Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974 12-11 CC MIN114 THE MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF DECEMBER 10, 1974 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND SPECIAL MEETING OF THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (A JOINT MEETING) December 11, 1974 The joint meeting of the City Council of the City of National City (adjourned from December 10, 1974) and the National City Redevelopment Agency (special meeting) was called to order at 4:53 p.m. by Mayor Morgan. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Absent: None. Administrative officials present: Bourcier, Campbell, Hoffland, McCabe, McLean, Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Watts. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL Redevelopment Agency members present: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Absent: None. Redev. Ag. Exec. Dir. Watts: This is a special meeting of the Redevel- opment Agency. Proper notice has been issued as required by law. City Attorney McLean: As the Council knows, the City Council meeting on Tuesday night was adjourned to have a joint meeting with the Redevelopment Agency; and the purpose of the meeting is to consider further the Environmental Impact Reporticoncerning the Bonita Plaza. The reason for the staff recommendation of further consideration of the Environmental Impact Report is twofold. Firstly, interested people have asked questions concerning air quality consequences of this project. And, in particular, questions have been asked as to whether or not this project will generate air pollutants which will constitute a hazard to the health of the people of the adjacent areas, in particular areas described in the EIR as Critical Areas 1, 2, and 3. In the final Environmental Impact Report there are three critical areas identified on Page 47: Critical Area 1 - which is defined as those homes on the west side of Putter Drive overlooking the project site and some homes on Bonita Mesa Drive; Critical Area 2 - which is those homes on the south side of Biggs Court overlooking the project site; and Critical Area 3- those homes on the bluffs to the west of the project site. Now, some very sincere questions were proposed about the potential health hazard due to air pollution resulting from the shopping center project. And, it was pointed out that the Environmental Impact Report did not contain a quantitative analysis but rather a qualitative analysis of air pollution and its conse- quences on neighbors and it was the original opinion of Mr. Menard, author of the Environmental Impact Report, that a quantittive analysis was not necessary since the air pollution consequences appeared to be minimal. However, it was the opinion of the staff, because of the serious and sincere concern that was expressed by people in that neighborhood that we had nafully evaluated the possible health consequences of air pollutio4 that the City government should deal with these people with courtesy and show interest in their concern to have a quartEbtive analysis made to be certain that somehow the City had not overlooked a serious hazard to health. The quantitative analysis of air pollution is a very specialized field. Mr. Watts has spent considerable time searching for some person who is especially qualified to advise the City Council concerning air pollu- tion problems. As a result of Mr. Watts' investigation, we were introduced to a firm which goes by the initials MRI. The full name 12/11/74 115 City Attorney McLean: of the firm is Meteorology Research, Incorpo- rated4 and through them we were introduced to Mr. William B. Moreland, a senior scientist with that organization, who is present tonight. Mr. Moreland3has his Bachelor's degree in Meteorology from the Uni- versity of California in Los Angeles. He has his Master's degree in the same science from the same institution. Mr. Moreland was a Meteorologist for United States Army Air Corps. Following that he was with the Weather Bureau as a research and development meteorolo- gist at which time he directed research programs for stratospheric circulation and atmospheric zone research. Additionally, he conducted research relating to forest fire prevention and directed the International Weather Central Station located at Little America in Antarctica during the International Geophysical Year. In 1961, Mr. Moreland joined the Air Weather Service of the U. S. Air Force as a civilian aerospace consultant, at which time he initiated and was in charge of research programs concerning weather forecasting and weather modification. He was also in charge of various training programs and preparation of technical manuals concerning weather analysis and forecasting. In 1965, Mr. Moreland went to work at the Boeing Company in Seattle as the Senior Staff Meteorologist where he supervised the Atmospheric Sciences Group. At that time he was in charge of research programs relating to micrometeorology, applied climatology and problems relating to the supersonic transport aircraft and the potential they had for stratospheric pollution. In 1971, Mr. Moreland went from the Boeing Company to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and he there served as a consultant to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the Mariner (Venus -Mercury satellite program) and Ultraviolet Spectrometer subsystem and support equipment and atmospheaeanalysis. In 1972, Mr. Moreland joined the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory where he conducted environmental research in climate change, air quality, atmospheric turbulence, diffussion transport and numerical modeling of atmospheric circulation. Those problems range from local to global considerations. Now Mr. Moreland is with MRI in the Industrial Meteorology Group and he is involved with the preparation of environmental reports and safety analyses. He is in charge of their research in that regard. He is a member of the American Meteorological Society, the American Geo- physical Union and the Air Pollution Control Association. We were recommended to Mr. Moreland and his firm through the Air Pollution Control District in Los Angeles among other governmental agencies concerned with air pollution and the consequences. The staff asked Mr. Moreland to review the Environmental Impact Report and to make whatever full investigations he deemed were necessary to be in a position to report to you the quantitative air pollution consequences of the Bonita Plaza Project. I would like now for Mr. Moreland to come forward and explain the problems he saw and report to the Council the conclusions he reached. Mayor Morgan: Welcome to National City William B. Moreland: Thank you sir. Is there a place to put up the... (City Attorney McLean and Mr. Moreland posted charts.)4 City Attorney McLean: Just explain the problem and how you approached it. Mr. Moreland: Okay. The problem was to quantify the emissions from the Plaza, Bonita Plazaiand also to consider the emission of CO from the traffic on 1-805. In order to...We wanted to do this under conditions that would be typically representative of the meteorological conditions that might exist here on an average day. This is something that we obtained from the statistics which are available in and pub- lished for the San Diego area. Also, the basis for most of the emission computations were from the EIR. In other words, we didn't 12/11/74 116 Mr. Moreland: attempt to alter what was there. We used what values were given for the area we consider as the primary trade center area, which is in the EIR. So the problem was primarily to examine what we felt would be a quantitative estimate of the increase of carbon mon- oxide concentrations in this general trade center area and downwind from the highway. On the mathematical models that we utilized were modifications of what is called the Gaussian Plume model. This is a diffussion model that has been around for a number of years. The Environmental Protection Agency uses it as a kind of a standard for their computations for urban areas, also for power plants and other sources of pollution. The State Highway Department of California also uses it and they have adopted a model based upon it for computing the emissions as well as the concentrations from freeways and that was the other model that was employed in obtaining the values from 1-805. The conditions, as indicated on our chart, that we employed was --first of all, it would be a typical day in the Bonita Plaza area --the height of the base of the inversion of the mixing depth, we had found was about 1500 ft. for this area. This was determined from a set of statistics that are referenced in the letter which was prepared by Holzworth. It is called "Temperature Inversion Summaries of U. S. Weather Bureau Radiosonde Observations in California." In that they present statistics as to the inversion heights over this area. We chose the height that occurred about 50% of the time. Fifty percent of the time it would be at about that height. So, this is again an average base that we would expect. One thing to be noted there is this height is generally above the terrain --well above the terrain, perhaps 1000 ft. so there wouldn't be any local trapping of pollutants within the area caused by the topography. The wind speed that we employed was 7 miles per hour. And, this was the average speed generally shown in the EIR for the meteorological station shown there. The Gaussian Plume Model employs six different stability categories. They go from A through F. The A category is a condition in the atmos- phere which we call very unstable; there are extremely good mixing conditions. The F category is one which is on the other end of the spectrum where you have a very stable atmosphere, or what we call a very level inversion and light wind speeds. We chose one which was typical of the conditions that exist below the inversion which was the D category. This is sometimes called the neutral condition of the atmosphere. City Attorney McLean: When you picked this stability category D, was that your best judgment, as a meteorologist, of what is representative of that area? Mr. Moreland: Yes, that is correct. We accepted that as being typical for this area here and that was based on the study that I previously mentioned on the Vertical Temperature Structure over this area. The emission parameters which we employed, as I mentioned, were obtained primarily from the EIR data. First of all, in the model you have to have a certain size of the area that is where the emissions are coming from. So, I chose the primary trade center area since that was the one that was employed in the EIR. They gave the value in terms of a circle but I had to convert this to a square and that would give us the size of about 2.3 miles in length of square area that size. We assumed that the height of emission release is about 3 ft. above the surface. City Attorney McLean: Why did you pick three feet? Mr. Moreland: This is typical for automobile computations of this type for emissions from traffic, anywhere from 3 to 5 ft. is norinally utilized. Mayor Morgan: You can take that out and just hold it in your hand (he is referring to the microphone) if you would like to just walk around. 