more affordable housing sites over the next 20 years to achieve that goal. and while some progress has been made and several sites have been identifies, and several have been secured, it's only a small number, four or five or six, compared to the 15 or 20 that we will audibly need in the long haul. to do that, it is essential that some of the housing fees paid by developers -- and i'm thinking specifically of the inclusionary housing in lieu fee, the fee outs by the luxury towers that are planned for soma, that those funds, some of those funds be allocated to a land banking fund by m.o.h. m.o.h. can't do that, and without that, it won't be possible to ak require those sites. thanks to amendments that this

board legislatively approved, sites can be approved, and that should be targeted and done as quickly as possible. so i'm here to urge you to do this and to look for every opportunity to have developers provide sites, as well, for which they will be reimbursed their cost. but without those sites for the long haul, the promise that we're making to the community actually will not happen. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is gina lejo, and i work at somcan. the plan states as one of its main goals accommodating housing demand and addressing such demand to alleviate housing prices. the plan, however, does not provide any further studies or figures that support the claim

that the new development will drive down housing costs. as a result, the goal of the plan of maintaining the diversity of residents here in terms of socioeconomic background appears empty. many cities are now realizing the impact of the push to build without adequate controls and enforcement in place, s.r.o.s in soma will not continue to be used as open and accessible affordable housing options. new condos will be used because they are not occupied by the investors and as short-term commercial rentals and student housing instead of residential use. the city needs to balance the missive displamt by having restrictions on s.r.o. and developments in the plan to only

allow transitional housing or senior housing. that's all. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. david wu with the south of market community action network. this was adopted by the board of supervisors in january 2009 with the purpose of expanding the stock of affordable housing as well as protecting and enhancing the health and environment of youth and families in the south of market by encouraging uses that support their lively hoods such as employment, workforce development, open space, community based organizations, schools and pedestrian safety. planning, however, continues to ignore the priorities and intention wz of the youth and family special use district and this extends to the central soma plan, as well we demand that planni planning devise and strengthen the controls of the special use

district, and apply it to the whole plan. there are three new hotel projects that are in the central soma plan that are not be considered as full sites. all three sites are within the family full use special use district, and since one of the uses is to expand the stock of affordable housing, we urge you to not support these projects and instead consider them as sites for affordable housing to address the huge jobs housing imbalance in the plan. thank you. >> hi. my name is norman dagleman and i'm a resident of district five and neighbors united. and i'm concerned about gentrification in this area. thank you.

>> hello, supervisors. my name is lee ann ladia. i work in the field of art, history, and design. i work at somcan and soma filipinas. i usually work in community engagement, creating community planning workshops with youth, seniors, and parents, and i urge you to take note of this process whenever you design something in the south of market so that the designs and the feedback that you will get will be culturally competent. in terms of the central soma plan, the reality of global warming coupled with high concentration of automobiles in the south of market lead to an urgent need to take proactive

steps to address greenhouse gas emissions and poor air quality. there is such a lack of green space and greenery in general in the south of market and just last week i was in a community planning workshop with seniors from mendelsohn house, and they were complaining that there's such a lack of green space in soma. and they would actually going to washington park at kearny street, take the 30 bus to exercise, to do their daily exercise. and i also urge you to think about, you know, these seniors who were a result of the past redevelopment planning events that happened in the past years. mendelsohn house and wolf house were in existence because of the redevelopment plans that happened in the south of market. we will see an undeniable increase in automobile traffic due to the resulting of the plan

and living rooms must be required. in addition we have said in previous hearings that -- [inaudible] >> supervisor tang: thank you. thank you. [inaudible] >>clerk: thank you, ma'am. your time is up. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is erica martinovic, and i'm with somcan. there's no additional affordability currently required, allowing this developer benefits that come with it monetary value, whether that value has been quantified or not without additional public benefit is a complete give away, there must be at least a 10%

