tv Government Access Programming SFGTV September 11, 2019 4:00am-5:01am PDT
millirad. you would have to sit on that spot almost 35 hours just to receive the same radiation as a flight. we thought that would help folks put the radiation levels in context. the source was removed by the navy contractor, and then, we surveyed the soil after it was removed and no residual contamination was found. this is the spectrum that i was talking about before. the one on the right is a picture of mother nature. you can see a little peak at the bottom. these are all radio active materials, and this is what matter nature looked like. before the source was removed, we used our falcon 5000, and you can see that peak on the
left. it goes straight up. that's raidium 226. the detector sees that fingerprint and plots it on the spectrum. so the spectrum on the right is after we removed the source, and that's back to mother nature. the low energy peak, so after we had completed parcel a-1 survey, late october, early november, my staff went back to the office and started combing overall the data. and one of the staff members discovered a plot, one of those spectrums where something looked a little funny. we weren't sure what it was, so we labelled it a low energy peak. the data around that peak, that
spot, was -- the radiation reading was about .008 and the background, .007, so we were lucky to find that spot. that reading was about ten times lower before we found the deck marker. so once we discovered this energy peak, staff went out to that spot and tried to replicate that spectrum. we could not do it. we could not get that funny looking spectrum. we decided it was raining, and wet soil can atenuate, to some degree, the readings. we decided to let it dry out and try to replicate the spot. so this is a demonstration, a
spectrum. the bottom spectrum, if you can see on the far left side, you see kind of a little peak. if you go straight up to the top spectrum, there's not supposed to be that little mountain, that little hill that's formed. the one on the top, mother nature, the one on the left has that little peak. it's right around the 60 ele electron volt. that's what we were trying to replicate. we did return to the low energy peak location between may 28 and may 30. we actually had six people and go back out -- you think, well, this is only one little spot. well, we wanted to do more than that. this is a visual -- you can see the blue area on the visual. that's how much we went back and rescanned to try to
replicate the unusual anomaly. let me see if i can go back. so, the conclusions from a-1, what is it that we reviewed and what the results were. the site history, as you know, the hilltop, was redeveloped. it had changed from its previous conditions. lots of soil was excavated. new infrastructure, streets, sidewalks, now landscaping was
involved, so the top of the hill was kind of cutoff. we also know that some of that soil or a lot of that soil was push today the boundary and -- pushed to the boundary and created the steep slopes. we did survey the slopes and some of which were inaccessible to us. we did not find any other r rao -- radio active material other than what we described. we concluded there's no health and safety risk to the residents of parcel a-1.
the green area is where we did a walkover survey, and the blue area is where we did the towed array. we divided up the site into 66 major survey units. same situation as parcel a-1 where the surface could be granite, soil. we used the same sodium iodide detectors, and we conducted a little over 2500 static counts. so we did the walkover the areas that we could, teams of two, of course, and did the static count.
the same rate meter, the same r-1 meter was used, and the same detector, the follalcon 5 and the investigator 1000 investigated any anomaly. same array detectors were use , as the same for parcel a-2. here are the anomalies that were discovered. there was 102 anomalies discovered on parcel a-2. and for the walkover survey, there were 11 anomalies
discovered. another example. we did 26 supplemental shots just to be conservative. all anomalies and supplemental shots were naturally occurring. so conclusions. parcel a-2 has a little bit more of a unique situation to it in that the concerns of parcel a-2 during that redevelopment, some of that soil -- actually much of that soil was loaded up into trucks, transferred over to parcel a-2, and spread out, so there was a lot of parsing going on of a-1 soil. was there commodities? had there been commodities, they would have come to the surface because of the vast mixing and separating out.
