Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 1989-07-18IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF Tht CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989, AT 7:00 PM. Special Joint Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Chairman/Mayor San Rafael City Council/ Albert J. Boro, Member/Councilmember San Rafael Redevelopment Agency Dorothy L. Breiner, Member/Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Member/Councilmember Joan Thayer, Member/Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, Executive Director/City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, Agency/City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary/City Clerk SPECIAL JOINT MEETING 1. DISCUSSION OF TOXIC ISSUES IN RELATION TO RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AT SECOND AND LINDARO STREETS (RA) File R-254 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH LINDARO ASSOCIATES COVERING PROPERTY AT SECOND AND LINDARO STREETS IN SAN RAFAEL (RA) SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL a. RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AND APPROVING DISPOSI- TION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND LINDARO ASSOCIATES, PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33433 AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY b.RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SETTING FORTH FINDINGS REGARDING AP- PROVALS FOR, AND APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY PROVIDING FOR THE AGENCY'S LEASE OF PROPERTY FROM PG&E AT SECOND AND LINDARO STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL; AND DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE AGENCY'S SUBLEASE OF PROPERTY AT SECOND AND LINDARO STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO LINDARO ASSOCIATES, PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SEC- TIONS 33391, 33430 AND 33433 AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Chairman/Mayor Mulryan opened the meeting and then stated that both Agency/Councilmembers Boro and Breiner have learned within the last 48 hours that they would not be able to parti- cipate in the meeting because of a recent Fair Policital Practices Commission change in the definition of what is considered a conflict of interest. As a result of the change they will, upon advice of Counsel, excuse themselves from the deliberations of the rest of the meeting. Agency/Councilmembers Boro and Breiner then left the Council Chambers. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan stated the purpose of the meeting was to review the risk assessment, noting a number of meetings had been held for three or four years on this project, including mitigation of toxics on the site and whether there is a health risk resulting from both the toxics as analyzed and the mitigations that have been devised. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan stated Assistant Executive Director Ours would be giving a detailed review of the project followed by the representative from the Department of Health Services (DHS) and Dr. Alvin Greenberg. He stated since the project first came up there has been a lot of progress, and most recently, the Department of Health Services (DHS) has required a more conservative approach on the assumptions of the model which have been followed and will be discussed tonight. DHS and Dr. Greenberg both advised that additional soil samples be taken which has been done, and will be discussed. Dr. Greenberg suggested the secondary roots of exposure be analyzed which has also been completed. DHS required that a detailed Consent Agreement be agreed to by PG&E and Deed Restrictions for the safety of future generations which have been drafted and signed this afternoon by PG&E. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan said one of the questions raised was dust, and that for the last six years the lot has been open and questions have been raised as to what steps will be taken to keep the natural dust that generates from any construction site from migrating off site. He noted a number of steps have been taken, among those, meteorlogical towers will be erected to measure the dust; there will be an extensive program of moisturizing, including the use of foam and water, and frequent measuring. Also, there will be an extensive program for worker! safety with a comprehensive program at all stages and various potential dangers to workmen will be mitigated. The air off-site will be monitored by a variety of stations and wind direc- tions have been plotted out during various times of the day with measures made, particularly at the earliest parts of the construction site. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 1 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Sp ;al Joint) 7/18/89 Page 2 In conclusion, Chairman/Mayor Mulryan stated last Thursday approximately 113 questions were received in writing from concerned citizens, indicating a great majority have been answered by the most recent risk assessment, and noted any that have not been answered, will be; however not necessarily tonight. He stated the risk assessment concludes that with the mitigation measures laid out, this project and the measures proposed, constitute no health risk to the community. Assistant Executive Director Ours stated since January, 1989, public meetings have taken place that resulted in extensive re-examination of the procedures to be employed in the construction of the retail project at Second and Lindaro Streets. The Department of Health Services requeste that a Risk Assessment covering the construction and post -construction health risk to workers and the public be prepared. Additionally, they requested the preparation of a Health and Safety Plan, a Soils Management Plan, a Consent Order and a Covenant of Deed Restrictions. He noted the documents before the Agency/Council tonight, have been prepared with the cooperation of DHS, Harding -Lawson Associates, Dr. Alvin Greenberg and the Developer. The Risk Assessments, Consent Order and Deed Restrictions have all been approved by DHS. Mr. Ours stated 113 questions were received from the public, indicating none of the questions will affect conclusion of the risk analysis or create a health hazard. He noted the questions can be divided into three groups; those already answered by the risk assessment; those that will be covered in the site safety plan and the soils management plan, and those of site his- tory or site characterization nature to be responded by DHS with input by PG&E and the City. Mr. Ours stated presentations would be made tonight, including Gayle Edmisten from Harding - Lawson Associates who would be giving a brief overview of the risk assessment; Dr. Alvin Greenberg who will give his review on the risk assessment and soils management plan and Ric Notini from DHS who will comment on the technical review by DHS and the approvals of the documents. Mr. Ours noted they received a copy of a flyer inviting people to the meeting tonight and showing four topics which he wanted to address at this time. 1. Why, in 1981, transformer explosions (PCB's on-site have been kept a secret?) Mr. Ours stated when investigated, it was found that it was not an explosion (of a transformer) but a puncture by a forklift in the Canal area and not on this site. 2. Why seizures of nearby residents have not been revealed? Mr. Ours stated as best as they could determine, this was a 1984 incident where a lady had some health problems which were referred to the County Health Services who did the followup. He noted there has not been any report to the Agency indicating anything is wrong. 3. More cover-ups. Why are the results of soil testings missing? Mr. Ours stated there are no soil tests missing, noting Mr. Bob Doss from PG&E will speak further on this, if need be. 4. What happened to funds for Andersen Drive? Where will the traffic go? Mr. Ours stated at earlier meetings, funds for the Andersen Drive (extension) were al- located for the interchange at Bellam Boulevard and that staff is presently looking for alternate sources of funds for Andersen Drive but that the City is confident funds will be available for the building of Andersen Drive. Gail Edmisten of Lawson -Harding Associates, spoke on Risk Appraisals on the site. She stated the scope of work for the Risk Appraisal was set by the California Department of Health Ser- vices and indicated that Risk Appraisal needed to cover both during excavation and following the excavation, what the public health risk would be to workers on the site as well as the public adjacent to the site. In addition, the appraisal was to cover both with and without mitigation measures as mentioned in the Risk Appraisal, including watering in order to reduce the dust emission. She stated the Risk Appraisal in general, evaluated the chemicals found at the site, the area as proposed for excavation where the overlap was between those areas which were contaminated or found to be contaminated and the areas proposed for construction. Also evaluated were the potential pathways of exposure from the chemicals on the site, the potential receptor population that may be at risk from exposure to those chemicals that will model the chemical concentrations of the movement of those chemicals from the on-site property during the construction activities and following construction activities to determine what concentrations would be at specific receptor locations, and from that, characterize the risks that may be present at that site. Ms. Edmisten stated there are several differences between the draft Risk Appraisal and the final Risk Appraisal. Some of those differences include the fact that new borings are included SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 2 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (SF ial Joint) 7/18/89 Page 3 in the final Risk Appraisal; 12 new borings on Table 1-3a. In addition, new excavation areas were added based on changes in the construction. New methods as dictated by the DHS for less than lifetime risks for cancer causing or carcinogenic agents as well as non -carcinogenic agents have been added. Secondary routes of exposure have been evaluated, including dermal or skin contact with a contaminent, as well as ingestion of chemicals of soils in which deposi- tion of those chemicals have occurred. Metals have also been added to the evaluation. Ms. Edmisten stated the final Risk Appraisal includes volatile organic compounds (VOC's), and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNA's) as well as metals. 