increase of the affordable. the exceptions being allowed to private outdoor space -- [inaudible] >> -- highlight a larger issue of the reliance of this form in the plan. there are no controls in place to require that popos are actually designed and programs to be community serving and actually function like true public open spaces. this further cements that they are not public open 135iss and the strategy for providing public open space under this plan is inadequate. p.d.r. replacement requirements must be applied to all types of developments regardless of use. for example, p.d.o. replacement requirements must include

residential developments. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. i feel like you've heard these comments from me a few times. i'm in support. perhaps some more density equity in the city would be helpful all the way around. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. any other members of the public who wish to comment on items 9 through 13? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: can i just ask planning staff to respond to some of the concerns about pupo that just came out of the recent comment that ensure that we put design standards in that allow the public to feel welcome, so when they're -- and i know that planning shares these same concerns, but when we allow pupos under cantilevers or if we

design them a certain way, they don't feel welcome. >> josh switzky with planning staff. yes, supervisors, one of the i thi think -- things that is recommended by the planning staff was to add an additional criteria in the design review process to include that the design should be attract tiive a broad array of the population including families with children and seniors and so forth. the plan already has an sne incentive baked into the plan if the developer provides parks, dog runs, and other amenities that are more atypical of popos.

the department is also commit today moving forward with a new set of guidelines, which the department was already going to be undertaking to guide developers and the community in terms of looking at the pupos in the future, and that is starting to get underway, skb so we hope that that will be completed and adopted in the next few months, as well. >> will there be any dedicated meetings with the public to ensure that their feedback is included? >> yes, sure. >> and finally what is currently in the plan today? >> so the -- the -- the -- the planning commission did recommend some minor amendments to actually put more bounds on the potential exception that's could be given to the rules that the ppos must be open to the

outdoor sky to allow some very minor space to see count towards that if they are not very -- spaces to count that if they are not very deep. so generally, we are skeptical of spaces that are not outdoors, or otherwise use index a very limited way. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: so as i mentioned earlier, we are currently still drafting a number of amendments for next monday. i did hear you loud and clear. i know that the mic turned off, but a request from the community to request the new jobs housing fee nexus study that was undertaken by the mayor's office so we have an understanding of what those would be, understand the last one was done in 1997, and it is clearly outdated. so i will be pushing for that, and the community, i know, will

be continuing to push for that, as well. at this time, i'll make a motion to continue items 9 through 11 to the land use committee of next week. >>clerk: i'm sorry. 9 through 13? >> supervisor kim: yes. 9 through 13. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. and now we're going to go back to item eight. >> would you like me to call item number eight? i'm sorry, would you like me to call it? >> supervisor tang: yes, please. >>clerk: a resolution urging b.a.r.t. to add a bus note at 24th street b.a.r.t. station in san francisco during the trans bay two seismic retrofit. >> okay. thank you very much. we have amy binart from

supervisor ronen's office here. >> and i have some amendments that i was hoping that -- thanks very much. amy binart here, legislative aide here to supervisor hillary ronen, here to speak about a resolution that supervisor ronen introduced on september 24. it's could sponsored by supervisors rafael mandelman and valerie brown, and it's urging the board to add a b.a.r.t. note at 24th street station to indicate a later start time before the retrofit which is scheduled to start in february and take three years. many minimum wage workers have been displaced in the city and continue to work in the city where they're required to begin

their day as early as 5:00 a.m., and they depend on the public transit for their daily commute. this change in hours would disproportionately affect people in color, two thirds of b.a.r.t. riders in the first hour of service are people of color, compared to just over half throughout the rest of the day, and this would disproportionately affect low-income commuters. while temporary, the change is not short-term, we cannot have workers arriving late for 3.5 years and expect them to retain their job. the change of service is a critical issue for our hospitality, construction, and janitorial industries, low-income, early morning workers who provide essential goods and services for our economy and daily operations of our city's residents and visitors. these industries have already been struggling with massive worker shortage, and any reduction could hit them hard. we appreciate the effort to date

