much. he was asked to make a speculation and in his judgment that was his range that he wanted to do. i really can't comment on the details of why he would speculate that. i, again, just need to reiterate that the california department of public health who does these surveys and has scanned all of these locations has said that they do not see any health and safety concerns. there are no levels of above background. they do not see any risk to the current residents and workers on the island. and that this is what they do, and they have done the scans and written those reports. so, that's where we take our evidence that the area is safe. >> do you have any reason to doubt the, as you put it, speculation that was provided by mr. burns? >> i do not have any reason to doubt. he's allowed to have his own opinion and draw his own

technical conclusions. but it was speculation. he was asked to speculate, he speculated. >> you know, the term speculation, that's a description that you provide. but in this case, you know, you have the ceo of this company that oversees the clean up making that statement. i just think it's a concern. >> i can understand why you might feel that way. >> thank you. >> so, now i want to move on to the oversight and monitoring issue. so, i heard over and over again that residents have seen trucks come off the island without tarps on top of the trucks. and also sometimes what's happening where dust is kicked

up in the air. it's dusty and dirty. [speaker not understood]. i had some questions. actually, the question was asked that night, but at the time the navy didn't have this information. how many notice of violations have been issued to date for the navy or their contractors by our regulatory agencies? >> our understanding and our records and review of the records that we have is that the states lead regulatory department of agency, toxic and substance control hasn't issued violations to the navy or their contractors. shaw environmental, who is the navy's contractor on this work, did receive a notice of violation from the california department of public health, the agency that had been conducting these scans that we talked about, on june 23rd, 2011. these violations -- a notice of violation is a statement that says, you need to correct these problems. and all of those violations, those problems were corrected

by shaw to the satisfaction of the california department of public health. >> okay. so, during this time we only have one reported notice of violation, that was to shaw, in june 2011 and they have since abated -- addressed and abated that [speaker not understood]? >> that is the information we have, yes. >> now, let me say that they continue to see what might be violations of safety for caution. what i had heard that night from the regulatory agencies was, oh, just call us. but i think that we need something stronger than that. i appreciate that we're going to set up this one hotline. i wish we could put it up on the screen. >> yes, i can. >> oh, great. >> actually -- sorry to interrupt. >> go ahead. >> so, i have -- this is a list of all of the opportunities for public participation and more information. so, some of these are just websites where you can find

documents, but the department of toxic substances control has a toll free number, this 1 -86 6 number. the california department of public health also has a number, not toll free, but 916. and they have an e-mail address, treasure island questions at cdph.ca.gov. in addition, there's the tida board meeting website and this new tida hotline and the navy has its website. and their monthly restoration advisory board meetings. in fact, tomorrow night is their restoration advisory board and we strongly advise any public who are interested to attend that meeting. >> um-hm. and i realize there are a lot of different agencies to call, but i think it would be helpful for residents to have one phone number. i guess that's the tida hotline, 415-4 87-4841edthv and they can expect a response in

one business day? >> yes. >> [speaker not understood] when residents can submit complaints. they were sort of vague when i asked that question that night. and i was hoping we could be as specific as possible so when residents see what might be violations, that they can give the best information that they can. that's helpful to the regulatory agencies. >> yes, and i think [speaker not understood] from the department of toxic substance control and steve woods from the california department of public health mentioned a couple of things. the main information, especially, you know, depending on the situation, is describing where it is and what it is. so, if it's a truck that's uncovered saying that and saying if you know exactly whose truck it is, although i know that's sometimes very hard to tell, if it's a work area, it would be most helpful to describe exactly what a work area is on the island.

if it's employees doing something that they think is incorrect, then again, saying the work area and what the employees are doing, they feel like is not correct, those kind of information are the best. and obviously leaving the day and the time is the most helpful. by the way, we have heard from the department of toxic substance control that they are out there on average like 2 or 3 days a week checking up on things. so, if you call their number, there will already be someone out there on some of the days. >> okay, thank you. are there any other questions from board members? seeing none, we're going to move on to public comment at this point. a large part, of course, why we held this hearing was to respond directly to the concerns and questions of our residents on treasure island. so, we wanted to give you an opportunity to speak on this matter. we did give two minutes for public comment. you will actually see a timer

at the podium and i'll mark how much time you have remaining. the first ring is just the 30-second ring and the final ring is the completion of those two minutes. and then afterwards i think through the questions and concerns that are raised, we can have further conversations to address what has been brought up through public comment. so, i'm going to call up the speaker cards that i have. but after that if folks just want to line up, you may do so. so, i have emilie rapoport, vanessa jackson, catherine lundgren, espinola jackson, and francisco de costa. for the record, my name is emilie rapoport and i'm a resident who lives and works on treasure island. i'm also the president of good neighbors association. i want to thank you for the members of the board,

