Kamala Harris Faces Obstruction of Justice & Corruption Charges By SF TI Residents

Kamala Harris and Hunters Point is a textbook case of environmental injustice “Mayor’s Pals find Treasure on Island,”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Hunters-Point-is-a-textbook-case-of-environmental-12917354.php

By Leif Dautch and Theo Ellington May 15, 2018 Updated: May 15, 2018 4:58 p.m.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Hunters-Point-is-a-textbook-case-of-environmental-12917354.php
People hold up signs as they react during a San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ committee hearing about the controversial Hunters Point Shipyard cleanup on Monday.Photo: Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle

2New construction at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco.Photo: Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle
It’s one thing to read about “environmental justice.” It’s another thing to see it play out before our very eyes. Case in point: the unfolding saga of the Hunters Point Shipyard cleanup, which could be one of the worst environmental injustices in California history.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors began hearings this week to address this injustice, but discussion derailed almost immediately. As the board presses on, we remind the supervisors that the people of Bayview-Hunters Point deserve nothing less than:

1) Full criminal and civil accountability for the pollution control company executives who oversaw the botched cleanup.

2) Retesting of all parcels — including Parcel A, where 300 new homes are already built and occupied and 150 others are under construction — to assure residents they are not exposed to harmful radiation.

3) Clawing back pollution controller Tetra Tech’s profits and completely removing the company from this project and the Treasure Island cleanup project.

4) Reconstituting the citizens advisory board to oversee the shipyard cleanup.

5) Developing a robust environmental justice policy for San Francisco to ensure that communities of color are never targeted like this again.

First, let’s go over how we got here. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The concept first emerged in the 1980s but has gained traction in California over the past decade.

In 2005, then-San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris started a (now-defunct) environmental justice unit that focused on hazardous-waste disposal and workplace safety. Other jurisdictions followed suit, and in 2012, the state attorney general’s office issued a memo stating that industrial projects should take account of the disproportionate impacts the project may have on low-income, minority communities.

Throughout the state, we’ve seen citizens mobilize to derail fracking projects near tribal lands, stop oil companies from trucking their noxious products through Latino neighborhoods along the Central Coast, and to shut down refineries in African American communities in Los Angeles.

These projects shared common traits:

•An out-of-town corporation with few ties to the community targeted a low-income, minority community perceived as voiceless in the political process.

•The corporation took steps to further silence dissidents and residents by eliminating avenues for public oversight and community participation.

•Critical information about the proposed projects was deliberately withheld or falsified to hide the true public health risks and environmental cost to the community.

These concerns are now playing out right in our backyard with the Hunters Point Shipyard cleanup, a project the San Francisco Human Rights Commission red-flagged as early as 2003.

But the injustice at the Hunters Point shipyard began generations ago. Because of racial segregation and evictions from other parts of San Francisco, many African Americans made Bayview-Hunters Point their home in the years following World War II. The area still boasts the city’s largest African American population, and sadly, the highest percentage of people living below the federal poverty line.

The community has also been a location for industrial activity. From 1946 to 1969, the U.S. Navy used the Hunters Point shipyard to decontaminate ships and military equipment exposed to atomic bomb testing and to study the effects of radiation on animals and materials. The byproducts of these activities seeped into the soil, causing the EPA to declare the shipyard a Superfund site, that is, as land contaminated by wastes that pose a risk to human health or the environment and eligible for federal funding to clean it up.

Since 1994, the Navy has been preparing the site for a large mixed-use residential and commercial development with parks and open space. The project will bring 12,000 much-needed homes to San Francisco and reinvigorate an economically challenged neighborhood.

But things have not gone according to plan.

We now know that the workers for the engineering firm hired to oversee the cleanup, Tetra Tech, falsified data to hide the true toxicity of soil samples from the shipyard. A 2017 analysis by the Navy found that nearly half of the soil samples produced by Tetra Tech were deliberately falsified or manipulated. An EPA report revealed further fraud, calling into question 97 percent of the cleanup data. Tetra Tech pins the blame on “rogue” employees.

Two Tetra Tech employees already have pleaded guilty to fraud and been sentenced to federal prison. A $27 billion lawsuit was filed against the company recently for “blatant, conscious, callous disregard of Bayview-Hunters Point residents’ lives, born and unborn, for the next five generations.” So far, Tetra Tech has taken home more than $350 million for the cleanup.

It hardly seems a coincidence that this fraud took place in San Francisco’s poorest neighborhood. Or that it occurred in the years after the Navy abolished the federally required community oversight board that had raised early concerns about the cleanup. Can you imagine regulators eliminating a citizens advisory group for a major project in, say, the Marina or North Beach because the group raised concerns about environmental contamination and public health? We can’t either.

Nelson Mandela captured the essence of environmental justice when he said the true test of a nation is not how we treat the powerful, but how we treat the least among us. So far, we’re failing that test.

Leif Dautch is president of the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Commission. Theo Ellington, a Bayview native and Parcel A resident, is a member of the Human Rights Commission. The views expressed here are their own.