by b.a.r.t. and m.t.a. to work together to plan for this construction. there's been a lot of negotiation and planning going on. we were at the b.a.r.t. board of directors last thursday, and since that time, there's been some progress. we want to urge that to continue, and specifically, we're asking that they confirm and enter into these agreements for the 24th street bus node, which is a central locus from where a lot of low-income, low wage workers find their way to work close by. we want them to settle on a route that takes them from the transit center to 24th street without stopping at civic center and powell street and embarcadero because that will slow down this -- what's already going to be a fairly slow surface ride, and we want to ensure that they get to a bus schedule that's going to match a current b.a.r.t. train. so there are some amendment -- one amendment that we proposed

to the kurccurrent resolution, we're hoping to see that move forward today. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and did you want to state for the record exactly what that amendment is? >> sure. on the second page, lines 10 through 13, it's now shown that the resolution states, further resolved that the san francisco board of supervisors urges the b.a.r.t. board to implement a morning route that will allow riders to arrive at 24 street as the current arrival of b.a.r.t. at 24 street tappi. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and how have your conversations been going with the b.a.r.t. board? >> so the b.a.r.t. staff came to meet with us today. b.a.r.t. board has been very interested. i know they've been hearing this

from -- local 2 have been speaking with them. they've been hearing it from the golden gate restaurant association, and they've been working to figure this out. it is a tangle to unravel. there are eight bus line services that they do have would work with, and they want to make sure of the critical mass of one bus node and bring them across. the progress that they've made -- the significant progress that they've made at this point i think is in planning to -- to skip over the -- the -- the other spots -- the other nodes between transit center and 24 street, so it would go straight from transit center, 16 street, 24 street, glen park, balboa park, and so that kind of jumps over the downtown area, and there would be a separate line

which would take people to the downtown area, which seems much more efficient. i think it's in progress. what we want to do is make sure that they understand that we're really serious about this, we're watching it, we're watching it from our end because they've got a big map to look at. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you very much. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: just so i understand this a little bit more, this -- you're saying in this -- the resolve on page two, b.a.r.t. implement 24 street as part of their mitigation strategy to offset later a.m. start time, to those who use 16 street -- so how does the 24th street then help the balboa b.a.r.t. station. >> very good question, supervisor, and i can see where you'd be particularly interested in that station. so they would be -- so the 24 street station is -- or actually, in this case, probably

we'll end up with the 16 street station will be the first stop along the way to move people south ward. so rather than having folks brought across the bay by buses to transit center and then starting to go to each of the -- each of the nodes along the way, each of the b.a.r.t. stops along the way. we'll get an express bus that goes to 24. it may be 16, but we're work og 24 be the first one, and then south. >> supervisor safai: but it would still hit all the other -- >> yes. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you. colleagues any other comments or questions on item eight? seeing none -- sorry. we're now going to go to public comment on item eight. any members of the public who wish to speak, come on up. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we first get a

motion on the amendment on item eight. we'll do that without objection, and on the under lying item as amended, if approximate we can get a motion on that? >> supervisor kim: motion to approve with recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: all right. as amended, so we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. madam clerk, if we can now go to item 14, and we are joined by the sponsor of that hearing, supervisor cohen. >>clerk: yes. item 14 is a hearing on the cleanup timeline and disputes between federal regulators and the united states navy on the percentage of parcel g to be retested and the mestology for retesting soil at hunters point shipyard and requesting d.p.h., ocii, u.s. navy examine the united states environmental protection agency to report. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i'm going to turn the hearing over to president cohen. >> president cohen: thank you very much, madam chair. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. let's wake up and get excited, because we're going to talk

about the hunters point shipyard. we need everyone's full focus. i just want to reframe about what we're doing and why we're doing it. may should, 2018 i called a meeting of the regulatory agencies specifically to the hunters point naval shipyard cleanup. so today we're requesting an update of the timeline of the testing of parcel g. i also want to clarify the roles and the responsibilities betwee