58 borings were used in the emission analysis on the site and are included in the Risk Appraisal. In evaluating the pathway of exposure, Ms. Edmisten stated the chemicals were evaluated for their fate characteristic; volatile chemicals found in soils may tend to move upward into the air and vaporize into the air. PNA's and metals tend to absorb slightly, the soil particulates, and therefore just may be a problem associating with those chemicals. Therefore, the pathways of exposure evaluated, included the primary pathways of exposure, including inhalation of those dusts, inhalation of the gases from the volatile chemicals on the subsurface, as well as the movement of those dusts and volatiles to the adjacent property. In addition, to cover the secondary pathways, movement from the site of the chemicals' dust, and a deposition down onto the adjacent property was evaluated. The chemicals were mixed with the subsurface soil one centimeter and subsequent skin contact with those chemicals and subsequent ingestion was evaluated. In addition, the dust chemical evaluation that was done included both wind erosion at the site without construction and wind erosion plus construction emission during constructio Receptor population were evaluated based on the potential pathways of exposure. The primary receptor population which they evaluated on the site, included a center receptor in the middle of the site, northeast of the property, the gasoline station, Albert Park, southwest of the property, a western location and south of the property, Davidson Middle School. The four off-site receptor population and one on-site receptor population were evaluated. She pointed out that in the deposition scenario, when they deposited the chemicals on off-site properties, they used the Davidson Middle School, noting since they were most concerned about them being at the most risk. In addition, they evaluated a theoretical residence which had the exact same soil concentration as the school which was deposited immediately adjacent to the school. They assumed the person was working at the school and/or children attending the school and also lived in that residence, would basically get a "double dose". Ms. Edmisten stated an emission analysis was done on the property in order to determine concentrations of chemicals at each of the five receptor locations. In order to evaluate the chemical concentration at each of these locations, she stated 58 borings were made on the property and these borings included an evaluation of all borings on the site, which was performed. These were overlain with the construction areas proposed for the site. These borings were within the construction area and/or within 30 feet of a construction area and were included in the analysis. She mentioned this included the 58 boring samples. Ms. Edmisten stated in order to evaluate emissions from the site, the entire site was gridded into 25 square by 25 square grids; she noted 81 square grids were shown on the property with the darkened areas being the grids containing borings, and were used in the emission analysis, and stated the emission analysis is where the grid areas are used to evaluate the movement of chemicals from the site over to each of the receptor locations. This included both volatili- zation from the subsurface or vaporization from the subsurface into the air and down wind dispersion to the receptor location as well as dust movement from those wind and construction emissions; from each of the 46 grids and to each receptor location. Ms. Edmisten stated it was assumed in the evaluation of emission that especially for the school and the theoretical adjacent residents, that 100 percent of dust on the property moved from the property as a cloud and dumped on the school. No particulates were assumed to come out of that cloud prior to the school, therefore she noted this is as if 100 percent of any dust from the site were deposited on the school. Several different wind scenarios were set up in order to evaluate the movement of the chemical laiden dust and vapors from the site. These included a typical scenario, minimum dispersion, plausible maximum and episodic. A typical exposure scenario included average wind, which was found at San Rafael's Fourth Street station, a stability class of "D", which is neutral stability, and average chemical concentration found within the 46 grids on site. Two worst case evaluations were done; first, the minimum dispersion which could be the worst case of volatile organic chemicals in the air. This assumed very low wind conditions, a stabi- lity class of "F", which means stagnant humid conditions, also meaning that volatile chemicals or gases would stay around and be of higher concentration. In addition, maximum concentration found anywhere within the 46 grids were assumed to be located everywhere in the 46 grids. The second worst case evaluation was the possible maximum in which higher winds or the average winds were used with stagnate air conditions and the maximum chemical concentration found anywhere off site. A top scenario or episodic scenario was also done, noting high winds can occur. The highest wind conditions found in June or July at the San Rafael Station on Fourth Street was 12 miles per hour. Using the 12 miles per hour wind condition and the maximum con- centration found in boring on site, an expisodic or puffed dust release was assumed. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 3 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Sp ;al Joint) 7/18/89 Page 4 Based on the four wind conditions, all four conditions were run to each of the five receptor locations. There are four concentrations at each of the locations based on four scenarios. It was determined by the analysis that the worst case chemical concentrations at each of the receptor locations was found with the plausible maximum scenario, therefore, those worst case exposure point concentrations were used in further analysis. A risk characterization was done on the site which included ingestion of soil, inhalation of dust and volatile, as well as dermal contact to workers on the site as well as off-site population. During construction, the emissions were analyzed as well as the post -construction activity. The volatilization for post -construction assumed that the mall was built on the site, the asphalt was put over on the parking lot, the concrete was put under the building and the landscaped areas were in place. The maximum volatilization from each of the areas and lifetime exposure for the residents adjacent to the site, were evaluated. The result of the Risk Appraisal, as mentioned, is the worst case concentrations found with the plausible maximum scenario. That plausible maximum, the highest chemical concentration or the highest number gotten into any of those receptor locations was used in the rest of the evaluation. Having used the maximum concentration found anywhere within 46 grids on site, it was assumed that concentration was located in all 46 grids of the site. It was assumed that maximum wind conditions or worst case wind conditions, existed always; and it was assumed that 100 percent of the dust from the site was deposited onto the school. Ms. Edmisten referred to slides and explained in detail the range of risks both off-site and on-site, indicating the values are much less than the acceptable level. This is with miti- gation for both carcenogenic risks as well as non-carcenogenic risks against plausible maximum exposure. However, when this is evaluated with no mitigation, no watering done on the site and the soils had zero percent moisture, again looking at the inhalation ingestion, dermal and total exposure, you see that most are less. In this case, ingestion to worker during con- struction is actually 10 times greater allowable exposure than what is acceptable. It is mentioned in the Risk Appraisal that there will be no "without" mitigation on the site; workers will wear personal protective equipment, however, DHS did ask that they do this and provide them with the results which has been done. Another that is greater than, is "dermal off-site". She stated this is assuming there is zero percent moisture, that 100 percent of the site is covered or 100 percent of the 46 grids is covered with the maximum chemical con- centration found anywhere on site or anywhere on the 46 grids; 100 percent of the dust is deposited onto the adjacent properties and remains there with people ingesting the soil in- cluding dermal contact. The mitigation measures will be implemented on the site and there will be watering on the site and therefore, this is not a "true" condition. Non -carcinogenic effects without mitigation. Many are lower than the acceptable intake; however, dermal