Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 15, 2012 7:00pm-7:30pm PDT

7:00 pm
like i said, their measures were timely and appropriate, and they're going to continue to perform investigations in these newly identified areas. and the residents will be informed of that information as soon as it's available. like i said we got the letter from cdph today, which i... >> supervisor kim: i do want to give my colleagues an opportunity to ask questions because there are some. in your work experience, have you ever had suffers wipes collected, that have shown that the sites are safe, but then after further investigation, that you found that there was contamination on site that was hazardous to the health of workers and residents? >> okay. well, let's ask the resident question first. i've never been involved with a cleanup project where we've had material get off site, where it was any sort of -- of any concern to residents or were identified contamination off
7:01 pm
site. you have to recognize the difference between measurements and assessment you're making within the work sites which are geared toward the cleanup actions versus the types of measurement that cdph is doing which are geared toward assessing public health. so i mean can you find -- you know -- >> supervisor kim: why don't we -- when i meant workers i meant people work on the island, not workers involved in cleanup activity. we have folks that work at the boys and girls club, the child center, we have families on site as well. for us as elected officials, as san francisco residents that we speak to what can we do to assure them given the sample swipes have shown that there aren't contamination on site currently. but my question is, is that have there been cases in the past where that has been the preliminary conclusion but then with further surveying work that we have found contamination on site that is hazardous to the health of our residents -- not
7:02 pm
our residents, residents in other sites? >> understood. i was saying in general. my general answer would be no, but it's important that these measurements and assessments are -- they need to be done periodically. >> supervisor kim: my next question, and this wasn't in your memo but was in our city attorney's memo, was that -- some of the potential sites that additional scoping surveys would not be conducted until 2013. and my question is why so late? >> i can't speak to that. i'm not involved with the scheduling. but i know as far as the priorities that tida has requested of cdph regarding these newly identified areas, the focus is areas where there are occupied residences, and areas where there are puc workers. >> supervisor kim: have you read some of the media articles that have come out lately? >> not all, but some, yes. >> supervisor kim: what would
7:03 pm
be your response to some of the concerns from previous residents of treasure island that say that they feel like there's a higher rate of cancer amongst their family, and their neighbors, and some of the concerns that have come up through those articles? >> i'm not aware of an elevated cancer rate. as far as that being -- but i'm also not aware of any radiological exposure of anyone on treasure island that -- of that background, of a -- you know, distinguishable from background and that's what cdph and -- have said all along. again, i'm not aware of any elevated cancer rate but i wouldn't think you could draw any correlation, if there was such a thing, i can't see drawing a correlation to elevated radiation when there wasn't been any. radiation is a fact of life we're exposed to it every day, it's a natural thing, it's nothing to be afraid of. >> supervisor kim: would you feel comfortable with your kids being at the boys and girls club?