bayview-hunters point. so today, i want to make sure the public's concerns are addressed and that we continue to hold people accountable for the work that they're doing in and on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. so with that, what i plan to do is to use this hearing to ask questions and obtain information on the retesting of the land on parcel g and also at this time acknowledging that this is just the beginning of the process to earn and to build trust in the city for those agencies that are responsible for the health and the well-being of the community. so that ends my open remarks. i wanted to just recognize kim

atroski, who we will be inviting to speak first. she and her team from the navy. following her will be mos mosin nazimi from the department of toxic substance control, and then, we will heart from the california department of public health, and then followed by the e.p.a., we will also have a presentation from the san francisco department of public health. as you begin to share your statements, please indicate two things: your agency's roles, and the responsibilities in the parcel g work plan. your agency role, and then, your responsibility in the parcel g work plan. all right, kimberly, you're up. come on down. good to see you. kimberly's bringing with her a team of professionals, derek, zach, thomas, lawrence, and bill. these are an extraordinary team

representing the navy. good afternoon and welcome back to san francisco. >> thank you. before i even start the statement that i prepared, i'll start by answering the questions you just asked, who's responsible, parcel g, and the work on hunters point shipyard. the navy is the lead agency. we are responsible for the cleanup of the shipyard. >> president cohen: thank you. >> okay. good afternoon, president cohen and other board members. i'm kim ostrowsky. i have cognizance of all navy bases in the bay area. when we were here last in may, we discussed the circumstances that led to the need to perform a full reevaluation of the radiological work performed by tetratech at e.c. hunters point. today i'm here to provide you an update, our efforts to assurance

residents their safety and our ongoing public outreach activities. we're committed to successfully completing the cleanup work at hunters point and completing property transfer for use by the community. we are also committed to ensuring the public has confidence in the results by working transparently and providing facts based on sound radiological science. in june, the navy released its proposed work plan for retesting of parcel g, which was identified by the city at its top priority parcel for reveemt. resampling parcel g will allow us to see of ongoing work, or perform additional cleanup.

we believe we have a path forward and will be releasing a draft final work plan shortly. the final work plan will be comprehensive and provide new, reliable data for soil and buildings as parcel g, work with include excavations, boring, and scanning of soil and buildings. the navy brac program office will oversee the process and conduct field inspections. further, the navy has hired a third party quality assurance contractor to conduct regular field inspections to ensure the parcel g work is performed properly. all radiological data will be submitted to the radiological fares support office for review. these physicians were the first to uncover the misreporting by tetratech and will continue

their work. the navy will use a comprehensive parcel g work plan as the model for future work plans for parcels b, c, d-2, e, uc-1, uc-2, and uc-3. these work plans will provide for comprehensive investigations and required remediation if necessary. we look forward to starting field work in parcel g once the final work plan is complete. we are grateful to our regulatory partners and stakeholders for their constructive participation in the work plan development and to congress woman pelosi for her support in securing additional funding for fiscal year 2019. since our last discussion, the navy has also supported the california department of public health in its efforts to complete a health and safety scan of parcel a. 90% of scanning activities across parcel a-1, totaling 56 acres, have been completed. the information collected continues to confirm that the

area was not used for work involving radiological materials. the scan did not find any soil contamination or evidence of radiological activities. most importantly, the scan's extremely detailed and sensitive methodology reinforced the fact that parcel a is safe to live and work on. one historic object which was identified as a deck marker was discovered and removed by the navy. the deck marker was found approximately 10 inches below the soil surface at the bottom of the hill on the north side of parcel a-1 in an inaccessible area behind a fence. once removed, no radiological signature remained in the soil arrest area. while we cannot speculate how it came to be in that location, i can tell you that there were no historic disposal sites on parcel a, therefore it was likely incidentally lost or discarded. i understand that many committee