SF Treasure Island Tetra Tech Cleanup workers find radioactive contamination
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8mwUDAWaVM&feature=youtu.be

The Center for Investigative Reporting
Published on Nov 1, 2013
SUBSCRIBE 56K
Cleanup workers discover poker-chip-sized pieces of radium-226. One of workers, Robert McLean, talks about the experience of finding radiation in unexpected locations around the island.

Treasure Isle: Greed, Gold, Toxic Waste

https://calwatchdog.com/2011/07/26/s-f-s-treasure-island-greed-gold-toxic-waste/
26
Jul, 2011
by Richard Trainor


Yo ho ho and and a pot of redevelopment gold.

For 15 years San Francisco has tried to transform Treasure Island from a sandy former Naval base into a gold and jobs-generating new urban community with 40-story skyscrapers interspersed by parks and marinas. The idea came from then-Mayor Willie Brown as far back as 1995.

On June 15, 2011, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee finally signed the formal approval to allow the redevelopment of Treasure Island to begin. While the city has been remarkably patient in its mission to secure approval for the $1.5 billion project, this project represents a golden opportunity to build a new city center for 19,000 new tax-paying residents.

There will be huge new skyscrapers secured into the volatile landfill with earthquake-proof foundations, a number of community parks, a seawall to prevent tsunamis and tons of sand imported to stabilize the land-filled island. Before the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, Treasure Island stood 18 feet above sea level. After the quake, it was at 6 feet. The new sand will be compacted into the existing soil to provide a solid base for the coming towers.

Mark Sarkisian of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the firm’s chief structural engineer on the project, said the towers and the other new buildings will be safe. He said, “We did shaker-table modeling and computer-generated effects to see how the new buildings will perform and we’re satisfied they will be able to safely withstand a 7.5 earthquake.”

Critics like Aaron Peskin, the former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, don’t think the seismic or traffic issues have been thoroughly explored or tested. “I’d say that if you believe that the seismic issues are resolved, then you’re either a total optimist or an absolute fool,” said Peskin, who is presently weighing the idea of pursuing a legal action against the Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA). “If we do bring an action, it will likely relate to the EIR [Environmental Impact Report] for the project.”

Indeed, as Anthony Pignataro reported on this site last year, Treasure Island has a toxic problem. He wrote that “a disputed portion of Treasure Island — the Navy says just a few sites, others say possibly the entire island — is radioactive. What to do about the radiological contamination has become the great unmentionable in the quest to turn the old, rapidly decaying base into San Francisco’s ‘premier date-night locale’….”

Opponents Outgunned

At this point, Peskin and Treasure Island development opponents appear to be outgunned. TIDA’s attorney-of-record on this is Tina Thomas, of the Sacramento law firm Ramey-Thomas. When she served in the first Jerry Brown gubernatorial administration, Thomas wrote the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1974. Now she tends to serve developer interests, such as Sacramento’s Angelo Tsakopolous and Ron Burkle, the billionaire who is involved in the Treasure Island redevelopment plan.

The TIDA project involves Florida-based Lennar Properties, Wilson Meany Sullivan and Kenwood Investments (the Burkle-Anderson group) who say they hope to break ground early next year. The city of San Francisco is also a partner on the deal, since it’s chipping in $700 million in bonds; while Kenwood et al. are in for $500 million. The developers are projecting $370 million in profit at build out, and the city gets a taste of it.

Over the next few decades, Lennar and friends will transform the island into a state-of-the-art neighborhood with a mix of affordable and market-rate energy efficient homes. Massive weight will compact the soil, keeping the island stable during earthquakes. A 30-foot seawall will guard against sea-level rise and possible tsunamis. Plans call for the ramps to and from the Bay Bridge to be redesigned and dedicated bus lines to run from the island to downtown San Francisco.

High-Paying Jobs

There are numerous reasons to welcome the new development at Treasure Island from a policy standpoint. It will create high-paying construction and engineering jobs for the length of the 20-30 year build out. It will also increase tax revenue and provide new housing for maxed-out San Francisco.

There are other reasons to abhor Treasure Island from a political process standpoint, for the redevelopment of this naval base is easily one of the sleaziest deals ever put forward in a city where political sleaze has reigned supreme since the octopus of Southern Pacific Railroad extended its tentacles over the city at the end of the 19th century.

Grand jury investigations into Treasure Island have occurred. The governing agency for the project, TIDA, is a bit of a mystery as to what kind of agency or corporation or city entity it is exactly, and recent rulings have relaxed the ethical questions that have characterized the process since it started.

Willie’s Plans

In 1998, reporter Chuck Finnie of The San Francisco Examiner wrote a story, “Mayor’s Pals find Treasure on Island,” in which he laid out the plans that Mayor Willie Brown then had for Treasure Island.

Finnie reported:

“Political patrons of Mayor Brown who are favored for a Treasure Island redevelopment deal would pay The City at least $1 million less than the other two bidders, a Port of San Francisco financial report says…. The project is one of several in which the mayor’s staff and city commissioners have been asked to make business decisions involving people close to Brown…. Anderson worked as a volunteer raising money for Brown’s $2 million mayoral campaign.

“Burkle, who is backing Anderson’s bid financially, is a Los Angeles investor and former law client of the mayor’s during Brown’s days as speaker of the Assembly.