7:04 pm
is. >> yes. given the -- i have two children. my kids are 5 and 3. they're my whole world. >> supervisor kim: i do want to give opportunity to my colleagues to ask some questions as well. >> president chiu: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: thank you, supervisor kim. thank you for your questioning. i think they're real good questions you were asking. i'm not going to belabor the point, but there is a forthcoming report from cdph that's coming out, correct? is i'm expecting it t to be -- they're doing ongoing work now based on the latest data that's come out. you reference it here in your talking points. you say there's -- cdph's investigation to date have identified any public health dangers. there is little likelihood of significant public health risk with regard to the impacted areas. you say the same thing again
7:05 pm
earlier in your talking points. so do you feel that the work that cdph is doing is redundant? how is it different from what you've already accomplished, but you can still say that -- how is their investigation different from what you have already accomplished? how could you say that i'm not going to come up with any health risk? >> i'm not sure what you mean about what i've already accomplished. my role has been review and oversight. as far as what do i mean when i say -- i think there's little likelihood. that's twofold. one, i don't think there's fewer possibility of finding any contamination in these newly identified areas. i don't think that there would be significant contamination found in those areas. given that, you know, there's been work going on at treasure island for some time and that the known radiological areas, areas which would most likely contain the most contamination have been deemed not to present
7:06 pm
a health risk, then i think by logical extension i just don't see it as being a high probability, even if there is any activity identified in these newly impacted areas, newly identified impacted areas. >> supervisor avalos: cdph are they doing any other kind of assessment done by -- >> i don't do assessments, i strictly -- 16r78g9s but you do oversight. >> i review what the navy contractors are doing, what cdph is doing. i have not performed any independent assessment. >> supervisor avalos: who could talk about that? >> either -- well, cdph would have to talk about their work, and... >> supervisor avalos: so last weekend, the east bay express, they talked about radium wells, talked about disks that were found in different places, in some of the areas that have had -- where there's radiation that's been potential
7:07 pm
contamination of radiation. can you talk about those -- that were found. >> the foils and disc are commodities as they're called out there. they're deck markers, they're radio loom nes sent devices used back in the day like i said for marking decks on the ships. they're used for marking gauges, marking ditches. they're used today they're just not radium. where those commodities have been identified are these solid waste disposal areas. >> supervisor avalos: where there have been known -- you talk about it as known areas of radiological contamination, in those areas they were found? >> correct. 12 primarily was my understanding. >> supervisor avalos: we're going to have a hearing on the whole thing later on.
7:08 pm
so i will be cosponsoring that, and will go into further discussion. >> president chiu: supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you. i know the items before us involve a master lease, and a cooperative agreement. but i do think it's important in the context of the siting whether or not to support those items to have a better sense of the safety issues that have been raised. i think -- i know that there's going to be a public hearing on this, which i think is a great idea. and i want to thank supervisor kim, supervisor avalos, for sponsoring that. what worries me about this is the fact that, as you said, you know, there is no guarantee that that in fact there is no contamination that could create a health hazard. i mean i think your presentation is a carefully drafted document that, you know, leaves open the very possibility that there could be health implications
7:09 pm
here. isn't that correct? >> that's correct, recognizing there's these additional investigations that cdph is still going to be conducting. i don't want to be me mature. and i believe in, you know, never say never. >> supervisor campos: and that's the question. i mean so i do have a question about the wording though. in your report, it says that there is a little likelihood of these areas representing a health risk. in terms of definition of likelihood, what is that definition? i mean what percentage, what... >> it would be difficult to quantitative. again, me being a scientist, that's how we speak. we don't look at things in black and white but in continuum of probability and such. so when i say little likelihood again i can't assign a probability to it but certainly no more so than -- like i say i think what we already know out there is the low-hanging fruit. i don't see these additional
7:10 pm
areas, you know, for whatever quantification you want to assign to what we've encountered and assessed out there, i don't see these additional areas presenting any risk, certainly not any greater than that. >> supervisor campos: would likelihood be like 40%? is that lower? >> lower. >> supervisor campos: 20? >> if you're going to hold me to a number, we're talking about likelihood of a public health risk? i would say probably less than five. if that. >> supervisor campos: so less than five. i think that's the question for us is at what point do we feel comfortable enough to reach the point that we feel like we've done everything. i still wouldn't want to be less than 5%, you know, that have 5% or 4% likelihood that we're wrong. so -- >> well you've got to bear in
7:11 pm
mind, you've got to look at radiological risk or any individual risk in context with the overall spectrum of risk that we're all exposed to just from being alive. again, radiation is a natural thing. we're all exposed -- the average american gets 620 milligram a year of background radiation. >> supervisor campos: if that's the case then you certainly want to vote areas where there is even more radiation than is usually allowed, right? i mean that cuts different ways. >> again we're talking about levels that is so small i don't think we're encroaching on allowable levels at all. >> supervisor campos: let me ask you this way. so there is this supplemental technical memen memorandum thatd there are new areas that are rage lodically impacted -- radiologically impacted. legally under federal law or state law, are there limitations in terms of what kind of developments can go into a radiologically impacted area?
