beloved open space, retail restaurants and hotels. all thriving in a similar to the city's real estate department. this resolution seeks approval to effect that transfer at the end of the fiscal year, consistent with the property management plan as approved by the state department of finance and their economics commission. we're pleased to recognize the nature of the development and did not take action to tear apart the partnership of commerce, supporting civic good. resolution authorizes the following actions. city acceptance of the deed from the ocii interest on these three blocks. city assumption of lease and agreements per an assignment and assumption agreement. acceptance by the city of all

funds into a separate account consistent with controller direction. the assignment and the jurisdiction of the assets once transferred to the city will be in the real estate department. this will be an escrowed transaction and that's to provide adequate title insurance to the city, to allow for a clear transfer of funds and post escrow reconciliation to account for year end adjustments we expect to be made after july 1. the effect of the transfer is that tenants will pay their rent to a new address and new account. real estate staff will play the role currently executed by ocii staff today, in managing the affairs. but this should be seamless to the thousands of patrons of the yerba buena gardens. probably more in your mind today, this summer the board will see a master lease between the city and yerba buena gardens conservanc

conservancy. that will provide a more nimble path ahead to manage the assets. that master lease is under negotiation now. the team has made tremendous progress in the last couple of months. the main issue under discussion is how to best describe the elements of the gardens and for each of those elements whether they be retail, cultural, the level of authority vested in the conservancy and long-term fiscal issues also. currently the board is setting up their by-laws and conflict of interest rules collaboratively with city staff. i want to provide a few thank youings. i would like to thank josh keen of my staff for his dedicated efforts to advance this complex matter. we would not be in this position to accept and to feel comfortable managing, and accepting these assets without

the help of council, eileen and heidi, jim of occ and hilldy and denise. without them, without the team effort and literally years of discussion to ensure this transaction is seamless to those who enjoy yerba buena gardens couldn't have done it without these folks. happy to answer any questions you might have. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. and i'm going to actually turn it over to supervisor kim now. >> supervisor kim: well, actually, mr. updike did cover the four corners of what we were discussing here today, but i want to express my support and thanks to many of our stakeholders that are part of the yerba buena gardens initiative from the onset, decades ago when we began the redevelopment. and to mr. updike and his team for working on the transfer.

while it seems like a simple action, it actually took us a very long time to get to figuring out a funding stream, what was appropriate to make sure we were investing in the maintenance of this park and it's long-term future, to continue to be a jewel for the yerba buena neighborhood. so i also want to recognize the yerba buena stakeholders, including john and the yerba buena community district for helping to mediate and negotiate this. we do still have a lease that is in negotiation that will come to the board later this year, but i do support us moving forward with the item, but before we do that, can we open up for public comment. item number one is open to public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i'd like to move this forward with recommendation to the full board. >> we'll do that without objection.

resolution imposing interim zoning controls for 18 months to require conditional use permit and specified findings for any conversion of retail use to non-retail sales and service use in the c-3-r downtown retail zoning district. >> supervisor tang: we're joined by supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for scheduling this item. as you know, district 3 includes union square which has been a destination retail zone for generations. and whether it's the amazon effect or changing trends, this retail landscape has been challenged for the last number of years. and i'm actually contemplating two pieces of permanent legislation. one around permanent controls as

there is more pressure to convert retail space particularly at the upper floors to the more lucrative use of office space for which there seems to be endless demand in san francisco. as well as to capture an impact fee for the change from retail to non-retail uses and those two pieces of legislation will be forth coming and i want to thank my staff, as well as folks at the union square bid for working on the legislation. and ultimately, those impact fees would be used for a host of street scape improvements in and around union square that, the union square business improvement district has championed, ranging from maiden lane to a long discussed redesign of the plaza. plans for claude lane, campton

place, and others. as to these interim controls, they would require that the planning commission make additional findings prior to approving any conversion of retail space to non-retail space or office space in the downtown zone, c-3-r district. and just by way of background, what we're trying to do is incent property owners to hole onto retail space. i want to note that the planning department, has been considering this for a couple of years. there was actually set forth in the resolution, two hearings over the last two years at the planning commission based on work and research that the planning department staff and oewd have done. the intent of the interim controls is to keep pushing