12/11/74 117 Mr. Moreland: That is all right. (referring to placement of micro- phone) The CO emission rates that we utilized for this are generally based upon Table 8 in the Bonita Plaza EIR which are 60.0 gm/second. City Attorney McLean: What does CO mean? Mr. Moreland: That is carbon monoxide. City Attorney McLean: Why did you pick carbon monoxide as the pollutant to study? Mr. Moreland: This is the principal emission from the automobile in terms of the mass of the air pollution and it is inert and it doesn't react with other pollutants. So it is something that persists in the atmosphere. The computations are based, as I say, on the amount of -- I believe there was about a little over 2 tons per day --but I assumed in order to allow it at this rate that we had a 10-hour day essentially where the center would be in operation and obtain then from that total mass of emission a rate, as shown there, of 60.0 gm/second. Now for I-805 we find that this is expressed a little differently. It has a length dimension because of the cars going down the freeway and so the emission there was 28.2 x 10-3 gm/meter-second. City Attorney McLean: You better explain what 28.2 x 10-3 means. Mr. Moreland: Okay. You mean in terms of magnitude? City Attorney McLean: What it represents to you as an air pollution scientist. Mr. Moreland: Well 10-3 is just a way of expressing where the loca- tion of the decimal point is in the number; actually if you took the 10-3 away it would move the decimal point over three places to express the amount which is an amount which would be computed. This was computed from a formula given in the State Highway reference that I have, "Mathematical Approach to Estimating Highway Impact on Air Quality." So, if you had a 1975 emission factor of 23, the average speed was 50 miles per hour, the daily traffic was 71,000 which was the value given in the EIR and we assumed the flow rate of 7,100 vehicles per hour along the freeway and from that data that is how we arrived at the value of 28.2 x 10-3. That is in a formula which is given in this manual. City Attorney McLean: What is the name of that manual? Mr. Moreland: "Mathematical Approach to Estimating Highway Impact on Air Quality." It is published by the State of California, Division of Highways, by J. L. Beaton, et al. That is Reference 2 in my5report. So that was the basis form which we estimated...(Note: Someone coughed and the rest of Mr. Morelandsentence is and was inaudible.) The Gaussian Plume equation --you have to know how much is being emitted in order to calculate the concentrations downwind from the point of emission. So this is the matter of just doing these computations and the results are shown there. First of all, we find that the increase caused by CO emission in the trade center area and this turned out to be 0.36 milligrams/cubic meter or 0.32 parts per million. Parts per million expresses the relationship between the amount of CO and the amount of air. In other words, less than one part of CO for a million parts of air. City Attorney McLean: Would I be expressing that right in laymen's language to just say it is an increase of 1/3 of a part per million? Mr. Moreland: That is correct. City Attorney McLean: What can you compare 1/3 of a part per million against as far as health standards are concerned? 12/11/74 118 Mr. Moreland: The State standards go by one -hour concentration and are 40 ppm so, you can see that is quite low. The increase from Highway 805 amounted to about the same magnitude of CO. Councilman Pinson: When you say State standards, are you saying it is healthy to be in a .40 parts per million --is that within the health guidelines of the State? Mr. Moreland: That is actually 40 parts per million. They reach the --Standards are normally set to be on the safe side to help pro- tect persons exposed to this concentration. Persons exposed to this concentration would have no damaging effects. They normally set these standards with a good margin of safety built into them. They don't put it up near the threshold or near the limit. They keep at a very safe level. City Attorr12y McLean: Mr. Pinson said .40 parts --it would be 40 parts per million versus 0.3 parts per million? Mr. Moreland: 40 parts per million, yes. This is 0.3 parts here. Councilman Pinson: I was trying to, in my own mind, envision the State standards for a healthy environment. City Attorney McLean: Mr. Moreland, this 0.32 parts per million increase would be 1/120 of the 40 parts per million that is allowed? Mr. Moreland: Yes, that is correct. The highway increase was com- puted to be 0.40 milligrams/Cubic meter which is equal to 0.35 parts per million of CO concentration. So, again, it is in the same order of magnitude as the trade center. Now, this was computed at a dis- tance of 1,600 feet downwind from the freeway. The farther you go generally from the freeway the smaller the concentrations go. But, we selected this distance as being approximately around where the trade center would be as typical of the value. If you go farther away, you would find lower concentrations because of the diffusion. So the total increase would be the sum of these two values --cumulative effect which amounts to .76 milligrams/cubic meter or a total of 0.67 parts per million. On an average day here in the San Diego area, represented by the San Diego downtown air quality station, the average generally runs about 5 to 5 parts per million on a typical day. So that what would be added would be 0.67 parts or about 1 part per million to the overall background conditions that one would find. So it would be roughly four or five percent increase. You see the standard is 40 parts per million so this is well below the standard from this computation. This is the values which the model gave as fax as the increase of 1-805 and the trade center would cause. I did not feel, because of these low values, we felt that a more detailed analysis wouldn't be justified because of the fact that we are on such a low level. If one is in an area where you have a very high pollution or very strong increases it sometimes is done to make a spatial analysis over the area or a temporal analysis (inaudible). But, I think, in view of the fact that the values were so low that it wouldn't be justified to go into more further analyses. We also did not go into other pollutants such as nitrogen oxide or hydro- carbons since they take part in a complicated photochemical process to form what is called oxidants. And at the present time we are developing models which are trying to handle these things. At the present time none have been accepted by the EPA or the State Air Resources Board. Consequently, we did not compute any of the other oxidants that were presented in the --or any of the other pollutants that were shown in the EIR. Councilman Pinson: Would there be a negligible ratio of increase in CO) proportionate to the oxidants or other pollutants that would come from this? Would it be about the same ratio? 12/11/74 119 Mr. Moreland: In terms of emissions? Councilman Pinson: Yes. Mx. Moreland: Well, actually, in terms of the actual concentration there would be less than the CO by a long ways because of the fact that the emissions are so much lower. In other words, the CO is the highest amount of emitted pollutant from the traffic. The others are much less in terms of the total mass that is emitted. I think one could obtain an estimate by just "ratio-ing" these values with the emissions. In other words if the amount emitted by another pollutant was say, 1/10 or 1/100 of that, it would be approximately 1/100 of this computation here. Councilman Pinson: According to State standards we are still not even approaching a danger zone? Mr. Moreland: That is correct, yes. City Attorney McLean: You are satisfied that no further investigation is required to examine the possible health hazards in this project? Mr. Moreland: That is correct. The emissions that would be emitted would contribute a very small part to the overall amount of pollutants in the air now and would be well below most of the standards expressed for these pollutants. City Attorney McLean: Mr. Moreland, did you express your conclusions in a written report? Mr. Moreland: Yes, I did. City Attorney McLean: And that is a letter5dated 11 December 1974 addressed to Merrell L Watts, Executive Director Redevelopment Agency, City of National City? Mr. Moreland: That's correct. City Attorney McLean: And attached thereto is a two -page summary of