7:12 pm
>> in my limited experience, and i'm not a lawyer and not a real estate expert but usually those are deed restrictions that can be -- my bad. >> again, amy brownel from the san francisco health department. all of these areas that were identified in that supplemental technical memorandum are navy areas that navy is going to investigate. they are doing their work, and investigating them. there is not going to be any development until the navy has finished all their investigation, and then all of the regulatory agencies have signed off that everything has been done correctly. during the investigation phase, the navy will control the area, have fences, do air monitoring. the cdph and the other regulatory agencies will verify that they're doing that. there is no chance of contamination going outside of the area, that the navy will control during their work. and then when it is all done, and signed off, and cdph will
7:13 pm
give a free release letter that says all the work is done, there is no contamination left, everything is same as background, basically. that's called a free release. only at that point would the property then transfer, and be used by tida and developed. there will be no development until the navy has signed off on all the radiological issues. >> supervisor campos: well i appreciate all the work and i think that it's good to just follow up on these issues through the additional hearing. i'm still concerned. i think a 95% likelihood that we are right about no health implications is pretty good but i don't think it's good enough. so hopefully we'll get to 100% at some point. thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thanks, ms. brownel, mr. burns for the presentations. i wanted to say if i were one of the parents of the child development center i think supervisor kim was raising this
7:14 pm
questioning, mr. burns, whether he would have his kids in a spot that we weren't absolutely 100% sure was going to be safe would make me nervous, given some of the press reports. and then i know in 2003, and the department of public health is aware of this that we passed our cautionary principle policy that states where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exists lack of full scientific certificateity about the cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the city to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. i really worry that of the 2,000 residents that live on the island, that some of the key kind of new potential sites are very close to many of the residences. and the boys and girls club, and many areas where young children, who might be even more susceptible live. but i just wanted it know, could you give us more certainty that the sites are going to be safe.
7:15 pm
because i would be worrying if i were one of those parents or one of those kids. >> thank you, supervisor mar. again, mr. burns was talking about the areas and how the investigation was going to happen, and the question was asked about his certainty on those issues. again, that's for the areas that the navy is going to investigate, the residents do not live there, and they're not going to be allowed to live there. there will not be any development there. those areas will be properly investigated. the -- as we already mentioned, and is in your letter that you received from california department of health -- public health, the boys and girls club, the childcare center, the school, the winery, and the trailer, were all scanned by cdph and have been cleared, that there is no public health risk, based on their scans that they have already done. there are other areas that -- as mr. burns was mentioning, are going to be investigate by cdph. in fact i'm aware that they went out there today to start that, and to do their scans.
7:16 pm
so all of those areas and those issues of uncertainty, they're not areas where people are living. thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: i just have a quick question. i know that sometimes during these periods of members of the public residents are probably reading a lot of different pieces of information, in the newspaper, and it might be creating anxiety or fear among them. so i was wondering how are there going to be community meetings out there? i know even when we do wire or towers for at&t the department of public health, or there's some kind of allowance for some kind of testing and this sort of thing. i'm wondering how are we reassuring the residents that live out there that they're safe, or, you know -- what kind of outreach is being done to the residents? >> i can answer that question for ms. unbrown.
