>> supervisor melgar: good afternoon. welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisor melgar, chair of the supervisors. i'm supervisor melgar, chair of the committee joined by vice-chair supervisor preston and supervisor peskin. the committee clerk is erica major. i would also like to acknowledge sfgovtv. madam clerk, do you have any

announcements? >> clerk: due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to the statewide stay at home order - and all local, state and federal orders, declarations and directives. committee members will attend the meeting through videoconference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. either channel 26, 78, or 99 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the public call in number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed 2 minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone call by calling (415) 655-0001, again (415) 655-0001, meeting id 187 361 8447, again 187 361 8447, then '#' and then '#' again.

when connected you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, please dial *3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways: email to the myself, the land use and transportation clerk at erica.major@sfgov.org. if you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and will be included as part of the official file. written comments may be sent via us postal service to city hall, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place room 244, san francisco, ca 94102.

finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of unless otherwise stated. item no. 1 is an ordinance amending the planning code to correct and clarify administrative and planning code amendments approved in ordinance no. 296-18, which gave effect to the central south of market area (soma) plan, including provisions regarding transfer of i f y o u h a ve not done so already, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand

once you press star 3. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmute until we get to public. >> supervisor melgar: we have mr. snider here today to make a presentation on this item. >> good afternoon. thank you very much.

member the soma plan created a creation of a new area plan for soma. the soma plan, as it was

originally improved included a part of the general plan. it included an implementation document and community benefits program, that those two documents together, put forth community benefits and infrastructure improvements to serve that new growth of a value of roughly two billion dollars. it included the strategy of how to fund those improvements including the fees central soma plan. i included a planning code throughout the planning code and included a new special use district specifically for soma. the original approvals were approved in december 2018. those original approvals were followed up the next year improv three line administration that created the soma community advisory committee. this community is to help planning and the city implement

anded a weiss and -- and vise on the implementation of eastern central soma. typical of complx zoning amendments, planning staff and city staff has been looking since the implementation when it first went into effect in 2019 for needed improvements, corrections and clarifications. those have been put fort in the proposed amendments before you today. we have kind of grouped them in three general buckets. the first is address errors such as cross references. the second butt you bucket iso make sure they are consistent improv other aspects of the central soma plan, other

implementing documents, such as the community benefits program i mentioned previously. there are three substantive amendments that i'll describe, as well. this slide kind of are the headings for what we are calling the clarifying amendments. again, it is not readily a change of intent in these provisions, but merely to clarify and be consistent improv other aspects of the planning code that implement the plan. i know that you have a busy agenda for you. i won't go into each of these individually. i'm certainly happy to explain and/or describe them or answerfully questions you have about ave about them by request.

>> supervisor melgar: my understanding is this is not a long presentation. i would rather have mr. snider finish and go back to the specifics. i am taking notes. is that okay supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: whatever is your choice. >> i will describe the three substantive amendments. the first is regarding -- >> supervisor peskin: i don't want to want to be -- at some of point i

would like to understand what is to be deemed substantive and what is not. >> supervisor melgar: well taken. thank you supervisor peskin. >> i think what we are describing for the sake of this presentation are things outside of the scope of intent as originally approved by the planning commission and the board of supervisors. the first amendment we are looking at is regarding open space and the ability for project sponsors to require usable spaceoff is site. the current provision for central soma and eastern neighborhoods is to allow the requirement up to 50% to be 800 feet off the development sites. some aspects of the plan look to make improvements of some open space, specifically adjacent and under the i-80 freeway. this provision will allow

projects within central soma to increase that distance from 800 feet to half a mile and/or sites adjacent to or under the freeway within the boundaries of the central soma plan. that's the first substantive amendment. the second is regarding one of the key sites. as you may remember, the central soma plan included specific provisions for seven sites that were particularly large. the provisions essentially anticipated the large sites and the ability to allow some flexibility for some of the provisions being put forth in exchange for some additional community benefits to be incorporated into these projects. one of those sites was 398 brandon street. it is the location of one of the proposed new parks for central soma. one of the provisions of the

central soma for large projects is they have to require some pdr after the initial legislation was approved and this one project received approvals from the planning commission, what planning staff and what the project sponsor heard from the local community is they wanted to see greater amount of retail for that site than what was provided originally. one of the ways to do that was to enable some of the required pdr to be swapped out for the retail. we should mention that the retail in the proposed legislation is very tailored in terms of its size and in terms of the type of retail making sure it is neighborhood-serving. the final substantive requirements is regarding exposure requirement for dwelling units. as you may know, planning code requires dwelling units either face public right of way and/or courtyard or internal open space that has particular dimensional requirements. what we have been finding is

that these dimensional requirements for the likes of certain central soma through the development and city, a lot of these developments were seeing variances. instead, what we are proposing now is that that exposure requirement be relaxed for central soma and simplified such that it would be simpler for the projects to meet that requirement. supervisor, that concludes my presentation. i would be happy to go back to the slide and go through what we are calling the clarifying amendments. we can walk through those, why we think they are clarifying, opposed to substantive. regardless, they are before you today. josh, who hands the land use development team is also here and can provide comments. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. i think we may have a couple of

clarifying questions before we turn it over to public comment. supervisor peskin, is there anything you wanted to have clarified? >> supervisor peskin: i think -- i think this is a long conversation. i don't exactly know what to start madam chair. i want to start by saying the short title is misleading. >> supervisor melgar: if it is okay improv you, supervisor, i would rather have the public weigh in before we get into the comments and questions. if you have clarifying, we can ask mr. snider, for the benefit of the public and have, at your analysis, come after the public comment, if that's okay. >> supervisor peskin: this is not my analysis. it is the questions i would like

to ask relative to the quote unquote not substantive and substantive amendments. i want to say, for the record, anybody who reads this that starts with the short tight well technical corrections would be led to believe that it is not substantive. i wanted to say that for the record. that may not be a fatal defect, but it is kind of not cool. if we can, mr. snider, go back to the 8th, quote unquote non-substantive amendments. i do want to ask you; this is within district 6 item. do you know why this is not sponsored by the district 6

supervisor? i have no idea what the answer is. >> we have certainly offered it to the supervisor to be a sponsor for this. it sounded, to me, from his staff, that because of the nature of it, it is something they felt fine, planning department and planning commission taking the lead on. >> supervisor peskin: is there a reason -- if i am wrong that you offered me a briefing and i didn't take it. is there a reason you did not offer this supervisor who voted for this in 2018 a briefing? >> we offered that briefing to each member of the land use committee. >> supervisor peskin: is that through the 300 e-mails i get a day or did you call me? >> we did not phone you. we were in touch in touch withr

staff. >> supervisor peskin: i have to say as a long-time member of this committee, i think i pretty much take every briefing that i am offered. i would love to know what staff you have been in touch improv. my staff is pretty good about getting in touch improv me about things that i think are important. i think this is important. i'm mystified. it may well be that you sent an e-mail. if you actually talked to my staff -- it is interesting -- the district supervisor chose not to sponsor it. the chair and former chair have not gotten briefings. improv that, do you find them e

substantive as a matter of law. >> that they require that the public be given another opportunity to comment on the legislation. here, there are no amendments made in committee so there is no brown act analysis to be done. it is to describe amendments that are not simply clean up, but go beyond clean up. >> supervisor peskin: got it. mr. snider -- you reference in

the text dated september 17th, tdrs. i don't see that in this slide or the subsequent slide. am i missing something? >> no. the tdr requirement, i may have -- there was nothing really that changed in that particular provision. we may not have listed it here because it was really more of a reorganization of where those provisions landed. originally it was in the provision of the special use district. staff, after having worked with these amendments, felt that it was better suited to be in the portion of the planning code that addresses tdr. >> supervisor peskin: you mean

article 11? >> no. it wasn't article 11 -- i think it is article 128. let me look real quickly. >> if i can elaborate on what matt just said, the number of amendments in the legislation that are not listed here are really organizational corrections to typos. there was some of organizational provisions that moved from the special use district to 128. that's where the rest of the tdr controls lived. >> your representation is that the practical effect, other than reorganizing it, is that it has no impact and it is the same

thing i voted on in 2018? >> that's correct. there was not one iota of changes, just simply moving the text. >> do you want to take these eight issues that you call clarifying amendments one by one? operation strategy or popos first? >> supervisor melgar: supervisor preston, you want more detail on these things? >> supervisor peskin: i would like to have a planning department brief to members -- i don't know if our colleague received a briefing or was made a briefing. generally, that makes things

much more expedient. >> supervisor melgar: are you going to make a motion for that? >> supervisor peskin: i would wait until public comment is done until i make that motion. i'm certainly thinking about it. >> supervisor melgar: while don't we see if we can get enough detail to avoid that from the department, if it is possible. if it is not possible, then we'll certainly go that route. >> supervisor peskin: can i ask -- did supervisor preston asked for, offered or received a briefing? >> >> my understand is a briefing was given to the office staff. >> supervisor peskin: that is helpful. >> supervisor melgar: i was not offered one but my staff did check because it is on the agenda with supervisor haney and we were told by that office that

they were okay with all of these changes, as well. so i didn't press. >> we are okay with this. i'm okay to do -- i would not object to a continuous with the committee if you want to have a briefing. i, personally, am not in a rush with it. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor preston, again, do you want the in depth on each of these items? or are they specific items you want to go in depth on? >> supervisor peskin: i could go there. i have now checked with my staff who indicated to me that this briefing was offered to this office during the holiday season. and that due to either my office or the planning department's

office or both, fell through the cracks during the holidays. it is now the 8th day of february of the following year. my preference, subject to public comment, would be -- give my personal history with the soma plan, and acknowledging that director ram was clear when the soma plan was first formulated and by the time it came to fruition, there was things that we had the opportunity to change that i don't think are being addressed here at all. namely, that was more housing. if we were to delve down into these, then we are talking about projects like 398. i would need to know who wanted more retail and more pdr when

planning says at the request of the local community, that can mean anything. i need to know if it was at the real estate industry? i would need a lot more information. i'm sure that district 6 supervisor haney has done his work. a lot is complicated. dimensional requirements on exposure. what that means. what relaxing it means. so, yeah, i think i would like to continue that. >> supervisor melgar: let's do this then, we have to take public comment because it is an agenda item. i have a bunch of questions, mostly around 598 bran non. i have a bunch of questions, as well. i don't want to take up all the

time. let's take public comment on this system, if that's okay. then you can make a motion after. madam chair, can we go to public comment? >> clerk: yes. there are three people waiting to speak. if you would like to speak, >> supervisor melgar: is there a motion? >> i would like to make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair but will make myself available to have these

conversations with district 6 supervisor haney, who is not a member of this committee. equally as importantly with planning department staff. i would like to make a motion to continue this idea. >> clerk: thank you so much supervisor preston. madam clerk, would you take roll, please. [roll call] the motion passes and we'll postpone this system -- item tf the chair.

item no. 2 is a hearing to item no. 2 is a hearing to review the past, current, and future clean-up oftoxins on treasure island dating back to 2013, and any protective measures to ensure there is no continuing risk to human health and the environment; and requesting the california environmental protection agency, san francisco department of public health, treasure island development authority, and united states department of the navy to report. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the (415) 655-0001, meeting id 187 361 8447, then '#' and then '#' again. page 3 of 4 if you haven't already done so, please dial *3 to line up to speak. >> supervisor melgar: supervisor haney , would you like to make any opening remarks to get us going on this item? >> supervisor haney: thank >> supervisor haney: thank you for having this long overdue hearing today about the clean up of treasure island. the purpose of this hearing is first and foremost in response

to the long-standing demand from current and former residents that they are concerned for their own health and safety be heard. and that they receive answers and a guarantee of a clean and safe environment where they l ive. as a city, we have a responsibility to protect our residents. i want to thank all of the residents who have spoken up, as well as the journalists and advocates who have taken c ountless hours to track the documents and studies. i want to be clear to the residents who have spoken up and who will speak today at public comment that you have the right to speak up and retaliation will absolutely not be tolerated. for some background, housing was made available on treasure island, most of whom were households in the late 1990's. the early 2000's households live

there now. mostly people of color, many families and largely low income. the city has a large development agreement to construct 800 units of housing on the island in the next two decades. treasure island was once a naval base where various historical activities occurred including degreasing, painting and fire and radiological decontamination training. these resulted in documented in soil and ground water. if extent -- the extent of the contamination, and health risk to current and future residents has been debated and discussed since before residents moved on the island. in addition to the concerns raised by residents, there are a few reasons i want to highlight

why we are having this hearing today. first, radiological objects are discloud covered close cloud -- discovered close to homes that were not to exist. second, testimony that has not been investigated and has raised questions about the extent of the contamination and adequecy of the clean up. third, the last time a comprehensive assessment was completed was in 2012. at the time, the radiological elements on the island were not disclosed. i have spoken to current residents who reported health conditions they believe are tied to the toxins. some reported bronchial diseases and lung cancer. i spoke to one former resident this past week, who reported a rare blood disease, which she believes was connected to

environmental conditions. many feel there have not been adequate investigations. following discover of wide-spread yard wide, fraud at the shipyard, we continue to base the treasure island cleanup, in large part by documents offered by tetratech. this raises major questions for me and the residents who live there. between 2010 and 2014, the california department public of health and other regulatory authorities calling for a redo of the navy's assessment of contamination after extensive radiological contamination was identified. agencies went so far as to say the significant severity and number of violations are so serious that they must be corrected immediately. this was the first time r esidents were told there was radiological contamination on

the island. the assessment and plan were overhauled in 2014. there remained many questions of the adequecy of the revised 2014 plan. with the new plan in 2014, it became clear that the cleanup for years before that was flawed and based on incomplete information and in some cases lead to contaminants being spread in advertly. the navy has not completed the steps agreed upon, including identifying the full extent of radiological contamination on the island, extent of contaminants, flawed tests in soils raised major environmental racism concerns. today, my intent is to focus on what since has happened since the release. many agencies admit they were wrong around 2014.