contact by workers on site and off site, will exceed the allowable level. The site safety plan indicates that personal protective equipment will be worn on the site by the workers and mitigation measures will be implemented on the site in order to infer that there will be no public health risks from the activities at the site. Dr. Alvin Greenberg of Risk Science Associates in Corte Madera, showed Agency Members the enormous amount of material he reviewed having to do with risk assessments. He stated after reviewing all the material and prior to reviewing the final risk assessments, he asked for a detailed comprehensive health risk assessment for this site, noting it had been prepared. He asked for additional soil samples and these, too, were included. He asked for additional pathway exposures to be analyized and these were assessed. He asked for maps to show exactly where excavation would take place on site and they were provided. He asked for additional mitigation measures to be implemented to ensure worker and public protection, and these mea- sures will be required. In conclusion, he recommended the entire site be monitored by an independent professional during the handling of contaminated soils and that this person report to the City and public and to also have the authority to stop activities if proper procedures are not being followed. He noted this would be consistent with the requirements of AB3180 which became effective in January, and the City has agreed to this recommendation. Dr. Greenberg stated because a draft health risk assessment contained some deficiencies it does not mean that the draft assessment is fatally flawed, noting nobody has written a perfect health risk assessment yet. The purpose of a draft is to solicit comments, then respond to those comments. He was asked to review on-site characterization. He referred to April 3, when Councilmember Thayer asked him if he was satisfied with the site being adequately characterized, noting it is the site characterization, the determination of the presence and amount of contaminates that drives the risk assessment, including the consideration of risks to workers on site and risks to the general public off-site. At that time, Dr. Greenberg replied he was satisfied that the site was adequately characterized to determine that it was a hazardous waste site, but then there was the additional question, had it been adequately characterized in order to serve as the basis of potential emissions going off-site; in other words, serve as the basis in a health risk assessment. At that time he believed he answered, "It depends on the degree of certainty that you are looking for and that he would further review the issue". At one point, Dr. Greenberg felt that the site had not been adequately characterized and he asked for further samples which were taken and included in the health SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 4 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Sp-.ial Joint) 7/18/89 Page 5 risk assessment. Subsequently, he found out where all the excavation was going to occur, and noted he now can state quite frankly and flatly without equivocation that this site has been more than adequately characterized. Dr. Greenberg referred to his slides, explaining the buildings cover only part of the site, and he felt that excavations were going to be limited to certain areas on the site. Excavation areas would then be tested and others would not if there is no chance of dust coming from part of the site that would not be dug up. He said the slide shows approximately 143 borings made on site. He referred to a map identifying the over -excavated areas, regular excavations and where building piers will be placed. He stated this tells him that all soil samples that were used are more than adequate for describing the hazardous waste on the site and what could reasonably be expected to be encountered during excavation. It was not until June 15th when he received the map that he was satisfied with the site characterization. Dr. Greenberg stated traditional method of assessing a site is to bore holes and have samples taken for laboratory analysis at locations where contaminations are suspected to occur, site history, past and present use, known areas where toxic substances or hazardous wastes were used. Random samplings should also be done by laying out a grid on the site. He cited a grid taken from the Harding -Lawson Risk Assessment, 83 by 83 foot size cells within the grid. This was used to determine exposure assessment of what soils would be the basis for emissions, if dust were generated from the site for transport off site. He stated if a sufficient number of 10 to 15 percent of cells were sampled, this would mean that a very good job was done in assessing the site. In this case it was found that 73 percent of those cells contained at least one sample; that is 60 of the 82 cells contained one sample, 27 contained two samples, 15 contained three and one contained six. He had a question as to why he used a 83 foot by 83 foot size cell on this site, and stated he would probably have used something smaller. He laid a 24 by 24 foot grid over the site and came up with 27 percent of the cells containing at least one sample. He stated they are much greater than what is standard practice around the country. He mentioned he was involved with a soils investigation in San Diego where the Regional Board and the City of San Diego had signed off on a sampling plan at only 10 percent of the cells of a grid sample in a random fashion; in this case, it is 27 percent with the 24 by 24 foot size and 73 percent with the 83 by 83 foot size. Dr. Greenberg stated he is very satisfied that the site has been more than adequately assessed, and said if he were con- ducting the risk assessment, he would use the average values from all the sites on any soil depth that could be encountered, from all these boring locations, rather than the limited number used by Harding -Lawson, and would come up with an average concentration less than the number used by Harding -Lawson. He explained that Harding -Lawson was more conservative, using a number that comes up with a higher average concentration than could be used according to traditional methods and approaches. This means when you use a higher number, you have a higher risk number. He noted if he used the traditional approach and laid out a grid and took samples at known sites or other suspected locations, due to site history, including random sampling, and took the average of those values where soils could be encounterd, he would have a lower risk number than what Harding -Lawson came up with. He concluded stating he therefore is very satisfied with their basis of their risk assessment. OFF-SITE CHARACTERIZATION Dr. Greenberg said this issue does not impact the question of on-site characterization; they are two separate issues. In this case, he noted that he found there is very little off-site sampling and recommended further off-site sampling be conducted outside the known perimeters to determine whether anything was placed or has migrated off-site. He stated that this is not an issue that impacts on the present health risk assessments or the present on-site characterization. RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Dr. Greenberg stated a bulk of the risk assessments were prepared properly but both drafts did not contain an assessment of certain pathways, skin absorption and ingestion by residents or children in the area. He asked that those risk assessments be modified to include those pathways and noted Harding -Lawson did this, and in their final risk appraisal those pathways are included. As of July 13, the DFI (Decision Focus, Inc.) Health Risk Assessment on Phase I, Based Line Risk and Phase II, the PG&E Trenching, did not contain an assessment of the ingestion pathway; however, in subsequent conversations with Decision Focus, the authors of that risk assessment, they have now prepared such an assessment and Dr. Greenberg indicated he reviewed some of the assumptions they have used in that assessment and has been assured that it will be made part of the official record, and he so recommended. Dr. Greenberg stated he assessed the assumptions and procedures used by DFI in their assessment, and did so in a letter to the City Manager and Assistant Executive Director, dated today. He pointed out some of the assumptions were overly conservative, meaning they are unrealistic to the point of overestimating the risks considerably. Not under, but over. He believed this was done by a "screening" assessment which is proper when using overly conservative assumptions. He noted if it is found that the risks are still very low, then often someone makes the decision not to have a more refined assessment done. Dr. Greenberg stated by using more realistic assump- SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 5 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (SF !al Joint) 7/18/89 Page 6 tions in a refined assessment, the Decision Focus Risk Assessment looking at the ingestion pathway and including that in with other pathways, would result in lower risks than they have calculated. One of the overly conservative assumptions they used was the use of subsurface PNA's soil concentrations down to three feet as opposed to surface concentrations. Dr. Greenberg stated he would only use surface down to one foot, indicating there is no reason to use 3 foot depth where there is higher contaminates than at the surface or down to one foot. Dr. Greenberg stated a second assumption used is DFI did not account for loss of contaminates by