“The report, obtained by The Examiner under state public records law, raises questions about why the mayor is recommending the deal go to Treasure Island Enterprises, the creation of Anderson and Burkle…. [A] mayor’s selection committee judged Anderson and Burkle’s proposal best.”

One of Lennar’s partners in the Treasure Island deal, Kenwood Investments, is the outgrowth of the original company hand-picked for Treasure Island by Willie Brown in 1998. Kenwood is headed by Burkle and Anderson.

Theme Park Plan

Willie Brown’s Treasure Island plan was first put forward in a document, “The Treasure Island Reuse Plan.” This plan would have transformed the former U. S. Naval base into a tourist-oriented theme park. The lead agency for the conversion would have been the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.

In 1995, Willie advanced the idea that it would make a suitable location for Indian gaming casinos. In 1998, Willie tried to enlist reclusive Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing to develop it as such. But Li wouldn’t bite. “It was sort of a unique time,” said Larry Florin, who oversaw Treasure Island for the city in the late 1990s. “Land-use planning in San Francisco is like hand-to-hand combat, and you had this detached piece of property that no one thought about, so it was an opportunity for some free thinking to occur.”

Sweetheart Deal

Free thinking is one way to describe it. Treasure Island has been a sweetheart deal ever since the process got underway in the late 1990s. After Brown failed to get the project moving, the next mayor, Mayor Gavin Newsom, took a bite at the Treasure Island apple during his term. Newsom was figuratively caught with his pants down at a fund-raiser for him hosted by Burkle’s partner Darius Anderson in Sacramento in 2004. Again, the plan didn’t fly.

Present Mayor Ed Lee finally succeeded where the previous two had failed — despite a narrow, 4-3 approval by the San Francisco Planning Commission before the Board of Supervisors passed the plan unanimously by an 11-0 vote.

The Treasure Island project envisions a new ecologically friendly, “smart growth”-oriented, “sustainable” mini-city of 19,000 residents. It would have set-aside proportions of 20 percent of the new housing units designated for “low-income families” and the homeless with shining new high-rise commercial and residential towers interspersed among “pedestrian-oriented” retail units. All of it will be served by new ramped-up ferry services from San Francisco and the East Bay to Treasure Island to insure the “sustainability” quotient.

Most of the main players in the San Francisco Democratic Party Insider Club are also on board the Treasure Island Express. Besides Willie Brown, Gavin Newsom, Darius Anderson and Ron Burkle, the Treasure Island gold miners include Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and some of her family.

“There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some,” said Nancy Pelosi, speaking on the issue in 2010 when a new mosque was being proposed for Ground Zero in New York. “And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded. How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward.”

Indian Casinos

Pelosi, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus signed the transfer agreement on Tuesday, June 10, 2010. It included a section of neighboring Yerba Buena Island, where Native American Indian remains were found in 2003. That makes Yerba Buena Island a potential site for Indian gaming casinos.

Pelosi has used her power to push the crony-infested project for years. She pushed hard for legislative language that would have forced the military to grant highly valued properties at no cost to the local communities.

“Treasure Island is not a case of a small town that has relied on a local military base for its livelihood for decades. It is a land grab by politicians for well-connected developers,“ said Tony Hall, the former executive director of the Treasure Island Development Authority and a mayoral candidate. The authority is the firm that grew into an entity that Aaron Peskin said is “one of the great mysteries of our time. It’s a non-profit that grew into a LLC that then became a city agency.” Hall called the city’s effort to develop the island a “den of corruption.”

Peskin quoted a news story back to me: “A proposed Treasure Island development plan slates 90 percent of the developed acreage for residential use, 7 percent for commercial property and 3 percent for parking. An illustration shows about a dozen high-rise blocks of shoreline condominiums with stunning views of the city, plus 300 acres of park and recreation land.”

“This would hardly be ‘affordable housing,’ the $5 billion investment that Mrs. Pelosi claims would have to be recouped by the developer, Peskin snorted. “The only long-term jobs created from this plan would be for maids and doormen for the high rollers privileged enough to live there.”

The likelihood of a successful legal challenge to TIDA isn’t good. There are powerful political and economic forces at work here, and the whole Democratic Party team out of San Francisco is backing the plan. Willie Brown’s dream of gold on Treasure Island seems to be coming true.


Share t
Blacque Jacques Shellacque
Blacque Jacques Shellacque12 November, 2011, 13:10
“He wrote that “a disputed portion of Treasure Island — the Navy says just a few sites, others say possibly the entire island — is radioactive.”
A personal anecdote: An uncle of mine used to be a MSTS employee (now MSC) and when I was a kid I used to go fishing with him at various places around the bay, one of them being Treasure Island. When we went there we would typically go to Pier 21, which was near the NE corner of the island (it appears to be gone now) and on occasion I would go for little walks around the area. Not far from Pier 21 in a northerly direction (where the shoreline turns at an angle in the picture) there was a small ship that was sunk into a large concrete surface in the ground, surrounded at a distance by cyclone fencing that had radiation warning signs posted all around. The marking on the bow of the ship was “PCDC-1”, and I remember being creeped out by the whole thing when I first saw it.
As a matter of fact, the outline of where this ship sat is still somewhat visible near the bottom left of the photo above; there is a lighter colored area of the ground near where the shoreline turns. I have not been back there, so I have no idea what it looks like now.
Reply this comment
Soon K. Lee
Soon K. Lee26 November, 2011, 20:51
Need to post about Environmental Impact Report,Tsunami,and Earthquake.
Also, Not to make T.I as a “den of Corruption”.
I visited 11/23/2011 to T.I. with future vision,but I still doubt about the project because it will be dangerous with the radiation of intoxication and natural disaster.
Reply this comment
sdviking
sdviking2 May, 2015, 06:25
was stationed on TI and came down with CLL in 2005 and AML in 2010 looking for anyone that has had similar experience. Is this story a dead horse or is there anything else pending?
Reply this comment
IveDoneMyResearch
IveDoneMyResearch18 July, 2018, 23:59
NO, this horse is very much alive. There is a reason you got cancer and you should contact me ASAP. Time matters. There is a statute of limitations. tincturetonic @ gmail.com

