Censored SF Board of Supervisors Meeting official transcript censored

The transcript is provided below.
The proceedings of the February 8th 2021 San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee Hearing on the Treasure Island Cleanup was censored by someone in the City of San Francisco’s Government to remove sources, change the dialogue to make content appear to be the opposite of what was intended. They censored Board of Supervisors: Myrna Melgar, Matt Haney, Aaron Peskin and Dean Preston.

My testimony on the cancer and mutations of wildlife in the Bay was censored in this hearing. They removed my sources, including the Sausalito Marine Mammal Center and they added content that was not there. I want the person who did this to face the consequences of this crime!

I archived the city transcript. http://archive.today/ESWk0

The question I have is how long have they been doing this and how can we trust the public record if they are censoring it!

I took the hearing transcript made by Investigative Reporter Carol Harvey of The San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper which she confirmed the testimony with the parties that spoke as it was a 4 hour hearing and I compared it to the transcript the city published and it doesn’t match up. The city transcript does not match the video.

The deleted content will be strikethroughs and the added content by the censor will be in blue with square brackets around that text []. There is a lot of bad spelling in the censored transcript and content was added to change sentence structure and so when all of a sudden the censor decided to start a new narrative other than the one presented in the actual hearing, I noted the words changed, so if you see for example “word [Word]” the censor decided to start a new sentence where there was none. The background white text is the transcript by Carol Harvey of the San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper.

There are words that are broken up like “radio active” instead of “radioactive” and “radio logical” instead of “radiological,” even though in Matt Haney’s opening statement he used the word and it is recorded property. [super fund] instead of [superfund], these may look harmless but it means they are removed from search options.

“EnviroScreen” is redacted.

“Lennar” is redacted and it becomes “[Lamar]”

“CERCLA” is redacted. If you wanted to find the content on the San Francisco Board of Supervisor’s video website you would have to know to type in “super fund” or “radio active” and not the words ‘superfund’ or ‘radioactive’.”

The Question I have is how can we trust THE RECORD OF the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS if they are capable of editing out the content? Is the public record wrecked?

No wonder the city does not know the EPA ran the site from at least 1988-1991 as an RCRA site for hazardous waste! (EPA also runs sites for hazardous wastes not on the NPL List, its a separate list – RCRA) See my article “Treasure Island was an EPA Site and the Navy covered up the contamination in 1988!

Treasure Island was the Navy’s Atomic, Biological and Chemical (ABC) Warfare School from 1948 to its close and was during the 1988 reports, so there are toxic chemicals on the site designed to kill people in large quantities!

2655 Radiation Film Badges used at Treasure Island in 1960 according to the US Navy Radiological Defense Laboratories Health and Safety report which is a treasure trove of radiological contamination at the shipyard and at other locations in the bay area including spills and accidents in 1960.

The Navy was not shy about this, they have published the training in their “Naval Training Bulletin” (with photographs,) including schedules, and in training films, and the Training Manual for ABC Warfare Defense 1960 and 1963 were photographed on Treasure Island. I accumulated a chronology of articles showing the extent of the training.

In 1964, the US Navy’s Radiological Defense Lab at Hunters Point Shipyard conducted a Mustard Gas experiment at Treasure Island right where Buildings 1311 and 1313 were located. See article.

This has happened before and it will happen again. The EPA cleaned my hometown of Uranium, Thorium and Radium buried under houses, schools and our little league field in New Jersey in the 1980s and 1990s. They did this while people lived on the site and exposed the residents to “excessive doses of indoor and outdoor gamma radiation” according to the EPA in 1992, letter from Senator Lloyd Bentsen.

The Treasure Island radiation and chemical contamination is not unique to the EPA, but it is to the DTSC and instead of them re-inventing the wheel, they could have asked the EPA who have decades of experience cleaning up radiological disasters with people living on the sites!

Carol Harvey wrote out all of the slides presented and the full names of the supervisors. Most of that was removed by the official transcript which is a violation of Accessibility laws. There are titles and sections of the text that she included to make it easier to understand what was happening on screen. They are left unchanged but are not in the official transcript of the Board of Supervisors.

Here is the transcript starting in Section 2 February 8 2021:

Opening remarks:
Supervisor Matt Haney:

[28:26] Yes, Please, and thank you so much, Madame Chair and Colleagues, Members Preston and Peskin.  Thank you so much for having this long overdue hearing today about the cleanup of Treasure Island.  

[28:39] The purpose of this hearing is, first and foremost, in response to the longstanding demand from current and former residents that their concerns for their own health and safety be heard, and that they receive answers and a guarantee of a clean and safe environment where they live.  

[29:01] As a City, we have a responsibility to protect our residents.  And, I want to thank all of the residents who have spoken up as well as the journalists and advocates who have taken countless hours of their time to track the  dozens of documents and technical studies and met with me and elected officials before me.  

[29:19] 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.  

[29:31] For some background:  Housing was made available to San Franciscans on Treasure Island, most of whom are formerly homeless [were] households in the late 1990s.  Nearly [The early] 2,000 households live there now, mostly people of color, many families and largely low income.

[29:46] And, as you know the City has a large development agreement to construct around 8,000 [800] units of housing on the island over the next two decades.

[29:54] Before San Franciscans moved in, Treasure Island was [once] a Naval Base where various historical industrial activities occurred including degreasing, painting, foundry operations and other industrial operations as well as fire and radiological decontamination training.  These have resulted in a broad distribution of well-documented chemicals in the soil and groundwater.

[30:17] There is wide agreement that the past and current contaminants on the island necessitate certain remedial actions.  However, the [if extent – – – the] extent of the contamination, the adequacy of the cleanup, and the health risks to current and future residents has been debated and discussed since even before residents were moved onto the island.  

[30:38] In addition to the concerns raised by residents there are a few reasons I want to highlight for why we are having this hearing today.  

[30:46] First, radiological objects continue to be [are discloud covered close cloud –] discovered very close to homes that were not expected to exist raising questions about how much we really know about the extent of contamination and their impact on residents.  

[31:00] Second: Whistleblower testimony that has not been thoroughly investigated and has also raised many questions about the extent of contamination and adequacy of the cleanup.  

[31:10] Third:  The last time a comprehensive health risk assessment was completed was in 2012 [.], and at the time, the radiological [elements] contaminants on the island were not being disclosed.  I have spoken to numerous Treasure Island current and former residents who have reported health conditions that they believe are directly tied to the radiation and toxins.  Some have reported bronchial diseases and lung cancer.  I spoke to one former resident just this past week who reported a rare blood disease which she believes was connected to environmental conditions.  

[31:43] Many feel that there have not been adequate investigation[s,] into these patterns and health impacts

[31:48] And, lastly, following the discoveries of widespread [yard-wide,] fraud at the Shipyard, also a former Naval Base – and the Department of Justice even suing Navy contractor, Tetra Tech – we continue to base the Treasure Island [,] cleanup in large part by documents authored by Tetra Tech.  This raises major questions for me and the residents who live there.  

[32:08] Between 2010 and 2014, the criticism of the cleanup came to a head with the California Department of Public Health, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other regulatory authorities calling for a complete redo of the Navy’s assessment of contamination after extensive radiological contamination was identified.   

[32:27] Regulatory agencies went so far as to say the significance [significant], severity and number of violations are so serious that they must be corrected immediately.  This time period was the first time that residents were told that there were [was] radiological contamination on the island.

[32:43] The assessment and the plan were overhauled in 2014, but there remain many questions of the adequacy of the revised 2014 plan.  

[32:51] 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, led to contaminants being spread inadvertently.  And, since 2014, the Navy has not completed many of the next steps that were agreed upon, including fully characterizing or identifying the full extent of radiological contamination on the island – the extent of contaminants on the island.  The flawed oversight and testing of [tests in soils]soil raised major environmental justice and environmental racism concerns.  

[33:24] For today, my intention is to focus on what [since] has happened since the revised 2014 cleanup plan was released. Although recognizing the history of the cleanup and contaminants before the 2014 report is critical, many agencies admit that they were wrong around 2014, and I want to focus on how we are doing better, if at all.  Are we on track with the cleanup? How can we know with certainty that the cleanup is adequate to protect current residents?  Is there additional oversight and assessment needed?  Does the USEPA need to play a larger [bigger] role given [since] the last time they did a formal assessment, there were not residents living on the island.

[34:01] I want to note that the Navy has refused our [invirtual] invitation to appear today to address their role  [inform us on]in the cleanup.  For a long time, they relied on testing and reports from contractor, Tetra Tech and Shaw who [They] have both been the subject of intense scrutiny by many regulatory agencies due to their fraudulent actions [for their infraction]It is unacceptable that they [were] are not willing to speak [to] at the Board of Supervisors, and I hope that they will be more engaged and transparent moving forward.

[34:27] With us today we have the California Department of Toxics Substance Control, the California Department of Public Health, whistleblowers with experience on Treasure Island, and Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice.

[34:40] After the four presentations, I have a number of questions, as I am sure you do.  We have arranged with the presenters to answer questions after all four speakers conclude.  

[34:49] The Treasure Island Development Authority and San Francisco Department of Public Health are on hand to answer questions as well, although they will not be presenting.  

[34:57] I also want to note that here on your committee is [as] someone who knows as much [as] Treasure Island environmental issues as anyone, and that’s Supervisor Peskin, and I appreciate his longstanding leadership and advocacy for the Island, and I’m sure he will have much to add.  

[35:11] To end my opening comments, I want to be explicit that my concern here is for the thousands [t housands] of residents currently living on the island, an island that has many families and children, and I am concerned — and we all  should be concerned  — about their health, safety and well-being.  Nothing is more important than that.  

[35:28] Our immediate responsibility here is not to focus on the health risks of future residents or maximize development or profit.  It is to our City’s residents.  Because of the changing nature of the cleanup, the unclear messages to residents, whistleblowers, and reporting they experienced health conditions, they are worried about their health and that of their babies, and we should be as well.

[35:50] I’ll turn it back to you, [Supervisor] Chair Melgar to start the presentations.

 >>Supervisor MYRNA MELGAR: 

[35:57] Thank you, Supervisor Haney for calling this hearing, and thank [thank] you for your remarks.

We have a number of presenters and presentations to get through.  So, what I’d like to do, Colleagues, is get through the presentations first and turn it back over to Supervisor Haney to ask the first few questions.  And, 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.  

So, with that, we’re going to start the presentations by welcoming Julie Pettijohn with with the California Department of Toxic Substances.  Miss PettiJohn, are you on?


[>>]  I am on.  Can you hear me? 

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Yes.


[>>] Okay.  I’m waiting for my slides.  Okay.  Thank you. [Thank thank you for the kind introduction.]


Logos: Department of Toxic Substances Control 
CalEPA – California Environmental Protection Agency
Oversight of Cleanup of Former Naval Station Treasure Island, San Francisco
Julie Pettijohn:


Well, thank you for the kind introduction.  My name is Julie Pettijohn.  I am the Branch Chief for the Berkeley Site Mitigation and Restoration program at DTSC.  My program locally manages DTSC’s work at Naval Station Treasure Island, and I’d like to thank Supervisor Haney and his staff for asking me to be here today.

I’d also like [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 some 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, please? 


Roles and Responsibilities
[o] Department of the Navy – lead agency
[o] Cleanup
[o] Department of Toxic Substances Control – lead regulator.
[o] Oversight of Navy cleanup
[o] California Department of Public Health
[o] Oversight of Radiological Concerns
[o] San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
[o] Oversight of petroleum contamination


Okay.  By way of introduction, I’d like to provide some background information before I jump into responding to the questions. 

So, the [The] Navy is responsible for the cleanup of Treasure Island under the Comprehensive Environmental Response [computation comp –] Compensation and Liability Act, also known as CERCLA. The Department of Toxic Substances Control, or DTSC as we refer to it, is the lead regulatory agency overseeing the Navy’s cleanup activities, and this [This] work is part of the 1992 Federal Facilities Site Remediation Agreement, FFSRA. This is an agreement between DTSC and the Navy. The California Department of Public Health is also here with me presenting and will provide — does provide technical support to DTSC on Radiological issues[.], and CDPH also has a regulatory role in overseeing Navy contractors licensing for conducting radiological work.

Mr. Chu [Chew], who is here with me and who will speak later, will tell you more about CDPH’s role.

DTSC [worked] also works with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board on sites that are impacted with petroleum and on other issues related to [watt –] groundwater quality.

The Navy must investigate and remedy contamination prior to transferring land to a non-federal entity. So the City of San Francisco and also known as the Treasure Island Development Authority who I understand is here today.

DTSC oversees the implementation of the remedy process. And, just so you know, remedies may [Remedies May] include, and it can be any combination of these: Removal actions, treatment, installation [insulation] of engineering controls, and/or land use controls that have some kind of use or [with] other activity restrictions. And, that’s [That’s] to ensure protectiveness now and into the future.

These Land Use Controls do stay with the property even with changes in ownership. And, so, [Following] following transfer of [other] remediated [protect] properties from the Navy to TIDA, and later to developers, DTSC continues to provide oversight of Land Use Restrictions and Institutional or engineering controls during redevelopment activities.

We understand that there may be testimony later about [of] health concerns of residents. And, I’d like to be clear about DTSC’s role.

When DTSC is made aware of these health concerns, [We] we look at what’s going on with the project at the time and place and ensure that the project is being managed appropriately. So, [Following] following the work plans that were approved, ensuring that controls are in place, and 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.

So, for [For] example, the California Department of Public Health Environmental Health Investigation Branch physicians, San Francisco Department of Public Health, and at times UCSF’s Occupational and Environmental Medical program.

DTSC is not qualified to make any diagnosis, as we are not doctors or nurses. So, we [We] do rely on those groups to assist us where there are concerns.

SPEAKER:  Next slide please [pleases].



[o] Mapping tool providing relative scores to identify communities most affected by pollution
[o] Treasure Island has a higher score than 85-90% of all census tracts in California
[o] Score calculated using environmental, health, and socioeconomic data
[o] Score is not a measure of health risk
[o] Score is considered in priority setting for the Department

JULIE PETTIJOHN: Okay, one of the questions that we were asked was to please describe CalEnviroScreen the percentage score of 85% to 90%, and the environmental effects indicators for Naval Station Treasure Island.

So, CalEnviroScreen [Green ask] — is a science-based mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution and that are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. It is [was] a tool that was developed by the Cal EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment [.] also known as ‘OEHHA’ (s/l ‘ELIHA?’

This is one of our sister [a gencies] agencies in the CAL EPA family, and [This] this tool is available as a layer [l ayer] in our EnviroStor database. So, that’s [It is] a database that DTSC maintains that is available for public use [u se]. We post a number of documents there.

CalEnviroScreen [They] uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce [provide] a numerical score for each census tract 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.

EnviroScreen [It] is a tool that DTSC can use to identify highly impacted areas [a reas] and prioritize resources for actions at a site. So, for [For] example: Inspections, investigations, and enforcement actions.

Drivers of Treasure Island’s CalEnviroScreen Score

CalEnviroScreen 3.0 percentile – 85-90%
Diesel: 99%
Traffic: 98%
Cleanups: 100%
Groundwater Threats: 99%
Hazardous Waste: 61%
Impaired Water: 86%
Asthma: 92% [[NOTE: I can use this; island highest]]

Low Birth Weight: 76%
Cardiovascular Rate: 57%
Poverty: 93%
Unemployment: 77%
Housing Burden: 81%
[o] Only characteristics > 50% shown

[o] Pollution Burden Drivers
[o] Diesel particulate matter, traffic, cleanups, groundwater impacts (not used as drinking water)
[o] Population Characteristics Drivers
[o] High incidence of asthma, poverty, and housing burden


The percentile represents a relative score for all 20 indicators from categories representing exposure and environmental effects, plus sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors.

So, this slide shows that, based [Based] on 2016 data, this data did have a minor update in 2018. So, the data from CalEnviroScreen [cal screen] shows that Treasure Island is more burdened and vulnerable than 85 to 90% of other census [sunday] tracts in California.

However, this doesn’t take into account cleanup efforts since about 2016.

At Treasure Island, as shown on the slide, the drivers for pollution burden are diesel particulate matter and traffic — and, [That’s] likely that’s from the proximity to the Bay Bridge — [On site] Onsite Cleanups, [and ground water] Groundwater threats. But, I’d like to remind you that groundwater [Ground water] is not used as a drinking water source at Treasure Island.

And, then, also pollution in San Francisco Bay.

Population Characteristics are driven by high incidents of asthma. That’s also shown on the slide — and [slow] birth weight, higher rates of poverty, and the financial burden of housing.

I would like to point out that the CalEnviroScreen [cal screen] tool is continually evolving and as ALIHA updates [. As they update] their information [I nformation], we would then update the EnviroStor information appropriately.

Okay, so moving [Moving] on to the next slide, [CHECK PHOTOS] you will see in the center of the slide Treasure Island – what it looks like — and EnviroScore showing the [screen] CalEnviroScreen — the shading, the orange color — 85 to 90%.

Okay, and then moving right along: One of the other questions that we were asked is: What are the metrics to determine that Naval Station Treasure Island parcels are clean and safe for use (of) current and future residents.

DTSC safeguards public health cleanup sites

[o] Cleanups follow the CERCLA process
[o] Sites determined suitable for use through risk assessment
[o] CERCLA process includes opportunities for public participation at hearings and during comment periods on decision documents


What I would say is DTSC’s mission is to protect public health and the environment, and we do take that responsibility seriously.

We implement a well-defined regulatory process to meet that mission.

DTSC relies on risk-based cleanup goals and regulatory requirements to determine that parcels are suitable for current and future use.

To put this in context: [, the] The general phase of the CERCLA process are investigation, remedial alternatives investigation, remedy selection, and [that] also includes public participation, and also remedial action.

So, essentially What’s [Essentially,what is] at the [s ite] site? What can we do about it? How can we clean it up?

All of Treasure Island has proceeded through the preliminary investigation stage, and many areas have achieved closure.

There are limited sites on the island. So, 6, 12, and 32 that are still undergoing the CERCLA process, and other sites, 21, 24, 27, and 30, are undergoing long [l ong] term monitoring.

As I mentioned, CERCLA – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act – the process includes opportunities [o pportunities] for public participation at hearings and during comment periods on decision documents. And, [We] we do seek the public’s comments on the cleanup decisions that we’re making.


DTSC reviews technical and management reports

[o] Technical documents (e.g., monitoring reports, work plans, etc.)
[o] DTSC Project Manager and subject-matter experts (geologists, toxicologists, engineers, etc.) in addition to our partner agencies review to ensure data quality objectives have been met

[o] Non-technical documents (e.g., Site Management Plan) reviewed for changes and accuracy of progress and upcoming work.

[o] DTSC conducts scheduled and unannounced fieldwork oversight


Okay. Moving on. For the final question, we were asked to present on, and that [. 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 our sister agencies — so the Water Board, California Department of Public Health — on their comments as well.

The technical team has well-qualified, highly-credentialed specialists, many with professional licensure.

Technical reports, including annual monitoring reports, Work Plans, and Completion Reports (are) reviewed by the DTSC Project Manager and these subject matter experts. Our review is primarily concerned with [We are] ensuring that environmental data has been appropriately collected and analyzed in [inned in –] accordance with Work Plans and [insurance purposes] Industry Best Practices, and that the data can be used for the intended purpose.

DTSC’s process ensures that all comments, we [are a sister agency or count our –] or our counterparts, or our sister agencies, are resolved prior to [authorization] finalization of the document.

We resolve comments and concerns between the regulatory —

(Interrupted by Erica Major, BOS Clerk

ERICA MAJOR: So, just wanted to let you know that [>> Clerk: ] your ten minute timer [is up] has elapsed.

JULIE PETTIJOHN: Okay, I have one more slide I think after this. Thank you.

So, we [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] It’s essentially a road map for the work at Treasure Island, site-by-site, [. And] and includes where each site is in the cleanup process, and the next steps to carry out in a given year.


DTSC Oversight of Best Management Practices


Let’s see. So, just moving [Moving] on: We also do a number of site inspections, both announced and unannounced. Here’s a couple photos showing some repairs that were necessary to the fencing.

JULIE PETTIJOHN: And, then, [Then] maybe you can move to the next slide, please.


DTSC Oversight of Best Management Practices


JULIE PETTIJOHN: Here are some additional photos. So, where [Where] we do find deficiencies [efficiencies,] . I think you’ll agree with me the photo on the left is [sufficient.] not — it’s deficient.