planning and oewd to the extent they are contracted to conduct a survey of the existing uses and get the recommendations we need to implement permanent controls to the downtown c-3-r. i totally get there are properties that are mid sale and they are concerned from the uncertainty that this changing zoning environment has caused. as we grapple with the evolving use mix in this area. but i'm confident that these controls will ultimately help restore some of the certainty sooner rather than later. i have one amendment that i'll offer and we're going hear a little bit from folks at planning and oewd. that would be on page 5, bring line 3 -- beginning at line 3

and that will further resolve that if applicant has filed application with the planning department for conditional use of conversion from retail uses to non-retail uses in the c-3-r zoning district prior to may 18, such conversion shall not be subject to these interim controls. that's done with the understanding if the projects are exempt from the interim zoning controls, they will nonetheless be assessed whatever impact fee we craft at the issuance of the building site permits. as to projects like the conversion of the macy's men's store at 120 stockton street, even though they have actually received their entitlements, we still have the ability and they're aware of that to impose the impact fees. to that, i want to thank the

project sponsors and applicants who have approached my office. and i want to thank claudia from planning and lisa from oewd who provided valuable insight. if they want to offer anything to the committee, they are free to do so. with that, madame chair, i turn this over to you. >> thank you very much, did any of the department staff want to comment on the item? now is your chance. ok. no? ok. colleagues, do we have any other questions, comments? we can go to public comment first. we're going to go to public comment first. so item 2 is open for public comment. >> yes, hi, supervisors, eric brook. san francisco several years ago we worked to defend the conditional use and other california environmental quality act protections in san francisco

when they were under attack. so i want to stand up in support of additional conditional use controls in this legislation with our legislators in sacramento doing their best to undermine the local community's abilities to set their own rules for their local community in regards to development. this kind of progress of setting more controls is crucial. so definitely support this. and also, support permanent controls, the ones that supervisor peskin alluded to, be great to have the controls permanent. also great to figure out a way to help local small businesses now that the space is opening from the bigger players. it's probably happened in most of the neighborhoods, it's happening in my neighborhoods, the local small businesses because of rising rents are

being deb devastated. they need an outlet, an affordable place to go. to try to make it so small businesses can have a piece of the action. thanks. >> thank you very much, next speaker, please. . >> good afternoon. rueben juniors and rose, our office represents several property owners the union square area. one of those projects is 120 stockton which is currently used as the macy's men's store, but is no longer owned by macy's and was approved for conversion. 50,000 square feet of office on the 6th and 7th floor. i would like to thank supervisor peskin and his office for cooperation and availability on the legislation. we appreciate the amendment that will grandfather pending and approved applications. that said, we do have one

additional concern. i wanted to see if there was a possibility of doing minor amendment in that regard. for 120 stockton with the recent approval, the project team is moving forward with full speed on the leasing efforts. and we're concerned about a scenario whereby we might have a potential tenant for the upper floors that might consist of another non-retail use, similar to the ice cream museum and the color factory. these uses are non-retail and fall into the arts activity category and would be subject to the interim control. however, they're very appropriate for example for the 4th and 5th levels and would bring people into union square and help with other retail uses. we do not have application pending for that change, but that could be relevant in the near term and nabt to move

forward, could jeopardize that ability. so what we're asking for is exclusion for the upper floors potentially and while i use the museum as an example, that use could be any other type of non-retail use, arts, entertainment or institutional use. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i'm the executive director of the union square business improvement district. we represent the property owners and merchants around union square. we're the c-3-r district. and we have been working with planning around oewd to really look at our district and understand the best use when this was introduced. we appreciate both aaron's time and lee's over the past week to weigh in on the legislation

which is so important to us. we're not taking a position. honestly, the board has not had time to be thoughtful about it and take a position, but we certainly have heard from a number of projects coming forward. and appreciate you grandfathering in the projects that have been approved. i know there is two more an planning on thursday and sounds like they'll be included as well. we do appreciate that. we're concerned about the next round of projects, the pipeline. it's squary to have a -- scary to have a moratorium, we appreciate any projects willing to give back and improve our district and revitalize the alleys. it's important if you take something away, you're gaining upside to give back to the community. we do want to support our stakeholders and the overall vibrancy of the district. we would like as much retail and vibrancy as possible. we hope to work with you over the coming and make this moratorium quick.