Government Report On Seismic Dangers and Liquification Of
Treasure Island Ignored By Mayor Willie Brown

https://sftreasureisland.org//sites/default/files/Documents/Env1/Chapter_4.pdf

The greatest hazards to structures could be to older buildings on Treasure Island, especially those not supported on piles. Building codes periodically are revised in response to advancements in building technologies, so newer buildings are usually more resistant to earthquake damage. Occupants of all buildings could be at risk from falling fixtures and furnishings.

It is likely that emergency response systems in San Francisco in particular and in the Bay Area as a whole would be overloaded in the immediate aftermath of a large earthquake. Because of the large population that probably would be present at NSTI in an earthquake under this alternative, it likely would be necessary for offices, hotels, recreational facilities, and residents to be self-sufficient for several days until basic systems could be restored or until occupants could be evacuated.

To ensure compliance with all San Francisco Building Code provisions regarding structural safety, when the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) reviews the geotechnical report and building plans for a proposed project, it will determine necessary engineering and design features for the project to reduce potential damage to structures from groundshaking and liquefaction. Therefore, potential damage to structures from geologic hazards on a project site would be mitigated through the DBI requirement for a geotechnical report and review of the building permit application pursuant to its implementation of the Building Code, in addition to the mitigation measures discussed below.

• Mitigation. The following measures would mitigate seismic shaking impacts to a less-than-significant level:

– Conduct a geotechnical investigation prior to permitting any construction or reusing any structure unless determined unnecessary based on existing soils and structural data. The investigation should evaluate subsurface conditions, foundations, and building structural integrity. For existing structures, use the NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (FEMA-178) for assessing seismic hazards and the building’s expected performance given existing geotechnical considerations (see Appendix E for a copy of the letter documenting that the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) will use FEMA-178 protocol and standards for structural evaluation of buildings on NSTI). Perform seismic upgrades of structures designated for reuse to minimize life safety risks from failures in a large earthquake. Demolish structures that cannot feasibly be retrofitted to meet a life safety objective.

– Inspect or retrofit existing utilities that are essential for maintaining emergency services or that could increase hazards (such as fire) if ruptured. Replace utilities that cannot be retrofitted or supplement them with backup systems.

C:\Documents and Settings\sfojml\My Documents\TI\06TI_1\4-9.docTransfer and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIRJune 2006 4-188

STI are required to minimize hazards (e.g., personal injury, fire) to building occupants from nonstructural damage associated with falling objects and exploding pipes. For example, attach heavy objects, such as storage cabinets, safes, tanks, and oversize file cabinets, to secure walls and floors to prevent their falling or sliding.

– Encourage the storage of medical supplies needed for common injuries, and at least 72 hours’ potable water and nonperishable food supply at easily accessible locations in offices, schools, hotels, and other large structures. Keep other emergency response equipment, such as heavy tools and bullhorns, in easily accessible and well-marked locations in large structures.

– Include an emergency preparedness plan component in the proposed emergency response plan prepared in coordination with the San Francisco Office of Emergency Services (OES). Assign responsibilities for implementing the emergency response plan and train all employees commonly working at NSTI in emergency response plan elements. Implement a program of earthquake preparedness and response planning for all tenants of existing structures and developers/managers of new structures at NSTI. Require emergency response and earthquake preparedness plans for all structures/uses with more than 100 occupants. Key provisions of the emergency response plan include the following:

♦ Prominently post information informing all residents an don-site employees of where to go and what to do in the event of an earthquake or other emergency;

♦ Coordinate and delineate emergency response responsibilities within other San Francisco staff and emergency personnel on NSTI for overall San Francisco preparedness and response programs;

♦ Develop, disseminate, and post information on evacuation or other appropriate response in the event of a major earthquake;

♦ Coordinatecommunicationandsuppliesforpreparednesstobe used in the event that the site is cut off from the mainland in a major earthquake;

♦ Ensureadequatefacilitiesforairliftingpeopleandsuppliestoand from NSTI, in coordination with the San Francisco OES;

♦ Ensure emergency medical service to NSTI occupants; and

♦ Establish a search and rescue plan within predesignated areas.