We do ensure that these issues are corrected.

So, in ‘In Progress’ – [In progress,] that was shortly after the first photo was taken. And, then, finally, [Finally t ] the photo all the way on the right shows a more permanent solution that’s a little bit easier to maintain.
[I have just one last slide.]
[>> Supervisor Melgar]
ERICA MAJOR: (Again interrupting) Ms Pettijohn, are we almost done? There is a time limit.
[>> I know that I’m trying to be mindful of that.]
JULIE PETTIJOHN: And, I have just one last slide.

Yes! Yes!


Opportunities for Further Engagement
[o] Join the quarterly Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings
[o] See information: Navy BRAC PMO website
[o] Next meeting February 9, 2021 at 7::00 PM on MS Teams
[o] Join The Navy’s mailing list for the BRAC PMO website
[o] Sign up for email alerts on EnviroStor

MYRNA MELGAR: Are you almost done. There’s a time limit, so I —

JULIE PETTIJOHN: Yes, I know that – so, I really – I’m trying to be mindful of that. So, the [The] last slide was just showing that there are opportunities for further engagements [. We are] there, and we’re certainly [happy to assist]reach out to us if you have any questions. Thank you.

Myrna [>> Supervisor] Melgar: Thank you, and I know you’ll stick around because there [There] will be questions, most likely —

Julie Pettijohn: [>>] Absolutely. Thank you.

Aaron Peskin: You’re on Mute, Madame Chair.

Myrna [>> Supervisor] Melgar: (Laughing) Thank you, Supervisor Peskin.

So, the [The] next presentation that we have is from the California Department of Public Health – Mr. Anthony Chu and Sheetal Singh.

[>>]Thank you, Madame Chair. Thank you – thanks [and] Supervisor Haney and members of the Committee for inviting us, CDPH, to [DTSC] report on the contamination cleanup at Treasure Island. My name is Anthony Chu [Chew]. I’m with the California Department of Public Health. I’m the Division Chief for the Division of Radiation [al] Safety and Environmental Management [. With] , and, with me here today is Chris Paze, [from the] Branch Chief for the Environmental Management Branch and Dr. Sheetal Singh who is the Chief of – [the] Program Manager for Environmental Management Branch.

Let me load up my slides here.

MYRNA MELGAR: I just want to remind you that you have ten minutes altogether. So, just to be mindful. Thank you.

ANTHONY CHU: Thank you.

AARON PESKIN: And, Madame Chair, [>>] who owns this land now?
Naval Station
Treasure Island
Radiological Contamination Cleanup

[>> Supervisor ] MYRNA MELGAR: So, who are you making that question to, Supervisor Peskin?

[>> Supervisor ]AARON PESKIN: Whoever wants to answer.

[>>]ROBERT BECK: If I may. This is Robert Beck with Treasure Island Development Authority. 70% of the former Naval 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 ] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you very much, Mr. Beck. If it’s okay, let’s keep the questions until the end of the presentations. Thank you.


[I.] CDPH roles
[II.] Overview of testing
[III.] Assessment of Cleanup Efforts
[IV.] Specific Question on 2014 HRA-STM

Mr. Chu, go ahead.

[>>] ANTHONY CHU: Thank you. In your invitation to us, you [We were] asked us to address four areas. What’s CDPH’s role are (in hoping) [and] to provide you an overview of testing, an assessment of cleanup efforts, and you had a couple of specific questions on the 2014 HRA [2014hra].

I will [I’ll] address each one of these in this order.


Environmental Management Branch (EMB)
[➤] Consultant to DTSC on radiological cleanup of DOD sites
[➤] Review of work plans & analyze data
[➤] Conduct confirmatory surveys
[➤] Issue Recommendations regarding release of sites from regulatory controls

[I.] CDPH roles

We serve primarily as a consultant to our sister Department, the Department Of Substances Control, DTSC. [to toxic substances control.]

We provide the technical expertise on Radiological Cleanup at the Department of Defense. What that really means is that we review the work plan – the technical work plans, the cleanup plans, the sampling plans, and as well as we analyze data – cleanup data — to ensure that the site is cleaned up.

We also conduct confirmation — confirmatory [a confirm a continue] surveys and soil sampling to ensure that that data is verified.

Once confirmed, then we issue recommendations to close the site — once the data are confirmed.

In addition to that, we also have a radiological[our raid –] radiologic health branch. Also, is the enforcement entity for the radiation — [to] to administer the radiation control law [all].

The radiation control law is a large piece of legislation that [It] deals with x-rays machines and fluoroscopy machines in a clinical setting. But, [It] it also has a provision in it that allows our branch to issue licenses of radioactive materials. And, [It] it is that provision that we — we issue licenses to remediation contractors that work on Treasure Island.

Our dual roles here – [Ill do a] consultation as well as regulatory – have not changed since 2006.


[III.] Overview of Testing

Map of Treasure Island and Site 12 with colored lines around specific areas
[➤] Gamma Survey Site 12 [2011] (Green line)
[➤] 9th Street Playground Survey (2012) (Pink line)
[➤] Childcare Center, Boys and Girls Clubs (Building 33 A and B) (2012) (Yellow line) (Red line)
[➤] Surveys of Bldg 3, Wastewater Treatment Plant area, Building 342, Site 31, Life Learning Center (Formal Name is Life Learning Academy, not Center) (2012) (Blue Line)

An Overview of Testing: There has been a lot of work that has been done on Treasure Island. We have a [the] map here that shows Site 12 and Treasure Island. And, I’ve listed some of the surveys that we’ve done.

ANTHONY CHU: As far back as 2011[,] we’ve done — CDPH conducted – a Gamma survey of IRP [rop] Site 12. And, this [This] survey consisted of the streets on Site 12. And, you can see the green [greener] lines here on Site 12 indicates the [a] streets.

And, in [In] this survey, we did find four areas with elevated radiation levels – and we – subsequently we moved – extended that perimeter fence of the contaminated areas out so that the elevated areas would be enclosed in the controlled areas [a reas].

We also did a survey on the playground, Childcare Centers, Boys and (Girls) Clubs — [areas]

AARON PESKIN: (Begins to ask a question.)

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Supervisor Peskin, can we let him finish?

[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN: We can. But, please remind me when — this Gamma [the] Survey was done in 2011?

[>>] ANTHONY CHU: Correct. Yes. There are two other surveys at Site 12 that I will [I’ll] get to in just a minute — That – They were done later on.

So, we did a couple other surveys here— [waste] Wastewater Treatment Plant. And you can see where the locations of these survey areas are by the color codes there.

We did not find any elevated readings in these surveys.

More surveys: Baseball fields – we did three surveys there – and, in [One] one of these three surveys — [the] baseball field surveys [s urveys,] — we did find elevated readings in one of the surveys, and we [We] determined later on that that’s [was] caused by the newly installed landscape area with a landscape soil that’s high in granite material and that [That] can give off some natural radiation.

ANTHONY CHU: But, that is not a health risk.

So, Site 12. There’s [there is]two more surveys that was done – one by CDPH and one by the Navy.

The one that we did covers [covered] all the areas outside of the residential areas. And, in [In] that survey that was done in 2013 — in that survey, we did find four additional areas that are – that have elevated radiation levels, and those [Those] areas were remediated. And, we provided the oversight to the Navy survey.

[>> Supervisor] PESKIN: And, Mr. Chu, these weren’t the disks, right? Were these the disks, or [. Or] was this something else?

[>>] ANTHONY CHU: Yes. I believe they are. They are the discrete objects that were found, and they were remediated.


[II.] Overview of Testing (Cont.)

[➤] Confirmation Surveys and soil sampling following remediation activities (2014-2019) at:
[●] IR Site 30, 31, & 6.
[●] Bldg. 342, 343, 344, 3, 461 & 462,
[●] Waste Water Treatment Plant

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Supervisor Peskin: I’m so sorry. I just was [We are] hoping to let him finish speaking because we’re keeping [so we keep] time to make sure that everybody stays close to ten minutes. So, it’s hard to —

[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN: On something as important as this, ten minutes — and I hope that this does not come out of Mr. Chu’s [his] time. But, I think it’s [it is] really important [.] because I’ve [I] spent ten years of my life on this —

—- actually probably fifteen.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: It is very important. I agree. Thank you.

[>>] ANTHONY CHU: Thank you.

Some additional [Additional] surveys besides the ones that I just mentioned, there are – our Environmental Management Branch also did confirmation surveys and soil sampling as part of — associated with the remediation projects there. And, you [You] can see some of these [the] activities here.

I’m not going to go through all of them. But, for example, IR Site 30, 31 – Wastewater Treatment Plant — We did confirmation sampling there. And, of all these, I believe there’s only one occasions that we found additional residual contamination. And we [We] asked the Navy to go back and clean it up. And, other [Other] than that, our data –the data do confirm that they’ve [they have] been cleaned up. And, subsequently [Subsequently], we did issue recommendations for their release — surveys.


[III.] Assessment of the Navy’s Cleanup Efforts
In the past
[➤] Inadequate identification of radiologically impacted or contaminated areas
[➤] Lack of appropriate conceptual site model
[➤] Inadequate oversight of remediation contractor
[➤] At times, recommendations from regulators were not implemented.

Current efforts
[➤] Improved conceptual site model
[➤] Better communication between Navy and Regulators
[➤] Successful completion of various remediation projects, such as:
[➤] IR Site 31, ER Site 20, Bigelow Court SWDA, Bldg 233 site

So, our [Our] assessment of the 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 characterized leading to a less than accurate Conceptual Site Model.

A Conceptual Site Model is important in that it provides a base framework to tell us — to [and] describe where the contamination is and where — and the quantity of [the] contamination. And, it [It] gives us a strategy to clean it up. Without an accurate Conceptual Site Model, cleanup [model, c leanup] work would be ineffective.

I would also say that in the past there were inadequate oversight of remediation contractor. The 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.

And, we [We] did issue notification – [the] notices of violations, and those instances were corrected.

And, we [We] also found that sometimes our recommendations were not followed [f ollowed] up or not implemented.

And, as [As] a result of that, we talked to the Navy. We urged the Navy to take more action and, over [Over] time — and this process has been gradual — over time, we did see improvement in their efforts. And so, right [Right] now, I would characterize their [the] efforts being much more improved with a better conceptual site model.

And our [Our] communication with the Navy has been better. We have frequent and periodic meetings and where we discuss issues, and when they come up, resolve them promptly. And, that is what [That] led to the successful completion of several – multiple site cleanup projects.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Okay, Mr. Chu, I think Supervisor Peskin had one more clarification that he needed.


[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN: Madame Chair, I don’t have a clarification. I would like to – through the chair – thank you – Mr. Chu, 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 actually, I think, lied about — you just uttered.

And, they [They] are some of the most profound words that I’ve ever heard.

I want to thank you for your candor[,] and your honesty and your courage.

[>>]Mr. Chu: Thank you.

MYRNA MELGAR: Supervisor


[IV.] Specific Question on HRA-STM

In 2012 and 2013 your agency expressed alarm about the cleanup of Treasure Island, urging the Navy to update its assessment. What led CDPH to urge the Navy to take this further action?

[➤] Inadequate identification of radiologically impacted or contaminated areas
[➤] Radioactive materials found in areas considered to be not impacted.
[➤] Lack of appropriate Conceptual Site Model
[➤] Not identifying Radium as contaminant of concern for the feasibility studies
[➤] At times, not implementing technical recommendations from the regulators
[➤] Radiation concerns expressed by the public

[IV.] Specific Question on HRA-STM (Cont.)

What is the CDPH assessment of the 2014 HRA-STM from the Navy?

[➤] The 2014 HRA-STM is an effective document
[➤] With updated radiological history of Treasure Island
[➤] Input from regulatory agencies was added
[➤] Provides a conceptual site model which serves as a blueprint for radiological ongoing remediation at Treasure Island

ANTHONY CHU: And, finally [Finally] I think we were asked a couple questions on the HRA – the 2014 HRA – and I’m going to repeat that question.


“In 2012 and 2013 your agency expressed alarm about the cleanup [of the c leanup] of Treasure Island, urging the Navy to update its assessment – [and] what led CDPH to urge [urged] the Navy to take further action.”

I think I already alluded [eluded] to this. Its [It is] the inadequate identification of [the] radiologically impacted areas — contaminated areas. It’s the lack of appropriate Conceptual Site Model, and recommendations from us, from [and] the regulatory agencies, were not implemented, and frankly [Frankly] there is a lot of public concerns on radiation. That’s [That is] what led us to urge the Navy to take further action.

And, finally, [Finally] the second question you had was:
“What is [if] the CDPH assessment of the 2014 HRA?”

We believe the 2014 HRA is a much-improved document. It’s an effective document. It updated the [Updated] radiological history. It took into consideration [about] the regulatory agency’s comments, [c omments] and it frankly [Frankly] provided a much [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, and we will be here if you have any questions. Thank you.

[>> Supervisor]MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Mr. Chu. There will be questions.


Myrna Melgar: The next [Next] presentations that we have are from a couple of whistleblowers, David Anton and Guy Taibi [tabey] . You guys have ten minutes, and you can do whatever – this — you wish between the both of you.

[>>] DAVID ANTON: This is David Anton.

MYRNA MELGAR: Hi, David. How are you?

DAVID ANTON: Good Afternoon. I’m fine.

I’d like to thank the committee for having this meeting.

The basic question is: [Milwaukee anton.] ‘What can the San Francisco Board of Supervisors do to assure [ensure] that Treasure Island is safe for the residents from radioactive and chemical contamination? The Board can ask the Federal EPA to conduct investigation into whether the cleanup of Treasure Island has been properly [p roperly] done or has been compromised by fraud and [or] failures to recognize the scope of the contamination.

The Navy and the State regulators have been compromised by their own failures to oversee the cleanup of Hunters Point and Treasure Island.

In 1988 the EPA evaluated Treasure Island as qualifying as a Superfund Cleanup [super fund] Site [side]. The EPA did NOT put Treasure Island on the National Priority List as a Superfund [super gun site] Site so that the EPA would oversee Treasure Island because the Navy and the State had already started the cleanup process.

At that time, no one lived on Treasure Island, and the Navy represented that there was no radioactivity [radio activity] on the island.

Since the EPA review over thirty years ago, San Francisco has moved thousands of low-income families onto Treasure Island, and chemical and radioactive contamination previously unsuspected has come to light.

The residents and the public do not trust the Navy and State regulators to have properly overseen the Treasure Island cleanup with good reason.

The EPA has the background, knowledge, and funding to conduct an independent investigation of the Treasure Island cleanup. The EPA is responsible for the oversight of Superfund [super fund] Sites across America. Congress has authorized millions for the Hunters Point investigation. 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 whistleblowers, I brought each of the whistleblowers forward that exposed the radiological cleanup fraud at Hunters Point. The Hunters Point investigation [It] confirmed that the whistleblowers’ reports of radiological fraud were true.

Beginning in 2013 and continuing [c ontinuing], workers at Treasure Island have approached me and reported fraud in the cleanup at Treasure Island.

Examples of the reports are that:
[1] One, reporter — workers were ordered not to [son –] scan areas for radioactivity [radio activity] but were ordered to report the areas as having been scanned and cleared.

[2] [Two, workers removed soil from – – two,] Construction [construction] workers dug and removed soil, but [that] radiological scanning of that [the] soil was not done. That soil was falsely given a clearance as if it was scanned and cleared.

[3] Three, over three hundred highly radioactive [radio active] metal foils were discovered on Treasure Island, smuggled off Treasure Island and the records destroyed so that they would not be part of the radioactive [radio active] items listed as found on Treasure Island, and they have NOT been.

The Navy and the State regulators [r egulators,] have not interviewed any of the Treasure Island whistleblowers that I have brought forward over the past six years.

The Navy’s Historical Radiological Assessment Supplement of July 2014 is flawed [f lawed]. The Supplement is the basis for the work since 2014 on Treasure Island. The report relies on the contractors’ reports, which the whistleblowers have exposed as false and misleading.

For [exam –] example, the Supplement claims [c laims] that the housing is non-impacted by radioactivity [radio activity]. The supplement [It] defines ‘non-impacted’ [nonimpact] to mean, (quote) ‘no possibility of containing [c ontaining]residual radioactivity [radio activity] ,’ (end quote)

The Navy, regulators, and contractors knew designating [designated] the housing as non-impacted was false [f alse].

In 19— In 2008, worker-turned-whistleblower, Robert McLean [Mcline], reported finding highly radioactive contamination [continue tampa nations] under [report — c ontaminations.] the foundations of the Treasure Island residences. Mr. McLean [He] and others were ordered by Shaw management to stop scanning the foundations and [to] stop reporting radioactivity [radio activity] under [around] the residences [residents]. All around the residences, highly radioactive foils have been found since 2008, and the homes were built over these radioactive wastes. The [the] foils are from a number of instruments used by the Navy, including a type of vision scope used to look at atomic explosions [e xplosions], to look at the sun, and for night vision. These metascopes were repaired in the optic shop in Building 3, using lead-lined sinks, and the defective foils were buried on Treasure Island since 1945

Tetra Tech’s Supplement wrongly dismisses the discs as coming from the vision scopes. These dime-size foils [oils] are extremely [e xtremely] hazardous and will be for over a thousand years.

The September 2019 finding of a basketball-size chunk of radioactive [radio active] waste under a home’s front steps at Treasure Island is further evidence the residences are impacted by radioactivity [radio activity]. Radioactive [Radio active] and chemical contamination has been passed over, ignored, missed and poses health risks to the residents.

“The Navy radioactive [radio active] regulators have been compromised. The Navy’s top regulator from early 1990s through mid-2014 was Laurie Lowman [lori low supervisor already –] whose son [and
was [were] hired [as navy contractors] by Tetra Tech and whose daughter-in-law was hired by contractors for Tetra Tech. After Lowman retired, the Navy hired Erik Abkemeier, who had been Tetra Tech’s Radiation Safety Officer. Abkemeier had been responsible for the radioactive clean up at Hunters Point that was found to be fraudulent.”


The California regulators overseeing radiological cleanup [clean up] depended on the truth of the contractor’s work. The California regulators [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 radioactive [radio active] hazards. For alpha and beta-emitting hazard, this radioactivity [It] must be found by lab samples. Scans, alone, do not find these radioactive [radio active] hazards.

The 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 whistleblowers [w histleblowers], not by the Navy and the regulators.

CLERK: ERICA MAJOR: Through the Chair. [>> Supervisor Melgar:] You have two minutes, so I don’t know if you want to toggle ??

[>>]DAVID ANTON: I’m almost done.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Well, just so you have — You are sharing ten minutes with Mr. Taibi [T abby.] That’s what I had said at the beginning, so that you’re [You are] only leaving two minutes for him. This is what we’re trying to tell you.

[>>]DAVID ANTON: I will finish with the idea that Please, the only – the EPA has the role and the power to do this. Please ask the agency to do it [[Indiscernible].]

Mr. Taibi.

[>> Clerk:] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you so much. Mr. Taibi, I will give you five minutes because we went over a little bit.

[>>]GUY TAIBI: Thank you. Much appreciated. I’ll try to keep it concise.

I’m just talking about the radioactive [radio active], not the chemical contamination here.

Closing a base through the Base Realignment and Closure, or [to the] BRAC, is a detailed, legally-proscribed [prescribed] process.[,] Rules [rules] have to be followed. I’ll explain how some were sidestepped or broken. You may think they are little things. They’re not. They affect [check] everything that goes on and the future of the cleanup at HP and TI.

The primary document guiding the radiological cleanup[.] is not the Conceptual Site Model as Mr. Chu stated. It’s the Historic Radiological Assessment. It is a document that has — Any records that tell the story of what might be left at [off] the Site[,] become the basis for the further cleanup work. Every contract will say, ‘according the [a ccording to] the 2006 HRA [2006hra].’ So, it guides all the cleanup activity.

The review and approval of the document is a process. Agencies [Agency would] get periods of time — a month to review the documents, and it [. It] goes through cycles to get the comments taken care of.

The initial HRA for TI [Treasure Island] was finalized in 2006. It included [cab –] Americium, cadmium, cobalt, cesium, radium, strontium, and Plutonium as COCs on the site as well as many others.

So, if [If] you review the references, you’ll see they had [have] a license to possess large quantities[.] of plutonium, cesium, Americium, and strontium.