calculations and reference sheet on the third page? Mr. Moreland: That is correct. City Attorney McLean: And this letter and the attachments summarize your conclusions concerning health hazards resulting from air pollu- tion? Mr. Moreland: That is right. City Attorney McLean: Then, I take it Mr. Watts --every member of the agency has had a copy of Mr. Moreland's report? _Redev. A1i.g. Exec. Dir. Watts: They have it at this time. '�'�'+4+�aiee1-11• • Iw �����IIY I�/I/p•1�Y•� City Attorney McLean: Do you have any more questions? No more questions? Thank you Mr. Moreland. Your Honor, the next thing we desire to bring to the Agency's attention was the fact that Rick Engineering has finalized some flood channel alignments which were not available at the time of the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. In the Final Environmental Impact Report, on Page 16, describes the general characteristics of the flood plain in which the proposed shopping center is to be built. At that time Rick Engineering had prepared a general schematic concept of how the floods anticipated could be managed. Since the incorporation environmental impact report, Rick Engineering has continued its investigation and has consulted with various governmental agencies interested in the 12/11/74 120 project and has reached some more final conclusions about flood channel alignment. Mr. Gabrielson from Rick Engineering is here to report on that. Incidentally, I see that Mr. Gabrielson has dis- tributed to the members of the Agency a handwritten summary of criteria entitled, "Project: Sweetwater River Channel at Bonita Plaza, Rick Engineering Company Job No. 4966 of December, 1974.6 And, I am sure Mr. Gabrielson will describe the contents of that report as he goes along. (City Attorney McLean and Mr. Gabrielson posted two plans 7 8' 8 on the display board.) Lyle Gabrielson, Rick Engineering Company: Mr. Chairman and Board of Directors. My name is Lyle Gabrielson, Rick Engineering Company, 5620 Friars Road, and basically I have two plans tacked to the board at the side. The one underneath and colored in green on the left- hand side7is the plan that was reviewed by the Corps of Engineers whereby they made a response in the Environmental Impact Report, dated May 31, 1974, and expressed some concern over the development as encroaching near the ponding area and the approach to the inlet structure causing some cross wave resulting in some damage to the proposed inlet structure and downstream channel. We have had a series of meetings with the Corps as a part of the work on this grad- ing plan and the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista and the City of National City and other related agencies have met a number of times with the Corps of Engineers as relates to the joint Sweetwater River -Highway 54 project on their bi-monthly meetings. The grading plan on top, the one to the right? is basically the plan outlined in the letter from the Corps of Engineers to the City of National City, Mr. Dale Hoffland, dated October 22, 1974, and it is shown as attachment C, Plan No. 1, in that report or in the letter to Mr. Dale Hoffland It was their concern that we do anything we can to prevent these downstream eddy currents. And, in a meeting sub- sequent to our meeting in July, the Corps of Engineers and the County of San Diego met and the County of San Diego expressed a displeasure in the idea of spending $3.8 to $5-million to buy some ponding rights upstream from the inlet structure which was then in design. So this channel design of October by the Corps of Engineers with the radii indicated as 1,000 ft. and the side slopes required by them is an effort to alleviate this problem of ponding upstream. Our plan, as envisioned today, is building the first phase. We cannot excavate to Corps of Engineer depths due to the fact that highway construction under 1-805 limits the amount that we can take the channel flow line down. We have to meet the elevations they currently have, about an elevation of 20. the Corps of Engineers' project as it is currently under design will be at an elevation of 12. The other reason for revising the channel was to conform with concerns of the Environmental Review Board and the Board of Supervisors as concerns this area. In the original Sweetwater Valley park plan, they had envisioned an equestrian center to be located adjacent to 1-805 and they had shown a channel of some configuration isolating that area and tying it in on the south. The problem was that the State of California, prior to selling the land to the County of San Diego, lowered the elevation of that particular area some 60 ft. causing it to be inundated by the 100-year flood. And, under the County's own rules, it precluded them building any permanent structure within that area because it would impede, or somehow distrub, the flow of the 100-year storm. With our channel and the Corps of Engi- neerschannel it provides the opportunity to again gain this property back into a status of not being inumdated in the 100-year storm. We feel that the present design is a mitigating measure as outlined in your Environmental Impact Report. It expands the open space green belt area then envisioned from about 23 acres to approximately 30 acres. 12/11/74 121 Mx. Gabrielson: We feel the overall design, where we originally envisioned building a 30-year flood channel and inundating the parking lots to handle the 100-year flood, versus our current design, wherein we handle the 100-year flood totally within the confines of the channel as far as the shopping center site is concerned, is a much better solution; and would present to you a much better overall project for Bonita Plaza. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them. City Attorney McLean: Mr. Gabrielson, there has been comment by the public that they understand that your design is going to be a concrete lined channel all through this former open area. Is that correct? Mr. Garbrielson: No, sir, the channel will be grass lined. It will be a turf channel. And, the conditions of the permit of the flowage easement are quite specific as to what is to be done in the confines of the channel. City Attorney McLean: There was also some comment, Mr. Gabrielson, that your original concept of handling the flood provided for a green belt and that your present design totally eliminates the green belt. Is that true? Mr. Gabrielson: No, sir, the original plan provided a 23-acre green belt. However, it was totally within a flood plain. The current design now somewhat confines that flood plain to the channel. It also provides the opportunity for the County of San Diego to end up with 10 acres of parkland not subject to inundation. City Attorney McLean: Compare the total acreage. What has happened to the size of the green belt as originally conceived? And what would result from your present design? Mr. Gabrielson: There is a net increase of approximately 7 acres. •OIMINMONMENM City Attorney McLean: Did you get the concurrence of the other interested public agencies for your present design? Mr. Gabrielson: Yes, we have the concurrence of the Corps of Engi- neers. We have the concurrence of the Department of Fish and Game, the concurrence of the Water Quality Control Board and the concurrence of the Sanitation and Flood Control. City Attorney McLean: What about the State of California? Mr. Gabrielson: Caltrans has also concurred with the design. City Attorney McLean: Now, in this plan that you have, Mr. Gabrielson, you talk about the Army Corpschannel downstream. What happens if the Army Corps doesn't build this channel? Does your plan still work? Mr. Gabrielson: The plan still works. It meets the existing improve- ments as provided by State Highway Department. City Attorney McLean: And it is also compatible with the future plans of the Army Corps of Engineers if they are ever carried out? Mr. Gabrielson: That is correct. In fact, in a meeting of November 12 of 1974 and a report of that meeting by Mr. Jerry Baril, the statement is made as pertains to the proposed hearing --the scheduled hearing --by the Board of Supervisors that if the Board does not allow the use of the County property the Corps will proceed with an identi- cal project --identical to the project National City is proposing. And, this is that the County must provide the right-of-way which would have been obtained from National City. 12/11/74 122 City Attorney McLean: Have you any idea what kind of money that would have cost the County? Mr. Gabrielson: I have no idea, no, sir. City Attorney McLean: You mentioned that in your original plan there was going to have to be some ponding upstream. What about your present plan as far as upstream ponding is concerned? Mr. Gabrielson: In the original plan the ponding was to take in the parking areas on -site. In other words, the channel itself would adequately contain a 30-year flood within the channel confines. But the difference between the 30 and the 100-year flood would be required to overflow into the parking areas and the only thing that would be free from inundation would be the building sites themselves. This plan that is before you totally confines the 100-year flood within the channel confines with the exception of about a 2-acre piece, on the northwesterly corner that is still low enough, get some wave action, goes over topping on this side of the channel. City Attorney McLean: There was talk before the County Board of Supervisors that an approval of the plan as now presented would save the County somewhere between $3.8 and $5-million. Did you find that to be the staff opinion at the County? Mr. Gabrielson: Yes, Mr. Baril from the Sanitation and Flood Control did make the statement and again at a bi-monthly meeting of this Sweetwater River -Highway 54 Project whereby the Corps' proposal to treat the Golf Course area as an infinitely deep reservoir, or pond, and provide a spillway to accelerate the water so they could creat)a stable type flow condition downstream was not inconsonant with the County's ideas of how a flood control project should be built. It would require that the County of San Diego purchase inundation rights over this property and others to the tune, at that time estimated to be between $3.8 and $5-million. City Attorney McLean: That is the County staff's opinion? Mr. Gabrielson: That is the County staff's figures, yes. City Attorney McLean: Did you appear before the Board of Supervisors and describe to them the plan as you now propose it and seek their permission to gradon County property? Mr. Gabrielson: Yes, I did and Mr. Bill Rick of our office did. City Attorney McLean: And, did you receive permission from the County to grade on County property to construct the channel? Mr. Gabrielson: Yes, I did. City Attorney McLean: Have you given Mr. Watts a copy of that agreement?10 Mr. Gabrielson: Yes. City Attorney McLean: Now, I have in front of me your summary report would you tell me what's in there, Mr. Gabrielson? Mr. Gabrielson: This is an engineering document that is normally provided to the engineer --City Engineer, County Engineer, the regula- tory agency --to provide him sufficient information to judge that the...