS ( A) The operator of anv stationery cneinc kith an existing CEMS shall conrnence the rcporting required by Rule 21 S Subdivision it) on Januarx 1, 2008. The first sunnnary rcporl fir the six months cndine Junc 30, 2008 shall be duc on Jule 30. 2008. (H) The operator of any stationary cncine that is required to modify an cxistine CEMS or install a CEMS on an existing cneinc shall comply with the compliance schedule in Tablc VII. Public agencies shall be allowed one year more than the dates in Table VII, Except for biogas cn <_incs_ TABLE N'll COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR NE«V OR MODIFIED CE19S ON EXISTING ENGINES Action Required Applicable Compliance Dates For: Non- Biogas Engines Rated at Non- Biogas Engines Rated at Biogas Engines* 750 bhp or More Less than 750 bhp Submit to the Executive August 1.2008 August 1. 2009 lanuary I. 2011 Officer applications for ncxv or modified CEMS Complete installation 'Within 180 days of Within ISO days of Within 180 days and commence CEMS initial approval initial approval of initial approval operation. calibration. and rcportirn_ rc uircmcnl Conmlctc cctliflcation Within 90 days of Within 90 dacs of Within 90 days of tests installation installation installation Submit certification reports to Exccuti%c Oiticcr Within 45 days after tests arc comiplctcd Within 45 days Within 45 days aficr tests arc complcted after tests are completed Obtain final apprcnal of Within 1 year of initial approval `N ithin P scar of Within 1 year of CENTS initial approval initial approval * .A biogas cneinc is one that is suhjcct to the emission limits ofTablc III (4) Stationary E,nginc Inspection and Monitoring (IKM) Plans: The operator of stationary engines subject to the I&M flan proyisionr of s ibparat rahh (1)(1)(D) shall' 7-3,5'. 1110.2-18 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) (A) By August 1, 2008 - submit an initial 1 &M plan application to the Exccutiyc Officer for approval: (B) By December 1, 2008. implcmcnt an apdrro\cd I &M plan or the I & \4 plan as submitted if the plan is not yct approccd. Any operator of I � or more stationary engines subject to the I &M plan proe'isions shall comply with the above schedule for at least 50 % of ermines, and for the remaining engines shall: (C) By February 1, 2009. submit an initial I &M plan application to the EXCCtltiye Officer for approval: (D) By June 1. 2009, implcmcnt an approccd 1 &M plan or the I &M plan as submitted if the plan is not yet npproccd. (5) Stationary Engine air -to -Fuel Ratio Controllers lA) The operator of any stationary engine that does not have an air -to- fuel ratio controller. as required by subparagraph (d)(1 )(E). shall comply with those requirements in accordance with the compliance schedule in Tablc VI, except that the application due date is no later than May 1, 2008 and the initial source testing may be conducted at the time of the testing required by subparagraph (1')( I )(C) (B) The operator of anc stationary engine that has the air -to -fuel ratio conuollcr required by subparagraph (d I( I )( E). but it is not listed on the permit to operate. shall submit to the Executive Officer an application to amend the permit by May 1, 2008. u The operator of more than five engines that do not have air -to -fuel ratio controllers may take an additional three months, to May 1, 2009, to install the equipment on up to 50 % of the affected engines. (G) Vcw Stationary Engines The operator of any ncv\ stationary engine issued a permit to construct after February 1, 2008 shall comply with the applicable I &M or CENTS rcquircmcnts of this rtdc when operation conuncnccs. If applicable. the operator shall proeidc the rcquircd information in subparagraph (t)(I)(DI to the Exccuti\ c O111ccr prior to the issuance of the permit to construct sir that the I &M procedures can be included in the ocrmit. A scpamte I &M ilan .application is not rcguircd 1110.2-19 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (?) Biottas Em_ines (Amended February 1, 2008) For am° biovas engine for which the operator applies to the Execulke Officer by April 1, 2008 for a chance of permit conditions for ECF- corrccted emission limits. or the approval to burn more than 10 percent natural .*as in accordance with subparagraph (d)(I)(C). the biosas engine shall not be subject to the initial concentration limits of Tables 11 or 111 until August 1, 2008. provided the operator continues (o comply \yith all emission limits in effect prior to February 1, 2008. Compliance Schedule Excention If an engine operator submits to the Executive Officer an application for an administrative chance of permit conditions to add a permit condition that causes the engine permit to expire by the effective date of any requirement of this rule, then the operator is not required to comply with the earlier steps required by this subdivision for that requirement. The effective date for the CEMS requirements shall be one vear after the date that a CEMS application is due. (� Exceedance of Usage Limits u If an engine was initially exempt from the new concentration limits in subparagraph (d)(1)(B) or subparagraph (d)(1)(C) that take effect on or after Julv 1 2010 because of low engine use but later exceeds the low -use criteria, the operator shall bring the engine into compliance with the rule in accordance with the schedule in Table VI with the final compliance date in Table VI being twelve months after the conclusion of the first twelve -month period for which the engine exceeds the low -use criteria. . BI If engines that were initially exempt from new CEMS by the low - use criterion in subclause (t)(l)(A)(ii)(I) later exceed that criterion. the operator shall install CEMS on those engines in accordance with the schedule in Table VII, except that the date for submitting the CEMS application in Table VII shall be six months after the conclusion of the first twelve -month period for which the engines exceed the criterion. (f) Monitoring, Testing, atW-Recordkeeping and Reporting (1) Stationary engines: 1110.2-20 23,52 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) The operator of any engine subject to the provisions of paragraph (d)(1) of this rule shall meet the following requirements: (A) Continuous Emission Monitoring (i) For engines of 1000 bhp and greater: and operating more than two million bhp -hr per calendar year, ...,,, maimain :.. ,.., :h....:..,, a NO. and CO continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) shall be installed operated and maintained in calibration to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits of this rule. —E LAS .11..11 Meet the r ,iegffibed in an CFR n...•t in aTr* liihSfl- ii (1) For facilities with engineS subject to paragraph (d)(1), 11mine a combined rating* of 1500 bhp or eroatcr at the same location. and having a combined fuel usage of more 01311 16 x 10' BInS per OW (hiihcr hemint. vaILIO, CFMS sliall be installed. operated and maintained iu calibration to demonstrate compliance of those engines with the applicable NOv and CO emission fimit_e of this rule. (11) Anv engine that as of October 1. 2007 is located within 7? feet of another engine Oncasurcd foam cn_,inc block to engine block) is considered to be at the same location. Operators of new engines shall not install engines farther than 75 feet from another engine unless the operator demonstrates to the Executive Officer that operational needs or space limitations require it. (111) The following engines shall not be counted toward the combined ratio o¢ r required to have a CEMS by this clause: engines rated at less than 500 bhp; 1110.2-21 Rule 1110.2 (Cont) (Amended February 1, 2008) standby engines that are limited by yenni conditions to only operate when other pri mary engines are not operable; engines that are limited by Permit conditions to overate less than 1000 hours per year or a fuel usage of less than 8 x 109 Btus Per year (higher heating value of all fuCIS used); engines that are used Primarily to fuelRublic natural gas transit vehicles and that are required by a Permit condition to be irreversiblv removed from service by December 31. 2014: and engines required to have a CEMS by the vrevious clause. A CEMS shall not be required if Permit conditions limit the simultaneous use of the engines at the same location in a manner to limit the combined rating of all engines in simultaneous operation to less than 1500 bhp. IIV) For emwincs rated below 1000 blip. the CEMS may be time shared by multiule engines. (VV) Operation of engines by the electric utility in the Big Bear Lake area during the failure of a transmission line to the utilitv may be excluded from an hours - per -vear or fuel usage limit that is elected by the operator pursuant to subclause (fl(1)(A)(iil(11I1. VLF In lieu of complying with subclause (f)(1)(A)(ii)(D. an operator that is a vublic agency, or is contracted to operate engines solely for a public agency. may comply with the Inspection and Monitoring Plan requirements of subparagraph (fl(1)(D). except that the operator shall conduct emission checks at least weekly or every 150 operating hours, whichever occurs later. If anv such engine is found to exceed an applicable NOx or CO limit by a source test required by subparagraph (f)(1)(C) or District test using a portable analyzer on three or more 1110.2-22 z3,Sy Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) occasions in any 12 -month period, the operator shall comply with the CEMS requirements of this subparagraph for such engine in accordance with the compliance schedule of Table VII, except that the operator shall submit a CEMS application to the Executive Officer within six months of the third exceedance. (iii) All CENTS required by this rule shall: Comph with the applicable requirements of Rule 218. including, equipment spocitications and certification. operating, recordkeepinc. quality assurance and reporting, requirements, except as otherwise authorized by the; rule: (II) Include equipment that measures and records exhaust pas concentrations, both uncorrected and corrected to 15 percent oxygen on it dry basis: and (111) Have data gathering, and retrieval capability approved by the Exl'CUIi \'l' 011iccr (i\ i) The operator of an engine that is required to install CEMS may request the Executive Officer to approve an alternative monitoring device (or system components) to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits of this rule. The applicant shall demonstrate to the Executive Officer that the proposed alternative monitoring device is at a minimum equivalent in relative accuracy, precision, reliability, and timeliness to a CEMS for that engine, according to the criteria specified in 40 CFR Part 75 Subpart E. In lieu of the criteria specified in 40 CFR Part 75 Subpart E, substitute criteria is acceptable if the applicant demonstrates to the Executive Officer that the proposed alternative monitoring device is at minimum equivalent in relative accuracy, precision, reliability, and timeliness to a CEMS for that engine. Upon approval by the Executive Officer, the substitute criteria shall be submitted to tie 1110.2-23 2355 Rule 1110.2 (Cont) (Amended February 1, 2008) Wel-al r... .. ,.,.,, n...,.,,,. .��,�,A� �_ ��z���n„ 1c� 's�rc;iceirvt'�— ts`vr�cr.EPA} as an amendment to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). If the alternative monitoring device is denied or fails to be recertified, a CEMS shall be required. Oi The moli iefi :` s�s9te.•• shali M• ' daw atherkig afro (y) Notwithstanding the requirements of Rums 218 and 218. 1, operators of engines that are required to install a CEMS by clause (ii) of this subparagraph may: f�I Store data electronically without a strip chart recorder, but there shall be redundant data storage capability for at least 15 days of data. The operator must demonstrate that both sets of data are equivalent. LID Conduct relative accuracy testing on the same schedule for source testing in clause (f)(1)(06), instead of annually. The minimum sampling time for each test is 15 minutes. NO Notwithstandine the requirements of Rules 218 and 218.1. operators of engines that are required to install a CEMS by clause GO of this subparagraph. and that are to be monitored by a timeshared CEMS, may_ f�I Monitor an engine with the CEMS for 15 consecutive minutes, purge for the minimum required purge time, then monitor the next engine for 15 consecutive minutes. The CEMS shall operate continuously in this manner, except for required calibrations. Record the corrected and uncorrected NOx, CO and diluent data at least once per minute and calculate and record the 15- minute average corrected concentrations for each sampling period. Have sample lines to each engine that are not the same length. The purge time will be based on the sample line with the longest response time. 1110.2-24 °A� Rule 1110.2 (Cont.). (Amended February 1, 2008) Response times shall be checked during cylinder gas audits. Sample lines shall not exceed 100 feet in length. (IVY, Conduct a minimum of five tests for each engine during relative accuracy tests. �V Perform a cylinder gas audit every—calendar quarter on each engine, except for engines for which relative accuracy testing was conducted that quarter. (VI) Exclude monitoring of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) for rich -bum engines, unless source testing demonstrates that NO2is more than 10 percent of total NOx. VI Conduct daily calibration error (CE) tests by iniecting calibration gases at the analyzers, except that at least once per week the CE test shall be conducted by iniecting calibration gases as close to the probe tip as practical. VIII Stop operating and calibrating the CEMS during any period that the operator has a continuous record that the engine was not in operation. (vii) A CO CEMS shall not be reauired for lean -bum engines or an engine that is subiect to Regulation XX (RECLAIM). and not required to have a NOx CEMS by that regulation. (Viii) Notwithstanding the requirements of this paragraph and paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 2012, an operator may take an existing NOx CEMS out of service for up to two weeks (cumulative) in order to modify the CEMS to add CO monitoring. (B) Elapsed Time Meter NlaimainTh e en6ne i'•°" ha an operational non - resettable totalizing time meter to determine the engine elapsed operating time. (C) Source Testing (i) Effective August 1. 2008, conduct de source testin_1 �;pevijieally for NO., 1110.2-25 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) VOC reported as carbon, and CO concentrations (concentrations in ppm by volume, corrected to 15 percent oxygen on dry basis) at least once every moo years, or cyery 8.760 operating Kiurs. xNhichcccr occurs first. Relative accuracy tests required by Rule 218.1 or 40 CFR Part 75 Subpart E will satisfy this requirement for those pollutants monitored by a CEMS. The source test frequency may be reduced to once every three years if the engine has operated less than 2,000 hours since the last source test. If the engine has not been operated within three months of the date a source test is required, the source test shall be conducted when the engine resumes operation for a period longer than either seven consecutive days or 15 cumulative days of operation. The operator of the engine shall keep sufficient operating records to demonstrate that it meets the requirements for extension of the source testing deadlines. 00 Conduct source testim, for at Icast 30 minutes during normal operation tactual duty cycle). This test shall not be conducted under a steady -state condition unless it i; the normal operation. In addition. conduct som'ce testing fur NOx and CO emissions for at least 15 minutes at: an engine'; actual peak load, or the maximum load that can be Practically achieved during the test; and; at actual minimum load. cxcludim, idle, or the minimum load that can be practically achieved during the test. These additional two tests are not required if the permit limits the engine to aerating at one defined load, t 10 %. No pre -tests for compliance at'c permitted. The emission test shall be conducted at least 40 operating hours. or at least I Nyeck. after any cnginc scryicing or tuning. 11' an emission excecdance is lound during aoy of the three phases of the test, that phase ;hall be completed and reported. The operator shall correct the exceedance. and the source tct mad be inunediateh resumed. 