>> good afternoon. my name is william rutland and i represent macy's which has been a retailer there for decades. we believe that we are in agreement with what supervisor peskin is trying to accomplish. we have a little bit of concern about some of the language that requires us to get information, that it's hard for us to get. i understand the planning department is trying to get. it also requires us to seek out non-retail use space for potential tenants that could compliment. we know we're trying to accomplish the same thing. and that is maintain the vitality of this great district. we also want to maintain the economic stability of our company and the city. we'd like an opportunity to work with you to accomplish just

that. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, jim lazarus, san francisco chamber of commerce, i wanted to thank supervisor peskin and his staff for working with us and the union square association and our members. we're in a changing environment downtown, but actually if you think back, it changed a long time ago. growing up here, there were half 0 dozen locally owned department stores, multilevel stores that don't exist. one of them is a garage above ground floor gap retail, banana republic. so things have changed they're going to continue to change. we're in a period now of trying to figure out what is the driving need for retail in downtown above the ground floor. so i urge you to really think carefully about this.

to be open to further amendments over the 18-month period so we do not prevent change for occurring where it's necessary and where minds can meet over the uses of upper floors. we believe that retail -- interesting, entertainment, destination focused retail, major department stores in the downtown area will continue to thrive, but we've had a lot of vacancies on one, two and three-story buildings in the union square area for a long time that need to be dealt with. and holding out hope for upper floor retail may only continue those vacancies and that doesn't help the retail community as a whole. so we look forward to working with you, supervisor, over the next 18 months craft this. and hope you would be open to looking at it during that period of time. thank you.

>> good evening, board of supervisors and audience. yes, i agree with that, so you won't say i'm off the subject, but you would be remiss, if ace on the case didn't get up here, you're all talking about orders and retail, let me tell you what really smells. come down fillmore street and see if we have retails that look like me, a-c-e, happens to be a black man. you will see all this hoopla, this rhetoric. what happened on the fillmore street? ladies and gentlemen, you should have been there saturday. i tell you about that later. my name is ace, i'm on the case. i know you pleased with this, i can say this now, don't get me started, any of you, supervisorings, this is public hearing, i already said i support it, but be remiss if i didn't get up here and tell you what we missing in the fillmore.

i'm going to do that until the day god kills me. the fill no more. no retailers. what have you got, no retailers, no merchants, all you got is me, a-c-e. so i'm here to tell you all today you're in for a good show at city hall. i call it silly hall. we're going to see things about the government, things about you elected officials should have been doing a long time ago. got 29 seconds. let me see what i'm going to say. i'm getting good at this. listen, i just want to say one thing for sure, i am hardened, my heart is hardened for the black folks in the city by the bay, because it seem like nobody care about us. ed lee, may he rest in peace, but i'm here still talking about the fillmore street. my name is ace, i'm on the case, you're all in for a good show today at city hall.

i call it silly hall. >> thank you very much, any other members of the public that wish to comment? seeing none, public comment for item 2 is closed. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame chair, i want to thank ms. flood, mr. lazarus and mr. rutland and others who spoke during public comment. i do want to address one misconception which we have clarified with planning and i'm sure our deputy city attorney mr. givner can speak to it. but as to any conversion of retail to another form of less traditional retail, including but not limited to museum use, including some of the stuff that has been proposed for the 4th and 5th floors of 120 stockton would not be subject to these controls. if you want to address that, but that is our understanding from planning. and then with regard to the larger question of the 18 months. it is my profound desire and

intention to have permanent controls and impact fee done within that 18-month period. if we can get that done this calendar year, these interim controls would then sunset when we had the permanent controls and the impact fee and we're working as quickly as we can to achieve that. i'm not interested in having interim controls in the sake of having them. planning has been talking about this now for two years. this is going to be a gentle nudge to finally consummate that to the form of permanent controls. >> supervisor safai: just want to say briefly, i really appreciate the spirit of this -- these interim controls. i think it is our duty as one of the bodies that sets policy for land use we be cognizant of not just what is happening in trends today, but what with epredict