are we on track with the clean up? how can we know that the clean up is adequate to protect current residents? is there additional oversight and assessment needed? does the u.s. epa need to play a bigger role since the last time they did an assessment there were not residents living on the island. the navy refused our invirtual invitation to appear today to inform us on the cleanup. they have been the subject of scrutiny by regulatory agencies due to their infraction. they were not willing to speak to the board of supervisors and i hope they will be more engaged moving forward. we have the california department of toxic substance control, california department of public health, whistleblowers on treasure island.

i have a number of questions as i'm sure you do. the treasure island development authority and san francisco department of public health are on hand to answer questions, as well. they will not be presented. i want to note here on your committee, as someone who knows as much as treasure island environmental issues as anyone, that's supervisor that peskin. to end my opening comments, my concern here is for the t housands of residents currently living on the island. an island that has many families and children. we should all be concerned about their health, safety and well-being. nothing is more important. our immediate responsibility is not to focus on the health risk of future residents or maximize development or profit, it is to our city's residents. because of the unchanging natue of the cleanup, whistleblowers,

they are worried about the health of themselves and their babies. i'll turn it back to you supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you supervisor haney, for your remarks. what i would like to do is get through the presentations first and turn it back over to supervisor haney to ask the first few questions. then i'll turn it and open up the floor for the rest of us to pursue any questions that have not been asked by supervisor haney. with that, we are going to start the presentations by welcoming julie pettyjohn with california department of toxic substances. are you on? >> i am on.

can you hear me? >> supervisor melgar: yes. >> okay. i am waiting for my slides. thank you. thank thank you for the kind introduction. i'm the branch chief for the berkeley site mitigation and restoration program. i'd like to thank supervisor haney and his staff for asking me to be here today. i would like to thank the other supervisors and the public that are also present here. as i understand it, my department was initially asked to present today on three questions. my presentation will focus on these initial questions. however, we, and the california department of public health, received additional questions mid last week on radiological concerns at treasure island that we are also prepared to answer. can you move to the next slide, slide please? by way of introduction, i'd like to provide some background information before i jump into responding to the questions. the navy is responsible for the

clean up of treasure island under the comprehensive environmental response computation comp -- compensation and liability act. the dtsc is the lead regulatory agency overseeing the navy's cleanup activities. this work is part of the 1992 federal facility site remediation agreement. ffsra. this is an agreement between d tsc and the navy. california department of public health is with me presenting and does provide technical support to dtsc on radiological issues cdph has a role in overseeing navy contractors licensing for conducting radiological work. mr. chew will tell you more about cdph's role. dtlc worked with the san

francisco regional water quality control board on sites impacted with petroleum and other issues related to watt -- ground war quality. remedies may include removal actions, treatment, insulation of engineering controls or land use controls with other use or activity restrictions. that's to ensure protectiveness now and in the future. these stay with the protect even with changes in ownership. following transfer other remediated protect from the navy

to tida, during redevelopment activities. we understand there may be testimony later of health concerns of residents. i would like to be clear at d tsc's role. we look at what is going on with the project at the time and place and ensure that the project is managed appropriately. following the work plans approved and ensuring controls are in place. we usually go out to investigate ourselves. we do facilitate communications with people who have health concerns and connect them with resources to help them. for example, the california department of public health, environmental health investigation branch physicians, san francisco department of public health and at times ucsf occupational and environmental medical program. dtsc is not qualified to make a

diagnosis as we are not doctors and nurses. we do rely on those groups to assist us where there are concerns. next slide, pleases. okay, one of the questions that we were asked is to please describe the percentile score of 85 to 90% and the environmental effects indicators for navy station treasure island. green ask -- is a science based mapping tool that identifies california communities affected by pollution and vulnerable to pollution effects. it was a tool developed by the office of environmental health hazard assessment. this is one of our sister a gencies in the family. this tool is available as a l ayer and our database. it is a database dtcs maintains that is available for public u se. we post a number of documents

there. they use environmental health and socioeconomic information to provide a numerical score for each census tracked in the state. the score measures the relative pollution burdens and vulnerabilities in one census tract compared to the others but it is not a measure of health risk. it is a tool that dtsc can use to identify highly impacted a reas and prioritize resources and actions at a site. for example, inspections, investigations and enforcement actions. the percentile represents a relative score for categories representing exposure and environmental effects and socioeconomic factors. based on 2016, this data did have a minor update in 2018, so the data from cal screen shows

treasure island is more vulnerable 85 to 90% of other sunday tracks in california. however, this doesn't take into account cleanup efforts since about 2016. at treasure island, as shown on the slide, drivers for pollution burden are diesel particulate matter and traffic. that's likely from proximity to the bay bridge. on site cleanup and ground water threats. ground water is not use as a water drinking source at treasure island. population characteristics are driven by asthma and slow birthrate, higher rates of poverty and the financial burden of housing. i'd like to point out that the cal screen tool is continually evolving. as they update their i

nformation, we would then update the information appropriately. moving on to the next slide, you will see in the center of the slide treasure island what it looked like showing the screen. to put this in context, the general phase of the process are

investigation, remedial alternatives investigation, remedy selection, that also includes public participation and also remedial action. essentially, what is at the s ite? what can we do about it? how do we clean it up? all of treasure island has proceeded through the preliminary investigation stage and many areas achieved closure. there are limited sites on the island. 6, 12, 32 still undergoing the process and other sites, 21, 24, 27 and 30 are undergoing l ong-term monitoring. as i mentioned, comprehensive environmental response compensation and liability act, the process includes o pportunities for public participation at hearings and during comment periods on decision documents. we do seek the public's comments on the cleanup decisions we are making. moving on, for the final

question, we were asked to present on. that was to please describe how dtsc evaluates navy reports like monitoring reports or site management plans? dtsc has a technical team that reviews reports, which are coordinated by the project manager with their supervisory chain. we consult with the water board and california department of health on their comments. the technical team has credentialed specialists. technical reports, including annual monitoring reports, work plans and completion reports are reviewed by the dtsc project manager. we are ensuring that environmental data has been appropriately collected and analyzed inned in -- in accoe

with work plans and insurance purposes and that the data can be used. dtsc's process ensures all comments we are a sister agency or count our -- counterparts ad prior to authorization of the document. >> clerk: your ten-minute timer is up. >> i have one more slide after this. thank you. we do resolve the comments. there is a rigorous process for that. there was a question about the site management plan, which is not a highly technical document. it is essentially a road map for the work at treasure island site by site. and includes where each site is in the cleanup process and the next steps to carry out in a given year. moving on, we also do a number of site inspections, both announced and unannounced.

here's a couple of photos s howing repairs that were necessary to the fencing. then maybe you can move to the next slide. here are additional photos. where we find efficiencies, the photo on the left is sufficient. we ensure these issues are corrected. in progress, that was shortly after the first photo was taken. finally t photo all the way on the right shows more permanent solution, that's a little bit easier to maintain. i have just one last slide. >> supervisor melgar: are we almost done? there is a time limit. >> i know that i'm trying to be mindful of that. the last slide was showing thee are opportunities for further engagement. we are certainly happy to assist if you have any questions. >> supervisor melgar: i know you'll stick around.

there will be questions most likely. >> absolutely. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: the next presentation we have is from the california department of public health. mr. anthony chu. >> thank you madam chair and supervisor haney and members of the committee for inviting us to dtsc report on the contamination and cleanup at treasure island. my name is anthony chew with the california department of public health. i'm the division chief for division of radiation al safety and environmental management. with me is chris from the environmental branch and the program manager for the

environmental management branch. >> who owns this land now? >> supervisor melgar: who are you making the question to, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: whoever wants to answer. >> 70% of the station has been transferred to the city. the residential area on treasure island is one of the areas where the navy has not completed their environmental cleanup work and has not yet transferred to the city. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much. if it is okay, let's keep the

questions until the end of the presentation. thank you. mr. chu go ahead. >> thank you. we were asked to address four areas. what cd ph roles are and provide you testing and you had a couple of questions on the 2014hra. i'll address each in this order. cd ph role. we serve primarily to toxic substances control. we provide technical expertise on radiological cleanup at the department of defense. what that really means is we review the technical work plan, the clean up plans, the sampling

plans as well as we analyze data -- clean up data, to ensure that the site is cleaned up. we also conduct a confirm a continue survey and soil sampling to ensure that data is verified. once confirmed, we issue recommendations to close the site -- once the data are confirmed. in addition to that, we also have our raid -- radiological h branch to to administer the radiation control all. it deals with x-rays, machines in a clinical setting. it also has the provision in it that allows our branch to issue

licenses of radio active materials. it is that provision we issue licenses to remediation c ontractors that work on treasure island. i'll do a consultation as well as regulatory have not changed since 2006. there has been a lot of work that's been done on treasure island. we have the map that shows site 12 and treasure island. i have listed some of the s urveys that we have done. as far back as 2011, cdph conducted a survey of rop site 12. this survey consisted of the streets on site 12. you can see the greener lines here on site 12 indicates a street. in this survey, we did find for areas with elevated radiation

levels. subsequently, we extended that perimeter fence of the contaminated areas out so that the elevated areas would be enclosed in the controlled a reas. we also did a survey on the playground, child care centers, boys and clubs area. >> supervisor melgar: supervisor preston, can we let him finish? >> supervisor preston: we can, but the survey was done in 2011? >> correct. there are two other surveys of site 12 i'll get to in just a minute. they are done later on. so we did a couple of other surveys here, waist -- wastewr treatment plant. we did not find any elevated

readings in these surveys. more surveys -- baseball fields -- we did three surveys there. one of the baseball field s urveys, we did find elevated readings in one of the surveys. we determined later on that was caused by the newly installed landscape soil that is high in granite material. that can give off natural radiation. but that is not a health risk. site 12 -- there is two more surveys done. one by cdph and one by the navy. the one we did covered all the areas outside the residential areas. in that survey done in 2013, in that survey, we did find four additional areas that have elevated radiation levels. those areas were remediated.

>> supervisor peskin: were these the disks? or was this something else? >> i believe they are the discreet objects found and remediated. >> supervisor melgar: supervisor peskin, i am so sorry. we are hoping to let him finish so we keep time. >> supervisor peskin: on something as important as this ten minutes and i hope it does not come out of his time, i think it is really important. i spent ten years of my life on this. actually -- probably 15. >> supervisor melgar: it is very important. i agree. thank you. >> thank you. additional surveys, besides the ones i mentioned, our environmental management branch did confirmation survey and soil

sampling associated with the remediation projects there. you can see the activities here. site 30, 31, wastewater treatment plants. we did sampling there. i believe there is only one occasion that we found residual contamination. we asked to go back and clean it up. other than that, the data do confirm that they they have ben cleaned up. subsequently, we did issue recommendations for their release. our assessment of navy's cleanup efforts. i think it would be best to separate that into two periods. in the past, i think their efforts have been inadequate in the sense that the sites were not properly identified with contaminants. and they were not properly

contractized leading to a conceptual site model. conceptual site model provides a framework to tell us and describe where the contamination is and quantity of the contamination. it gives us a strategy to clean it up. without an accurate model, c leanup work would be ineffective. i would say in the past, there were inadequate oversight of remediation contractor. radiological health branch, our branch here, did inspections of the contractor and we found, sometimes, that there were poor maintenance of records. some of the equipment may not be properly calibrated. we did issue the notices of violations and those instances were corrected.

we also found that sometimes our recommendations were not f ollowed up or not implemented. as a result of that, we talked to the navy. we urged the navy to take more action. over time -- and this process has been gradual -- over time, we did see improvement in their efforts. right now, i would characterize the efforts being much more improved with a better conceptual site model. our communication with the navy has been better. we have frequent and periodic meetings where we discuss issues and when they come up we resolve them promptly. that led to the completion of several multiple site cleanup projects. >> supervisor melgar: i think supervisor peskin had one more clarification he needed.