(pause) use adequate design features, design considerations and that we are not in any way influencing the backwater upstream from this to the detriment of other properties. That is not within the normal confines of engineering practice. 2/1 in 4 123 City Attorney McLean: And, has the County Flood Control Engineer agreed with you that you are not creating backwater conditions to the detriment of other properties? Mr. Gabrielson: That is correct, or they would not have issued a permit. City Attorney McLean: I think that's all the questions I have, are there any questions... Mayor Morgan: I have a question. When the water is not using this spillway or whatever you want to call it --the ditch --that could be used for horse trails or bicycles or something? Mr. Gabrielson: It was envisioned they would be able to build a riding rink as long as it is not of a permanent nature. They would be able to have football fields or playfields of activity normally considered a parklike atmosphere. Councilman Pinson: How wide is the ditch? Mr. Gabrielson: It will be 230 ft. wide on the bottom width. There is a couple of thousand feet of it there, most of it in a straight line and at a very gentle slope. It would be ideally conducive to any kind of active recreation needs. The tree planting is going to be held to a minimum in order not to interfere with the flood flows so it would be an open, very active play area. City Attorney McLean: As you know, Mayor, the City Council and the Agency authorized entering into agreement with the County of San Diego to construct a green belt in this area in exchange for permis- sion to use the County property to construct this floodwayl° It might be appropriate for Mr. Watts to review our agreement with the County concerning the preservation of this property as a green belt. Mr. Watts. Redev. Ag. Exec. Dir. Watts: The Board of Supervisors has authorized the execution of an agreement, dated December 4, 1974, entitled, "Right of Entry and Permit to Do Work." This document identifies by legal description the County owned land and indicates they are pro- viding permission to the City of National City and the Agency with permission to enter upon their property and undertake certain kinds of activities. This agreement provides among other things that the detailed plans for construction of the flood channel, as defined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, will be submitted to the County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control for review and approval. It indicates that an analysis of the backwater effect of such pro- posed work shall not cause appreciable increase over existing 100-year level and that those calculations are also to be submitted to the County staff. City Attorney McLean: You have done that and they agree with the calculations, is that right? Mr. Gabrielson: That is correct, yes. Redev. Ag. Exec. Dir. Watts: The agreement also provides that the City and/or Agency will be permitted to construct a flood control project and that as part of that flood control project and as part of flood project we will submit plans for landscaping, irrigation and recreation uses of the open space area, that these plans will be sub- mitted to the County Department of Park and Recreation for their review and approval. I might indicate, outside of this agreement, that you have by agreement indicated to the California State Depart- ment of Fish and Game that their input in terms of the kind of landscaping shall also be sought. The agreement provides that the 12/11/74 • 124 Redev. Ag. Exec. Dir. Watts: City and/or Agency shall maintain the channel and/or make arrangements for other persons to maintain it. The agreement further provides that the County will secure the neces- sary right of way to widen the proposed Bonita Center Road or Bonita Mesa Road from approximately the southern end of the project in a southerly direction to meet with Bonita Road and Freeway I.-805 right- of-way; that the expense of such acquisition will be at City of National City cost and that we shall widen that right-of-way, as it now exists, to four lanes to provide better access to the site to reduce traffic congestion. This is the agreement that has been authorized by the Board of Supervisors, by the City Council of the City of National City and the Agency. City Attorney McLean: Are there any questions? Mr. Gabrielson, thank you, sir. Mayor Morgan: Thank you very much. City Attorney McLean: Before we start with you, Mr. Menard, I want to ask Mr. Moreland a few questions. Mr. Moreland, you reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and you will recall that I drew your attention to a letter from Ultrasystems and I would like to recall a part of their letter commenting on the EIR in which they say, "...the local impact of the project with the freeways in operation should be assessed against these standards (referring to the health standards you have described) by calculating the concentrations of primary air pollutants downwind of Bonita Plaza using Gaussian Plume modeling techniques." Now this Gaussian Plume modeling technique, is that what you have done here? Mr. Moreland: Yes, that is correct. City Attorney McLean: And you have considered the freeway? Mr. Moreland: That is correct. City Attorney McLean: Now, if the Bonita Center Road is constructed according to the contract and it reduces traffic congestion, will that result in lower air pollution? Mr. Moreland: Yes, if the emissions are reduced, the pollution concentration will also be reduced. City Attorney McLean: Thank you. Now, Your Honor, we asked Mr. Owen Menard to be here tonight. He is the author of the Environ- mental Impact Report and prior to the meeting Mr. Menard has met with Mr. Moreland and Mr. Gabrielson and discussed reports, their conclu- sions; and, of course, he has been here while they have made their report to you. We would like to have Mr. Menard to summarize, as the person responsible for the Environmental Impact Report, how he sees these reports. Mayor Morgan: Glad to see you back down in National City. Mr. Owen Menard (Owen Menard & Associates): Thank you Chairman Morgan. Members of the Redevelopment Agency, my name is Owen Menard, 222 West Foothill Boulevard, Claremont, California, and as your attorney has indicated, we did author the Environmental Impact Report. We were asked today to review the reports that were accomplished by both Mr. Moreland and Rick Engineering which have been presented here. As you perhaps recall, we were of the opinion in the draft of the Environmental Impact Report, in regard to air qualities, that the qualitative analysis which we had accomplished clearly indicated that there was no possible source of health hazard to the people around the area. We, needless to say, felt good that the State Air Resources Board staff substantiated that in a letter to the Redevelopment Agency 12/1lP4 J 125 Mr. Menard: after they had reviewed the draft EIR. We have reviewed Mr. Moreland's report. It has obviously been accomplished by a highly qualified individual in that field. Based upon his findings, I think once again it is very clear that the draft Environmental Impact Report conclusion that there was no possible health hazard to the surrounding area was overwhelmingly substantiated. We have further reviewed Mr. Gabrielson's report. We are happy to see that mitigating measures that were recommended have been instituted. We understand that the facility has been reduced by 6 to 7 acres as fax as the shopping center and the open space has been added on to by that same amount of land. We, therefore, quite logically conclude that those negative impacts which were attributable to size would obviously be reduced by the amount of the reduction, quite frankly, in the shopping center itself. We agree with both of the reports as they have been submitted. We would strongly suggest that they be incorporated into the Environ- mental Impact Report and we would support such a conclusion. We are of the opinion, at this time, that there is no substantiated reason for accomplishing a new Environmental Impact Report on this particular project. I think its adequacy has been clearly indicated and identi- fied. City Attorney McLean: Thank you, Mr. Menard. Any questions for Mr. Menard? Mayor Mor9an: Thank you. Redev. Ag. Exec. Dir. Watts: We have not asked Mr. Moreland to alter the traffic flows and emission figures as indicated in the Environmental Impact Report. However, with the enlargement of the open space area and the reduction of the commercial area, if the report were rewritten, would there be as much negative impact in terms of air pollution and noise, reduction of open space as a result of this modification? Mr. Menard: We have discussed that with the Traffic Engineer and posed basically the same question to him. His response (and I'm paraphrasing) was that quite obviously the reduction in size would mean less in traffic generation and there would be a logical and proportionate amount of reduction in the negative impact which we attributed in the air quality area. So, it would obviously be a reduction or improvement of the situation --let's put it that way -- by a proportional amount. City Attorney McLean: Any more questions? Mayor Moraaa: If you would make another Environmental Impact Report again would you show less complaints against it now with this setup than you did before? Mr. Menard: The impacts on the negative side would be less, definitely. City Attorney McLean: Did you write a letter to the Agency containing these conclusions?11 Mr. Menard: Yes, I have indicated that I have reviewed the reports and basically it indicates what I have indicated to you verbally now. City Attorney McLean: Mr. Watts has a copy of that? Redev. Ag. Exec. Dir. Watts: Yes, would you like me to pass it out? City Attorney McLean: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Menard. Mr. Menard: I have to catch a plane so I will leave the hall for the flight. 