In the HRA, [of] the Navy states they [that] were calibration or check sources, sealed sources which would lead you to believe they were very [are] innocuous and easily removed. A competent health physicist will tell you those [Those sources in those count] sources in those quantities from that period leaked. They required leak tests. There are [is] records of those tests confirming [that confirmed] they leaked. There’s records stating the tests weren’t performed correctly or not at all. These are all flags to health physicists.

The Navy gravely misled the regulators in 2006. The regulators [rhode islandings] were not competent enough to push back against the [ainst the] Navy.

Since then, there were no identifying concerns – there were no identifying concerns with digging in Site 12. They just started a Lead-PCB remediation at Site 12 with minimal health physics oversight.

That cleanup uncovered massive amounts of radioactive waste, and during that work massive amounts of radioactive waste was strewn about the island, stockpiled and illegally shipped. Work continued like that for years.

Obviously, the HRA was significantly flawed. Many demanded the HRA be rewritten.

Shortly thereafter [there after]– and, I had [have] worked at Treasure Island as a Radiation Safety Officer – I went to work for [at] the Department of Public Health in Mr. Chu’s Division and fought that [the] fight from the inside all while the excavations [escalations] at TI [Treasure Island] continued. You’d think that being a State regulator talking about this, you’d be wrong.

It wasn’t until 2012 that the [2012] HRA [and]Addendum was delivered to CPH. It was sent as a final approved document. It hadn’t gone through the required review and approval process.

And, then, for some inexplicable reason, that was withdrawn. A 2014 HRA was delivered as a final document that didn’t go through [to] the required review and approval process.

The proof of this is in the document itself. The July 2014 has [are comments] CDPH comments from Larry Morgan which were actually comments from the 2006 HRA pressing to get it revised. Those [, those]were comments that I wrote, basically.

In 2014, Larry Morgan was long gone from the lead position. Sheetal Singh [Sheila stang] was in charge. There is no comments from Sheetal Singh or recent CDPH comments.

So, why [Why] did CDPH accept a document they didn’t comment on? They are the lead agency for RAD.

Now, what Miss [What] Pettijohn [pettyjohn] told you and what Mr. [m r.] Chu told you —for whatever they have been informed — the Department of Public Health gets its authority from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They have to sign off / up (??) on the cleanup for radioactive [radio active] contamination.

DTSC manages the Site and the documents, as they said. They allowed toxics — they allowed the Navy to provide a final document without the Department of Public Health commenting on it.

I sat in the room with the Navy [baby] when the Department of Public Health has told them, ‘You can either clean up the property [protect] to the Department of Public Health standards, or you can keep it and get a license to retain the radioactive [radio active] material.’ They had choices, A or B.

Ms Pettijohn talking [Talking] about different remedies [r emedies]: I’m sorry – in the rad world, DTSC [random role, tdsd] does not have a say in [on] how it’s [to] cleaned up for radioactive [raid radio active] contamination. It’s unfortunate that they’re really not aware of the process.

So, both these agencies are incompetent — admitting to the Navy —


GUY TAIBI: Sure. I’m set.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: We will have [skis –] questions for you, Mr. Taibi. Thank [you very] so much.

We will now have our last presentation from Bradley Angel from Greenaction [green action]. Mr. Angel, are you here?


[>>] I am here. Good afternoon. Let me just queue up my presentation. Just give me one second.

Just gotta screen share. I’m sorry – hopefully.

I’m not sure. Can you see that screen?

MYRNA MELGAR: We cannot.


MYRNA MELGAR: In the interests of time, Madame Clerk, can we help Mr. Angel? Do we have that presentation, or —

ERICA MAJOR, CLERK: You’ll just need to click on the Share button next to the Red Lead Button.

BRADLEY ANGEL: I think I’ve got it.

I don’t know why I’m having an issue with that. I’m sorry. Let’s see.

MYRNA MELGAR: Madame Clerk, do we have that presentation?.

[>>]ERICA MAJOR, CLERK: Yes, we are locating the presentation now, and we’re going [We are working] to pull it up for Mr. Angel.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you so much, Madame Clerk? There you go.


Radioactive and Toxic Threat to the Health and Environment of Treasure Island Residents and San Francisco Bay

Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Presentation to San Francisco Board of Supervisors
February 8, 2021


BRADLEY ANGEL: Okay, one second ???

Okay. Thank you very much.

So, again, [Again] my name is Bradley Angel, and I’m the Executive Director of Greenaction [green action] for Health and Environmental [moral] Justice.

I’d like to thank the Committee and also Supervisor, Matt Haney, for having this really important and overdue hearing.

Next side, please.

Magic Island — or Toxic & Radioactive Island?

BRADLEY ANGEL: You know, when [When] Treasure Island was first created, it was promoted as a Magic Isle [aisle].

But, the [The] real question is, as I think – you know – we’re [we are] confirming here today — it’s a [, as
toxic and radioactive [radio active] island.

Next slide, please.


“Controlled for Radiation Protection Purposes” sign

And, it is not all palm trees and sun [s un].

About three [Three] years ago, I was given what we call a Toxic Tour by a former resident, Liz Washington, and investigative journalist, Carol Harvey.

And, one of the most shocking things – and, I’ve 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. And, in [In] the very small print, which is interesting it’s in small print — is ‘Controlled For Radiation Protection Purposes’ — in people’s backyards.

Next Slide, please[s].


[o] LEAD
SOURCE: CalEPA / DTSC Envirostor website

BRADLEY ANGEL: And, as [As] the State Department of Toxics [t oxics] and other agencies have confirmed, these are just some of the contaminants that have been found at Treasure Island.

Dioxin: One of the most toxic chemicals known to science. PCBs that are so toxic, they’re [they are] banned. Radioactive [radio active] waste. Lead. Acids. Solvents. DDT.

Next Slide, please.


“Treasure Island has a Superfund Site ID because it went through the Site Assessment process… the Site scored high enough for NPL listing, … the cleanup is making good progress under the States’ oversight…”

Email from USEPA to Greenaction, August 4, 2018

BRADLEY ANGEL: And, as [As] Mr. Anton mentioned, Treasure Island should be a Federal Superfund [super fund] Site. And this is an excerpt [exempt from — excerpt] from an email that I received inquiring about this a couple of years ago from the United States EPA.

And, it [It] says, in part, as you can see: “Treasure Island has a Superfund [super fund] ”Site ID,” “The Site scored high enough for NPL, National Priorities listing.

But, then they go on to claim: “The cleanup is making good progress under the State’s oversight.”

However, I think I beg to differ, as do the facts [f acts].

Next slide please.


California EPA Confirms Treasure Island Residents at Risk

California Environmental Protection Agency’s CalEnviroScreen 3.0:

Treasure Island Residents have a higher pollution burden than 85% of California

Pollution burden represents potential exposures to pollutants and adverse environmental conditions caused by pollution.

BRADLEY ANGEL: In DTSC’s presentation earlier this afternoon, they did reference — and I’m glad – CalEnviroScreen [c alenviro,] which is an incredibly important tool created by CalEPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

And, as [As] DTSC acknowledged a few minutes ago, Treasure Island residents have a higher pollution burden than 85% of Californians – a higher pollution burden than 85%.

So, what [What] has the State done?

What has the Navy done?

What has the City of San Francisco done?

Have they gotten these people, these residents [r esidents], our fellow citizens out of harm’s way?

Next slide, please.


Radioactive Waste feet from homes.

BRADLEY ANGEL: No they have not!

This was a picture I took again approximately three years ago right behind peoples’ homes – a [A] radioactive [radio active] waste cleanup area. And, that’s what the yellow and white signs say.

And, no human being should live with radioactive [radio active] or hazardous waste, especially at Superfund [super fund] levels, in their backyard.

This is incredible!

Next slide, please[s].


Health Problems, Fear of Homelessness & Retaliation

BRADLEY ANGEL: As even Supervisor Haney referenced, and as Investigative reporter Carol Harvey’s tireless research and extensive research has documented, many residents fear losing their homes. They are between a rock and a hard place. And, as we now know, residents have reported a wide range of very profound ill health effects, and, I’m not surprised at all.

Next Slide, please.

So, what [What] again did our government do?

Nothing. They leave people in harm’s way.

Many are formerly homeless mothers of color, who believe that nothing is worse than living on the street.

After Amy Brownell of San Francisco Department of Public Health refused to do a health survey in 2014, Ms. Harvey began documenting disease patterns.

Islanders report strokes, heart attacks, tumors, radiation burns, cancers, seizures, tremors, skin sores, crusty painful rashes, pustules, hair and tooth loss, breaking bones, miscarriages, birth detects and blood disorders.

BRADLEY ANGEL: As Supervisor Haney referenced, and, as investigative reporter, Carol Harvey’s tireless research and extensive research has documented, many residents fear losing their homes.

They are between a rock and a hard place.

And, as we now know, residents have reported a wide range of very profound ill health effects.

And, I am not surprised at all.

Next slide, please.


San Francisco Chronicle August 28, 2020

‘Extremely unlikely that that they will find anything’

A helicopter scan for radioactivity at SF’s former bases had limited value. The city relied on it anyway.

‘Amy Brownell, the principal health expert for Treasure Island and Bay view Hunters Point, acknowledged in internal emails that she knew that helicopter scans were likely to not yield any findings of radioactivity, and that was why she wanted them to be used to reassure developers.’

BRADLEY ANGEL: Next slide, please.

So, what, again, did our government do? Nothing.

They leave people in harm’s way.

And, as [As] the San Francisco Chronicle front page expose showed in August of 2020, ‘Extremely unlikely they will find anything’

‘A helicopter scan for radioactivity [radio activity] at SF’s former bases [b ases] had limited value. The city relied on it anyhow’

Next slide:


‘In an August 2012 email to two S.F. Development officials, Amy Brownell, an environmental engineer and city health official, wrote that the helicopter was “extremely unlikely” to find anything.

And then we also need to request it for HPS – otherwise people might ask – what are they trying to hide?

The reasons to request:

[1] [[blocked in yellow]] extremely unlikely that they will find anything [[end yellow]] because they are just doing a gamma survey at 300 feet – the instruments and lab tests that Navy does on the surface at HPS are much more sensitive

[2] [[blocked in yellow]] If they don’t find anything – it will be another layer of evidence to add to all our other information that provides assurance that the property transfers are safe [[end yellow]]

[3] If they find any anomalies:
[•] at HPS – they probably already have the area identified and will be able to explain exactly what it is from all their surveys they’ve already done, if by chance it is something “new” – they have all the equipment and lab personnel on site – it will be extremely easy for the Navy to investigate further

BRADLEY ANGEL: Not only did the city rely on it, it was proposed to the developers precisely because they knew – the city knew that it would not find anything – or was extremely unlikely to find anything — even if it was there.

And, it said: (I’ll just point one) “extremely unlikely that they will find anything [[end yellow]] because they are just doing a gamma survey at 300 feet – the instruments and lab tests that Navy does on the surface at HPS are much more sensitive”

This is outrageous! And I will point out that the official from San Francisco so-called Health Department who continues to work on issues at Treasure Island and the Hunters Point Shipyard, is still employed with our tax dollars.

This is shocking.

Next slide please.


“California’s coast faces a significant risk of experiencing SLR of up to 1.0 feet by 2030 and 7.6 feet by 2100”

California Coastal Commission May 1, 2020



A related issue. And, this [This] ties into somewhat what DTSC barely referenced earlier, but it has not been analyzed – this slide is from the California Coastal Commission — a document:

California’s coast faces a significant risk …

[>> Supervisor Melgar:] ERICA MAJOR, CLERK: I’m sorry for the interruption. I’m afraid your time has elapsed.

BRADLEY ANGEL: Okay, I’ll be just another minute, please.

‘…of [The exerpience] experiencing sea level rise of up to 7.6 feet by 2100.’ And… next slide, please, really quick.


Climate Change, Rising Sea Levels and Rising Groundwater

[•] Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s projections of 7 foot sea level rise would result in Treasure Island being underwater

[•] [[BOLDED]] Rising seal levels will inundate the radioactive and toxic waste that city, state and federal officials plan to leave buried and capped [[END BOLD]] on Treasure Island at at the Hunters Point Shipyard Superfund Site – a public health and environmental disaster in the making


And, as we know, this [This] is not just about sea level rise. It’s about rising groundwater.

Next slide, please.


Groundwater Beneath Your Feet is Rising With the Sea. It Could Bring Long-Buried Toxins With It
Laura Klivans, Dec. 15, 2020 KQED

[•] Article about study by Silvestrum Climate Associates

[•] [[BOLD]] As sea level rises, it pushes groundwater up, causing contaminants in the soil to move, and possibly infiltrate homes. [[END BOLD]]

[•] “Naugle, from the Water Quality Control Board, says contaminated sites are at risk of flooding all along California shorelines”

[•] Grant Cope, DTSC deputy director for site mitigation and restoration, “said the organization plans to tackle the problem as well.”

BRADLEY ANGEL: And so, as [As] a new study that KQED [was] reported on in December is that, as sea level rises [r ises], ‘it pushes groundwater [ground level water] up causing contaminants in the soil to move and possibly infiltrate homes,’ and I would add, our beautiful San Francisco Bay.

Last slide, please.

So, what [What] do we need done?


Our government must:

[•] [[START RED]] Protect at-risk residents by relocating them away from contamination provide full compensation, long-term, equivalent, healthy and safe housing, and rental support. [[END RED]]

[•] Guarantee that Treasure Island residents will not be evicted in retaliation for speaking out

[•] [[START RED]] Protect residents and San Francisco Bay by conducting comprehensive retesting and cleanup – NOT CAPPING – of all contamination at Treasure Island, Bay view Hunters Point, and along the entire waterfront.

BRADLEY ANGEL: We need:[,] Number One to protect at-risk residents by relocating them away from contamination, providing full compensation, long-term equivalent [equipment], and healthy and safe housing, and rental support.

Number Two: As Supervisor Haney said, ‘Guarantee that residents will not be evicted in retaliation for speaking out.’

And, last, [Last] but not least, ‘Protect residents and our San Francisco Bay by conducting comprehensive retesting and cleanup[,] – NOT CAPPING – of all contamination at [in] Treasure Island, Bay view Hunters Point, and along the entire waterfront.’

A failure to remove all the radioactive [radio active] and toxic wastes not only puts residents at risk, but will ensure that this waste will be inundated [endated] by the Sea Level Rise and climate change that we are now experiencing and will in the future.

Thank you so much for your time and for having this hearing.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you very much.

So, thanks for all of the presentations [p resentations]. I will now turn it over to Supervisor Haney for questions.


Thank you Chair Melgar, and thank you to all of the presenters. I appreciate it.

I‘m going to have a number of questions. I’m sure members of the Committee do, as well.

I just want to ask if you could [can] be as brief as possible in [to] the answers to the questions while addressing [a ddressing] the question, itself so that we can get through them.

I would really appreciate it. But, I want to make sure that we get as many answers for our residents and clarity on next steps [this] as possible.

The first question I have [had] was about something presented [sented] on the EnviroScreen chart showing the different scores. And, this is probably for DTSC.

There’s [is] a hundred percent score for proximity to cleanup sites for Treasure Island residents.

Are you aware of any other locations that DTSC tracks where there is 100 percent cleanup [clean up] score?

[>>] JULIE PETTIJOHN: So, this is Julie Pettijohn from DTSC. I’d be happy to respond to that question. That is not a question I have directly looked into — [I was short] in my response, as requested.

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: are there any other military base cleanups that you are aware [familiar] of where there were thousands of civilians moved into base housing, built on a contaminated part of the site where they are still there while the site is being remediated?[.] Is that something that you are aware of from any other sites?


[>>] So, I will answer that one as well. And, then perhaps [Perhaps, dtsc,] CDPH if they have anything to add, can certainly fill in.

So, the area that I cover for DTSC is San Mateo County north to the Oregon border. And, I would say for those military sites – so, speaking [Speaking] for that portion of our state alone – I am not aware that there are any residents immediately adjacent.

But, CDPH if there’s anything more.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: [is] Mr. Chu is still on here with us?


[>>] Hi, This is Sheetal Singh. I’m [calling] going from CDPH. And, addressing [Addressing] that question, as far as we are concerned, we don’t know of another BRAC site that has residents living that is undergoing cleanup currently.

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Thank you. And, I just — 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 (really) any other similar types of sites.

In terms of the acceptable risk levels, is there any comparison that you can provide [?]– I mean – are [Are] the acceptable risk levels at Treasure Island the same as those in — at the Shipyard, or other cleanup sites on the USEPA’s National Priorities List?

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN: I can take that one. This is Julie Pettijohn. Are the risk levels the same?

They may not be exactly the same, but we follow the same process — the CERCLA process from site-to-site. We do take into account Land Use [u se] – So, you know: What the intended land use of the property is. Does that address your question?

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Yes. Maybe it would be [it May be] helpful, as a followup, to receive [receiving] information about — that the process for determining acceptable risk levels at Treasure Island versus – yeah – these other sites.

I know that the cancer risk level, for example, is something that we’re [we are] concerned about, of course, and how it compares to the Hunters Point site, for example.

You know, we’ve [we have] discussed a bit about the Five-Year Review from the Navy, and the Navy stated in their Five-year Review that there is no immediate health risk, and the investigations [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?

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN: Supervisor Haney, is your question related to chemicals or radiation or to both?

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Well, to both. And sort of more [More] broadly – whether there is an immediate health risk based on your understanding of the analysis.[?] They stated pretty decisively, I [they] believe, that there was [is] no immediate health risk, and that the investigations they are doing are for future land uses, [.] and — you know –as [As] the oversight bodies, I want to know if you agree with that.[?]

[>>] JULIE PETTIJOHN: What [what] I would say for the Five [f ive]-year reviews: We [, 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.

But, the [The] other thing we also do consider is the current Land Use – so, not [Not] only future land use — the [but] current land use. And in [In] conducting a Five-Year review, there is a very proscriptive [prescriptive] process that is laid out by USEPA.

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Is there any other — another response on this,[?] because I do think this is important[,] – you know –particularly[,] because a primary concern here of this hearing, and, of course, I hope for all if us, is a potential[,] immediate health risks [r isks] to current residents[,] which the Navy is saying that they don’t believe there is an immediate health risk. And, one [One] of the things that we want to be clear with to residents is whether both of your respective bodies both believe there is an immediate health risk, or no immediate health risk, or would be an immediate health risk. How do you describe your understanding of a health risk to current residents?

[>>]MYRNA MELGAR: So, forgive me, Supervisor Haney. I had heard earlier from Ms Pettijohn’s [the] presentation that she made the distinction between toxics and radiation. So, I think that the radiation answer to your question that you’re [you are] posing right now – is actually answered by Ms Singh. So, perhaps [Perhaps] we can hear from her.

[>>] SHEETAL SINGH: So, I can speak with perspective to the radiological contamination. So, yes. [Yes] I think there is no immediate [it is not a legit] risk to the residents living there.

We know that there is radiological contamination at Treasure Island. It’s [It is]present at IR [on] Site 12. It is present in the SWDAs which are still undergoing remediation. But, for the most part, these areas where [and the fwds, which. There] there is no contamination present,[. There] there are engineering controls in place. I’m talking about things like postings; things like fencing. [fencing and posting.] So, there [There] should not be any major [immediate] threat to the public[. They] because they have been restricted. The access on these sites is pretty restricted — as long as they are following their – you know – the ground rules set up by TIDA.

So, that’s definitely there.

So, we [We] keep an eye on the remediation process.
That’s what CDPH’s role is as well as they’re consultants [consulting] to DTSC.

SHEETAL SINGH: I’d like to just point out back [like] on the side is that there was a radiological surveys done on the open spaces[. There] that were also radiological surveys done within the housing units at where the different houses are. One was actually done – the [The] first one was actually done by RHP, our Radiological Health Branch, and David Chu mentioned those surveys in his presentation.

The other one was done by David, [navy] but with CDPH oversight.[ cd ph site to]

The idea was that to see — assess – if the public living over there had any kind of health risk. And, it was considered that there is [There was] no immediate health risk based on these surveys [this service].

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: And, one of the things[,] that I think for everyone. It’s [, that is] hard to fully understand how you come to that conclusion, particularly [. Particularly,] because it seems like the land has been determined not to be acceptable for future residents currently, but [. But] is for current residents. And, what — particularly [Particularly] for Site 12[,] – what are the things that you believe lead us to that conclusion? I mean, is it that because people are – because it’s fenced off and they are not sort of immediately right in the middle of it that it’s [it is] safe for them.[?]

