Constituted Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the committee and will be acted on by a single vote of the committee. There will be no separate vote unless the member of the Committee Suggests and it will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered as a separate item. Item 3a, approving the minutes of the meeting. I move for the approval. I second the motion. Item no. 4, Environmental Program support. Thank you, chair richardson, director and president tsen. This item will go to the board as an action item. I wanted to have a conversation here before taking it there because we kind of have two different paths Going Forward ahead of us. We have a contract with lang Engineering Environmental to provide Environmental Conservation services to tida to monitor the navys Environmental Program, and we brought them on in 2013. This is a Selection Process that actually had been contacted before i arrived to tida. They replaced amec engineering and infrastructure. The contract was original term of three years with two oneyear optional extensions. A contract is scheduled to expire at the end of this fiscal year. I wanted to bring it to the board to discuss whether to issue a new rfq for the remainder of the navys environmental work or to modify the existing contract through the projected remaining four years of the work. Bringing in now for discussion and board action because if were going to issue a new rfq, we need to do so propermptly. So they do attempt the navys base closure meetings. We attend the monthly meetings between the navy and the state regulators. Its also attended typically on the phone by sfpuc and other city agencies that do work on the island. They review and comment and advise tida on the navys proposed work plans and other documents for the Environmental Program. Theyve also been invaluable in 20 2014. 2015, we had a lot of meetings to discuss the navys Environmental Program. They assisted in both planning for those meetings and presenting materials, as well as in working with city agencies, particularly sfpuc to help establish standard work practices on the island where the navy has either not completed their environmental work or where they have completed their work but they are land use controls. The land use controls we have on the island are primarily related to hydrocarbons in ground water where theyve been remediated to such an extent that theres no longer a risk to offgassing or other associated concerns, but they havent been able to get 100 of the material out of the soil. And those are really standard ppe, personal protective equipment, criteria that are required in some of those circumstances. The environmental consultant has also been preparing a Site Management plan for tida, which is basically our Program Maintenance for doing annual and fiveyear reviews of ground water and other environmental conditions. Those are eventually requirements which may sunset as long as we can send you to see that theres no rebound in ground water samples or soilgas monitoring. Also, there are physical repairs like the repair of the former skeet shooting area in clipper cove where they armored the bottom of the cove, and that has to be resurveyed every five or ten years along with a survey of the bottom of the cove. They also assist us in preparing reports and supplemental technical information. In terms of the overall status of the program, we had our presentation last novembers Board Meeting by the name of clark from the navy, but kind of the guiding document thats updated annually by the navy is their Site Management plan and the 2017 version of the Site Management plan anticipates the closure of the last site, site 12, in 2021. So weve got about four more years of work to do through the final transfer. This map shows the open sites that the navy has. However, the majority of the work or the work has been completed on the majority of these sites. So the first group of sites, 30, 31, 30 north, 30 south, the has been issued and the foist has been issued and there should be a final fost issued within a week or two. Also, the developer, tidc has been preparing for this so we can move forward early next month. In site 24, this was a former dry cleaning facility. The navy has completed their field work, which is a biological process of the chemicals and soil gas and ground water results from the completion of that biological process, which we anticipate will happen before the end of this year. We should be able to transfer site 24 early next year. And then site 6 and 32 are areas where the navy has completed their work, but they anticipate or have requested to continue to hold that property until they have completed their work in site 12 because its both a logistical laydown area and a means of removing soil from site 12 without driving through the residential area. So theyve requested to delay those transfers until the end of 2020 when the bulk of field work in site 12 should be complete. And site 2 is just waste water transportation plant. That site doesnt have any ongoing work, but the schedule of that is tied to our schedule for developing new waste water plant rather than the navys remediation efforts. So, again, in site 6 and 32, well need to do a finding of suitability to transfer prior to those properties transferring, but not a lot of Technical Work going on. Its really within site 12 where the bulk of the navys efforts will continue to be for the next several years. And an area where retaining the experience, knowledge