no man made materials were found at the site, no discreet or loose gamma materials. part of the concerns of the residents was that the navy operations back in the 40's and the 50s, as we all know, they did surface testing in the pacifi pacific atolls, and ships were contaminated with fission products. you have characterizations of fission products. the predominant fission products that have the longer life are cesium, strontium, and
plutonium. cesium 137 is the poster child of fission products. if you don't find cesium, you likely don't have products in the area. therefore, we concluded there's no health and safety impact on parcel a-2. dust wipe procedure. some of the residents were concerned about dust in their homes, and we were happy to accommodate their concerns. we put a team together to take dust sampling in homes and artists' studios. we put together a procedure and got help from the usepa.
it was a response to the residents, and this would detect cesium and strontium in dust. we put together a schedule and went out to each home. we explained to the resident or the artist what we were doing and what we were -- and how we were doing it. this is a visual of the sample counter that we used to look for alpha and beta contamination. it's a very sensitive detection system, and it reads out in the units that make it simple for us to analyze.
we did daily q.a. checks, and each sample was counted for ten minutes. the samples were generally taken from windowsills, but some folks wanted their cabinets or hvac systems being wiped instead of windowsills. we had chain of custody forms so we were sure that that wipe went to that resident. this next slide is a little techie, so i won't get into the weeds. we wanted to be as conservative as possible to judge these wipes. the e.p.a. has oversight when they release a sight for general public use, they have a risk range for cancer, and it's
10 -4 to 10 -6. when we counted the wipe, it's a simple conversion where you count the units, and we ended up getting the same units that our detector counted out. if you were to take the e.p.a. conservative value of 1 in a million and convert it to d.p.m., for alpha contamination, for plutonium, it would have to be 40 d.p.m. for there to be contamination
in the home. for strontium, you had to have 5,280 d.p.m. in the home before you hit the -6 conservative risk range. we did a total of 229 desk wipes. not one dust wipe approached the 40 or the 5,208 d.p.m. values. therefore, we determined that there was no health and safety risk to any of the homes or artist studios. we did mail out individual results in june to all residents and the artist community, and no one had any findings of health and safety
the c.a.c.s was housed on parcel a-1. in the officer's housing, one house was set aside for staff to be housed. when that was determined that we were actually going to build on parcel 5-1, we were moved to a trailer. parcel a-1, it was our understanding that it was never contaminate contaminated. it was the housing for the officer's quarters, and i was privileged going into every one of those houses. so i feel safe when they finish retesting to satisfy the homeowners, you're going to find that it's a safe place.
we've gone over this over and over and over again, and being an old voice clubber, we have to understand what is naturally in the soil, and that's what you're going to find. we know that there's serpentine. serpentine will show up as asbestos, and that's harmful, but that's not the navy or anybody else's fault. that's god's doing. so i think you're going to find that parcel a-1 is safe. >> thank you, miss vinson. are there any other speaker cards? >> oscar james. >> mr. james?
>> i served on the mayor's task force when the shipyard first closed, and i told the supervisors about the contamination in hunters point shipyard and nobody believed me. now parcel a-1 and a-2, like miss vinson said, the officer's housing was up there. now parcel a-2, i was born on parcel a-2. that was old navy road, which behind the laundromat which was up there when you make that turn, i was born back there, and all those houses were built with asbestos, but same as the ones in the hunters point
shipyard which is now in shawn village, in the early 50's, were built with asbestos. all of those were built with asbestos. when they tore them down in maybe '53 or '54 and put the new houses up there, they put a fence between the black community and the navy. that's when that fence came up there, but before that came, they could call go and play. but at that time, the girls could play, and some of those pillars would crack and what have you, and they would take that asbestos and do the hopscotch. this is something that i know. if you know anything about california, our state rock is a
clementine rock -- i can't pronounce that. if you go up highway 101, turn up vermont, going to potrero hill, you see that rock. you go up on court land, up on diablo, you'll see that rock up there. if you go to folsom, going up to red hawk, you'll see that rock up there. so this -- the contaminants, to me, have always have been in e and e-2. and also, if you get down further, parcel g, because my father worked out there, and he did a lot of that toxic -- where they buried the toxic right behind the lab. so those are the contaminants.