supervisors, for holding this hearing. i just wanted to comment that the process has been extremely frustrating for us. i have to again tell a story that a few years ago, good neighbors wanted to get a dog park for our residents and we picked out sites in the residential area because that's where we wanted to be. and each time we picked a site, the navy turned it down. finally, about six or eight months ago we found two sites and we asked the navy again and they refused. but this time they actually gave us an answer and they said that they really didn't want a dog park because it was too detrimental to the ground. it tore up the ground. and, you know, they didn't want it. and, so, shortly after that we found that the radiation sites had -- there had been more

sites that had opened up. and, so, we find that it's a little bit strange that this all happened at this particular time. and we're sort of wondering why did this happen at this particular point in time and who is involved and who knew and when. one of the things i really want to talk about is that, for the record, i'm very much for this redevelopment because i'm not certain how much longer i can take twice weekly blackouts and roads that haven't been repaired and cannot be repaired because it's too costly. the state apparently has to come supervise the digging of the roads up and, so, nothing really works here. but what we need to have for our residents is a retrospective study dating from the 1950s to the current time

of the navy handover about those residents who lived on the island because there's enough anecdotal material to state that these people have cancer issues. they have leukemias and they're dying of cancer. and, so, it seems to me that we need to either get uc or one of the uc campuses, we need to get the navy to release these information, perhaps we have to get congresswoman pelosi involved. perhaps we have to get lieutenant governor newsome involved and perhaps willie brown. but it seems to me there needs to be some study. there also needs to be something done for the residents who are currently here who are experiencing a disease process that can't be figured out. and, so, it would be really quite helpful if we could get these issues taken care. of. >> thank you. thank you, ms. rapoport.

actually initially i did give two minutes. i'm comfortable extending it to three minutes given the issues this brings up. thank you. hi, my name is vanessa jackson. and the concern i have is that at least back when willie lynch was lynching people we knew what to expect. this is like a silent killer for people of color. and i don't know this woman. i don't know how credible she is. she made no sense. everything she said to me seemed like contradicted herself. she couldn't speak for herself if the land was toxic or not or if could kill people if dogs were in the backyard, stiff, dead, i didn't understand anything she was saying. it didn't seem like -- she wasn't really sure about the people that was out there diagnosing the land. i mean, you've got human beings, you've got people, you've got kids, you've got babies out there. and if it's not safe for people to live, then people need to do

something. if you can't break the ground up to do something else to remodel it, then obviously if you're only going 12 inches or a foot down in the ground, something is wrong if that's as far as you're going to go. because if you go further, you're not going to hit oil, you're going to hit toxins. look at these people. i mean, you've got kids. i'm pretty sure she don't live there. and whoever the public health people are going out there two or three days a week, they go in quick. they have the mask on, the hazmat stuff, look around, do what they have to do, and bust out of there because it's poisonous. so, we need a little bit more than what she was saying. i understand she read, had paperwork and [speaker not understood]. but things she was saying didn't make any sense to me because to me it was like she was contradicting herself. she said that some gentleman that made the statement that it was safe and all that, but then when he asked her or you asked her, you know, did she think

that -- or how well the judgment of his character, she couldn't even speak on it. >> ms. jackson, i'm sorry if i may just ask you. i understand that the presentation was confusing. are there specific questions that -- i don't think anybody should believe anything she said. >> okay. beyond that, i get that's your perspective. are there questions she can answer specifically that would help you understand what she presented on? i just feel like someone pretty much screwed her before she got here. but if she can't trust another man's judgment that she's speaking on, and saying, well, this is what he said and she couldn't comment on it, then evidently we can't really believe because if somebody tells me something that somebody said or that someone came out there and [speaker not understood] the land, i'm afraid -- you know, that's my friend or i know this person, or i know the work that they do, i'm going to vouch for them