C:\Documents and Settings\sfojml\My Documents\TI\06TI_1\4-9.docTransfer and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIRJune 2006 4-189

4.9 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity

page195image2602897968 page195image2602898240
4.9 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity

page196image2604957424
– Police and fire services on Treasure Island currently are in structures that do not meet City requirements for “critical facilities.” Upgrade these facilities to meet applicable standards and to assure operational capabilities after a major earthquake.

– Encourage developers, residents, and employees to minimize potential earthquake hazards related to hazardous materials stored or used on NSTI by including appropriate seismic safety provisions, such as prohibiting hazardous materials from being stored in containers above head level (about 5 feet); anchoring hazardous materials shelves to walls and floors; constructing heavy doors designed to remain shut during earthquake vibrations; and providing hand-operated closures for vents and air ducts. Implement other measures as recommended by the San Francisco Fire Department, Health Department, or OES.

Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to a less-than- significant level.

Impact: Liquefaction and differential settlement. Significant and mitigable impacts on structures and infrastructure would occur from liquefaction and differential settlement in a major earthquake. Treasure Island is designated a SHZ by the CDMG (now known as CGS) because of its liquefaction potential (CDMG 1997). During a strong earthquake, liquefaction and differential settlement would be likely throughout Treasure Island and the causeway. Low-lying areas of Yerba Buena Island underlain by heterogeneous artificial fill also are potentially subject to liquefaction and differential settlement hazards. The severity of the damage would vary, depending on the nature of the structure and on site-specific geologic conditions. Liquefaction and differential settlement can damage foundations, tilt or buckle structural supports causing catastrophic structural failures, and misalign horizontal features, such as doorways, utility connections, roadways, or other rigid elements. These impacts may affect life safety.

Site-specific stabilization within the interior of the island would protect new structures from life-safety hazards, but they could still suffer some damage from settlement and liquefaction, including loss of utilities and infrastructure connections. Seismic improvements to existing structures would be possible and could minimize life-safety hazards. However, these structures still could be vulnerable to substantial damage from liquefaction and associated settlement.

Under this alternative, the main utility corridor across Treasure Island would be located in the area proposed to be stabilized by stone columns, or other appropriate alternatives as determined by a licensed geotechnical engineer However, breakage of existing underground utility lines is expected to be substantial and would be widely distributed because of intense ground shaking and because anticipated settlement across the island is estimated to be approximately 12 inches or more. Damaged gas lines could ignite, resulting in fires. If liquefaction or other seismic damage severed water lines, fire-

C:\Documents and Settings\sfojml\My Documents\TI\06TI_1\4-9.docTransfer and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIRJune 2006 4-190

page196image2605211008 page196image2605211280 page196image2605211616 page196image2605211888
fighting abilities would be impaired. If fire-fighting abilities were impaired, the City could implement auxiliary water supply systems (AWSS) that use Bay water, if NSTI were incorporated into the City’s AWSS.

• Mitigation. The following measures would mitigate liquefaction and differential settlement impacts to a less-than-significant level:

– As part of the geotechnical investigation required by the mitigation above (under seismic shaking), determine what type of retrofitting or upgrade would be necessary or feasible to strengthen structures or facilities proposed for reuse (some studies have already been conducted; this mitigation applies to buildings for which no studies are already available). Strengthen these structures or facilities as appropriate to reduce liquefaction and differential settlement hazards to life safety. If cost-effective retrofit upgrade measures are not available, demolish the structure or facility or leave it unoccupied.

– Incorporate the recommendations of a California-licensed geotechnical engineer into future site preparation, foundation, and building design. Support all sensitive structures, including most industrial and commercial buildings, buildings greater than three stories, buildings intended for public occupancy, structures supporting essential services, and buildings housing sensitive populations (schools, medical, police, and fire facilities) on pile systems or other specially designed foundations that mitigate liquefaction and differential settlement effects. Densification of sites and areas also would reduce this hazard. Using mat foundations for smaller structures could reduce differential settlement by distributing loads over a larger area and increasing the flexibility of the foundation.

– Fit critical or potentially hazardous new utilities with flexible joints, where appropriate, to accommodate lateral stresses. Replace or retrofit critical or potentially hazardous existing substandard utilities with flexible joints to reduce the potential for rupture.

– Prepare emergency response plans and upgrade any existing police, fire, and medical facilities proposed for reuse as necessary to meet state standards.

– Identify areas subject to substantial unmitigated liquefaction/differential settlement hazards and use such areas as open space, if feasible, to reduce the magnitude of impacts in these areas.

Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to a less-than- significant level.

Impact: Lateral spreading-unsupported structures and infrastructure. The potential for lateral spreading at the perimeter of Treasure Island would result in a significant and mitigable impact on unsupported structures and infrastructure. The proposed perimeter

C:\Documents and Settings\sfojml\My Documents\TI\06TI_1\4-9.docTransfer and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIRJune 2006 4-191

4.9 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity

page197image2605789216 page197image2605789488 page197image2605789760
4.9 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity

page198image2602998224
stabilization measures included in this alternative would protect the island from large- scale lateral spreading. Residual lateral spreading could be reduced to less than 1 foot (0.3 m). However, this level of lateral spreading could cause significant damage to unsupported structures and infrastructure on the perimeter of Treasure Island. This damage could be mitigated by implementing the measures below.

