and 12 33 and what does it mean for the neighbors who walk their dogs in the area, et cetera, is it safe because that area is not [speaker not understood]. that's the first question, then i'll ask a couple more. >> thank you very much, supervisor. again, amy brownelle with the san francisco health department. the question is why certain areas were scanned by the california department of public health and then they sent the reports about that information. again, remember that the new information came out in the supplemental memorandum and these new areas were designated as radiologically impacted which does not mean there is contamination problem. it means there is a possibility that you need to investigate the areas. and, so, the concern was one of those areas in particular was a residential area. so, we wanted to respond very quickly and asked california department of public health to

scan those newly designated areas where people were living and working to verify that there wasn't any current health and safety concerns. and then we -- in addition, those five extra areas, the light blue areas on the map, this was sent to the residents october 5th where additional high traffic areas that they wanted to verify that there wasn't any concern. so, some of the other residential areas, there is no concerns. there's no evidence of past contamination. there's no reason to suspect that there is any radiological contamination. >> so, if you could just be clear about that. one of the questions is why wasn't it the neighborhood areas weren't assessed? if they were not assessed, is because -- >> there was no reason -- it was not identified as an impacted area. no evidence of any contamination. >> the only areas that were surveyed were the areas that were surveyed because they were identified as potential sites by the navy? >> there's two categories.

there was potential sites. on the map it's the orange hatched areas. and in addition there were five areas of high traffic areas and high-use areas where we asked them to additionally assess to just verify. >> okay, thank you. and then about the 1231-12 33, this was brought up. the question was is it okay for the neighbors to walk their dogs because the area is not [speaker not understood] off. >> my understanding is if it is okay, i am not familiar with those exact house numbers. >> could you please follow-up? >> yes, i can follow-up on that one. >> great. one of the other questions -- a couple of members had brought up the issue of the pipes. and how can we ensure that the pipes are free from contamination since they are below ground? >> so, i think people understand the water comes from hetch hetchy. but are we worried about

contamination from the pipes that are below ground, probably below the 12 feet that's being assessed and surveyed. and what can we do if we do find green and brown water, is there a way to get that tested, is there someone they can call? * >> so, again, sfpd is in charge of operating the system. and they are doing the required -- they're assisting and working with the navy, i believe, so make sure that they get the water tested so verify that it meets all drinking water standards and they're required to do that. another fact that people should know is that because it's a water delivery system, it's under pressure. and, so, the water is in the pipe flowing out. the contamination is not flowing in because that's just how the water systems work. and, so, in general the rule of thumb is it is not of concern because the water is the clean water from hetch hetchy is coming through the pipes. and if there is any -- i know that old systems can have

looks. the water would flow out. you wouldn't have contamination. as far as the green inbound water, i would need tida or sfpuc to answer the question about that. >> okay. so, maybe i'll have someone from tida address that question in particular. and whether people can use the hotline to call in if they put that water in a cup and some of the residents have said that they do. thank you, mr. timoff. >> thank you, madam chair. to address the question on water quality, the puc does test annually for chemicals of concern. we can report back on those findings, but to date the water quality out on treasure island has been tested to show no human health safety concerns. having said that, because of some of the recent comments we have received, the puc is currently going to be conducting water coming -- conducting testings from water coming out of the actual tap. so, we're working on getting that scheduled for the end of

october. >> thank you, mr. timoff, i appreciate that. supervisor campos. >> thank you. if i could ask that -- her to come back. >> ms. brownell? >> yes. sorry. and, again, i want to thank everyone who has been working on this. i appreciate that. a lot of work has gone into this and i want to appreciate the work from the treasure island staff for their responsiveness. i guess one question that i have, and i appreciate everything that you have said is i understand all the things that have been done, and i understand, you know, that many tests have been, you know, done in the last few months. i also feel that part of the

responsibility for us is not only to, you know, follow the rules and the guidelines that are in place by these various agencies, but to the extent possible, really go the extra mile. and, so, even though there was a reason why we have tested specific areas on the island, what's wrong with testing some of these neighborhood sites? i mean, there is nothing that precludes us from doing it. we may believe that for different reasons there's no need scientifically or otherwise to do it. but i don't see that we lose anything by going that extra step and actually following the suggestion of the residents. so, i'm wondering why not do it anyway? >> thank you, that's a very good question.