>> supervisor peskin: madam chair, i don't have a clarification. i would like to thank you mr. c hu for being the first person in a decade and a half who just told this little committee of this city and the public the truth. the words that you just said, that i don't think have ever been uttered by a public official before that have been hidden, obscured and -- a ctually, i think, lied about, you just uttered. they are some of the most profound words that i have ever heard. i want to thank you for your candor, your honesty and your courage. >> thank you. finally, we were asked a couple of questions on the 2014hra. in 2012 and 2013, your agency expressed an alarm of the c

leanup of treasure island and what urged the navy to take further action. i think i eluded to this. it is inadequate identification of the radiological contaminated areas. it is the lack of appropriate conceptual site model and recommendations from us and the regulatory agencies were not implemented. frankly, there is a lot of public concerns on radiation. that is what led us to urge the navy to take further action. finally, the second question you had is what if the assessment of the 2014hra? we believe 2014hra is a much improved document. it is an effective document. updated radiological history. it took into consideration about the regulatory agencies c omments. frankly, it provided a m uch-improved and better conceptual site model, which gives us a road map to better clean up the site. i think that is the end of the

slides. we will be here if you have any questions. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. there will be questions. next presentation we have are from a couple of whistleblowers, david anton and guy tabey. you guys have ten minutes. you can do whatever you wish, between the both of you. >> this is david anton. milwaukee anton. what can the board of supervisors do to ensure that treasure island is safe for the residents from radio active and chemical contamination? the board can ask the federal epa to conduct an investigation into whether the cleanup of treasure island has been p

roperly done or has been compromised by fraud or failures to recognize the scope of the contamination. the navy and state regulators have been compromised by their own failures to oversee the clean up of hunters point and treasure island. in 1988, the epa evaluated treasure island as qualifying as a super fund cleanup side. the epa did not put treasure island on the national priority list as a super gun site so that the epa would oversee treasure island because the navy and the state had already started a cleanup process. at that time, no one lived on treasure island and the navy represented that there was no radio activity on the island. since the epa review over 30 years ago, san francisco has moved thousands of low-income families on to treasure island and chemical and radio active contamination, previously

unsuspected, has come to light. the residents and the public do not trust the navy and state regulators to properly oversee the treasure island cleanup, with good reason. the epa has the background, knowledge and funding to conduct an independent investigation of the cleanup. the epa is responsible for super fund site across america. similar federal funding is possible for treasure island. there are good reasons to ask the epa to conduct this investigation rather than the navy and the state that would be investigating their own oversight failures. me my name is david anton. i'm an attorney that represents whistleblower. i brought each of the whistleblowers forward that exposed the radiological cleanup fraud at hunters point.

it confirmed that the whistleblowers reports of radiological fraud were true. beginning in 2013 and c ontinuing, workers at treasure island have approached me and reported fraud in the cleanup at treasure island. examples in the report, one, workers were ordered not to son -- scan areas of radio activity but ordered to report the areas as being scanned and cleared. two, workers removed soil from -- two, construction workers dug and removed soil that radiological scanning of the soil was not done. that soil was falsely given clearance as if it was scanned and cleared. three. over 300 highly radio active met

foils were discovered on treasure island, smuggled off treasure island and the records destroyed so they would not be part of the radio active items listed as found on treasure island and they have not been. the navy and the state r egulators, have not interviewed any of the treasure island whistleblowers that i brought forward over the past six years. the navy's historical radiological assessment supplement of july 2014 is f lawed. the supplement is the basis for the work since 2014 on treasure island. the report relies on the contractor's reports, which the whistleblowers have exposed as false and misleading. for exam -- example, the supplement c laims that the housing is not impacted by radio activity. it defines nonimpact to mean quote, no possibility of c

ontaining residual radio activity. end quote. the navy, regulators and contractors knew designated housing as not impacted is f alse. in 2018 whistleblower, robert mcline reported finding continue tampa nations under c ontaminations. he and others were ordered to stop reporting radio activity around the residents. all around the residence, the foils are from a number of instruments used by the navy, including a type of vision scope used to look at atomic e xplosions, to look at the sun and for night vision. these scopes were repaired in

the optic shop in building 3, using lead-lined sinks and the defective foils were buried on treasure island since 1945. wrongly dismisses the disks as coming from the vision scopes. these dime-size oils are e xtremely hazardous and will be for over a thousand years. the september 2019 finding of a basketball-size chunk of radio active waste under a home's front step at treasure island is further evidence the residences are impacted by radio activity. radio active and chemical contamination has been passed over, ignored, missed and poses health risks to the residents. the navy radio active regulators have been compromised. the navy's top regulator from

early 1990's through mid 2014 was lori low supervisor already -- whose son and daughter-in-law were hired as navy contractors. the california regulators overseeing radiological clean up depended on the truth of the contractor's work. the california rhode islandings failed to verify the work and failed to have confirming soil samples from treasure island tested for years. the soil samples sat in storage lockers untested by the state's laboratory. scans alone do not find all radio active hazards. it must be found by lab samples.

scans, alone, do not find these radio active hazards. navy and california regulators over treasure island are the same that failed to check the massive fraud at hunters point that went on for a decade and was caught by the w histleblowers, not by the navy and the regulators. >> supervisor melgar: you have two minutes. >> i'm almost done. >> supervisor melgar: you are sharing ten minutes with mr. t abby. you are only leaving two minutes for him. >> i will finish with the idea that please, the epa has the role and the power to do this, please [indiscernible]. >> clerk: i will give you five minutes because we went over a little bit.

>> much appreciated. i'll try to keep it concise. i'm just talking about the radio active, not the chemical contamination here. closing the base to the brac s a prescribed process, rules have to be followed. you may think they are little things. they are not. they check everything that goes on in the future of the cleanup. the primary document guiding the radiological cleanup. it is the historical radiological assessment. it is a document that has any records that tell the story of what might be left off the site, become the basis for further cleanup work. every contract will say a ccording to the 2006hra.

the review and approval of the document is a process. agency would get periods of time a month to review the documents. it goes through cycles to get the comments taken care of. the initial hra for treasure island was finalized in 2006. it included cab -- cobalt and plutonium as well as many o thers. if you review the references, you'll see they have a license to possess large quantities. in the hra of the navy that were calibration or check sources, sealed sources, which would lead you to believe they are innocuous and easily removed. those sources in those count

sources in those quantities leaked. there is records that confirmed they leaked. the navy gravely misled the regulators in 2006. the rhode islandings were not competent enough to push back against the ainst the navy. work continued like that for years. obviously, the hra was significantly flawed. many demanded the hra be rewritten. shortly there after, and i have worked at treasure island as a officer. i went to work at the department of public health in mr. chu's

division and fought the fight from the inside while the escalations at treasure island continued. it wasn't until 2012 that the 2012 hra and for some reason that was withdrawn. a 2014 hra was delivered as a final document that didn't go to the required review and approval process. the proof of this is in the document itself. july 2014 has are comments comm larry morgan, from the 2006 hra, those were comments i wrote. in 2014 larry morgan was long gone from the lead position.

sheila stang was in charge. why did cdph accept a document they didn't comment on? what pettyjohn told you and m r. chu told you -- the department of public health gets authority from the regulatory commission. they have to sign up on the cleanup of radio active contamination. they allowed toxins, they a llowed the navy to provide a final document without the department of public health commenting on it. i sat in the room with the baby when the department of public health told them you can either clean up the protect to the department of public health standards or keep it and get a license to retain the radio active material. they had choices a or b.

talking about different r emedies, i'm sorry. in the random role, tdsd does not have a say on how to clean up from raid radio active contamination. >> supervisor melgar: we will have skis -- questions for you. thank you very much. we will now have our last presentation from bradley angel from green action. mr. angel, are you here? >> i am here. good afternoon. let me just cue up my presentation.

>> clerk: we are locating the presentation now. we are working to pull it up for mr. angel. >> supervisor melgar: thank you

so much madam clerk. >> thank you very much. again, my name is bradley angel. i'm the executive director of green action for health and moral justice. i would like to thank the committee and supervisor haney for having this important and overdue hearing. when treasure island was first created it was promoted as a magic aisle. the real question is, as i think we are confirming here today, as the toxic and radio active island. it is not all palm trees and s un. three years ago i was given what we call a toxic tour. a former resident, liz washington and investigative journalist carol harvey. one of the most shocking things and i have been doing this work with literally hundreds of communities from the bay area to the east coast for 33 years now. and one of the shocking things i saw on this tour was a sign like

this right next to homes. in the very small print, control for radiation protection purposes in people's backyards. next slide, pleases. as the state department of t oxics and other agencies confirmed, these are just some of the contaminants found at treasure island. pcbs that are so toxic they are banned. radio active waste, acids, solvents. as mr. anton mentioned, treasure island should be a federal super fund site. this is an exempt from -- excet from an e-mail i received from the united states epa. it says in part, as you can see,

treasure island has a super fund site i.d. the site scored high enough for national priorities listing. then they claim the clean up is making good progress under the state's oversight. i beg to differ, as do the f acts. in dtsc's presentation earlier this afternoon, they did reference and i'm glad c alenviro, which is an important tool created by cal epa's office of environmental health office of assessment. as dtsc acknowledged, treasure island residents have a higher pollution burden than 85% of california. what has the state done? what has the navy done? what has the city of san francisco done? have they gotten these r esidents, our fellow citizens out of harm's way? next slide. no, they have not. this was a picture i took again

approximately three years ago right behind people's homes. a radio active waste cleanup area. that's what the yellow and white signs say. and no human being should live with radio active or hazardous waste at super fund levels in their backyard. this is incredible. next slide, pleases. as supervisor haney referenced and as investigative reporter carol harvey's tireless research documented, many residents fear losing their homes. residents reported a wide range of very profound ill health effects. i'm not surprised at all. what did our government do? nothing. they leave people in harm's way.

as the san francisco chronicle front page expose showed in august of 2020, extremely likely they'll find anything. a helicopter scan for radio activity at san francisco's b ases had limited value. the city relied on it anyhow. not only did the city rely on i t, it was proposed to the developers precisely because they knew -- the city knew that it would not find anything or it was extremely unlikely to find anything even if it was there. extremely likely they'll find anything because they are just doing a survey at 300 feet. instruments and lab tests navy does on the surface at hps are more sensitive. this is outrageous. i will point out that the official from san francisco so-called health department who

continues to work on the issues of treasure island and is still employed with our tax dollars. this is shocking. next slide. a related issue. this ties into somewhat what dtsc barely referenced earlier, but it has not been analyzed. this slide is from california coastal commission. california's coast faces a significant risk. >> supervisor melgar: your time has elapsed. >> just another minute, please. the experience sea level rise p to 7.6 feet by 2100. this is not just about sea level rise, it is about rising ground water. as a new study that was reportd on in december as sea level r ises it pushes ground level water up causing contaminants in

the soil to move and possibly infiltrate homes and i would a dd, our beautiful san francisco bay. what do we need done? we need, number one, to protect at-risk residents by relocating them away from contamination, providing long term equipment and safe rental support. number two, guarantee residents will not be evicted in retaliation for speaking out. last but not least, protect residents and our san francisco bay by conducting comprehensive retesting and cleanup, not capping all contamination in treasure island, hunters point and along the entire waterfront. a failure to remove all the radio active toxic waste not only puts residents at risk, but will ensure that the waste will be endated by the sea level rise and climate change we are experiencing and will in the future. thank you very much for your time and having this hearing.