but up on the top of that hill, there's no contaminants. my first check, when i worked at my first job in the hunters point shipyard, we cashed at that bank in the hunters point shipyard. we know where the contaminants are. listen to the community to find out where the contaminants are, not the newcomers. >> thank you, mr. james. >> thank you very much. >> linda parker-pennington. >> thank you, and good afternoon, commissioners. and i first want to just say thank you to commissioner bracket and commissioner ransom-scott for your comments. i really appreciated your listening and your understanding. so i know what i say will not
be popular, but it must be said. the trust of the shipyards -- homeowner's of the shipyards with the navy is not the best. there's been a lack of transparency and there's been stalling tactics. and specifically, derek robinson mentioned the dust samples that were taken. the homeowners asked for that no fewer than four times, and it took nine months for them to do the study, and then, when they finally did the study -- and when we got the results back a few weeks ago -- we asked for the results in may of last year. we got the -- we asked for the tests in may of last year. we got the results just a few weeks ago. we saw no aggregate results, so
we can't see the data. that's one thing. the second thing is that -- and this will really not make me popular, but the representation that we have by the citizens advisory council is really weak, and it often appears that they care more for protecting the navy's interest or the interest in this project from historical times than they do about getting the truth out and public health addressed, and so specifically, the homeowners asked for two independent experts to be brought before the citizens advisory council, and that was dr. sunchai and dr. dan hurst, and it took them months to put it on the agenda after we asked. and then, they did things to discredit them during the meeting, but i won't get into that. the study that was commissioned from u.c. berkeley and ucsf is
kind of a farce because the people sitting on it favor the navy. they need someone like dr. reza farazzi. i have specific recommendations that i want to get on the record? first, fire aimee brownell. she appears to be working for leonard and making sure that people want to move to the shipyard. pay for people to be tested for exposure for these toxins. there's a kit that's available for less than $100. do that for all of them, and post the results, and then fix that survey so it's finally
objective and fair. >> no other speakers. >> steve feltzer. >> steve feltzer, san franciscans for action. there was $1 billion spent, and there were two people put in prison that were put in prison because of what went on at tetratech, as well as michael madry who was falsefying tests. and his osha inspector, darryl whitman was bullied and fired for complaining about the test. all of this was happening when we had kamala harris district attorney and state attorney general. why was there no criminal action to fire the whistle
blowers? the reason is this is a corrupt organization. why would there be a plan to build condos on a polluted site like hunters point shipyard? we have some serious issues, systemic corruption. there needs to be an independent investigation of the corruption in san francisco with regards to hunters point and treasure island. aimee brownell is paid under the developer, under london breed, our mayor. why is someone who works for the department of public being paid for by the developer saying they don't have anything to worry about, by lennar?
the people that suffer in the neighborhood from cancer. there's been no independent testing of that? why hasn't the city done independent testing? why hasn't the navy? you know why? they're not interested in it because they're part of the corruption and development process that he ago going on. that is really what's behind this. the profiteering and development and politicians who were paid off by the developers to make this project go forward on a radio active dump, it's insane, it's criminal, and the people behind it should be prosecuted and investigated, and they will be. and those people and this board who approve this and cover it up are going to be held personally responsible, as well, because you have this
information. even the san francisco chronicle reported that aimee brownell had been selling homes when she was working for the department of public health in san francisco. >> thank you, mr. seltzer. is there any other public comment? seeing none, i will close public comment and turn to my fellow commissioners for any questions. anybody have any questions? >> i do. i have to collect my thoughts. >> yes, commissioners. >> as she collects her thoughts, dr. scott, any questions? >> the conflict of interest as the last statement concerns me, and i don't know about it, but that's a question. is there any truth to that?