1110.2-26 z3�w Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) (iii) 1_'sc a contractor to conduct the source tcstint; that is approved by the Executivc Officer under the Laboraton . .approval Proeranh for the nccc,san• te,t methods. (iv) Submit a source test protocol to the Executive Otlicer for written approval at Icast 60 days bcforc the schcdulcd date of the test. The source test protocol shall include the name. address and phone numbc of the engine operator and a Disu-ict- approved source testing contractor that will conduct the test, the application and permit nunhber(s), cnhission limits. a description of the cn_inc(s) to be tested, the test methods and procedures to be used. the number of tests to be conducted and under what loads,. the required minimum sampling time for the VOC test, based on the analytical detection limit and expected VOC levels, and a description of the parameters to be measured in accordance with the I &'v1 plan required by subpara i-a h (1)(1)(D). The source test protocol shall be approved by the Executive Off iccr prior to any tcstiva. The operator is not required to submit a protocol for approval if there is a previously a#Rproved protocol that meets these mquirements. the engine has not been altered in a manner that regwivs a permit alteration; and emission limits have not changed since the previous test. If the operator submits the protocol by the required date, and the Executive Officer takes 12RM than 60 days to approve the protocol, the operator shall be allowed the additional time needed to conduct the test. lyl Proyidc the Executive Ofliccr at Icast 30 days prior notice of anv source test to afford the EXeCnllye Ot'tleer the opportunity to have an observer present. If after 30 day. notice for an initially schcdulcd performance test, there is a dclav (duc to operational problenhs, ctc.) in conductims the chcduicd perturnhanec test. the cn,-inc operator,hall notify the E\CCaliye Otllcer as soon as possible of am; delay in the original test date, either by providim, at Icast seven day's prior notice of the rescheduled date of the 1110.2-27 D,,5� Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008), perlbnnance test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the ExccutkC Officer by nwtual agreement, vi Submit all source test reports, including a description of the cc Upnncnt tested, to the E.XccutivC Officer within 60 days of completion 01,111C test. (vii) By February 1, 2009, provide, or cause to be prorided, Source testing facilities as follows: 111 Samplint,,_ports adequate tier the applicable test methods. This includes constructim-, the air pollution control System and stack or duct Such that P011utant concentrations can be accurately determined by applicable test mcfllods: Safe mmoline platlbrm(s), scaffolding or mechanical lifts, including safe access, that comply with California General Safety Orders. Agricultural stationary engines are excused from this subclause if they are in remote locations without electrical power; (111) t_hilitics Ibr Sampling and ICStln° CgUipmcnt. Agricultural stationary engines are exempt from this subclause if they are on wheels and moved to storage during the off season, (D) Inspection and Moniioring (IK,'vl) Plan Submit to the Executive Officer fbr written approval and implement an I &IM plan, Ooc plan application is required fur each facility, The I&M plan shall inchnde: 0) Identification of cm-ine and control C uimnCnt operating amctcrs necessary to maintain Polhuant Concentrations within the rule and permit limits. This shall include, but not he limited to: ProccdurCS Ibr using a portable NOx. CO and oxygen anahzcr to establish the set point; of the air -to -fuel ratio controller(AFRO) at 250o, 60% and ysoo load (or fuel flo\y rate). = 5 "5�. or the miniuuun, midpoint and maximum loads that acnialh occur during normal operation. —. 5'%, or at Z3,ND 1110.2-28 Rule 11101 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) anv one load within the t IWO range that an engine permit is limited to in .accordance kith clause (11) Procedures for %erifving that the .AFRC is Conu'ollina the engine to the set point during, the daily nwnitorinl-I required b� clause (1)( 1 )(D)(i%): (111) Procedures for reestablishing all AFRC set points with a portable NOx, CO and oxygen analyzer %vhcnevcr a set point nutst be readjusted, within ?4 hours of an oxygen sensor replacement, and, for rich -burn engines with three wav catal sts, between 100 and 150 encinc operating hours after an oxygen sensor replacement: (IV) For engines with catalysts, the maximum allowed exhaust temperature at the catalyst inlet, based on catalyst manufacturer specifications: (V) For Ivan -burn engines with scicetke catalytic control devices, the minimum exhaust temperaturc at the catalyst inlet required for reactant flow (ammonia or urea), and procedures for using a portable NOx and oxvLen analyzer to establish the acceptable range of a'eactant flow rate, as a function of load. Parameter monitorin< is not required for diesel engines without exhaust gas recirculation and catalytic exhaust control devices. (ii) Priicedut'es for alerting, the operator to emission conu'ol malfunctions. Engine control systems, such as air -to -fuel ratio contt'ollcrs, shall have a malfunction indicator li_ht and audible alarm. Procedures for at least weekly or c%cry 150 encinc operating hour, khichcycr occurs later, emissions cheeks be a portable NOx, CO and oxvizcn analvzcr. (1) If an encinc is in Compliance for three consecutive emission checks, without any adiustments to the oxygen sensor sct points, then the Cngine may be 1110.2-29 Rule 1110.2 (Cont) (Amended February 1, 2008) checked monthh or every 750 engine operatina hour;. \Vhichcccr oeeurs later, until thcrc is a noucoml?liant cmission check or, for rich -burn cm-fines \s ith three -way catalysts. the oxy,cn sensor is replaced. (11) For diesel cneincs and other Ican -burn cn_zincs that are subicct to Re <,ulation XX or have a NOx C'EMs. and that are subject to a CO limit more stringent than the 2000 vvmvd limit of Tables II or III, a CO emission check shall be pertbnncd at (cast ouartcrIy. or cycry 2.000 cneinc operating* hours. whichcvcr occurs later. IIHI For diesel engines and other lean -burn engines that are subject to Regulation XX or have a NOx CEMs, and that are not subiect to a CO limit more stringent than the 2000 Mmvd limit of Tables II or III, emission checks are notrequired. tIVI No engine or control systcm maintenance or tuning may be conducted within 72 hours prim to the omission check. unless it is an unscheduled. reyuircd repair. (V) The portable analyzer shall be calibrated. maintained and operated in accordance kith the manufachircr's spccifications and rccommcndations and the Protocol for the Periodic MonitorinL of Nitros en Oxides. Carbon Monoxide, and Oxy,cn from Stationar Fn�,incs Subject to South Coax Air Quality Manaecment District Rulc 1110 2, atiprovcd on February 1, 2008, or subsequent protocol akpi,ovcd b\j EPA and the [aeeutive Otliccr. (iv) Procedures for at Icest daily monitoring, inspection and rccordkccpine of'. (1) en,inc load or fuel tlow rate; 1110.2-30 ZS3�Z Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) (11) the set points, maximunis and acceptable ranges of the parameters idewi.tied by clause (1)( I )(D)(i), and the actual ealues of the same parameters: (II1) the engine elap,cd time meter operating hours: (IV) the operating hours since the last omission cheek rc uiredby(f)(I)1Dhiii); (V) thr rich -burn engines w4b three -way catalysts, the difference of the exhaust temperatures (ATI at the inlet and outlet of the catalyst (changes in the AT can indicate chances in the effectiveness of the catalyst): (VI) engine control systcm and AFRC SVSIem faults or alarms that affect emissions, Hie daily monitorim, and recordkeepina nuty be done in person by the operator, or by renvlc numitoring. (cl Procedures for responding to, diagnosing and correciink brcakdown,- fimlts, malfunctions, alarms. emission checks tindim, emissions in excess of rUle or permit limits, and paramctcrs oui -of- range. (1) For a brcakdown resulting iri a violation of This rule or a permit condition, or for an emission check that tlnds emissions in excess of those allowed by this rule or a permit cimdition, the operator shall correct the problem and dcmonstratc compliance with anothcr cmission check, or shut down an engine by the end of an operating, cycle, or within 24 hours from the time the operatur knew of the breakdown or excess emissions or reasonably should hacc kllOwn, Nyhichcycr is sooner. (II) For other problems, such as paramctcrs out -of= range, an operator ;hall correct the problem and dcmonstratc complianec N\ith anothcr cmission check within 48 tom's of the operator first knowing of the problem, (III) An openatoi- shall not be considered in violation of the emission limits of this Pule or in permit 1110.2-31 ZS1V3 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) conditions if the operator complies with this subparagraph and the reporting* requirements of .ubparagrapli (i)(Il(H1. Anv emission check conducted by District staff that finds execs: emissions is a violation. (vi) Proccdures and schedules tier prcvcntivc and corrective maintenance. (vii) Proccdures for reporting noncompliance to the Executive Ofiiccr in accordance with subparagraph (t)( 1 )(fil h iii I Proccdures and format for the rccordkccping of monitoring and otlicr actions required by the plan. (ix) Proccdures tiv plan revisions. Bclbrc any change in I &M plan operations can be intplententcd. the revised I &M plan sliall be submittal to and approved by the Executive Officer. The operator sliall apply t�plan revision prior to any change in emission limits or control cguipnucnt. (x) An cn•,inc is not subjcct to this subparagraph if it is required bN this rule to limc a \Ox and CO GEMS. or voluntarih, has a NOx and CO CEkIS that complies with this rule. (F13) Operating Log Maintain a monthly engine operating log that includes: (i) Total hours of operation; (ii) Type of liquid and/or type of gaseous fuel; (iii) Fuel consumption (cubic feet of gas andOF gallons of liquid); and (iv) Cumulative hours of operation since the last source test required in subparagraph (f)(1)(C). Facilities subject to Regulation XX may maintain a quarterly log for engines that are designated as a process unit on the facility permit. (F) Nc\t Non - Emergency Flectrical Generating Engines Operators of engines subject to the rcuuircments of subparagraph (d)( I )(F) shall also meet the tollowina requirement.. W The engine ecncrator sliall be monitored with a calibrated cicctric meter that ntcasuits the net electrical output of the Z3 -4A 1110.2-32 Rule 1110.2 (Cont) (Amended February 1, 2008) engine 5c icrator system. which is the difference hctwecn the electrical oLIIIxtt of the i4encrator and the cicctricit� consumed by the auxiliary equipment ncccssary to operate the engine gcncrator. (ii) For engincs monitored with a GEMS, the emissions of the nwnitored pollutants in ppmvd corrected to 15% 02, lbslhr. and Ibs ;vIW,. hr and the net MW- hrs produced shall be calculated and rccordcd for the four I5- minute periods of cash hour of operation. The mass omissions of NOx shall be calculated based on the measured fttcl flow and one of the F factor mcthods of 40 CFR 60, Appcndix A. Mcthod 19. or other method approved by the EXCCUliVc Officer. Mass cmissions of CO shall be calculated in the same manncr as NOx. except that theppmyd CO shall be converted to Ib: scf using a conversion factor of 0.727 x 10- . (iii) For NOx and CO cmissions from engines not nwnitorcd with a CENTS and VOC' cmissions from all engines, the cmissiims of NO%. CO and VOC in Ibs '11\-. hr shall be calculated and rccordcd whcncycr the pollutant is.mcasured by a source test or emission check. Mass emissions of NOx and CO shall be calculated in the same manncr as the previous clause. Mass cmissions of VOC shall be Calculated in the same manncr, except that the ppmyd VOC as carbon shall be converted to lbl�scf using a comecrsion factorof0.415x IC. iv For cniincs L,,enctatnw, combined heat and po\%cr that rely on the EEF to comply with Table IV emission standards. the daily and annual useful hcat reco\cred (MW,i; hrs , nct electrical energv generated (M11-, -hrs) and EEF shall be monitored and rccordcd. (y) Other mcthods of calculating etas; omissions than those specified, such as by dircct measm'emcnt of exhaust yolumc, ntav be used if approved by the EXecq[lyc Officcr. All monitorinu. calculation, and rccordkeepirn, procedures must be approved by the ExeCUtiy'C Ofticcr. 1110.2-33 23 �o 5 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) fyi) Operttors of combined heat and poker engines shall submit to the Exccuik c Ofliccr the reports of the following information within 15 days of the cnd of the first year of ogcratiim, and thereafter within 15 days of the cnd of each calendar year: the annirol net electrical encrgv generated (NIK -hrs): the annual useful heat recovered (M1Kjjirs the annual EEF Calculated in accordance with clause (d)( I )(F)(iij: and the maximum annual EEF allowed by the operating permit. If the aCtual annual EEF exceeds the allowed EEF, the rcpotl shall also include the time periods and emissions for all instances where emissions exceeded anv emission standard in Table IV, (( i) PortablcAnalyzcrOperworTraining The portable analyzcr tests required by the I &M Plan requirements of sub parat,raph (1)(1)(D) shall only be coMucted by a person who has coinpleted an appropriate District - approved training program in the operation of portable analvzcrs and has rcccivod a certification issued by the District. (Ii) Reporting Requirements 6) The operator shall report to the Executive Officer. by telephone (1-800-CUT-SMOG or I- 800 - 288 -7664) or other District- approved method. any breakdown resulting in emissions in excess of rule or permit emission limits within one hour of such noncompliance or within one hour of the time the operator knew or reasonably should have known of its occurrence. Such report shall identify the time, specific location, equipment involved, responsible party to contact for fiuther information, and to the extent known, the causes of the noncompliance, and the estimated time for repairs. In the case of emergencies that prevent a person from reporting all required information within the one -hour limit, the Executive Officer may extend the time for the revorting of required information provided the operator has notified the Executive Officer of the noncompliance within the one -hour limit. -%4� 1110.2-34 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) ii) Within seven calendar days after the reported breakdown has been corrected. but no later than thirty calendar days from the initial date of the breakdown, unless an extension has been approved in writing by the Executive Officer, the operator shall submit a written breakdown report to the Executive Officer which includes: (1) An identification of the equipment involved in causing, or suspected of having caused. or having been affected by the breakdown: (ID The duration of the breakdown; (III) The date of correction and information demonstrating that compliance is achieved; (IV) An identification of the tvves of excess emissions, if any, resulting from the breakdown; (V) A quantification of the excess emissions, if any. resulting from the breakdown and the basis used to quantify the emissions: (VI) Information substantiating whether the breakdown resulted from operator error, neglect or improper operation or maintenance procedures; (VII) Information substantiating that steps were immediatelv taken to correct the condition causing the breakdown. and to minimize the emissions. if any, resulting from the breakdown; A description of the corrective measures undertaken and/or to be undertaken to avoid such a breakdown in the future; and (IX) Pictures of any equipment which failed. if available. (iii) Within I i da\s of the end of each calendar quarter. the operator shall submit to the Executive Officer a report that lists each occurrence of a breakdown. fault. malfunction. alarm, engine or control system operating_ parameter out of the acceptable range established by an I &M plan or permit condition, or an emission check that finds excess emissions. Such report shall be in a District - approved ibrmat. and Ior each incident shall identifv the time of the 1110.2-35 Rule 1110.2 (Coot) (Amended February 1, 2008) incident, the time tho operator learned of the incident. specific location, pquipment involved, responsible party to contact for farther information to the extent known the causes of the event the time and description of corrective actions, includnw shunim, an cmnne dmN ii, and the results of all portable analyzer NOx and CO emissions checks done before or after the corrective actions. The operator shall also report if no incidents occurred. (2) Portable engines: The operator of any portable engine shall maintain a monthly engine operating log that includes: (i) Total hours of operation; or (ii) Type of liquid and/or type of gaseous fuel; and (iii) Fuel consumption (cubic feet of gas andrf gallons of liquid). Facilities subject to Regulation XX may maintain a quarterly log for engines that are designated as a process unit on the facility permit (3) Recordkeeping for All Engines All data, logs, test reports and other information required by this rule shall be maintained for at least five years and made available for inspection by the Executive Officer. (g) Test Methods Testing to verify compliance with the applicable requirements shall be conducted in accordance with the test methods specified in TabJe.kB1=F VIII, or any test methods approved by CARB and EPA, and authorized by the Executive Officer. TABLE VIII TESTING METHODS Pollutant Method NO, District Method 100.1 CO District Method 100.1 VOC District Method 25.1 * or District Method 25.3* * Excluding ethane and methane Z3 1110.2-36 Rule 1110.2 (Cont.) (Amended February 1, 2008) A violation of any standard of this rule established by any of the specified test methods, or any test methods approved by the CARB or EPA, and authorized by the Executive Officer, shall constitute a violation of this rule. (b) Exemptions The provisions of subdivision (d) shall not apply to: (1) All orchard wind machines powered by an internal combustion engine. (2) Emergency standby engines. engines used for fire- tisthtine and flood control. and any other emcrgency engines -as approved by the Executive Officer, which have permit conditions that {unit operateign to 200 hours or less per year as determined by an elapsed operating time meter agricultural emergency- standby engines that are exempt from a District Permit and operate 200 hours or less Per vear as determined by an elapsed operating time meter. (34) Laboratory engines used in research and testing purposes. (4a) Engines operated for purposes of performance verification and testing of engines. rrtc •�c. -... - :e. -1 .