100%. she didn't give this man not 1%. >> okay, thank you, ms. jackson. hi, thank you for having us. i'm catherine lundgren. i'm part of good neighbors as well as the healthenerction network, but i'm speaking on my own behalf this evening. * essentially, i've tried to reach out to the department of public health with the health network to collaborate for education and to maybe bring it down to -- into our community on a little more casual basis so we can actually get down to the questions that are still left to be answered. i've had absolutely no positive response from the department of public health. so, taking from those phone calls or lack thereof, myself

as well as the rest of the community are left to believe that they refuse to participate with us. this is personally the only way that you can get the truth here. or even get any of us to believe these things that you're saying. i don't know, she said the hotline i was told by thomas wasn't going to exist. he told us to call and leave a message with brownell who doesn't return phone calls. so, the number matches the tida hotline. so, i'm not sure why we're calling tida people, but mention the number. i mean, these are the kind of things that lead to distrust. so, perhaps we need to have the agencies come out to the health network meeting and let's have some discussions, do your presentations, do it in a common sense fashion so that we

have an open die lag that isn't aggressive and angry. i just -- a panel [speaker not understood] is not going to do it. aside from that issue, i really do think that minimizing low dose radiation for the short term is acceptable. because today i may not see it. but if the government can put enough effort into studying how it can affect you, i think the consideration and the concern are valid. the things that -- that's just an example. over time the story may be different so what we as a community are asking is that we start getting a clinic because i think a clinic, even if we were in an emergency situation, would be a solution to many, many problems out there. the clinic to me would be critical. the independent studies not

done by the agencies, because that's where the level of distrust is. can we get independent agencies or researchers to come out and do these studies? >> did you want to just finish the thing you're asking from dph? may i? >> yes. the clinic, we'd like education programs surrounding all of the toxic substances because i know we also have 27 other contaminants present and independent agent sitxv three things to me would solve a lot of problems and move us forward in a positive way. >> thank you. thank you, ms. lundgren. i'm not going to let you speak [speaker not understood] every person in public comments. i did speak with barbara garcia today and she is commit today meeting with the treasure island network. that meeting will take place and we'll ensure that happens. i need to add actually that [speaker not understood] has met with me and we have come up with some short-term solutions.

>> great, thank you. espinola jackson, bayview hunters point. you know this is aysad situation and from what i heard from amy, i heard the same thing about the hunters point shipyard. that it is safe. it is not safe. and if i were you, supervisors, i would make sure that all of the tenants that's in your district get out of treasure island, that every child be tested but not by the health department, san francisco health department, but by an independent health department. and i'm talking about ucs. i'm looking at these babies. i doubt if they live to see 15 years old. i'm looking at them. i'm looking at some of these adults that might be dead in the next 10 years or 12 from inhaling all of that toxic that's out there. you cannot see radiation.

ain't no such thing is it safe. what that young lady asked, do she live there? no, and i bet she wouldn't go out there and stay an hour. if she run out there i bet she run back. my statement was to some of the supervisors before when the report was made, the health department gave report and the supervisors supported the eir. a lawsuit had to be filed and they found out that you all was wrong. not you, but i'm talking about the supervisors was wrong. in year 2000, the voters of this city voted that no toxic land be turned over to the city until it was clean to residential use. that shipyard, one part of it was turned over. but guess what? nothing is being built. it's still radiation over there. people are dying in bayview hunters point still. people are sick, cancer. right now today. don't let this happen to the people over there at treasure island. don't let this happen to the babies that's going out there. and if the kids roll on the

ground, whatever toxins when they had the school out there, some of the kids got cancer when they were going over there eight years ago. and when they go over there, they bring that stuff back home. the rest of the family gets the same toxic, come in the house, the kids laying on the floor. it is wrong. but what is going on? and then they're going to tell you -- know what they're going to tell you? well, the site that's got the radiation, we're going to cover it with cement. that's what they're going to tell you because that's what they try to do out there in bayview hunters point. we have earthquakes here. what if the earthquake come, a bad one, and the ground break? all of that radiation going to be blowing all over this city. we're all going to be dying. every bit of that toxic should be clean and taken out of here. i don't care whether it's bayview hunters point, but you're here to talk about treasure island. treasure island one time was a part of the hunters point shipyard. a lot of people do not know that. i know it because my husband was in the service.

i used to go to the commissary out there -- over there at treasure island. so, we know in bayview hunters point what's going to happen to these babies that's over there now. thank you very much. get them out, baby, please. >> thank you, ms. jackson. (applause) >> before we have our next speaker i'm going to call up five more speakers. mark coners, eric brooks, amy mogatanio. robert woods and jeff kline. supervisors, what i want to state to you very clearly is this city has an ordinance. we have a principle that you all know about, and if you don't know about it, then you should read it. it's called the precautionary principle. simply stated, the precautionary principle allows

this city, if there is any doubt about any adverse impact, we must stop the work and do the right thing. now, we have a developer, it's a road developer, lennar, and we have people that are bought by this company. and sad to say we also have some environmentalists who will get four or five people and they'll go to some documentation and say, you know what? everything is okay. everything is not okay. i was at the presidio before all the guys who are here who say they were there, they have some link with treasure island, i was on treasure island with my boss chuck swanson. and i have [speaker not understood] that tell me what jackson is and what kind of