members are not familiar with deck markers. deck markers are low level radiological objects which were used in the 1950's and 60's to support military operations. they were used to light the decks of ships and were also clipped to service members aapparently to indicate each other's position as night the. the san francisco department of hubl health engaged a third party radiological expert to review the deck marker. they concluded that the risk due to radiation exposure from the buried deck marker represented the low end of back radiation experienced by the public. they are less than radiation from a denial x-ray or a trans-continental flight. the parcel a scan did not find any other deck markers or radiological items. again, the scan did not find any soil contamination or radiological activities. these results are reinforced by the fact that the instrumentation was so sensitive that it was able to identify naturally occurring materials such as potassium in wood chips

and fertilizer. this should provide renewed confidence that parcel a is safe. in order to provide a similar confidence in other parcels transferred to the city, the navy will also be completing a health and safety scan of all accessible areas of parcel g after the retesting work is complete and prior to transfer to the city of san francisco. similarly, the navy will perform health and safe scans of the surfaces of parcels d-2, uc-1 and uc-2 to provide confidence in their suitability for reuse by the city. throughout this process, the navy has undertaken enhanced community outreach to ensure interested community members have access to factual, educational information about the parcel g work plan, parcel a

scanning, and the path forward for hunters point. we have attended meetings hosted by other community organizations, including participation in several of the may may yoez's citizen's advisory committee meeting, and conducted regular bus tours of the site. we also have an extensive e-mail and newsletter mailing list. together, these are each over 12,000 people in the local zip codes. in addition, we have office hours for community members to meet with dr. kathrin higly, head of the science and nuclear engineering at oregon state university. we invite -- for straightforward explanation of our work and our findings. we are thankful for the continued engagement of the board of supervisors and mayor breed, as well as the work of

our regulatory partners and congressional representatives to advance the next phase of a comprehensive retesting of hunters point. now i'd like to ask our technical experts, zach edwards, who is a heal and brock roberts, i'll have them join me at the podium, and thank you very much. >> president cohen: thank you very much. i have a few questions in approximate your presentation. i believe you briefly touch odd it. what's the role -- what are the next steps for your agency in relation to the work plan in the monitoring process? what are the next steps? >> so we released the draft work plan in june of this year, and

it went out for a 60 day review. agencies dr dr tthe regulatory s and public had a chance to comment on the workplace. we have drafted responses to the comments, and we will be incorporating thoos into the next version of the work plan, which is the draft version, which will be released by the end of this month. that goes to the regulatory agencies. they have 30 days to accept it. once they accept, it it becomes final, and. >> president cohen: and for those people that are watching at home and not in the chamber and probably don't understand the process, why is it important for you to take and receive comments for the work plan? >> it's a very public process, and we are interested in getting feedback from the regulatory agencies, from the public. sometimes there can be a different opinion -- a scientific opinion, and we can

work through these differences with the agencies when we need to. and then, we can move forward with what we think is the best approach when we finalize the work plan. >> president cohen: and what kind of comments are people submitting? >> we've received a bunch of comments. i'll let derek, who's a little bit more knowledgeable about the work plan -- he can. >> hello. derek roberts -- i think what you are question was what types of comments. i can give you general comments cope co . >> president cohen: that's exactly what i'm looking for. >> it's the extent of soil sampling that we'll be doing, the scanning, the locations. >> president cohen: so are the comments coming from every day people, people that live near the property, people that are around, watching the process from across the country, are they biologists, are they connected to the process through the science, as well? i would imagine it's a broad

sp spectrum. >> they don't always identify where they're from. i can tell you that the regulatory agencies have all submitted comments, and these are u.s. environmental protection agency, department of toxic substances and control, the department of public health, and -- and the city of san francisco department of public health. so california department of public health and san francisco department of public health. >> specifically i want to go back to you, and your presentation. you mentioned the surface scan process. how in depth will the scan go, and does the surface scan include scanning buildings? i think you said you picked up the deck marker. it was 10 inches below -- >> below the ground surface. so we'll have to put a plan in place what that scanning is going to look like, but our intention, and we haven't drafted that yet. we've just now made the decision