• Mitigation. As part of subsequent permit review for upgrades or reuse of existing infrastructure and buildings, consider the design of stabilization measures proposed for the perimeter of Treasure Island and ensure that the project’s geotechnical investigation addresses the potential for residual lateral spreading. Support structures and infrastructure in areas where residual lateral spreading still could occur after mitigation on piles, columns, or other appropriate foundations. Fit essential utilities with flexible connections designed to withstand rupture. Implementing this measure would reduce this hazard to a less-than-significant level.

• Mitigation. As part of the geotechnical investigation required by the mitigation above (under seismic shaking), thoroughly evaluate the strength characteristics of the Bay Mud to verify the parameters used for previous studies, and reevaluate dike stability in light of new information for Bay Mud strengths. The investigation should also include evaluation of other treatment options that can use the Deep Mixing Method to treat the dikes to mitigate liquefaction as well as deep-seated slope instability.

Impact: Settlement. Significant and mitigable impacts would occur from overall settlement due to new construction of the on-site fill sediments or the underlying Bay muds as these materials adjust to new loading from heavy buildings, mat foundations, or other new fills (e.g., as required to eliminate ponding, see Section 4.10.2, Hydrology and Water Quality, ponding impacts from high tides) and drains. Although most of the potential at existing loadings at Treasure Island has already occurred, gradual area-wide settlement could be accelerated and could continue for many more years, resulting in local ponding, increased flooding potential, or water-logging of soils.

• Mitigation. Mitigation measures for settlement would be the same as those described for liquefaction and differential settlement. Implementing the recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer would reduce these impacts to a less-than- significant level.

Impact: Slope stability. Significant and mitigable impacts could occur to existing structures and roads on Yerba Buena Island from slope failure. Impacts to existing structures and roads would be significant because some of these structures and facilities are on or adjacent to unstable slopes. Slope stability impacts on new development would not be significant because of requirements for new construction.

• Mitigation. Routinely check existing landslides and steep slope areas for slope movements. If slope movement is detected, initiate appropriate repairs as soon as

C:\Documents and Settings\sfojml\My Documents\TI\06TI_1\4-9.docTransfer and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIRJune 2006 4-192

page198image2603253888 page198image2603254160 page198image2603254496
4.9 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity

page199image2602983760
possible. Evaluate specific requirements on a project-by-project basis. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Less-Than-Significant Impacts

Dike failure. Under this alternative, placing stone columns, soil-cement columns, and rock berms around the island perimeter (Treadwell and Rollo 1995) would result in a less-than-significant impact from the perimeter dike (surrounding Treasure Island) potentially failing from lateral spreading or slumping in an earthquake, or from wave action associated with large storms. The rock berm that forms the perimeter dike could be replaced or reinforced with a larger rock berm. The rock berm would buttress the dike and would resist the forces imposed by liquefied soil and fill behind the dike, as well as ground shaking inertia forces. The weight of the proposed rock berm also would consolidate and strengthen the underlying recent Bay deposits, making the rock berm system more stable. To further reduce impacts, the City’s DBI should require peer review of permits for perimeter dike improvements by structural and geotechnical engineers. This would not be a significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Lateral spreading-supported structures and infrastructure. Under this alternative, placing stone columns, soil-cement columns, or rock berms around the island perimeter (Treadwell and Rollo 1995) would result in a less-than-significant impact on properly supported structures and infrastructure from lateral spreading. This is because the proposed perimeter stabilization measures included in this alternative would protect the island from large-scale lateral spreading. Depending on the specifics of implementing the columns and other stabilization measures, residual lateral spreading could be reduced to less than 1 foot. This would not be a significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Erosion potential. Demolition and construction activities would result in increased potential for soil erosion to the Bay. Soil erosion from Treasure Island is not expected to be significant due to the relatively level topography of the island. Construction on Yerba Buena Island could result in substantial erosion due to that site’s steep slopes which, in turn, could affect slope stability; however, these impacts are not considered significant because construction and post-construction erosion-control plans would be required in compliance with the statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities and local San Francisco ordinance. Ferry wakes also could erode the perimeter dike, but it is in good repair and subject to regular wave and wake action daily from local and international shipping. Therefore, it is unlikely that ferry wakes would substantially affect the dike. This would not be a significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Maximum Development Marina Alternative

Significant and Mitigable Impacts

Impact: Seismic shaking. Seismic shaking at Treasure Island would result in a significant and mitigable impact on the safety of workers, and visitors at the marina and would present a hazard to structures. A maximum credible earthquake centered on the northern segment of the Hayward Fault (Mercalli scale intensity IX at NSTI, ABAG 1995a) would cause major damage to the marina structures.

C:\Documents and Settings\sfojml\My Documents\TI\06TI_1\4-9.docTransfer and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIRJune 2006 4-193

page199image2606769952 page199image2606770224 page199image2606770560 page199image2606770832 page199image2606771104 page199image2606771376 page199image2606771712 page199image2606771984 page199image2606772256
4.9 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity

page200image2605923440 page200image2605923648
• Mitigation. Mitigation would be the same as that described for this impact under the Maximum Development Alternative for the Reuse Plan.

Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level.