i think there are a couple of reasons why. first of all, as you've noted, there is a lot of fear and anxiety around this issue. when you start to do tests in areas where there is no reason to suspect and there's no reason that you have any evidence that there would be any problem, the testing itself, even though it can be helpful, it can also cause more fear and anxiety and that is just as much of an issue as the actual scientific issue. but also i just wanted to state again that all of the areas that were these new designated areas of possible issues that they're going to investigate further through paperwork or whatever they need to do, they've all been scanned and there's been nothing above background. and i just wanted to give them a little bit of perspective because one speaker mentioned that. as i mentioned, there is

radiation everywhere all the time every day. everybody is exposed to it. you have it in your own body. and the average annual exposure for an individual is 6 20 milligram per year. this is an average. so, people who live in the sierra, whether it's higher soils that have a higher natural background level, they have maybe a higher end of that average. and people who get a lot of medical procedures with x-rays would have higher averages. but that average is you get a lot of it from medical exposures. there's radon in air you get it from, the soil, water, consumer project cosmic rays and industrial and occupational exposure. so, every human being in the u.s. has about that average on -- they have done studies and measured. in addition to that, this regulatory limit that i

mentioned is that up to 100 milligram per year is the allowed amount that the regulators set from radiation sources. and, so, by comparison, i just want to mention that the background scans -- and it's in these reports that were sent to the residents and given to you today -- the measurements they're taking and measuring are .01 milligram per hour. and if you do the whole calculation in per year and all that, it's way less, way less than what we're seeing. so, that's why we can say with confidence that all these areas that have been scanned are way less than anything of concern. >> and i appreciate that. you know, i am not an expert in this, and certainly radiation. and i think that everything you said makes a lot of sense. but where i disagree with you is on your point about the impact of additional testing.

i actually see it differently. i actually think that the lack of trust is not going to go away, and i actually think it will only intensify. and i think that taking that extra step, even if it's a pain, even if it is expensive, it is something that if i live there that i would like to see my government do. and, so -- (applause) >> it's not to take anything away from what you said. i respect your judgment and your professional judgment on this. but i think that as a matter of policy for the city, i would rather err on the side of doing more than less. and, again, i just think that from my perspective, it's what i would want for my family. and, so, i don't know if that's

possible, but i would simply urge the city to do that. i think it's money well spent. (applause) >> ms. brownell, if i have family and i lived on the island, obviously what i heard, if i was to make a request to dph or to i guess the appropriate agencies, would we be able to do additional assessments by request? is that something we can figure out a way to figure out a system for? >> we can certainly explore that idea. again, the california department of public health is the agency -- >> they're the ones that do that? >> -- that did those studies and we can talk to them about that concept. >> okay. i think that as much as we can, because -- i think we have to understand the concerns are reasonable.

that regardless of what we say, regardless of what our regulatory is saying, when you have children, when you yourself are living on the island, you're going to continue to have concerns regardless of what is being said. if there is a way we can figure out if additional testing can be done by request, i would like to figure that out. the second question that came out was defining what survey meant. and i know you went over this briefly in your presentation, but could you go into a little bit more detail about what is a survey and what are they surveying for? >> okay. so, again, the california department of public health goes out and it's in the reports that they did, and they take their instruments to measure the gamma walk over surveys of the areas and they take the specific instrument, ludlow model micro 19 meters and they scan the area to see if there are any concerns. so, that is what they are doing and how they are measuring the

area. >> so, in the survey you are measuring for -- >> they are measuring to verify that there's no radiation concerns above the background levels. >> okay. within that -- i'm sorry, again, i'm not an expert either. but one of the members of the public had talked about gamma versus other types of radiation. are we only surveying for certain types or all types? >> my understanding is they're surveying for gamma. that is the concern because it is the most -- highest penetrating. you can see it from a long distance. it can travel through soil and all of that. >> thank you. this last question may be for tida. it's about the clarification requirements around digging. so, one member of the public had stated that they weren't sure of the requirement or not or if there is a recommendation [speaker not understood].