could be quite beneficial to us. So in site 12, there are both circla, which are the chemical cleanup projects that are ongoing, as well as radiological investigation, which covers the entirety of site 12. On this flowchart from the Site Management plan, it came out a little fuzzy, but the areas in green are the scopes of work that the navy has completed on the righthand side underneath the yellow header is the continuation of their chemical cleanup. And then on the lefthand side is their cleanup of radiologically impacted areas, particularly the swedas, the solid Waste Disposal areas. And then in the center of the page is the radiological work plan. So weve discussed that the bulk of the radiological materials in site 12 were believed to have been disposed of in the solid Waste Disposal areas and then through the process of grading prior to the consideration of the housing, few items were moved into other areas. So this process in the middle is the process the navy will have to go through to develop a work plan record of decision to gain state concurrents that they have satisfactorily explored outside the solid Waste Disposal areas. In terms of the navys schedule as embodied in the Site Management plan, the continued chemical cleanup outside of the swda areas is going to mobilize this year, in the spring, and run for 14 months to complete into the spring of 2016. The Feasibility Study for the areas outside of the swdas is expected to be issued before the end of this year with the goal of achieving a record of decision in 2019. That will entail a lot of back and forth with particularly the California Department of Public Health which has oversight of the navys radiological programs. That record of decision will determine the nature and extent of the additional radiological field work that is required to close out site 12. And then the final solid Waste Disposal area, the bulk of expense that the navy will have as well as physical excavation is the solid Waste Disposal at west side, which is on the righthand side of the photograph of site 12 there. That work is anticipated to remobilize at the end of this calendar year and continue into 2020. So the recommendation that i propose to take to the board next month would be to extend the lang contracts through 2022 rather than issuing a new rfp. And that continuity will be important in updating and maintaining our Site Management plan as additional remediation sites are closed and transferred to us. But, also, in reviewing and commenting on the navys circla documents and site plan for site 12 work plan for site 12, theres been a lot of work with the department of Public Health over the last four years and the navy, and lang has been at the table for the parties with those communications. As we work forward to ensure that our interests in making sure that site 12 is cleaned up, i think its important for us to reta retain langan until that period, but i welcome conversation. Thank you very much for that assessment. Questions and comments by commissioners . I would certainly agree with your recommendation. I think that the overview of what weve done with the Environmental Program shows how much progress has been done in these past few years, and well, finally, after all these years, come to the final phase of remediation for Treasure Island. Its so important, i think, for there to be continuity, particularly because its a very complicated program, and its a very critical point as we come to these final remediation and the transfer of those properties so i would agree with your recommendation. I think our top priority is about Public Health and public safety. And there cannot be any drop with that oversight. So i would certainly concur with your recommendation. I would like to add some comment. You know, i think there are merits to extending the contract. Given all the arguments you laid out, familiarity of these sites in question and the historical knowledge is definitely something that we need to take into consideration. So the question that i have is that by retaining this contract, are we gaining time to expedite the transfer . Im looking at your date here, that site 12, in particular, youre looking at 2019. So that will boost that calendar. This wont necessary cause the navys schedule to be accelerated, but i think as we work with the navy and the department of Public Health on the work plan for site 12 for city is so secure free release for the area in site 12. We have agreements with the navy to guard against or to protect our interests in the event that the navy either is unable to or elects not to pursue the work sufficient to secure a free release from California Department of Public Health. And under the edcoma, were not required to take any land from the navy that does not have free release. So essentially, failure to achieve that would be a reopener of the conveyance agreement with the navy. Secondarily, the edcoma contains provisions that if theyre not able to accrue free release of site 12 since a portion of the residential area is intended to be constructed in a portion of site 12, that we could actually reconfigure the program to relocate housing that would otherwise have been located within site 12 to the area on the east side of the island thats currently proposed to be sports fields. That would trigger there would be some additional supplemental environmental work. Under the edcoma, is navy would be required to compensate tida for those costs. However, that would be a Significant Impact to the