liable for the cleanup, i think we're all aware of that and i'm appreciative that the california department of health has been doing the additional work to survey that area to ensure the navy is doing the cleanup that they are liable to do but that doesn't take away the concerns from the residents, i think they know we've been responsive in trying to answer the questions as best we can, we haven't seen the evidence yet but there's not evidence to the contrary, there's no evidence supporting it and there's not evidence that has confirmed that the area is safe, so i think residents want to see how the city is going to work to protect and keep the navy accountable if -- through the work they are required to do on the island. >> so, when we became aware of this information, we engaged the san francisco department of public health to work with our own independent environmental engineering consultants who we've had on board for ten

years to again give us guidance for the regulatory framework and the process between the california department of toxic substance control and california department of public health and making sure that these issues were addressed, both today during their cleanup and going forward through the transfer process and the city has negotiated with the navy assurances that prior to transfer of any property we will have rin assurance or concurrence from the regulatory agencies that the navy that completed all of the remediation responsibilities to the satisfaction of those agencies. >> thank you, and i think there probably will be some follow up questions on to that, i do want to allow the presentations of the amendments of the master lease and the modification of the cooperative agreement, i think there was kind of an overlay of concern and i wanted to make sure we had those issues addressed upfront, so thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you, supervisor kim and supervisor avalos. >> it's good to hear that the

california department of public health has come back, but i haven't heard reports of that and i am operating from what i read in the paper and there was a bureaucrat within the california department of public health, mr. stephen woods who made a pretty strong statement about radiation, radiological contamination around treasure island, it wasn't specific what he was saying but he wrote, the section in the article was six months later, an environmental cleanup manager of the public health department stephen woods wrote that the large volume of radiological contaminated material, high radioactive commodities individual item and is sources and high levels of high level contamination have raised concerns with cdph regarding the nature and the extent of the radiological contamination present at

treasure island. has he come out and said something different from that? is he the spokesperson for the entire california department of public health? what have they come back and said? >> stephen woods is the chief of the radiological department and the california department of public health, those statements i believe reflect cdph's as an organization, their position on these issues, cdph has also said in addition to having these concerns about the extent and the nature and character of the radiological contamination on treasure island, they've also gone on record to say based on current information, they are not aware of any human health risk to working and living on treasure island. >> where can you find that statement? >> it was provided in a letter to the residents, i have a copy here that was sent out to all

residents and tenants of treasure island last friday, it was based on a phone conversation that i had with both stephen woods and dan ward of department of toxic substance control on friday before issuing the letter. >> was that statement made public as well outside of just the letter to the residents and to -- >> i'm not aware of who was made as a press release or whether it was one of the nuz articles, but we can find that out and we have commitment from cdph for their senior level management to attend the meeting on treasure island to answer such questions. >> okay, thank you. and michael, so as you go through items number 7 through 12, will you touch upon what the items are in general and speak a little bit specifically about each one of them? >> i'm going to hand it back over to marion, the director of

treasure island operations. >> thank you, michael, marion styles -- >> just one more question. >> before you start, in the past, it was a redevelopment agency and no longer is since the dissolution from redevelopment and the function of fire and police and utility services that are provided by the city in the past were covered with redevelopment dollars, now is it going to be general fund dollars that are going to cover the cost of carrying out these functions for the residents of treasure island and is that known how much it's going to be if it is a general fund cost, that's something i would like for you to touch upon in your presentation. >> so, all the amounts before you today are actually for parcels of property on the island, and then we turn around

and sublease those properties to entities to generate revenue, and indeed, we've added and subtracted properties along the way. we from commercial, maritime and commercial use, we generate monies for the island. these match our leases annually and they've been amended some 3, 4 times over the last 14 years, some of these leases are for public purpose and do not generate any money and like our picnic areas and our promenade and other leases are to non-profit that don't generate any profit like little league and boys and girls club, we pay the boys and girls club to have services on the island and the commercial and the housing subleases do generate the millions of dollars to the island and those revenues are what we use to provide for all

the services including municipal services to the island, that includes utility systems, grounds and street maintenance, police and fire and property management and caretaker responsibilities. we do not receive any reimbursement from the navy, haven't for some time now, so we're totally self-sufficient when it comes to taking care of the needs of the islands today during what we call this interim period. so, the co-op agreement and the sublease is before you, i ask for approval of them so we can continue to generate money and to provide those services as spelled out in those co-op agreements with the navy and the city. >> so, in the past, the revenue generated was under the redevelopment agency as it related to tida, now tida

doesn't exist as it did in the past so now we see that it's general fund dollars, is that correct? what's generated there in terms of revenue will be considered general fund dollars, what's the new consideration for funding that's generated there? >> general fund dollars, we've always been self-sufficient and we haven't had any monies from redevelopment to take care of any of our expenses on the island, so for that redevelopment discussion, again, i will turn to michael time off to explain for it. i think from what i understand, tida used to have redevelopment-like authority and power and the key difference between what we are in now versus what we were before when there was sort of a redevelopment type distinction, it operated as a quasi city type entity but it wasn't a