and want to see the shape of the future of the city. when we have a retail district, in my opinion is one of the best downtown shopping districts in the entire united states, that when there is tremendous pressure on that to convert into something other than retail, whether it's a second, third or fourth floor, we have to do everything we can to preserve that. and this is in many ways one of the reasons why people come from all over the world, on top of so many other things about san francisco. so i applaud supervisor peskin working with the planning department and the community benefit district and all the retailers and shop building owners in the downtown district. but i would say not just thinking about what is happening today, there is insatiable desire to create more office space in this city. and we're going to have that conversation about certain parts of the city that is being re-zened for millions and millions of square feet. the question before us and will

continue to be, is the union square shopping district the place to have office space? i would lean on the side of no. i appreciate this and moving forward. but i'm cognizant of people owning property. i look forward to supporting you in that. >> supervisor peskin: through the chair, to supervisor safai, thank you for that, and i want to throw out one statistic. a very recent study for 2016, showed that union square generates approximately 37% of the san francisco's sales tax and general consumer goods which is a remarkable figure. so there -- we also have financial interests in making sure that the retail vibrancy continues unabated and so i wanted to make sure we don't end up regretting decisions to convert to office space where if

we were creative -- even if we had some pdr and manufacturing uses that actually used to exist at union square, that it might be the right thing as supervisor safai said in terms of looking forward. manufacturing spaces becoming hot and we should try to incent things like that as well. if a member of the committee wants to move the aforementioned and circulated amendment and send this to the full board with recommendation, i would be delighted. >> so moved. >> supervisor tang: we have motion for amendment without objection. and if we can get a motion. >> make a motion to send this the full board with positive recommendations with amendment. >> we'll do that without objection. thank you, supervisor peskin. item 3. >> hearing on the cleanup time line and disputes between federal regulators and the united states navy on the

percentage of parcel g to be retested and the methodology of retesting soil at hunters point shipyard. >> i'm going to turn it over to supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for attending today's highly anticipated hearing. first things first. i want to just acknowledge at the chair's request we will be limiting public comment to one minute per speaker to ensure everyone has an opportunity to speak. the department of toxic substance control, the environmental protection agency and u.s. navy, along with their cleanup contractor about the cleanup time line and methodology of cleanup at the hunters point's shipyard. in particular, we're here to discuss the accusations of echo fraud, falsified tests, cleanup methodology and the percentage

of parcel g that will be retested following renewed public discussion of the level of which fraudulent testing took place at the shipyard. while this most recent iteration of intrigue and speculation on the cleanup process arose as an outcome of a letter from john chestnut, who is a manager of the epa local super fund division, it was obtained by an advocacy group called public employees for environmental responsibility, also known as peer. conversations about the cleanup have been happening for over 30 years. given the renewed skepticism about the cleanup, the renewed skepticism about the methodology, individuals and families living on parcel a, all have reached out to me with their concerns.

i have expectant families contacting my office about giving birth and raising children on what is widely p perceived to be toxic land. some want to know how they might get out of their leases. and this is not new. this is not new. these are not new questions being raised. for years, i have heard very real fears from the community and very little appropriate response from the navy, or any other federal agency about their work. i want to say on the record, unequivocally, that i want the united states navy to commit to testing parcel a. [applause] >> supervisor cohen: thank you, this has been decades -- a

decade's long cleanup process and no end in sight. this has been eroded by the process. the navy needs to commit to doing the right thing and that begins with scanning parcel a for hazardous materials. i've called on my -- excuse me -- i'll called on my congressional delegation for help because we need the attention of our federal representatives. we need them to coordinate the piece of this work that is outside of the san francisco jurisdiction and focus on this matter, because it's a question of environmental injustice. we need them to coordinate and work with us. we need them to coordinate this piece of work that is outside of the jurisdiction, to help rectify the environmental justice. just this morning, congresswoman pelosi joined me in the call for testing parcel a, what she has described as an abundance of

caution. we have copies of this letter for members of the public. i don't have one for every member of the public. committee persons, there should be a letter on your desk. i printed copies and the clerk will have copies to make the letter available. i would like to see that the money she secured be directed in part toward the scanning of parcel a. when it comes to accountability, we're grateful that the doj is doing their job and has sent in supervisors, but we want more. we need more assurances. if there was any wrongdoing, we will need to find it and hold the people accountable for their actions. again, today's hearing is focused on the retesting of parcel g where is falsified tests have been confirmed. i want to let the public know we would never take contaminated land and knowingly put people in danger.