I mean, I think that it’s obviously deeply [obviouslily, d eeply] concerning for people to hear that for future uses it’s [it is] currently not yet safe. But, for current residents [currently living there, it currently]who may live in or around the immediate proximity, that it’s been determined to be safe for them. How do you sort of reach those conclusions?

[>>]ANTHONY CHU: Supervisor, this is Anthony Chu [c huu]. Yes. I understand your question.

So, I wanted to get back to the surveys that we’ve done. Our survey results indicate[d] that there is no immediate health risks. And I provided some examples of that both – you know – in multiple surveys. And, that’s [That’s] what the data show us.

Is there a radiological risk at Treasure Island? There is because it[. It] is a contaminated site. So, we [We] acknowledge that, and we [. We] are working hard to monitor vigilantly[, regularly,]on the cleanup of those sites.

But, radiation — but, the engineering control measures that’s put in place such as the distance, the signage[s ignage], the fencing – that goes a long way in protecting the public, and the residents there.

Radiation — I don’t want to get into too much of the detail — technical details — but, radiation drops – or – its intensity — inversely with distance.

So – and, many [Many] of these objects are buried[b uried]. So, when we — and, all [All] I can speak to are the radiation surveys and the soil sampling [samples] activities that we’ve done. And, [and] they do not show signif — (he pulled back on saying ‘significant’) health risks to the public at this time.

[>>] MATT HANEY: For [for dtsc] DTSC, for the chemical contaminants, there are some documents that indicate that assessment of potential exposure for current residential scenarios [s cenarios] includes surface soil down to two feet below the ground surface, and only in 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? And, I think this was in specifically [in] the 2017 Record of the Decision?

[>>] JULIE PETTIJOHN: So, this is Julie Pettijohn. I‘d [would] have to go back to the 2017 Record of Decision to verify. But what I can tell you (is) that it is standard industry practice for risk assessment when evaluating future risks to assess the top ten feet of soil. But, if [If] there are – if there is a pavement in place, you can have quite a lot below the pavement, but [. But] there‘s [is] no exposure because that pavement is essentially blocking the exposure.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Supervisor Haney, I saw Supervisor Peskin wanting to ask something further of Mr. Chu [C hu] when he was speaking.[, is] Is that okay?

MATT HANEY: Perfectly fine with me.


You’re muted, Supervisor.

[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have some questions for Mr. Chu [Choo], and again reiterate my appreciation for his candor — the first that I’ve heard now in a decade.

But, let [Let] me ask just a slightly different question, Madame Chair. I believe that our own Department of Public Health was invited to this meeting. And, unless I missed something: Did I hear from our own DPH?

[>>] MYRNA MELGAR [Clerk]: You [you] did not. But, that [That] would be Supervisor Haney. Could you shed some light on that – or, would you –

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Yes, they’re here [they are here] and available for specific questions.

[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN: Well, I think it’s worth doubling down because we’re dealing with DTSC, and we’re dealing with Cal DPH. But, there‘s [was] an earlier admission that 70% of approximately 600 acres has been turned over to the City and County which would mean that our lead local agency is our own Department of Public Health. So, I think that we’re [we are] missing that from this conversation. I think we’re also missing — unless I missed it – the Department of Defense, by [buying] and through the Navy[.] — Did we hear from the Navy?

[>>]MATT HANEY: That part, I did address at the beginning. We [we] invited them multiple times[t imes], and they declined to appear.

[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN: Right! You did do that at the beginning of the meeting.

And then, have we had an overview – maybe – from Mr. Beck and the Treasure Island Development Authority about what the actual deal was when Gavin Newsom was Mayor, when [and] Michael Cohen was the head of Base Reuse and what liabilities we may or may not have inherited.[?] And, Mmaybe the City Attorney’s Office can speak [see] to that.

And what amount of money transferred hands at the time,[?] and what amount of money or participation at the back end? I think we’re missing the — as I always say in this business:[,] Follow The Money. And, I don’t think we’ve talked about that at all.

[>>]MYRNA MELGAR [Clerk]: Supervisor, those folks [f olks]who are on this [the] call are now given the heads up that you’re going to ask all those questions after Supervisor Haney is done with his questioning. [So,] I expect that they will all prepare their answers.

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: It’s going to be a long afternoon.

[>>]MYRNA MELGAR: [Clerk] Yeah. (Laughs)


[>> Supervisor]MATT HANEY: And, they’re [they are] prepared to answer all [of] those. So, we [We] should definitely bring them up, and I agree with you.

I do want to sort of follow through with some of these questions about some of the cleanup [clean up] and the perspective of these agencies.

So, the [The] Navy had to demolish Buildings [b uildings] 1311 and 1313 and relocate residents in order to reach contaminated soil and complete remedial or removal actions.  

Why did they have to do that,[?] and,Ffor the residents who were moved and were in close proximity and obviously lived in those areas, what is our perspective on their well-being and safety?  

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN:  So, this is Julie Pettijohn from DTSC.   wWith respect to Building 1311 and 1313:[,]  bBuildings can only be vacated or demolished as part of the Navy’s environmental program as it’s [it was] required to implement a remedy. And, I’m certainly not here to speak for them.  

[[NOTE: She is stating outright that she is speaking for the Navy – not the residents, of course]]

But, in[In] the case of Buildings 1311 and 1313, they were demolished because petroleum contamination was identified in soil beneath the buildings. [b uildings,]

JULIE PETTIJOHN: (Continued) Tthat required excavation and treatment.  So, the [The] excavation and treatment was because the petroleum soil was dissolving arsenic into the groundwater which was discharging into the Bay.  

So, those [Those] folks had to be moved out (um).  

TIDA perhaps knows where they were moved to.  That’s [That is] not within the jurisdiction of DTSC.  But, that is why those folks were moved – is to allow for the additional cleanup.

[>> Supervisor]MATT HANEY:  And, it was arsenic and petroleum?
[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN:  So, petroleum was the major constituent that was in the soil.  And, the problem with it — It was actually causing arsenic to leach [leak] into the groundwater and with discharge to the San Francisco Bay.

[>> Supervisor]MATT HANEY:  And, on the chemicals [c hemicals] specifically, it would be helpful if you – just, sort of in a broader way,  discussed the chemicals that are 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 that sometimes – and, I think – even when I’m  thinking [t hinking] about this, I sometimes mix in the conversation about the chemicals and that of [not] radiation 


MATT HANEY:  But, the chemicals specifically — 

what are the chemicals?  What risk do they pose and at what levels?

JULIE PETTIJOHN:  Okay.  So, (um) I can certainly try to answer that one again.  

So, Aas you pointed out, Treasure Island is a very large property.  I’m thinking you may be — and, it’s [It is] broken up into a number [bunch] of different sites.  So, Yyou may be most interested in Site 12.  That’s where there are folks that are living in housing there.  

So, Ffor Sites 12, the Contaminants of Concern are lead, polynuclear [poly nuke lee yak] aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, also known as PCBs, dioxin, and then also radium[radial]-226. [226 226]

And so, essentially we start with the [a] screening of the Chemicals [c hemicals] of Concern that are in the soil,[.] and we consider whether the level that’s Protective – you know, (that) Llooking at a wide range of exposure scenarios — kind of looking at the exposure scenarios, and then focusing [f ocusing] in on a site-specific risk assessment that would form the basis of the cleanup goals — that information is all in the Record of Decision.

For sites – 12 specifically — the ROD indicates that, for lead, the number is 400 mg/kg. That is [That’s] the screening level. However, I do know that the Navy has been doing additional cleanups[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 also have other numbers for PCBs in [and] soil – (one) 1 mg/kg. That’s a TOSCA. So, Tthe Toxic Substances Control Act[a ct]. That’s a toxics — TOSCA number for high occupancy use.

For polynuclear aromatic [hide you] hydrocarbons, it is 0.63 mg/kg, and that’s [It is] calculated. So, there are a number of different PAHs, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. We tend to take the one that is the worst actor, in terms of health impacts, and use that as an equivalent factoring in all of the different PAHs that are there. So, Tthe screening level that’s in the ROD is 0.63.

The removal actions to date do indicate that they have cleaned up to exposure level below that ROD goal,[.] and Tthat residual risk after the cleanup will be presented in — well, we call it a RACR — so, a Removal Action Completion [complete] Report. We are expecting that document later this year.

And, Ffor Dioxins, 12 nanograms per [for] kilogram

Again, this is – Tthere are a number of different dioxins. So, here again we’re [We are] looking at a toxic equivalency situation, and [All] all of the removals to date and the residual contamination that’s left will be summarized in that RACR document later this year.

[[NOTE: Pronounced RACKER]]


[>>] MYRNA MELGAR Clerk: Supervisor, I just want to note Mr. Taibi — his [Mr. Tabey’s] hand is up. I just want to remind you, Mr. Taibi —- that if Supervisor Haney has a question for you, he will ask. Thank you.

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Okay. And, what are the consequences to human health for — if the – if the levels are too high or if there is exposure for some of the Chemicals of Concern on Treasure Island?

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN:  Okay.  So, if the levels are beyond what we hope for in terms of a risk[r isk]-based screening number, typically we would say, ‘Go back and dig out more — collect new confirmation samples.’

JULIE PETTIJOHN: That’s all described, in this case, in the ROD, the Record of Decision.

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: I understand.

Well, what about the actual consequence to people who are exposed to these chemicals?

[>>] JULIE PETTIJOHN: Okay. Well, so — For residual contamination — and, I’m just talking sort of in general – So, it’s for ‘Contaminants of Concern,’ there is a Risk Assessment process that’s followed. And, Eessentially, what you are looking at for risk-based cleaning — cleanup goals – is set out within the National Contingency Plan, or the NCP[NTCP]. And, tThere is what’s called a Risk Management Range. So, it’s [It is] a theoretical — it’s a theoretical mathematical calculation, essentially, of looking at what would the concentration be that would expose one time — I’m just going to say what it is, and then I’ll explain it – One times 10 to the minus 4 to 1 times 10 to the minus 6 risk.

And, what that means: [The] One times 10 to the minus 6 is the lower end of the risk range. That’s a theoretical calculation based on very conservative assumptions [additional assertions], and it would be: One additional person [amuck] among a million people exposed could theoretically get cancer from exposure to the chemicals that were evaluated[exposed].

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: (Stuttering) Does – does – ah [DTSC]– Does CDPH have anything to add on that?

[>>]ANTHONY CHU: No, we don’t.

MATT HANEY: — on the chemicals.


[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Um – When was the last time that — well, I should say – ah – Has there been a human health risk assessment that has been done, and when was the last time it was completed for Treasure Island?

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN: So, I will answer that one again.

Julie Pettijohn. So, tThere were a number of risk assessments that have been completed. So, Kkeep in mind the property is 600 acres, or thereabouts — made up of a number of different sites each with its own history of Land Use and chemicals used. And so, ideally, we have to go Site by Site. And, so, with each Site, identifying what – you know – what the past Land Uses are; What are the likely Chemicals of Concern? Doing the sampling to see that, and then identifying – you know – is there something that we need to do because of the chemicals that are present.

Does it present a health risk when doing the very conservative calculation? And that Risk Calculation is called Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk.

JULIE PETTIJOHN: And, the one thing that I really wanted to point out is — it’s in addition to cancer that we all, unfortunately, walk around with – the potential to get cancer is about 40% for any given person.

JULIE PETTIJOHN: So, this one times ten to the minus Six is an incremental risk above that background cancer rate.

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: And, did – did – ?? And, when was that done – the Human Risk –?

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN: So, I would have to look at our EnviroStor, and if there were particular Sites that you that you were interested in, we could certainly provide that information to you, Supervisor Haney.

JULIE PETTIJOHN: So, for every site that has been closed, (um) or that we have completed the work, there would have been [will be] a Risk Assessment.

JULIE PETTIJOHN: There will be sites where there will be [with] a Risk Assessment because we’re not yet through the CERCLA process.

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Got it.

Well, it was [is] my understanding that the last one that was done for Site 12 was in 2012. Is this – is that consistent with —- ???

[>>] JULIE PETTIJOHN: I – uh – I don’t have EnviroStor open in front of me to verify that, but that’s something, you know — we could certainly verify for you.

I can tell you that’s there’s still a whole lot of work that needs to be done at Site 12.

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: So. In the radiological contaminants, were they included in that — in that survey — that assessment?

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN: Right. So, I’m gonna let CDPH answer questions about radiation —



[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Sure. CDPH – was there a Human Risk – Health Risk Assessment — which I know DTSC does that. And does that include radiological contaminants?

[>> Clerk] MYRNA MELGAR: Mr. Chu [Choo] or Ms Singh?

[>>]SHEETAL SINGH: So, the Risk Assessment’s kind of like what Julie’s mentioning. It’s not something CDPH will do on their own. So, a radiological contaminants are captured in the Assessment by both agencies at the same time.

So, I will concur with Julie’s response. We’ll have to go back and look what DTSC had produced at that time and look at that.

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: If somebody could check on when the last one was done, I think that would be helpful, and maybe it can be done before the end of the hearing.

But, I wonder – because, when we say a Health Survey or — you know — a Human Risk Assessment, I understand that these are based on relative risks. I want to know if anybody is actually looking at and analyzing the real actual health conditions? and potentially even impacts on residents themselves. And, maybe this is also somebody from SFDPH that can answer this. I know Patrick is here.

And, we have heard from many residents and former residents. Some that I spoke to recently, and again I want to thank Carol Harvey for connecting me with many of these individuals who have reported strokes, heart attacks, tumors, radiation burns, cancers, seizures, tremors, skin sores, crusty painful rashes, hair and tooth loss, breaking bones, miscarriages, birth defects, and blood disorders. Many of them believe that these have a greater prevalence on Treasure Island, and that they’re connected to the conditions – whether it’s the radiation or the chemicals.

Do you all believe that there is any connection between these reported health conditions by residents, and former residents and environmental conditions on Treasure Island. And, how are we actually, as part of these — Who’s responsibility would it be? Is it 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?

JULIE PETTIJOHN: So, I will jump in here. This is Julie Pettijohn, DTSC.

[>>] (JULIE PETTIJOHN continues) So, in terms of health effects for individuals, that is not something that my Department — that’s not within the purview of the expertise of my Department. That would require the assistance of physicians and nurses.

And so, as I reported previously — that where we do find that there are health concerns among folks, we do try to put them with folks that might be able to help them.

So, 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, then, finally, physicians at UCSF.

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Can CDPH and SFDPH respond to this because — I think it’s important because – you know –— we get these sort of different assessments, and Risk tools, and how likely things are, and then people on the island say, ‘Well, that doesn’t conform to our experience, where it seems that people here have more prevalent and even unusual health conditions.

And, so their experiences are, they feel, not reflected in some of the statements of a lack of risk.

[>>]ANTHONY CHU: Yes. This is Anthony Chu [Choo], Supervisor Haney.

Let me take a crack at that.

I think you asked one of the most complicated questions here. And, we’ve all been struggling with that.

As Julie mentioned, this is a little bit beyond our capabilities. We look at radiation, specifically.

But, what you are asking –

And, I don’t mean to minimize your question because it is a very important question. What is the health impact to individuals?

And, Number One: CDPH really doesn’t deal with that. It – We do have a group, as Julie mentioned, that looks at more of a community-based epidemiology.

But, that doesn’t really address individual health impacts, which is what you kind of are getting at.

What is the – you know – chemicals or radiation affect on individual health? That is a very complicated question. ‘Cause there are so many different controls here. What – one – you know – I may have a different response to a certain kind of contaminants than you. So, again I don’t — 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 — you know, at CDPH 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 — maybe an overview of impact of radiation, and maybe that would give you a little more perspective on radiation.

[>>]MATT HANEY: Yes. Thank you very much, Anthony.

AARON PESKIN: So, the radiation — Are you muted now?

MYRNA MELGAR: Yeah, I’m — Somebody has to turn off, thank you.

PEREZ GONZALEZ, CDPH: (Face, half-hidden) The Radiological Health Branch, ah — our expertise lies in – not only in ensuring that our licensees operate in a safe manner to protect the environment and the public. But, we also – our mission to make sure that the public are not being unduly exposed to any radiation hazards. And, that’s, over the many years, what we have tried to do at Treasure Island with those surveys that Anthony had mentioned. One large — very large — survey that we performed 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.

We spent almost four weeks walking over the entire site with very sensitive instrumentation. And, we did find some elevated levels of radiation which we then oversaw the Navy in remediation.

Generally, however, as we walked the entire site, notwithstanding those five locations, the entire site was relatively at background levels.

So, with our mission in mind, given those results, no one walking around on Site 12 was being exposed to anything that WE could find that you’re not exposed to in any daily life — cosmic radiation, terrestrial radiation, etc.

So, that’s – given that information, you can walk on Site 12, and you can walk around Treasure Island, and you are being exposed to the same cosmic rays as somebody in San Francisco or any other nearby city. I hope that helps.

AARON PESKIN:  (Raises his hand)

MATT HANEY:  It does – I do want to say — and, I see Supervisor Peskin wants to jump in, and  I’ll defer right after this.

It is concerning that we aren’t looking either on a macro or micro level on impacts and consequences and trends and patterns on the island among people there.  And, I understand that it’s not something that really either of your agencies had as part of your mandate or responsibility.  And, I do think it’s important that we hear from the San Francisco Department of Public Health because I think it would be – you know –incredibly  unacceptable and – and – and just flat-out awful if it was nobody’s responsibility.  Because, who is watching to document these health impacts and addressing them, and – and – and making sure that, if there are patterns– if there are a number of – you know — higher rates of cancer or higher rates of certain types of diseases that could be the consequences of radiation or toxins – that we’re actually analyzing that and including that in our analysis of what’s happening and preventing it.

So, I’ll defer to Supervisor Peskin — I think the Department of Public Health — our Department of Public Health — is also here. And I would like to hear if they have a direct role or responsibility with protecting our residents in this situation.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR:  Is that a question to the Department of Public Health right now, Supervisor?  



Who is here from the Department of Public Health?  

[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL:  Yes.  Supervisor Haney, this is Patrick Fosdahl with the Environmental Health Branch at the Department of Public Health here in San Francisco.

We’re the Regulatory Branch for the Health Department, so we enforce laws, Health Codes, regulations.

Um- the question that you’re asking is really beyond my branch.  It really gets into epidemiology.  And epidemiology is where you’re going to see those kind of trends, where – you know – it starts with somebody reporting an illness to their doctor.  And, then that doctor — if it’s something along the lines of, say, a 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’re looking for is those clusters.  If you think of what’s going on right now with Covid tracking in San Francisco, you’re looking at clusters of Covid.  We’re tracking that at different types of businesses – looking for trends and ways of preventing that.  And, that’s where you’re going to catch some sort of an increase in disease incidents within a neighborhood, whether it’s Treasure Island or another neighborhood within San Francisco.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR:  (interjects) I’m sorry.  I just — I don’t know that that was the question.  Forgive me, Supervisor Haney, if I’m – you know — not —

But, the question I heard was:  Who was in charge of – the supposed — the social determinants of health for a particular neighborhood that is under-seeing development.  If we know that 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 — you know — Community Health [House] and Equity. 

So, like those [most] folks – like, do you track — and it’s not a clinical – you know – sick person by sick person and then clusters.  It’s actually the other way around; that we want to have Health Equity in how we are conducting development activities.  

So, I’m sorry.  Supervisor Peskin wanted to clarify the same question, right? 

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN:  Yeah, pretty much.  I was going to start, if I may, Madame Chair. 

Mr. Fosdahl, what is your position with the DPH, and what is your involvement with this project?  

[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL:  Yeah.  I’m the Acting Director of the Environmental Health Branch.  Within the Environmental Health Branch, going back to the early 1990s, when these federal properties potentially looked like they were going to come to the City and County of San Francisco, we hired an environmental engineer that has been [was going to be] the lead on those projects. 

And, in addition to that, (ah) oftentimes the health officer, formerly Tomas Aragon, who is now the — ironically ended  up in [of the the] CDPH — would be involved periodically in these projects.  

But, like I said at the beginning, Supervisor Peskin, we’re the regulatory branch for the Health Department.  So, our role and responsibility first and foremost, is to – the  protecting of public health of the citizens of San Francisco.  That’s sort of an underlying principle.

But, we do that in my particular Branch through the enforcement of regulations and laws.

So, if it’s in the Health Code, typically my branch is the one that’s enforcing that health code.