resuspension. In other words, once it was deposited at the receptor site, such as Davidson Middle School or the ballfield, they assumed there was not removal, no resuspension by the wind or other removal mechanisms, including degradation. There are tried and true methods and scientifically valid methods of calculating the factor of removal, either biological removal. In other words, this means environmental half life, stating half lives are available in the literature for these substances; they can be plugged into the equation; wind erosion with resuspension can be used, noting DFI did not account for that. Also, DFI did not account for mitigation so their two scenarios in their risk assessment are nominal and worst case, neither of those accounted for mitigation so the risks that they calculated will be made part of the record, assuming all these worst case type of assumptions which he considered to be unrealistic do not account for the fact that mitigation measures will be used on the site, noting they came up with a very low risk number. Dr. Greenberg stated he was confident that a further refinement would find a number even lower than that given. DUST CONTROL Dr. Greenberg stated this is a critical issue, citing Harding -Lawson pointed out that without mitigation there are some very high risks, and with mitigation there are low risks. He noted this is the key issue. He stated there will be adequate and sufficient mitigation. He stated as recommended by him, foam will be utilized in dust control, indicating in addition to watering, it keeps the dust down and is effective in controlling volatile organic substances. Workers as well as the off-site public will be protected from dust born particles and vapors. BARROW PIT Dr. Greenberg stated there is a section on the site where clean fill will be taken and the contaminated soil will be taken from the over -excavated areas and put back into the area where the clean fill is taken and the clean fill will be taken and put in the over -excavated areas. He stated this is to be done so when utility workers come back into the trench to lay the utility lines, etc., they will be working in clean soil. Dr. Greenberg stated there are two issues associated with the barrow pit in clean fill which have now been resolved. One issue is the definition of clean fill which has been provided by the California Department of Health and Services, and Dr. Greenberg indicated he is satis- fied with their definition of clean fill. The second issue is whether the site of the barrow pit has been adequately sampled to determine if the soil meets the definition of clean fill. He stated this is just the opposite, instead of asking if there has been enough sampling to determine hazardous waste, they are now looking at an area to be certain it is clean enough to meet the definition of clean fill. This will be part of the Soils Management Plan which must be approved by the Department of Health Services. Dr. Greenberg stated he will be reviewing the Soils Management Plan as requested, and will be participating in its formulation, noting this issue will be fully resolved when the time comes to take the soils from the barrow pit area. WORKER PROTECTION Dr. Greenberg stated in addition to foam being used to protect workers they also will wear personal protective equipment, respiratory protection as well as thermal protection. He noted it is traditional in occupational health and industrial hygiene practice, as well as being codified in State Cal OSHA law and Federal OSHA law, that you want to engineer the problem before providing personal protective equipment. He explained that engineering controls whereby you prevent the toxic substance from actually getting to the worker is much preferable to providing the worker with all this personal protective equipment. In this case, both will be used. The use of the foam will not only control the dust but also control vapors. Dr. Greenberg stated he is confident as well as satisfied that there will be more than adequate worker protection. TOXIC SUBSTANCE MONITORING ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE Dr. Greenberg stated the consolidated Health and Safety Plan provides more than adequate monitoring program; both on-site and off-site levels will be monitored; there will not only be 24-hour turnaround by laboratories, noting it is his understanding than a mobile on-site GCMS (Gas Chromatograph Maspectromitor) laboratory will be provided. He noted this will not give instantaneous readings but will give readings as quickly as the machine is able to produce them, usually within an hour which is the best that can be done. This will assure timely intervention if control methods are not working. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 6 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spt.ial Joint) 7/18/89 Page 7 MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION IN MONITORING Dr. Greenberg stated this issue bridges the gap between theory and practice. The citizens and public want to know, how they could be sure this is going to be implemented. Dr. Greenberg recommended that the City contract with an independent individual and that this individual be given expanded responsibility, whether this is the Site -Safety Officer with expanded respon- sibility or an On -Site Environmental Coordinator. This person should be consistent with the guidelines of AB3180. This person should also have the authority to either shut down or modify or temporarily halt operations until he or she could get things moving around in the proper method, including having to report to the City on a daily basis, which can then make those daily reports available to the public. By having this done, the people will know on a day-by- day basis, that there is someone there "watch -dogging" the site all the time and making a report after every day's activities and checking off that "yes" this mitigation was properly implemented. ALTERNATIVES Dr. Greenberg stated he briefly pursued the option of Bio -remediation, i.e. (bacteria) chewing up the toxics on the site. His preliminary investigation found that on-site bio -remediation may be feasible, particularly in conjunction or combination with development on the site. Development will not preclude the use of bio -remediation, noting bio -remediation can take a significant period of time and he was not certain whether it is feasible for this site. Dr. Greenberg stated a laboratory bench scale test would need to be conducted with the soils and suitable bacteria; it would have to be further investigated, and if found to be feasible, it could take 5 to 7 or 8 years before the site was actually cleaned up. He recommended that the City continue to pursue the possibility of bio -remediation in combination with the develop- ment and capping of the site, and burial of the waste on the site for two reasons. He stated the reasons are, 1) It would be nice after 5 to 7 or 10 years to have a clean site if that were possible, noting if in 20 years it was decided to tear the shopping mall down and have something else built, it could be done. 2) It may be cheaper in the long run; PG&E would not have to pay to continue to pump the ground water and treat it. Dr. Greenberg concluded that this is worth pursuing, and recommended the City do this. NATURE AND UTILITY OF RISK ASSESSMENT Dr. Greenberg stated he helped organize and participated in a risk assessment symposium on utility of risk assessment that the EPA held in April, 1988 in San Francisco. It was deter- mined after that symposium, along with other symposiums, nationwide, that risk assessment is a useful tool to aid in a Risk Management decision. Risk Assessments have been demon- strated and verified to overestimate the risk. When writing a risk, they try not to under- estimate the risk or mislead, but rather to overestimate and state, if these are the risks and they follow proper procedures, they can be sure they have overestimated the risks, noting the true risks are somewhere much less than that, maybe even zero. Dr. Greenberg stated there was a commitment made that he was impressed with for zero dust to be generated at the site. He noted with proper use of water and foam as well as downwind and upwind testing all together, it will enable him and others to say, that if this commit- ment of zero dust generated on the site is met, there will be no risks off-site. He explained if dust is not generated on the site the dust that carries the contaminates will not get off- site. Therefore, you can say that the risks due to dust containing contaminates would be zero. Within the range of the instrument's ability to read the dust level, this is an admir- able commitment and it should be noted that if the downwind concentration minus the upwind concentration is somehow greater than zero, that operations will cease and a review and evaluation of the dust control methods will be conducted and additional methods will be implemented to assure that that number is zero. Dr. Greenberg stated he was asked to point out where he thought Decision Focus and the Harding - Lawson Risk Assessments made some overly conservative or inappropriate assumptions in calcu- lating risks. He emphasized that his concerns have been addressed and that there will be an addendum. Dr. Greenberg noted that an explanation as to why the sample locations for metal analysis were chosen and why those -5 were chosen,,was missing from the Harding -Lawson Risk Assessment. Harding -Lawson told Dr. Greenberg that PG&E did those samplings, but stated the explanation given to him, although found to be adequate and sufficient, should be included in the risk