city department. once that dissolved, the liability became different because we accepted in essence the responsibility, we became the successor agency, the city became the successor agency but prior to the redevelopment agency going away, tida had always had its own funding from the operations so from leasing buildings to private entities or from having, you know, housing structures that generated income, they used that income to pay for city services like police and fire services, and so they never had tax increments or redevelopment tax increment dollars to go and fund their operation, it was always paid for by those leases and those incomes that are generated from these subleases. >> yes. >> so there's not any of that so now we transferred over where the redevelopment agency no longer exists and tida doesn't have this separate legal type of a distinction, it

still is generating the same lease income, the same revenue that it was before and that is still being used to pay for the operations or the city municipal services, the question is i think what supervisor avalos is getting to, what happens if there should be a more catastrophic failure of a utility system, who is more liable to pay for that kind of a system, that becomes the liability of the city because we are now the successor agency, is that correct? >> that's our understanding, yes. >> but from an additional general fund hit to the operations, there is no difference from -- >> not for day-to-day operations. >> is there anything that you would add to it, kate? >> again, michael time off, treasure island, project development direct torx just a point of clarification, tida is not part of or under the jurisdiction of the successor

act si, tida was stripped of its redevelopment powers but we are not under the oversight of the successor agency, we still report up to the tida board and our city department. >> thank you. so, marion, just going back to the items before us, items 7 through 12, in terms of item 7 through 11, these are all master lease agreements with the navy for certain parcels or treasure island that allows your organization to basically sublease back out those facilities for usage at the moment, correct? >> yes, for usage, to generate money to pay for the day-to-day operations on the island. >> so, for the most part, if we don't have these master lease agreements approved, what ends up happening is either those entities or businesses that are in those facilities will have to leave or they would have to enter into an agreement directly with the navy, correct? >> yes, we haven't experienced

that so we're hoping not to. >> and on item number 12 which is a cooperative agreement, if one is not approved by october 1, we would basically not be able to provide fire or police or other municipal services to treasure island, is that right? >> basically we would have to discontinue our operations as we know it today, we certainly do not want to be in that position. we have leeway with the navy to get this done, we've always gotten it done before the expiration before the fiscal year so we ask for your approval today. >> okay. why don't we go do the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, the only change that is before you today to the

existing five leases and the one cooperative agreement between tida and the navy is to extend the leases and agreement by one year. i would also add that in terms of the revenues that tida receives in response to supervisor avalos' earlier question, on page 5 of our report, the last page of the report, it does show the actual revenue from the various funding sources of approximately 7.8 million per fiscal year 11-12 and budgeted for fiscal year 12-13 of 8.3 million with the largest revenue source being from the john stewart company, from the housing revenues of over 4 million dollars that tida receives annually. i would also note that the budget, tida budget for fiscal year 12-13 is that same 8

million 336 thousand 365 dollars which is primarily used to pay for what you previously indicated, fire services, police services, all the various services that tida receives, given what's before you is an extension of each of these leases and cooperative agreements for one additional year, we recommend approval. thank you. >> and just so i understand also, these are all cooperative agreements or master leases that extended for one year, but in a situation where say the city wanted to terminate it, we can terminate any of these components with a 30 day notice, is that right? >> that's what's called in the agreement, yes, 30 day notice. >> okay, why don't we open these items up for public comment, erik brooks, i have one speaker. if we have any other speakers that wish to comment, please line up. >> good morning, supervisors,

i'm here to represent the local grass roots to stand in strong opposition from items 7 through 11, if you need to continue emergency services for the island, that's acceptable, based on what's happening, what we've seen in the paper should be halted until we know this island is safe. i don't know if any of you have seen it because it just came out today, but the east bay express report on this is just blows away the other reports we've seen in the last couple of weeks, makes it clear that this island is dangerous, that it's a cancer hot spot, people are getting sick right now and the idea that we would continue these master leases with the navy and allow developers to even turn one shovel of dirt or allow our city's children to play little league on this island when it's becoming clear that it's extremely dangerous out there and we do not know

the extent of the contamination is extremely alarming. i would remind folks that the city passed early in this decade the precautionary principle and this really pushes treasure island over the line. we are clearly defying that ordinance if we don't halt things right now, halt the development and put a stop to this until we know what's going on, clearly the navy has covered things up and even a state agency has done so. this is really unacceptablefinger and i would even go further to say that there are a couple of thousand people living on that island that are clearly in danger right nrou and we should evacuate the island, any of you that have been involved in housing justice, we have units available in san francisco that are empty, we should make 2 thousand available for them for those people and put a hold on everything until we know what

is going on on that island. thanks. >> thank you, are there other speakers who wish to comment on items number 7 through 12? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, items 7 through 12 are before us. supervisor kim? >> thank you, i really do appreciate the concerns that have been brought up in public comment and of course some that we've gotten not related to the amendments for the master lease and of course for the cooperative agreement xh are the concerns about the ,zhealth and safety of the residents on treasure island and those that work on the island including any of our staff members as well. i think that i know that with the newly identified areas, we do have 30 residential units on one of the sites and of course the boys and girls club on another site and i think it's imperative that we as a city work to protect and advocate

