Board debates Treasure Island master‑lease amendments and radiological concerns; items initially approved then rescinded

Members of the Board of Supervisors spent an extended portion of their Sept. 11 meeting on a package of Treasure Island items and a related presentation about newly identified, potentially radiologically impacted areas on the island.

Supervisor Jane Kim, joined by other supervisors, asked for the discussion after the items were sent to the full board from budget committee without recommendation. The items on the agenda were amendments to a set of master leases and a modification to the cooperative agreement with the U.S. Navy (agenda items 13 through 18). The Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA) and the city’s Department of Public Health (DPH) made a joint presentation about the Navy’s cleanup program, regulatory oversight and planned follow‑up work.

Miriam Saez, Director of Operations for the Treasure Island Development Authority, outlined TIDA’s role and the purpose of the master leases, which TIDA uses to sublease properties and structures to generate revenue that helps fund property management and municipal service obligations under the cooperative agreement with the Navy. Saez introduced guest speakers from DPH and independent consultants to address recent media reports about newly identified areas in the Navy’s supplemental technical memorandum.

Amy Brownell, an environmental engineer with the San Francisco Department of Public Health, explained oversight roles: the Navy conducts cleanup work under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); the lead regulator for most cleanup work is the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and CDPH oversees radiological protection. Brownell said regulatory agencies review Navy work plans, field monitoring and data and conduct independent scans.

Bob Burns, chief executive of NGTS and a certified health physicist retained as an independent reviewer for TIDA, summarized radiological characterization work. Burns said the Navy’s recent supplemental technical memorandum identified additional “impacted” areas on Treasure Island but emphasized that “impacted” in that context does not necessarily mean contamination is present; instead it denotes areas that require further scoping surveys. Burns told the board that, to date, three areas had known radiological contamination (including a site referred to in the presentation as Site 12, Building 233, and Site 31) and that CDPH’s recent letter to the city stated in part, “No health and safety concerns were identified in our surveys in or around the 5 locations at Treasure Island.” Burns and DPH said further prioritized surveys would be performed in areas that include occupied residences and locations where utility or childcare workers operate.

Board members pressed for detail. Michael Carlin, deputy general manager for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and Michael Timeoff (identified in the presentation as the TIDA project director) addressed aging infrastructure on the island and interim utility operation. Carlin said the PUC, which has worked with the island’s caretaker operator for years, is inspecting components and that discussions are underway about interim capital needs and future ownership. Carlin cautioned that capital investment decisions are constrained by ownership and state law governing ratepayer funds; he said the PUC cannot simply expend its ratepayer capital funds to upgrade utilities unless the city takes ownership of those systems.

Carlin and TIDA staff estimated an interim capital investment need of about $5,000,000 per year for the next one to two years to keep utilities operating; they said funding solutions and an operating agreement would be returned to the board as those plans are developed. Board members also raised liability and who would bear costs if the city accepted utilities in their current condition.

After the presentations and questions, the board conducted roll call votes on the six Treasure Island items (13–18). The first roll call on those items recorded 10 ayes and adopted the resolutions. Later in the meeting Supervisor Mark Cohen moved to rescind items 13 through 19; Supervisor David Chiu seconded the motion. The rescission motion passed on a subsequent roll call (11 ayes), effectively rescinding the earlier approvals.

What the agencies said about health risk: Brownell and Burns emphasized that regulatory oversight is ongoing. Burns said independent reviewers AMEC and NGTS had not found evidence to contradict CDPH’s conclusions and described surface wipe tests and direct surveys as part of the CDPH approach. Brownell told the board that the Navy controls areas during investigation work with fences and air monitoring and that the agencies would not allow development in areas until regulatory sign‑off and, if warranted, a “free release” that clears property for transfer and development.

Board action and process notes: the board’s initial adoption of items 13–18 put the lease amendments and the cooperative agreement modification on the record; the later rescission vote removed those approvals from the board’s actions. Supervisors Kimberly and Campos announced intent to hold follow‑up hearings, and Supervisor Carmen Chu and others requested TIDA and DPH return with further audit and oversight information on radiological surveys and scheduling of prioritized scoping work.

Next steps: DPH and CDPH said further priority surveys would be performed in the newly identified areas; TIDA expects to bring forward funding solutions and an operating agreement in the coming months and to return to the board with more detailed development and remediation status reports. Supervisors Kim and Avalos said they would cosponsor a hearing to review the Navy disclosures, DPH oversight and any implications for residents and children’s facilities on the island.

Votes at a glance: agenda items 13–18 were adopted on an initial roll call (10 ayes) and a subsequent motion to rescind items 13–19 passed later in the meeting (11 ayes), rescinding those earlier approvals.

The board’s discussion split questions of immediate municipal service delivery — who pays for aging utilities and how to fund interim capital needs — from the separate but overlapping issue of radiological investigation and regulatory sign‑off by the Navy and state and federal agencies. City staff and independent consultants said additional surveys were already prioritized for occupied or worker‑used locations and that CDPH and DTSC remain the regulatory leads on radiological matters.