aimee brownell, if she's selling homes and working on a project concerning the same area, that concerns me. >> okay. any other questions? we're not taking action on this question. >> yes -- >> dr. scott? >> the other thing, question, is there a problem for another source to come in with independent testing? i'm asking as a question, can that happen? this is what the community is asking for, and it came up in the meeting. it keeps coming up in the meeting. is that a hard thing for us to
do? >> madam director? >> early in the spring of this year, the mayor, supervisor walton, and city attorney dennis herrera called for an independent study with ucsf and u.c. berkeley, and there was a community meeting, so that was ongoing. it was currently happening, and it is independent. >> it would be out of our purview but in the hands of that particular group. >> yeah. >> yeah, and so i'm aware of the u.c. berkeley, and there were some issues that came up regarding u.c. berkeley being a part of that, and there was the question, could not stanford or another agency, organization or university come in and help with that and give their results along with the others?
would it have to just be the one chosen? >> okay. that's a question that we could forward -- that you would have to that particular body that is working on that. i don't have that answer, but we can definitely forward that question. >> i have a couple of questions for city ph. and so some of these questions are coming from the comments that were happening during the last community meeting that took place between ucsf, u.c. berkeley and kind of questions, so these are some questions that came from the community directly, so i just wanted to ask those just so there can be some clarity around those issues? one of the questions that was posed by dan hirsch as well as some of the other community members were the questions around chemical elements and
isotopes that may be beyond the chemical table that may not be able to be picked up on your current methodological process. >> so the investigation we did was a scanning and walkover survey of the site that could only find gamma radio producing n nucleotides. there are elements on the periodic table that are associated with the nucleotides that if they were thrown in on the gamma survey, would not detect it. that would require laboratory
>> so if you could read that item. >> the next order of business is agenda item 5-e, workshop on the annual certificate of preference and marketing outreach report from the mayor's office of housing and community development, discussion. madam director? >> thank you, madam secretary, through the chair. this item is your routine annual report. i know you're excited to hear on this item. maria benjamin is going to be presenting from mayor's office of housing and community development, but i believe pam, you're going to lead the discussion, right -- oh, you're going to introduce. so come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm pam sims. i'm just out of order here today, and i'm with maria benjamin to talk about the
annual certificate of preference report for fiscal year '17-'18. and just to set the stage a little bit, as you know, california redevelopment law required the redevelopment agency, and now ocii, to offer various forms of compensation and assistance to persons who were displaced by redevelopment projects. the assistance we are here today to discuss are a preference for low and moderate-income houses for sale or rental by the redevelopment agency. and now i'd like to introduce maria benjamin who is the director for the mayor's office of housing and community development b.m.r. program. and after the presentation, we're happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm happy to be here. actually -- or no, i can do it myself. maria benjamin, mayor's office
of housing and community development. we -- we -- we're -- i'm so happy to be here for several reasons. this is my baby program. i love this program. the certificate of preference program was one of the reasons i came to work in san francisco, one of the reasons that i -- one of the things that keeps me going with this very difficult work in this very difficult market in this very difficult housing situation that we're finding ourselves in with people all over the city. so the successes that we're having in the program are -- are meaningful to me, personally, and i just wanted to express that to you all this afternoon. i actually wanted to use your -- [inaudible] >> can you speak into the mic?