-irr� .efl ...r oc..ur. (j -7) Auxiliary engines used to power other engines or gas turbines during start- ups. 4-�4 c. ppl,.,,- ,,..,1_., ....:...... . .hik ;, o .,tie tvkeen Netemher 1 of Elsie yeaf afud epefaiioll of ski I (L)9) Portable engines that are registered under the state registration program pursuant to Title 13, Article 5 of the CCR. (74.0) Nonroad engines, with the exception that subparagraph (d)(2)(AB) shall apply to portable generators. ( 44-) Engines operating on San Clemente Island. (94-2-) Agricultural stationary engines provided that: (A) The operator submits documentation to the Executive Officer by the applicable date in Table V41 when permit applications are due that the applicable electric utility has rejected an application for an electrical line extension to the location of the engines, or the Executive Officer determines that the operator does not qualify, Z3 gxo'N 1110.2-37 Rule 1110.2 (Coot.) (Amended February 1, 2008) due to no fault of the operator, for funding authorized by California Health and Safety Code Section 44229; and (B) The operator replaces the engines, in accordance with the compliance schedule of Table IX, with engines certified by CARB to meet the Tier 4 emission standards of 40 CFR Part 1039 Section 1039.101, Table 1. These Tier 4 replacement engines shall be considered to comply with Best Available Control Technology; and (C) The operator does not operate the Tier 4 engines in a manner that exceeds the not -to- exceed standards of 40 CFR Section 1039.101, Paragraph (e), as determined by the test methods of subdivision (g) of this rule. TABLEaMe IX COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR INSTALLATION OF NEW TIER 4 STATIONARY AGRICULTURAL ENGINES Action Required Due Date Submit to the Executive Officer March 1, 2013 applications for permits to construct engine modifications, control equipment, or replacement engines Initiate construction of engine September 30, 2013, or 30 days after the modifications, control equipment, permit to construct is issued, whichever or replacement engines is later Complete construction and January 1, 2014, or 60 days after the comply with applicable permit to construct is issued, whichever requirements is later Complete initial source testing March 1, 2014, or 120 days after the permit to construct is issued, whichever is later (10) An cng *ine, tart -uD. until Adllcient operative temperatures are reached for prover operation of'thc emission control eiui mcnt. The stars -up period shall not exceed ;0 minutes unless the Executive Officer avoroves a Ionizer period for an engine and makes it a condition of the cmi tic permit. l 11) An cm >ine start -up. after an engine overhaul or major repair requiring rcmnr•il of a c\iinder head for a period not to excecd lour operating hOLU'J. 1110.2-38 Rule 1110.2 (Cont) (Amended February 1, 2008) (12) The initial conunissionim, of a nen em ine for a period specified by permit conditions, provided the operator takes measures to reduce emissions and the duration of the conunissionimg to the extant possible. The ciunmissionimg, period shall not exceed 150 operating hours 'Z'31\ 1110.2-39 ;wol as Atr. R4b4s South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865. E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4182 • (909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov NOTICE OF EgTENT TO ISSUE "PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT and OPERATE" PURSUANT TO.RULE 212 This notice is to inform you thar'dte South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) has received applications for permit to construct and operate three natural -gas fired internal combustion engines and one natural gasrfuel oil (amber oil 363) fired boiler at a location in your neighborhood. The AQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County acid portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Anyone wishing to operate, install or modify equipment that could be a source of air pollution within this region must first obtain a permit from the AQMD. Rule 212 requires the applicant for certain projects, such as this one, to distribute and publish a public notice prepared by the AQMD prior to the issuance of a permit. The AQMD has evaluated the permit applications for the following equipment and determined that the equipment will meet all applicable air quality requirements of our Rules and Regulations. Company Name: •HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Application Nos.: 406575, 406576, 406577 & 406578 Location Address: ONE HOAG DR., NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 Project Description: THREE NATURAL. GAS FIRED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES AND A NATURAL GAS/FUEL OIL (AMBER 363) FIRED BOILER This project will use the best available technology for controlling air pollution. Our calculations show that a maximum of 52 pounds of Nitrogen Oxides, 93 pounds of Carbon Monoxide, 50 pounds of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), 18 pounds of Particulate Matter under 10 microns .(PM[o), and I pound of Sulfur Oxides will be emitted from the project described above in any one day. Generally, the amount will be less. But even at the maximum amount, this project complies with all aspects of the AQMD's air pollution control requirements. Detailed computer modeling has shown that the proposed project should have no adverse impact on the surrounding community. This project also emits pollutants that are identified as to cause cancer. Therefore, a health risk assessment was performed for these permit applications. The calculation overestimates actual risk since it assumes that a person is at the location of highest exposure for an entire lifetime (24 hours/day, 365 days /year for 70 years). Even assuming this unlikely condition, the evaluation shows 'that the chance of this project causing cancer is less than twenty seven in -a- million which is within limits considered acceptable for new /modified sources. The air quality analysis of this project is available for public review at the AQMD's headquarters in Diamond Bar, and at the Library in City of Newport Beach at 1000 Avacado Avenue. Information regarding the facility owners compliance history submitted to the AQMD pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 42336, or otherwise known to the AQMD, based on credible information, is also available from the AQMD for public review. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed issuance of this permit should submit his or her comments in writing within 30 days of the distribution date shown below. If you are concerned primarily about zoning decisions and the process by which this facility has been sited at this location, you should contact your local city or county planning department. Please submit comments related to air quality to Mr. Hemang Desai, Air Quality Engineer, General Commercial Team, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765 -4182. For additional information, please call Mr. Hemang Desai at (909) 396- 2.596. Distribution Date: January 17, 2003 Inubtt n .Z3-' 1Z K�i V s ' `yl �d `. H 1 rf!*.y��C+� >• ..a ,. yr �' \- ��s �,t .ri , �r� t rc�,,•.E1({•? r ��� � ti` 1, .�•yYn ;� f\ i—j .�i �' h , 's � i,+l '!E '� G' /- t�y _y�r�� �• �� m ..A - _. .. � `^., -c.•. dr'4',�w - +�"^lry +kl�jq n ) I ,.,1 -.� r e� � u r�s• +.�{ -t+ E d �� _• w+ /vj \'`�' : �ia� YYYYY�S ` �:l` It i'J t q.. t. A r, a+ V�} '''' yr �?a �. ���Q�{�� . , . �.Jr , .4 � a dA #,p : 'l-`r � { . , � ;wcfsa•. �i�P� �p .g,wi ! 9'� F r �, 1rvi / „,, � � /s• , , � /f 1 JH ,.. i l� i� � y, y5 irpi� ' t r% \. I ;. ��: " r ' ✓ply fFAA i r c Q W.W*v . WAR � 'R,�It�, ,s1, x, r�T . +�1�' � r� Y,, /� � f•. d� xa�•-alrr 'G Y, J 1� - - -c.,.- Ia ux� !I A' :, iP':r'+,4 '—"K��,.k -r''•f �i 1 44hrrYl�r t f, i. �' f a;� i' ... j ' `' w rYl�, � 7 (, ,1 y1y 1 � { 9 �I• 3f ° 9� ynm • 1 + +' � .. -.,�. ^= i; IA / •e!. ql M r �� rt "y Ais s- 7f � f e't� r �J / \, .; I .:� -: Ca � IV �':.\•A .-v` V bJ �'•� >,� C + / ".. �/? � y y•b�0t}t0 � � � i ''fr'. rCT•2Y6 "4' � 'J'� +.c �' � - .:>: .1 I �. �• °L"�� 6 � ��' P��O D �O ©t9 v ' 4` .��',1C( -p®@yo-® ' >I �.� �� ��•�• w7rb - n, ti g,a � 34 ®r6id0 ®4p��� i - lF ti •,.� _ � ` -?dam �° '� P � °• � t ��' � :�0 ate£ tt t 3 /roc /oa Hoag Hospital Noise Mitigation Plan Analysis By Richard & Linda Banks, owners 260 Cagney Ln #202 Villa Balboa, Newport Beach Background I would first like to applaud the efforts of Hoag Hospital management to solve noise problems that have gradually escalated since we first occupied this unit in 1981, as the second occupants of building 260. We also later owned and occupied unit 101 In Building 280, across from the loading dock, for several years, so are familiar with past problems there as well. We sold the 280 unit in 2000, and re- occupied the 260 # 202 unit at that tine, which we had been renting to long -term tenants. In April of 2006 we again leased this unit to new tenants and moved to Big Bear Lake, where we now reside. The 260 unit was occupied until September 0 of 2007, when the tenants moved out (lease expired 1/31108), claiming that it is uninhabitable due to excessive noise from Hoag Hospital. My rental agency, Burr White, tried to recover the $9003.32 in unpaid lease payments In small claims court, and lost the case, implying that the tenants were justified in breaking the lease due to the excessive noise. This also implies that Hoag Hospital may be directly responsible for our loss. The property has not been leased since September 4, 2007, despite Burr White's best efforts to do so at a price that is well below market. Mitigation Plan Recommendations We believe this mitigation plan provides an excellent first step in helping to resolve our mutual noise problems and it sounds like Hoag management is sincere in their efforts. However, I would like to suggest some modifications that I think will help. It would be a shame if the Hoag plan stopped just short of really solving the problem. 1. Extend the proposed sound wall past building 260 to an area between it and the tennis courts, since noise often comes from that end of the hospital. Also, noise directly below our unit often emanates from cars and trucks on the street, as well as work noises, such as dumpsters rolling along the street, tools operating, machinery noise and people accessing the parking garage. There also does not seem to be any traffic control on this private road, as people often speed; some rushing to work. Z llzlq 2. Control access to the parking garage and loading dock by rerouting traffic to each. By closing the gate at the upper end of Hoag's access road permanently, traffic between Hoag and Villa Balboa would be greatly reduced. Employees and patients could easily access the east entrance to the parking garage from Hospital Road via Hoag's main entrance or PCH. This would almost eliminate traffic on the access road between Villa Balboa and Hoag. Trucks could also access the loading dock from PCH, which would eliminate the need for them to drive by building 260. 3. Trucks often arrive hours before they can access the loading dock and sit in the street below idling their loud diesel engines and often running loud freezer units. Have these trucks queue- up on the lower campus along PCH or elsewhere off campus. 4. The plan calls for our unit to get either 5 to 6 foot balcony sound barriers or double pane sliders and windows, not both. Since the sound barriers would adversely affect air circulation on the balcony, I suggest the plan include a 3 to 4 foot sound barrier between the balcony deck and hand -rail, plus the dual pane windows and sliders. 5. We hope the new trees will be tall enough and dense enough to hide the sound wall. 6. It sounds like the implementation of this project will be very slow at best. Thanks again to Hoag management for seriously considering the needs of your neighbors and customers. We have used your exceptional facilities often. We look forward to your emergence as a great neighbor as well as a great hospital. Z3,�5 RFCF11/'D ny Py,LANaF y r m 7 y dit WtY �.IP��i L}L� /�pvi�g4�V1 �`• ® A MAR 13 2008 March 12, 2008 Owners of Residential Units 26o Cagney Lane & 280 Cagney Lane Villa Balboa Newport Beach RE: Proposed Noise Mitigation & Soundwall West Hoag Drive Dear Villa Balboa Owner- On February 14, 2008 our office sent you a Community Meeting Notice with regards to Hoag Hospital's proposed Noise Mitigation program adjacent to West Hoag Drive and Villa Balboa. The meeting was held on Saturday, February 23, 2oo8 at the Villa Balboa Club House in which a presentation was made on the sound mitigation measures and the soundwall. We subsequently sent a follow -up letter to those owners who were unable to attend the meeting asking if they would like follow up information. Given the requests for more information, we have compiled an overview of the Proposed Noise Mitigation Program and have included a comprehensive set of graphics and exhibits. This package is being sent to all of the owners in 26o Cagney Lane and 28o Cagney Lane along with the Villa Balboa's Community Association's Executive Committee. Please call or email Vicki Fetterman at (949) 717-7946 / vicki@govsol.com if we can be of any further assistance to you on this matter.. Sincerely, , Coralee Newman - Principal Government Solutions, Inc. 131 p 230 Nca'pon Cen I Drive, Sniic 210. Ncapon Beach.. CA 72660.9:19- 717 -79-13 main +9d9 - 717 -7912' Fix ...... ocWl.cum Summary of Proposed Hoag Upper Campus Noise Mitigation Program March 12, 2008 Hoag agrees to the following noise standards in the Loading Dock Area (per attached Loading Dock Area Map — Exhibit 5 ) at the property line in conjunction with an identified set of noise mitigation measures, (as listed below) which includes a soundwall along West Hoag Drive. Loading Dock Area lam —10pm 10pm — 7am Daytime Nightime Leq (15 Min) 65 dBA at 55 dBA at Property Line Property Line The project sponsor shall continue to limit the use of that portion of West Hoag Drive adjacent to residential uses on the Upper Campus. Deliveries to loading areas shall not be scheduled after 8:OOpm or before 7:OOam daily. The project sponsor shall. physically restrict access to the roadway between these hours and appropriate signage indicating permitted delivery hours and access limitations shall be installed and maintained at all times. Night time deliveries and vehicular access to the loading area located along West Hoag Drive are allowed where critical supplies, services or materials are necessary for the continued operation of the hospital. The grease pit cleaning is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance because it is a maintenance activity and will occur on a Saturday between the hours of 11:00 am and 3:00 pm. Vehicle idling shall be prohibited on West Hoag Drive and within the loading dock areas, except that refrigerated vehicles may idle while at the loading docks when refrigeration is necessary. Mechanical Equipment Noise on Ancillary Building • Construct 7' soundwall along roof edge of Ancillary Building • Replace most mechanical equipment with new, quieter equipment • Reconstruct kitchen exhaust fan enclosures "doghouse" as a soundproof structure • Orient exhausts on the doghouse away from the residential areas 230 1"1 March 12, 2008 Page 2 Mechanical Equipment Noise on West Tower • Close all feasible openings on 2°d Floor (mechanical level) that faces residents • Remaining openings will be retrofitted with sound louvers • Some equipment will be moved to the roof or discontinued Loading Dock Noise • Add sound absorption panels on back wall (if no soundwall) • Move sterilizer to indoors • Compactor and baler will be sound attenuated Soundwall Program • Construct an approximately 325 Linear Foot soundwall along West Hoag Drive that ranges in height from 17 to 23 feet along the south building at 280 Cagney and will be 18.5 feet along north building at 260 Cagney (see attached exhibits). The soundwall being proposed is the Sound Fighter LSE Wall System. The wall system has been used in the United States for more than 30 years and is constructed with high- density polyethylene elements. The wall is filled with an acoustic media and %z" thick acoustical barrier board. The manufacturer's brochure is attached. For your reference, their phone number is (562) 943 -2127 and their Website is www.hinsine.com. • Landscaping ProgramlSoundwall The project sponsor shall provide a soundwall on Hoag Hospital's property along West Hoag Drive in the approximate location as shown on Exhibit 4. The area on Hoag property between the Hoag property line and the wall will be referred to as the Villa Balboa Landscape Zone. This portion of the Hoag Hospital property will have a specific landscape process. Existing landscaping on Hoag's Hospital properties located on Villa Balboa's side of the wall shall be.preserved to the Z37(b March 12, 2008 Page 3 extent feasible or replaced with specimen plant material as designated on a plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director after consultation with the Villa Balboa Community Association. To the extent new plant material is installed in the Villa Balboa Landscape Zone as required above, Hoag shall maintain such new plant material after installation. Any future modifications made to said wall and landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Window