So, and 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.  And, that comes into play after a property — after a parcel there has been turned over to the City and County of San Francisco.

So, the Navy has deemed that it’s been cleaned up.  There’s a whole process for that.  It’s turned over to San Francisco.  Now we’re going to develop it.  That’s when Article 31 kicks in.  

If you’re looking at Treasure Island, for all of those reasons that have kind of been outlined here, it’s not under that same sort of regulatory umbrella.  There is no Article 31 of the Health Code that applies to Treasure Island.  

That has been handled kind of like a separate little project in San Francisco where it’s Federal land.  It’s not a Superfund Site, meaning that strict definition.  

PATRICK FOSDAHL:  But, the cleanup out there is being overseen by State agencies – those state agencies you’ve heard from this afternoon.  

Eventually, it will be turned over to San Francisco, and it was pointed out at the beginning, some portion of it already has been.  And, once it’s turned over to San Francisco, then all of those same sort of rules and laws that apply to every other property [protect] in San Francisco would apply to Treasure Island.  

But, it’s a little bit of a different sort of jurisdictional structure at Treasure Island than — Comparing [compared] it to its neighbor down the street at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, there’s not a corresponding [specific] health code, specifically, that’s been written for the development out at [of] Treasure Island. 

[>>]AARON PESKIN:  So, Mr. Fosdahl,  I think that representation from Mr. Beck earlier is that 70 (seven zero) percent of Treasure Island has been turned over to the City and County of San Francisco.  

Through the Chair to Mr. Beck, was [Is] that your representation, Sir?  

[>>] BOB BECK:  That is correct.  

[>>]AARON PESKIN:  And, (uh)  This is a rhetorical question but, is Treasure Island within the confines of the City and County of San Francisco?  

BOB BECK: It is.  

[>>]AARON PESKIN: And, does Chapter 31? — This is not a part of a redevelopment area.  It is not subject [specific] to State Law, although there was an early incarnation where people thought that was going to be the case, and then State Senator (Don’t recognize name – s/l ‘Algee’) [she] may have actually started that when she was  — State  Assemblywoman.  Carol Migden passed a piece of legislation to make it a redevelopment area — a second or, if you will, transfer a third redevelopment area.  But, that ultimately was not used.

So, Mr. Fosdahl, or Dr. Fosdahl, (I don’t want to inappropriately refer to you. So, I apologize if I call you ‘Mr.’ instead of ‘Doctor’), why are you saying that Health Code Section 31 does not apply, and Treasure Island is different.  It’s in the City, and [Don’t] we own 70% of it?

[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL:  Yeah.  No, absolutely, Supervisor Peskin, when a — and you’ve rightly pointed out, as soon as the property was [is] turned over to the City and Country of San Francisco, San Francisco‘s health codes [does] apply.  

I used Article 31 just because that had been specifically written for the transfer of parcels involving the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.  And, just by comparison, that doesn’t exist for Treasure Island.  There’s not an Article 31 that involves the transfer of parcels there

(PATRICK FOSDAHL continues) But, to answer your question:  Yeah. Once it’s a part of the City and County of San Francisco, everything that would apply anywhere else in the City applies to that property[protect].    

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN:  Right.  Like the Maher [Mopper] Act?


[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: So – so – And, by the way, this is going to be another question that I don’t totally know the answer to. But, does the City, by and through DPH or any other entity, have any ongoing responsibilities pursuant to Federal CERCLA [circle of] law? Or is that all EPA – and is there?And, if you don’t know the answer to this question, we can find the answer with other [all the] people in this meeting today — Or does that fall to California State entities? Is there any local participation (in) regulatory involvement?

[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL: I would (ah) – I’m not going to pretend to be the expert where CERCLA is involved, Supervisor.

I know that the City does have some involvement in it, and we typically see it (CERCLA) applied as a part of the planning process – you know, when — As new developments or things are being built in San Francisco, you’ll see that applied. We do have some involvement, but I wouldn’t know — I wouldn’t be the expert to speak to that.

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: And you indicated — through the Chair — that the City’s involvement and DPH’s involvement long pre-dates the City taking Title to any portion of the island and starts out in the 1990s when Bill Clinton – you didn’t say this part — 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.

But, 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?

[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL: Yes. Um. That is true. And, you know, you’ve been around long enough to remember — probably —all of that. But, that’s – you know, Treasure Island along with Hunters Point along with the Presidio — the City was looking at at that time, really, an opportunity to expand the footprint of San Francisco, and to have these — this – like, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop these areas of San Francisco that otherwise the City would not have had access to.

And, that was starting in the early 1990s. And I believe, in anticipation of that, that was when the — my branch had – I guess – the foresight, if you will, to hire an environmental engineer to, sort of, be the DPH’s eyes and ears on those projects as they moved forward.

But, I don’t think anybody could have anticipated – you know, wherever we’re at 27 years later – you know, we’re still in the thick of things. So, it’s been a slow-moving project, for sure.

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: Oh, that — that is incontrovertible. But, I – I mean, there have long been allegations about both chemical and radiological contamination at both the Hunters Point site — The Hunters Point site was – I mean, Parcel F glows in the dark. There’s no dispute about that.

Whether or not Parcels A and B turn out to be environmentally safe for human habitation is another issue.

But, Treasure Island – the representations were always – it was de minimus. There were a bunch of dials that were used on submarines that had, basically, no potential impacts to health for human beings.

But, what I think – and I don’t want to put words in his mouth — But, what I think Mr. Chu said — which, to my mind was a revelation — was that the Treasure Island property was improperly radiologically characterized. Did you hear that?

PATRICK FOSDAHL: I did. Yes. Yeah. That’s what he said.

AARON PESKIN: How could that be?

You – I mean, not you personally – but, the City had hired an environmental engineer to assess these things. The State of California, DTSC, said, ‘It’s all good, and Yes, it’s taken 27 years.’

But, how could it be that those allegations turned out to be true when scientists and people with geiger counters allegedly went out there even though Tetra Tech got busted for alleged criminal — actually, not alleged — sustained criminal activity. How could that be?

[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL: Yeah, I think — I mean, you have representatives here [hero] from CDPH radiological branch. I think they would be the ones to answer that question. But, I think, in general, looking at those — the different sites — those different properties that you just described in San Francisco – a big part of characterizing a site is knowing its history. And, I think — and, again, I don’t want to put words in CDPH’s mouth here. But, I think that maybe some of the history involving Treasure Island kind of had been mischaracterized. And, you go looking for what you think might be there based on the history –[is] historical use at the Site.

And, I think [see] that’s probably what happened here – is that there was an incomplete amount of historical data around Treasure Island. So it wasn’t until later that, you know, they were discovering that these things were there, and then piecing together how it was that that happened.

Because it wasn’t like the Naval Shipyard where you had a functioning shipyard for years and a big sort of industrial operation there.

Treasure Island didn’t have that same history. But obviously there were things that were missed. So, I think that’s a — Like I said, I’m just talking off the top of my head here, Supervisor. I think that’s probably a better question for CDPH.

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: So, two questions, and then I will yield the floor.

Question Number One: Is — Do you think the United States Department of Defense, by and through the Navy, told us the truth, and we asked the right answers? That’s one question.


AARON PESKIN:  Whether we asked —- whether they told us the right — 'Whether [Would] they told us the truth, and we asked the right questions,’ is what I meant to say.

[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL: Yeah, I think that the end result was we had aIt sure looks like there was an incomplete picture that had been painted. Whether or not that was because somebody didn’t 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 that’s a — Again, I think probably CDPH could – could fill in the blanks there maybe better than I can.

But, I know what the end result was, and that’s where we are today. And that‘s — was an incomplete picture that didn’t cover everything that was there, as Mr. Chu [choo] pointed out earlier.

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: And then — and, Mr. Fosdahl, I don’t know that we’ve ever met. Although, you’re correct I’ve been around for a while –


AARON PESKIN: But, if we have met, it’s good to see you again.


[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: But, the second question is: You said earlier this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for San Francisco Manifest Destiny to expand on Treasure Island and the Shipyard and the Presidio, which is now, in essence, a National Park (um)

And, I was around in those days. And, by the way, then I was gone for seven years. And, it’s no secret – It’s 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.

But, putting that aside, do you think the zeal for that once-in-a-life-time expansion — that many powerful elected officials —

(And, by the way, at that time, Barack Obama was President of the United States. Our local Congressional and Senate delegation is largely the same. We went through a number of mayors as you well-stated over that 27 years)

— Do you think that in any way – and, I’m not asking you relative to DTSC or Cal DPH which are not City agencies, but relative to DPH’s, which is our kind of last resort (um) — and, I don’t say this in a pejorative way. But, failure to be a backstop in recognizing the gaps that are now true and evident. In other words, were you under any political pressure?


[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL: No. I mean, you can’t work in the City and County of San Francisco without being under some political pressure, Supervisor. I’m sure that that has always existed. But, me personally, I’m not aware of any sort of political pressure. I think that the pressure in San Francisco, you know, is complex, as you well know, and involves housing, and the need for affordable housing, and a lot of other things (um) all competing with each other. But, If you’re asking if we were ever under any pressure to sort of sidestep public health – No. And, we wouldn’t. I wouldn’t work here if that was the case. I think public health is, you know, sort of my calling. And, I take it very seriously.

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: I appreciate that. And, I won’t delve into the allegations relative to a member of DPH at the Shipyard. Those are all known, and the subject of media attention. And I will yield the floor.

[>> Supervisor]MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Supervisor. I did — Is it Dr. Fosdahl or Mr?


MYRNA MELGAR: (Laughing) I also don’t want to disrespect you.

I do want to go back to the questioning that Supervisor Haney was pursuing earlier.

So, you know, our Department of Public Health, which I greatly admire, has a unique – you know – Work [board] chart??? configuration, right? — different from other departments of Public Health in that we have clinical and then we have population health. And you know, that is genius, right? because, hopefully — you know, because we are – we pay for the clinical part. If we’re doing the population health part right, you know, we will reduce costs.

So, just aside from, like, the moral obligation that we have to all our residents, just the financial, you know, obligation that we have to our city and making sure that we are addressing and preventing things – it’s just good policy, right? Good practice.

I think that today we do things a little bit differently than we did 27 years ago. We talk about race. We talk about gender. We talk about income. And, you know, we’ve been talking a lot about the social determinants of health. That is something that we didn’t talk about 27 years ago.

So, I am wondering, you know — Supervisor Peskin talked about all of these things that have happened before. We heard about the years before land was transferred.

But, I’m wondering, like, what you think in terms of our future. Because this Board, I think — and Supervisor Haney is looking to sort of shape what happens here.

So, how will your department work with – you know – 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, you know — sort of protected, and, we keep – you know – clinical costs down at some point by having people not get sick? And how do you address, you know, the things that in the past have been, you know — omissions? I don’t want to call them failures because I — you know, that’s maybe a legal concept. But, you know, perhaps where we’ve missed the mark.

[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL: Yeah, I know I think you’re – I think you’re spot on in much of what you’ve just said there. I think what I’ve seen during my career here is that growth that you’re describing. And, I think there is much, much bigger focus on some of those determinants of health that you’re describing. (Below)


Um – that are more (ah) — more borne by poor communities, communities of color. And, those are things that the Health Department is committed to identifying — not just identifying, but correcting. And, statistically, you can see that very clearly in all kinds of different areas —- heart disease, cancer. They were talking about low birth rate — weights earlier, just to name a few. There’s 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’re at on the scale as far as those things are concerned.

So, yeah, absolutely. That is something that the Health Department is committed to – not just in word, but – but, in deed. And, and that’s a big part of why those those two groups exist.

(um) In San Francisco, we’re not just under an umbrella that involves all of the hospitals and clinics. But, we do have this whole (um) prevention side of the house which is the side of the house that I sit on.

[>> Supervisor]MYRNA MELGAR: But, I guess, my question is specifically, like what then is the interaction – you know, going forward. Because — you know — we have put this population that we already knew — because of all of the social determinants that you just talked about — is already vulnerable, and then we PLACE them in a place where environmentally, it makes it — them more vulnerable.

And, there’s some questions, right, about whether it is or isn’t, or whether the right (tackle??)??? is done, or it’s not. But, you know, already, we’re taking a vulnerable population and placing them in a place where there may or may not be even more things that – you know — put them in harms way.

So, I’m just wondering for the future, what are we going to do in terms of, you know, that interaction between your department and, you know, folks who are (ah) supporting the population health of this already-vulnerable population?

[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL: Yeah, like I said, the Department of Public Health in San Francisco is committed to all of that that you just described, and, our voice will be heard. It’s 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. And, you know, the — what has happened in the past are things that we all can learn from.

And, I think that that that is (um) you know, sort of — It’s the road map going forward, is to — is to learn, and move forward. And, the Health Department is — is fully committed to it. We’re involved in — and continue to be more and more involved in — how those decisions are made.

Um – we may not control all of those. And, as you know, there’s 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? And, is it market rate housing? Is it below market rate housing?

What is the — there’s a lot of people at the table that have a say, I think. As you rightly pointed out, historically health might not have been a part of that conversation back in the 90s, or a very small part. And, that is no longer the case.

And, so, I think that the commitment to equity and ensuring that the same sort of healthy environment is provided to everybody is one of the core values of the Health Department.

So, I’m not sure if that completely answers your question. But, I can just speak to the Health Department’s side of the fence.

[>> Supervisor]MYRNA MELGAR: Okay. Thank you. I had couple more questions.

The –

But, one question I had I think is for Mr. Chu choo because of your presentation. And, I — and I really appreciated it.

My question is about worker protections, ’cause there’s folks who are there actually doing cleanup and, you know. And, I’m wondering if there has been a few – as stated in the past — areas where the proper testing wasn’t done. Or, how do we ensure that the workers who are doing the cleanup actually are protected in an adequate way if we don’t quite know?

[>>]ANTHONY CHU: I’m going to refer you — this question to the program manager that oversees that side of the Radiological Health Branch, Gonzalo Perez.

[>>]GONZALO PEREZ: Yes. Hi. Thank you. (Um)
So, the contractors that perform work on Treasure Island have obtained a California radioactive 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 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

So, when these contractors are working, they notif — Well, they notify us prior coming out to a site to do work. And, there’s a standard frequency of inspection that we do for these licensees – on these licensees — in accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidance.

But, in addition to that, we do spot checks — for lack of better term — on the licensees to observe their work and also take radiation measurements to ensure their work is accomplishing what they claim it’s accomplishing. And, we check that, and we document it.

GONZALO PEREZ: (Continuing) We have not found any significant issues recently on the current licensee that’s working out there (Would that be Gilbane?).

So, we do checks, and we do regular inspections.

[>> Supervisor]MYRNA MELGAR: Okay. Thank you so much.

And, my last question – and, you know this is ’cause I’m new to all of this Thank you, Supervisor Haney, for putting all of this on the table.

And that is: Several folks talked about how this was not a Superfund Site. And, I am wondering — and I know who the question is to if — you know, how? Is there an advantage to having it be a Superfund Site in terms of, you know, access to funding? And, who would call for the EPA to make this a Superfund Site, and what would the process be?

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN: Hi, This is Julie Pettijohn with DTSC. I’ll try to answer part of your question, as I understand it.

So, yes, Treasure Island is not a Superfund Site. I don’t know that there would be an advantage if it is an NPL Superfund Site.

Typically, EPA — USEPA would be the lead regulatory agency instead of the State — in this case, Department of Toxic Substances Control with assistance from CDPH and Water Board.

For this particular cleanup, the Navy is actually paying for the work, the investigation, the cleanup. And, so, I don’t know who would ask, to be completely honest. And, I will sort of leave it there.

But, we do follow the same process (ah). But, so, if this were to be a Superfund Site, EPA lead site, the DTSC follows they same process which is the CERCLA process.


Thank you, Ms Pettijohn. Supervisor Peskin.

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: Thank you, Madame Chair.

It is rather remarkable, and I apologize for having had to ask earlier, that 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, Madame Chair and Supervisor Haney, if you’re willing, into the original deal: What the liabilities were between parties.

But, what I just heard is that the Navy pays. And, so, the Payor is not here.

And, I always worry about the Payee. And, Tetra Tech was the payee, and 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.

So, I think it’s very important for us to hear from the Department of the Navy. And, I really think that, if we’re really going to 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 – you know – late 20th century and early 21st century. I would like the Department of the Navy to be here.

[>>]MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Supervisor. We can certainly – you know – keep this hearing open. So, the Supervi –

AARON PESKIN: And, I think it’s – I think it’s really important to understand the original deal. Because, as I recall the original deal, that then Mayor Newsom’s Base Closure And Reuse head, Michael Cohen, was in charge of, I think that there — and, 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.

[>>]MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Supervisor. I think I’m gong to turn it to Supervisor Haney because he called for this hearing. I also believe that he had another comment or question.

[>>]MATT HANEY: And, I would – I think Supervisor Peskin’s questions should be addressed, too. And, we can maybe turn it over to TIDA after I just ask this question of SFDPH, but I’m going to let this particular concern go unaddressed if Mr. Fosdahl could address this.

You know, I — it continues to be a concern of mine that it appears to be no one’s [known as an ] explicit responsibility to follow up either directly or in an individual way or — in identifying patterns around health conditions that may be consistent with exposure to radiation or chemicals or contaminants. I know that this could sort of — this is maybe broadly part of San Francisco’s DPH’s role.

But, 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 a record of that?

[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL: I can find that out for you. I guess not with my branch, in particular, because we are the — more the regulatory branch for the Health Department. We enforce the laws. And so, what you’re asking for is a little beyond my branch. But, I can certainly look into it, and find out, and get you that information.

[>>]MATT HANEY: Thank you. Because you know, 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 risks for — because of a number of factors. They were – Their score was 85 to 90 percentile — even higher on some particular factors. And, I understand there’s a lot of ways to measure the cleaning, and the risks, and all of that. But, we should also be looking directly at peoples’ health and monitoring it, assessing it, identifying – as you said — the epidemiology of it.

I did want to ask — because the Navy’s December 2018 Fact Sheet actually says that the San Francisco Department of Public Health and the Cancer Prevention Institute of California had performed independent evaluations of Treasure Island. Their results confirmed that it is safe to live and work on Treasure Island.

Do you know what evaluations occurred or what they’re referring to?

[>>]Patrick Fosdahl: Yeah. I’m familiar with the Cancer Prevention Institute of California. I think what happened there was that a — due to a resident’s complaint – and maybe there’s somebody to call / some man to call— that knows the whole back story there. But, regarding potential cancer risk on Treasure Island – that they were brought in to evaluate that.

They are an outside agency – I think, a not-for-profit – And, they conducted that kind of an epidemiological survey of the residents that are there looking for increases in cancers, cancer clusters – that sort of thing.

I can get you a copy of their report if you’d like to take a look at that. I think that was back in 2012, maybe – 2012 to 2014, somewhere in there.

And DPH certainly took a look at that. I think the Health Officer, Tomas – Dr. Aragon – at the time was involved in that and reviewed the information.

As was pointed out, I think, by DTSC or somebody earlier, there are – those are tough studies to do. There’s a lot of confounding variables that include peoples’ movement, and how long they were in one area, and all of that.

But, yes. You’re right. That was my understanding – was that the conclusion that was reached was that there was not an indication that there was an increased cancer risk on Treasure Island by that group.

[>>]MATT HANEY: So, I do just want to underscore this because the Navy is presenting it as though this was a sort of independent evaluation of the health and wellbeing, more broadly, of people who lived and worked there. And, it says that their results confirmed that it is safe to live and work on Treasure Island.

And, there’s a pretty expansive statement referring to the — your 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.

And so, I — this is something that I think is of great concern because these are our people. These are our residents. 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, potentially, to contaminants or radiation.

Or, do we have any record, that you’re aware of at least, that we’ve followed up with any individual, other than this one individual who it sounds like led to the Cancer Prevention Institute.

I do think that, if it’s not SFDPH’s responsibility, then it sounds like nobody’s 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.

[>>]PATRICK FOSDAHL: Noted. Yup.

[>>]MATT HANEY: And, I’m not blaming you, specifically. I’m – This is something that we need to be, you know — It seems that it – when it comes to Treasure Island, there’s often a sense of – ‘Well, that’s not exactly my particular piece of it. So, I assume that somebody else is doing that piece of it.’

And, I think some of the most important pieces of this, including the actual direct support for the health, and connecting potential health conditions to the effects of radiation or contaminants has not happened, at least not that I can find.