i also think this is a pivotal moment to all of the community advocates for years that have been claiming and crying out for retesting. we have heard you. and now is your moment. thank you for your continued advocacy. to date i have no reviewed documents that have led me to believe that the hazardous materials were ever stored on parcel a. but at this point, i'm not willing to take the navy's word for it at face value. i think we must continue to demand the best -- what is the in the best interest of our residents living in parcel a and those who lived in, around and worked on the shipyard. some may have asked me if i trust the navy and if i trust tetra tech and for me, it's not a question of about tests or trust. really, it's a matter of ensuring that enough objective

and people are overseeing the work, ensuring that the navy and the epa are doing their job. we need assurances before attempt to transfer land to the city of san francisco. i haven't learned anything new that would give me faith in the process, being any different now from the process that was used in the past to test the land from the shipyard. i want to emphasize that cleanup and remediating the situation is in the hands of the federal area, the navy, dtsc and epa. despite what they put in the media, tetra tech messed up big time. this has been a decade long cleanup process and at some point, corners were cut under the tetra tech supervision, landing us in the situation we have today. finally to the public, i want you to know, we hear you and

take your concerns seriously. have been and always will. i'm holding this hearing with the hope that all those involved can work toward the same goal and that's frankly to end the era of toxicity, beginning a new era of housing and prosperity in the district. and most importantly, giving a voice to the residents of the bayview hunters point community, you need to be validated, and acknowledged. i want to begin by inviting laura from the united states navy to present first. we'll hear presentation from the navy. we will then hear a presentation from tetra tech. followed by dtsc, epa, golden gate university, the department of public health, ocii, and of course, our beloved marie harrison from green action. >> thank you, supervisor cohen.

before we begin, is it all right to give our colleagues a chance to speak? we have supervisor kim on the roallison ross ter and -- roster and supervisor fewer. >> supervisor kim, has been hand in hand, holing the navy accountable, so i would love for her to engage on the hearing. >> supervisor tang: thank you, and thank you for your leadership, supervisor cohen. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: as cosponsor of the hearing, i want to acknowledge the work of your office making sure we're holding the navy and federal contractors accountable to the health, safety and well-being of all of our residents. i joined in not just because this is city-wide issue, but we have to a similar project on treasure island and while tetra tech plays a different role, i have a number of questions given

the incredible mall practice that has emerged. it is abhorrent and unacceptable we've allowed any of our residents to be exposed when there has already been so much mistrust over the last decade how the cleanup would occur and how the monitoring would take place. i served on the board of education with then commissioner sandra fewer. when we first heard the issue a decade ago, when residents were concerned the cleanup would not happen, they would be lied to, they were not as safe as they were told they were. it is now concerning to have two employees of the federal contractor go to prison, as judged by our court of the law. that is only further confirmed what many of the residents felt, this neighborhood is neglected, it's not a priority, that we don't care about the health and

safety and well-being of all of our residents. that said, this hearing is to ask questions and to get answers. i just want to reiterate what supervisor cohen said, i 100% support the retesting of parcel a, even if there is no scientific evidence to support a retesting. i think given the incredible breach of trust that has occurred, it is entirely reasonable for our residents to ask for this and our city and delegation should push for it. i will be brief, because i know members of the public want to speak, but i will have questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, chair tang. i wanted to say that i'm happy to be a cosponsor of the hearing. this is a very important issue as supervisor kim mentioned, we both worked on the school board and we've heard about this issue for a long time. what we've heard in the news recently is appalling and offensive that people would put

profits over the health and well-being of human beings. it is criminal. and i think that we have seen them being punished criminally and not long enough in my opinion. i also in favor of retesting of parcel a, it's about gaining trust, but it goes beyond trust, but it's about accountable and making sure it's right, that is the city's job. >> supervisor tang: i want to acknowledge, i heard minister christopher's voice, i want to thank him for being outstanding and being an advocate when few people were paying attention. thank you. [applause] >> supervisor tang: so now, supervisor cohen, i know you listed off speakers. i'm turning over the hearing to you. >> supervisor cohen: first up, the united states navy, ms. laura ducheck.