and Balcony Program • Balcony barrier extensions will be offered to the owners of 12 units (i.e. Units 202 through 207 and units 302 through 307) of the 260 Cagney building on the 2°4 and 3'd floors that look toward the loading dock. The actual installation will be done by a 3rd party contractor as part of a program and contract between Villa Balboa Association and such contractor. The extensions will be 3/8" tempered glass with an appropriate frame. The top of the extensions will be about 5 to 6 feet above the balcony deck. • High performance double pane windows will be offered in the same 12 units on the 2"d and 3`d floors of the 260 Cagney building. Windows and sliding doors that are behind the balcony barriers will not need to be upgraded. Currently the noise ordinance is exceeded by 4 dB outside these units, and the goal is to reduce indoor noise levels with windows closed by 4 dB. • For some of the units with cedar siding, an additional layer of high performance gypsum board (e.g., QuietRock or Suppress) may need to be added to the exterior wall to obtain the desired noise reduction of 4 dB. (If needed will be offered) • Window/Balcony Implementation Within six months following approval of the Master Plan Update Project by the City of Newport Beach and the expiration of any appeals, statute of limitations or referendum periods for challenging any of the Project approvals, the Applicant shall offer a window /sliding glass door upgrade (dual pane windows) program to the owners of the residents (Owners) living at 260 Cagney Lane, Newport Beach, Z31 •-)� March 12, 2008 Page 4 in units 202 through 207 and 302 through 307; pursuant to the following provisions and guidelines: (i) in order to participate in the program and receive new windows/sliders, each owner must provide written notice to the Applicant within 14 days following receipt of the proposal program from Applicant, that Owner wants to participate in the program; (ii) failure to respond within such time period shall mean the Owners desires not to participate; (iii) the replacement windows /sliders will be installed by a third -party contractor as part of one overall program pursuant to a contract between the Villa Balboa Homeowners Association (Association) and such third -party contractor selected by the Association; (iv) the Association shall provide the Applicant with a written estimate from the contractor stating that the total cost of the replacement program and obtain Applicant's written approval of such work prior to executing a contract with the contractor; (v) the total cost of the window /slider replacement and related patch -up work to be reimbursed by the Applicant to the Association for the replacement and related for all Owners shall not exceed the sum of $100,000.00 and (vi) provided the Applicant receives the reimbursement request from the Association within 60 days following completion of the work, the Applicant shall reimburse the Association for the cost of the window /slider replacement work within 30 days of the Applicant's receipts of a final receipt or bill from the Association evidencing that the window /slider replacement work was completed pursuant to the approved estimate. Exhibits & Attachments Planned Community Text Exhibit 4 — Proposed Soundwall Location Plan Planned Community Text Exhibit 5 — Loading Dock Area Soundwall Section Location Plan Concept Sketch Section A Concept Sketch Section B . Concept Sketch Section BB Concept Sketch Section C Sound Fighter Sound Wall System - Brochure Z:;�•'t� 0 March 6, 2008 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 10 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I recently attended a meeting in our Villa Balboa clubhouse in which Coralee Newman made a very impressive presentation. She was knowledgeable and articulate. I was especially happy that we had a tour of the problem area and actually walked in front of my condo. Of the people I spoke to do not want a huge wall constructed. A wall of the suggested height would obstruct the little sunlight I now enjoy. I would be happy with your Hoag's plans for internal remedies. A 6' wall with some foliage on our side would be a good solution. Trees would help muffle the noise and would be a boon to our property. Please consider what would not be a hugely expensive plan and one that would please the majority of the people to whom I have spoken Another Suggestion is the noise abatement windows in those units directly affected. Sincerely. slj-C Dorothy Ho es 280 Cagney Lane #203 (949) 642 -3085 7 add [_(�14 . 13 rM Z? 14109 Kathryn Casey From: Campbell, James ( JCampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 3:52 PM To: eaton727 @earthlink.net Cc: Alford, Patrick; Lepo, David Subject: Re: Staff Report on Hoag for March 6 PC Meeting Barry, 1 stand by the statement. The exhibit is approximate. The proposed sound wall is going to be located where an existing chain link fence is, and when you walk the area, you will see that the trunks of the trees will be on the Hoag side. They can't move the wall closer to the road as there is a utility line there. Yes, the proposed noise standard would be measured at the property line. It is different than the noise ordinance that measures the noise at the receptor. There will be a small amount of noise reduction given the short distance between the property line and the buildings. Measuring the noise at the property line is easier when you know where the property line is. 1 will get back to you on the parking ratios. James Campbell, Senior Planner - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Barry D. Eaton <eaton727 @earthlink.nety To: Campbell, James Cc: Alford, Patrick; Lepo, David Sent: Sun Mar 02 17:17:36 2008 Subject: Staff Report on Hoag for March 6 PC Meeting Jim, 1 have read the 69 pages of this staff report and attachments, and 1 have a couple of questions: - In the 2nd full paragraph of page 3, you state that the proposed noise wall would be.built "... on the Villa Balboa side of the 25 to 32 foot high row of trees..." between Hoag and Villa Balboa. This seems to contradict Exhibit 4 to the proposed regulations (hand numbered page 35) and all the other exhibits that 1 have seen for this proposal, which all show the wall in very close proximity to West Hoag Drive, and basically on the Hoag side of the trees. Are you quite sure of this statement? - On page 5, you indicate the new proposed noise limits as 65 dBA daytime, and 55 dBA nighttime, but it seems to imply that this would be measured at the residences. The revised wording of the regulations (at the top of hand numbered page 34) indicates that these levels would still be as measured at the property line. Is this correct? (It is significant, because that still permits a little more noise reduction that will occur in the distance between the property line and the residences themselves, depending on the extent of that distance.) - I am reminded by the proposed parking regulations (hand numbered page 41) that the proposed requirement of zero required parking for support facilities is supposed to be based on the 2001 -2002 traffic study (as noted in footnote 3 on that page); yet 2 of the proposed requirements are carried over from the 1987 study. As 1 recall, you were going to provide the PC with further info on whether those carry over requirements were consistent with the proposed zero requirement for 3/6 /2008 support services, as the PC has not had the opportunity to see either of the 2 traffic studies themselves. Can you provide us with that information? Thank you for your consideration of these questions. 1 look forward to your response. Barry Z31w3 3/6/2008 PRELIMINARY ENCROACHMENT SKETCH NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 60' LEGEND PURPLE INDICATES ITEM ON HOAG HOSPITAL PROPERTY DISTANCE IS CURB TO PROPERTY LINE o BLUE INDICATES 30 -FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT TO HOAG HOSPITAL �. RED INDICATES ITEM ON CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY y DISTANCE IS ITEM TO PROPERTY LINE HALLADAY MIM MACK Inmrparated 1161 CALIFORNIA AVE OVR.ENOINEERS CORONA, CA 92881 SURVEYORS 951.273-9706 PHONE 961. 27112729 FAX L: \6050107 \DETAIL— ROTATED.dwa 02/07/2008 12:32:26 PM PST �N Q` °Q Pagel of 2 Campbell, James From: Campbell, James Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 5:22 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Promised Loading Dock Noise Proposal Information Not Forthcoming From Hoag for tonight. From: Erik Thurnher [maitto:mdadvisorl @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:47 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: bhillgren @cox.nei; eaton727 @earthlink.net; Harp, Aaron; dlepo @newport- beach.ca.us; scott.peotter @taxrighter.com; emcdaniel @metropacificbank.com; Rosansky, Steven; strataland @earthlink.net; rhawkins @earthlink.net Subject: Promised Loading Dock Noise Proposal Information Not Forthcoming From Hoag Hi Jim, I am glad to hear you are on the mend! With respect to issue of loading dock noise issue, I want to alert you that Hoag has still not provided us with any written information on various components of the current proposal (sound wall, double pane windows, etc) as was promised. As you know, this information was to be mailed out or posted on the Internet so that those owners and other affected residents who were not able to attend the meeting on the 23rd of February have some factual basis for understanding what is being proposed, and can make an informed decision. Both Dick Runyon and I have sent follow up requests to Hoag and Government Solutions, including one today, but so far without success. Hopefully something will be forthcoming very shortly, but we are concerned that the Planning Commission may vote on this on the 6th, before all the information has been fully disseminated and feedback obtained from those whose lives will be impacted by this decision. We understand the impetus to move this process forward, and we are doing everyhing we can to expedite the process. However, at this time the "rate limiting step" is that we are not getting the informational materials promised by Hoag. Thanks Erik - - - -- Original Message - - -- From: "Campbell, James" <JCampbell @city.newport- beach.ca us> To: Erik Thurnher <mdadvisorl@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 8:41:45 AM Subject: RE: Thursdays PC Agenda Erik, I am feeling better today, but still at less than 100 %. Thank's for asking. There are only 4 agenda items and the first is the prior meeting's minutes that should take about a minute. The 03/06/2009 Page 2 of 2 second item is a straightforward case that is not likely to take more than 30 minutes. It is the planners first case, so it might take a few more minutes. Hoag is up after that. The last item is a "recieve and file" with no action. I suspect that the Commission will want to wrap up everything (if they can) but for the cogeneration facility. Testimony related to new information will be encouraged and repeat testimony will not The Commission will take whatever time it feels is appropriate as it is their meeting whether it is 30 minutes or 3 hours and it appears that .they have the flexibility to do either. Jim From: Erik Thurnher [mailto:mdadvisorl @yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:25 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: Thursdays PC Agenda Hi Jim, I stopped by to see you on Monday, but was told you were out sick. Hopefully your are feeling better. From looking at Thursday's PC meeting agenda, it looks like Hoag issues are going to be only one of six or seven items. I assume that means that the time devoted to Hoag related issues will be substantially less than the last two meetings. Is that correct? Do you have a sense how much time that might be (30 minutes, 1 hours, etc)? 11111711111M Erik Be a better friend, newshound, and know -it -all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. Z3.V6,1, 03/0612008 Page ] of 3 Campbell, James From: Campbell, James Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 5:19 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: PC Text on Mechanical Noise and the Cogeneration Plant Attachments: Email 022808.doc; Roof Top of Cogan Plant and Adjacent Cooling Towers.jpg; Cooling Tower Fans and Enclosure.jpg For tonight From: Erik Thurnher [mailto:mdadvisorl @yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 7:00 PM To: Campbell, James; dlepo @city.newport.beach.ca.us Subject: Fw: PC Text on Mechanical Noise and the Cogeneration Plant Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Department Staff Members, On behalf of the Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee and Friends of Sunset View Park, we would like to state for the record our deep concern about the recent change in the City's stated position on the applicability of the noise limits contained in the Planned Community (PC) text to noise coming from the cogeneration plant and cooling towers. We believe this change is inconsistent with both the letter and the intent of PC text, and that, if not reversed, and greatly lessens the chance that mitigation measures will be implemented for the very high levels of noise which now emanate into the Sunset View Park and nearby residences from the cooling towers. Before outlining our view of the PC language, we would like to point out that until recently, the City had indicated to residents that the cogeneration plant was subject to the noise limits in the PC text. This viewpoint was expressed very clearly and consistently by the City both publicly and privately during the past two months of communications over the cogeneration plant, and in a number of settings, most recently at the meeting on January 18th attended by representatives of the City, Hoag personnel, and residents of Villa Balboa. For this reason, residents came to believe that the City would enforce the PC text noise limit on Hoag's operation of the cogeneration plant, and would not grant Hoag's application without providing for the cogeneration plant's compliance with the current PC text noise limits. However, now, late in the process, we are being informed that the plant is considered exempt from the current rules, clearing the way for the protections that have been in place for 15 years to be lifted without requiring Hoag to implement any mitigation measures. We would now like to briefly outline our interpretation of the relevant language from the PC text, which reads as follows: "New mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and utility vaults, excluding communications devices on the Upper Campus shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with building materials. Rooftop mechanical appurtenances or utility vaults shall be Z3,1tl 03/06/2008 Page 2 of 3 screened on the Lower Campus. Noise shall not exceed 55 dBA at all property lines. No new mechanical appurtenances may exceed the building height limitations as defined in these district regulations." This paragraph clearly indicates that those who wrote the PC text were very concerned about the impact of noise coming from machinery mounted at the top of buildings on the upper and lower campus. The logical question is, why would the cogeneration plant cooling towers not be considered mechanical equipment subject to the rule? EQAC pointedly asked this rhetorical question in its comments, noting that the plant itself is "one large utility vault for heating /cooling /electrical generation." We understand the City's position to be that the PC text noise limit does not apply to the fans mounted at the top of the cooling towers' enclosure because the enclosure does not have a "roof'. The attached photos taken from above the cooling towers clearly illustrate that they are "mechanical appurtenances" and that they are situated at the top of cooling tower enclosure (i.e. at the equivalent of roof level). The fans emit very high levels of noise outward from the top of the enclosure, exactly as they would if they were located on the adjacent roof of the cogeneration plant, or another lower campus building. The noise from the fans approaches 70 dBA at the property line, greatly exceeding the 55 dBA limit. Given the design of the cooling towers, the City's position that the fans are exempt because they are not on a rooftop seems to rely on a mere technicality. From the standpoint of intent, it is difficult to understand why the plant and cooling towers should be exempt. It simply doesn't follow that those who wrote the PC language intended to protect people from loud noise from one type of building -top equipment, say a small rooftop fan, but not a series of eight -foot diameter, high speed cooling tower fans sitting at the equivalent of roof level. Certainly nothing that we have found in the record indicates that the authors of PC text intended to make this kind of distinction. Exempting the cogeneration plant and cooling towers from the current noise limits is inconsistent with letter and intent of the PC text, which was drafted to balance Hoag's desire to develop the newly purchased (at that time) lower campus, while offering some fairly strong protections to the affected neighbors and public on noise and other adverse impacts. We urge the City to meet with residents to discuss this critical issue, and to reconsider this change before allowing Hoag an exemption from the noise limitation imposed to mitigate noise impacts to Sunset View Park and surrounding residential areas. Sincerely, Erik W. Thumher, MD Dick Runyon Co- Chairman Co- Chairman Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee and Z3,46(6 03/06/2008 Page 3 of 3 Friends of Sunset View Park Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 'Z. 3 1401 03/06/2008 Thursday, February 28, 2008 9:33:21 PM Erik, The existing provision in the PC text related to noise (it is not in the DA) reads as follows 'New mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and utility vaults, excluding communications devices on the Upper Campus shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with building materials. Rooftop mechanical appurtenances or utility vaults shall be screened on the Lower Campus. Noise shall not exceed 55 d8A at all property lines. No new mechanical appurtenances may exceed the building height limitations as. defined in these district regulations.' Although the third sentence does not indicate the regulated noise source, the provision is read in the context of the paragraph, and therefore, the regulated noise source is that from new mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops and utility vaults. The City Attorney's office has reviewed this issue. I miss -spoke each time I said anything to the contrary and the February 7th staff report was also wrong. Sorry about that, I am human. The paragraph above must be changed as it is poor language in need of a fix, in my opinion. The proposed changes to the PC text will address the issue of language and I am clarifying the issue with the next report (due out late tomorrow). You are more than welcome to comment on the proposed standard at any future hearings. 