city. So what our interests are, are ensuring the navy take the measures that are sufficient to gain free release from the state and to clean up site 12. So i think thats not so much that were looking to accelerate the schedule, but were intending to ensure that we achieve certain outcomes, and the failure to achieve those outcomes would have a significant delay on the Development Side of things. So its really about ensuring that the navy adheres to the schedule that theyve set forward and achieves the outcomes theyve committed to in the edcoma. So i presume you will calendar this before the general board for the discussion and approval in the next couple of weeks . Yeah. I plan to have this on the february agenda. Okay. Are there any Public Comment . Seeing none. Thank you. Item no. 5, the pageant of the pacific murals. Theres been a lot of discussion about the murals. In Public Comment, theyre certainly well known and well regarded. Peter somerdale on our staff managers our consultant contract for the storage and preservation of the murals as well as being a liaison with entities that have requested to borrow the murals in the past. So he has a great deal of history on the murals, and i thought it would be good to present it here, not only for the members of the committee but now that were being recorded, this will be a resource that people can access online to see this discussion of the murals. So with that, i will turn it over to peter somerville. Give me one second here. All right. Sorry about that. For the record, peter somerville, here to provide you with an overview, like bob said, of the history of the cover murals. To be quick, about a artist himself. He was a noted mexican painter. Illustrator of the mid to 20th century. Enjoyed early success in america doing car rickures in the new yorker. He continued through the 20s, 30s, 40s, and up to his death in the 60s. He played an Important Role in the establishment of the Mexican National dance program. So you will see a lot of his various interests reflected in the murals themselves. The murals themselves, he expected a commission to create a set of maps of the Pacific Region that would be displayed. Each of the murals is actually an assembly of specific panels. There were six overall, four of which are 12 panels each, 16 feet by 24 feet, and two of which are four panels each, 9 feet by 14 feet. I thought this was an interesting quote from the ggie at the time of his letter, soliciting covarrubias that gives you an idea of why he was of such interest to this project. The next few slides show images of the murals themselves. The murals hung at Pacific House until the fair closed in 1940, at which point they were loaned to the museum of Natural History in new york where they remained viewable until 1953 at which time they were placed into storage. They attempted to gift them to the museum, but the museum could not promise they would be displayed permanently in the museum. So at such point, they were returned to San Francisco in the late 1950s. The board accepted five of the murals and installed them in public display. You will note that six murals went and five came back. There is the sixth mural, art forms of the pacific, 12 panels, 16 feet by 24 feet that was not in the set when the murals were returned from new york to San Francisco. So only five of the murals were received and installed, and only five, thus, are with tida today. Theres Research Done by interested citizens into this potential whereabouts of the missing mural. It is still kind of a mystery that continues today, but at this point, unfortunately, it is somewhat of a cold trail. We hold out hope that Stranger Things have happened and we will reunite this mural with the set. Its important to note that he created six and the collection owned by tida is only five murals. 2001, the ferry buildings renovation removed the space where the murals to be installed. They were of overwhelming size jurisdiction was transferred to tida by way of transfer agreement by the board of directors in 2001. This was agreeable to both sides. They agreed their redisplay to the public entity. The port was unable to find a location either at the port authority. The tida support staff decided to take possession. They were transferred to storage on Treasure Island in late 2001. The San FranciscoFine Arts Museum approached tida with a proposal to loan the murals to the Mexican Government. They promised to provide registration store station restoration. Cost for the conservation and restoration were paid by both a grant from the charles d. And Francis Field fund to the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco as well as funding by the Mexican Government itself as well as the Technical Expertise for the restoration. This Loan Agreement between tida and the government of mexico was approved by the tida board on may 11th, 2005. At that time, the murals were transported to mexico. Their conservation and restoration work was performed in mexico. Supervision provided by tida. Conservation and restoration work included removal of the smoke and grime and fingerprints and other human damage as well as touchup work to the coloring and paint to certain panels. Restoration work performed in mexico was performed by mexican technicians. This was a major source of pride for mexico at the time, considering his standing. After the restoration, this took place between 2006 and 2008, including displays in mexico city, pubela and finally at the 2007 event hosted by mexi