assessment for completeness. Dr. Greenberg stated the issue of accounting for less than lifetime exposure to carcenogens, is one of significant scientific uncertainty and raises a great many questions, such that there are actually two scientifically valid approaches that Harding -Lawson and Decision Focus could have used in their risk assessment. He stated they used one method which happened to be the most conservative method which was recommended to them by the California Department of Health Services. Another method which is supported by the National Academy of Sciences and other toxicologists within the California Department of Health Services who published this approach in a scientific literature, is equally scientifically valid. He pointed out SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 7 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Sp al Joint) 7/18/89 Page 8 that in this case, the two risk assessments contain the more conservative approach. In any event, Dr. Greenberg stated there is a certain precision to risk assessments; they are con- stantly making assumptions and incorporating these assumptions in their calculations to make sure they overestimate and not underestimate the risks. He stated regardless of which method was used, because Harding -Lawson had used the other method in their draft assessment and then went to the more conservative method recommended by DHS in their final appraisal, whichever method is used, the number comes out to be relatively the same and the risks therefore have been adequately characterized and calculated by the risk assessments. Dr. Greenberg concluded, with all due respect to Harding -Lawson and Decision Focus, that he found that these risks assessments were not written in a clear and concise manner for public consumption, but stated in fairness to them, it is extremely difficult to write such a tech- nical document for Department of Health Services Toxicologists to review and at the same time, have it easily readable by the general public. He said all of his concerns have been addressed and with all the information presented by Harding -Lawson Associates and Decision Focus, Inc., that these risk assessments are sufficiently adequate for the Council to base their decision upon. He found that proper methods and assumptions were used and that the real risks are probably much lower than described by their risk assessments. (Chairman/Mayor Mulryan called for a five minute recess). Chairman/Mayor Mulryan resumed the meeting. Mr. Ric Notini, Regional Chief of the Site Mitigation Unit of the California Department of Health Services Toxic Substances Control Division, updated the department's activities concern- ing the PG&E site since he last appeared before the Council on April 3, 1989. He noted that three of the department's toxicologists in Sacramento have reviewed the risk assessments per- formed by PG&E and the City of San Rafael. Based on their review, they provided PG&E and the City with extensive comments on the initial risk assessments, and the DHS asked that they be revised to address these comments. Subsequently, PG&E and the City submitted revised risk assessments through their consultants, Decision Focus and Harding -Lawson in response to the DHS comments. These revised risk assessments have been reviewed and it was concluded that they now satisfy their requirements and comments. They believe the risk assessments adequately assess the risks associated with this project and that these risks appear to be very low, provided that a number of measures are taken to control activities which will result in the disturbance of contaminated soil at the site. Mr. Notini stated earlier today, PG&E signed a legal agreement with DHS legally binding them to carry out these measures, which is known as a Consent Order, requiring PG&E to do a number of things. He noted that copies of the Consent Order were made available outside on the table. First, the Consent Order requires PG&E to reimburse DHS for all of its staff costs associated with reviewing all of the documents overseeing the project. This will also enable the Depart- ment to have an Inspector present at the site when contaminated soil is being dug or disturbed during the trenching and construction activities. The Consent Order also requires PG&E and the City to submit a detailed Site Health and Safety Plan and a Soils Management Plan for approval by DHS before any site work begins. The Consent Order requires PG&E and the City to develop and implement an Air Monitoring Plan to monitor air emissions from the site, in- cluding upwind and downwind and near some of the receptor locations. The Order also requires a detailed Dust Control Plan to control dust. One of the requirements of the Consent Order is that a Deed Restriction be imposed on the property, restricting future use of the property to commercial uses. The Deed Restriction also requires that PG&E notify all future tenants of the presence of contaminated soil and ground water under the site. The Order also requires PG&E to establish a Community Relations Program to keep residents informed about the site activities. Mr. Notini assured the City that until the detailed Site Health and Safety Plan and Soils Management Plan are received, reviewed and approved, no site work will occur. They believe that these measures will minimize the risks associated with the project and that the workers and public will be adequately protected from hazardous substances present at the site. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Robert Marx, resident of San Rafael, commented that Dr. Greenberg was originally hired by the Citizens for a Toxic Free Environment group, but they had a "falling out". He referred to two canals near Davidson School, noting children refer to this area as the "tar pit" and that it looks like slime. He asked that the PG&E site be cleaned up. Mr. Dale Bartley, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Redevelopment Agency, stated their group has nine people who are a cross-section of various citizens of San Rafael, representing various aspects. Part of their duty is to review proposals such as this on a continuous basis. They have been very open to the concern about toxic danger to the citizens; listened to various testimonies given and have raised a few concerns themselves. He stated he felt a sense of great relief on hearing the reports from DHS and Dr. Greenberg, noting at the very best, there are minimal risks. Mr. Bartley stated if all nine members of the com- mittee were present tonight, they would vote in favor of the procedure for this project. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 8 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spt,ial Joint) 7/18/89 Page 9 Mr. Bartley referred to the Montecito Center, noting the improvement as opposed to what it used to be. He stated when reflecting back, the citizens would have been disheartened if that center had not been improved, and concluded that the citizens will welcome a nice development on the PG&E site and encouraged support from the Council. Ms. Mary Small, disagreed with the results of the risk assessment study, and stated the site should first be cleaned, then developed. Mayor Mulryan explained the procedure is to clean as you go with mitigation measures taken to clean the site throughout the process. He stated the figures as stated by Ms. Edmisten on the worst case assumption, were 1/10,000 to 1/100,000 of the threshold of danger; and the other was up to 1/10th or 100, using a variety of adverse assumptions. For the benefit of Ms. Small, Ms. Edmisten again clarified the carcinogenic risk results. Mr. George Soniak, resident of Eye Street, had questions on the results of dermal, and asked what the winds are on that assumption. Ms. Edmisten responded the winds were based on the assumption of 5.3 miles per hour with stagnant wind conditions. Mr. Soniak asked if it would be more hazardous on a windy day and Ms. Edmisten stated they looked at four wind conditions, which included 12 miles per hour, 2.2 miles per hour, 5.3 miles per hour and another 5.3 miles per hour being different because of wind stabilities; one having stagnant air and the other neutral air. When the evaluation was done, the maximum concentrations found at each of the receptors was caused by the plausible maximum exposure, which is maximum conditions, 5.3 miles per hour with "s" stability wind conditions. Mr. Soniak asked that this risk study be done on a dry, windy day rather than a 5 mile an hour wind, assuming the mitigation technique will be that efficient. Ms. Edmisten stated they evaluated the winds looking at the maximum soil concentration if the winds blew and deposited on the surrounding school, and it turned out that the wind conditions provided a high concentration. Mr. Ric Notini, stated Harding -Lawson is required to submit a Site Health and Safety Plan. Mr. Lou Dunn, with Green Peace - Fort Mason, San Francisco, spoke on foam on site to control dust level and asked for an explanation on how this is to be used. He referred to grids shown by Dr. Greenberg, stating areas on the site covering 6,000 square feet had not been tested. He mentioned last resort types of controls to be used only where engineering controls cannot be made adequate, to him translates, when the people become sick and then die, they will then go to other controls. He commented that Dr. Greenberg stated that in most cases, the risk assessment is overestimated and noted there has never been any risk assessment overestimated on any hazardous waste site in the United States. Ms. Jane Mertz of 40 Venetia Meadows, San Rafael, asked what was