13 ,g0 m lik m4 tl_ P m lik m4 tl_ Slv"�7s4 `'..c.,��`�,. ,' r.♦ � "'." "-,^ � .., b f Gi} � t.�.�' I��l G/� .f'7�t t� - .s. ` SA.�lie lu '. *" -.. -•-.. 'r4. -r.i, -to - • C �4 � � r4 �, *`r `'y' -c Fll -F'wr �,. i♦ asp rSa rrr4 't4 t.y S. � �s.G_., r t1,4. vu-4k I 311 hg yy� *r'Ck. 1 '�� +! x `7 r r y If♦ s Y �: I J .� iy Y�:�' -4"'� _J. �. "Y � p .F-. � a+ �.+f- I^' t �' _ t� h °rF � S ( p • 1 ✓4, � .Y: � �' .r"a -� z � n r'° y _ t 4 r k. � rw :. A ♦ '.4: R` -.. nr e 5 r �..@ .,.tr Y l "'1,._•• -,wc� i � F< t '� n S' 3 i t y' q,♦ - ': v O S r l• n, i5 rt � r A t - 'O �a. rte_ - i aa,� � `r<u ` ' r a F° d ;�• `IL it b N .Q +*` w -s Y c r z. 4 f �f 1 ryr 1t * , �.` r _ �2,,,.,,s;_ ^.N` .—•-t^ V� � �� �' � 'v a F v. r I ; k�� a, i�� �x _ � �a.0 Yl • � v. 3 � r : r - - y <^+ ���Y ♦ 1+3. � c } ` a �� yy.>- trax- d r.- ° r. .1���1r �y�yi y r . ^.. { z k,, y `� ?>��` - ..-... ZV ♦ t u• 'l �- *-- ir+�.. Y x 'r l � �, Y t 'tu'�,.t ✓ y e, A/, - 4 r } Ib'Jr X' Y Y .sl. 3 �'! t ^1 ♦ .u, r ! >!t y }`q%3 ♦. a �^ ^,iEic ' y I arr .o x .�'t ,q �e r r' ♦5.. Y S ,�} tt e hypo- Wig.- �`�_"S "s`... ..t "� '°'�.+'°4b.�t. tY 3 " / `j:4, ° A„y M •¢'°a y,.. a a co t Rtf Pry My� us r, r 'e r='u -• --rr:. r!$?@ J ♦ r y i, VIP �,-�r YI 7Y! ti t i t� r+rptlaK}- 'A°'ailj+4s� jam+ r r`i ♦ � � � Ik 1 s f /. - - :.• n)rF;� "Q/9f � 1 �a e'�+' ^p /-` <r ti li /�.:. •'� 'fir it €'i >lsr` r Krh .r-7' t' s :'i Y 4Y1 S / 1 rs ? 5 _♦ >: �.. �. .1 ff♦ �>�kff,{.d /�. -'�♦ a � �)lr r..5 }tJr' � . i%ra I J�rti y, • f 4;• � yk :' l y ♦ � � I .JtM.„f $ s++ Y •. P o-1'r �{ !- "�w�� ,+ �'� ,u 9`v ,�.-- J ; "'Y- ...�,e t`r°' r la� � a .. '4 't. t[! ..L t ° x3 °?�"Yy t �. >3i #ors s ♦' yY� �" }! :. �F /Y r fis�r �i`...e tp; " it -EI a � Ps !•' Y' cyC r .rt . � i+ f / iJ ♦'i •f icy f � o /"�� k � � t�'.'r`dYCt 1 .. ''�•�!'Vjt4`a.. s'1 N v+ r F' ,t Y ♦g?., " '4.d r s r''•'r:ld t R r it 3 • ♦ '+ ,r"l'{f�r° °- 3 Y � `} Y!', � [ �� $ri {,- t r.. � r> bs �" -� Yf y s+ T♦d a a >� °/ � ?il t .';r b /r 6 L � �° it `��?` � "` v Y?�R'3' °.. �� P+yB s. y as+ + ♦ i , 'y �y T s � . -P '� �. i tw� �� ��> ire � �1�;,c rP fr. ?"• > k. G �,., ��'' -'�3+` 1x�vJh43♦ x.,', :: . n .ti 1 u r..:;,Y Ala /e _i Y.1r vE .i r 1r _ Frrr t ;x M�'34_ kt♦.�./Y' °`h. ♦.. sN i� j.;i' 1• „'�y>rsc� Pix 4 !'. :�� -:�'•: 'C �..c2 !ia"Pt��^S i F .F: '�'S > s • ,!fit M�\ . ,A s ,:.ir !.. s tr � F:re o•"" r:�,..�J iY ayt !v: s °! V ..v l � �.c j- :Jr �s ✓ ,. � l I ..yyy . �Y' _' i.�' � � t 42 `y '{0 *'° 1 %Jt[ 4 , +.n 3Y�.ar.W,_r+._ ra a� � 1. I4 !e. r:.�s` r .1�1, _ r V `.. 1. e - tA�.a.S ?'s;1 '��?:Ia'♦�f� -nt4.a :��� Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Campbell, James Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 5:20 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Clarification and Retraction for tonight. From: Erik Thumher [mailto:mdadyisorl @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:05 PM To: jeff.cole@cushwake.com; eaton727@earthlink.net; rhawkins@earthlink.net; bhillgren @cox.net; scott.peotter@taxFghter.com; strataland @earthlink.net; emcdaniel @metropacificbank oom; Campbell, James Subject: Clarification and Retraction Attached to the message recently sent to the Planning Commission on the Hoag Planned Community text noise limits and the cogeneration plant was an email message from Jim Campbell to myself dated February 28th. This was intended to show that divergent views on the applicability of the PC Text to the cogneration plant were expressed by the City to the community. Jim has brought it to my attention that the attachment of this message was unnecessary. As he points out, it is clear from the staff report for the March 6th meeting that staff recognizes that some prior statements to the community were different from opinion presented in the SEIR. Therefore, while I stand by our stated positon on the applicability of the PC text to the cogeneration plant, I fully concede Jim's, point, and therefore ask that the Commissioners ignore the email. Thank you. Erik W. Thurnher, MD Be a better friend, newshound, and know -it -all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 03/06/2008 Page I of 2 Campbell, James From: Campbell, James Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 5:20 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Noise Level from the Hoag cogeneration plant fortonight From: SStameson @aol.com [mailto:SStameson @ aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:39 PM To: jeff.cole@cushwake.comm; eaton727 @earthlink.net; rhawkins @earthlink.net; bhillgren @cox.net; scott.peotter @taxflghter.com; strataland @earthlink.net; emcdaniel @metropacificbank.com; Lepo, David; Campbell, James; Rosansky, Steven; erik @physician- advisors.com; Gloquirk @aol.com; nmknight@sbcglobal.net Subject: Noise Level from the Hoag cogeneration plant Dear Planning commissioners and members of the planning department staff, I have just been informed that the city has reversed its prior stated position on the noise emanating from the cogeneration plant and has decided that the cogeneration plant is exempt from the noise limits set forth in the planed community (PC) text This is an unbelievable position for the city to take in view of the fact that the PC states unambiguously that: `THE NOISE LEVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED THE 55dBA AT ALL PROPERTY LINES" This explicit statement, logic and common sense tell us that the clear intent of the PC was to preclude development or installation of equipment anywhere on the Hoag property that would exceed the 55dBA noise level at the Hoag -Villa Balboa property line. The homeowners of Villa Balboa are extremely disappointed that the city is attempting to let Hoag off the hook, instead of insisting that Hoag fix the noise problem which is quite fixable with available off the shelf technology. The residents of Villa Balboa hope that the city will reconsider its position and go back to its original interpretation of the PC, and insist that Hoag take appropriate steps to mitigate this noise problem. Please do not let us down! Thank you for you attention to this problem Sam Stameson 03/06/2008 Page 2 of 2 Member of the Villa Balboa Liaison Committee Member of the board of directors VBCA Its Tax Timel Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance 03/06/2008 Page 1 of 2 Campbell, James From: Campbell, James Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 5:22 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Hoag's Proposed "Sound Wall" Attachments: Thanks for Attending Villa Balboa Meeting for tonight. From: Richard Runyon [mailto:lrrunyon @yahoo.comj Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:05 AM To: Barry Eaton Cc: jeff.cole @cushwake.com; eaton727@earthlink.net; rhawkins @earthlink.net; bhiligren @cox.net; scott.peotter@taxfighter.com; strataland @earthlink.net; emcdaniel @metropacificbank.com; Lepo, David; Campbell, James; Rosansky, Steven; Erik Thurnher; Gloria Quirk; Nancy Knight; Sam Stameson Subject: Hoag's Proposed "Sound Wall" Note: forwarded message attached. Dear Mr. Eaton, I recently learned of your concern about the placement of the proposed "sound wall" that the staff of GSI, on behalf of Hoag, reviewed with the Villa Balboa owners /residents who were able to attend the meeting for that purpose on February 23. Many of the homeowners at the meeting also subsequently met with GSI staff on West Hoag Road to further consider the proposed "sound wall" and multiple other noise mitigation measures proposed by GSI. Unfortunately, many of those in attendance expressed the same confusion and concerns that you stated. (The GSI slide presentation also appeared to depict the "sound wall" adjacent to the Hoag side of West Hoag Road.) At the homeowners meeting of February 23, GSI staff agreed that the Villa Balboa homeowners should be given a "Menu" of noise mitigation measures that would set forth the degree to which noise levels would be reduced as a result of each option. However, as of this date no such "Menu" has been presented. Via an email message of March 2, I reminded GSI that their commitment had not been fulfilled and that nonresident owners were awaiting details on the multiple proposals discussed at the February 23 meeting. With this message I am forwarding my email message of March 2. (Approximately 40% of the owners of condominium units adjacent to West Hoag road have moved away from Villa Balboa. Many have done so due to the excessive and incessant noise levels.) The members of the Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee have grave concern that a "rush to judgment" is underway in an attempt to dispose of this complex issue without giving homeowners the benefit of full disclosure of the anticipated reduction in noise levels that will be experienced as a result of the installation of one or more of the multiple noise mitigation measures reviewed by GSI. It seems grossly unfair to expect homeowners who have endured excessive noise levels for 15 or more years to be forced to make uninformed decisions in a matter of days simply for the sake of expediency. Thanks so much for the effort you and other members of the Planning Commission have put forth to address this and other very important issues that affect quality of life issues of Villa Balboa residents and visitors to Sunset View Park. —L3 .(,4 03/06/2008 Page 2 of 2 Dick Runyon Co- Chair, Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee Be a better friend, newshound, and know -it -all with Yahoo! Mobile. TU it now. Z.'N ,W1 03/06/2008 Page 1 of 2 Campbell, James From: Richard Runyon [Irrunyon@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 8:09 PM To: Cora Newman; Carol McDermott; Vicki Fetterman; Rosansky, Steven; Lepo, David; Campbell, James Cc; Robert C. Hawkins; Erik Thurnher, Gloria Quirk; Nancy Knight; Sam Stameson; Michele Staples Subject: Thanks for Attending Villa Balboa Meeting To attendees of the Villa Balboa homeowners meeting on Saturday, February 23: The Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee would like to thank the staff of GSI, Cora Newman, Carol McDermott and Vicki Fetterman for meeting with Villa Balboa homeowners and residents to update us on the various proposed sound mitigation measures being considered by Hoag for West Hoag Road. We would also like to thank Councilman Steve Rosansky, Director of Planning, David Lepo and Senior Planner, Jim Campbell for their attendance and participation in the ensuing discussions. In addition, our thanks to Dennis O'Neil, Hoag Counsel, for his attendance. The Committee was pleased that homeowners and residents were given the opportunity to learn about proposed alternative noise mitigation measures. However, we are rather surprised that GSI has not provided the information requested at the close of the meeting on February 23. Accordingly, we would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the following points reviewed at the end of our meeting that were to lead to action steps, as shown below. (Ms. Newman indicated that Hoag would develop a "Menu" of the items set forth below.) Representatives of the Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee agreed that this would be the appropriate procedure to follow. 1.The propose d "sound wall" can be offered at various heights and lengths along West Hoag Road. Hoag will specify these options for the affected homeowners to obtain their input. The projected reduction in noise levels for each alternative height/length following installation of the "sound wall" will also be set forth. 2.The propose d precise placement of the "sound wall" (Villa Balboa property/Hoag property) will be clarified and depicted in detail at the construction site for the homeowners to clearly . understand how the placement may affect their decision on the various proposed sound mitigation options. (Meeting attendees were told that the "story poles" did not depict placement of the "sound wall. ") 3.The amount and scope of proposed landscaping/re- landscaping measures will also be clarified with detailed renderings to enable homeowners to make informed decisions on this issue. 41 andscaping and other maintenance procedures will be clarified to allow the Villa Balboa Homeowners' Association (VBHA) to determine how this will impact the association's landscape maintenance budget. 5.Hoag will also clearly specify which units will be offered noise mitigation with "sound proof' windows and sliding glass doors, including the noise reduction levels at each floor of the 260 and 280 buildings that will be assured following installation. 6.Hoag will also clearly specify the details of proposed "noise mitigation insulation" that has been proposed for the 260 and 280 Cagney buildings to include how, and the degree to which the proposed installation will mitigate noise levels. Implications for the budget impact to the VBHA will also be specified. 7.The fe asibility of a cantilevered "sound wall" will also be investigated with clarification on the expected impact on noise mitigation as a result of this variation of the "sound wall." -1,3.0\% 03/06/2009 Page] of 3 Campbell, James From: Robert C. Hawkins [rhawkins@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:49 PM To: 'Erik Thurnher; 'Erik Thurnher; Campbell, James Cc: Lepo, David; Rosansky, Steven; steve.paliska @juno.com; rhawkins@earthlink.nek jeff.cole @ cushwake.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; bhillgren @cox.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; strataland @earth!ink.net; Selich, Edward; emcdaniel @metropacificbankcom; Varin, Ginger Subject: RE: Research Update on Solutions to the Cogeneration Plant Steam and Exhaust Plume Issues Greetings, Thank you for your continued comments on this important project. By this email, I am forwarding your comments to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record on this project. Thanks again for your comments. RCH _._... ..._.__ _ _ . _..._...._......_. _ ........... .......... From: Erik Thurnher [ mailto:ewt@medcentiimnline.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20; 2008 8:40 AM To: 'Robert C. Hawkins' Cc: jeff.cole @cushwake.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; bhillgren @mx.