are implemented. restrictions are put into place, we will close the project. this work is done in partnership. it is often done by environmental consultants. our job is to review and approve the work. it has been applied to over 321 projects since 1987. another example of our work is reflected in the construction plan for the hunters view redevelopment. the department under a law passed in 2008 is required to recruit -- to approve and dust control plans for projects one- half acre or greater. that is where there is dirt movement. in the redevelopment, which i think is a good example, it required a demolition of existing housing. there were community

sensitivities to toxic dust exposure. we developed a plan and approved a plan. we did a pre-construction with members of the community at a community meeting. we made sure that monitoring results were provided to members of the public in real-time in a public space. we conducted independent monitoring to ensure the concentrations were below the thresholds and actions levels. i think that is a good example of how this process should be working. a third example, and this is where we have been proactive, quite a bit proactive in terms of the state of the field, is reflected in air quality assessment and ventilation requirements for residential development. now, the federal government and state government have standards for air quality for certain

pollutants criteria. however, san francisco has won air quality monitor. we really don't know what to air pollution is at every point in the city. we do know that areas with high levels of traffic have higher concentrations of air pollution. this had been a well-recognized problem without any regulation elsewhere. working with the plan and put -- planning department, we required that all developers to, wherever there is a certain amount of track -- traffic, do a certain amount before the planning project was approved. that developer has to develop a mitigation plan, for example, using ventilation systems, or changing the air intakes, in order to keep the indoor air clean, even if it is in a

compromise the outdoor location. we approved the design and engineering plans for several dozen projects. ventilation requirements actually make the air cleaner indoors than outdoors and cleaner than many other projects. i think this will be more broadly applied. we are the only city in california that has such a law. many cities are struggling with the problem of locating housing in residential areas near freeways. an example of this in a form of analysis is that this work can be applied before the development process in planning. the redevelopment of the upper muni yard, there have been integrations of affordable housing into the project. highway 280 is a challenge because of housing in this location.

it the department was asked to work with community members and developers on what mitigation strategies might be deployed to make this project work for all interests. i am going to move next to the environmental quality act. i don't think i need to provide you with much background on this. briefly, every agency must evaluate potentially significant environmental impacts. environmental impact reports must identify impacts. this is why the health department works with the planning department in reviewing the environmental impact report. they routinely review analysis by critiquing analysis done by others and offering litigations and alternatives. an example of this, which i am particularly proud of, was the case of the redevelopment of the

trinity plaza apartments in 2003. this was the first time the department acted proactively to have a planning agency look at an issue that was not previously looked at in the process. an initial planning study concluded that the redevelopment of this and rent-controlled apartment unit would not have any adverse affects on housing or humans. we brought to the planning department evidence of the effects of the eviction and displacement, as well as alternative strategies from the scientific literature. the planning department looked at that evidence and made a change in their decision, deciding that this might have environmental impacts, and required the developer to come up with a no-displacement alternative. it was a proactive use of the public health role. it was also the first project

that brought it into the discussion around the california environmental quality act and how we can be productive partners in being consultants for the city and this law. the work on the law on inequality medications for ventilation, for roadway- compromised projects, was a direct result out of work done under ceqa. we reviewed the environmental impact report for the easter neighborhood plan. we identified this as a potential roadway impact. we provided the mitigation strategies. that has been included in the new mitigation strategy, even though a costly one, in the environmental impact report. so, we're getting to the end. our work in environmental impact assessment does not only deal with negatives or things that

are adverse or harmful. we are also concerned about creating a help the city. we are concerned that every neighborhood have the resources and conditions, the parks, schools, grocery stores, the safe and adequate housing that makes life healthy, that every neighborhood have access to jobs and transportation that makes life healthy. the hulk -- the health department is not the only agency in the city. all agencies can contribute to the health of the population. i think one of our long-term goal is to work with each agency to identify how they can do that. 12 will be developed with community partnership and planning as a healthy development measurement tool. it was developed between 2004 and 2006 with over 20 community organizations and 10 agencies sitting down together to decide, what does a healthy city look like? how do you measure that in terms of measurable indicators?

how do you change things? it was a great dialogue that created a tool that is being used in san francisco and used across the country. the website, there is a website for the tool that provides more information. the indicators in the tool, i think -- i will give you a sense of them. there are 80 indicators of different health-relevant conditions. we have mapped these for every neighborhood in the city. they document health-related conditions and demonstrate inequalities. there actionable by agencies and allow the city to track progress. one indicator and one measure, and i think this is -- i will explain why it is important for regulation -- transportation noise. in the course of this work, we created a new map of transportation, a modern map of

transportation noise in san francisco, which is shown at the right, using modern software and technology. before this, the city had not updated its transportation map. the last one was 1974. why is this important? we need to know what noise levels are to decide when and where we will design buildings to have adequate acoustical information to protect them. noise is an important and our mental health determinant. without this information, planning and building cannot do their job in regulating noise. this has been approved by the planning department and is now being used to make those decisions. it is the way our expertise and information actually integrates into the planning process. last, i will talk about some challenges and how we address those challenges. there are a number of real challenges.