I’ll turn it back over to you, Chair Melgar. I know that Supervisor Peskin, and, I think Preston, had some more questions.

[>>]MYRNA MELGAR: Supervisor Haney, thank you so much.

Supervisor Peskin, did you want to hear from TIDA Director, Beck?

[>>]AARON PESKIN: Yes. And, we haven’t heard from Supervisor Preston. So, I’m happy to purse my lips. But, yes. I think it would be very helpful for all of 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. And, 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 DPH, primarily because that was our local agency, as well as the [as well as the vitamin was cleaning up to be helpful.] State, as well as the Navy were that the site was clean enough to be healthy which seems to be at issue today.

[>>]MYRNA MELGAR: I’m sorry. Can you — So, 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 —

[>>]AARON PESKIN: Yes, Madame Chair. And, I think I’ve hopefully elucidated that [said] well enough until now, and I think Mr. Beck knows exactly what I’m asking about, which is Number One, through the Chair, Mr. Beck: ‘What were the terms of the City’s acquisition? How much do we have to pay for it? How much do we owe at the back end depending on how much money 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?

[>>]MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Supervisor.

Mr. Beck.

[>>]BOB [Mr.] BECK: Yes. Thank you, Chair Melgar and Supervisor Peskin.

So, in terms of the financial terms of the transaction, there’s a land payment that is to be made to the Navy – you know – in total of $55 million dollars in ten installments, plus interest.

Those payments, through our agreements with the Master Developer, are to be made by Treasure Island [through] Community Development. So, the City doesn’t make those payments, but they’re an obligation of the Development [developer].

There is a back end profit participation – if the – for both TIDA, the City, and the Navy — if the developer exceeds certain internal rates of return.

In terms of the environmental cleanup 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 responsibility.

And, that’s the reason that only 70 percent of the island has transferred is, on the remaining portions of [and] the island, the Navy still has work to [is] complete.  

And, at the culmination of their cleanup process – it’s a multi-step process for any individual project – there is a Remedial Action Completion [complete] Report, and then, prior to any transfer of land, there is a Finding of Suitability to Transfer, which summarizes the issues of concern, the remediation that has been completed, and [the reand] documents that the land is suitable to transfer for the intended future land use, and the State of California concurs with that finding of Suitability to Transfer before the City will take — accept the transfer of the land.  

There are also call-back provisions for the Navy. If, subsequent to transfer, we were to find — there is a simple example of an underground fuel storage tank that had not been previously identified and remediated by the Navy — if we were to find that after the fact as we were going in to do utility work or some other activity — we have call-back provisions for the Navy.  It’s responsible to come back and — under CERCLA — and remediate those findings.

[>>]MYRNA MELGAR:  I think Supervisor Peskin wanted to – you know – ask you some more — When you say, ‘We,’ who is ‘We?’  

[>>]BOB BECK:  We, the City, or Treasure Island Development Authority.   Sorry.

MYRNA MELGAR:  Thank you.

Supervisor Peskin.

[>>]AARON PESKIN:  Well, we The City or the Treasure Island Development Authority — through the Chair to Mr. Beck:  What do you think TIDA is, as a legal matter. 

[>>]BOB BECK:  The Treasure Island Development Authority is a — formed as a Municipal Corporation.  As you alluded to earlier, the original thought was that Treasure Island Development Agency would become a redevelopment agency.  As the program was nearing entitlement, is when Governor Brown made the decision to do away with redevelopment.  And, so We – 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.  

[>>]AARON PESKIN:  A municipal corporations — and by the way —?? I don’t know if this accounts for  ???  that is a wholly owned unsubsidiary of the City and County of San Francisco.  Is that true and correct?

[>>]We’re a Charter City.  Ms Pearson, I know that nobody prepares for questions like these.  But, what creature is TIDA?

[>>]MS PEARSON: I believe TIDA is treated as a Department of the City and County.

[>>]AARON PESKIN:  Okay, so, Mr. Beck, what are you saying that is different than the City Attorney? [>>]BOB BECK:  Nothing.

[>>]AARON PESKIN: Well, it sounds ???? differ.[like]

[>>]BOB BECK; I — I — I think have 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. But, 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.

[>>]AARON PESKIN: No worries whatsoever. Through the Chair, can you explain to us how the governance structure of the organization that you work for works? Is it [as] appointed? [and] What the Board of Supervisor’s role is in that governance.

[>>]BOB BECK: TIDA is governed by a seven-member commission, a Board of Directors. Supervisor Haney sits on the TIDA Board as an ex officio member.

[>>]AARON PESKIN: Voting or non-voting ex officio?

BOB BECK: I’m sorry.

[>>]AARON PESKIN: Voting or non-voting ex officio?

[>>]BOB BECK: Non-voting ex officio member. And the Board of Directors are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board.

[>>]AARON PESKIN: Confirmed or Denied? Is it a — Is it a positive confirmation in all seven cases? In other words, is this something where — is this a 3.100 appointment where the Mayor appoints, and the Board can reject? Or is this an appointment like Ms Melgar’s ?? Commission where there is a nomination, and the Board sits like the Senate and confirms.

[>>]BOB BECK: I’m not sure that I know the difference. Perhaps the City Attorney could answer that.

[>>]AARON PESKIN: Madam Deputy City Attorney, through the Chair.

[>>]MS PEARSON: 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 Directors consists of one non-voting ex-officio director, and at least five voting directors, but no more than seven voting directors. The non-voting director is the member of the Board of Supervisors who represents Treasure Island and Yerba Buena. The seven voting directors are appointed by the Mayor.

There are requirements regarding their expertise. Appointments of directors who are officers of the City and County are effective immediately and remain in effect unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors within 30 days.

[>>]AARON PESKIN: So, these are 3.100 Subsection 18 appointments. Is that correct?

[>>]MS PEARSON: I would have to look into that more. This is the first I’m learning of the particular governing structure of TIDA.

[>>]AARON PESKIN: And, by the way, Ms Pearson, had I known that I was going to ask these questions, I would have called you yesterday, or this morning, or on Saturday.

[>>]MS PEARSON: Understood, and I’m happy to get you more information.

[>>]AARON PESKIN: These are 3.100 Subsection 18 appointments, and you’re telling me that they’re not involved [in law] with TIDA’s bylaws.

[>>]MS PEARSON: That appears to be correct. I am consulting our appointments memo that summarizes the process for Mayoral and other appointments to policy bodies that generally summarizes the requirements of each appointee and the process and cites to the source of law that dictates the method of appointment. And, it is citing the TIDA bylaws for all of the information that I’ve shared with you so far.

[>>]AARON PESKIN: Okay, well, thank you Ms Pearson.

Madame Chair, Supervisor Haney, Supervisor Preston, I will yet again purse my lips. But, if I’ve learned anything today, insofar as going into this – that it was going to be a redevelopment agency that got truncated right before it got used, it sounds to me like there is nothing in Ordnance, and that we, this Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Haney, can pass a responsible governance Ordnance 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]MYRNA MELGAR: (Laughs) Thank you, Supervisor Peskin.

Supervisor Preston – Vice Chair Preston:

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON: Thank you, Chair Melgar. And, thank you colleagues for asking so many good, probing questions on this.

And, again, I do want to just start by really recognizing all of the activism that has brought us here today, and, folks who I know were in touch with Supervisor Haney – you know. We’ve heard presentations from folks.

I know there is also a lot of — a lot of tenants who have spoken up, you know, despite the fears around retaliation. And, I just 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 a handful of questions. I’ll keep it short because otherwise, I could be asking questions all day.

Just following up on the last — the last line of questioning 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?

[>>]BOB BECK: Supervisor Preston, thank you for the question. Yes, there is a current resident of the island who sits on the TIDA Board, Mark Dunlop. So, one of the seven is a current resident, yeah.

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON:  Thank you.  And, 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 as the appointing official?

[>>]BOB BECK:  I believe it’s at the discretion of the Mayor.

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON:  Thank you.  

There were some — I want to also followup on both Supervisor Haney and Supervisor Peskin’s comments regarding the [on] absence of the Navy here today, which kind of leaves me scratching my head, quite honestly.  This item is the cleanup of – is about the cleanup of Treasure Island, and my understanding from the presentations is that the Navy is the lead agency responsible for the cleanup.  So, it — Obviously everyone would seem have an interest in having the Navy here.   Very disappointed to hear from Supervisor Haney that they refused to appear.

I did have some questions both for colleagues and our presenters — just on this very issue.   I’m curious – to Supervisor Haney — whether the Navy just rejected the request or actually provided any explanation as to why they would not be here.  Was it just a No, or did they explain themselves?

[>>]MATT HANEY:  I would have to ask my staff who was in direct conversation with them.  It’s my understanding that they just declined, and we did ask repeatedly.  I met with the Navy directly.  I met with them directly last year, and they came and presented to me.  But, they declined to appear at the hearing.  I don’t think they gave a reason.

[>>]DEAN PRESTON:  Thank you.  And, through the Chair to both the State agencies.  I’m curious if either of your agencies were in touch with the Navy, made any requests for them to appear, and, if so, what the response was.    

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN:  I guess I can kick this off.  This is Julie Pettijohn. So, we do have a monthly call about a number of different sites.  Treasure Island is one of them.  

I did ask.  I did enquire if the Navy would be attending.  They said they would not.  There wasn’t a whole lot of discussion, although I know that there was a statement that they issued.  Perhaps Supervisor Haney’s staff received that.  It’s — Yes.  There was a statement.  I can’t recall specifics from that.  But, [require and ] it was not a very long statement.  

[>>]DEAN PRESTON:  That’s in our material.  So, we have their statement, and to Mr. Chu [chui]:  Any communications with the Navy for your agency, and, if so, what response — around the hearing today?  

[>>]ANTHONY CHU:  No, other than the meeting that Julie already alluded to, we did not have any other communication with the Navy on this hearing.   [>>]DEAN PRESTON:  Thank you.  And, through the Chair to my colleague, Supervisor Peskin.  I’m curious in your history of hearings on this matter with the Board, has the Navy  — Department of Defense — previously appeared, or is this an ongoing problem with the Navy not appearing at the Board of Supervisors when Treasure Island cleanup issues are discussed?

I don’t know if anyone else would know the answer? I’ve only been on the Board a little over the year, so I do not know. I don’t know if it may be before our time. I don’t know — ooop! I see Mr. Peskin back.


DEAN PRESTON: Supervisor Peskin: I don’t know of ––.

AARON PESKIN: Through the Chair to Supervisor Preston. I am not the United States Department of Defense, much less the Department of the Navy.

The Navy was definitely present when they wanted to convey the property over a decade ago. When they were in the midst of doing the transfer that Lennar Corporation — now Five Point – although I think that this particular property did not become a Five Point property. I think this is actually a property that — not Wilson, Meany, Sullivan – but their successor interest is involved in.

But, no the Navy has not been very visible for the Board of Supervisors to my memory as it relates to radiological or other contamination.

[>>]DEAN PRESTON: Thank you, Supervisor Peskin. Yeah, I mean, I just think it’s astonishing that they are not here. Perhaps, not surprising, but deeply troubling. And, I hope – and maybe some of these requests and discussions happened before the change of administration in Washington, D.C. I would hope that, to the extent that this item – depending where we end up today — but it’s continued to the call the of Chair or is potentially ever back before this committee, that our representatives at the National level could impress upon the administration the importance of the Navy coming and answering some of these questions 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 – the agency that actually controls a lot of what we are discussing.

So, I’ll leave that issue and — I don’t know if you, want to— I have other questions, but I saw Supervisor Peskin —

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: The only thing I was going to add — and, I don’t think that this board has — We do have the power of subpoena. I would suspect that it would be very difficult to utilize that as it relates to the United States of America.

But, I actually 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 interesting in adopting: This Committee’s power to subpoena individuals.

I think that would be a large hill to climb as relates to the Navy. But, there may be other individuals that we would like to see.

[>>]MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you. [inaudible]

And, if we continue this hearing to a subsequent date, we could also perhaps ask our Speaker of the House to help in compelling the Navy to be here and answer some questions as well.

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON: Thank you, Chair Melgar.

And so, switching to a couple other topics: There has been discussion of why the Site wasn’t designated as a Superfund Site despite arguably qualifying for that.

I‘m curious if, and believe this – maybe this is for Ms Pettijohn. Can you lay out for the Committee and for the public – what what would be done if this were a [Super] Superfund [fund] Site [compared to something else?] that is different from what’s currently being done?

JULIE PETTIJOHN: So, this is Julie Pettijohn. To directly answer your question: We follow the same process. So, there wouldn’t be anything substantially different other than EPA is the lead instead of DTSC. And there are some minor differences in what the actual documents are called. [well, this would be the same. There May be some difference in terms of the documents filed,] But, they function as the same —- equivalent documents.

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON: Thank you. And, through the Chair to Ms Pettijohn: The advocates have referenced a request or a desire to have a full investigation by the EPA. And, I’d like to understand what DTSC’s position is on that. Do you concur in that request, and, if not, why?

JULIE PETTIJOHN: That is not a question that I have been asked before. I can certainly follow up with my upper management.

But — and in terms of the process for, if they were the be the lead agency – EPA instead of DTSC — I am also not familiar with what the exact protocol is with respect to that.

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON: Okay. And, Mr. Chu, does DPH have a position on the suggestion by some of the advocates that the EPA be the lead agency on an investigation.

[>>]ANTHONY CHU: No, we don’t. I concur with Julie – Ms Pettijohn’s position that — and, I would also add that, whether it’s a Superfund Site on the NPL [superfund] list or not, we would do –our process is the same. Our function is the same. We provide technical expertise to our DTSC, and we have a robust program, and we would monitor the site the same way we do, whether it’s a listed site or not.

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON: Do I have it right, though, that these are potentially two 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] and whether EPA is the lead agency on an investigation? Or is that one and the same? Will they only undertake an investigation as the lead agency once it’s determined to be a Superfund Site?

[>>]ANTHONY CHU: I’m not sure. Julie, do you know if there is any difference here?

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN: 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 purview that are not Superfund. So, for example, they are required for implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act. So, that’s specific to PCB sites. So, they do have a number of sites where they are the lead regulatory agency. They are not Superfund or NPL sites, but they are the lead.

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON: Thank you for that clarification.

Because, it seems to me, whatever the reasoning for it not being determined to be a Superfund Site, 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 Ms 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. You know, obviously, in a sense, it divests the State agencies of being the lead on this.

So, I understand that 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 that, to the extent that residents might have more confidence or need — Given the history, you [know] don’t want that independence. I think it would be very helpful to get clarity on whether that is something that would be at least acceptable to the different [department]— even if not you’re — even if not something you’re calling for.

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN: Understood.

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON: Thanks. Thanks.

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 just wanted to hear a little more. I know you were short on time. Maybe you were planning to go into this. But, I think we all take very seriously concerns about retaliation, particularly if it’s residents who are speaking up. And, can you clarify who – even if not by name, by agency — who is doing the alleged retaliation? What form is it taking? Is it [due to] in the form of — due to control over the housing situation of residents on the island, or in some other way? Can you elaborate on the retaliation that you referenced?

[>>]DAVID ANTON: Yes, I can, and I think that some of the residents in the latter section of comments might be able to provide additional information.

In the early years of Treasure Island’s redevelopment, at the RAB meetings 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 is one other organization that runs the program out there that I forget the name of — But, both of the housing organizations that 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]DEAN PRESTON: Sorry, I see [Thank you] I was muted there.

Thank you, Mr. Anton, and I‘m looking forward to that public comment and the experiences from residents — their individual experience.

You know, I will just say: Obviously retaliation is illegal in California, but we also all know that laws on the books don’t necessarily stop retaliation. [aren’t always adhered to.]

I would just say here — you know, sometimes we’re talking about situations where people are complaining about conditions in their individual unit and being retaliated against. And, that raises very serious concerns. But, here, we are talking about people complaining about things that impact 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 is for Mr. Beck of [would tie back to] TIDA. Just — do you have the demographic breakdown by age, race, income of who the residents on Treasure Island are?

BOB BECK: 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. Just happen to have it open here.

In terms of our current population, it’s 39 percent Caucasian; 20 percent African-American; 12 percent Asian; 14 percent other; 11 percent two or more races; 29 percent Hispanic or Latino; and 2.6 percent Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.

ASIAN: 12%
OTHER: 14%

CAUCASIAN: 39% (One quarter – check)
PEOPLE OF COLOR: 88.6% (3 quarters – check)

DEAN PRESTON: Thank you. And, do you have by age and income at your disposal?

BOB BECK: I have 23 percent of the population is 19 years or younger. 59 percent are between the ages of 20 and 44. 15 percent are 45 to 64; and 3 percent, 65 and older.

DEAN PRESTON: Thank you.

And, income distribution as well.

BOB BECK: I don’t have that immediately available. Sorry.

Oh, actually, sorry. I do. I’ll need to double check, but it’s [The 40] roughly 42 percent under $50,000 household income; 25 percent $50,000 to $100,000; 23.5 percent $100,000 to $200,000; and 10 percent over $200,000.

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON: Thank you. I appreciate those numbers.

And, obviously, I think references — or, demonstrates what we discussed before in terms of the equity concerns here, and, I guess, to summarize those numbers, we’re looking at around — It looks like around — about – as you said, 42 percent under $50,000; about two-thirds of those under $100,000 [$200,000] for the households; So, predominantly low and very low income – majority non-white, 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 percent in that lowest tier – the youngest tier of age.

[>> Supervisor]MYRNA MELGAR: Sorry, Supervisor Preston.

Supervisor Peskin wanted to clarify something.

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: Thank you, so much, Madame Chair.

[Mr. Anton,] Mr. Beck, does that include the YBI numbers? Because when you have that 10 percent number, I assume that you got YBI on there.

[>>]BOB BECK: We have no residents on Yerba Buena Island at this time.

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: I get that. But, does the number include the YBI number?

[>>]BOB BECK: This is current population only. We have no – We have no population on YBI.

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: Okay. So, these numbers are dated as of when, Mr. Beck?

[>>]BOB BECK: I believe [these are numbers from a document] this Is from a draft document from last September, 2020.

[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN: And, there was nobody on YBI [[Please stand by]] in September of 2020, and that draft document did a survey of human beings on — as you are representing T.I. — as of when? Because I find that 10 percent number to be possible, but unlikely.

BOB BECK: I believe that the — this was — I think the source of this data was — It’s a Federal data base. The name is escaping me at the moment. I would be — This is not a household survey based — It’s — I think it’s called the ‘Community Surveys Database.’ I’d have to look it up – what the source of the data is.

AARON PESKIN: Okay. So, you’re not – ??? I mean, it seems to me to be unlikely that 10 percent of the population is over that income threshold. But, it also sounds like this was not TIDA’s own survey, but you pulled it down off of some Federal thing over the internet, or something.

BOB BECK: Yeah. Yes. The Census Bureau data that is updated through the — I believe it’s called ‘The Community Survey Database’ which is a process by which the Census Bureau updates annually — it updates information in between the 10-year census windows.

AARON PESKIN: And, while we’re on this little issue — and, I will then relinquish the floor because I know that the Chair is getting annoyed with me –

Is the Master Lessee still the John Stewart Company?

BOB BECK: We have a total of five housing providers on the island. For the Market Rate Housing, the property manager is the John Stewart Company.

AARON PESKIN: And, how many total units and how many total individuals? And how many does the John Stewart Company have? And, who are the other four, and how many do they have?

BOB BECK: So, we have — The John Stewart Company is Market Rate Housing. I believe the current number there is just under 400 units – 390, or so.

The other housing providers are — Community Housing Partnership is the second largest with 114 units.

Catholic Charities has a total, I believe currently, of 70 units.

Swords to Plowshares, I believe, 38.

And HealthRite360: I believe they currently have 44 units.

AARON PESKIN: And, that includes — a 40-acre parcel in the middle?

BOB BECK: I’m sorry.

AARON PESKIN: That includes Mayor Jordan’s 40 acre parcel in the middle?

BOB BECK: You mean the Department of Labor campus?

AARON PESKIN: Yes, that’s what I was trying to say.

BOB BECK: Yeah, okay.

Yeah. These are all residential properties – residents on former Navy land, so not Department of Labor.

AARON PESKIN: So, through the Chair to Mr. Beck – and, I don’t say this argumentatively at all. Insofar as it is most likely that this hearing will be continued, I think that those five housing providers could probably provide you with data as to the question. And I would guess that, when you actually got that data, your 10 percent over $200,000 would drop like a rock.