Impact: Liquefaction and differential settlement. Significant and mitigable impacts on structures and infrastructure would occur from liquefaction and differential settlement in a major earthquake. Treasure Island is designated a SHZ by the CDMG (now known as CGS) because of its high liquefaction potential. During a strong earthquake, liquefaction and differential settlement would be likely throughout Treasure Island. Liquefaction and differential settlement can damage foundations, tilt or buckle structural supports causing catastrophic structural failures, and misalign horizontal features, such as doorways, utility connections, roadways, or other rigid elements. These impacts may affect life safety.

• Mitigation. Mitigation would be the same as that described for this impact under the Maximum Development Alternative for the Reuse Plan.

Implementing the mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level.

Impact: Lateral spreading-unsupported structures and infrastructure. The potential for lateral spreading at the perimeter of Treasure Island would result in a significant and mitigable impact on unsupported structures and infrastructure. The proposed perimeter stabilization measures included in Maximum Development Alternative for the Reuse Plan would protect the island from large-scale lateral spreading. Residual lateral spreading could be reduced to less than 1 foot (0.3 m). However, this level of lateral spreading could cause significant damage to unsupported structures and infrastructure on the perimeter of Treasure Island. This damage could be mitigated by implementing the measure below.

• Mitigation. Mitigation would be the same as those described for this impact under the Maximum Development Alternative for the Reuse Plan.

Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level.

Impact: Settlement. Significant and mitigable impacts would occur from overall settlement due to new construction of the on-site fill sediments or the underlying Bay muds as these materials adjust to new loading from heavy buildings, mat foundations, or other new fills (e.g., as required to eliminate ponding, see Section 4.10.2, Hydrology and Water Quality, ponding impacts from high tides) and drains. Although most of the potential settlement at existing loadings at Treasure Island has already occurred, gradual area-wide settlement could be accelerated and could continue for many more years, resulting in local ponding, increased flooding potential, or water-logging of soils.

C:\Documents and Settings\sfojml\My Documents\TI\06TI_1\4-9.docTransfer and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIRJune 2006 4-194

page200image2606160000 page200image2606160336 page200image2606160608 page200image2606160880 page200image2606161152 page200image2606161488 page200image2606161760 page200image2606162032 page200image2606162304 page200image2606162576 page200image2606162848 page200image2606163120 page200image2606163392 page200image2606163920 page200image2606164128 page200image2606164336 page200image2606164608 page200image2606164880 page200image2606165152 page200image2606165424 page200image2606165696 page200image2606165968 page200image2606166240 page200image2606166512 page200image2606166784 page200image2606167056 page200image2606167328 page200image2606167600 page200image2606167872 page200image2606168592 page200image2606168800 page200image2606169008 page200image2606169216 page200image2606169488 page200image2606169760 page200image2606170032 page200image2606170304 page200image2606170576 page200image2606170848 page200image2606171120 page200image2606171392
4.9 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity

page201image2603718928 page201image2603719136
• Mitigation. Mitigation would be the same as those described for this impact under the Maximum Development Alternative for the Reuse Plan.

Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level.

Less-Than-Significant Impacts

Dike failure. Under this alternative, with the implementation of the Reuse Plan’s Maximum Development Alternative, seismic stabilization improvements would be implemented along the perimeter of Treasure Island, including the perimeter in the Clipper Cove area. Placing stone columns, soil-cement columns, and rock berms around the island perimeter (Treadwell and Rollo 1995) would result in a less-than- significant impact from the perimeter dike (surrounding Treasure Island) potentially failing from lateral spreading or slumping in an earthquake, or from wave action associated with large storms. This would not be a significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Lateral spreading-supported structures and infrastructure. Under this alternative, placing stone columns, soil-cement columns, or rock berms around the island perimeter (Treadwell and Rollo 1995) would result in a less-than-significant impact on properly supported structures and infrastructure from lateral spreading, as described for the Maximum Development Alternative for the Reuse Plan. This would not be a significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Erosion potential. Demolition and construction activities would result in increased potential for soil erosion to the Bay. Soil erosion from Treasure Island is not expected to be significant due to the relatively level topography of the island. Boat wakes also could erode the perimeter dike, but it is in good repair and subject to regular wave and wake action daily from existing marina activity. Therefore, it is unlikely that boat wakes would substantially affect the dike. This would not be a significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

4.9.3 Medium Development Alternative

This alternative would result in different geology-related impacts than the Maximum Development Alternative. The Medium Development Reuse Alternative includes creating a golf course instead of housing on the northwest portion of Treasure Island, eliminating the proposed perimeter stabilization of that portion of the island, and building fewer residential units on Yerba Buena Island. Less residential development would reduce the magnitude of the geologic impacts described for the Maximum Development Alternative because a smaller permanent population would be exposed to seismic hazards. Greater impacts to unprotected recreational land uses would be created in the golf course area due to the lack of perimeter stabilization in that area.