>> just in case you're wondering why the navy is going first, they're the original landowners. and they will be setting up the parameter and framing up the early parts of this conversation. >> ok, good afternoon, supervisor cohen and other distinguished supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the department of the navy's work at the former naval hunters point shipyard. hunters point is an important part of the san francisco history. it played a vital role in the national defense, especially during world war ii and after. all with the support of the bayview community. since closure in 1991, the navy has undertaken environmental cleanup resulting from many years of important industrial work at the shipyard. at this epa super fund site we have invested $1 billion on cleanup for chemicals and low

level radiological contamination. the vast majority of the work in excess of $750 million has been successfully completed. we are proud of the efforts and we will be here until it is properly completed. the most challenging issue has been the radiological cleanup work. this would be true under any circumstance due to the low levels of radiation that are near the levels that are naturally occurring in the environment, commonly referred to as background levels. however, the larger issue and why we're here today, some portions of the roughly $250 million of radiological analysis and cleanup work performed by tetra tech has been questioned. the company currently known as tetra tech began radiological work on the site in 2002. the navy originally discovered irregularities in radiological

data through the ongoing quality control procedures in 2012. we initially worked with tetra tech and the regulatory agencies to address those issues and rework was performed from 2012 to 2014. in 2014, tetra tech released a soil sample report as documentation. in 2013 deviated from the work plans while conducting surveys throughout the site. as a results, the state suspended their recommendations in 2015 and tetra tech reperformed radiological sur. subsequently, the navy identified additional issues. then former tetra tech employees came forward with specific

claims of deliberate falsification of tests, improper work and fraudulent record keeping. at this point, the navy paused the program for a comprehensive review. after exploring the allegations in 2016, the navy initiated and led a data evaluation and analysis effort from the group of radiological experts consisting of independent contractors and consortium of universities. in november, 2017, the navy concluded that there were more problems with the tetra tech cleanup data at hunters point which created uncertainty in the overall work. this conclusion was reinforced by a second data evaluation proportionated by epa, using different methodology. we understand that credible reliable data is imperative to establish that the property is safe to transfer to the local community. that is why we've halted all

remaining transfers of the property at hunters point and have been working closely with epa and the california regulatory agencies on the next steps. we're in agreement with epa that all of tetra tech work areas must be reevaluated. the navy will be releasing a draft work plan within the next month. this will allow us to retest and certify the property is safe for transfer. the navy is taking action against tetraeffect for its unsatisfactory work. we are in the process of contractual remedy force the noncompliant work. additionally, we have provided the department of justice with our findings to aid in the investigation. earlier this hospital, two tetra tech employees received criminal sentences for their part in the fraudulent work at hunters point. both the navy and department of

justice are committed to pursuing and persecuting contractor fraud to the fullest extent of the law. we have been and will continue to be open and transparent with the local community on the environmental work at hunters point. we hold four community meetings, bus tours of the shipyard and provide the latest information on the website. last year, we hired a radiological technical expert, the head of the oregon state university school of nuclear science and engineering, who has a ph.d. in radiological health sciences and is a physicist. on may 7, 2018, we held a meeting with the residents of parcel a to explain the history of the property and listen to concerns. they have verified the safety of

the parcel which has been investigated, cleared and removed from the program in 1999 and epa surveyed the parcel twice before transfer. parcel a is safe. i would live there. i would have my family live there. however, we understand that the broader issues have sparked concern among parcel a homeowners, therefore, we have engaged with the regulatory agencies to evaluate options to provide additional information to reinforce the property's safety. i would like to mention the most recent allegations regarding improper soil disposal from hunters point. we are in the internal review process. there are procedures in place designated to ensure the soil is characterized and disposed of in the proper land fills. however, those procedures were not designed to prevent fraudulent activity.