7:17 pm
our office is cohosting a meeting with tida and the navy next tuesday, september 18 at 7 pm on treasure island. and i'm not sure if we will be able to address all the concerns residents have but we will be there to answer questions and get feedback on where we would like to see the efforts the city makes to advocate on behalf of our residents at that meeting. i don't know if ms. brown if you have anything to add to that. >> thank you, supervisor kim. yes. the meeting will be held next tuesday. representatives from the navy will be conducting the meeting and representatives will be there from cdph and dtfc. i will be there. in addition there was a letter sent to all the residents with this information, and maps, and information about what's going on. so tida has been keeping the residents up to date and this additional meeting will be another venue for them to hear the information. >> supervisor olague:
7:18 pm
transparency is important, obviously. thank you. >> president chiu: colleagues, any additional questions to city staff? supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: no additional questions. i do want to speak a little bit to the item at hand, and also some follow-up to the contamination impact issues. so our office is cohosting a meeting with the navy again and cdph and tida to address questions from the residents and concerns. more than anything, what i would like to ensure from the city, whether it is cdph or tida or our office that we're doing the advocacy that needs to get done on behalf of our residents. i want our residents to feel safe and also that we are fighting for them, getting the truth out in terms of the level of contamination. i think it's great the preliminary assessments so far have shown that there aren't potential hazards to the health of humans living on that island. but of course i think that that's not always assuring to residents, that live there. i do in particular have concerns
7:19 pm
with the boys and girls club site. i know they have an interest in relocating. i think that even if there isn't evidence of contamination i think that there's enough questions that i think we should certainly look into it and see if that's possible. i think there's a lot of sites on that island. i would like to at least explore that, and also to address the 38 residents that might be on a potentially impacted site as well. the big thing is we need to be bulldogs for our residents, fighting and making sure that we get the answers we need. if it is true there is no contamination on site, great. we can move forward. there are other issues that need addressing in treasure island like the aging infrastructure in terms of delivering services like electricity add gas to the residents. i want to speak to the items before us today. it's separate from the radiological issue. while one of the parties to the amendments -- sorry, to the master leases and the agreement is the navy, i think that this is a separate issue.
7:20 pm
the navy is completely liable for both doing the assessment and the cleanup of radiological contamination on site prior to turning over conveying this property to tida and to the city. and that must be done when the property can be transferred with no use restrictions. and i think we as a city need to ensure that we fight to ensure that happens. i want to even touch on the fact that we have other neighborhoods where clearly environmental health hazards are on site. we have neighborhoods like the bayview where there are higher rates of asthma. this is not just limited to treasure island but we as a city need to ensure that we are providing safe places for all of our residents to live and work. but the set of items before us are really just to allow tida to continue to subleases buildings on site, and also to allow us to deliver fire, police, and other gas and electrical services, wastewater treatment services, to the island. and i think that we should move
7:21 pm
forward and support these items before us today. if in any case we find that we don't want to continue this relationship with the navy, and really the the only case i think that would happen is if we decide to relocate all 2,000 residents we have 30 days notice if we decide to move forward in that direction. supervisor campos did mention it though and i will talk more about it at roll call but supervisor avalos and i will be cosponsoring a hearing on the radiological impact at treasure island and i'll speak a little more to that at roll call. >> president chiu: colleagues, any additional discussion? with that, why don't we take a roll call on these six items. madam clerk. >> angela calvillo: on items 13 through 18, supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye.
7:22 pm
supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, absent. supervisor elsbernd, aye. there are 10 ayes. >> president chiu: the resolutions are adopted. why don't we go to our committee report, item 19. >> angela calvillo: item 19 was considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on thursday, september 6, and was recommended as amended with a new title sent to the board as a committee report. it's a motion approving the president of the board of supervisors, supervisor david chiu's nomination of arcelia hurtado for the board of appeals ending july 1, 2016. >> president chiu: same house, same call? without objection, this motion is approved. and why don't we now go to roll call. >> angela calvillo: supervisor farrell, you are first. >> supervisor farrell: i have one item, an in memory, i'd like to adjourn in the memory of
7:23 pm
chuck hug begins. he passed away at his home and was 87 years old. he was the former president and ceo of seas canneddies a beloved san francisco institution. he worked there as a manager in the packing department and in 1972 selling the company to warren buster amon buffett. as a philanthropist he was a generous person in town. he loved jazz. he served on numerous boards of san francisco nonprofits including grace cathedral, san francisco traditional jazz foundation and the children's health council. more importantly, in district 2 he and his wife brought together a number of people to raise money to restore the palace of fine arts to the jewel that it is today raising over $16 million in private money. he served our country as a paratrooper during world war ii.