>> supervisor melgar: thank you very much. thanks for all the p resentations. i will now turn it over to supervisor haney for questions. >> supervisor haney: thank you chair and thank you all the presenters. i appreciate it. i have a number of questions. i'm sure the committee do, as well. i want to ask if you can be as brief as possible to the answers to the questions while a ddressing the questions, so we can get through them. i want to get as many answers for our residents and clarity on this as possible. the first question i had was about something presented sentee chart for dtsc. there is 100% from approximatety to cleanup sites for treasure island residents.

are you aware of any other locations dtsc tracks where there is 100% clean up score? >> this is julie from dtsc. i'd be happy to respond to that question. that is not a question i have directly looked in to. i was short in my response, as requested. >> supervisor haney: are there any other military base cleanups that you are familiar where there were thousands of c ivilians moved into base housing, built on a contaminated part of the site that are still there while the site is being remediated. is that something you are aware of from any other sites? >> i will answer that, as well. perhaps, dtsc, if they can anything to add, they can fill in. the area i cover for dtsc is san

mateo county north to the oregon border. i would say for those military sites. speaking for that portion of or state alone, i am not aware that there are any residents immediately adjacent. cdp, if there is anything more. >> supervisor melgar: is mr. chu still on here? >> i'm calling from calling fr. addressing that question, we don't know of another site that has residents living that is undergoing cleanup currently. >> supervisor haney: thank you. i wanted to establish that first of all because it demonstrates how extraordinary this situation is with treasure island and how significant the potential risk

is even as compared to any other similar types of sites. in terms of the acceptable risk levels, is there any comparison that you can provide? are the acceptable risk levels at treasure island same as those at the shipyard or other cleanup sites on the u.s. epa's national priorities list? >> i can take that. this is julie. are the risk levels the same? they may not be exactly the same but we follow the same process from site to site. we do take into account land u se. what the intended land use f the property is. does that address your question?

>> supervisor haney: it may be helpful receiving risk levels at treasure island versus these other sites. i know that the cancer risk level, for example, is something that we are concerned about and how it compares to the hunters point site, for example. we have discussed a bit about the five-year review from the navy. investigations are for protection based on future land uses. do cdph and dtsc agree with that statement that there are no immediate health risks and the investigations are for protection based on future land

uses? >> is your question related to chemicals or radiation or to both? >> supervisor haney: both. more broadly, whether there is an immediate health risk based on your understanding of the analysis? they stated pretty decisively they believe there is no immediate health risk and that the investigations they are doing are for future land uses. as the oversight bodies, i want to know if you agree with that? >> what i would say for the f ive-year reviews, we do review those documents and do seek the input of cdph on that. i would have to look at the specific five-year report that you are looking at. the other thing we do consider is the current land use. not only future land use but current land use. in conducting a five-year review there is a very prescriptive

process laid out by u.s. epa. >> supervisor haney: is there any other response on this? i think this is important, particularly, because a primary concern of this hearing and i hope for all of us is the potential, immediate health r isks to current residents, which they don't believe there is an immediate health risk. one of the things we want to be clear with to residents is whether both of your respective bodies believe there is an immediate health risk or no health risk. how do you describe your understanding of a health risk to current residents? >> forgive me supervisor haney, i had heard earlier from the presentation that she made the distinction between toxic and

radiation. i think that the radiation answer to your question that you are posing right now is actually answered by. perhaps, we can hear from her. >> i can speak with perspective to the radiological contaminations. yes, i think it is not a legit risk to residents living there. we know there is contamination at treasure island. it is present on site 12 and the fwds, which . there is no contamination present. there are controls in place. i'm talking about things like fencing and posting. there should not be an immediate threat to the public. they have been restricted. access on these sites is pretty

restricted. that's definitely there. we keep an eye on the mediation process. that's what cdph's role is as well as consulting to dtsc. i'd like to point out like on the slide is that there was a radiological survey done on the open spaces. there were also radiological surveys done within the housing units. the first one was actually done by our radiological health branch. the other one was done by navy but with cd ph site to assessf the public had a health risk.

there was no health risk based on this service. >> supervisor haney: one of the things, i think for everyone, that is hard to fully understand how you come to that conclusion. particularly, it seems like the land has been determined not to be acceptable for future residents currently. but is for current residents. particularly, for site 12, what are the things that you believe lead us to that conclusion? i mean is it that because people -- because it is fenced off and they are not immediately right in the middle of it that it is safe for them? i think it is obviouslily, d eeply concerning for people to hear for future uses, it is currently not yet not yet safe.

but for residents currently living there, it is currently safe for them. how do you reach those conclusions? >> supervisor, this is anthony c huu. our survey result indicated there is no immediate health risk. and i provided samples of that in multiple surveys. that's what the data show us. is there radiological risk at treasure island? there is. it is a contaminated site. we acknowledge that. we are working hard to monitor,

regularly, on the cleanup of those sites. but the engineering control measures that's put in place, such as the distance, the s ignage, the fencing, that goes a long way in protecting the public and residents there. radiation -- i don't want to get in too much technical details -- but radiation drops intensity. many of these objects are b uried. all i can speak to are the radiation survey and soil s amples that we have done and they do not show health risks to the public at this time. >> for dtsc, for the chemical

contaminants, there are some documents that indicate assessment of potential exposure for current residential s cenarios include surface soil two feet below the ground surface and only unpaved areas that exclude soil like under a walkway. but for future residential scenarios, they may go up to ten feet below the surface, including areas that are paved. is there an explanation for that difference? i think this was specifically e 2017 record of the decision. >> this is julie. i would have to go back to the 2017 record of decision to verify. what i can tell you that it is standard industry practice for risk assessment when evaluating future risks to assess the top ten feet of soil.

if there is a pavement in place, you can have quite a lot below the pavement. but there is no exposure because that pavement is essentially blocking the exposure. >> supervisor melgar: supervisor haney, i saw supervisor peskino ask something further of mr. c hu, is that okay? you are muted, supervisor. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. i have questions for mr. choo and my appreciation for his candor, the first i have heard in a decade. let me ask a different question madam chair. did i hear from our own dph? >> clerk: you did not.

that would be supervisor haney, could you shed some light on that? >> supervisor haney: yes. they are here and available for specific questions. >> supervisor peskin: there was an earlier admission that 70% of approximately 600 acres has been turned over to the city and county, which would mean our lead local agency is our own department of public health. i think we are missing that from this conversation. i think we are also missing, unless i missed it, the department of defense buying through the navy. did we hear from the navy? >> we invited them multiple t imes and they declined to appear. >> supervisor peskin: have we had an overview, maybe, from m r. beck and the treasure island development authority about what the actual deal was when was

mayor and michael cohen was head of base reuse and what liabilities we may or may not have inherited? maybe the city attorney's office can see to that. and what amount of money transferred hands at the time? and what amount of money on participation of the back end? i think we are missing the -- as i always say in this business, follow the money. i don't think we have talked about that at all. >> clerk: supervisor, those f olks on the call are given the heads up that you are going to ask all those questions after supervisor haney is done with his questioning. i expect they'll all prepare their answers. >> supervisor peskin: it is going to be a long afternoon. >> clerk: yeah. >> supervisor haney: they are prepared to answer all of those. we should definitely bring them up. i agree with you.

i want to follow through with the questions about some of the clean up and the perspective of these agencies. the navy had to demolish b uildings 1311 and 1313 and relocate residents in order to reach contaminated soil and complete removal actions. why did they have to do that? for the residents who were moved and in close proximity and obviously lived in those areas, what is our perspective on their well-being and safety? >> this is julie from dtsc with respect to building 1311 and 1313, buildings can only be vacated or demolished as part of the navy's environmental program as it was required to implement a remedy.

i'm certainly not here to speak for them. in the case of buildings 1311 and 1313 they were demolished because petroleum was identified in the soil beneath the b uildings that required excavation and treatment. the soil was dissolving arsenic into the ground water, which was discharging into the bay. those folks had to be moved out. [indiscernible], perhaps knows where they were moved to. that is not in the jurisdiction of dtsc but that is why those folks were moved. >> supervisor haney: it was arsenic and petroleum? >> petroleum was the major constituent in the soil. it was causing arsenic to leak

into the ground water with discharge into the san francisco bay. >> supervisor haney: on c hemicals, specifically, it would be helpful if you sort o, in a broader way, discussed the chemicals of concern on treasure island and what exposure level do they pose -- at what exposure level do they pose a risk to human health? and what are those risks? i think sometimes when i'm t hinking about this, i times mix in the conversation about the chemicals and not radiation. for the chemicals, specifically, what are the chemicals? what risks do they pose? and at what levels? >> okay. i can certainly try to answer that one again. as you pointed out, treasure island is a very large property. it is broken up into a bunch of

sites. you may be most interested in site 12, that's where folks are living in housing there. for sites 12, contaminants of concern are lead, poly nuke lee yak hydrocarbons, dioxin and radial 226. 226 226 essentiat with a screening of the c hemicals in soil. looking at wide range of exposure scenarios, looking at the exposure scenarios and f ocusing on a site risk assessment that would form the basis of the cleanup goals, that information is in the record of decision. for sites 12, specifically, the rod indicates for lead the number is 400 milligrams per kilogram. that's the screening level.

however, i do know that the navy has been doing additional c leanups and they are well, well below that number to the point of about 80 milligrams per kilogram, which is a more current number. we have other numbers for pcbs and soil. one milligram kilogram. the toxic substances control a ct, that's a number for high occupancy use. for poly nuclear hide you -- s it is 0. it is calculated. there a number. we tend to take the one that is the worse actor in terms of health impacts and use that as an equivalent, factoring all of the different pahs there. the screening level in the rod is 0.63.

the removal actions to-date, do indicate they have cleaned up to exposure level below the rod goal. that residual risk, after the cleanup, will be presented -- we call it a racker, removal action complete report. we are expecting that document later this year. for dioxins, 12 nano grams fr kilogram. there are a number of different dioxins. we are looking at a toxic equivalency situation. all of the removals to-date and the residual contamination left will be summarized in that rack or document later this year. >> clerk: supervisor, i want you to know -- mr. tabey's hand is

up. if supervisor haney has a question for you he will ask. thank you. >> supervisor haney: what are the consequences to human health for -- if the levels are too high or if there is exposure with some of the chemicals of concern on treasure island? >> if the levels are beyond what we hope for in terms of a r isk-base screening number, typically we would say go back and dig out more. collect new confirmation s amples. that's all described in this case in the rod. the record of decision. >> supervisor haney: i understand -- what about the actual consequences to people who are exposed to these chemicals? >> okay, well, so for residual contamination and i'm talking sort of in general, it is four contaminants of concern. there is a risk assessment

process that's followed. essentially, what you are l ooking at for risk-based clean up goals is set out within the national contingency plan or te ntcp. there is what is called a risk management range. it is a theoretical, mathematical calculation essentially of looking at what would the concentration be that would expose -- i'm just going to say what it is and then i'll explain it. one times ten minus four to one times ten minus six. the one times ten minus six isa theoretical calculation based on additional assertions. one person amuck -- among a million people exposed could

theoretically get cancer from the chemicals that were exposed. >> supervisor haney: does dtsc -- c dph have anything to add on to that? >> no, we don't. >> supervisor haney: has there been a human health risk assessment that has been done? when was the last time it was completed for treasure island? >> so, i will answer that one again. there were a number of risk assessments that have been completed. keep in mind, the protect is 600 acres or there abouts made up of a number of different sites. each with its own history of land use and chemicals use. idea ally, we have to go site by site. with each site, identifying what the past land uses are. what are the likely chemicals of

concern. doing sampling to see that. then identifying is there something we need to do because of the chemicals that are present? does it present a health risk when doing the very conservative calculation? that calculation is called incremental lifetime cancer r isk. the one thing i wanted to point out, is it is in addition to cancer that we all, unfortunately, walk around with. the potential to get cancer is 40% for any given person. this one times ten minus six is an incremental risk above that background cancer rate. >> supervisor haney: and when was that done? the human risk? >> i would have to look at e nviro store and if there were particularly sites you were interested in we could certainly

provide that information to you, supervisor haney. for every site closed or we would have completed the work, there will be a risk assessment. there will be sites with a risk assessment because we are not yet through the process. >> supervisor haney: got it. it is my understanding that the last one done for site 12 was in 2012. >> i don't have envoro store opened in front of me to verify that. that's something we could certainly verify for you. i can tell you there is still a whole lot of work that needs to be done at site 12. >> supervisor haney: in the radiological contaminants, were they included in that survey? that assessment? >> i'm going to let cdph answer questions about radiation.