when we are trying to do something new, identifying when there is a new concern that has not been regulated in every city and country, or by the epa, there are claims that local regulatory initiatives are not justified scientifically. when we raise new issues, we often get told by some members of the development community that this is a jump science -- is junk science. when we develop solutions, we are told it will paralyze the develop process. we need to take those concerns seriously and respond to them. it is a real challenge. when we get through that process and implement the regulations through a city process, when the department's approve it, when the board approves it, there is lit -- there is very little objection and challenge to the law. most developers, when the laws passed, they will follow the law with very little difficulty.

with the new law, time and learning is always necessary. we are often first in the country to develop a new law. we're figuring things out. the development community is figuring things out. we are figuring out how to work together. there are stumbles along that road. they are normal and should be expected. we always try to learn from those. we don't try to -- we try to learn from those and improve things. there is a reality for all environmental regulation that 24/7 monitoring is difficult. it requires an incredible amount of resources. what it tells us is compliance is dependent on buy-in either regulated party, which is what we focus on. regulations are challenged because people want a new regulation that does not exist or once a standard much higher

than what the city had agreed to. there is and where and occasional challenges to the regulatory judgment, mitigation plans, or settlements. last slide. how do we address compliance concerns? we get concerned both from regulated parties that they are being over-regulated, too stringent. we get complaints from residents that they want stronger regulations were more vigorous, more rapid, more punitive enforcement. they come from both sides. we rely first on educating the public and the stake holders on the science behind the laws, why they are important, and that really makes a huge difference. we readily use our enforcement tools. we use it in a progressive way. we teach. we will use warnings. and then come of violations. we will bring people to hearings

or bring city action when we need it. we try to identify the most efficient strategy is to reduce hazards. we are not necessarily stuck to one way or the first way this was done. when there is a challenge, i will read you what my inspectors do and what my staff does. i will review the law again and the science behind the law. if that is needed, we will ask independent scientists and other regulators to review our work. we will participate in public debates and hearings, make our case, and i think we will always listen and try to work with the parties. thank you very much. supervisor campos: that was a very thorough presentation. i think it provides good contact for this hearing. i just had a couple of follow- ups. could you say a little bit more

about what kind of training is provided to staff about some of the things we discussed? i thought the first slide was really important. it talks about making sure that you maintain impartiality and of the activity. you make decisions based on facts and evidence. i am wondering what kind of training, whether it is in place, or will be in place going forward, how that works. >> most staff are trained environmental professionals. they have professional training. the training has professional ethics and professional standards. the latter ones on the list reflect public health principles. not all professionals may be cross-trained in public health. these are more progressive or proactive, the duty to monitor, to inform, to advocate for public health. it is more part of public health

values. they are part of the training. we don't have any formal updates of these trainings during the course. there is a lot of on-the-job training. we will revisit these issues, we will revisit them at a staff level. i think it would be a good idea to reinforce these principles proactively among staff on a regular basis. supervisor campos: i think that is a very good idea. from my perspective, when there is a health issue that is implicated, when i look at the department of public health, my view is, these are folks who are looking at facts, looking at evidence based on scientific principles and data. how do you maintain an arms length relationship with either side? with any of these projects, you

work. to have people who have very distinct perspectives. being san francisco, you may have 850,000 opinions. how do you maintain that arm's length? >> it is definitely a challenge. i think that what i try to do myself and try to encourage is, believe in your interpretation. believe in the facts and science. don't be afraid to ask another opinion so you can either be more confident and uphold. realize that you could -- realize that you could be wrong and have something to learn. it is difficult when you have so many voices pulling in lots of different directions. one of the things that i just learned to limit the scope -- medical school, you want to police people. you want to say things that make them feel good, right?

it is very important to have trust in your professional judgment. you can listen. you can disagree, but maintain that. it is hard to beat in controversial situations. i think another thing that staff need to be more comfortable in is maintaining professional opinions in controversial situations. i think the risk is when there is controversy, there is more of a risk not of non-objectivity, but staying silent. i think that is the real risk. when public health people stay silent because they don't have the comfort of dealing in controversial situations -- land use development, as we know, is controversial. supervisor campos: i think you are going to college as you see it and speak up when there is an issue. colleagues, i don't know if any of you have any questions for him.

supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: thank you. if you could summarize to the committee and public how the planning department look -- works with other agencies, in evaluating and mitigating environmental impact associated with the environmental development project. >> i would actually -- it would be great if representatives from the planning department could also speak to this. i don't want to be speaking to -- for the planning department. from our perspective, there are three categories. one is the case of regulations, regulations that we enforce. for the planning department, when a new proponent comes from -- for a particular project, planning department staff look at that, see if any of our environmental rules are

triggered, required. they will tell that -- they will make a referral. they will tell the project posed a proponent that he needs to get the soil analysis required -- requirement. they make sure they are captured by us and they wait. it is our judgment without interference from them about what an adequate soil analysis is and what medications they have to do. they make those requirements part of the project conditions. that is generally how it works with the new regulation. when we are developing regulations, it is like the air quality assessment. there is a coordination. there are feasibility issues. they will help us bring the conversation about the environmental goal to the discuss the different feasible strategies in the process of

developing the regulation. in the issue of environmental review, for certain iss air quality and noise, the planning department now, given our capacity, when they have a major project or controversy, or an issue, they make a referral to us to look at the environmental report. they will ask us to look early in the process to see if the analysis is adequate and correct, and they will take our opinions and analysis in consideration. we don't have -- they and their commission make the final judgment. finally, on the proactive information, like the healthy development tool, there are no regulations. we typically will, when we do one of these evaluations, we will bring to the planning

department and project proponent our analysis and a set of recommendations. we will have a dialogue with them. "ok, we can do these things. we cannot do these things." those have to do with improving the neighborhood, like improving parks and transportation conditions. supervisor campos: final question before we open it for public comment. i know that there have been concerns about a specific project that has been raised. this is not the purpose of this in terms of our discussion. it is about the general guidelines to follow. what do you presently have in place, whether it is, you know, a company, or an industry that your regulating, or the public has a specific complaint against one individual or other individuals in your department? what do you have in place to deal with that complaint were concerned?

>> for any one of my regulators, for any regulation, land use or otherwise, if there is a complaint from the public that the inspector did not do their job, either myself or the director of regulatory programs will independently look at the claims. we will review the case record and the files. when i look at things, when i look at things, i tend to go back to the law. i read the law. if it is outdated, i look to see whether the science has changed and if we should be thinking about this differently. i look at -- sometimes there have been past practices about an interpretation of the law that need to be revisited. i look at it from a policy approach. if the complaint -- people may not be satisfied with us. often, when somebody is not

satisfied, they will go to you, one of the members of the board, and ask for you to review it. i have to explain it to you. my director may ask me to explain it. the mayor's office may ask me to explain it. in a few circumstances, we have had a few circumstances -- in one circumstance, we have asked outside federal and state agencies to review our work. supervisor campos: thank you. why don't we open it for public comment? there are a number of members of the public who are here to speak on this item. again, thank you for your presentation. this -- [reading names] why don't we begin with them? you will have two minutes. thank you to all the members of the public who have been waiting patiently for this hearing. welcome. >> good afternoon.

i am from bayview hunters point. my understanding in the coming here was to discuss what was happening at a site in bay view hunters point, a shipyard that was closed in 1974. he talked about the regulatory agencies. in three minutes, i cannot give you the story of how this began. it began in 1990. we were having birthdays in -- earth days in bayview-hunters point. they said in southern california they had rat boards. there were no closures in northern california. i had to raise my hand and state, i am from san francisco. the shipyard closed in 1974.

as i am speaking to you today, there is a process going on to close the presidio. the advisory boards were set up to make sure that before any land would be transferred from the shipyard, that it could be approved by the board. because there were two other committees that had been set up, dealing with the shipyard, the citizens advisory committee, you had the redevelopment agency that came later, the board spoke to whether or not that land would be transferred. in 2000, the year 2000, the voters voted and it was 87% of the voters who said, if any of

the land is to be transferred from the shipyard to the city -- [tone] supervisor campos: thank you very much, ms. jackson. let me call more names. [reading names] >> good afternoon, supervisors. linda richardson. i have over 25 years of environmental justice. i am a land use expert. i want to bring to your attention something the new members of the board need to know once and for all. the most comprehensive health assessment of any resident of san francisco was conducted in thebayview. -- the bayview. they got together with the department of public health.

three people conducted the most comprehensive study. indicators had not been identified before. you should ask the department of public health. they established everything we know about the viewbayview. -- bayview. this was before the shipyard development. when the city created the department of environment, i wrote to the environmental just piece. it was a development concept for the entire bayview huntesrs- point. article 31 came out, the most comprehensive set of

regulations. what you have, you have local, state, and federal regulators. it is the bay area quality control. they have been very instrumental. it is something that you must all get a chance to see. [tone] supervisor campos: thank you. >> thank you. supervisor campos: next speaker. >> mr. chair and supervisors, the community has been engaged in reviewing and discussing this issue surrounding regulation to clean up bayview-hunters point for more than a decade. no other site in the country has undergone as much investigation, remediation, community process. there are more than 30,000

ground water samples. more than $700 million has been spent on the cleanup of the site. article 31 of the health code called for additional oversight of the shipyard. it predated this. it was and still is the most unique program in the country that regulates and reviews construction at this level in detail to be protective of the public. multiple regulatory agencies charged with public health and the environment are calling for the cleanup of the site. there have been peer reviews of the process implemented by dph. it has been concluded time and again that the shipyard does not pose a risk to human health or the environment. as recently as