12/11/74 126 Mayor Morgan: If there are no other questions, we will excuse him. City Attorney McLean: And also, Your Honor, I would like to give to the Clerk for the record the written resume of Mr. Moreland3which I read, together with the summary of qualifications of Mr. Moreland's firm? together with the summary of calculations Mr. Gabrielson6 referred to, plus the letter from Mr. Menard concerning the reports-1 that you have just heard from Mr. Moreland and Mr. Gabrielson. Mayor Morgan: Could we have... Redev. Ag. Exec. Dir. Watts: Mr. McLean, there is another communica- tion that we have and I wonder if we should just very briefly summarize it? City Attorney McLean: The Mayor suggested you just read it. Mayor Morgan: Could you just read this into the record, Merrell, this letter from Mr. Menard? Redev. Ag. Exec. Dir. Watts: Letter signed by Owen Menard, President, Owen Menard & Associates, dated December 11, 1974, "...At your request I have reviewed the report offered by Mr. William Moreland of Meteo- rology Research, Inc. regarding the air quality which can be anticipated in and around your proposed Bonita Center Redevelopment Project. As I am sure you will recall, the Environmental Impact Report on this project accomplished by our firm reported that in our opinion there was no substantial health hazard regarding an increase in air pollution attributable to the shopping center. Our findings, which were qualitative in nature, had provided us with ample data to support the above conclusion. Mr. Moreland's report correctly sub- stantiates our original findings and quantifies such through a far more scientific method. We are in complete agreement with his report and would suggest that such be incorporated into the appendix of the Environmental Impact Report. We have also recently been informed that the proposed flood channel has been reduced, through redesign of the Bonita Center Redevelopment Project, resulting in an increase of between 6 and 7 acres of open space and an equal reduction in the size of the shopping center. Such will, in our opinion, also reduce the negative environmental impact included in the Environmental Impact Report. We are once again most happy to be of assistance to the National City Redevelopment Agency. Sincerely yours."11 City Attorney McLean: Do you have another communication, Mr. Watts? Redev. A9. Exec. Dir, Watts: The Chairman of the Environmental Board, County of San Diego, under date of November 7, 1974, directed a memorandum to the Board of Supervisors? That memorandum is entitled, "Bonita Plaza Shopping Center/ Sweetwater River Flood Channelization Project (District 1)." We might just summarize some of the items in that memorandum. City Attorney McLean: Okay. Redev. Ag. Exec. Dir. Watts: "...Recommendations: That your Board (No. 1) certify that your Board has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of National City, and that said report was prepared in consulation with the County of San Diego, pursuant to Section 15064 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970..." The report goes on and recommends that certain mitigating measures be added to the Watercourse Permit No. 253 as issued by the Director of Sanitation and Flood Control. It indicates that the existing conditions provide that we obtain authorization to perform the work on County owned land. Second, that the work be considered as interim or temporary, that the ultimate job should meet the 12/11/74 127 Redev. Ag. Exec. Dir. Watts: approval of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State Department of Transportation. It indicates that backwater effect of the proposed work shall not cause appreciable increase over the existing standard project flood level as defined by the Corps of Engineers. And then they recommend three additional items be attached to such an authorization which the Board of Super- visors might grant to the City and Agency before construction of the flood channel and those three additional are: that the alternative presented (if I may verbalize) as presented by Lyle Gabrielson this evening on the map that is on the right-hand sidd3would be the design that is compatible with the Corps of Engineers and which they approve; that park improvements be made by the City and that the channel improvements be subject to approval of the County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control. And, they recommended the Board of Supervisors act upon these recommendations. And, to clarify this, the Right of Entry1Qhich we identified earlier, dated December 4, approved by the Board of Supervisors acting on behalf of the Environ- mental Review Board memorandum. Mayor Mor9an: Mr. Attorney, could we incorporate these reports on pollution into the Environmental Impact Report? Is that what we could do? City Attorney McLean: We suggest you incorporate the report from Meteorology Research and I would also suggest you incorporate the other documents that have been presented to you which include a summary of engineering calculations by Mr. Gabrielson and the report from Mr. Menard into the Environmental Impact Report and other addenda. I noticed that Mr. Martin, President of the Sweetwater Civic Associa- tion is here, as well as Mr. Cramer and other interested persons from their group. Perhaps while we have Mr. Moreland and Mr. Gabrielson present, if they have any questions that they want to direct to the technical consultants they can do it now and obtain further answers. Mayor Moran: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak at this time? (Pause) Name and address please. Gene Martin: My name is Gene Martin, President of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association. I live at 3751 Putter Place in Bonita and I thank you for the opportunity to speak at this particular time. First off, I would like to ask for a couple of clarifications. Mr. McLean, you said that interested parties asked for these parti- cular inclusions. And I would like to know if that occurred in the City meeting last night or in the Court case that just concluded yesterday? Whether that was an outcome? Because I am not aware of any requests from our organization or from anyone from that area, and I have been in close touch with them as to any requests for clarification. .9.1/LaLt2E122LE21...t2an: Oh, I see. Well, Mr. Martin, there was a letter written as a comment to the Environmental Impact Report draft from Ultrasystems which suggested a Gaussian Plume modeling technique. Mr. Martin: That is some time ago. That is not from the residents. And you said residents, Sir. City Attorney McLean: May I answer? Mr. Martin: Yes. City Attorney McLean: That was one source. It was also suggested by persons who have appeared here from time to time that such should be done. I will not try to cite all the times that has been brought up. It was also suggested by a representative of Ultrasystems, who appeared as an expert witness, this should be done. It was suggested by other people with whom I have discussed the topic that are neither 12/11/74 128 City Attorney McLean: parties to this or any other. The idea of considering whether modeling should be done has been something that was discussed by many people and when I said interested parties I wasn't trying to attach this to you if you didn't want it done. Why we are not implying... Mr. Martin: I did say that I wanted to clarify the record as to who you were talking about. City Attorney McLean: Well, who we are talking about are a variety of interested people which is what I said to begin with. They come from many places including Mr. Moreland who is an interested person. Mr. Martin: Secondly, I'd like to make the observation that this is the first effort that we've seen on the behalf of the Agency and the City Council to hold constructive discussions about problems and miti- gation. If you will recall, we have had several meetings and we have been here and we've written letters and we presented adverse comments and up until this time --I was absent from one meeting I will admit. But, most of the meetings that I have attended there has been no presentation by staff. There has been no presentation by any so- called experts in the fields to discuss the mitigation problems in the EIR nor to address the points made by the people who wrote in response to your June l8th deadline. I would say that this was somewhat late. I would point out that I would take, from our stand- point, the change in the