and thought it would be prudent to do a surface scan. so we'll put a plan together on what that scan will look like, but our intention is to any accessible areas that we can scan, that that's what we intend to do. >> president cohen: will you be scanning buildings? >> we'll have to evaluate. we likely will not be scanning the building sidewalls, but we can evacuate whether or not we'll be scanning the building floor. >> president cohen: and what materials can the scanner pass through? >> i'm going to let the physicist talk about that. >> i'm zach edwards from the navy's biological -- >> president cohen: what can the scanner pass through? >> the scanner can pass through any material.

that's pretty much the type of radiation we're going to be looking for. >> president cohen: okay just wanted to make sure it would pick up no matter what we'll be scanning. >> the gamma rays, yes, it will be. i'll start with the nuklar regulatory commission, all these dosed are measured in r.e.m. it will allow a licensed worker to receive up to 5,000 milliram in a year. a member of the general public can receive 100 milliram peryear

without being monitored. this deck marker found at parcel a represents an additional 5 milliram for a resident who would stand on that deck marker 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. to put that in context, i received over 5 milliram just flying back and forth to attend this meeting, so it is an extraordinarily low risk, low dose. >> president cohen: one other question for clarification. are there any areas in the surrounding community that could have been impacted by the contaminated matter found at the hunters point shipyard? >> we start our process by doing historical radiological assessment, and we've reviewed over 15,000 references. of those references, they include interviews, reports,

documentation, pretty much any literature that we could get our hands on back as far as our records go, and we have no indication of anything that's happened outside of the shipyard proper. further, we have processes in place such as restrictions on access, we have documentation on all the material that was removed from the site, we have dust control measures in place. there's just -- there should not be any impact outside the shipyard. >> president cohen: okay. if you don't mind, i'm going to pivot to mr. robinson. i have questions about communication. come on down, mr. robinson. so what is the format for the public meetings to ensure that the community has their questions answered? >> we have several different types of community public meetings that we are involved with. i think the hunters point community, bayview community

is -- has a great deal of different types of people, and so that's what we also focus our communication -- we focus on different types of communication -- different types of ways to talk to them. so-so the navy holds at least three community meetings peryear, and those are typically poster board style meetings. in addition, we have bus tours. we also go to local community events where they're already -- people are gathering. we have -- we have different types of forums there, so some of those are more of your town hall-style where we answer questions to people who are asking questions. for example, the city's c.a.c. meeting, which we attended in september and plan on attending in november , as well. so there's lots of different ways that we communicate with the public. >> president cohen: okay.

thank you. who does the community go to for updates once the work plan is underway? >> well, they can absolutely come to me. that is my primary responsibility is working with the community. we -- if they like, we have an e-mail distribution list that we -- anybody who signs up for that, we send them communication. they can go onto our website as well as there's future community meetings planned in the next -- well, every month for the next three or four months. >> president cohen: and i assume there's going to be regularly scheduled community meetings to share information as the work plan -- >> yes, absolutely. already in the plans. >> president cohen: all right. all right. thank you very much. since i have all three of you, this is a moment for self-reflection, and in hindsight, what could have been done better to prevent oversight like this from happening, over

meaning the deck marker? >> yeah, absolutely, and that's a question that we've asked ourselves, and we've already put in place several different measures to accentuate our already very robust this type of work. so in addition to the navy going out regularly, myself, as well as my project managers, we have a third party that we've hired, a company to oversee all of our radiological work. i know that there's been increased oversight from the environmental protection agency, and they plan on taking samples after we've collected work in parcel g. and california department of public health will also be collecting samples afterwards to ensure that everything that we find is of -- you know, without question. >> president cohen: thank you. madam chair, i don't have any other questions for the navy. i don't know if any other committee people do. >> supervisor tang: thank you,