>> supervisor haney: sure. cdph, was there a human health risk assessment, which i know dtsc does, and does it include radiological contaminants? >> clerk: mr. choo. >> so, the risk assessments -- kind of like what julie is mentioning -- it is not something cdph will do on their own. radiological contaminants are captured in the assessment by both at the same time. i will concur with julie's response. we'll have to go back and look at what dtsc had at that time and look at that. >> supervisor haney: if somebody can check when the last one was done, that would be helpful. maybe it can be found before the end of the hearing. i wonder -- because when we say

a health survey or hew -- humak assessment, i understand these are based on relative risks. i want to know if anybody is actually looking at and a nalyzing the real, actual health conditions? and potentially, even, impacts on residents themselves? maybe this is also somebody from sfdph that can answer this. i know patrick is here. we have heard from many r esidents and former residents, some that i spoke to recently. again, i want to thank carol harvey for connecting me to these individuals who reported strokes, heart attacks, cancers, seizures, tremors, skin sores, crusty, painful rashes, hair and tooth loss, breaking bones, miscarriages, birth defects and

blood blood disorder. many believe these have a g reater prevalence on treasure island and that they are c onnected to the conditions, whether it is the radiation or the chemicals. do you all believe there is any connection between these r eported health conditions by residents and former residents and environmental conditions on treasure island? how are we actually, as part of these -- whose responsibility would it be? our own san francisco department of public health -- to be analyzing those, responding to those and taking those into consideration when understanding these broader risks and impacts? >> in terms of health defects of

individuals, that's not within the per view of the expertise of my department. that would require the assistance of physicians and nurses. as i reported previously, that where we do find that there are health concerns among folks w i try to put them with folks that might be able to help them. cdph has a very specific branch that has a number of physicians that look at environmental exposures. also san francisco department of public health and finally physicians at ucsf. >> supervisor haney: can cdph and sfpph respond to this? i think it is important because we get these sort of different assessments and risk tools and how likely things are. then people on the island say, "that doesn't conform to our experience where it seems people

here have more prevalent and even unusual health conditions." their experiences are not reflected in some of the statements of a lack of risk. >> this is anthony choo, supervisor haney, let me take a crack at that. i think you asked one of the most complicated questions here. we have all been struggling with that. as julie mentioned, this is a little bit beyond our capabilities. we look at radiation specifically i don't mean to minimize your question because it is a very important question. what is the health impact to individuals?

number one, dtsc doesn't really deal with that. we have a group that looked at more of a community-based epidemiology, but that doesn't really address individual health impact, which is what you are kind of getting at. what chemicals or radiation affect on individual health? that's complicated questions. there is so many different controls here. i may have a different response to a certain kind of contaminant than you. again, i don't -- my answer probably doesn't satisfy you, but i just wanted to say that that is a very difficult question to answer. we don't -- at cd ph -- we don't have that expertise. we look at radiation and dosage. but not individual. what radiation does to individual health. i'm going to ask my program

manager here to chime in to give you a little bit -- make an overview of impact of radiation and maybe that will give you a little bit more perspective on radiation. >> yes. thank you very much, anthony. so, the radiological health branch, our expertise lies in, to not only ensuring that our licensees operate in a safe manner to protect the environment and the public. our mission is to make sure that the public are not being unduly exposed to any radiation h azards. that's, over the many years, what we have tried to do at

treasure island with those surveys anthony had mentioned. one very large survey we p erformed over all of site 12, all of the accessible areas of site 12 outside of those controlled waste disposal areas that the navy is working on.

and preventing it. i'll defer to supervisor presto. our department department of puh is here.

i would like to hear if they have a direct role or responsibility with protecting our residents in this situation. >> supervisor melgar: is that a question to the department of public health right now, supervisor? who is here from the department of public health? >> supervisor haney, this is patrick with the department of public health in san francisco. we are the regulatory branch for the health department. we enforce laws, health codes, regulations. the question that you are asking is really beyond my branch -- it really gets into epidemiology. epidemiology is where you are going to see those kind of trends where -- it starts with somebody reporting an illness to their doctor. and then that doctor, if it is

something along the lines of say radiation burn or something like that, that's going to trigger a number of things that happen within the department of public health. ultimately, though, what you are looking for is those clusters. if you think of what is going on right now with covid tracking in san francisco, you are looking at clusters of covid. we are tracking that on -- at different types of businesses looking for trends and ways of preventing that. and that's where you are going to catch some sort of an increase in disease incidents within a neighborhood, whether it is treasure island or another neighborhood within san francisco. >> supervisor melgar: i'm sorry, i don't know that that was the question, forgive me supervisor haney. the question i heard was, "who

was in charge of a social determinance of health for a particular neighborhood that is underseeing development if we know there are toxins, there are risks and we are allowing development, it would perhaps, not be your department. but we have an entire department that is called community house and equity. like most folks, it is not a clinical sick person by sick person and then clusters, it is actually the other way around we want to have health equity in how we are conducting development activityies. i'm sorry, supervisor peskin wanted to clarify the same question, right? >> supervisor peskin: pretty much. i was going to start, if i my madam chair, what is your position with dph and what is

your involvement with this project? >> i'm the acting director of the environmental health branch. within the environmental health branch, going back to the early 1990's when these federal protects potentially look poten- properties potentially looked like they were going to come back to the county of san francisco we hired an engineer that was going to be the lead on the project. in addition to that, off times the -- often times, the health officer of the the ch would be involved periodically in these projects. as i said in the beginning, supervisor peskin, we are the regulatory branch of the health department. our role and responsibilities r, first and foremost is to proteci ng the public health of the citizens of san francisco. that's sort of an underlying

principle. we do that, in my particular branch, through the enforcement of regulations and laws. it is in the health code, typically my branch is the one that is enforceing that health code. so, if you take hunters point naval shipyard, by comparison, there is a local health code article 31 of the san francisco health code that my agency would be involved in enforcing. that comes into play after a protect, after a parcel has been turned over to the city and county of san francisco. the navy has deemed it has been cleaned up. there is a whole process for that. it get gets turned over to san francisco. now we are going to develop it. that's when article 31 kicks in. if your looking at treasure island, for all of those reasons that have kind of been outlined here, it is not under that same sort of regulatory umbrella. there is no article 31 of the health code that applyies to treasure island.

that has been handed kind of like a separate project in san francisco. it is federal land. it is not a super fund site, meeting that distribute strict . but the cleanup is being overseen by state agencyies. those state agencyies, you heard from this afternoon. eventually, it will be turned over to san francisco. it was pointerred out pointed out in the beginning some of it already has been. once it is turned over to san francisco, the same rules and laws that apply to protect in san francisco will apply to treasure island. it is a little bit of a different jurisdictional structure at treasure island compared to the neighbor down the street at hunters point shipyard. there is not a specific health code written for the development

of treasure island >> i think that representation from mr. beck has been turned over to the city of san francisco. is that your representation, si? >> that is correct. >> this is a rhetorical questiod within the confines of the city and county of san francisco? >> chap her chapter 31 is not so state law. state senator, she may have started that when she was the assembly woman, carol, passed a piece of legislation to make it a redevelopment area, a second -- if you will, third redevelopment area.

that ultimately was not used. so, i don't want to inappropriate refer to you, why are you saying health code section 31 does not apply to treasure island and it is different? don't we own 70% of it >> absolutely supervisor peskin and you rightly pointed out. as soon as the protect is the -s turned over, san francisco does apply. just by comparison that doesn't exist for treasure island. there is not an article 31 that involves transfer of parcels. to answer your question, once it is part of city and county of san francisco, everything that would apply anywhere else in the

city applyies to that protect >> supervisor peskin: like the mopper act? >> yeah >> supervisor peskin: so -- and by the way this is going to be another question that i don't totally know the answer to. does the city by dph or any other entity have any on-going responsibilities persaunt to federal circle of law? or is that all epa? if you don't know how to answer this question, we can find the answer with all the people in this meeting today. or does that fall to california state entityies? is there any local participation regulatory involvement? >> i am not going to pretend to be an expert.

i know the city has some involvement in it. as part of the planning process, as new developments or things are being built in san francisco, you'll see that applied. we do have some involvement, i wouldn't be the expert to speak to that. >> supervisor peskin: and you indicated through the chair that the city's involvement and dph's involvement long predates the city taking title to any portion of the island. it starts out in the 1990's when bill clinton was president and the united states of america is abandoning military bases throughout the country and even throughout the world, which led to the hunters point transfer, that led to ultimately the treasure island transfer or at least in large part. it sounded like the city and dph

was already looking at this long before it was transferred in whole or in part, is that true? >> yes. that is true. you have been around long enough to remember probably all of that. but -- treasure island, along with hunters point and presidio, the city was looking at, at that time, really an opportunity to expand the footprint of san francisco and to have this ones in a lifetime opportunity to develop these areas of san francisco that otherwise, the city would not have access to. that was starting in the early 1990's. i believe, in anticipation of that, that is when my branch had -- i guess the foresight, if you will, to hire an environmental

engineer to sort of be the dphs eyes and ears on those projects as they proved forward. i don't think anybody could have anticipated where ever we are at -- 27 years later -- we are still in the thick of things. it has been a slow-moving project, for sure. >> supervisor peskin: that is incontraveritable. there have long been allegations about both chemical and

beings. >> you have representatives hero from cdph radiological branch. i think they of ones to answer that question. i think, in general, looking at the different sites -- those different properties in san francisco. again, i don't want to put words in cdph's mouth here, i think treasure island was mischaracterized. you go looking for what you

think is the historical use of the site. i this that's probably what happened here is there was an incomplete amount of historical data around treasure island. it wasn't until later they were discovering that these things were there. and then piecing together how it was that that happened. it wasn't like the naval shipyard where you had a functioning shipyard for years and a big industrial operation there. treasure island, obviously, didn't have that history. obviously, there were things that were missed. like i said, i'm just talking off the top of my head, supervisor. i think that's a better question for cdph. >> supervisor peskin: two questions and i will yield the floor. question number one is do you think the united states department of defense buying through the navy told us the truth and we asked the right answers?

that's one question. would they tell us the truth if we asked the right questions is what i meant to say. >> the end result sure looks like there was an incomplete picture that had been painted. whether or not that was because somebody did not give us enough information or didn't give us the right information or we asked the wrong questions, again, i'm not sure. i think probably cdph could fill in the blanks better than i can. i know what the end result was. that's where we are today. that was an incomplete picture that didn't cover everything that was there as mr. choo pointed out earlier. >> supervisor peskin: i don't know that we have ever met, although you are correct that i have been around for a little while. but we have met, it is good to see you again.

the second question is you said earlier this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for san francisco manifest destiny to expand treasure island and the shipyard and the presidio, which is now in essence, national park. and i was around those days. by the way, then i was gone for seven years. it is no secret, it is a matter of public record, i actually brought litigation against the city and county over environmental contamination at treasure island which litigation lasted for almost four years and went all the way to the california state supreme court. putting that aside, do you think the zeal for that once-in-a-lifetime expansion that many powerful elected officials -- and by the way, at that time barack obama was in the united states.

our local, congressional and senate delegation is largely the same. we went through a number of mayors, as you all stated, over the 27 years. do you think that -- in any way -- and i'm not asking relative to dph, but relative to dph's, which is kind of our last resort and i don't say -- failure to be a backstop in recognizing the gaps that are now true and evident? in other words, were you under any political pressure? >> no. you can not work in the city county san francisco without being under some kind of political pressure. me, personally, i am not aware of political pressure. i think the pressure in san

francisco is complex, as you well know and involves housing and the need for affordable housing and a lot of other things all competing with each other. if you are asking if we were ever under any pressure to sort of side step public health -- i wouldn't work here if that was the case. public health is sort of my calling. i take it very seriously. >> supervisor peskin: i appreciate that. i won't delve into the allegations relative to a member of d ph and the shipyard. those are all known with the subject of media attention. i yield the floor. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor. is it dr. or mr.? i don't want to disrespect you. i do want to go back to the

questioning that supervisor haney was pursuing earlier. so, our department of public health, which i greatly admire, as a unique board chart configuruation, different from other departments of public health, we have population health. hopefully, because we pay for the clinical part, if we are doing the population health part right, we will reduce costs. just aside from the moral obligation we have to all our residents just the financial obligation we have to the city to make sure we address things is just good policy, good practice. i think today we think differently than 27 years ago. we talk about race. we talk about gender.