for our residents especially in light of the media and the articles that have come forward. i'm not trying to be an alarmist about the situation, we have 2 thousand residents living on this island currently and i think it behooves us to move forward with this carefully but i think advocacy at the highest level is certainly called for and we do want to see the navy during proper cleanup and the cleanup of itself of the island, currently i don't think any development has been moving forward with the island in terms of new residential or any kind of commercial development on the island but i do think that not renewing these leases is also problematic because we have residents on the island right now and we certainly don't want to stop services around sewage and electricity, police and fire, i think that sets up a whole other set of obstacles for those that live -- live on the island as well

and i'm concerned with what i've been hearing and i'm incredibly concerned with those who live on the island and i'm reading this on the news currently and i'm looking forward to the meetings we have and what we can do to ensure proper safety, i feel comfortable moving forward with recommendation with these amendments, i certainly understand that not all of my colleagues may feel comfortable. i think they're two separate issues and if i thought that not approving these amendments would give us more leverage with the navy in getting them to act, i would certainly do so, i don't think that's the case in the situation so i feel comfortable moving forward with items 7 through 12 but i'm happy to listen to comments and further questions from my colleagues. >> thank you, supervisor kim. so, items number 7 through 12, we have a motion to move the items forward with recommendation. on item number 12, the

cooperative agreement specifically, i absolutely understand that we want to continue to provide those vital public services, whether it's fire services or police services on the island, so i don't really see us not providing those services come october 1, 2012, and so i am comfortable moving those forward, but i do have a lot of questions about the infrastructure that we are potentially inheriting from the navy in particular on the utility side and what that might mean in terms of exposure for the city and in particular for the puc which for the most part is basically rate payer dollars all across the city, so that is a big concern of mine and i would like to understand that further. i think it is time for tida to come forward and with the puc to really give us a thorough briefing about what that looks like and what that means, and so i look forward to having that conversation, but in terms of the master lease agreement, i agree with supervisor kim, i don't see a reason for delay

for the master lease agreements nor for moving forward with the cooperative agreement to provide those services. supervisor avalos? >> i actually want to propose a different tact, what if we were to move this forward to the full board without recommendation and have a report at the full board that can touch upon some of the concerns around what the dissolution of redevelopment and changes that now tida was a redevelopment agency but it's functioning kind of like one, what that is with implications to our general fund especially with emergency services but i think it would be good to have a public discussion around the full board around the radiation issue as well. it seems like there's been some discussion or communication that's happened between the california department of public health with residents, a letter, i don't think there's

been any other public discussion about the site. i think discussion before the full board as we're contemplating these leases and the cooperative agreement makes some sense to have a discussion there and then we can get more of an official statement at that time, hopefully it can be available to share with us and tell us how we're moving forward as a city with any new information we might have about new sources of radiological contamination or the concerns of potential contamination that is there. just with the word potential, when it comes to radiation and the history that's there gives me great concern, so i think that will be a better process for me and perhaps other board members might welcome that type of discussion when these items come to the full board. >> thank you, supervisor avalos, supervisor kim? >> and i'll concur with that, i

think it's appropriate to move forward without recommendation and it will allow our colleagues the opportunity to set up their own meetings regarding the liability so they feel comfortable and are educated prior to their vote to the full board and i think these are going to overshadow a lot of the other issues around the amendment for the master lease and the cooperative agreement and i think those are appropriate questions to answer at a public hearing, and i also hope that we can make some movement also with the boys and girls club around the fact that they're in a potential site and i think of course there's not evidence showing that there was radiological contamination on that site, but i think as a supervisor avalos said, the word potential i think is scary for a lot of our families and children and i think hopefully we can move forward with some kind of resolution on that is eye. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim, so i believe the motion has been amended to send item 7

through 12 forward without recommendation at this time. i'd be happy to support that. i do think that the master leases should move forward in any case because for all practical purposes, even in an extreme situation where we said our choice is to move all residents off the island, we wouldn't be able to do that in two weeks so for all intents and purposes, i think we have to move forward with it, but i would be happy to move item 7 through 12 forward to the full board without recommendation on the floor, so, that is a motion on the floor and we can do that without objection. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda. >> thank you, we are adjourned.

>> the renovation of balboa park, the oldest in the city of san francisco, and now it is the newest part in the city of san francisco. through our partnership, and because of public investment from the two thousand eight fund, we are celebrating a renewal and an awakening of this

park. we have it safer, happier, more joyous. >> 3, 2, 1, [laughter] =--[applause] >> it is a great resource for families, to have fun in the city, recreation. >> this is an amazing park. we have not revitalized it without public and private investment. the critical piece of the process of this renovation was that it was all about the community. we reached out to everyone in this community. we love this park dearly and they all had thoughts and ideas and they wanted to bring their own creativity and their personality to bear on the design. what you see is what the

community wanted. these ideas all came from the residents of this community. as a result, there is a sense of ownership, pride and responsibility that goes along with what is going to be an exciting park.