i'm not sure if that can be clarified today. >> so, as the comment was made, we did go through a series of revisions to the existing lease, including looking at the environmental disclosure section which talks about the fact that the navy is undergoing investigations on the island and providing information regarding the regulatory oversight. in addition, there is in the house rule section in the proposed addendum re, which we had gone through extensive community meetings and worked with the residents to address their concerns, there is a provision that would prohibit digging in backyards. and the speaker is correct that the existing lease has a language, i'm not sure exactly what it states, but recommends not digging. and out of an abundance of

caution, given the information that what made available to us last year, we inserted the new language which would prohibit, expressly prohibit, i think the language is "shall not dig in backyards." >> okay. just to clarify, previously it was a recommendation, tida got the information last year and you changed that to requirement in the existing leases? >> correct. >> thank you. that actually is all of my questions today. i think, you know, in the best case scenario, particularly as one that is representing the residents of this island, i would. wished that the outcome could be that everyone feels safe after this hearing. and i think that that is a tall duty. given i think the circumstances of how this news came out in particular, i was very disappointed with the way and the manner with which the navy conducted itself in releasing this information because i think now, of course, we have a lot of concerns around health issues on the island, which i

completely understand. moving forward, we do still have residents living on this island and i want to be able to address some of the present concerns as completely as possible. one, of course, is a hotline that tida will be running monday through friday -- it will be running all the time. so, there's one number people can use to report any concerns or to ask any questions about the ongoing clean up operations on treasure island. and, so, that number is the hotline that tida will run and will respond to within one business day. i know there are questions, of course, about what to do if we observe people in those areas on the weekend. and i'm hoping that the answer to that is that we can call sfpd ento ensure no one is getting in those areas and potentially putting residents at risk. the second is that we would work with dph to conduct the health assessment and the

screening day on the island and meeting. director barbara garcia has committed to a meeting with the treasure island health network to talk about next steps. , and of course, to see if we can do an assessment and screening day on the island and perhaps we can contact some of our partners. i'm here in san francisco life ucf to be a volunteer that day. i will work with ms. lundgren on that. the third issue that was not the topic of this hearing is of course the power outages. we were hoping that by the first two weeks of november there will be something that we can present, a solution that we can present with the puc and the treasure island development authority to address the electrical outages. i just want to take a moment just to thank everyone for being here today. i know that it is not always comforting to hear, but this is the information that we have and this is the assessment the city has made on the reports that cdph and dtsc has given us

along with the navy. i just want to assure residents that our office and tida will continue to be an advocate for the residents and make sure we get all the answers that we can and all the assessments and to make residents feel as safe as possible given the news and what they have heard. i think we'll end on that note. i think that most of the residents here know our office [speaker not understood] who is our legislative aide staff from treasure island, will continue to work through with you on many of the issues that have come forward. supervisor campos? >> i just wanted to thank you, chair kim. you know, as i said earlier, i think that the way to approach this and i think that's exactly how your office is approaching it, is to, to do for these residents what we would do for ourselves if we were in that predicament. so, i appreciate that.

and i think it's important to err on the side of caution, to provide that reassurance. i think that the more information that you can provide to residents and the more you can do to address the concerns, i think the better. i also -- i think it's a great idea. i really appreciate the idea of making sure that there is a health assessment so that if there are specific concerns like the mother who came here with her beautiful girls, individual residents, individual families have a specific concern that our health department follows up with them and assesses the situation. so, i am confident that your office will continue to make sure that, that we as a city do right by these residents. and again, i just want to thank you. and more importantly, i want to thank the residents who are coming out and to the city staff who presented. thank you. >> thank you. i forgot one other outcome of the hearing, of course, is that puc will work to test that

water as it comes out of the tap. some of the concerns of the residents. i hear the giants are ahead 5-1. thank you for being here despite the game and thanks for being here at the hearing. so, madam clerk, is there anything else on the agenda? >> chair, would you like to take an action on this item? >> oh, thank you. can we take a motion to file this item? >> so moved. >> we have a motion to file this item. that can be done without opposition. madam clerk, is there anything else? >> no, madam chair. >> seeing none, meeting is adjourned. [adjourned]