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; strataland @earthlink.net; ' emcdaniel @metropacif!cbank.com:' Subject: RE: Research Update on Solutions to the Cogeneration Plant Steam and Exhaust Plume Issues Good Morning Mr. Hawkins, Thank you for your note. In response to your question, we had a technical meeting scheduled with Hoag to discuss the cogeneration plant set for February 13a' at 4 pm at the Hoag offices at 500 Superior Ave. All of committee members and our consulting engineer were set to attend along with key members of Hoag's facilities staff. However, as the meeting date approached we were unable to get Hoag to reconfirm or reschedule. On the day that the meeting was supposed to take place, we received an email from Gary McKitterick indicating that they would not be attending, citing the need to continue working with Fluor, the engineering firm hired by the City. Please also note that we have been meeting with Hoag about the cogeneration plant for almost two years, and that Hoag effectively decided to stop meeting with us on the issue in early Fall of 2007!1 In any case we stand ready to meet with them as soon as Fluor has completed its study. On another related subject, we have arranged a meeting for the noise mitigation measures for the loading dock area for February 23rd. The meeting will be attended by affected residents, representatives of the City, and Hoag personnel. All the Best Erik IN 02/20/2008 Page 2 of 3 From: Robert C. Hawkins [mailto:rhawkins @earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:14 AM To: Erik Thumher; 'Campbell,hmes' Cc: 'Lepo,David'; Parandigm@aol.com; steve.paliska @juno.com; rhawkins @earthlink.net; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; eatpn727 @earthlink.net; bhillgren @cox.net; scott.peotter@taxftghter.com; strataland@earthlink.net; edselich @roadrunner.com; emcdaniel @metropacificbank.com Subject: Re: Research Update on Solutions to the Cogeneration Plant Steam and Exhaust Plume Issues Greetings, Thank you for your comments on this important project. By this email, I am forwarding it to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record on this project. On the other important subject, when are you going to meet with the applicant and its team to discuss these issues. As indicated at the hearing, it is important that you continue to meet with them. Thank you for your comments and update on the meeting (when you send me that). RCH — Original Message--- - From: EdkThurnher Sent: Feb 19, 2008 8:12 PM To: "'Campbell, James "' Cc: "'Lepo, David'", Parandlgm @aol.com, steve.pallska@juno.com, rhawkins @earthlink.net, jeff.cole @cushwake.com, eaton727 @earthlink.net, bhillgren @oox.net, soott.peotter @taxfighter.com, strataland @earthlink.net, edsellch @roadrunner.com, emcdaniel @metropacifiebank.com Subject: Research Update on Solutions to the Cogeneration Plant Steam and Exhaust Plume Issues Hi Jim, I would like to give you a brief update on some research conducted recently by Steve Paliska, our consulting engineer, on the cogeneration plant steam plume and heat plume issues. Specifically, he has spoken with a manufacturer called Cannon Boiler Works that produces an off -the -shelf solution for steam plumes called a 'Vent condenser." This equipment is specifically designed to eliminate steam plumes from industrial facilities where such plumes create an aesthetic issue for surrounding areas. The equipment is relatively simple to install and operate, and as an added bonus actually increases operational efficiency by recapturing heat and returning it to the system which would otherwise be lost to the atmosphere. By eliminating steam release it also reduces corrosion of rooftop equipment. For more information on this off - the -shelf product, click here: Steam Plume Abatement Equipment Cannon Boiler Works also produces heat exchangers, which are a key component of the solution to the exhaust heat plume problem proposed by Steve Paliska in his technical report The basic concept is to reduce the heat of the exhaust before it is released, which in turn would eliminate or substantially reduce the 10 to 15 foot heat plumes. Steve has spoken with engineers at Cannon Boiler Works and described the problem at hand to them. While they do not have a specific product design for this exact issue, they are fairly confident based on Steve's description of the exhaust system that they can adapt their existing off - the -shelf heat exchangers to address the problem at hand. For more information on the Cannon Boiler Works heat exchangers, click here: Heat Exchanger for Exhaust Heat Plume Abatement. The use of a heat exchanger to address the heat plume is technically eloquent, and relatively straightforward, although there are likely other approaches available as well. With respect to noise, we have learned that special noise - abated cooling tower fans are available, and were in fact part of original bid specifications for the Hoag plant. Hoag has not confirmed to us that those special fans were installed, and this is certainly something worth checking. If they were not installed, doing so now could help bring the plant into compliance with the noise limitations of the Development Agreement. If they were already installed however, our acoustic consultant believes that noise could be further attenuated by installing sound absorbing panels around the cooling, towers. This approach is likely to be relatively inexpensive, and certainly should be investigated. We realize that most of the attention of Fluor has been focused on the cooling tower plumes, but we feel it is critical that at some point before too long they turn their attention to these other two plume problems and to looking at some method of mitigating the noise from the cooling towers. As you know, Hoag promised at the January 18th meeting for the first time to put the steam and exhaust plume issues on the table. Given the high level of political attention and human resources currently focused on fixing the plant, we feel this is the one chance we'll have make the plant as "park friendly" and as "neighborhood friendly" as possible, and this has to include addressing to the greatest extent feasible the full package of negative impacts. Z'B , 1vo 02/20/2008 Page 3 of 3 Thank you for all your hard work on this matter. I look forward to speaking with you again soon. All the Best, Erik Erik W. Tuumher, MD Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee Friends of Sunset View Park Erik W. Thurnher, MD, CFP MedCentric Financial Network 500 Newport Center Drive STE 825 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (p) 800 - 765 -0353 (f) 949- 759 -5656 ewt@medcentriconline.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM -L*; •\ 0 ) 02/20/2008 Page 2 of 2 The above "Menu" options are to be developed by Hoag and presented to all the homeowners, individually, of the affected 260 and 280 Cagney buildings. The "Menu," along with a detailed summary overview of the impact of each of the proposed noise mitigation options, is a vitally important phase of this process in light of the fact that approximately 40% of the affected units in the two buildings are non -owner occupied. Many owners have moved away from Villa Balboa as a result of the noise levels along West Hoag Road. The Committee requests that Hoag set forth the timeline for presenting the "Menu" items above along with an estimate of the start date and completion date for implementation of all noise mitigation measures. Thanks again to all for participating in the homeowners' meeting. Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee Dick Runyon, Erik Thumher, Co- Chairs Gloria Quirk Nancy Knight Sam Stameson Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 2,3,\oZ r Campbell, James From: Robert C. Hawkins [rhawkins @earthlink.net) Sent: Thursday, February 07,.2008 2:47 PM To: 'Erik Thurnher; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; eaton727@earthlink.net; bhillgren @cox.net scott.peotter@taxfighter.com; strataland@earthlink.net Cc: Varin, Ginger; Lepo, David; Campbell, James Subject: RE: Planning Commission hearing comments and response to email from Mr. Luehrs - PLAIN TEXT FORMATTING Greetings, .Thank you for your comments on this important project. By this email, I am forwarding your comments to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record on this DSEIR and the Project. Thanks again. RCH - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Erik Thurnher [mailto:erik @physician- advisors.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 2 :05 PM To: jeff.cole @cushwake.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; rhawkins @earthlink.net; bhillgren @cox.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; strataland @earthlink.net Subject: Planning Commission hearing comments and response to email from Mr. Luehrs - PLAIN TEXT FORMATTING Dear Mr. Hawkins, We want to thank you and each of the other Planning Commissioners for taking the time last week to listen to so many residents of Villa Balboa and Newport Crest on the various issues surrounding Hoag's proposed entitlement transfer from the lower campus to the upper campus. Ultimately, the open flow of information benefits all parties, including Hoag, and We think it is a credit to the Planning Commission that you patiently gave every the citizen the opportunity to say their piece even though this meant the meeting did not conclude until the late hours of the evening. We think the Commissioners are to be commended for encouraging openness and communication, not criticized. We would also like to take a moment to respond to the comments made by Mr. Luehrs in his recent email to the Planning Commission: 1.) When Mr. Luehrs states that the cogeneration plant is an existing, approved facility and therefore should not be open to discussion, he misses several important points. First, the plant is out of the compliance with the current Development Agreement noise regulations, limiting noise at the property line from mechanical operations to 55 dBA. This was the clear conclusion reached by EQAC, and it was also the stated position of the Planning Department at the meeting with Hoag and the City on January 18th, and on other occasions. Since the current application by Hoag includes removing the current noise limit, the plant is certainly part of that application, and therefore is open to discussion. Second, while the plant was approved, it is widely recognized that the permitting process did not meet several critical requirements of the Development Agreement. The fact that Hoag did not disclose the plumes or noise levels to the Planning Department and Coastal Commission during the permitting process had far reaching consequences. (We would encourage members of the Planning Commission to review the "Advertisement for Bids" we recently provided to Assistant Attorney, Aaron Harp, which shows that the original design of the cogeneration plant did include plume abatement equipment. Sadly, Hoag chose to delete the equipment during construction of \O 3 1 Z3 � the plant.) Most importantly, there was no supplemental environmental impact report prepared even though such documentation is required by the Development Agreement when a new impact exists that was not addressed in the original EIR. Since the cooling tower, steam, and exhaust plumes were not considered, or even anticipated, in the original EIR, supplemental documentation should have been prepared. Further, the View Impact Analysis required by the Development Agreement did not include modeling of any of the three plumes. Lastly, the City Council, which was required by the Development Agreement to monitor view impacts each year, and to hold public hearings on this subject, was not at that time discharging this duty. It is clear from our conversations with City personnel that, if the Planning Department, Coastal Commission, City Council, and the public had known about the impacts that would be caused by the plant's operation, mitigation measures would certainly have been required. Also, Mr. Luehrs suggests that video of the plume exaggerates its impact. While no one is suggesting that the plume is always as dense as is shown in the video, there are hundreds of residents, who can attest to how severe it can be, particularly during the early morning and evening hours. We deeply regret Mr. Luehrs' attempt to discredit the severity of the plume and our presentation. We will have video of the plume available at tonight's hearing for anyone who wishes to examine it. We have also attached two brief clips to this email. 2.) While we won't attempt to comment on the logic of Mr. Luehrs arguments regarding noise mitigation and property values, we would point out that not a single resident at the Commission hearing raised the issue of the value of their property. Noise is first and foremost a quality of life issue, and the residents are simply asking that a full range of mitigation measures be considered, including those in the PC text and Development Agreement. Since Hoag is now asking to remove noise limits that have been in place for almost 15 years, this request hardly seems unreasonable. (Extending Mr. Luehrs' logic to the construction of the cogeneration plant would suggest that it should not have been built because the Villa Balboa condominiums were constructed first.) 3.) In reference to remarks made by residents, Mr. Luehrs said that he was surprised by "all the negativity." First, we would point out that, almost without exception, the residents who spoke prefaced their comments by acknowledging the benefits that Hoag brings to our community. Many related stories of their own personal connection to the hospital, and these were uniformly positive. Second, perhaps Mr. Luehrs should consider that the possibility that his "surprise" is more the result of his lack of experience with what life is like living next to the cogeneration plant, or to the loading dock, rather than to some flaw in the residents. The hospital is somewhat unusual for Newport Beach in that it is a "24/7/365" operation. It is has undergone tremendous growth in the last twenty years, something the residents strongly support. Accordingly, residents accept that some impacts are unavoidable. We only ask that, as is required in the Development Agreement and PC Text, and by good neighborliness, those impacts be mitigated as much as possible. Lastly, some background is in order regarding the organized discussions that having been going on between Hoag and its neighbors for almost two years. When those discussions began, our Committee told Hoag that our aim was to achieve a "Win - Win" outcome. If Hoag would help restore the quality of life of nearby residents and of those who use and enjoy Sunset View Park, then we would "go to bat" for them with respect to shifting square footage from the lower to upper campus. As a sign of our good faith, we promised not to go to the press, or to retain counsel while discussions were underway. We were pleased when Hoag hired Government Solutions to interface with us, as the quality and quantity of contact increased, and we were able to make progress on certain issues, such as landscaping: However, the most 2 23 1 oy I difficult problems, including the cogeneration plant, remained unresolved. Then, in late Summer, Hoag abruptly ended regular communication with us. The meetings that had been occurring on almost a monthly basis were halted, and Hoag stopped responding to our correspondence. We were particularly surprised that Dr. Afable did not did not respond to our letter thanking him for the progress made to date, and expressing our hope that Hoag would continue to work with us toward resolution of the remaining issues (see attached). When we approached Carol McDermott at Government Solutions, she said that she was no longer authorized to speak with us and that if we had concerns with this change, we should put them in writing. In any case, it is important to understand that the current situation was preceded by a prolonged effort by residents to engage Hoag in a neighborly discussion of some of the impacts its operations were having on those living nearby. With those efforts having largely failed to bear fruit, we now look forward to the participation of the Planning Commission and the City Council in the process. With their involvement, we are hopeful that a resolution can soon be reached which includes both Hoag achieving the entitlement transfer it is seeking, as well as the restoration of the quality of life for those who live near the hospital or who use and enjoy Sunset View Park. This would represent the "Win - Win" outcome we were hoping for when our Committee first approached Hoag almost two years ago. Sincerely, Erik W. Thurnher, MD Richard Runyon Co- Chairman Co- Chairman Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1265 - Release Date: 2/7/2008 11:17 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. -Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1265 - Release Date: 2/7/2008 11:17 AM 3 23.105 Pagel of 3 Campbell, James From: Nancy Knight [nmknight @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:18 PM To: Erik Thurnher; jeff.cole@cushwake.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; rhawkins @earthlinknet; bhillgren @cox.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; strataland @earthlink.net Cc: Lepo, David; Campbell, James; Rosansky, Steven; Selich, Edward; 'Michele Staples; Harp, Aaron Subject: Re: Planning Commission hearing comments and response to email from Mr. Luehrs Erik, as usual, you did an excellent job with this letter. Villa Balboa residents are certainly lucky to have you as a neighbor! Nancy Erik Thurnher <erik&hysiciau- advisors.