7:24 pm
they had -- after her passing he married and is survived by donna hug begins who was with chuck for 15 years. he is survived by his sister, ruth, sons, peter, charles, and daughters, ann and shelley, nine children and a nephew. a tribute is planned for saturday, september 28 at the hetious theater from 1 to 3 pm. i would invite everyone to come out. the rest i submit. >> angela calvillo: supervisor chu. >> supervisor kim: chu. >> supervisor chu: first is norah patricia spears known as patsy to many of her friends and family, passed away september 1. she was a sunset resident and active parishioner at st. gabriel's. she volunteered at laguna honda hospital and was always involved in the neighborhood and stayed
7:25 pm
current. we very much appreciated all the work she did on behalf of the neighborhood. she was here many times to testify at the planning commission, on behalf of the sunset district. and we will all miss her but she will be especially missed by her husband, sean, her children, and their spouses and many grandchildren. i also want to adjourn today's meeting in memory of celia rodriguez, she passed away surrounded by her family. she joins her husband and her son in heaven. her husband immigrated to san francisco in 1955 and celia joined him in 1956 but it was in san francisco that they raised their family and realized their dream of opening their restaurant in the outer sunset district. her restaurant opened its doors in 1962 first as a simple coffee shop and later becoming mexican food restaurant. over time she brought to the sunset her unique style of cooking, and her hard work and dedication eventually led to the
7:26 pm
establishment of more than a dozen celia's mexican restaurants in the bay area. they quickly became a bay favorite and many remember going there and still do now. she will be deeply missed by her family and friends. she is survived by her sisters, her children, and her grandchildren. the rest i will submit. thank you. >> angela calvillo: thank you, supervisor chu. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. the first item that i'll speak to is just the item that we most recently discussed. supervisor avalos and i are cosponsoring a hearing to -- related to the radiologically impacted areas that need further explanation before the land is of course transferred from the navy to the city of san francisco. i think the presentation, while it answered a number of
7:27 pm
questions also raised additional questions related to this issue. we're having a hearing to follow-up on the radiological issues to ensure we're doing everything we can do to intur thensurethe safety of those on e island. as representative of this part of our city, this is an area where we do actually place many families, working class and low income families, formerly homeless individuals, and of course our veterans, as well as other population on -- that are particularly vulnerable. so i'm requesting tida and the department of public health to report on the navy's recent disclosure, the oversight and monitoring of the navy's cleanup efforts, and whether -- and just the work of the recent scans conducted by cdph and also the national standard for radiological contamination that is a harm to the health and human safety of our individuals,
7:28 pm
and what precautions we as a city can take to ensure the health and safety of our residents and workers and to have discussion of potential sites which may even conclude in a relocation of organizations such as the boys and girls club that do serve our children and our families. second, i am introducing a set of ordinances to move forward with the implementation of the next space of south of market alley way improvement project, a beautification project the community has been tracking since the 6th street corridor improvement project was completed. phase one was completed last year and this included new street trees, textured asphalt paving. and the neighborhood residents have been incredibly appreciative of this noticeable change. based on lessons we've learned from phase one the city is working on a plan on the next
7:29 pm
phase, including enhancements of -- and clara between 5th and #th street. these alleys are the life blood of the community. so the alley ways are often used as routes for pedestrians and often play areas for children and sitting areas for our seniors. we do have many seniors and families that rely on these alley ways as thoroughfares through the neighborhood. project improvement includes more street lighting on something we've heard a lot about from our constituents, special roadwa roadway paving, d sidewalks, all of which enrich the pedestrian experience. as many of you know we have a lot of pedestrian safety issues in the south of market area, some of the highest incidents of collisions between vehicles and cars and we are hopeful this will continue to do a lot of the common work that we are seeing and the city is engaging in, in the south of market area. the rest i


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on