Significant and Mitigable Impacts

Impact: Seismic shaking. Significant and mitigable impacts from seismic shaking would occur under this alternative. These hazards would be similar to those described for the

C:\Documents and Settings\sfojml\My Documents\TI\06TI_1\4-9.docTransfer and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIRJune 2006 4-195

page201image2603964496 page201image2603964832 page201image2603965104 page201image2603965376 page201image2603965648 page201image2603965984 page201image2603966256 page201image2603966528 page201image2603966800 page201image2603967072 page201image2603967344 page201image2603967616 page201image2603967888 page201image2603968416 page201image2603968624 page201image2603968832 page201image2603969104 page201image2603969376 page201image2603969648 page201image2603969920 page201image2603970192 page201image2603970464 page201image2603970736 page201image2603971008 page201image2603971280 page201image2603971552 page201image2603971824 page201image2603972096
4.9 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity

page202image2605908976
Maximum Reuse Alternative. However, the proposed golf course, the reduced-size themed attraction on Treasure Island, and fewer residential uses on Yerba Buena Island would reduce the population and number of structures at risk, compared with the Maximum Reuse Alternative. This alternative still would subject approximately 2,820 employees, approximately 710 residents, and approximately 5,480 themed attraction visitors to seismic shaking hazards, including buildings collapsing, objects toppling, and losing access to the facilities.

• Mitigation. Mitigation measures for seismic shaking would be the same as those described for the Maximum Development Alternative. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Impact: Liquefaction and differential settlement. Significant and mitigable liquefaction and differential settlement hazards to structures and infrastructure would occur under this alternative. Fewer structures and people would be exposed to liquefaction and differential settlement under this alternative than under the Maximum Development Alternative, but its effects on the developed portion of Treasure Island would be similar to those of the Maximum Development Alternative. Liquefaction and differential settlement on the western portion of Treasure Island where the golf course is proposed could be greater than for the Maximum Development Alternative because no seismic stabilization is proposed along this portion of the perimeter dike. However, liquefaction and settlement in this area would not affect structures and no mitigation would be necessary on this portion of the island.

• Mitigation. Mitigation measures for liquefaction and differential settlement would apply to the developed portions of the site and would be the same as those described for the Maximum Development Alternative. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Impact: Lateral spreading-unsupported structures and infrastructure. Significant and mitigable impacts from lateral spreading would occur under this alternative. Substantial lateral spreading would be likely on the northwest portion of Treasure Island in a major earthquake because this alternative does not include any perimeter stabilization in the golf course area. Although this sort of failure would not be likely to present a hazard to occupants of the island, it would result in a localized loss of recreational land near the point of a dike failure and within 500 feet or more inland. If not promptly repaired, such a failure would reduce the buffer area provided by the golf course and possibly subject any unsupported structures and infrastructure inland of the failure to the secondary effects of future seismically-induced lateral spreading.

• Mitigation. As part of subsequent permit review for upgrades or reuse of existing infrastructure and buildings, consider the design of stabilization measures proposed for the perimeter of Treasure Island and ensure that the project’s geotechnical investigation addresses the potential for residual lateral spreading. Promptly repair any lateral spreading damage to the site perimeter. Implement a feasible reduced level of perimeter stabilization (compared to the Maximum Development

C:\Documents and Settings\sfojml\My Documents\TI\06TI_1\4-9.docTransfer and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIRJune 2006 4-196

page202image2606540480 page202image2606540752 page202image2606541088
4.9 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity

page203image2606903776
Alternative); for example, reduce the density of columns for the northwest corner of Treasure Island. These mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level.

• Mitigation. As part of the geotechnical investigation required by the mitigation above (under seismic shaking), thoroughly evaluate the strength characteristics of the Bay Mud to verify the parameters used for previous studies, and reevaluate dike stability in light of new information for Bay Mud strengths. The investigation should also include evaluation of other treatment options that can use the Deep Mixing Method to treat the dikes to mitigate liquefaction as well as deep-seated slope instability.

Impact: Settlement. Significant and mitigable impacts to structures and infrastructure from settlement-induced damage would occur under this alternative. Hazards to structures and infrastructure would be similar to those described for the Maximum Development Alternative. Mitigation would not be necessary for the golf course area.

• Mitigation. Mitigation measures to reduce soil settlement impacts would be the same as those described for the Maximum Development Alternative. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Impact: Slope stability. Significant and mitigable impacts would occur to existing structures and roads on Yerba Buena Island from damage by slope failure under this alternative.

• Mitigation. Mitigation measures for slope stability would be the same as those described for the Maximum Development Alternative. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Impact: Dike failure. Significant and mitigable impacts would result from dike failure under this alternative. The portion of the perimeter dike that would not be improved under this alternative would be likely to fail in a major earthquake. As described above, such failure could expose developed portions of the island interior to effects of subsequent hazards if the dike is not promptly repaired after failure.

• Mitigation. Mitigation measures would be the same as those described for lateral spreading impacts under this alternative, to mitigate impacts associated with the failure of unimproved portions of the dike. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Less-Than-Significant Impact

Lateral spreading-supported structures and infrastructure. Placing stone columns, soil-cement columns, or rock berms around three-fourths of the Treasure Island perimeter would result in a less-than-significant impact on properly supported structures and infrastructure from lateral spreading, as described for the Maximum Development Alternative.

C:\Documents and Settings\sfojml\My Documents\TI\06TI_1\4-9.docTransfer and Reuse of Naval Station Treasure Island Final EIRJune 2006 4-197