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Hawkins, We want to thank you and each of the other Planning Commissioners for taking the time last week to listen to so many residents of Villa Balboa and Newport Crest on the various issues surrounding Hoag's proposed entitlement transfer from the lower campus to the upper campus. Ultimately, the open flow of information benefits all parties, including Hoag, and We think it is a credit to the Planning Commission that you patiently gave every the citizen the opportunity to say. their piece even though this meant the meeting did not conclude until the late hours of the evening. We think the Commissioners are to be commended for encouraging openness and communication, not criticized. We would also like to take a moment to respond to the comments made by Mr. Luehrs in his recent email to the Planning Commission: 1.) When Mr. Luehrs states that the cogeneration plant is an existing, approved facility and therefore should not be open to discussion, he misses several important points. First, the plant is out of the compliance with the current Development Agreement noise regulations, limiting noise at the property line from mechanical operations to 55 dBA. This was the clear conclusion reached by EQAC, and it was also the stated position of the Planning Department at the meeting with Hoag and the City on January 18th, and on other occasions. Since the current application by Hoag includes removing the current noise limit, the plant is certainly part of that application, and therefore is open to discussion. Second, while the plant was approved, it is widely recognized that the permitting process did not meet several critical requirements of the Development Agreement. The fact that Hoag did not disclose the plumes or noise levels to the Planning Department and Coastal Commission during the permitting process had far reaching consequences. (We would encourage members of the Planning Commission to review the "Advertisement for Bids" we recently provided to Assistant Attorney, Aaron Harp, which shows that the original design of the cogeneration plant did include plume abatement equipment. Sadly, Hoag chose to delete the equipment during construction of the plant.) Most importantly, there was no supplemental environmental impact report prepared even though such documentation is wired by the Development Agreement when a new impact exists that was not addressed in the original EIR. Since the cooling tower, steam and exhaust Iiuumes were not considered, or even anticipated, in the original EIR suRplemental documentation should have been prepared. Further, the View Impact Analysis required by the Development Agreement did not include modeling of any of the three plumes. Lastly, the City Council, which was required by the Development Agreement to monitor view impacts each year, and to hold public hearings on this subject, was not at that time discharging this duty. It is clear 02/07/2008 Page 2 of 3 from our conversations with City personnel that if the Planning Department, Coastal Commission, City Council, and the public had known about the impacts that would be caused by the plant's operation, mitigation measures would certainly have been required. Also, Mr. Luehrs suggests that video of the plume exaggerates its impact. While no one is suggesting that the plume is always as dense as is shown in the video, there are hundreds of residents, who can attest to how severe it can be, particularly during the early morning and evening hours. We deeply regret Mr. Luehrs' attempt to discredit the severity of the plume and our presentation. We will have video of the plume available at tonight's hearing for anyone who wishes to examine it. We have also attached two brief clips to this email. 2.) While we won't attempt to comment on the logic of Mr. Luehrs arguments regarding noise mitigation and property values, we would point out that not a single resident at the Commission hearing raised the issue of the value of their property. Noise is first and foremost a quality of life issue, and the residents are simply asking that a full range of mitigation measures be considered, including those in the PC text and Development Agreement. Since Hoag is now asking to remove noise limits that have been in place for almost 15 years, this request hardly seems unreasonable. (Extending Mr. Luehrs' logic to the construction of the cogeneration plant would suggest that it should not have been built because the Villa Balboa condominiums were constructed first.) 3.) In reference to remarks made by residents, Mr. Luehrs said that he was surprised by "all the negativity." First, we would point out that, almost without exception, the residents who spoke prefaced their comments by acknowledging the benefits that Hoag brings to our community. .Many related stories of their own personal connection to the hospital, and these were uniformly positive. Second, perhaps Mr. Luehrs should consider that the possibility that his "surprise" is more the result of his lack of experience with what life is like living next to the cogeneration plant, or to the loading dock, rather than to some flaw in the residents. The hospital is somewhat unusual for Newport Beach in that it is a "24!7/365" operation. It is has undergone tremendous growth in the last twenty years, something the residents strongly support. Accordingly, residents accept that some impacts are unavoidable. We only ask that, as is required in the Development Agreement and PC Text, and by good neighborliness, those impacts be mitigated as much as possible. Lastly, some background is in order regarding the organized discussions that having been going on between Hoag and its neighbors for almost two years. When those discussions began, our Committee told Hoag that our aim was to achieve a "Win - Win" outcome. If Hoag would help restore the quality of life of nearby residents and of those who use and enjoy Sunset View Park, then we would "go to bat" for them with respect to shifting square footage from the lower to upper campus. As a sign of our good faith, we promised not to go to the press, or to retain counsel while discussions were underway. We were pleased when Hoag hired Government Solutions to interface with us, as the quality and quantity of contact increased, and we were able to make progress on certain issues, such as landscaping. However, the most difficult problems, including the cogeneration plant, remained unresolved. Then, in late Summer, Hoag abruptly ended regular communication with us. The meetings that had been occurring on almost a monthly basis were halted, and Hoag stopped responding to our correspondence. We were particularly surprised that Dr. Afable did not did not respond to our letter thanking him for the progress made to date, and expressing our hope that Hoag would continue to work with us toward resolution of the remaining issues (see attached). When we approached Carol McDermott at Government Solutions, she said that she was no longer authorized to speak with us and that if we had concerns with this change, we should put them in writing. In any case, it is important to understand that the current situation was preceded by a prolonged effort by 2 -6,Nvw 02/07/2008 Page 3 of 3 residents to engage Hoag in a neighborly discussion of some of the impacts its operations were having on those living nearby. With those efforts having largely failed to bear fruit, we now look forward to the participation of the Planning Commission and the City Council in the process. With their involvement, we are hopeful that a resolution can soon be reached which includes both Hoag achieving the entitlement transfer it is seeking, as well as the restoration of the quality of life for those who live near the hospital or who use and enjoy Sunset View Park. This would represent the "Win — Win" outcome we were hoping for when our Committee first approached Hoag almost two years ago. Sincerely, Erik W. Thurnher, MD Richard Runyon Co- Chairman Co- Chairman Villa Balboa -Hoag Liaison Committee 02/07/2008 UI'Vk relnkrso ,c qwl Overview of Legionella and Its Control * 11-7109 What is Legionella? Legionella is a small bacterium found almost everywhere. There are many different types, but only one, Legionella pneumophila, serogroup 1, is thought to account for the disease that caused an outbreak of pneumonia at the 1976 Convention of the American Legion resulting in roughly 200 cases and approximately 30 deaths. How Does One Become Exposed? The primary source of Legionella appears to be water. It has been typically suggested that the key exposure route is not drinking of tap water but inhalation of aerosols associated with hot water systems, air conditioning cooling towers, evaporative condensers, and whirlpool spas. However, the Legionella Experts of the Special Pathogens Laboratory make the following statements: "Air conditioning systems and cooling towers can harbor and support the abundant growth of Legionella. We, however, do not believe the source of Legionnaire's disease is by means of inhalation of mists from air conditioning systems. Instead, we believe aspiration of Legionella in drinking water containing the bacterium Is the major source. (emphasis added) Nonetheless, cooling systems are disinfected to try to prevent the growth of Legionella in this equipment, both to prevent a possible health issue and to decrease biofouling of equipment." ( ttp:llwww.leaionelia .orq /enaineers.htm #e10 ) F Mr. l ... "cooling towers are probably not the source of the Legionella in most of the reported outbreaks . "(httD: / /www.leAionella .orq /engineers.htm #e26) Legionella has also been isolated from hot and cold water taps and from creeks, ponds, and surrounding soil. Legionella is not transmitted from person -to- person. What Happens if One Is Exposed? For many people exposure to Legionella may have no effect, for others it may cause mild symptoms such as headache and fever, while a few may become seriously ill. Infections most often occur in middle -aged and older persons, particularly those who smoke or have chronic lung disease. Also at increased risk are immunocom promised individuals such as those with cancer, diabetes, or AIDS. Symptoms of the disease will usually appear 2 to 10 days after exposure. What are the Disease Symptoms? Infection by Legionella (i.e. Legionellosis) can cause Legionnaires' disease or Pontiac Fever. With both, fever and chills generally develop within a day. A dry cough, abdominal pain, diarrhea, muscle aches, tiredness, and loss of appetite are common. Pneumonia is frequently associated with Legionnaires' disease but not with Pontiac Fever. individuals with Pontiac Fever generally recover in 2 to 5 days without treatment. Is it Treatable? Legionellosis is readily treated by antibiotics, such as the macrolides (azithromycin) and quinolones (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, gemlfloxacin, and trovofloxacin) and several others (tetracycline, doxycycline, minocyciine, and trimethoprim- sulfamethoxazole). COUNTY OF ORANGE HEALTH CARE AGENCY PUBLIC HEALTH EPIDEMIOLOGY & ASSESSMENT MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 6128 Santa Ana, CA 92706-0128 TELEPHONE: (714) 834$180 FAX: (714) 834$196 Number of Legionellosis Cases Reported Among Orange County Residents by City of Residence, 2005 -2007 City 2005 2006 2007' Aliso Viejo 0 0 1 Anaheim 1 0 1 Costa Mesa 0 0 1 Cypress 0 1 0 Dana Point 1 0 1 Fountain Valley 0 2 1 Fullerton 0 1 1 Garden Grove 1 1 1 Huntington Beach 0 4 0 La Habra 0 1 0 La Palma 0 0 1 Laguna Hills 1 0 0 Laguna Niguel 0 0 1 Laguna Woods 1 0 0 Lake Forest 1 0 1 Mission Viejo 1 2 2 Orange 0 1 1 San Clemente 1 0 0 San Juan Capistrano 0 1 0 Santa Ana 2 0 2 Tustin 0 1 0 Westminster 1 1 1 Total 11 16 16 2007 data are considered preliminary Source: County of Orange, Health Care Agency, Epidemiology and Assessment, February 2008 ZS -\\\ Upper Campus Noise Mitigation I� s r M O al 1 1 N Z'3• I1'Z Ancillary & West Tower Building Improvements Equipment Ancillary Buildin- EF -72 Enclosure r KT�� 7 It. l Panel EF -16 �, Wall Panel EF -18 EF -109 EF -38 -----3" 1 .,EF EF -10 E' "9 i SF -1 L-AL 'we.St IPA Tower r EF-8 tj 3 \ \j I \ \ _ .... »� � « \�� \� «® �� w.� � ,, \� &d « � D >. �s Loading Dock Improvements (With No Sound Wall) Enclosed Cardboard i Com action System - --- -------- ------ - - - --- - - -� Waste Compaction System Ea LD 6 7 Lane Dock -- r I Enclosed SteriCycle Unit Dock Enclosure Alternative Dock Enclosure Alternative Newport Beach, California 9 V i Sound Attenuation - Windows Sri 7if 4n) U; d T0: •� it trot J -'- .g 3 937 too 101 t"t r 2.'X) - ` -' r 94.5 Z15 - - L.i { 411: ��• Cnesy __ _ _.._ b t 7 . _ 4001 •F 1:. . . 3 32 r - V\ Sound Attenuation — Windows 260 Cagney Lane IS 0 0" 15 - .; �. ,. � .° ' �:.< - ,...y�..�P•'iy� -ELY r �: .. .�i� .. `F; a 1'.-.. ». v � t 3 �.4:s_ [ 1.. .. ;._ �. .. � ., .q�f �� � 1'�1_ u��� ��! � Q��tl. d' J. �V i�k'+4i' s.A a '�y I&'F �' � s.. . � w ns Ctgr €_3Z �� . �, / ;*: ;�<ti � � a c 1 �� t th ^�4 f f z � � a � � �' � f h '�� - �'- xv,.y � - ?c p + +. 4. '.:: � 4 'Y � � 4 4' � lv 1 L x ) {„ - _ 1 - € *��4 v r a 8 3- � 2 Y .Jal�} � �•stx �. M l� k 1 Cfl � �'� l s s v �, J,e j d i,i . ., aq . The Ultimate In Noise Control LSE Noise Barrier Nall System The LSE system is a modular or basic building block design that enables you to meet your specific noise abatement requirements without the cost of custom designing. Further flexibility is obtained by the absorptive and reflective character- istics of the LSE modules. The Sound Fighter Noise Barnet Wall is constructed from high- density polyethylene elements which stack and -in- terlock to the desired wall height. The modules are locked in place at each end by vertical steel 4" H beam columns. The element is perforated on one,face, and the cavity holds in place acoustic media and 1/2" thick barrier board or other combina- tions of absorbing and reflective materials to meet specific criteria. The very attractive geometrically designed wall has proven to be very effective and durable for over 30 years. The wall is competitively priced with other structures and has the unique feature of being completely salvable_ Should conditions change, the noise barrier wall can be moved to a new loca- tion. The LSE Wall has passed hurricane wind load tests equivalent to 200 mph wind, as well as, actual hurricane condi- tions in several installation locations without failure. When temporary noise control walls are required in metropolitan area's Sound Fighter can design and furnish movable wall sections. • Modular Construction • Sound Absorbing • Lightweight • Self-Draining • Attractive • Non- Reflective • Non - Conducting • Non - Magnetic • Inexpensive • Any Color To Choose From • Strong & Durable • Easily Repaired or Replaced • Easily Installed • Transparent To Radar & Television Signals • Impervious To Rodents, Insects, & Fungus • Graffiti Easily Removed • Impervious To Rain, Snow, Ice, and Sleet • Impervious To De -Icing Chemicals • Excellent Transmission Loss • Non- Corrosive • Will Not Rust, Rot or Stain • Height Up To 35 Feet • Wind Load Capacities Up to 200 mph Z3�`Zw Physical Dimensions Applications Highways • Interstates • Loading Docks Parking Lots • Compressors • Transformfer Substations • Chillers • Cooling Towers Airports • Gas Transmission Stations Pumping Stations • Water Treatment Plants Railroad Yards • Bridges Stock Height L9E PN1fl taP /BOIfOY IIVIEMpIX - 9¢TOx .rvq LSf nNlEl fMp Y mlUWl COUNfCM1N IKIIW � Certified Laboratory Test And Results LSE 1000 LSE 2000 LSE 3000 Length 38.75" 73.00" 107.50" Width 6.00" 6.00" 6.00" Height 10.50" 10.50" 10.50" Stack Height 9.87" 9.87" 9.87" Area Z5sf 5.Osf 7.Ssf Weighr/SF 5.016 5.01b 5.01b Applications Highways • Interstates • Loading Docks Parking Lots • Compressors • Transformfer Substations • Chillers • Cooling Towers Airports • Gas Transmission Stations Pumping Stations • Water Treatment Plants Railroad Yards • Bridges Stock Height L9E PN1fl taP /BOIfOY IIVIEMpIX - 9¢TOx .rvq LSf nNlEl fMp Y mlUWl COUNfCM1N IKIIW � Certified Laboratory Test And Results Sound Absorption Test Sound Transmission Loss Test Acoustic Systems Acoustical Research Facility Acoustic Spstems Acoustical Research Facility Test Method Test Method ASTM C 423 — 90a / ASTM E 795 —92 ASTM E 90 - 90 / ASTMC 423 - 90a Test Results ASTM E 413 - 87 / ASTM E 1332- 90 Noise Reduction Coefficient = 1.05 Test Results Sound Transmission Class = 33 Outdoor - Indoor Transmission Class = 24 -3 t \Z4� � � 1 _ • Kq =' •f VPr Tl1 `V t� f .1 T Y' O'4 P z dlp I r s i %Ear'i J�"�7'`'r��r+ Sij,t'F �bI *c « k � `"u a4"f`�- Fi?+u"1 ^wsV 92, C d r P-1 zr71Oe r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF DESIGN 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 Flex your pqu l PHONE (916) 883 -3848 Be energy efficient/ FAX (916) 664-5881 TTY (916) 663.4086 November 15, 2002 Mr. Patrick W. Harrison, President Sound Fighter Systems, L.L.C. P.O. Box 6075 Shreveport, LA 71186 -6075 Dear Mr. Harrison: After thorough evaluation of the Sound Fighter LSE Noise Barrier Wall System, the California Department of Transportation has granted its approval for the product's use on State Highway projects. The Sound Fighter LSE Noise Barrier Wall System will be available as an alternative noise barrier design product on projects for which the barrier will be physically located outside of the required ultimate clear recovery zone, or at a location which is not accessible to motor vehicle traffic. If placed behind a safety barrier, it shall be located at least 0.45 meters (18 inches) behind the face of said barrier. It shall be freestanding; that is to say that it is not to be mounted on top of a safety barrier or bridge rail. As a result of the product's satisfactory compliance with the Department's acoustical testing requirements, the Sound Fighter LSE Noise Barrier Wall has been approved for use as an Absorptive Noise Barrier System. As soon as your company is able to provide reproducible and electronic versions of the approved standard detail sheets to Mr. Douglas Dunrnd of the Office of Structures Design, a letter will be sent to each District Office in the Department to inform the appropriate design managers and staff that your product has been added to the list of pre - approved noise barrier products for use on State Highway projects. At that point it will also be added to the listing of pre-approved products found at the Department's New Products website. Cnitraue improves mobday across CaliJbrnta' V3 ,\ 31 Mr. Patrick W. Harrison November 15, 2002 Page 2 Mr. Dunrud's mailing address for the purpose of submitting the reproducible versions of the standard detail sheets is: Mr. Douglas Dunrud California Department of Transportation Office of Structure Design, M.S. #9 -219I P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274 -0001 Should you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kevin Hanley, New Noise Barrier Products Committee Chair, at (916) 653 -2048. Sincerely, G.G. SCOTT MCGOWEN, P.E. Chief Office of Special Projects �Cakrww wwmws moblday across Cak,PbMw, '230 i3L HOAG HOSE. ice` MEMORANDUM DATE: Tuesday, Janua y 8, 2007 TO: Jim Campbell FROM: Debra Legan, VP Marketing & Corporate Communications SUBJECT: Visuals from City Hall Meeting on 1/18/08 CC: File Jim, Debra Legan asked that I forward you the visuals used at the City Hall meeting held on Friday, January 18, 2008. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like more information. Thank you, IKarra Marie Torres Executive Secretary to Debra Legan Marketing/ Corporate Communications Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Phone (949) 764 -5921 RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1AN 28 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT PC" Z3•\33 -Z3 � ��-1 NOISE MITIGATION MATRIX HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Location Equipment Description Mitigating Element Schedule Government/Agency Anticipated Outcome Status / Effect RMa?9Pii V.Ylr MUiq dMrialelikwmn 9<I WFUAa1LN Amnitl minn9 Pomb Redr ®.nwe EF2. EJmim FUn.serrea tv. RcgcgeE ei pl dtlx Plotlumlvajal. arx5ntto Roa OR wN aarJirollwxeaay.hm $aM1duW20t5 xN yM OSmtlIN Elbrmalo urY Redaco.0!n'M5r*Had wwremfm Mwnru 5[IVIJN F. M:3 Amyq etly4pgnnv RMxe mlw FU F.in CiM�4enas ltl Fgof ReLalvtl as P!rl ilme Mtlurm P'94C. nrcXmue aiM1 omel ®I bxg9 ry9om $iME�tlW M1]' INd )M 4uMuIleE EMMOl4 ur§ Oeanurmetl artl d+e ^eta Pomae+§ vy Wcaninb itg=] PeMM EMrmx4in§In A,3 SF.t $updy.Fan - LmYnEnlemFppywvN wY. SflgplUl Fyl ipy Mwrb ortNq Rmr §. - RWUte nuMWrvu Hi W14+e maewiN [roP�WamaM1xl' EiMUL Fan..5m61•J eouNweY M^eb SIrWdWFW2gN9 Mrtt-0eiizl4q R'-A Rata terse N EFi. FIWr OR HaWabOm lultlM Ne RaV4mr FOla�. anYnure: �i wNxmailwlpuwn4Y4bm $cMdhw N15 NdydlvrriYN EFendeai§ M Yyle mun wb th IveyaeE BmdYN GGIwWF4n.4nrves amvnM'M mrups4nrver WMbIMFrI ]OIW. � P4imY flmM1U gorse. EF -10 Rasemanl' ReluarlW aPW O11M R11Cim PWed eMUNVP wtlnamrdMrlaHenry¢Hm idWJW lOi] Hot MMruoW EtimWnuN Ramule Nlpmy*� t LwmtlMW NIA RWiarrc4e U-12 EJnuil F.,.mrvm hege n6. vgh tlw ROpmotl.x l 9rliWJW Ftl ZIXp Paimtl rn M'q RWimnG,v Plunrmp wuroW.BWxN RebmlW Pe pMdlM Ryan Rgeq errhLwo _ ^utliWdW 2015 IM ryl pvmnW Etini ®b wtl mlM1 Ornitlbllaxere Eyslem i FP :t510opNwee) Fan -.emun UPTWeaqulpmmleW idumb:n eiHbR.iR ScMUiYWFOW P[mmhtt O5HP0 RW-ar K,tlEanmlM -wmn m EF.111ao0N4ub4) KiTOa'.IFw H'tlWM UPYWPrqu'Wmnlvntlrdimb nurdrmna .W FOY.OB PemN in Rmq eS4PO Rlhre Mae g. EP�te ryuPNouel wEFan.amrm VlgeMa aryi PnimlmwmkupPentlimvw StlMdel Fall YB POmYl inlrmul, OSNPO ReWmrxiw. OoO HODUIEWiRmm Erk111percpwra rNm gortNO vslirM EFrin'u aMrvi¢Idedinomw 6 Fnclmura emustiotl akmml urWweniP nanameed e4mad. `"4'°tl'cW FMN O51@p p RWV.e rcdse EJB WFO Miaitlu JV� dil tee NaM1 ' O r tid Ppmw4nlvro, CSFRO arlfll/ RBd4e rvAY 2 EF.104 bh1 Fan WI�q Ike ryary4eEp4ti¢Y.al 6cMditlWFW00 Pg Ain MM.OSHPeaMdly RW tuna G W J m EP -ti CeM1eia Fan RemmeCro Wrlq NeAMUry ftaa JOr pmjuG YfaMNmrarvd FW OS Pmriilu M1Up E6reuluwi ra[aWlui SOUMwaO AA iRVNOhW.P imwjhenlH Wml ANro.Htl Hppbyl W,yl POircl9 wN mticicd SCrvIdMFdu C.,,O5i8'e Wey 2O Ponta n Fed High) demeMb Mlyalo NO mrsedlM1e mm EFwW. MgarW. PAMm Raq Rmhea �HUa on 4baq Once F Hew EF la uniti) [NxW Fw.Serp AyiwWrl4wamNttaNgiMaua�f YlMtlM '�'crra'1'4054 "'n °r00 CdyIOSHPO.tygmM: Pmol In M1rC Nin Mani WOln urim 11oy+mAAreipry erb rdmrW eeNNNe SaiW KSIPorch io 1:.:N alw wyu -. Wire LOnpaio'M RedPtW uiHrwuNl aomtll.tttlmW wdlr Campxlm , SysWn LMU wiA OMrwmGmlrW k,l 0� 08 ieulan drat ®OSNPO eatiy HAae mrta.rvevlRdemrna Ertl BU4rtl fgrrymaton. S,— RebWWniAnmrwtlmnew Wid witlopm 4g yJylilW W05 In Ila+dsh §OSNPO etadll More Miknl uNl Y getlue ru'au t) � Q M CcmRe Reba.IW Me�'WW p[b6rae 9tlNrtlW 0G 05 In -.dW dHd.®eSHPO wSn a Q IDa -01 rkyclo MR R[bGMM inaw9M ar4nreo w§M1rW lw9rmNW Otlgo In den riec4 ®OSHPDeM N1y Reyvv vfrvRyiplve 0 J 5- A6]fwWebmrytimw.tl ParMSp P.NgNe. $F1biM 5P^!V OB Indan dieiR p- i!OSIIPOeW Cry iR.—roip Manta Pvrw w4req IA -dre Mml EmJUgwXeSWGWm lHZ`eH Iw O.Nadealllw SOMAWW pec00 In don Uge4 QO5HPo o-el tit/ �pwiirganHw[ Nt I eta dlYq PraFC HO:d Waal Hoag Orama Tbdemm PH eonico MUe- Sannlry lingo am xo%ywM mwermmmry Read Cbenln0 Ilbyiolnmidorwwo WM, INawwaaliwrd HIM.. hrmr°menbtl l WA mam'rgbmg6iy Exhibit 4 - View of u.a:u. w mow. z noow�n � ra ✓ Building est Tower wJ s J L.] AKY%IC 0457 \n, @'GIIW.IY. HOAG LOWER CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTPLAN i — l\ i iuxeex nexnux oeaion onrcc 0 s J L.] AKY%IC 0457 \n, @'GIIW.IY. HOAG LOWER CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTPLAN i — l\ i iuxeex nexnux oeaion onrcc LANDSCAPE MATRIX. HOAG.HOSPITAL LOWER CAMPUS Prepared iti4ama Location Area Description Landscape Element Schedule Governraent/ADency Anticipated Outcome Status I Effect .W4wrwwe.wrwsrrFw NFr�YYr Pwjtlr. era a�I -coc.. .erndrsWM blpssx caowsbn.a,ndr.d beY Sde.v p.wR.nbswd — Fm Fgl m%4.YVdMwdaxn NM•r NY rrinaw TaMMrbrYY'aH 6iFT�eFbxRPrNa MYlreayFtlbew rYY FYFi -beYl w _ _— IM P.a varn Ybr Q,ft de Pql .pkMrwdb ew alYd meeaMa wnY/YlYr{Yw MYW dwrlltn AYY mwamM a..a -ca e.n 0. .Yr I.PY{ FINMMwMe MINIYrw�fNN�rd�l AMbeMMM"m bN.dCw.Y .Pr, BeYM rYFra^M.ydG MiBI /rM�M.aMM'vM's1��Ylar�w NwpNr Nddr PwYemxdrM aWd. {YI w1r�AY1 iYNY n WsW U .Yra.ro e.n sbp aMYJT.a.n F'�9ralesv YnMrrdrFrW. - ad `m ryomxcerwdNisY - o _ �bY.,dne.ry..dmr.dY4r PRjdmNaed a MYalW bddrx ,Wrae.wu.Ylwre_ i aws.b¢.�meP. r...dYYr aa•+mr.p.nie sdNmYNSSSN6do. srdrY er.Yywa.aeaimns YrrVA1 YF�Idlaw Corr Wd Pierd ars- Rd.NfeFYad OwdN\d FYMnY Tn•NMMYY9 _ . {MOY.YwwrFnwl� fM a%rxdiC NrireraNYY1 ewwraw.w.d. nYHV.x{ W Nwrld a M d lw fv+r+im, Ppex ns.am bildd 12.w Nwxe bw• Na se PeblmrdWt BMn.1ed^M ^FMYYq 11ro r. mYPaM1YU rbYplren FwlNFdsw w a.. bled. r...WYe bWYCd VYrdla.r. b'pd YY Pifiird r.�.�.bV r.YgANM YvaYMrIYb YM.Yd WWrbM WIN4IYP wlxatbNnW bpKeYar aoa -r.Rw nw«YU SSwdnsss sse carrsq.arrs.r n eddLq Vbll .mnp.xYn cs,,sime i.NYdw�srd taxerCnpVY PYiW n.. rwr bddbd PrtYm.WrYU Yx.Yerxr Wg4d Y YsYwr E FR O RapeJ. w.r Vs yWPydA- FMruLawASiW rYal U 9nM.Y^.Y�W Yd wYedlY bbiYdJ�Y PAeea!'MMINe•YM{ NA C�IdOFSx MPNM WYM.rM'wlYmbnmM1e J O _ aa..lo -x.. cYw amuvr b..dw.a nYY.,dYesrewdssnrr.. xmld''�a+M.PSr+w r.�ldl. o•w�xsr.dFdn Ylp.rFl.nlNx oYabr bed.d PFt.dmnobYd vwror xiirl9 d.Pa rseynesedndbn a..II -�.., cr.w. usmr uoo,.d. Ryws�r,Ywr srrdrsd rN.r,dslb{eesmvassd w.b4da bdddrn redirola PbdYyge wR�d., �r,rr brpea sYlr wgnrYiiq °mW R�wdm- lYdwoYr edFx ama csdd u..m X041 °'d dNVrdq Pw rs.rs. dYriW�iwrFw `rdd.q'.ot BMYr WdIM O.n WMIbngYNreY. U N�11 -vcx ueu"MM° PwWgnrrowwmnvuda SgrnNedwwl W'R�^v to 0 porn sclwn can MnM VOIaaM A® GWWfa,m AmM M1s Ptl1 J 'o t a..n -sw.. rmw =ry ".a. aw �o.wa wss�rpYYpaw.d YM1 FwYSar mYdr. d nyrteeut 9�an.lwwr aTx�J UiY M.w�IrbeMdNbdlYx. V. awPMI blbred DY ap/ IMxm.eE ap ngixm a^oMN MedlVmlb OYmeAa�e ftl& .ATP WexBMMNTP ebp. RaM.p NprwmrYdb6 C.aMw �n Color COdo 1ndlcadna CurrentPrWed3set. d�M NeobauwvbPwn.Y wft rn YNbMOyvvYb�.IPbdY yda,, bevYStRael�drbddd YdndNddM vxdadOdFeY q MtrbelRl�xNnY N{YI0,werdYM MdYtlbdyvpNp�dt 4iYbYr YgrnYti•V NrFYrrYW ppy rl►+tibrYWw MMUI Ina! NOAG® One Hoag each PO Box -6 0 Newport Beach (4 92658 -6100 HUMAL 949l7b4- HOAGal.org www.hoaghospital.otg April 3, 2006 In our continuing efforts to be a good neighbor, Hoag Hospital has taken multiple measures to reduce the noise level on the northwest side of the campus. Studies have revealed the noise at the north side of the campus to be generated from three different sources. They are dock and delivery services noise (delivery trucks, vans, etc.), mechanical noise (air handlers, exhaust systems, etc., mostly on the roof), and noise related to specific activities such as trash compacting and grease pit cleaning. As a policy, we have limited delivery and dock access hours of operation from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. Loading dock activities and the supply of materials is essential to the operation of the hospital and limiting our hours of operation prevents us from achieving the most efficient delivery and dock operations. Hoag Hospital has several taken steps to reduce the noise level by upgrading the existing ventilation systems components, installing duct silencers on all existing ducts at intake and discharge points, removing existing exhaust fan equipment, and currently engaging engineers in preparing reports for the relocation of major air handlers. We have also engaged architects and engineers to design a solution for the replacement of the existing kitchen exhaust fans. We will be installing sound insulation around the trash compactor in the short term and are preparing a more permanent solution as part of future developments in the dock area. The grease extraction process is currently state of the art, and at this point we have no to reduce the noise further. Listed below are sound abatement measures completed and proposed sound abatement measures: Sound Abatement Measures Completed: Sound board was installed on the inside of the two large metal doors that enclosed the air intake plenum just south of the FNS receiving dock. The work was completed in -house October 2003. 2. The Heart Institute DX A/C compressor unit was programmed to go off between 7:00 pm. and 7:00 am. Work was completed October 2003. 3. Receiving dock exhaust system -the exhaust duct terminates above the receiving dock facing toward the west road. The exhaust plenum was lined with 1 % inches of insulation liner. Work was completed October 2003. 4. Building enclosure was provided around the cafeteria exhaust fan unit 3. Work was completed in early 2003. zsI. J-1 A NOT-FOR-PROPIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCWUITAMN OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS Sound Abatement Issues (continued) Page 2 of 3 5. Building enclosure was modified to enclose the open two feet at the bottom of the wall around the perimeter of the entire enclosure. Sound insulation was secured to the inside of the enclosure walls. The exhaust duct discharge on three systems was directed away from the west road. Work was completed in spring 2003. 6. Kitchen exhaust fans — VFD's were installed on the four kitchen exhaust fans to allow the exhaust fans to be shut off after hours to perform code required cleaning of the exhaust ducts. The VFD's allow the fans to be restarted in a slow start mode which takes two minutes to reach full speed, providing negligible noise. Work was completed May 2005. 7. Kinetics duct silencer was installed on the discharge of EF -8, replaced 15hp motor with VFD control. New spring isolators and supply and return duct transitions were installed. Work was completed October 2005. 8. Existing smaller exhaust fans located on the Ancillary roof, adjacent the service road were disconnected. Work was completed January 2006. 9. All service and access to the west road is completely restricted from 7:00 pm to 7:00 am. 10. Installation of Kenetic duct silencers on unit FC4. Work was completed in January 2006. Proposed Sound Abatement Measures: 1. Existing pharmacy exhaust fan number 12 to be relocated. Work is scheduled to begin June 2006. 2. The existing small exhaust fans on the Ancillary roof adjacent to the service road will be disconnected. Work is scheduled to begin March 2006. 3. Kinetics duct silencers positioned in front of FC -4 air intake will be installed. Installation work is proposed to begin March 2006. 4. Air handlers SF 1 and SF2 will be removed from service December 2007. Upon the removal of air handlers SF 1 and SF2, the remaining equipment on the second floor in the mechanical room are air handler FC4 (located near the west road), and exhaust fan no. 8 (read mitigation measures note no. 7). Two existing fans will remain in service on the northeast corner of the second floor mechanical room. One smaller air handler that supplies air to the existing GI Laboratory on the south side of the second floor mechanical room will remain in service. Complete removal of all equipment on the second floor West Tower mechanical room is scheduled for 2013. Several steps prior to complete equipment removal will have been taken to minimize mechanical equipment noise from the second floor mechanical room. �.1�0 Sound Abatement Issues (continued) Page 3 of 3 5. Additional measures under evaluation: a. The Ancillary roof equipment noise is currently being evaluated for noise mitigation b. The existing kitchen exhaust fans are under evaluation for replacement c. Installation of sound barrier material between the equipment and penthouse Work is estimated to begin 2009. Hoag Hospital has made good faith efforts to mitigate or reduce all nose levels in the west road area and we will continue to monitor all noise levels produced by our facility. However, it should be noted that there is a considerable amount of noise generated from Pacific Coast Highway and other sources, creating a high ambient level of noise at all hours of the day and night. Noise sources such as large vehicles and trucks or motorcycles do increase the db level above 50db. z3,\y1 Heights Improvement Association Date: April 9, 2008 To: Newport Beach City Council Re: Hoag GPA and revision to DA PA2007 -073 Sirs and Madams Whereas the Community at large appreciates' the enormous contribution that Hoag Hospital offers, all of our communities would like the referenced application to fulfill Hoag's most central goal- to deliver exceptional health care in a contemporary environment. Many thanks to Hoag, Mayor Selich and Councilman Rosansky in shaping the Development Agreement offering mitigation toward the realization of great balance and cooperation. In specific regard to this balance and cooperation and the Planning Commissions recent recommendations of noise mitigation and plume mitigation (in Hoag's Co- generation facility), your most urgent recognition of these statements and careful refinements are in order. The noise abatement for the adjacent neighbors (to adhere to the level of 55 dB) requires, per Commissioner Eaton's comments, a sound wall. The Hospital's original request to lower the City standards to allow for more noise than is legal, would not seem to be in the best health interests of any community. The Planning Commission found that this is not warranted as the 55 dB already exceeds the City's Noise Ordinance. The new prescribed sound wall should be designed to achieve the best aesthetic and engineered abatement and should be as long as independent experts can agree it needs to be to achieve its desired effect.. The suggestion by the Hospital's Council that this be done within a'financial cap' is contrary to the Hospital's central goal of being a health- oriented good neighbor, and violates the requirements for full and adequate mitigation established by state land use and environmental laws. The abatement should cost what it costs. The Co -gen plant, when first proposed, was accompanied by a public notice alerting neighbors of potential cancer causing effects that accompany such facilities operation. Exhaust from this facility contain a wide range of Toxic Air Compounds (TAC's) released 70' from the City's Sunset view Park. Additionally, the cooling towers are known to foster legionella and have a direct association with Legionnaires Disease. Mitigation of disease development and maintenance to guard against the transfer of this disease is discussed at OSHA's web site and City monitoring for the application of these standards, should be added. The Hospital Council's Planning Commission testimony states, 'He noted that there is no health risk associated with the co- generation facility ...', when actually the Hospitals own public notice warns residents of cancer, T3.1` ? Heights Improvement Association Daie:. April 9, 2008 To: Newport Beach City :Council. (continued) Hoag's council's statement is disingenuous and false. The best available plume abatement to reduce the visual blight of the plume and prevent the transfer of disease across to the adjacent public park (in the prevailing westerly breeze), is the only acceptable option. This is not only important for the adjacent communities and public park but, for Hoag's closest building on their lower campus- their own Cluldcare Center. A key concern for the mitigation and abatement of this health risk involve the Council's perspective of three crucial factors: 1. First, abatement of the plume was in the original plans for the Co -gen facility and the Hospital removed the abatement to save cost. I'm sure the engineers were not aware of the health risk or visual blight but, as the facility is expected to expand, the abatement measures should be returned to the facility to the maximum extent provided by contemporary engineering. The new tower in planning could benefit from the future cooling towers and generators. Now is the time. 2. Noise abatement should be completed in full compliance with the adopted Noise Ordinance and the Hospital's responsibility to be a health- oriented good neighbor. Needless to say that changing or "bending" the Noise Ordinance to accommodate a single user would fall cleanly into the category of an "arbitrary and capricious' action. 3. Second, 'the monetary cost' as a consideration for allowing Hoag to do less, needs to be considered in the following context. First, if the next expansion is on the order of $300M and, by comparison, the abatement is $101x1, it must be seen as a spectacularly small portion of 'doing responsible and caring business'. Next, and again in regard to'cost', one should remember that Hoag has reported a net operating income last year of $135M and hold nearly $1 billion in their liquid investment portfolio. http: / /frutdarticles.com /p /articles /mi ga5293/is_20080204/ai_n24368663 hi all, our great Hospital has much to gain in their honest abatement and our community asks that the Council contribute, not to folding under provocative argument or prevailing political pressure but, seeing that the full measure of the Planning Commissions` recommended amendments to the Development Agreement are made as if fine healthcare is all of our concerns. Don Krotee President Newport Heights Improvement Association 7,SJ43