president cohen. any other questions, comments? we don't have any other questions. >> president cohen: fair enough. we will go to representatives from dtsc. mr. najimi is the director of dtsc, and i think you've got your site mitigation and restoration chief program, janet, close by? >> yes. good afternoon, president supervisor malia cohen, president katey tang, and supervisor jane kim. i apologize for my voice, i am under the weather. i am in charge of the site mitigation restoration program and responsible for overseeing remediation and contaminated sites in the state of california, and with me today is miss janet nito, my program

chief from our berkeley office here. thank you for the opportunity to provide some comments. our mission is to protect the public health and environment in california, and i would like to assure you that we take this responsibility very seriously. i also want to assure you that hunters point is one of the top priorities at dtsc, and we have devoted significant resources to the cleanup of hunters point site. dtsc understands the concern that the community and supervisors have of the results of the radiological testing performed by tetratech of the site. let me assure you, dtsc has the same concerns, and we have provided specific meetings with the navy and have been engaged in several discussions with regulatory agencies and the navy to provide further retesting by

the navy of hunters point. dtsc appreciates and supports department of public health's retesting of parcel a to ensure that residents are not exposed to radiological -- [inaudible] >> -- and the surrounding communities are protected from any potential ad versarial impacts. as a result, dtsc and the california department of health and other regulatory agencies have devoted a significance amount of resources to ensure that public health is protected, and i would like to thank them for all their efforts. just as a point of clarification in response to your earlier question about the roles of

agencies, the u.s. department of navy is the lead agency responsible for the cleanup of this super fund site referred to as hunters point. the usepa region nine is the federal agency overseeing the cleanup activities at hunters point to ensure the cleanup is conducted consistent with federal law. dtsc is the lead state agency overseeing the cleanup at hunters point. our role is to ensure the cleanup complies with applicable state laws in a way that is protective of the public health and environment. we also work in collaboration with the california department of public health who's the state authority on radiological matters and is under contract with dtsc in our over sight role as the state lead agency for the cleanup of hunters point, however california of department health is the lead agency in scanning of parcel a.

so the issues of concern are dtsc experts have been working closely with region nine and california department of public health experts as well as the department of navy to review the integrity of the testing done as this site. we're aware of tetratech falsification of the data. inform are that reason and due to additional concerns about data quality, dtsc has recommended that all the data collected by tetratech e.c. be retested. dtsc along with e.p.a. region nine, california department of public health recommended that parcel g as well as other parcels tested by tetratech need to be retested in these areas. to that end, dtsc along with usepa and california department of public health as well as san francisco city department of public health have all provided detailed comments on the draft

parcel g workplace that navy released in june of this year. dtsc recommended that the navy use a different and more comprehensive retesting of parcel g that provides a greater level of confidence in the results. last week, the navy released the responses to the regulatory agency's comments and indicated that the navy agrees to revise the parcel g workplace to incorporate the approach and methods of retesting proposed by dtsc and other regulatory agencies. the navy also stated that it is committed to sample every trench and work space unit. the navy is preparing a revised parcel g work plan that will be incorporating our comments for this retesting and will release the revised board plan towards the latter part of the this month. dtsc and california department of public health are committed to work have the retesting begin as expeditiously as possible,

however the timing of completion of the cleanup will depend on the results of retesting and to what extent, if any, further remediation may be required. in addition, as i mentioned earlier, dtsc along with uspepa region nan and california department of public health wants to ensure the public currently working at hunters point shipyard in parcel a. therefore, we are in constant communication with the california department of public health to be apprised of their results of the scanning of parcel a. dtsc appreciates their efforts in scanning of parcel a, and depending on the final results of their final scanning, dtsc will work closely with usepa region nine and california department of health and u.s. navy and san francisco department of public health to determine what other remediation