flood control channel from the original 400-ft. wide channel to the current one that Mr. Gabrielson just proposedias an admission that the EIR was originally inadequate in that area. I would like to ask Mr. Gabrielson one or two questions which I believe are pertinent to the fact. Mr. Gabrielson failed to mention that the 400-ft. channel would be a so-called hard turn into the flood control channel as designed by the Corps of Engineers under 805 and would require a weir which would raise the subcritical flow, just as we contended it would, and would have flooded some upstream acreage, just as we contended it would and the Corps of Engineers verified, and we can see this is why the change has come about. Now, I am not criticizing the changes, believe me, and I certainly would think it is commendable to add more park land and reduce the size of the shopping center. That I won't quarrel with at all. But, I think that it is evidence that the original study was inadequate. Another thing that I think is important, in terms of Mr. Moreland's presenta- tion, is that he did not mention the fact that he had considered the starting and stopping, the unloading, the backing, the parking and the stop -and -go traffic in the shopping center and he did not mention whether he had expanded his study to the streets that lead to the shopping center in terms of "E" Street, Bonita Road to Bonita Mesa Road, to Sweetwater Road beyond the shopping center itself. And, I believe, there are going to be additional factors that will compound this problem that should have been addressed because it is not just the trade area nor is it just 1-805, it is the fact that the roads are inadequate. They are small and narrow. And, those roads are going to be backed up with stop -and -go traffic and we, I think, all realize that stop -and -go traffic is where most of the emissions come from. Furthermore, he didn't address the fact that there are going to be --and it says in the EIR--20 percent of the vehicles coming into the area will come from the Republic of Mexico, from across the border which do not have emission control devices. And, I think that most of you are probably aware that there is a problem at the border and that the County Health Department is doing an emissions study there. As a matter of fact, their only portable testing lab for air quality is tied up there on a long term study to determine the effects of automobile emissions. I might say to you that the average daily count of traffic at the highest peak time at the border is around 37,000 cars. This is not even to the amount that is indicated in the EIR on the daily count for the Bonita Plaza Center. So I feel that there are some factors that are extremely important that should be 12/11/74 129 Mr. Martin: addressed to these particular points and I would like to hear some response from those people. In that regard, since we did have Ultrasystems at our court case I would like to ask for some consideration possibly the opportunity of something about 2 weeks to 30 days to allow us to come back with a study from our people to see if there is any comparison and to offer some alternative solutions possibly. Furthermore, one of the things that I was hopeful that Mr. McLean would pick up in our case was the fact that there was a couple of other emissions that you haven't considered and while we are here I thought we might just as well discuss them. I am quite concerned for the safety of the school children, particularly ele- mentary school children)that have to walk on those narrow roads with the increased traffic amount that has been predicted in the EIR. City Attorney McLean: We are talking with the School Districts. Mr. Martin: I know you are because I have been in touch with them. I hope that you will further address some effort to that particular point. Now, that's all I have. Mayor Morgan: Thank you. Would you want to... City Attorney McLean: Mr. Moreland, do you want to tell us again the areas you studied and how you decided how much emission to consider? Mayor Morgan: Do you want to respond? Mr. Moreland: We just incorporated the values of the emissions that were computed or presented in the EIR. We did not make any attempts to alter this or make any other evaluations. We just utilized what was available in the EIR and considered the primary trade center which was described as 1.3 mile radius from the Plaza itself. City Attorney McLean: This, I take is --am I correct in thinking that by confining your pollution model to 1.3 mile radius instead of a larger radius that you maximized pollution concentration? Mr. Moreland: While the diffusion itself, if you go to a larger area, you would get a lower concentration. It depends, however, on the emissions, if you are --as to the area, you consider what the total emission is and the emissions that were given in the EIR incorporate this area (and that was given in Table 8 of the EIR) and that's the emissions. However, if there are other emissions that are available they could be employed but this is not presented in the EIR. City Attorney McLean: Thank you. Mr. Gabrielson, do you have in mind Mr. Martin's comments? Mr. Gabrielson: No, I'm afraid I ... City Attorney McLean: He said that he believed that by redesign there was some acknowledgement that the original design concept is incorrect and that fact was concealed in the Environmental Impact Report and that there would have been a weir at the entrance of the channel that would result in certain upstream problems. That is kind of a gist of his comments. Mr. Gabrielson: I am really at a loss as to how to answer. The original design, or both designs, or whatever you want to talk about, the design concept that was envisioned in both designs was to provide building sites free from inundation in a 100-year flood. Since we were essentially developing the flood control facilities in the immediate 450 to 500 feet adjacent to the freeway, we came up with a design concept whereby we would have a park in an area of flooding. This park required that there be trees, benches, other amenities that 12/4/4 130 Mr. Gabrielson: would reflect a park in any time other than when it was flooded. That is why we required with the design consideration to use a roughness factor or a design factor for the flows of a character that would indicate that there would be numerous trees and so forth. And, the Corps of Engineers' design has always been a flume, or it is a weir, or whatever you want to call it, we recognize that. The Corps of Engineers' channel once constructed would actually lower the water surface during the 100-year flood within our area. They have been concerned, we have had numerous conversations with them as to what would be the effects on the standard project flood. They were not totally cognizant of what would happen and our backwater analysis indicated that, as far as the computer runs were concerned, the mathematical calculations indicated that there would be a slight rise of insignificant nature upstream, but nothing that we could discern without going to model studies. Model studies is an extremely lengthly procedure. The only one we felt really qualified would be the Corps of Engineers, or probably the City of Los Angeles, I believe, was contacted. The cost was rather substantial, and with their schedule of model studies, the time involved was rather cumbersome to do it. So, rather than do that we continued to work with the Corps of Engineers and said, "You know we have made a proposal, you make the counterproposal," something to that effect. On September 10th, through my father, who was a former City Engineer of San Diego for some 20 years, contacted the Colonel, the head of the Corps of Engineers in Los Angeles, and arranged for a meeting where we could sit down and discuss this whole thing on about September 10th, I believe. The Corps has always been under the constraints of no funds to do anything other than take a look at it and review our data and then say, "We think we have some concern." So the Colonel, in effect, said, "Look we had better work with the City of National City. They are vitally interested in our project. We are vitally interested in our project. We have a number of problems on this thing. Let's take some time. Let's sit down. Let's look at their proposal and let's come up with what they consider to be a reasonable approach." In the October 22nd letter to us, they had taken approximately a month trying to do this. We had a meeting and on the 18th of October at that meeting three proposals were discussed which were acceptable to the Corps of Engineers for their standard project flood and their project. One was the elimination of the channel by the Corps of Engineers underneath the highway bridge in which case it would not be a problem for the Corps of Engineers. It would be a problem for the Division of Highways because they built the bridge. That wasn't very acceptable to the Division of Highways. The second feature was, why not go to one of these tremendous concrete structures, multiple veins? We can take this water and shoot it down into our current Corps design and approximately half of the open space would have ended up in concrete with veins some 10 to 15 feet tall of reinforced concrete. We didn't think that would be very compatible or acceptable to the Park Department because nobody really prefers to ride horses on concretepaxticularly when it is on a slope and channelized on both sides by these large veins. The third proposal by the Corps of Engi- neers was a reduction of one of the steps in their channel downstream from 1-805 freeway and a lowering of the elevation from Elevation 14 to Elevation 12 and this 1000-ft. radius curve where they would come in, in the future, and build their channel and we would build the interim measure. In no way, manner, shape or form have we tried to go in with the idea that we were deceiving anybody. This was a solution that worked under the design parameters and normally employed in Engineering and as fax as the standard project flood is concerned its a name. The standard project flood does not exist unless there is a Corps project. That is about what it amounts to. Nobody designs to a 500-year storm. The city streets are 50-year storms. The flood channel in a major flood basin like this were determined to be 100-year storms. 