we talkbo lot about the social determinance of health. that is something we did not talk about 27 years ago. i'm wondering as supervisor peskin talked about, we heard about the years before land was transferred. i'm wondering what you think in terms of our future? this board, i think, and supervisor haney, is looking to sort of shape what happens here. how will your department work with population, health and equity going forward in terms of ensuring that the population of treasure island, which is all low-income people, people of color, formerly homeless, is sort of protected? we keep clinical costs down at some point by having people not get sick and having you

addressed things in the past -- i don't want to call them failures. where did we miss the mark? >> i think you are spot-on in much of what you just said there. i think what i have seen during my career here is that growth that you are describing. i think there is a much, much bigger focus on those dedeterminants of health that you are describing that are more born by poor communities, communities of color and those are things that the health department is committed to identifying, not just identifying, but correcting. statistically, you can see that very clearly in all kinds of different areas, heart disease, cancer. they were talking about low birthrate weights earlier, just

to name a few. there is dozens just like that that are pretty easy to predict based -- as soon as you know enough about somebody you can kind of predict where they are at on the scale as far as those things are concerned. yeah, absolutely, that is something that the health department is committed to not just in word but in deed. that is a big part of why those two groups exist in san francisco. we are not just under an umbrella that involves all of the hospitals and clinics, but we do have this whole prevention side of the house. which is the side of the house that i sit on. >> supervisor melgar: i guess my question is specifically what then is the interaction going forward? we have put this population that we already knew because of the social determinants you just talked about that is already

vulnerable. then we placed them in a place where environmentally it makes them more vulnerable. there is questions about whether it is or isn't or whether the right test is done or it is not. already, we are taking a vulnerable population and placing them in a place where there may or may not be more things that put them in harms way. imwondering for the future, what are we going to do in terms of the interaction between your department and folks who are supporting the population that is already vulnerable. >> yeah. like i said, the department of public health san francisco is committed to all of that you just described. our voice will be heard. it is going to be an important part of how those decisions are made going forward. the director of health, dr. grant colfax, is definitely

committed to that. what has happened the past are things that we can all learn from. i think that is sort of -- is the road map going forward -- is to learn and move forward. the health department is fully committed to it. we are involved and continue to be more and more involved in how those decisions are made. we may not control all of those. as you know, there is a whole lot of different departments that are involved in something like a housing -- answering a housing question and who are we going to put where? is it market rate housing? below market rate housing? there is a lot of people at the table that have a say. i think, as you earlier pointed out, historically, health might not have been part of that conversation in the 90s or a very small part.

the commitment to equity and ensuring the same healthy environment provided to everybody is one of the core values to the health department. i'm not sure if that completely answers your question. i can just speak to the health department side of the fence. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. i had a couple of more questions. one question i had i think is for mr. choo because of your presentation and i really appreciated it. my question is about worker protections. there is folks who are there doing cleanup. i'm wondering if there has been, as you stated in the past, areas where the proper testing wasn't done? or how do we ensure that the workers who are doing the cleanups actually are protected in an adequate way if we don't

quite now? >> i'm going to point you to tm manager on that side of the branch. >> thank you. the contractors that perform work on treasure island have obtained a california radio active materials license. we are an agreement state. which means that we are supposed to be doing and we do all of our regulatory oversight exactly the same as a nuclear regulatory commission. when these contractors are working they notify us prior to coming out to a site to do work. in addition to that, we do spot

checks for lack of better term. on the licensees to observe their work. also take radiation measurements to ensure their work is accomplishing what they claim it is accomplishing. we check that and we document it. we have not found any significant issues recently on the current licensee that's working out there. we do check. and we do regular inspections. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much. my last question because i'm new to all of this. thank you supervisor haney for putting all of this on the tabl. several folks talked about how putting all of this on the tabl.

>> they follow the same process. supervisor peskin. >> the department of the navy has not agreed to be here this afternoon. i find that to be rather remarkable and i'd like to also drill down with mr. beck, madam chair, and supervisor haney, if you are willing, into the original deal, what the liabilities were between the parties and i just heard the navy pays.

the payor is not here. i always worry about the payee. they turned out -- and i'm not saying this as a, you know, wild thing, but as a matter of a conviction to have been criminally negligent, and they were the payee. it's very important for us to hear from the department of the navy. i really think that if we're going to really dispose of our duties here, which i hope we will do not only today but over a period of time, because i think this is actually one of the most environmentally-unjust things that, along with the shipyard, has happened in our city in the late 20th century and early 21st century.

i would like the department of the navy to be here. >> thank you, supervisor. we can certainly keep this hearing open. so, and i think it's really important to understand the original deal. as i recall, the original deal that then mayor newsome's base closure and reuse head michael cohen, was in charge of and i think that -- by the way, this is not another leading question, i think that there was some agreement about the ultimate financial liability of the united states as it related to

environmental remediation at treasure island. and i think we should actually publicly hear what that deal was and what their ultimate liability was and how that was agreed to. >> thank you, supervisor. i think i'm going to turn it to supervisor haney because he called for this hearing. i also believe he had another comment or question. >> i think supervisor peskin's question should be addressed too and we can turn it over after i ask this question of sfdph, because i don't want to let this particular concern go unaddressed. if mr. faustal could address this. it continues to be a concern of mine that it appears to be known

as an explicit responsibility to follow-up directly in a individual way or an identifying patterns around health conditions that may be consistent with exposure to radiation or chemicals or contaminants. i know this could is maybe broadly part of san francisco dph's role. do you know if sfdph has followed up with any of the residents whose health problems were consistent with exposure to radiation or other contaminants? do you have any knowledge or record of that? >> i can find that out for you. not with my branch in particular, because we're the regulatory branch for the health department and we enforce laws. so, what you are asking for is a

little beyond my branch. i can certainly look into it and find out and get you that information. >> thank you. at the very least, what we saw in the beginning of this hearing, was that treasure island is far and away at the very highest levels of risk because of a number of factors. their score was 85 to 90% and even higher on some particular factors. i understand there's a lot of ways to measure the cleaning and risk and all of that. we should look directly at people's health and monitoring it and assessing it and identifying, as you said, the epidemiology of it. i did want to ask, because the navy december 2018 fact sheet actually snow squalls that the says the san francisc

department of health and the cancer prevention institute of california have performed independent evaluations of treasure island. their results confirmed it's safe to live and work on treasure island. do you know what evaluations occurred or what they're referring to? >> yeah. i'm familiar with the cancer prevention institute of california. i think what happened there was that due to a residents' complaint, and maybe someone is on the call that knows the back story there, but regarding potential cancer risk on treasure island, they were brute brought in to evaluate that. they conducted that kind of an epidemiological survey at the residents that are there looking for increases in cancers, cancer clusters and that sort of thing. i can get you a copy of their

report. i think that was back 2012 maybe, 2012 to 2014. somewhere in there. dph took a look at that. i think the health officer thomas, dr. ergone at the time was involved in that and reviewed the information. as was pointed out, i think by dtsc or someone earlier, you know, there are -- those are tough studies to do. there's a lot of confounding variables that include people's movement and how long they're in one area and all of that. yes, you are right, that was my understanding was that the conclusion that was reached was that there was not an indication there was an increased cancer risk on treasure island by that crew. >> so i do want to underscore this because the navy has presented it as though this was a sort of independent evaluation

of the health and well-being more broadly of people who lived and worked there and it says that their results confirmed it's safe to live and work on treasure island. it's a pretty expensive statement referring to the department as the justification for that when it sounds like in your view, that is really not a role that sfdph has played to perform independent evaluations of the health of people on the island. so, this is something that i think is of great concern because these are our people, these are our residents and they have reported for a number of years now health conditions that they believe are connected to contaminants and it doesn't sound to me that we have ever

done a comprehensive analysis of those health conditions or their connections to contaminates or do we have any record that we followed up with any individual other than this one individual who it sounds like led to a cancer prevention institute. i do think that if it's not sfdph's responsibility then no one is taking responsibility for this particular role and i do think it's important to note that the navy is representing it as though sfdph is taking this role. >> noted. yep. thank you. >> i'm not blaming you specifically, this is something we need to be -- it seems that when it comes to treasure island

there's often a sense that that's not exactly my particular piece of it and so i assume that someone else is doing that and piece of it and i think some of the most important this including the actual direct support for the help and connecting potential health conditions to the affects of radiation or contaminants has not happened, at least not that i can find. i'll turn it back over to you. >> supervisor haney, thank you so much. supervisor peskin, did you want to hear from director beck? >> yes and we haven't heard from supervisor preston so i'm happy to purse my lips. yes, i think it would be very helpful for all the members of this committee to actually hear about what the original deal

was. i think i might have been president of the board at that time. subsequently, when i was off the board, there was a new deal and we are where we are today. through both of those periods of time, the representations by d.p.h., primarily, because that was our local agency, as well as the -- as well as the vitamin was cleaning up to be helpful. which seems to be an issue today. >> is there the -- when you say you want him to tell us about the deal, is there a more specific -- because he could go on for -- >> yes, madam chair. i think i've hopefully said that well enough now and i think mr. beck knows exactly what i'm

asking about. number one through the chair, mr. beck, what were the terms of the cities' acquisition, how much do we have to pay for it? how much do we owe at the back end, depending how much the island generates and what are the united states of america's liabilities and what are the city's liabilities and where are those kept? >> president melgar: thank you, supervisor. mr. beck. >> thank you. so in terms of the financial terms of the transaction, there's a land payment that is to be made to the navy in total of $55 million in 10 installments plus interest. those payments, through our agreements with the master developerrer made through community development so the city doesn't make those payments

but they're an obligation of the developer. there's a black-end participation if the tida and the city and navy, if the developer exceeds certain internal rates of return. in terms of the environment clean up program on the island, the navy has responsibility for cleaning up the island to standards appropriate for the intended future land uses that is, fully and exclusively their responsibilities. that's the reason that and the island is complete.

and, at culmination of their clean up process, it's a multi step process for any individual project, there's a action complete report and prior to any transfer of land, there's a finding of suitability to transfer which summarizes the issues of concerns and the reand documents the land is suitable to transfer for the intended future land use. and the state of california concurs with that suitability to transfer before the city will take accept the transfer of the land and there are call back provisions for the navy and if subsequent transfer we were to find simple example of a underground fuel storage tank

that was not previously identified and remediated by the navy if we were finding that after the fact as we were going into to do utility work or some other activity, we would have call back provisions for the navy that is responsibility to come back and remediate those findings. >> i see supervisor preston wanted to ask you some more. when you say we, who is we? >> we the city or treasure island development authority, i'm sorry. supervisor peskin. >> we the city or the treasure island development authority. through the chair to mr. beck what's do you think tida is? as a legal matter? >> um, the treasure island development authority is a

formed as a municipal corporation and as awe lewd today earlier, the original thought was that treasure island development agency would be a redevelopment agency as the program nearing entitlement is when governor brown made the decision to do away with redevelopment so, the city adopted the development plan and in many respects tida functions as a city agency, although we do have legal standing as a municipal benefit corporation. >> and corporations and by the way this account that is a unsubsidiary of the city and county of san francisco. is that true and correct? >> we're a charter city.

ms. pearson, i know that no one prepares for questions like these. what creature is tida? >> >> i believe tida is treated as a department of this city and county. >> mr. beck, what are you saying that is different than city attorney? >> nothing. >> well it sounds like -- >> i think i provided some history on how we came to be here in terms of the vision that tida was envisioned initially to be a redevelopment agency in which case we would have been a quasi state agency. we never officially formed as a

redevelopment agency and never took any redevelopment actions and so, i was only attempting to provide a full answer. >> no worries whatsoever through the chair, can you explain to us how the governance structure works as appointed and what the board of supervisors roll is in that governance? >> tida is governed by a seven-member commission, board of directors and supervisor haney sits on the tida board as an -- >> voting or non voting? >> non voting. and the directors are appointed

by the mayor and confirmed by the board. >> confirmed or denied? it is a positive confirmation in all seven cases? in other words, is this something where the appointment where the mayor appoints and the board can reject or is this an appointment like ms. melgar's former commission where there's a nomination and the board sits like the senate and confirms? >> i am not sure that i know the difference. perhaps, the city attorney could answer that? >> through the chair -- >> i do not know but i'm looking it up. it appears that the appointment process is governed by the tida

bylaws. the board of director consists of one non voting ex-officio and no more than seven voting directors. the non voting directors, the member of the board of supervisors who represents treasure island and the seven voting directors are appointed by the mayor. there are requirements regarding their expertise and appointments of directors who are officers of the city and county are effective immediately and remain in effect unless rejected by two-thirds vote of the board of supervisors within 30 days. >> those are 3.100 subsection 18 appointments, is that correct? >> um, i would have to look no that more. this is the first time i'm learning of the particular governing structure of tida. >> ms. pearson, had i known i was going to ask these questions, i would have called you yesterday, this morning or

on saturday. >> understood. i'm happy to get you more information. >> this is 3.100 subsection 18 appointments and you are telling me they're not in law by tida's by-laws. >> that appears to be correct. i'm consulting our appointment's memo that summarizes the process for mayoral and other appointments to policy bodies that generally summarizes the requirements and cites to the source of law that dictates the methods of appointments and it's citing the by-laws for all the information that i've sheared sharedwith you so far. >> madam chair, supervisor, haney, supervisor preston, i will yet again purse my lips. if i have learned anything today, insofar as going into this, it was going to be a redevelopment agency, that got truncated before it got used, it