>> welcome to "culturewire." today we are at recology. they are celebrate 20 years of one of the most incredibly unique artist residency programs. we are here to learn more from one of the resident artists. welcome to the show, deborah. tell us how this program began 20 years ago. >> the program began 20 years ago. our founder was an environmentalist and an activist and an artist in the 1970's. she started these street sweeping campaigns in the city. she started with kids. they had an exhibition at city hall.

city officials heard about her efforts and they invited her to this facility. we thought it would coincide with our efforts to get folks to recycle, it is a great educational tool. since then, we have had 95 professional artists come through. >> how has the program changed over the years? how has the program -- what can the public has an artist engage with? >> for the most part, we worked with metal and wood, what you would expect from a program like ours. over the years, we tried to include artists and all types of mediums. conceptual artists, at installation, photographers, videographers. >> that has really expanded the program out. it is becoming so dynamic right now with your vision of interesting artists in gauging here. why would an artist when to come

here? >> mainly, access to the materials. we also give them a lot of support. when they start, it is an empty studio. they go out to the public area and -- we call it the big store. they go out shopping, take the materials that, and get to work. it is kind of like a reprieve, so they can really focus on their body of work. >> when you are talking about recology, do you have the only sculpture garden at the top? >> it is based on work that was done many years ago in new york. it is the only kind of structured, artist program. weit is beautiful. a lot of the plants you see were pulled out of the garbage, and we use our compost to transplant

them. the pathway is lined with rubble from the earthquake from the freeways we tour about 5000 people a year to our facility, adults and children. we talk about recycling and conservation. they can meet the artists. >> fantastic. let's go meet some of your current artists. here we are with lauren. can you tell us how long have been here so far and what you're working on? >> we started our residency on june 1, so we came into the studio then and spent most of the first couple weeks just digging around in the trash. i am continuing my body of work, kind of making these hand- embroidered objects from our day-to-day life. >> can you describe some of the things you have been making here? this is amazing. >> i think i started a lot of my work about the qualities of

light is in the weight. i have been thinking a lot about things floating through the air. it is also very windy down here. there is a piece of sheet music up there that i have embroidered third. there is a pamphlet about hearing dea -- nearing death. this is a dead rabbit. this is what i am working on now. this is a greeting card that i found, making it embroidered. it is for a very special friend. >> while we were looking at this, i glanced down and this is amazing, and it is on top of a book, it is ridiculous and amazing. >> i am interested in the serendipity of these still life compositions. when he got to the garbage and to see the arrangement of objects that is completely spontaneous. it is probably one of the least thought of compositions.

people are getting rid of this stuff. it holds no real value to them, because they're disposing of it. >> we're here in another recology studio with abel. what attracted you to apply for this special program? >> who would not want to come to the dump? but is the first question. for me, being in a situation that you're not comfortable in has always been the best. >> what materials were you immediately attracted to when you started and so what was available here? >> there are a lot of books. that is one of the thing that hits me the most. books are good for understanding, language, and art in general. also being a graphic designer, going straight to the magazines and seeing all this printed material being discarded has also been part of my work. of course, always wood or any kind of plastic form or anything like that. >> job mr. some of the pieces

you have made while you have been here. -- taught me through some of the pieces you have made while you have been here. >> the first thing that attracted me to this was the printed surface. it was actually a poster. it was a silk screen watercolor, about 8 feet long. in terms of the flatwork, i work with a lot of cloddish. so being able to cut into it come at into it, removed parts, it is part of the process of negotiating the final form. >> how do you jump from the two dimensional work that you create to the three-dimensional? maybe going back from the 3f to 2d. >> everything is in the process of becoming. things are never said or settled. the sculptures are being made while i am doing the collages, and vice versa. it becomes a part of something