[>>]BOB BECK: I actually believe that that number is — we’re fairly confident in that number.


MYRNA MELGAR: Supervisor Preston.

DEAN PRESTON: You went to Mute, Chair Melgar.

MYRNA MELGAR: (Laughing) Did you have any other questions, Supervisor?

[>>]DEAN PRESTON: Just to finish them up. And, thank you, Supervisor Peskin, for diving into that and asking some of the questions I would like further info on — I do think that – I do think knowing what that data is from potentially the providers in such a limited universe there; that I would be curious how the update of the American Community Survey Data which, like you said, you know, done between – between the censuses (um) I think have their limits. So, you know, I mean, that’s a pretty – you know, those are done as a sample that then gets extrapolated out. That’s how they do their three-month, six-month, and other surveys. So, I think they have probably some harder data from the actual providers.

And, I would just say — and, I think it’s a concern for everyone on the committee. I know for myself, I’ve been working in housing justice — working with tenants for 20 years before taking office.

I think that one thing lacking — and, I would just urge when we have future presentations on this that we bring — that we have the data as part of the presentations. And, you know — and I realize there are a lot of different departments. But, just that we are pretty clear [who] about what we’re talking about, right? And, just – you know, the info that I’ve gotten even since this hearing began — and thank you to Supervisor Haney’s — legislative Staff for actually providing me with some of this. But, apparently in the 2016 planning data the — showed that – a 51 percent poverty rate on Treasure Island, the highest in the City, which is news to me. But, also, I don’t know how we can talk about accountability and transparency and what happened here versus what might happen if we had different socioeconomic profile of this island, right?

So, I think it’s an important – a piece of the puzzle, I think, not news to anyone on this call. But, I would just say, for — you know, particularly for public hearings on this, we hope that it could be centered in our discussions, the demographics of the folks we’re talking about.

I did just on — last thing on the issue of — specifically, the residents and their housing situation. I’d like to know what circumstances or findings would trigger a mandatory relocation of the residents under State law. To Ms Pettijohn or Mr. Chu.

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN: This is Julie Pettijohn. To be direct in answering your question, I am not aware of any 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. And, in that case, we could file an order and ask, you know, for those folks to be relocated.

But, that is something I can certainly follow up on when I return to the office.

[>> Supervisor Haney }DEAN PRESTON: And what — In that situation, what is the process – like who is —


DEAN PRESTON: — hard [hired] to relocate folks? What are their rights with respect to where they get relocated? Who pays for it, and so forth?

[>>]JULIE PETTIJOHN: Right. So, the few limited circumstances where I’ve have been involved where we have had to issue such an order is (um) — we had to work it out with the property owner. And, these were much much smaller housing developments.

And, in the cases that I specifically have involvement with, the property owner paid for the relocation.

[>> Supervisor MYRNA MELGAR: Mr. Chu, did you have something to add?

[>> Supervisor ANTHONY CHU[Chan]: No, I think Ms Pettijohn covers that, and, to my knowledge there is no provisions in our Code that we administer that would provide that kind of order.


[>> Supervisor]AARON PESKIN DEAN PRESTON: And, Ms Pettijohn, through the Chair: If — You reference in when this has come up dealing with the property owner. But, here to the extent that the owner of — at least some of the impacted land is the Federal government — Well, I guess, have you dealt with that in the situations you’re talking about where you dealt with the property owner, has that ever been the Federal government, and, would anything be different in the process by virtue of any jurisdictional issues raised by Federal ownership?

JULIE PETTIJOHN: Right. In my experience,
— this is Julie Pettijohn. In my experience, No, we have not dealt with the Federal government as it relates to the need to relocate people. (ah) And, again, I’m certainly happy, Supervisor Preston, to take this back and inquire of our attorneys.

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON: Thank you. That would be great. And, I would love to know what the — not just the process, but, what is the threshold, you know, what are the findings with regard to – to radiation, chemicals and the situation that would actually trigger that kind of responsibility.

There’s that issue, and then, there’s the question of how it’s impacted by the fact that we’re dealing with the Federal government and (I) would appreciate any information that you could provide on that.

Thank you. I have many more, but I also know we’re — — We’re running late, and there are many people waiting I’m sure to make public comments. So I will stop there. Thank you, Chair Melgar.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you. Do you have [anything to add?] one last comment, Supervisor Peskin.

[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN: I do not. But, I do believe that 26 minutes ago, the Clerk of this committee received a missive from the United States Navy. And I think that it would make sense to read that missive into the record if Madam Clerk is going to [read that in] do so pursuant to the Chair’s permission.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Madam Clerk.

[>>]ERICA MAJOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes (um) Let me just pull that up.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: It’s in all caps, so you should be able to read it well.

ERICA MAJOR: I feel like I’m doing Civil Grand Jury reports again.

[>> Supervisor] HANEY DEAN PRESTON: Before you do it – this is the statement that they previously provided, I believe, right? This is what’s already in the record. I don’t mind it being read. I just want to —

[>>]AARON PESKIN: Well, this one — Through the Chair to Supervisor Preston – is dated today, 8 February 2021.

[>> Supervisor]DEAN PRESTON: Sounds good.


ERICA MAJOR: Let me turn on my microphone. Okay, great. Let’s see.

This is a memo forwarded from the Department of the Navy.

The Department of the Navy appreciates the opportunity to provide this statement regarding the DON’s work at the former Naval Station Treasure Island (NSTI). Since the closure of NSTI in 1997, the DON (short for Department of the Navy) has conducted a multi-faceted environmental cleanup program to allow for local redevelopment and civilian reuse of the property.

The DON [don’t] has completed about 297 million (??? dollars) of environmental cleanup work in collaboration with the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control and the 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 DON transferring to the [rates in the] City of San Francisco 948 acres, which is equivalent to 88 percent of total available of Federal land for local reuse purposes.

The DON keeps the public informed about its environmental cleanup program on the former NSTI through numerous outreach and awareness campaigns. These activities include holding quarterly Restoration Advisory Board meetings, and annual RAB, otherwise know as Restoration Advisory Board site tours, sending emails, paper mailings, providing environmental documents to the San Francisco Main Library, providing environmental cleanup work notices to residents in three languages, and maintaining an informational website where details about the environmental cleanup work at the former NSTI are posted.

[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence. And, thank you, Madam Clerk. And I will note that 88 percent is a lot larger than the representation by Mr. Beck of 70 percent —– significantly larger.

[>>]BOB BECK: Speaker Melgar, I could [can] clarify that.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: I don’t — Yeah. Sorry.

MYRNA MELGAR: Okay. So, thank you so much.


I think that 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.

[>>]ERICA MAJOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, we have 24 — I’m sorry — 22 listeners, with 13 in queue. Brent Jalipa is assisting us today.

James, if you can unmute the first caller. And, caller, just please note, the system will indicate that you have been unmuted, and you may begin your comment. You will have two minutes.
MYRNA MELGAR: Welcome, caller.

[1] RUTHIE SAKHEIM: Hello. Can you hear me?

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Yes, we can. Welcome.

[>>]RUTHIE SAKHEIM: [yay!] Okay. This is Ruthie Sakheim. Um – I am — I have a few points to make. (Sneezing) Sorry. Excuse me.

What if that Treasure Island is, by and large, a Superfund Site that’s not reliably cleared for safe occupation? And, as such [it] is unsafe, and developing it the way it’s being developed is ill-conceived because if there’s still radioactive [radio active] things being found all over the place, which there are, and also, many of the current residents are sick, it shows that there’s a problem, right? So you don’t bring more people in there.

The people who are already sick need to be relocated to safe, long-term housing and receive full compensation for the illnesses and suffering that they’ve already gone through; and, they also probably will need rental support.

And, the people who bought the new condos and offices need to be warned that this is a Superfund Site; that there is radioactive [radio active] material underneath.

I know Lennar in the Bayview has it [is] in the fine print of their housing. But it’s not obvious.

So, I think they should halt construction of additional housing, and if – as it’s not safe for occupation, it’s unconscionable to put powerless people in there who don’t understand, and to put low income people in there, in particular.

So, [It is] I think the people who live there, as I said, need to be relocated. They can’t be retaliated against for getting in on a Class Action Suit or whatever they want to do. And, I think that —

I feel very strongly about this. I’ve lived here 30 years and watched this go on on this island, and it’s just – It’s appalling. Thank you very much.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Ruthie. Next speaker, please.


Can we have the next [speaker] caller, please?


Yes. This is Steve Zeltzer on the line.

MYRNA MELGAR: Hi. Welcome.

[>>]STEVE ZELTZER: Yes. So, my name is Steve Zeltzer [steltzer] . I’m with the United ??? Committee for Labor Party.

I think the big question that has to be addressed and isn’t being addressed at this hearing: Where’s Amy Brownell who is [where] the environmental Engineer at the Department of Public Health who has been telling people at Hunters Point, and possibly Treasure Island, the place is safe. Why hasn’t she been fired since she’s been working for Lennar? And, that‘s another issue here – that Lennar, the developer, is [has] not mentioned here. Who’s making money? Who’s profiteering [Who is profiting on] from these development projects on radioactive [radio active] nuclear site?

The House of Representatives Congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi, was in favor of this development. There has been no investigation of the over billion dollars of money that’s been spent, supposedly, on the cleanup. I do not believe you can have a cleanup on a radioactive [radio active] nuclear dumpsite which is still going ahead at Hunters Point Shipyard and at Treasure Island.

The other important point I think needs to be noted is our former Mayor, Gavin Newsom, was involved in the development of this project. He is now in charge of California, the Department of Toxics and other agencies. And, there has been no investigation, including Cal OSHA. Where is Cal OSHA which is supposed to protect the workers and the whistleblowers at Hunters Point and Treasure Island? There has been no investigation of Cal OSHA. There are less than 200 Cal OSHA inspectors.

But, why hasn’t there been investigation of the workers who have been retaliated against for making health and safety complaints about [is is of that that cha that cal osha] the failure to do proper cleanup and the falsification of testing?

And, I think what is needed, really, is a criminal investigation. We’re not talking just about of the terrible, [charitable] horrific attacks on the health and safety of the residents, but also a criminal coverup, both by the Navy and by other government agencies.

So, I think the Board of Supervisors should call for a criminal investigation by the District Attorney, Chesa Bodin. [of why] Why this has been covered up. Why people have been lying about the dangers — the radioactive [radio active] nuclear dangers. And, people have to be held accountable.

And, it seems that you can start this — the Board of Supervisors and your Committee can start by calling for an investigation — an independent investigation — to get to this. Because the people who did this are not just doing something that’s wrong and harmful. They’re actually engaging [engaged] in a criminal coverup.  And, I think that that has to be  – that has to be exposed. They have to be held personally accountable.


[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR:  Thank you, Steve.  Next caller, please.

 [3] JAMES PEPPER:  Hello.

MYRNA MELGAR:  Hi, welcome.

[>>]JAMES PEPPER:  Yes, my name is James Pepper [puffer] , and I have been documenting the Navy’s dumping of waste into the harbor.  

And, I have a website called https://treasureislandcalifornia.wordpress.com/  where I documented — I’ve gone through all the Navy reports, and I’ve read where they have placed — where they have dumped things.

Treasure Island was the Navy’s Atomic, Biological, and Chemical Warfare School.  

They dumped — Well, there was tests in 1964 where they were testing mustard gas on the site, and they were using two chemicals, DANC and DS2.  DS2 was used until [1966] 1986 by the Navy on most of their bases as [because it is] a cleaner for contaminated materials.

And, I have it — I have it all documented. 

Also, I wanted to point out that the Sausalito Marine Mammal Site – they have been – they found that [the leader of the site] the sea lions have a cancer rate of 25 percent in San Francisco.  

And, there have been other studies from 1992 where the — the Sturgeon and the Croaker  [kroger] fish have lesions on their kidneys and their livers, and that the mollusks [mull the mullo ucs] that are found from Treasure Island south have 100 percent mortality rate, and they’re all  [have been documented and] mutated.  

So, this problem is far worse than everybody has realized, and I have documented where the Navy has dumped things.  They write it all down.  It’s been in the classified reports from the U.S. — the Radiological Lab at Hunters Point.  And, they have gone around and contaminated areas all over the San Francisco Bay Area.

But, I have it all documented, so you can see it.


[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR:  Thank you, James.  I appreciate your comment.  Next caller, please.

[>>] [4] HOPE WILLIAMS [caller]:  Thank you, Supervisors on the   Committee.  My name is Hope Williams, and I want to first disclose that 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 my — from John 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 in as Vice Chair on the CAB.

And, I wanted to — the Treasure Island CAB.

And, the first that thing I want to put forth is some of the questions that — Why residents aren’t on the TIDA [title] Board. Many of us don’t know. Many of us have dealt with retaliation. Some are fearful. It’s unhumane, the conditions that we live in.

There needs to be a very clear separation between TIDA and [of] the overseers(?). There is no accountability. The Bylaws need to be checked.

I am in touch with most of the TIDA [title] Board. I have put forth my application — my request — to be placed on the TIDA [title] Board, and I have yet to hear back from anyone.

It’s not that residents don’t want to be active. But, there’s a lack of communication. There’s fear that goes on.

There’s — you know – even with all the efforts that I’ve been putting forth in supporting residents through COVID, I am still denied access to Partner??? meetings. They are very — There is no transparency in [and] information.

It wasn’t until maybe two years ago that Prop —– we received a flyer that Prop 65 was relevant to our housing.

I moved in in 2009. I had a pre-term birth in 2014. I have cared [chaired] for residents who have had cancer.

It’s not just about relocating, but actually addressing the health issues — addressing the lack of accountability.

And, I want to thank the Supervisors that asked the question. I started shouting, you know, with joy when you started saying that — ‘You know what! We really need to really look at the accountability.’ Because, for our Supervisor not to have a voting right – for [if you are] our residents not to have a voting rights — under [on] the conditions of which they live in, is unequitable.

And, that that is — we’re talking about ??? structural?? (blocked by the bell) racism which is a practice.


[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you very much, Hope. We appreciate your comment.

Next caller, please.

5] (Unidentified) SPEAKER. Hello. Can you hear me?

MYRNA MELGAR: Hello. Welcome. Yes.

[>>]UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: Hi. Thank you. I think [guess] the first thing I want to say is that justice delayed is justice denied.


The person, Hope, just before us is exactly – what I see happening here is. The real experts are the people that have been experiencing it, like Hope.

And, [[Indiscernible]] that she can’t even get onto the Board — that she is not listened to. We are talking decades and decades of people who have been experiencing this [it]. They are the experts.

Beyond slides and beyond all of this data that is being collected, these are people. These are human beings that have been subjected to — not just [health] concerns – Their hope [health] is being destroyed. This is not only justice denied. This is going into death — people dying. Peoples’ health is [houses] being irreparably harmed 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 these expert organizations, and expert regulatory agencies, and expert this, and expert that, and they are not listening to the people.

So, my question is: Any of you that are collecting all of this data, are you willing to move in to Treasure Island with your family today? Thank you.

MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you very much, caller. Next speaker, please. Next caller. Hello? Caller, are you there?


MYRNA MELGAR: YES. Hi! You’re here. Welcome.

[>>]FRANCISCO DA COSTA: So, I am Francisco Da Costa. And I know you’re not [y’all are] having a kind of a hearing.

But, I’ve been working on this for 40 [five] years, and I think you all [y’all] should support the [listen to ] two doctors – two black doctors – who are doing the biomonitoring, and they’re getting static from one or two of the Supervisors and the Mayor for doing the right thing. That’s the worst type of retaliation, when two women black doctors are testing [attesting that] the people as well as Hunters Point and Treasure Island.

The official name before was Treasure Island-Hunters Point Annex. Okay?

Treasure Island is a man-made island.

Here’s were demolished on Potrero Hill and an artificial Island created. And, [It was] a Command for the Naval ships was ‘Jettison?’ Jettison [jetter son. It] meant just go and [to] dump Shit – whatever nuclear whatever on Treasure Island.

No human being should be living on Treasure Island. No human being should be living on Hunters Point.

You Supervisors haven’t read the Precautionary Principle. Not once has the Precautionary Principle been mentioned in this discussion.

So, Supervisors, if you know that they are putting people in harms way, and you also know — you are educated enough to know — then you have blood on your hands. Thank you very much.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Mr. DaCosta.

Next caller, please.

[7] VIOLET ANDRY ANAYA : Hi, can you hear me?

MYRNA MELGAR: Yes. Welcome.

[>>]VIOLET ANDRY ANAYA : Hi. My name is Violet Andry Anaya. I’ve been trying for four years to get help for this and bring this to DTSC’s attention and [I have not] been unable to reach anyone. Nor have my claims been addressed or investigated by any of them.

I am unable to get doctors to believe me because of the misrepresentation to the public.

As I was referred to in the 2014 HRA, I became a [hew man a]human ‘receptor’ at 1325 Westside Drive in October of 2006.

When I moved in, I was a perfectly healthy 22-year-old full-time student. By the time I moved out in October of 2007, I was homebound and unable to continue school. I was told I would be safe when remediation began only feet from where I lived. Then, for eight months dust clouds were thrown around my house every day.

By Christmas I was too sick to leave my bed. That was when the torture of radiation poisoning began. But, I wouldn’t know the cause for another decade — a decade of missed holidays, birthdays, births and deaths.

My teeth began cracking and falling out one by one in 2007. From 2007 to 2016, eating made me vomit. I threw up daily, and I had migraines. I don’t remember much from that decade, but I was on and off bedridden and housebound. I would forget everything and show up places at the wrong time, [every] day, or [of the] week. life-threatening electrolyte imbalances to this day [I was put] put me in the ER for risk of cardiac arrest. I have daily seizures. I am unable to stay awake [away] for more than a few hours before I’m put to sleep by my own body.

Some days I can only walk a few minutes before collapsing because my nervous system is so damaged.

People conclude that I’m drunk or on drugs because sometimes my vision blacks out.

For ten years, doctors couldn’t figure out what was wrong.

Exposure to radiation and chemicals can cause all the diseases with which I’ve been diagnosed now – endometriosis, thyroid disease, narcolepsy with cataplexy, epilepsy, arthritis and dysautonomia.

The last time I went running was along perimeter path, and now I can’t.

About Hangar 3, the Building David Anton mentioned earlier, in which they built the ??? metascopes – Robin Williams worked at this location for a large portion of the Nineties, after which he [took his life.] developed Louie Body Disease which would later take his life. Thank you.


[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Violet, thank you so much for your comment.

Next caller, please.

[>>] [8] CHARLES HEAD; CSFN – Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods

Good afternoon, Supervisors. Thank you very much for having this hearing.

My name is Charles Head. I am the President of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods representing the concerns of all neighborhoods including the neighborhoods developing on Treasure Island.

We have heard about the problems with nuclear and other wastes there. We have had speakers, writers. We have had meetings, and we have developed a Resolution which we sent to you last year, Treasure Island Building Moratorium. We have several Whereases, and this is all evidence that you’ve heard about today.

Therefore, be it Resolved, 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 radioactivity [radio activity] and all other toxic waste, and it’s possible to have human habitation unabated. Thank you very much.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Charles. Next speaker, please.

[>>] [9] BARBARA BROWNING: Hello. My name is Barbara Browning. Can you hear me?

My name is Barbara Browning.I 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 Halyburton Court. My apartment was the closest to the grade school.

When I left the island, I was like many the other kids that lived on the island. I had a horrible complexion. Pustules — or – a ‘pus-ey’ complexion, sores. While living on the island, I saw the Navy dermatologist who prescribed me the highest dose of Tetracycline, and I was given that for about three years before my father retired in 1977, and we moved from San Francisco to Muskogee, Oklahoma.

After moving to Muskogee, Oklahoma, I saw my father’s local doctor there, and he immediately took me off the Tetracycline and informed me I was at the maximum dose that was really too high for somebody who had complexion problems.

And, at the same time, I was diagnosed with ulcers.

At this time, I’m 17 years old in my Junior year of high school. I’m eating baby food at lunchtime because I’m diagnosed with ulcers.

At that time, they assumed ulcers were due to stress from moving from San Francisco to Muskogee, Oklahoma. But, today we know that’s not true. Today we know that ulcers are caused by other issues.

Since the ulcers, two years later when I’m 20 years old, I have to have my first tumor –[had] my first surgery – had to be removed from my breast.

In 1989, my appendix burst. I had to have my appendix removed.