sounds to me there's nothing in ordinance and that we, this board of supervisors, supervisor haney, can pass a responsible governance ordinance around tida that i would be happy to partner with you on and insofar as you and i are not a quorum of this body, i await your phone call. >> president melgar: thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you chair melgar and colleagues for asking good, probing questions on this. i do want to just start by really recognizing all of the activism that brought us here today and folks who i know are in touch with supervisor haney. we heard presentations from folks, i know there's also a lot of tenants who spoken up, you know, despite the fears around

retaliation and just i appreciate all their work in elevating this. and supervisor haney for your leadership and supervisor peskin for your decades of work on this. i do have -- it's hard to know where to begin. i'll just jump in with questions and i'll try 20 keep it short because otherwise i'll be asking questions all day. following up on the last line of questioning around to mr. beck through the chair around the tida board, is there any -- are there residents represented on the tida board and if so, how many? >> thank you for the question. yes, there's a current resident of the island who sits on the tida board mark dunlop. so one of the seven is a current

resident of the island. >> supervisor preston: thank you. is that required that there be one resident? i'm curious why it's just one? is that a minimum or is that just at the discretion of the mayor of the appointing official? >> i believe it's at the discretion of the mayor. >> thank you. >> supervisor preston: i want to follow-up on supervisor haney and supervisor peskin's comments on the absence of the navy which leaves me scratching my head quite honestly. this item is the clean up is about the clean up of treasure island and my understanding from the presentations is the navy is the lead agency responsible for the clean up. so, it obviously, everyone would

seem to have an interesting in having the navy here and supervisor haney they refused to appear. i did have some questions both for colleagues and our presenters just on this variation and when did the navy just rejected the request or provided any explanation is to why they would not be sneer was it a no or did they explain themselves? >> i would have to ask my staff who was in direct conversation with them. it's my understanding they just declined and i was met with the navy directly last year and they came and presented with me but they declined to appear at the hearing. i don't think they gave a reason. >> through the chair, to both the state agencies and i'm curious if either of your

agencies were in touch with the navy or made a request and if so what is the response was? >> this is julie. so we do have a monthly call about a number of different sites treasure island is one of them and i did ask, i did inquire if the navy would be attending. they said they would not. there was not a lot of discussions although i know that there was a statement that they issued and perhaps supervisor haney's staff received that and it is there was a statement. i can't require and it was not a long statement. >> that is in our materials, so we have their statement and

mr. chiu, any communications with the navy for your agency and if so what response around appearing today? >> no. out of them, the meeting that julie already alluded to, we did not have any other communications with the navy on this hearing. >> thank you. and through the chair to my colleague, supervisor peskin, i'm curious in your history of hearings on this matter the board has the navy department of defense previously appeared or is this an ongoing problem with the navy not appearing at board of supervisors when treasure island clean up issues are discussed? [please stand by]

>> supervisor preston: rather than this committee having to -- and many of the officials on here having to guess at what is going through the mind of the entity that actually -- or

the agency that actually controls a lot of what we are discussing. so i -- i'll leave that -- that issue, and i -- i don't know if you want to -- i have other questions, but i saw supervisor peskin's -- >> supervisor peskin: the only thing i was going to add, and i don't think this board -- while we do have the power of subpoena, i suspect it would be very difficult to utilize that as it relates to the united states of america, but i do believe that this is an issue that we should continue to hear, and, if necessary, utilize the board of supervisors or if somebody would finally pass the rule that i've been interested in adopting, this committee's power to subpoena individuals.

>> chair melgar: [inaudible]. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair melgar. i believe this may be for miss pettijohn. could you layout for the public what would be done if this were

a super fund a super site compared to something else? >> well, this would be the same. there may be some difference in terms of the documents filed, but they function as the same documents. >> supervisor preston: thank you. and through the chair to miss pettijohn, the advocates have a request or desire to have a full investigation by the e.p.a., and i'd like to know

what d.t.c.s.' position is. and mr. chiu, does d.p.h. have a position on the suggestion by some of the advocates that the e.p.s. be the lead agency on the investigation? >> no, we don't. i concur with miss pettijohn's position, and whether it's on the superfund list or not, our function is the same, our

process is the same. we provide technical expertise to dtse, and we have a robust program, and we would monitor the site the same way if it's a listed site or not. >> supervisor preston: do i have it right that these are two potentially different questions, whether it's a superfund site or whether it's a d.t.a. or will they only take over as the lead agency once it's determined to be a superfund site? >> i'm not sure. julie, do you know if there's any difference here? >> yes. there are other sites that they work on. it's my understanding that there are other sites that they work on that are within their fur view that are not superfund, so, for example, they -- they are required to

implementation of the toxic substances control act, so that's specific to p.c.b. sites, so they have a number of sites where they are the lead regulatory agencies. they are not superfund or regulatory sites, but they are the lead. >> supervisor preston: thank you for the clarification. it seems to me whatever reason it is determined not to be a superfund site, and there may be a number of reasons for that, but i do think it's a separate question from what seems like a reasonable suggestion from advocates, and i appreciate, miss pettijohn, that you may need to consult with others at the department, but i think it would be helpful to know if that's a friendly suggestion or not. i mean, obviously, in a sense, it divests the state agencies of being the lead on this, so i understand it's probably not something that your agency would suggest, but i think

that's different from if there is a call among advocates and a feeling to the extent that residents might have more confidence or need given the history, you know, want that independence. i think it would be very helpful to get clarity on whether that is something that would be at least acceptable, too, to the department, even if not -- even if that's not what you're calling for. >> understood. >> supervisor preston: thank you. thank you. let me jump a little bit for a second around the retaliation claims that we heard and if i could, through the chair, to mr. anton, the attorney representing whistleblowers. i know you were a little short on time or maybe planning to go into this, but i think we all

take very seriously concerns about retaliation, particularly if it's residents speaking up. can you clarify who, if not even by name, by agency who is doing the alleged retaliation? what form is it taking? is it due to the form of housing of residents on the island? can you elaborate in some way the retaliation that you referenced? >> yes, and i think some residents in the latter section about comments might be able to provide additional information. in the early years of treasure island's redevelopment, at the r.a.b. meeting and other meetings on treasure island, numerous residents came and spoke up and expressed concern,

and there was a regular pattern of the very vocal residents speaking up about concerns about health and safety, that their leases were not continued or they were actively evicted. and catholic charities -- and there's one other organization that runs the program out there that i forget the name of, but both of the housing organizations there were very active in, from the view of the residents, of punishing residents who spoke up and objected to health and safety concerns. so much so that you hardly see any residents appearing at these meetings anymore, even though they're meeting outside, because they're so afraid of

retaliation. >> supervisor preston: thank you. i was muted there. mr. anton, i look forward to the experiences from residents, their individual experiences. you know, i will just say that, obviously, retaliation in california is illegal, but laws on the books aren't always adhered to. we're talking here about people talking about things that are impacting the entire community, and therefore, retaliation protections are that much more essential and important. just -- i guess one other area that, as we're talking about the residents, just first off, and maybe this would tie back to tida.

do you have the demographic breakdowns by age, race, income of who the residents on treasure island are? >> yes. we've actually been recently doing an updated plan, part of which was to look at demographics of the current population. i have that. i can provide that to you. i just happen to have it open here. in terms of our current population, it's 39% caucasian, 20% african american, 12% asian, 14% other, 11% two or more races. [please stand by] double-check.

the 40 -- roughly 42% under 50,000 household income, 25%, 50 to 100,000. 23.5%, 100 to 200,000, and 10% over 200,000. >> supervisor preston: thank you. i appreciate those numbers, and obviously, i think reference or demonstrates what we've discussed before in terms of the equity concerns here, and,

i guess, to summarize those numbers, we're looking at around -- looks like, as you said, 42% under 50,000, about two thirds of folks under 200,000 for the household, so obviously low and very low-income, majority nonwhite. and then, on the age spread, just noticing a lot of younger residents and children on the island. almost looks like -- i think it was 23% in that lowest tier, the youngest tier of age. >> supervisor melgar: sorry, supervisor preston. supervisor peskin wanted to clarify something. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. mr. anton, does that include the y.b.i. numbers because i assume, when you have that 10%, you have that y.b.i. numbers. >> we have no residents on

yerba buena island at this time. >> supervisor peskin: i get that, but does that number include the y.b.i. number? >> this is current population only. we have no population on y.b.i. >> supervisor peskin: okay. these numbers are dated as of when, mr. beck? >> i believe these are numbers from a document dated last september 2020. >> supervisor peskin: and there was no residents on yerba buena island. [please stand by]

>> i would guess when you got the data your 10% over $200,000 would drop like a rock. >> i believe we are fairly confident in that number. >> okay.

>> i would like further info on some of the questions. i do think -- i do think knowing what that data is from potentially the providers from such a limited universe there, i would be curious how the acs data, american community service data, i think have their limits. those are done as a sample that gets extrapolated out. that's how they do their three month, six month and other surveys. i think we have hard data from the providers. i would say i think it is a concern for everyone on the committee. i know working in housing

justice work with tenants for 20 years before taking office, i think one thing lacking and i would just urge when we have future presentations on this that we have the data as part of the presentations. i realize there are a lot of different departments -- that we are clear who we are talking about. the info i have gotten since this hearing began and thank you to supervisor haney's legislative staff for actually providing me some of this. apparently, in the 2016 planning data, showed a 51% poverty rate on treasure island, the highest in the city, which is news to me. it is also -- i don't know how we can talk about accountability and transparency on what happened here versus what might have happened if we had a

different socioeconomic profile of this island. it is an important piece of the puzzle, not news to anyone on this call, but i would say particularly for public hearings on this, would hope it could be centered, our discussions of the folks we are talking about. last thing on the issue of specifically of the residents and their housing situation. i would like to know what circumstances or findings may trigger a mandatory relocation of the residents under state law to miss pettyjohn or mr. chip. >> this is julie pettyjohn. to be direct in answering your

questions, i am not aware of specific requirements that would require the folks to be evacuated. the exception to that would be if the department were made aware of an imminent and substantial endangerment. in that case, we could file an order and ask for those folks to be relocated. but, that is something i can certainly follow up on when i return to the office. >> supervisor haney: in that situation, what is the process? who is hired to relocate folks? >> the few limited circumstances where i have been involved where we have had to issue such an order is we had to work it out with the property own efficient. these were much, much smaller housing developments.

in cases i have specific involvement with, the property owner paid for the relocation. >> supervisor melgar: did you have something to add? >> supervisor chan: no, there is no code that would provide that kind of order. >> supervisor peskin: have you dealt with that in situations you are talking about. would anything be different in that process by virtue of the issues raised by federal

ownership? >> in my experience, no, we have not dealt with federal government as it relates to the need to relocate people. again, i'm certainly happy, supervisor preston, to take this back and inquire with our attorneys. >> supervisor preston: thank you. what are the findings in regard to radiation chemicals and the situation that would trigger that kind of responsibility. there is that issue. then there is the question of how it is impacted by the fact that we are dealing with the federal government and would appreciate any information that you could provide on that. thank you. i have many more but i also know we are running late and there are many people waiting, i'm

sure, to make public comments so i'll stop there. thank you, chairman. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. do you have anything to add? >> supervisor peskin: i do not but i think 26 minutes ago, we got [indiscernible] i think madam clerk is going to read that in. >> supervisor melgar: madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you madam chair. let me pull it up. >> supervisor melgar: it is in all caps. >> supervisor haney: before you do, this is the statement they previously provided, i believe. i don't mind it being read. >> this one is dated today 8,

february, 2021. >> supervisor preston: sounds good. >> clerk: this is a memo from the department of the navy. navy appreciates the opportunity to provide this statement regarding the work at the former naval station treasure island. since the closure of sti in 1997, the department of the navy conducted a multifaceted environmental cleanup program to allow for local redevelopment and civilian reuse of the property. the don't has completed $297 million of environmental cleanup work in collaboration with the california

environmental protection agency, department of toxic substances control and department of public health environmental management branch and the state of california san francisco bay regional water quality control board. these efforts have resulted in rates in the city of san francisco, 948 acres, which is equivalent to 88% of federal land for local reuse purposes. the don keeps the public informed on awareness campaigns. these activities include holding quarterly restoration advisory board meeting and annual rab, restoration advisory board sending environmental documents to the san francisco library

providing environmental cleanup work notices to residents in three languages and maintaining an informational website where details of the environmental cleanup work are posted. >> supervisor peskin: thank you madam chair and thank you madam clerk. i will note 88% is significantly larger. >> i can clarify that. >> supervisor melgar: i think we can now go to public comment if none of my colleagues have any further comments or questions. i think we have quite a few folks on the line.