>> thank you. my mother always told me i had a big, loud voice, but not when i move away from the mic, apparently. so i want to give you a little background on the certificate of preference program that we are now maintaining and adding to. the certificate of preference program was created to -- for people that were displaced in the 1960s and '70s because of former redevelopment action. and state and city laws require that these households get preference in all affordable housing opportunities here in san francisco. the certificate of preference households still have to
qualify for the units, so folks, get at the top of the lottery lists, they get every unit that is offered in the lottery, but they have to qualify for those units. we are currently in touch with 925 different certificate of preference households, which is a lot of households everything though there were thousands of households that were originally displaced. so the way that we do our marketing and outreach for ocii projects, they're -- the redevelopment plan is the place that says -- that is the
initial detail of occupancy preferences within -- for each one of these projects, and the development loan agreement that is initiated with the developers, they outline the marketing requirements that are -- that the -- include those preferences. and then, from there, we have different marketing plans -- different requirements that are outlined in three different places. there's an early outreach plan that developers have to do work with a nonprofit community-based organization to do targeted outreach to certificate of preference holders early before the -- before anything -- before -- as they begin construction so that folks have a chance to get ready, and folks have a chance to know what's coming so that
they can work on whatever they have to work on in order to qualify. and then, the marketing plan has templates that we provide to them, to developers to give us information about the projects, but also how we want them to do extensive community outreach about that project. that plan changes and adjusts as we come up with new ideas for being more efficient with outreach, as we come up with new efficiencies where we find new community-based organizations that can be on the ground, reaching people and telling people about the opportunities as they come up. and that's not just for the certificate of preference program, that's for each community that we're building in. and you know, marketing plans have changed dramatically as
our society has changed from newspaper articles and news ads to social media and other ways of reaching people, so -- so the marketing plan is a living thing, and we -- and our developers then put in detailed information. we make them give us -- because it used to be where they'd just say oh, we're going to post a flier at the starbucks, and so we would like -- so now, we're, okay, give us the address of the starbucks and take a picture of it. when you put this up at the starbucks across the street from the development, you take a picture of it so you can show us this work that you say you're going to do. the final place where the lottery and marketing
guidelines are is in a document that we called the lottery and housing preference manual, and it outlines the lottery process. and then, also, the lease-up process, how -- we require them to turn in their collection criteria so you don't go to one building, and the developer, say, related has this set of rules, and then, you go to mercy housing and they have this set of rules, and you don't know which is what or if the rules keep changing. so we work really hard to standardize those rules among all of the developers that
we're working with and come up with reasonable criteria but keeping within a reasonable timeline for our developers because they have people that are actually paying the rent. that's what we need, right? we are -- i spoke about the early outreach plan. we are also doing extensive outreach and engagement on the c.o.p. program with community organizations that are working with our certificate of preference holders. we are really concentrating on the application process. we sent out an e-mail blast for
every project that is -- that comes on-line. it is now over 45,000 people that are on this e-mail blast, people that have signed up to receive an e-mail every time there's a project that comes available. of course we're conducting the lottery process and monitoring the lottery process to make things as transparent as possible. used to be, when names come out of the barrel, we'd be there eight, ten hours. we're now -- the lottery probably takes in total about a half hour, and most of that is people signing in to say they were there, and us explaining how the lottery works, and people -- and people don't come to the lottery anymore like they used to. we used to have to rent the library downtown because we needed over 100 seats in the
lottery. if we get three or four people coming to the lottery, that's a big crowd these days because people can see the numbers immediately on their cell phones or computers. you know, you don't have to be there to find out how you did. the -- we're administrating the housing preferences. when we have a preference like alice griffith returnees, where we're giving preference to people coming back to alice, we are monitoring that and making sure that the preference is given and that people are -- understand how they get that preference -- and other preferences that ocii projects offer. we're reviewing and approving all -- as i said, the resident selection criterias and doing leasing agency oversight. our staff, ocii staff and mohcd
staff attend weekly monitoring meetings of the lease-up and sales where we're -- you know, when people are disqualified, we're, like, saying, okay, why, and how, and when? so how did you reach out to that person? if you say on a piece of paper that you called somebody, well, then, what time did you call? what number did you call? did you call the alternative number? we're making sure that folks are not missing out on these opportunities if they really want -- if they want any of this housing. that's kind of overy'aall what we're doing together with ocii staff. i'm sorry. i'm skipping all-around here, aren't i? no, i am. this is the one i want to go to. this is the fabulous sonia mcdaniel. sonia is our certificate of
preference coordinator. she's here live and in person. she's mad at me yesterday because she told me it was not a good hair day, but i took a picture and told her it would be all right. sony is the certificate of preference program coordinator. sony does all the mailings that we do for each project as it comes on-line. [please stand by]