In 1995, all my reproductive organs had to be removed. I had cysts inside of my ovaries.

My mother was exactly the same age as I was — 35 years old. We had to have a complete hysterectomy.

Hers – she had cysts the size of your fist.

By the way, my mother worked at the Day Care 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] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you very much, Barbara. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, please.


[>>]Hi. My name is Griffin Jones. I’m calling from the San Francisco Bayview National Black Newspaper.

And I just want to say that I hope we all recognize that the – as my former ?? [co-workers] said earlier, and, as we heard from the voices of current and former residents of Treasure Island, that this is about peoples’ lives. And, that the next moves that are made need to not – need to involve people’s lives. I mean, the Department of Public Health is about public health. It needs to be interacting with the public. And, this specifically concerns the public of Treasure Island.

Okay, I’ve also been sent a statement to read on behalf of Carol Harvey, the investigative reporter who has been cited by several of you. And, I’d also like to thank Supervisors Haney, [Supervisor] Melgar, and [Supervisor Peksin] Preston [Peskin] for your work in getting this together, as well as Peskin – sorry.

Okay, Carol’s statement:

I’m Carol Harvey. For seven years, I’ve been an investigative reporter covering Treasure Island for the San Francisco Bay View National Black newspaper.

People on Treasure Island are sick from radiation, chemicals, lead, asbestos and black mold that the Navy left on the base.

Islanders are ill from respiratory diseases, strokes, skin rashes and sores, hair loss, seizures, tumors, cancers, liver and kidney failure, reproductive organ damage, birth defects, spontaneous bone fractures, heart attacks, blood disorders and radiation burns.

Islanders are three-quarters people of color who are experiencing environmental classism and racism. They are wonderful people in a close-knit community.

Maybe Islanders have seen me walking the island videoing all the streets, buildings, inside homes.

I talk with [to] islanders every day. We text. We phone each other. They trust me because I don’t talk.

The Navy never says [said] how toxic the island is or that they’ve done a bad job of cleaning the place up. They say it’s safe. Islanders believe them. We all want to live our daily lives in peace without knowing that the place we live will poison us and our children.

Islanders know If they complain, they will be harassed and evicted. It’s a scare tactic [tita] that TIDA and John Stewart use to keep people quiet.

Some residents were [are] homeless. They won’t subject their kids to the streets or a Tenderloin SRO.

Recently a person had a heart attack, and two people died this week.

Sure, Retest the island. But, the People of San Francisco, need to know these islanders were poisoned, and they need help right now.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Griffin. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, please.

[>>] [11] MALIK WASHINGTON: Hello. Can you hear me?

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Yes. We can. Welcome.

MALIK WASHINGTON: Oh, thank you so much. And, once again, I would like to reiterate what my coworker, Griffin Jones, just said.

I would like to thank Matt Haney and Mr. Peskin and others for allowing us this space just to have our voices heard, you know.

I am Malik Washington. I am the editor of the San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper. And, Carol Harvey has written over 85 articles, very in-depth detailed articles, about the horrible environmental racism that exists on Treasure Island.

And, we see a lot of similarities between Treasure Island and the Hunters Point Shipyard. And, the same company’s name continues to be heard. Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech.

Seventy-percent of the island is controlled by the City of San Francisco. And, I have to ask Mayor London Breed and others in the City government: Why are we continuing to do business with Tetra Tech when they have shown a pattern of conduct to engage in nefarious — in criminal, corrupt, collusive activity. They are not serving the Public’s interest.

And, let’s talk about retaliation for speaking about a health or safety concern that impacts the community.

I know a little bit about retaliation for speaking about a health and safety impact. I know a little bit about that. And, I think since Matt Haney has said that California has a law against retaliation, I have to second Steve Zeltzer’s [seltzers] point that we need an investigation [flower] now.

And, my last point: Article 31. So, Article 31 does not apply to Treasure Island. Okay, well. We have an incredible President of the Board of Supervisors. His name is Shaman Walton. And, he is from the mighty mighty [distribute] District 10.

So, I make this suggestion: Let’s craft a Resolution that Article 31 applies to Treasure Island.

My name is Malik Washington.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you very much, Malik. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, please.

[>>] [12] MARY RATCLIFF:

This is Mary Ratcliff. I’m the former editor of the San Francisco Bay View, and I live next to the Hunters Point Shipyard and am dying from metastatic breast cancer.

I know that this stuff is real. We are sick out here. We are sick on Treasure Island.

The demographic inequities that we’ve all been talking [have talked] about now [to such] for all this last year are exactly what is creating the problem that we’re [why we are] addressing now.

And, I’m so glad that we’re finally addressing it. Thank you very much, Supervisor Haney and all of you.

There’s a driver behind all this. There’s a driver called Lennar. Lennar [Lamar] wants to make billions of dollars out of housing people on land that they don’t care may be causing the kind of cancer that I have and all the other terrible, terrible illnesses that people are suffering from radiation and other toxins.

They don’t care. They only want to make money. They are greedy.

And, unfortunately, that same Article 31 ties the San Francisco Health Department to Lennar [Lamar]. Lennar pays them. And, consequently, they consider Lennar [Lamar] their boss. Lennar tells them what to tell the people.

That isn’t the way it’s 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.

So, what I would like to suggest is that the Board of Supervisors screws its [get] courage to the very highest notch and calls for a moratorium on construction at both Hunters Point and Treasure Island, and let’s see whether we can solve the problems and eliminate the radiation.

And, if we cannot, then people should not live there.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you for coming to talk to us today, Mary. Thank you. Next caller, please.


[>>]Hi. This is Jennifer Feng. I’m a resident of District 3. I’m calling to support the residents of Treasure Island and the three demands made by Greenaction.

I only recently learned about the history of radioactive [radio active] waste at Treasure Island. But, when I did, I was horrified. I learned that the residents have spoken up about concerns for their health and safety for decades.

Whistleblowers have come forward. People who worked for the companies responsible for the cleanup who have said that the cleanup effort was deliberately sloppy, and it’s not shocking then that the companies responsible for the cleanup have repeatedly found what they wanted to find – no contamination so that big developers could 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.]
Previous callers even have given accounts of the health nightmares they have had to experience because of their exposure to toxic waste on Treasure Island.

And, it’s absolutely nasty.

So, again, as I said before, the three [I’d like to support the] demands made by Greenaction:

First, protect residents by relocating them away from contamination, providing full compensation, longterm, safe housing, and rental support.

Second: Protect residents in San Francisco Bay by conducting comprehensive radiation retesting and the cleanup of all contamination with community oversight.

And, third, guarantee that residents will not be evicted in retaliation for speaking out.

I stand in solidarity with the residents of Treasure Island,[that say] They shouldn’t have been exposed to radioactive [radio active] waste and face retaliation when they speak out. I ask the [you] Supervisors to give this issue the attention it deserves and protect the residents of Treasure Island.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Jennifer. Next caller, please.


[>>]BARKLEE SANDERS: Hello, my name is Barklee [spark] Sanders. Can you hear me?

MYRNA MELGAR: Yes. We can. Thank you. Welcome.

BARKLEE SANDERS: So, I am a current Treasure Island resident. I have lived here for two years and do know about transparency and issues since I moved here.

I believe, as residents, when we sign a lease on Treasure Island with any of the housing partners that, in our lease document, we should be provided that this is an active cleanup site. That was not done and is not a current policy.

I currently [that I] know on Treasure Island and for basic transparency of residents that live here currently, and, for new residents that move here due to [for] different reasons as being added as a subtenant, it currently does still happen.

In my example, I was cleaning and digging up my backyard, and 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.

And, that obviously exposed me to possible contamination.

I would like for the most basic, simple thing, for transparency for all leases on the island that are new to require a notification of the cleanup activities that go on on Treasure Island.

And, I would also like to understand, if there is no immediate risk, why I’m not allowed to dig in my backyard. If there is no immediate risk, how do we truly know that if the Site 12 cleanup is not complete. ?

Those are my comments.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Mr. Sanders. Next caller, please.

[>>] [15] KATRINA: Hi. My name is Katrina, and I am a resident of the island for 17 years now. And, I teach at the high school in San Francisco.

I now let my retired parents move down [in] with me, and all of us have developed coughing and bronchial issues.

We were not told when we moved in that there were potentially radioactive [radio active] issues on the island. We were, I remember, when I first moved in. being told not to dig in the ground, but no real reason was given as to why.

I think we all find it very hard to trust the Navy and the assurances now that things are okay after learning that there were consistent lies from contractors previously cleaning up the island.

And, it seems like the Navy did not keep accurate records when they were testing and training with radioactive [radio active] substances which has made this process even more difficult.

So, like Barklee, I would appreciate transparency as a resident and to have more information given and even [in] less technical details so that people who are not science majors with science backgrounds can understand what is going on. Thank you.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Katrina. Next caller, please.

[>>] [16] ERIC BROOKS: Hi, can you hear me?

MYRNA MELGAR: Yes. We can. Welcome.

ERIC BROOKS: Alright. This is Eric Brooks. I coordinate the local grassroots organization, Our City San Francisco. We helped coordinate getting this hearing together.

And, I want to just crystalize what we’ve just witnessed to some really simple things that are pretty shocking. And, that is that you had agency representatives — we had agency representatives stand up in front of us and say that the Public will be protected by fences with warning signs on them and sidewalks.

Dust does not respect fences. Water does not respect fences. And toxins move through dust and water.

Kids – I don’t know about you guys, but, when I was a kid, I ignored signs and I climbed fences.

So, the idea that fences are going to protect children is ludicrous — or anyone else.

And, the idea that sidewalks are going to protect people. I mean, have these people actually walked around in San Francisco and seen some of our sidewalks? And, are they aware that sidewalks regularly get torn up and worked on so that you can do things underneath the sidewalks?

This is just crazy that these agencies are telling us these things.

And, this gets to the point of: What if we were to get the Federal government to re-designate this site so that the EPA was working on it. Not, that I love the EPA, but at least we would not have DTSC, an agency that was caught back in the 2000s openly colluding with the Navy over emails to cover up the radioactive [radio active] contamination on the island.

At least, we would not have an agency like that taking point on this investigation that needs to happen.

And, that brings us to just some really simple things that need to happen. We need an independent investigation and retesting of all the cleanup work on the Treasure Island all the way back to 1988 — all the way back.

We need deep soil and water tests, not just surface scans.

We need testing for all contaminants, not just radiation.

We need a review of the work of all contractors, not just Tetra Tech.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Mr. Brooks. Next speaker, please.

[>>] [17] MAGIK ALTMAN: Hello, my name is Magik Altman [magic alderman], and to listen to [hear] all these heartbreaking stories is just – you know – overwhelming emotionally. To hear our editor, Mary for the Bayview, all of the young people being lied to.

You know, it seems to me – you know, if I get a drivers license, and I kill somebody, I’m going to have to go to Court for that. How come corporations like Lennar [Lamar]and Tetra Tech can’t have their licenses to do business and, therefore, to kill taken away.

Why doesn’t the City go after these companies and try to stop them from existing?

You know – I agree with the person saying a moratorium on all construction and relocate these families immediately!


My father worked at Treasure Island for 20 years, and he never smoked or drank and was healthy his whole life and then he died of colon cancer. You know?

So, also what Eric Brooks, I appreciate him bringing that up about the DTSC [dtfc]. I mean – that woman was like listening to a kindergarten teacher try to explain to us something that we know is full of lies. And, she is just condescending, and you know, not doing it.

And it seems like something goes wrong, they create a new agency; something goes wrong, they create businesses to talk about it, like Tetra Tech. It just expands the bureaucracy and the corporate coverup, and nothing changes.

How long are people gonna actually die?

Actually die?

Thank you.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Magik. Next caller, please.

[>>] [18] HARLOW: Good evening, Supervisors. My name is Harlow. I’m a San Francisco resident in District 7.

Although I’m not an island resident – of course — I think this is an issue that really is relevant to everyone in the City.

We’ve been — as we’ve seen from the presentations, and direct stories from residents, the Navy has been extremely [negative] negligent with this site, and Treasure Island is an environmental public health disaster.

So, it’s really critical that the City take steps as soon as possible to begin correcting this [its] injustice.

I think, to start with, I would recommend that like Greenaction, we should protect the residents by relocating them away from the contamination, providing full [dual] compensation, long-term safe housing, and rental support.

We also need to do conductive, comprehensive retesting and cleanup of all the contamination that’s present and guaranteed that the residents will not be evicted in retaliation for speaking out as Supervisor Preston [>> Supervisor Preston: emphasize d.] emphasized.

So, I just urge you to act [activate] with all the available resources that we have to remedy this site and correct the injustices that has been done to these communities.

Thank you.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Harlow.

Next speaker, please. Next caller.

[>>]CLERK ERICA MAJOR: Madame Chair: Brent Jalipa [It] has confirmed that was the last caller.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you so much, Madame Clerk.

So, with that, Public Comment is closed.

I see Supervisor Peskin on the roster.

[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN: No, Madame Chair. That’s from a long, long time ago.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: (Laughing) Okay. Supervisor Haney.

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Thank you, Madame Chair. And, thank you to all the public commenters who called in, especially the island residents.

I did just have [had] one more quick thing that I wanted to do before I make some closing comments [arguments], if that’s okay.

Mr. Taibi. [Tibee] Is he here? And, I know he wanted to add something to describe his experience with [filipino] fellow cleanup workers being exposed to radiological [radio logical] contaminants.

And, I wanted to see if he also had any comments on whether any regulatory agencies followed up on [any of] the information that he brought forward as a whistleblower.

I think one of the important things here is that you have the experiences of the residents – the health experiences, the health conditions, the whistleblowers — and the sense that the agencies that are responsible for ensuring their safety and ensuring the cleanup have not been following up, and I – you know, really adequately investigating these various incidences and experiences.

So, is Mr. Taibi here, still?

[>>]GUY TAIBI: Yes. I’m here.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: So, I’d like to hear from Mr. Taibi, and then Supervisors — is that accurate, Supervisor Haney, that you would like us to keep this hearing open? So, somebody’s going to have to make a motion to that effect. That’s right, right?

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY: Yes. That is right. And, [that would be great] I just have some quick closing comments, when – [everybody is finished.]. Yes.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Mr. Taibi, for your patience with our process.

Go ahead.



Yes. [hi.]

Supervisor Haney, you made a comment early on about immediate risk — Is there an immediate risk with respect to radiation – radiation exposure at Treasure Island? And you heard folks say there was no immediate risk.

This is the example of Wordsmithing that you’ll get from the Navy and the agencies every day.

I’m not even sure the agencies know that they’re doing it, honestly.

In the world of health physics from a regulatory perspective, [the]immediate risk’ means an acute exposure to which you would die within 30 days.

So, there is not an immediate risk at the site.

Is there a risk that you’d get cancer and die in ??? [a few] years?

That’s not the question they answered.

They answered there was no immediate risk. So, that’s the kind of subtle [work] wordsmithing that you have to be very careful of and how they parse these words.

Also, Mr. Chu [Choo], with all due respect, I worked for that agency for about nine years trying to carry the water on this. So, he wasn’t there at the [this] time.

He has no idea that the confirmation soil samples were kept at the storage room for about a decade, and they weren’t analyzed prior to the agency’s signing off that the property was clean.

So, you know, it’s unfortunate that – I’m sure he was told this was true. But, it’s just not.

So, these are the kind of things that you have to, unfortunately, parse out and understand how they speak and doublespeak.

This is a great conversation.

In the nine years I worked for the State, it would be fantastic if one conversation I had with Toxics and the Navy was nearly as polite.

They are as combative and heinous as you can possibly believe. And that would happen month after month, year after year at every meeting, at every point.

Last comment, quickly. The 2014 HRA – the Navy did not include plutonium or americium as contaminants on the island. It’s something they do from document to document. They’d take things out, and the regulators missed them. And, now, there’s [they] no longer ?? serving for plutonium or americium on Treasure Island, as well as other toxics — so – or radiological contaminants.

So, these are the things that I’m not sure the Department of Public Health or [where] Toxics are up to. I don’t know if they can handle this. And, thanks for the time.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Mr. Taibi. Back to you, Supervisor Haney.

[>> Supervisor]MATT HANEY: Thank you, Chair Melgar.

And, I just want to just quickly close by thanking you, Chair, and my colleagues on the Committee for your thoughtful and critical questions.

I want to thank everybody who called in, especially all of the residents and to our presenters for your work and for being here with us and for answering [bringing some of] the questions. We do appreciate it.

Based on the information today, I can tell you that I’m even more concerned about the health of current residents and the status of the cleanup. Unfortunately, there wasn’t an agency that could address potential health risks to residents of [if] contaminants or [are identified] identify it above screening levels, and that is a failure of our regulatory and [radio] public health systems.

As far as we know, there are no other military base cleanups were there are thousands of residents living;[.] no other comparable sites under DTSC’s jurisdiction with a rate of 100 percent cleanup sites nearby. We still don’t know the full extent on the contamination on the island.

The Navy who declined to attend today because they don’t want to speak to the public, even though they are hosting a public meeting tomorrow, has failed to assure residents of the safety of the island and continues to rely on information provided [It stands] by an organization that has been convicted of criminal fraud, Tetra Tech.

What’s more clear is that we need a new Human Health Risk Assessment for Site 12 that is clear about the current levels of both chemicals and radiological contaminants, that spells out exactly [That’s] what risks exist for residents if and when chemical or objects are found above screening levels.

The [They] report, or supplemental one, must include information about health issues experienced by residents on the island.

We need an agency that is undoubtedly without question responsible for the health of the residents. We need a much more [academic it] active role for the City and County of San Francisco, and that includes this Board of Supervisors, TIDA, and the Department of Public Health. This has to start with a health survey of the island and following up on known abnormal health issues with the island residents.

We need the US EPA to evaluate – or re-evaluate — Treasure Island for inclusion as a Superfund Site. I hope to have the State’s support in making this request.

And, again, I want to sincerely thank the residents who called in today as well as Mr. Taibi, Mr. Anton for their courage and fearless advocacy as whistleblowers, Bradley from Greenaction, Carol Harvey from San Francisco Bayview Newspaper, and all of the other advocates who have worked — Eric Brooks, as well – and all the other advocates who worked tirelessly to ensure cleanup of the island.

And, lastly, my staff, Courtney McDonald, who has been working on this for months closely with the residents, and who did a ton of the work in preparation for this hearing.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Thank you, Supervisor Haney.

Supervisor Peskin.

[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN: Thank you, Madame Chair.

I just want to actually do something I rarely do and thank Supervisor Haney for calling what is probably one of the better, or best, hearings that I’ve seen in a long time. Thank you to your staff and everybody who helped that come together.

This is the tip of the iceberg, and I’m happy to join you, and, thankfully, we don’t constitute a majority of a Committee, so we can do this off-line.

But, I think you’re onto something, Supervisor.

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR: Supervisor Peskin, can you please make a motion?

[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN:  I would like — Through the Chair to Supervisor Haney, would you like to move this to a time certain?

[>> Supervisor] MATT HANEY:  I do not have, nor have I discussed with the Chair, a particular date —

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR:  Yes.  I believe your Staff asked for  continuing to the Call of the Chair [has]

MATT HANEY:  Okay.  That works for me.  I really think, Supervisor Peskin, that we really need to set a date so that this doesn’t get dragged out too far.

But, I’m very happy to work with the Chair on that.  I don’t have a particular date in mind.

[>> Supervisor] AARON PESKIN:  I will make said motion to continue this item to the Call of the Chair with full  [political] acknowledgement that we all would like to bring it back as soon as possible.  And, I will work with Supervisor Haney to help figure that out.

And, I make said motion.  

[>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR:  Madame Clerk, can you call role, please. [[Roll call]]

[>>]ERICA MAJOR: On the motion to continue to the Call of the Chair, Supervisor Peskin:


ERICA MAJOR:  Peskin, Aye.

Supervisor Preston?


ERICA MAJOR: Preston, Aye.

Supervisor Melgar?


ERICA MAJOR: Melgar, Aye.

You have the Ayes.

MYRNA MELGAR:  So, the motion passes unanimously to continue this to the Call of the Chair.

Madame Clerk, do we have any more things on the agenda?  

ERICA MAJOR:  [>> Supervisor] MYRNA MELGAR That concludes the business for today.

MYRNA MELGAR: [>> Clerk]: Great!  Thank you so much.  And thank you All.  We are adjourned.

AARON PESKIN:  Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s