we have 22 listeners with 13 in cue. james, if you can unmute the first caller. caller, the system will indicate you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. you have two minutes. >> supervisor melgar: welcome, caller. >> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> supervisor melgar: yes, we can. >> caller: yay! treasure island is, by in large, a super fund site that is not reliably cleared for safe occupation. as such, it is unsafe. developing it -- if there is still radio active things found all over the place, which there are and many of the current residents are sick, it shows that there is a problem, right? you don't bring more people in

there. the people who bought the new condos and offices need to be warned there is radio active material underneath. i know it is in the fine print of the housing but it is not obvious. i think they should halt construction of additional housing as it is not safe for occupation. i think the peoplewho live there relocated. they can't be retaliated against for getting in on a class-action suit or whatever they want to do. i have lived here 30 years and

watch this go on on this island and it is appalling. thank you very much. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: can we have the next caller pieces? >> my name is steve steltzer. the big question is where the environmental engineer who has been telling people on treasure island that the place has been safe. why hasn't she been fired? that is another issue that the developer has not mentioned

here. who is making money. who is profiting on development projects on a radio active nuclear site? nancy pelosi was in favor of this development. there has been no investigation of the billion dollars of money spent on cleanup. i do not believe you can have a cleanup on a radio active dump site which is going ahead at the shipyard and treasure island. our former mayor, gavin newsom was involved in the development of this project. he is now in charge of california. and there has been no investigation including cal osha, where is cal osha is is oa cal osha for thefailure to do pd

the falsification of testing. i think what is needed really, is a criminal investigation. we are not talking just about of the charitable, horrific attacks on the health and safety of the residents but also a criminal cover up, both by the navy and other government agencies. i think the board of supervisors should call for a criminal investigation by the district attorney of why this has been covered up. why people have been lying about the dangers and radio active nuclear dangers. people have to be held accountable. it seems you can start the board of supervisors and your committee can call for an independent investigation to get to this. the people who did this are not just doing something wrong and harmful. they are engaged in a criminal cover up. that has to be exposed and they

have to be held personally accountable. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, steve. next caller, please. hi, welcome. >> my name is james puffer. i have been documenting the navy's dumping of waste into the harbor. i have gone through all the navy reports. i have read where they have dumped things. treasure island's was the navy's atomic, biological and chemical warfare school. there was a test in 1964, where they were testing mustard gas on the site and they were using two chemicals.

dank and d s2. d s2 was used until 1966 by the navy because it is cleaner for contaminated materials. i have it all documented. also, i wanted to point out that the leader of the site -- they found the sea lions have a cancer rate of 25% in san francisco. there have been other studies from 1992 where the sturgeon and the kroger fish have lesions on their kidneys and their livers and the mullo ucs have been

documented and mutated. it has been in the classified reports from the radiological lab at hunters point. they have gone around and contaminated areas all over the san francisco bay area. i have it all documented so you can see it. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, james. i appreciate your comment. next caller, please. >> caller: thank you supervisors, this committee. my name is hope williams. i want to first disclose by me calling in and testifying i am putting myself and my three kids at risk for further retaliation. i have had retaliation in the past from jon stewart company, i have had my life threatened for speaking out and advocating. i am an active resident on

treasure island. i was recently placed as vice-chair. i want to put forth some of the questions why residents aren't on the title board? many of us don't know. many of us have dealt with retaliation. some are fearful. it is unhumane, the conditions that we live in. there needs to be a clear separation of the overseers. the bylaws need to be checked. i am in touch with most of the title board. i have put forth my application, my request to be placed on the title board. i have yet to hear back from anyone. it is not that residents don't want to be active. but there is a lack of communication. there is fear that goes on. there is -- even with all the

efforts i have been putting forth and supporting residents through covid, i am still denied access to partner meetings. there is no transparency and information. it wasn't until two years ago that we received a flier that prop 65 was relevant to our housing. i moved in 2009. i had a pre-term birth in 2014. i have chaired for residents who have had cancer. it is not just about relocating but actually addressing the health issues, addressing the lack of accountability. i want to thank the supervisors that asked the question. i started shouting with joy when you started saying we need to really look at the accountability. for our supervisor not to have a voting right, if you are our residents not to have a voting right on the conditions with which they live in is unequitable.

>> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, hope. we appreciate your comment. next caller, please. >> caller: hi, thank you. i guess the first thing i want to say is [indiscernible] she can't get on the board. we are talking decades and decades of people experiencing it. they are the experts beyond slides and beyond all of the data that's being collected. these are human beings that have been subjected to, not health

concerns, their health is being destroyed. this is not only justice denied, this is going into death. people dying. people's houses being irreparable harm for decades on treasure island and hunters point. and the real people who are the experts are the ones that have not been listened to. over and over again, there are supposed to be expert organizations and expert regulatory agencies and expert this and expert that and they are not listening to the people. my question is any of you that are collecting all of this data, are you willing to move to treasure island with your family

today? >> i know y'all are having kind of a hearing but i have been working on this for five years. i think y'all should listen to the two doctors monitoring. they are getting static from one or two supervisors and the mayor for doing the right thing. that's the worse type of

retaliation, two women, black doctors, attesting that hunters point and treasure island, the official name before was treasure island, hunters point annex. treasure island is a manmade island. it was a command for the naval ship was jetter son. it meant to dump shit on treasure island. no human being should be living on treasure island. no human being should be living on hunters point. you supervisors have never read the precautionary principle. not once has the precautionary principle been mentioned in this discussion. supervisors, if you know they are putting people in harm's way and some of y'all know, y'all are educated enough to know that

you have blood on your hands. thank you very much. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. next caller, please. >> i have been trying four years to get help for this and bring this to attention i have not been able to reach anyone. as referred to in 2014hra, i became a human receptor. when i moved in i was a healthy 22-year-old full-time student. by the time i moved out in october 2007, i was home-bound and unable to continue school. i was told i would be safe.

for eight months dust clouds were thrown around my house every day. by christmas, i was too sick to leave my bed. that is when the torture of radiation began. my teeth began crack and falling out one by one from 2007 to 2016. eating made me vomit. i threw up daily and i had migraines. i don't remember much from that decade. i would forget everything. show up places at the wrong time every day of the week. i was put in the er for risk of cardiac arrest. i have daily seizures. i'm unable to stay away more than a few hours before i am put to sleep by my own body. people conclude that i am drunk or on drugs because sometimes my vision blacks out.

robin williams worked at this location for a large part in the 90s. after which, he took his life. >> supervisor melgar: next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you very much for having this hearing. i am the president for the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods representing concerns of all neighborhoods, including neighborhoods developing on treasure island. we have heard about the problems

with nuclear waste there. we have had speakers and writers and we developed a resolution, which we sent to you last year. treasure island building moratorium. be it resolves that all parties involved in the development of treasure island halt construction or development on treasure island until relevant agencies consider it safe and free of radio activity and all other toxic waste. and possible to have human participation unabated. thank you very much. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is barbara browning.

i have lived on the island. i moved to the island in 1969. i was nine years old. i lived on the island until february of 1977. i lived at 1102a 13th street. which is halliburton court. my apartment was the closest to the grade school. when i left the island i had a horrible complex. puss y complex, sores. while living on the island, i saw the navy dermatologist who prescribed me the highest dose of tetracycline. after moving to muskogee, oklahoma, i saw my father's

local doctor and informed me that i was at the maximum dose that was too high for somebody who had complex problems. at the same time i was diagnosed with ulcers. at this time i'm 17 years old. my junior year of high school. i am eating baby food. at the time they said ulcers were due to stress moving from san francisco to muskogee, oklahoma. i had my first surgery to remove my breast. in 1989 my appendix burst. 1995 all my reproductive organs had to be removed. my mother was the same age as i was, 35 years old. we had to have a complete hystorectomy. by the way, my mother worked on

at the daycare center on treasure island. she was one of the first employees on treasure island to work there. after all my reproductive organs were removed 2013 got real interesting. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much. next caller, please. >> hi. my name is griffin jones. i'm calling from the san francisco bay newspaper. i want to say i hope we all recognize, as my co-workers stated earlier and as we have heard from the voices of current and former residents of treasure island this is about people's lives. the next moves that are made need to involve people's lives. department of public health is about public health. it needs to be interacting with the public. this concerns treasure island. i have been sent a statement to

read on behalf of carol harvey, the investigative reporter that has within cited by you. i would like to thank supervisor haney, supervisor melgar and supervisor peskin. people on treasure island are sick in radiation, chemicals, lead, asbestos and black mold left on the base. islanders are three quarters people of color experiencing environmental classism and racism. they are wonderful people in a close knit community. maybe islandsers have seen me walking the streets. i talk to islanders every day.

the navy never said how toxic the island is or they have done a bad job cleaning the place up. we all want to live our daily lives in peace without knowing that the place we live will poison us or children. it is a scare tactic tita and jon stewart use to keep people quiet. some residents are homeless. recently a person had a heart attack and two people died this week. these islanders were poisoned. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, griffin for your comment. next caller, please. >> hello. can you hear me. >> supervisor melgar: yes, we can. welcome. >> oh, thank you so much. once again, i would like to reiterate what my co-worker, griffin jones just said.

i am maleek washington, the editor of the san francisco bay black newspaper. carol harvey has written over 85 articles, in depth articles about the horrible environmental racism on treasure island. we see a lot of similarities between treasure island and hunters point shipyard and the same company's name continues to be heard. tetratech. 70% of the island is controlled by the city of san francisco. i have to ask others in the city government why are we continuing to do business with tetratech when they have shown a pattern of conduct to engage in criminal, corrupt, collusive

activity? they are not serving the public interest. let's talk about retaliation for speaking about a health and safety concern. i know about retaliation for speaking about a health and safety impact. i think, since matt haney said california has a law against retaliation i have to second steve seltzers point that we need an investigation flower. article 31 does not apply to treasure island. okay. well, we have an incredible president of the board of supervisors. his name is walton. he is from the mighty distributt ten. let's craft a resolution that

article 31 apply to treasure island. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much for your comment. next caller, please. >> this is mary ratcliff. i'm the former editor of the san francisco bay view. i live next to the hunters point shipyard and am dieing from metastatic breast cancer. i know that this stuff is real. we are sick out here. we are sick on treasure island. all the demographic inequities we have talked about to such this past year is why we are addressing it now.

thank you very much supervisor haney and all of you. there is a driver behind this. lamar wants to make billions of dollars on housing people on land they don't care may be causing the kind of cancer that i have and all the other terrible, terrible illnesses people are suffering from radiation and other toxins. they don't care. they only want to make money. they are greedy. unfortunately, that same article 31 ties this san francisco health department to lamar. lamar pays them. consequently they consider lamar their boss. that isn't the way it is supposed to work. the health department is supposed to serve the people not big corporations that want to make a lot of money by building something. what i would like to suggest is

that the board and supervisors get courage to the highest notch and call for a moratorium on construction at both hunters point and treasure island and see whether we can solve the problems and eliminate the radiation. if we can not, then people should not live there. >> supervisor melgar: thank you for coming to talk to us today, mary. thank you. next caller, please. >> this is jennifer fang. i'm a resident of district 3. i'm calling to support the residents of treasure island. i only recently learned about the history of radio active waste at treasure island. when i did i was horrified. i learned the residents have spoken up about concerns for

their health and safety for decades. whistleblowers have come forward. people who worked for the company, responsible for the cleanup who said the cleanup effort was sloppy. it is not shocking that the company responsible for the cleanup has repeatedly found what they wanted to find, no contamination so big developers would build there. as noted in previous presentations, residents of treasure island have so many health issues, including chronic coughs and cancers related to radiation exposure. it is nuts to me. again, i'd like to support the demands made by green action. first, protect residents by relocating them, second, protect residents in san francisco bay by conducting comprehensive

retesting and cleanup of contaminations with community oversight. third. guarantee residents will not be evicted in retaliation for speaking out. i stand in solidarity with the residents of treasure island that say they should not have to live next to radio active waste and face retaliation when they speak out. i ask you supervisors to give this the attention it deserves and protect the residents of treasure island. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, jennifer. next caller, please. >> hello. my name is spark sanders. i am a resident. i have lived here two years. i believe as resident, when we sign a lease on treasure island with the housing partners, that in our lease document we be

provided this is an active cleanup site. that is not done and not a currently policy that i know of on treasure island. for basic transparency of residents that live here currently and for new residents that moved here for different reasons, being added as a subtenant. currently, it does still happen. in my example i was cleaning and digging up my backyard. i was made aware by the housing partners after i was digging in my backyard that it is considered unsafe to do so and is not recommended. that, obviously, exposed me to possible contamination. i would like for transparency for all leases on the island that are new to require a notification of