we're reviewing the process and we intend to work with the landfill owners to address their concerns. for many years, the navy has worked closely with epa, california department of public health and the department of toxic substances control to achieve our common goal of environmental cleanup that is protective of human health and environment. we have a positive and productive working relationship with the city of san francisco and look forward to continuing that relationship with the future. we are appreciative of the funding provided by congress to support this site. and the extensive cleanup effort. as we move forward, the city of san francisco residents and policymakers can trust that the navy and regulatory agencies will uphold our mutual goal of ensuring that the environmental work is properly completed and the remaining 858 acres have safely transferred to the city. the navy has put measures in

place ensuring quality assurance, compliance and oversight measures. again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our extensive cleanup efficients at the former hunters point shipyard today. we look forward to a successful conclusion of our work at hunters point. we were determined that our legacy here will be positive. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: i have several questions, 13 of them, to ask you. >> ok. >> supervisor cohen: when is the property going get transferred to the city? >> so i can't tell you exactly when the property is going to be transferred, but what i can tell you, we have completed our extensive data evaluation. we have -- >> supervisor cohen: and the reason -- excuse me -- the reason why you can't tell me when it's going to get transfer

is? because of what reason? >> we have to figure out what testing needs to take place. that needs to be conclude. once that is concluded, we can prepare the property for transfer. what we're focused on now is getting the rework in place to so the retesting can take place. >> supervisor cohen: when is this cleaned up so we can have the property, it's been 30 years, when is this going to happen? your work plan. you mentioned the work plan. >> yeah, so the work plan will be out in the next month. it will go for public comment. once public comment is received, then we can finalize that and proceed to field to do the retesting. at the conclusion of the retesting effort, we'll be able to determine what actions need to be taken, if any. and we'll be prepared for transfer. >> supervisor cohen: if you were to start over, how long would it

take to retest parcel g? by retest, i mean, pull the soil out of the ground, pull out pads and run scanners over the soil? >> well, depending on what retesting plan is approved, that will dictate how long it takes to get through it. we anticipate being in the field roughly 3-6 months and after that time, we get the reports and finalize from there. >> supervisor cohen: do you think that 30 days is sufficient amount of time for public comment on the work plan? >> generally, we do 30 days. i understand there might be interest in extending that to 60 days. we would certainly entertain that. >> supervisor cohen: ok. what is the process -- what process do you envision for retesting the soil on parcel g? >> i think there will be combination of processes, trenches will be dug, samples will be put in place. we'll do a whole host running

the gamut of what was originally done to test that parcel. >> supervisor cohen: when will the work plan for the retesting be issued and will the community be able to review and comment? >> the work plan should go out within the next month. it will be available for public comment. >> ok. >> and how did you let this fraud with tetra tech happen? >> well, i would say that we detected it. our internal quality procedures did exactly what they were intended to do. our health businesses reviewed the data, found irregularities and we worked through that procedurally. i would say it did end up taking much longer than we would have liked to resolve the issue, to get to the place where we're doing retesting, but we found the data and we stopped the issue.

and we are now proceeding to do the retesting and move forward. >> supervisor cohen: i guess the question is, at what point -- how much did you know and when did you know it? >> well, as i explained, in 2012, we detected some irregularities in the soil. and at that point, it looked like a limited issue and we worked to resolve those issues from 2012 to 2014. there were then additional issues. as we've learned more information, that led us to cause a pause and halt and do a complete comprehensive reevaluation. i think at this point, you should feel very comfortable that we will have more data on this site than any other site. >> supervisor cohen: ok. i'm curious to know internally, the navy it's a big huge

organization, how have you made sure that fraud doesn't happen again? particularly to the hunters point shipyard, but i'm also thinking about the other super fund projects on the land that you currently own. what channels have you put in place to ensure this doesn't repeat itself? >> so we have hired third party monitoring to provide oversight at many of our sites. we certainly have had it in place in the bay area since this initially was detected. and we're continuing to increase our oversight and field processes. >> supervisor cohen: in what way are you holding tetra tech accountable? >> as i mentioned, we're pursuing contractual action. we're also providing information to the investigative branches that are proceeding with any of their investigations. >> supervisor cohen: do you continue to contract with them? >> we are no longer contracting

for any radiological work with tetra tech in the bay area. >> supervisor cohen: that means you're still contracting with them on other projects, other aspects of your -- >> well, we're following the federal acquisition regulations. we're providing all the feedback and input we can to the contracting process. >> supervisor cohen: despite the two supervisors being sentenced to time in prison, there was no fine given to tetra tech. the nuclear regulatory commission fined tetra tech $7,000, then negotiated in lieu of paying the fine, they would better train their staff. do you think this is a reasonable punishment? >> i don't really think i should pass judgment on different agencies' actions, but what i would encourage you to talk to