to be done about the trans- formers that are presently on the site, and asked about the funds for the Andersen Drive Ex- tension, including, what the City proposes to do about the traffic problems that will be created when the shopping mall is built. Mr. Bob Doss of PG&E responded that the transformers existing on the site are associated with the electric distribution lines that are now serving power through the area, and will be located underground in sealed vaults as part of PG&E's undergrounding project. Mayor Mulryan stated that funding for the Andersen Drive project had been transferred over to Bellam because an evaluation had been made that it was a first need at this point. He noted the City is seeking other sources, particularly State funding and Redevelopment to assist the City in the Andersen Drive project. In response to Ms. Mertz's comment that she understands a transformer will be placed above ground on the PG&E site and will be camouflaged with foliage, noting it should be placed under- ground because it will cause a health hazard to the public if it remains above ground, Mr. Doss stated that electricity is distributed throughout the pole lines or the underground lines at voltages higher than usage voltages, because the losses associated with that transmission are much less. PG&E has stepped down transformers throughout the system on pole tops, under- ground in neighborhoods, the grids on every other homeowner's lawn in the corner and behind commercial establishments on pad mount transformers. He noted all have the same function, and that is to reduce the voltage before it can be provided to the customer. Typical trans- mission voltages are 12,000 volts; customers use generally at 110 to 220 volts. He said distribution transformers throughout the system number approximately 840,000 units. He stated one will be associated with the development, but did not know what type of transformer would be used as yet, stating it would not be uncommon to have a pad mount transformer used; that they are filled with mineral oil and that PCBs are not a transformer fluid at present. He noted use of PCBs in transformers has been banned by an act of Congress. Ms. Jane Middleton asked when construction would be taking place and Assistant Executive Dir- ector Ours replied plans are to begin in late August, running through the school period. Lindaro Street would be closed and alternate routes established for school children that would be around the project, they will be fenced from the project, and provisions will be made to SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 9 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (SpE-tal Joint) 7/18/89 Page 10 get across the areas that are closed off. She stated she does not trust the things that are going to be done, noting that she is working with cancer patients in Contra Costa County which has hazardous dumps all over the area. She also indicated she finds it hard to believe Marin County needs another shopping center. Ms. Victoria DeWitt, resident of San Rafael, supported Mr. Ric Notini's comment about having a plan on wind velocity and its relation to the work being halted on the site when necessary. She referred to Redevelopment's staff report regarding the turn -around time for samples, and was informed by Mr. Ours that it would be 14-16 hours for samples to characterize the site as opposed to 14-24 hours as submitted by the Health and Safety Report, with a 2 -week turn- around period for normal construction, once excavation in the toxic areas is over. In response to Ms. DeWitt's question as to what the chemical compound is in foam and its off gasing reaction, Dr. Greenberg responded that foam has been used in California and around the Country with a sign -off and approval of its use by the California Department of Health Services, that finds it to be non -hazardous. Ms. DeWitt agreed with Dr. Greenberg's suggestion of having a daily report done and having it available to the public on the site, but also asked to have a contact person who will be able to give the public answers when asked of him or her, noting she is a chemically sensitive person who lives in the West End area of San Rafael. Mr. Rob Brooker, resident on Redding Way in San Rafael, asked who the contact person will be responsible to, and Mayor Mulryan responded the Safety Officer will be working for the City and independent of the parties involved with the development. Mr. Brooker was concerned about leaving toxic materials on the site, and Mayor Mulryan stated the toxic materials will be installed in a barrow pit and capped as opposed to having them moved off-site which would be more hazardous. Mr. Ours interjected the toxic materials will be covered with clean fill and asphalt in the parking lot. Mrs. Deborah Paolino, resident of the Bret Harte area, asked where the 19,500 cubic yards of contaminated soil would be redeposited on the site, and Mr. John Sabine, Construction Manager with Kitchell Contractors, stated the material will be redeposited on the east parcel which currently is considered to be clean material. It will be a straight substitution from one area to another. Councilmember Thayer asked how the material will be transported, and Mr. Sabine answered the material will be transported by truck vehicles, and foam will be used to keep the soil from migrating. Mrs. Paolino asked Mr. Sabine to show her the site where the dirt will be dumped, which he did. He stated the dirt will be contained in a slurry wall with extraction trenches removing the ground water; the depth will be about 7 feet. Mr. Notini stated all this information will be in the Soils Management Report. The area encompasses about 2 acres and the clean fill will fit in the area. Mr. Ours indicated there will be grading maps provided in response to question of Mrs. Paolino. Mrs. Paolino spoke of a transformer explosion and whether it happened on the site, and Mr. Ours stated this occurred in the Canal area and not on the site, in 1981, where a transformer was punctured by a forklift. Mr. Doss of PG&E indicated when the fluid was tested, it was determined it was not filled with PCBs. Mrs. Paolino referred to 78 soil borings that were done in November and December, 1982 by PG&E, and stated she has not found all of the results on this. Mr. Doss responded that earlier studies of 1981/82 where there was a preliminary site assessment used to find the overall site characterization was consistent and helped PG&E to formulate where samples would be taken, and the depths of samples to be taken. He stated this was a preliminary screening of the site and they did not find any chemicals showing up in the early report that were not detected in the same concentration, same degree in terms of magnitude and extent in the later report. Mrs. Paolino disagreed, and stated at the end of 1982, November and December, 78 borings were dug on the site, which are over and above and different from the 50 borings cited in the 1984 report. She asked if this was true, and Mr. Doss responded affirmatively. Mrs. Paolino stated she has not been able to find a full report on those borings. Mayor Mulryan indicated the results are available. Mrs. Paolino noted in the few results she reviewed, she found levels of chemicals that were a lot higher. Mr. Doss offered to review her concerns later and Mrs. Paolino agreed. Regarding the Andersen Drive Extension, Mrs. Paolino stated she was concerned about funds not being available for this project and asked when this would be built. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 10 REVISED SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spt-ial Joint) 7/18/89 Page 11 Mr. Ours stated traffic studies on the retail project were done with and without Andersen -Drive, and there were no unacceptable levels of traffic as set out in the General Plan as a result of the retail project without Andersen Drive. Mrs. Paolino stated the people who live in the area, cannot accept the information that if Andersen Drive is not built that the project would not be affected by traffic, noting the EIR stated in one area that the community along Woodland would be adversely affected if Andersen Drive is not built. She stated she travels in the area several times daily and cannot believe the level of traffic will not get worse. Mayor Mulryan stated they have just taken a very extensive traffic analysis of the entire City, including Andersen and that much time and money has been spent on the General Plan analysis of every major intersection, including the effect of this proposed project and the effect of Andersen and the conclusion was that Andersen Drive is something the City wants to build in the future, but the Bellam Interchange is much more important to alleviate traffic conditions now and that is why the money was transferred. He stated Andersen Drive extension is not necessary in order to keep traffic within acceptable levels with the project in place. Mrs. Paolino asked for a more concrete answer about when Andersen Drive will be built because she lives there and the EIR tells her she will be affected. Mrs. Paolino asked what the artificial man-made fill is which covers the PG&E site, and a representative from Harding -Lawson stated the fill brought into the PG&E site is not man-made, but was soil chemically tested. She asked if Radon was going to be an issue and Mr. Notini responded Radon is not. Ms. Edmisten of Harding -Lawson indicated an evaluation of volitali- zation of the soil was done and there was very minimal concentration. Mrs. Paolino asked if asbestos has been tested for, and Mr. Doss responded it has been and that asbestos is on the