toxins and contaminants were polluted and contaminated and allowed to be thrown here, there, and everywhere on treasure island. and the same with hunters point. now, not too long ago, about two months ago, the federal government had a helicopter that from a certain level, i think pretty low level, to call the maps. we need to see those maps. i know too much about those maps. so, that some buffoons can look at it once and for all. they're not playing with the health of innocent people. if you guys want to die, goual owe in the contamination. * wallow. do not take the lives of young people who need homes, but you put them in an area and with the intent to slowly kill them. this is a shame. what the white man has done to

california is a shame. i represent the first people the [speaker not understood]. you stole the land. you polluted the land, and now that you have some land, you want to kill people. shame on you. you developers, get out of san francisco. just get out of san francisco. that's a man-made island. it's prone to flooding and liquefaction. you know the word tsunami. you know what superfund site is. why don't you do the right thing? you have blood on your hands. thank you very much. (applause) >> i don't believe we actually have any representatives from the developer here today. noted. mr. coners? thank you, for the record my name is mark coners i'm a resident of treasure island and have been involved with community advocacy for the past five years or soughtv i want to thank you for convening this special meeting and hope that you understand any criticism i might have is not of you, it's

not directed at you guys. i know that you're here to better understand the situation and i specifically want to thank jane kim and her staff for advocating for treasure island residents. when i first moved to the island, i was aware of certain environmental concerns. most of us were. however, with the release of a drafted tech memo and several other articles, i feel that not everything has been communicated to us and to me in a timely and transparent manner. the immediate issue at hand for residents is not limited to radiological answersctionv concerns, but to other health issues as well that could be related to toxins and the environment. other than attendance today can better speak to those concerns that if you limit the conceptual topic to radiological concerns alone we're missing out orthctionv bigger issue wall street the overall environmental health on the island. now, we've already heard talk about this lack of trust with various agencies and i'd like to carry that a little bit step further. an issue which is confounding this discussion is the level of disinterrupt between community

members, tida, the navy and san francisco government overall. over the last year we've been subjected to censorship of our newsletter, had to sign off an attempt to radically change our leases. [speaker not understood] the darkness over and over again and we have been condescended to by a city that treats us more like a colony or out post than an integral part of the city. how do we as residents much of treasure island, we citizens of san francisco know who we can trust on the issues being discussed today when our needs have long been neglected and trivialized? we need you and your colleagues on the board of supervisors to advocate for us. i encourage the agencies responsible for public health to be open to our concerns and work with residents and people employed on the island both today and those who have been there in the past to develop tracking of illnesses over time. i honestly don't know what the truth is regarding the issues we were discussing today. it's a lot for me to absorb. but i do know that we must respect the concerns of our residents and treat them seriously just as you would for your own backyard. thank you.

>> thank you, mr. connors. good evening, supervisors. eric brooks representing grassroots organization in our city and san francisco green party. you know, for over a decade now, hundreds of community organizations and individual members of the community have been ringing the alarm bells about the radioactive and toxic waste in all of the navy sites in san francisco, including bayview hunters point and treasure island that lennar is doing its developments in and saying that things are not okay. and that the city needs to hire independent contractors to take control of the situation and tell us what is really going on, and we should put a halt to these projects until their done safely. and over that, more than a decade, we have listened repeatedly to the euphemistic platt platitudes of ms.

brownell making it sound like these aren't serious problems [speaker not understood]. let me touch on a couple of those. one is "background" radiation. a lot of you probably don't know that when an incident like fakushima happens, the background radiation planet wide goes up and that is a new base for background radiation by which these things are compared. every time there is a release, the "background" goes up. it is also true that the national academy of sciences a few years ago made clear that there is no safe level of radiation exposure. so, it doesn't matter if it's the same as background radiation. every time a child goes out and breathes in even one particle

of radioactive material, that is an increased exposure and with every increased exposure the danger goes up. background has nothing to do with it. so, that's just an example of the platitudes. now, i sent you all an e-mail and hopefully you read it. i want to touch on the most important things we need to do to deal with the fact that staff is not telling us, and agencies are not telling us the right things about this problem. first of all, both treasure island and the shipyard projects need to be halted until independent investigations happen so that we are not depending on these agencies. the shipyard on treasure island need to be fully characterized for all toxic and radioactive contamination and no development should be allowed until both are cleaned up to residential standards the way prop p says. and most importantly, the newly created redevelopment successor agency commission has to have at least three of its five members be people that live in the communities