12/11/74 131 Mayor Morgan: Thank you very much. Commander, do you have something to say? Edward Cramer: Chairman, you should know me better than that --that I probably have something to say. My name is Edward Cramer. I live at 3732 Putter Drive, in Critical Area 1. I did have some questions perhaps that could be answered. I was, like Mr. Martin, pleased at the tenor of this evening's discussion and quite impressed by Mr. Moreland's background, particularly his schooling, perhaps. I was fortunate enough to graduate from UCLA myself. Although my bachelor and my masters degrees is not in the discipline that yours is, I was able to work on an Air Force contract of upperwind research project while at UCLA and some of the descriptions you use --my technology is not such that I can follow. You mentioned that you used a 1500 inversion layer which was what you felt, or discovered, to be of approximately 50 percent of the time basis for this area. Having lived in the vicinity of Kawasaki and Los Angeles for some periods of time, I think I am much more concerned with the worst case situa- tion than the average situation. I think situations such as occurred at Donora, Pennsylvania, or London might only occur a few days of the year. But, I think that for the residents it might be much more critical for them to know what the situation might be in a worst case situation than the other 360 days or whatever. In other words, we don't know whether the average here has a plus or minus or maybe 5 percent or 50 feet on each side of this or whether this average is a time base average, it occurs 50 percent of the days but the other 50 percent of the days you either can't breathe or 25 percent you can't breathe and 25 percent it is crystal clear. This doesn't quite explain to me how bad it might be. I did contract some type of lung problem while I was in the vicinity of Kawasaki, Japan, and I do live very close, much closer than say 1500 feet from the shopping center, more like 40 or 50 feet. So when you said you used a 1600 ft. down- wind from the freeway and so forth, it was difficult for me to relate exactly what you were saying. Now, I would appreciate it if you could expand some of these things and allay, if possible, my fears. What I think you said was the California Caltrans textbook used a 50 mile an hour speed average which is rather high, considering now we have a 55 mile an hour speed limit, and this was translated into the shopping area. And in that translation we accrued sometling like 67 parts per million of pollution totally in that trade area, not discussing outside or the adjacent streets and, as Mr. Martin said, perhaps the traffic from Mexico which wouldn't have the pollution devices. Now, that appears to me to be about 10 percent of what the downtown San Diego has. It seemed to me that you said the average San Diego day has 5 to 6 parts per million. This is the downtown area and if this is going to add or create .67 this seems to be that it is about 10 percent of what downtown...so as this relates to me what you said that the added smog situation or carbon monoxide load in this area out to 1500 feet would be approximately 10 percent of the normal pollution level in downtown San Diego. Is that a fair approximation of what you said? Mayor Morgan: You just go ahead and then we will ask him to come back. Mr. Cramer: Okay. If that is the case and that is only on the average day as we assume to be an average day, I feel it to be excessive of living in downtown San Diego and I think that is a lot of smog there for a residential area to live in. Also much of our comments and much of our objection to this entire EIR has been what we feel to be the inadequate base facts, the base structure assump- tions. So, although there have been discussions here and elsewhere and several people have gotten up and othershave attacked specific idling speed of engines, the amount of carbon dioxide that comes out at 25 miles an hour, 45 miles an hour and the number of cars and so forth, and the number of cars represented in various different tables 12/11/74 132 Mr. Cramer: and pages in the EIR do not agree are not congruent. It depends on which one you grab and how fax it may be off as to when you extrapolate out to these figures. So, our contention has been all along that the basic EIR had quantitative shortcomings in its evalua- tion of the amount of traffic and the amount of pollution that is provided by the traffic. To expand then and use that data in the Gaussian Plume, and to develop it out from there simply carries for- ward whatever errors that were in the base data. I think that is what you said that you used those figures without going further. I would like you to comment, if you can, on my assumption that if the base data is wrong, what is the probability of error in this area and also the business about what is the range on, say 50 percent of the time. What is the worst case? To what degree? Mayor Moran: Thank you very much. Mr. Cramer: Also, one further question. It relates to this, there was some comment made of how long have you had to work on this? I would like to have some idea because my mind cannot comprehend all this in one evening, as you have just gone through this, and I would like to have some idea how long you worked on it. I understand that, Mr. Mayor, you said the members of the Council and members of the Redevelopment Agency have been provided --received copies of the reports that are received tonight. I would like to know when they received those copies. Mayor Morgan: Thank you. Could you respond to his comment» (speaking to Mr. Moreland) Mr. Moreland: Well, first my comment on what is indicated by 50 percent. Fifty percent represents a point in which 50 percent could be say of a higher value inversion height --we are speaking of inver- sion --that 50 percent could be higher and 50 percent could be lower. It is what we call a median. If it is a normal distribution, this is the average or median value it occurs. But, it can certainly occur --some of the times it is going to be higher--50 percent of the time it can be higher, 50 percent of the time it can be lower. So that as far as inversion height is concerned, it can range anywhere from the surface up to 10,000 feet. So that it turns out in the statistics that if you want to pick a median value, or mean value, the 50 percent level is that value and it turns out to be 1500 feet. As I mentioned before on the emissions, it can, if you make a change in the emission, it would change the values of the concentration so the way the Gaussion Plume model turns out is that if you double the emissions, you double your concentration. It's the way the formula would indicate, so that if the emissions are in error by, say you have to double them, you would have to double your concentration. So, instead of having 1 part per million addition, you would double it and get 2 parts per million. Whatever you want to accept as the emission rate, you could see that you would have to go up fairly high to reach levels that would be up to 40 parts per million. So, I think that if you want to generate a worst case, this is always possible to do by whatever estimation you want of the emissions or the meteorological conditions. So, it could be computed as far as worst case situations are concerned. Councilman Pinson: If you did, say double your traffic, we would still be below the State health standards? Mr. Moreland: Well, yes. If you, say doubled the traffic --the computations would indicate that the total due to the center and to 1-805 is presently about 1 part per million --so, if you doubled it, you would get 2 parts per million. And, this would be added to whatever the background levels are on any given day. If it happens to be in an average day where there are 5 to 6 parts per million, this would bring you up to 8 parts per million which is still well 12/11P4 133 Mr. Moreland: below the 40 parts per million prescribed by the State. City Attorney McLean: Thank you. Mr. Moreland: The other question, I believe, was the time involved in doing this work. I was contacted last week and have been working on it over the weekend and up through today, right up to the time I came in. Mayor Morgan: Thank you. Now, we have another... (Mayor and Attorney talking at once.) City Attorney McLean: Do you have compueter technology in your office? Mr. Moreland: Yes, we have what we call "time share" program where we are on terminals and have access to Univac and CDC 6600 computers. We have the standard programs built in to these computers. Mayor Moran: Thank you. We have another gentleman. Mr. (unintelli- gible) do you want to speak? Unidentified Gentleman: It is an extreme honor just to walk into a City Council meeting and be invited to speak. (He did not come forward to speak.) Mayor Morgan: We appreciate having you out tonight. We have a man from Chula Vista with us here tonight. (The man from Chula Vista declined.) If you would like to speak, come on up to the mike. Charles Pratt: My name is Charles Pratt, 3202 Bonita Mesa Road, and I have just heard this gentleman talk about being contacted over the weekend and suddenly being thrust into this to come up with some facts to back up the Environmental Impact Report, which was being contested in court at that time. It sounds to me, as little as I know about this, that this does demonstrate that the Environmental Impact Report must