building on the site and will be removed before demolition of the building. She asked how many water trucks will be present at the site at all times, and Mayor Mulryan responded this information will be included in the Site Management Plan. Mrs. Paolino mentioned that she understood PG&E and the developer will be trenching simul- taneously and wanted to make sure there will be sufficient water trucks on site. Mr. Ours mentioned a listing on page 7 of the staff report which goes into detail about the moisture control measures that will be in place - the testing that will be done to insure there is adequate moisture; the injection of water into the system; chemicals being used, in addition to the water trucks. Mrs. Paolino referred to a "hot spot" on Lindaro Street registering 33,000 parts per million of PNAs, stating that it appears on the Trench Map that the trench will go right through it, and was told it will not, and asked which is correct if this is so. Mr. Doss answered that the 33,000 lies to the side of the trench, that is the closest sample from the 1984 testing to the trench. He stated what is important to remember is that as a condition of PG&E's Con- sent Order, they will be retesting the entire trench route along the Lindaro Street and re- porting to the City. Borings will be done and tested as they occur. Mrs. Paolino asked for information on 20 borings done along the trench route in July, 1988 and whether all were analyzed. Mr. Doss indicated results of all samples analyzed are in the report which was given to the public. He further stated a comprehensive trench route sampling program will be done including analysis of samples taken at definite intervals along the route. Mrs. Paolino asked whether the tenants who will be going into the mall will be advised of the controversy regarding the safety and mitigations, etc. Mayor Mulryan indicated they will be notified. Ms. Terry Kramm, resident of Mill Valley, asked what was the basis for the Conflict of Interest with Councilmembers Boro and Breiner, and Mayor Mulryan responded they both have stock owner- ship in PG&E. She asked who made the decision to use a less than lifetime average in the Hardinc Lawson Risk Assessments, and Ms. Edmisten responded it was the California Department of Health Services. Mr. Notini stated this was used rather than the 70 year life expectancy, because they were trying to model the risk associated with several months activity, noting the trenchinc activity will not go on for 70 years. Ms. Kramm spoke of children being exposed from the Davidson Middle School, and asked if it would not be more conservative to use the 70 year life expectancy time, and Mr. Notini replied it would be more conservative but would be unrealistic. Ms. Edmisten stated Harding -Lawson evaluated three exposure evaluations: One was a two month exposure during construction a U4vities in addition, the deposition onto the school property and the adjacent homes, those concentration where chemicals were present and maximum concentration on this property for a time period of 13 years, and this was based on a half life of those chemicals. She explained that if you have a half life of 2 years, 50 percent of the chemical concentration will be gone after a period of 3 years; an additional 50 percent after 2 more years and another 50 percent after another 2 more years. Not only was the 2 month exposure evaluated, but for dermal and congestion SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 11 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Sp exposure where the chemicals would be in the soil for 13 years. a lifetime exposure from volatilization from the sub -surface on through the concrete and asphalt and the landscaped areas, using that particular exposure. al Joint) 7/18/89 Page 12 In addition, they looked at the soil of the gaseouschemical the 70 life time years on Ms. Kramm stated as a concerned citizen in response to comments made by Harding -Lawson, she felt that using a less than life term exposure is not very reassuring, based partly on comments she previously made and information made in the hydrological data indicating there are signi- ficant contaminates being found in the water table; based on comments made by the contractor that they will be burying contaminated soil to the depth of the water table; that it has been established in prior meetings that the slurry wall in fact does not contain all of the conta- minated soil, and by numerous reports by the community that there are toxic appearing materials in the Canal which DHS has indicated is beyond their jurisdiction to require testing. She noted she does not agree with Harding -Lawson. Ms. Kramm asked how foam would be treated and disposed of once applied to contaminated soils, and Dr. Greenberg stated the foam is manufactured by 3M, will be mixed with water, and accord- ing to the California Department of Health Services is non -hazardous, and when it comes in contact with wastes on-site, it will remain on-site and not be removed but buried in the repository on-site along with the hazardous waste. Ms. Kramm referred to Dr. Greenberg's reference to a commitment to zero dust generation and asked Mr. Sabine, Contractor, to respond to how, on a construction site where heavy equipment is located, they can maintain zero dust generation. Mr. Sabine responded that a typical con- struction site's dust is treated with proper amounts of water and the foam. In response to Ms. Kramm's question if the site will be considered two parcels or one, Mr. Notini responded it will be one site and that PG&E will be allowed to keep the contaminated soil in the south- east portion of the parcel. Mr. Sabine stated any vehicle leaving the site will be cleaned with steam equipment. Ms. Kramm asked if it has been determined where the cleaning will take place. Mr. Notini indicated this has not been determined and will be part of the work program. Ms. Kramm referred to working with toxic soils on-site and asked if there is a plan by the contractors and PG&E to work with a Toxic Specialist, and Mr. Sabine stated the Toxic Special- ist has not as yet been selected. Ms. Kramm also asked about the plan for asbestos removal. She was informed that work will be done by a specialist. Mr. Ed Smith, resident of Terra Linda, noted he has a business on Fourth Street, San Rafael, and commented on the foam, stating he felt it is unsafe because of the ozone problem. He asked how much dirt will be removed, and Mayor Mulryan responded it will be 2 acres and 7 feet deep. He asked if construction will be done during the rainy season, and Mr. Sabine stated they will try to avoid the rainy season. Mr. Smith stated he hoped so, citing that area is subject to extensive flooding. Mr. Sabine stated there will not be 19,000 cubic yards of dirt lying on the site, but the contaminated material will be placed in a hole with clean material packed down on it so there will be no danger of it floating up. Mrs. Pattie Thayer, resident of San Rafael, spoke on the 1982 borings stating since this was not referenced, one can assume that it was not part of the 1978/79 Environmental Impact Report. She noted according to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) that any information that is not a part of the EIR means that the whole process has been made invalid. She stated the 1984 report was withheld from the public, referenced in the EIR but not discussed. She also stated the 1985 report was not even referenced in the EIR, and now the 1982 borings are also not referenced in the EIR. She again stated that according to CEQA, that is illegal. Lee Rosenthal, Attorney for the Redevelopment Agency, stated CEQA does not require that every document that exists with respect to a particular project be referenced in the EIR. He stated if Mrs. Thayer was objecting to this, it is not a valid one. Mrs. Thayer also asked for the results of the 1982 borings, indicating it appears there is a cover-up regarding the results. Mrs. Thayer stated she still was not clear about what the definition of clean fill is and Mr. Notini again explained this and said he would have the criteria made available to her. She did not agree with the results of the report. She asked if the eastern parcel which is considered to have clean material on the site has been tested and PG&E responded it has, noting it is part of the Risk Appraisal. She asked if historically, there was any heat generating activities on this site and Mr. Doss responded a manufacturing gas plant which operated in the beginning of 1975 produced a fair share of heat, and that this was on the northwest parcel which is not slated for development, where the PG&E office building and parking lot are located Mrs. Thayer asked for comments on 15 grids that do not need to be tested, and Mayor Mulryan stated Dr. Greenberg already mentioned this, indicating the standard of safety was well exceedei by the grid and the City was satisfied with this. Mrs. Thayer did not agree with this, stating that point may come back to haunt the City at some point. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 12 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Sp. gal Joint) 7/18/89 Page 13 Mrs. Thayer referred to the July 1988 borings, stating they have asked PG&E repeatedly for these borings and that their response is nil. She stated she did not believe this informa- tion was incorporated in the test results, and asked why PG&E is now telling them that this is part of the results. Mr. Doss from PG&E stated the July 1988 borings' test results are summarized in the report. Mrs. Thayer was not satisfied with this answer, stating there are no specific logs. Mrs. Thayer asked for comment on the containment of benzene on the completed mall, and Ms. Edmisten responded it is contained in H -L's report under Post -Construction Volatilization and the results are itemized in the report. Mrs. Thayer noted she asked this, because she believed Dr. Greenberg said that the Department of Health Services wants to know the risks around the completed mall, and regarding the benzene, that the off-site risk is minimal but the on-site is maximal; the benzene will vaporize and it places people at risk. She asked Dr. Greenberg to explain this. Dr. Greenberg responded he reviewed the Harding -Lawson Risk Assessments and found that their methods are scientifically valid and appropriate and that the risks are an over -estimation of the true risks that will result after the mall is completed. Mrs. Thayer indicated she was concerned about the discrepancy and asked that it be addressed by Dr. Greenberg. Mrs. Thayer asked what the explosive qualities of PNAs are, and Mr. Doss responded the PNAs are not considered flammable or explosive. She stated according to the EPA, the PNAs are con- sidered flammable and explosive and certainly 33,000 parts per million is considered very flammable. Mrs. Thayer asked what metals have been tested for on the site, and Mr. Doss stated 4 metals were found and all samples taken along the route of trenching have been designated as passive substances according to the California Code of Regulations. Mrs. Thayer stated the EIR states that the Andersen Drive Extension is to be built to speci- fically mitigate the traffic from the mall. She mentioned because the EIR states this and then at another time it contradicts its own statement, she felt the EIR is somewhat incoherent about that particular issue - it is not clear. She referred to the Transportation Com- mission's Report issued recently, which states that individual EIR's should be done on a number of roadways in the area and Andersen Drive is one of them, and therefore, they feel an EIR on the Andersen Drive extension and a supplemental EIR on this (PG&E) site is necessary. Councilmember Frugoli stated an EIR has been started on the Andersen Drive extension and that a draft has been done. Mrs. Thayer stated that because there is such an inconsistency around the Andersen Drive ex- tension in the EIR, it needs to be redone. She noted the Council's vote on the lease should be delayed because of the 1982 borings and the transformer issue not being resolved, noting this should be further explored. She stated if the vote is not postponed, given the number of questions still to be answered, that the Council's integrity will be questioned. Mr. Conrad Williams, resident of San Rafael at the corner of Woodland and Lindaro, stated he is not against the development but was concerned with PG&E's statements on testing of water and the creek area, noting if he and other citizens had not questioned having tests made, it would not have been done. He wanted to make sure PG&E is liable for future testing. Assistant Executive Director Ours responded that earlier in the evening, DHS mentioned they are characterizing the off-site portion of the property. Mr. Notini of DHS stated they have thousands of sites in California where they receive com- plaints, asking DHS to do testing. He noted because of financial constraints, they have set up a system of prioritizing of areas to be tested. He indicated a preliminary assessment is being done now around the PG&E site and should be completed within the next 60 to 90 days. He stated samples from the creek were negative, but that it is still being tested. Mr. Ours interjected that these samples were not intended to be the final answer, but to test the surface only, and that testing will continue. Mr. Dirk Brinckerhoff, representing the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated they support the PG&E project as long as reasonable measures are taken to protect public health. He noted the major problem they had in a previous meeting was the time lag between sampling and getting results, which took about 14 to 48 hours, depending on what was going on and whether there had been some release of toxic materials. He noted the present work plan provides for real time measuring of dust and volatiles; it compares the air coming onto the site with air coming off the site and provides that if there is more dust or volatiles coming off the site, work is stopped. He concluded as long as the plan is followed, there should be no harmful exposure to anyone. He noted this project is important to the economic health of the City and recom- mended that the project proceed. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 13 REVISED SRRA/SRCC MINTUES (Spt-.,al Joint) 7/18/89 Page 14 Mr. Greqq Borelli, President of Downtown Merchants Association, stated the Association lends its support to the San Rafael PG&E project. Ms. Julia Kendall, resident of San Rafael stated she discovered that the tests that all the work has been based on have been based on results of tests done by PG&E. She did not agree that is the best way for society to be protected, noting they are being asked to trust the results of those samples as well as the placement of the borings where they were most likely to find contaminants and also since they are being asked to overlook the fact that PG&E lied to the City Council, City Management and to the citizens for some time about the fact that they were trenching or had trenched in contaminated soil, that the vote should be delayed on this lease until the boring samples are cleared up. She mentioned there are 3 sets that have been discovered that were not in the EIR and asked for the results of those samples. Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Member Frugoli noted he had concerns regarding the borings, indicating PG&E stated all borings for trenching will be done prior to the trenching. He also had concerns about the dust, with foam and water as mitigation. He noted in speaking with excavating contractors, he was told the system to be used is new and has worked in many areas, especially in Southern California. He referred to Dr. Alvin Greenberg not being hired by PG&E or the developer but by the City of San Rafael as an independent consultant. Member Frugoli stated he now favored the project with the mitigations that are being recommended, the soils management plan and the risk assess- ment. He noted, however, that if there are problems with the borings, they should come back to the City Council. Member Thayer agreed with Member Frugoli and appreciated the concerns of the Citizens group asking valid questions. She noted, given the worst scenario, which is the plausible, maximum exposure route before and after mitigation, that many questions they have had were answered tonight. Member Thayer stated she favored the project. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan stated he supported the project, but was concerned about people alleging coverups, particularly when one looks at the quality of people, the expertise and the volume of detail that has gone into the analysis of this project. Member Thayer referred to a suggestion made by Dr. Greenberg which does not concern the project but to have off-site sampling done, and she asked that his suggestion be considered, including pursuing the possibility of bio -remediation. Member Frugoli and Chairman Mulryan agreed. SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Member Frugoli moved and Member Thayer seconded, to adopt Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 89-31 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SETTING FORTH FINDINGS REGARDING APPROVALS FOR AND APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY PROVIDING FOR THE AGENCY'S LEASE OF PROPERTY FROM PG&E AT SECOND AND LINDARO STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33391 AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AYES: MEMBERS: Frugoli, Thayer & Chairman Mulryan NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: MEMBERS: Boro & Breiner (Due to conflict of interest) SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 8010 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AND APPROVING DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND LINDARO ASSOCIATES RELATING TO PROPERTY AT SECOND AND LINDARO STREETS IN SAN RAFAEL, PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33433 AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro & Breiner (Due to conflict of interest) SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 14 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Sp,_ gal Joint) 7/18/89 Page 15 SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Member Frugoli moved and Member Thayer seconded, to adopt Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 89-32 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SETTING FORTH FIND- INGS REGARDING APPROVALS FOR AND APPROVING DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE AGENCY'S SUBLEASE OF PROPERTY AT SECOND AND LINDARO STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO LINDARO ASSOCIATES, PURSUANT TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33340 AND 33433 AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AYES: MEMBERS: Frugoli, Thayer & Chairman Mulryan NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: MEMBERS: Boro & Breiner (Due to conflict of interest) There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 PM. iji . JEAN 'M� LEONCINIJA_nec�y Secretary/ City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1990 CHAIRMAN/MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/18/89 Page 15