Toxic Acres

It warned that such a quake could cause "substantially more severe shaking" on the island; that "liquefaction [could be] expected to be widespread," and that lateral spreading accompanied by liquefaction poses "a significant risk of widespread distress to the perimeter areas of the island during future large earthquakes."

The document concluded that "unless remedial measures to the dikes are implemented," lateral spreading during a magnitude 8 quake on the San Andreas fault could extend "several hundred feet into the island and thus encompass large portions of the island's interior." In that scenario, the report said, buildings such as those that constitute much of the housing stock in Area 12 could be "severely damaged."

The lease provided to tenants by the John Stewart Co. is straightforward in disclosing the seismic issue. It quotes from a geotechnical report prepared for the city in 1995 that concluded that the island's soil is of "poor quality and [is] subject to liquefaction and soil displacement (spreading)" similar to that of the Marina District. "That same report established that the areas located within 500 feet of the perimeter island seawall (dike) will be subject to the greatest soil displacement and spreading, and would consequently be subject to the most serious damage in the event of major earthquake," the lease states.

City officials, meanwhile, have long insisted that the island's current residents do not face unacceptable seismic risks. "All of us in San Francisco live with the risk of earthquakes," says Michael Cohen, who heads the mayor's Office of Base Reuse and Development. Cohen says that consulting engineers took seismic issues into account before certifying that the former base housing meets federal standards for "life safety" before the units were opened as rentals in 1999.

The firm responsible for the certification was Toft, de Nevers & Lee, engineers for the John Stewart Co. But a 1999 letter from C. Vincent de Nevers, one of the firm's partners, didn't sound like a ringing endorsement. "It continues to be my opinion that a significant seismic event could produce extensive structural and therefore economic damage [in the housing area] without resulting in material life safety impairment," de Nevers wrote. "Only in the unlikely event of a very major ground shift ... do I foresee the possibility of injury to occupants."

His assertion that the possibility of such a ground shift was "so remote that it constitutes an acceptable risk" even prompted a friendly corrective from Michael Cohen, in his then-capacity as a deputy city attorney. "I want to clarify that at no point in time has the city and county of San Francisco or the Treasure Island Development Authority (or anyone else that I am aware of) agreed that the possibility of a major seismic movement ... is so remote that it constitutes an acceptable risk," Cohen wrote. "To the contrary," he added, the city was relying on de Nevers' "written certifications" that the housing units met Federal Emergency Management Agency guidelines for "life safety."

No major seismic reinforcement around the perimeter dike has occurred in the 16 years since the Navy's consultants first raised the issue after the Loma Prieta quake. And none is anticipated until after construction of the hoped-for Treasure Island redevelopment project gets started, which, under the most optimistic scenario, may be at least three years away.

Meanwhile, Treasure Island watchdog Eugene Brodsky insists that based on seismic issues alone, no one should currently occupy the island rental housing.

Brodsky is critical of preliminary financial plans that suggest annual income from the rentals — currently estimated at about $10 million — may be used to offset the cost of the development envisioned by the Anderson/Burkle/Lennar team. Specifics of those plans aren't expected to be known until a so-called "term sheet" is unveiled, perhaps this summer. But the latest iteration of the plan, released earlier this year, envisioning the rental housing to remain for up to a decade after construction starts, would make the Area 12 neighborhood the last remnant of the "old" Treasure Island to be razed.

"To me there's a great deal of evidence to suggest that residents there are at considerable [seismic] risk," says Brodsky. "The question is why should that be?"

His answer: "The revenue from the rentals is a cash cow to help pay for the development. Knowing what we know about the north end of the island, that's something that should be reconsidered."

---

Meanwhile, such concerns seem distant to many of the island's inhabitants, whether so-called "market-raters" enamored of the cheap rents and island living, or the formerly homeless people served by TIHDI, many of whom are appreciative to have a place to live.

"People living out here have traditionally felt like the city's stepchildren," says Alice Pilram, who with her husband moved to adjacent Yerba Buena Island three years ago after their daughters went off to college. "It isn't that the environmental issues aren't real, but there's enough on people's agendas already so that those things are sort of put on the back burner."

Melanie Williams, the formerly homeless mother and seven-year Area 12 veteran, agrees.

"I know there's environmental stuff to worry about," she says. "But the way I look at it, if it was good enough for the Navy people, it's probably good enough for us."