have had some holes in it that needed patching up. This is what these gentlemen have been saying for a long time and I am astonished to hear it suddenly come out at this point. However, the main thing I wanted to get up and say to you is that all the residents up here on Bonita Mesa Road and all through Bonita are really against this thing. Right now there is a golf course down there which is beautiful green thing for not only the residents of Bonita but for the residents of National City and Chula Vista. All of us up here can't see where it is going to benefit us any more to have a shopping center there than this golf course. I had occasion to call on about a dozen of my neighbors over the weekend and the feeling in regard to this is very strong out there. I almost wonder if you can realize sitting down here and so few people showing up. I am just amazed at this. It demonstrates a lot of apathy as I am sure you are all aware of. Sitting up there on the Mesa they say, "What good will it do for us to go down there? They are not going to listen to us anyway." Getting back to the CO emissions, one thing is that through all of this we don't seem to have any definite figure on the amount of CO and other pollutants that are already there that we are adding to. When I drive into National City to work every morning, I come up 24th Street, I look at downtown San Diego and I see that yellow haze in the air a great many days in the year. If we are creating that kind of thing here in National City and Bonita, we don't want it. I don't want it and I don't think any of you do. He just used the figure 8 parts per million which is more than he used in referring to what is presently in downtown San Diego. I don't know if he was just pulling this out of the air as an example or if he has some idea of what the concentrations that are already there are. But, I would like to call your attention to that. 12/11/74 134 City Attorney McLean: This report says 5 to 6 parts per million is typical background. Mr. Pratt: Oh; already there? Well, then we are adding to that. So we are going to be able to compare this to what is in downtown San Diego. I don't want yellow haze in National City or Bonita. You keep referring to State Health Standards, 5 or 6 parts per million may not endanger your health but we are not talking about just our health but our comfort and our quality of life here. I think these are all things that we have to take into consideration in regard to putting a development of this kind here. Mayor Morgan: Can I ask you a question? Mr. Pratt: Yes, sir. Mayor Morgan: Do you play golf? Mr. Pratt: I have been on the golf course once. And no, I wouldn't consider myself a golfer. Mayor Morgan: Wouldn't it be better for you and your family if we had 32 acres of parkland down there where they have picnic tables and shade trees and would be open to the public where you and your family could get down and be in a park. Now, you don't take advantage of the golf course. Personally, just you and your family wouldn't you be better off to have a park down there where you could get to and your family could go down and have a little fun, maybe take a horse and ride, this sort of thing? Would that satisfy you? Mr. Pratt: I appreciate your sentiments there very much, Mr. Morgan. We are great lovers of parks. We are great lovers of Rohr park and use it frequently. However, I think we would prefer to use the Rohr park and still have a golf course there rather than a shopping center. Mayor Morgan: Thank you. His question as I understood it is, did you take into consideration when you were computing this, the traffic there and the extra traffic. You took all the traffic into consid- eration, didn't you? Mr. Moreland: We considered the emissions. We didn't make any traffic analyses. We took this from the EIR within that area and accepted those values since our expertise is not in traffic. If we know what the values are, we can use the emission values to compute the concentration. We accepted the values that are in the EIR. That was our basis for that. The traffic that we considered, I stated what the values were that we considered on 1--305 which, as I under- stand, is under construction at the present time. This was based again upon the EIR, the statement made there as to what they esti- mated the traffic flow would be there. So, those were the bases that we considered the emissions and, as I indicated, that if you want to change your emissions it is a simple matter to scale the problem to compute the concentration. If you want to double them or triple them, you have to double or triple the concentration. Redev. Aq. Exec. Dir. Watts: You used Table 8, Page 48 of the Draft EIR? Mr. Moreland: Yes, Table 8 was the emissions that we employed. Mayor Morgan: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak at this time? What is the pleasure of the Council? Vice Mayor Camacho: After listening to testimony presented today it is moved that a Notice of Determination be filed with the County Clerk of San Diego as required by the Agency's Environmental Impact 12/11/74 135 Vice Mayor Camacho: Report guidelines which will include a finding that the Redevelopment Agency has (1) determined to continue with the implementation of the report, (2) determined that although the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the additional testimony heard at the meeting of December 11, 1974 revealed no new negative impacts not heretofore presented to and considered by the Redevelopment Agency, and (3) that the Agency determined that there is no health hazard due to air pollution resulting from and related to this project. It is further moved that the Meteorology Research, Inc. report concerning air pollution, the report of Lyle Gabrielson and the report of Owen Menard be made part of the final environmental impact report for this project. Mayor Morgan: Is there a second? Councilman Reid: Second. Mayor Morgan: Now, we are voting on this in Redevelopment. City Attorney McLean: Yes, the Redevelopment Agency. Mayor Morgan: Is there discussion on this motion? All in favor... Vote Please. Redev. A. Exec. Dir. Watts: Carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Reid, Mr. Camacho, Chairman Morgan, Mr. Pinson. Nays: Mr. Dalla. Mayor Morgan: Could we have a motion to... City Attorney McLean: That is all that is necessary as far as action on the report is concerned. Mayor Morgan: Nothing for Council? City Attorney McLean: No, the Redevelopment Agency is the lead Agency. Ed Cramer: (Mr. Cramer left the microphone and spoke from his seat in the audience. Most of what he said did not record. His comments from here on are taken from shorthand notes of the meeting.) I asked two questions for specific reasons. One, I asked when the Council received copies of these reports. Mayor Morgan: We got them today, they are dated December 11. Mr. Cramer: The point was made not that they had been read and distributed but that they had been distributed and the question has come up in the length of time after receipt and the amount of time to consider some of these issues. That is why I wanted to know. I wanted to ask the length of time required by Mr. Moreland and his computer to look into this. As I understand, the Gaussian Plume method is not a linear but a square so it would take me longer to review this. I wanted to ask for a delay on Council action, it may take me two or three weeks. I did not see this meeting advertised in any of the papers, if it was I missed it. That is the reason I asked him the time it took and the time the Councilmen got the reports. Mayor Morgan: I can explain this, I think. Everything from Mr. More- land and the Engineers were distributed. This letter from Mr. Menard was not distributed until just now. That is the reason I asked the Redevelopment Agency to read it into the record so it would be made a part of the record so you would know out there what it was stating. Motion to adjourn is in order. Vice Mayor Camacho: I move we adjourn. 12/11/74 136 Councilman Reid: Second. Mayor Morgan: Discussion? Vote please. City Clerk Campbell: Carried by unanimous vote. The meeting closed at 6:30 p.m. City Cle City Af National Cit e1L California The foregoing minutes were approved by the City Council of the City of National City at the regular meeting of January 7, 1975. ElNo corrections 0 Corrections as noted below // 4 Mayor, City of N ional City, California. Footnotes: 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report (Doc. No. 54400) 2 - The MRI Story (Doc. No. 54944) 3 - Resume, William B. Moreland, Senior Scientist (Doc. No. 54945) 4 - Local Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentration Increase Caused by Traffic Emissions in Primary Trade Center Area of the Bonita Plaza and on I 805 (3 sheets - Doc. No. 54946) 5 - Letter dated 11 December 1974 to Merrell L Watts, Executive Director Redevelopment Agency, City of National City from William B. Moreland, Senior Scientist, Meteorology Research, Inc. (Doc. No. 54947) 6 - Project: Sweetwater River Channel at Bonita Plaza Rick Engineering Co., Job No. 4966 (Doc. No. 54948) 7 - Bonita Plaza Topography Alternate No. 2, Grading Plan (Doc. No. 54949) 8 - Bonita Plaza Grading Plan Alternate No. 2 Revised (Doc. No. 54950) 9 - Various letters concerning Bonita Plaza Shopping Center/Sweet- water River Flood Channelization Project (District I) from: Chairman, San Diego County Environmental Review Board (Pg. 1- 4); Rick Engineering Company (Pg. 5-7); National City City Engineer (Pg. 3); Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Pg. 9-15). (Doc. No. 54951) (Rec'd & filed as single document) 10 - County Board of Supervisors' Minute Order, Agreement for Right of Entry and Permit To Do Work, and Exhibits A and B (Doc. No. 54952) 11 - Letter dated December 11, 1974 from Owen Menard and Associates (Doc. No. 54953) 12/11/74