the nuclear regulatory commission about their actions. >> supervisor cohen: when will you be moving forward with the offer from tetra tech to pay a third party to retest all places that the tetra tech company tested in the past? >> so as we mentioned, third party retesting is a critical element of us moving forward. we certainly need more details from the broad public offer from tetra tech to pay for the rework. and we'll follow up with that. but we are focused on getting the retesting under way. along with a regulatory approved work plan. >> supervisor cohen: how close to radioactive materials would one have to live in order to be in danger? >> i don't know that i can answer that. since i'm not a health

physicist, but i can say we do not believe there is any danger at hunters point from radiological exposure. please stand by.

. >> supervisor cohen: i just want to make sure that we're very clear in what we're talking about, 'cause i can see you're emphatic about answering the question, but it seems that it's erbsoed with parcel a. what about -- associated with parcel a. what about parcel g? >> yes. any folks that access hunters point are safe. >> supervisor cohen: how dow guarantee their safety? how do you guarantee that they're not in danger? >> there have been tests, and folks have looked at the artists colony where the police are, any of the other folks that are on the base, those areas have been evaluated and deemed safe.

>> supervisor cohen: all right. well, can you speak to building 322 which was temporarily placed on parcel a? >> yes. building 322 was the only building on parcel a that tetratech did any work. it was scanned, demolished, and removed from the sites. as we mentioned earlier, that parcel a has been repeatedly studied and cleared. that building was demolished and removed, and upon its completion, e.p.a. did a hand scan of that area and detected no radiological activity. >> supervisor cohen: what was stored in building 322? >> i don't even remember what was stored in 322. do you guys know? it was just administrative...yeah, i believe it was just administrative. >> supervisor cohen: okay. there seems to be some disagreement with that in

chambers. >> we can confer tirm the use building 322. >> supervisor cohen: okay. i appreciate that. has any information come to your attention or have any e.p.a. standards changed since the transfer of parcel a, d-2, uc-1 or uc-2 which would make you reconsider that those parcels were safe for transfer? and again, i'm asking, has there been any information because it's been a long period of time that we've been cleaning up the shipyard? have the standards changed? >> there is nothing in the changes in standards that would cause us any concern. >> supervisor cohen: what standards have changed? which ones? >> no standards have changed? >> supervisor cohen: is it safe for the navy to make the

parcel safe for future developments? >> we have. >> supervisor cohen: and will you? >> we will. >> supervisor cohen: okay. that's concerning that the navy doesn't know or realize that. supervisor kim, i just want to give you a chance to chime in here. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i appreciate many of the questions that were already asked in regards to the shipyard. i'm just going to shift to treasure island which is part of the district that i represent. we know about the falsification of the data as it related to hunters point. can you describe the scope of work that tetratech does on treasure island? >> i can. i have some limited information with me on treasure island today. they performed radiological work between 2007 and 2008, and they also performed radiological work between 2014 and 2015.

they work included buildings 334, 333, investigations of site open space, and a radiological survey to support demolition, buildings 1121 and 1323. and lastly, a final status survey of the i.r. site 6 area. >> supervisor kim: how does their work on treasure island differ from the work on hunters point? is it similar, is it surveying and investigation work on both areas? >> some of it was similar, surveying and investigation work, but on traerk island, we had an extensive work on-site 12, dwelling units as well as all the open space. cdph also did that scanning, so there are two independent sites that scanned that area, and it was preempted by no issue or

misconduct, it was because the navy determined or site model didn't model accurately how any of the radiological elements could have been spread, and when we determined that, we took the action to scan the entire site. that area was heavily overseen. >> supervisor kim: okay. so when you say the navy, and the california department of health scanned that site, meaning your employees and california department of health employees did the scan of this site. >> so the navy hired a contractor that did it, but there were navy employees there overseeing the work throughout. >> supervisor kim: and who was the contractor? >> i believe it was cbni or shaw. >> supervisor kim: and when you say the navy was overseeing the contractor's work, wasn't the navy overseeing the work of tetratech at the time of falsification of the data. >> they were. >> supervisor kim: it wasn't that the navy discovered the falsification of the data via