or retesting is neededtor parcel a, we understand the supervisors and community members have legitimate questions and concerns about the safety of the hunters point use site. we also understand the need to complete the cleanup at hunters point and allow the development of san francisco's much needed housing. dtsc's primary responsibility and focus is the protection of the community and the environment to ensure the site is safe for present and future residents and workers, we will work with usepa region nine and california department of public health, city of san francisco and the navy to make sure the resampling of parcel g and other areas previously tested by tetratech e.c. is performed properly, is technically sound, and is completed in a timely manner. finally, dtsc is committed to protect the health of the community at hunters point, and will work with the california department of public health,

usepa region nine and others to ensure that concerns about parcel a are addressed expeditiously and all other parcels at hunters point will be safe for future uses of the property prior to transfer to the city. thank you again for your invitation and the opportunity to provide comments at your committee meeting. >> president cohen: thank you for your thoughtful comments. just a few questions. what are the next steps for your agency in relation to the work plan and monitoring process? >> so as i mentioned, we had provide detailed comments that last week the navy responded to our comments and indicated that they will incorporate them into a revised work plan. navy just indicated that they will release that revised work plan by the end of this month and provide another 30 days for agency's and other's review to

make sure our comments are incorporated into the work plan. once we are satisfied that they have been, then, the work plan will become final, and we will have the state oversight role to make sure that the navy will follow that work plan and performs the standards that are identified in that document. >> preside >> president cohen: how will you be involved in the oversight of the data collection process and the analysis? >> the lead for responsible -- responsibility for cleanup has been by the department of navy. what dtsc has done is as the state oversight agency, we have reviewed the work that they have done and made sure that what they have done in terms of sampling and testing meets the state standards that are required as part of the cleanup for this site. [please stand by]

>> if you recall at the previous hearings they found some dis crem seediscrepancies and raiseo the contractor to the data of the tetr otech. >> president cohen: who is the new contractor now? >> i believe it's better for the navy to respond to that. >> president cohen: i'll come back to them. i have a few more questions. are there other areas in the surrounding communities tha that could have been impacted by the contaminated matter? the deck mark.

they will explain that. that was the only thing that they found at parcel a. parcel g is an area that is secure and the rest of the hunters point as well. that those will be it will determine whether or not contaminations left in those areas and then they have to be remediated before the area is curbed in for protection. >> president cohen: based on what i'm hearing, you are saying the scan is only -- i shouldn't say only. the scan is 95% complete. it's out scanning 5% that needs to be scanned. that there is no contamination around the -- i'm not just talking -- my question, is not

just for the shipyard but other areas uareas up on west point. other people that are fearful, as far as going to third street and even when you cross third street, there's a large number of fear. so what i would like to do, i think i heard it and i wanted to put a finer point on it is people are safe. the deck mark was obtained and there isn't a reason for people to be nervous about living on the shipyard and living in and around the shipyard. >> yeah, i would defer to the department of public-health to explain what the risk is associated with the marker. as you heard the navy explaining that. >> president cohen: what is the role of the toxic substance control?

why are you here then? >> so, we are the state oversight agency. we use california department of public-health. they are the experts for radio logical matters, not the t.f.c. they are under contract to us. for the review of all the rest of the hunters point site, we will collaborate very closely with california department of public-health to make sure that all the remaining areas are compliance with radio logical exposures so there is no harm associated with exposure to the community surrounding the site. but as far as parcel a, california department of public-health took the lead to rescan and determine whether or not there is any remaining contamination left in parcel a. parcel a, as you recall, was release inside 2004 and has been developed since 2012. we are not oversight role

anymore from parcel a, but, if the scanning results from california department of public-health shows that there is contamination left at this parcel, then both the dtfc and ucepa will have to decide what additional testing or mediation needs to be done. at that point, we will become the oversight agency. >> president cohen: as of right now, you are not the lead agency? right? i'm just trying to understand exactly. >> i'm sorry. it's a little complicated. the lead agency for the clean up is the department of navy. >> president cohen: yes, i understand that. i want to know your role. you say you are in collaboration. you are not doing anything. the other agencies are doing the analysis. what is your role? >> so our role is we have expertise in chemical