for any radioactive, man-made radioactive anomalies on the site. what we can in july, july 16th what we did prior to that, we met with the community, we met with residents, we had h.o.a. meetings, we developed a work plan, it works summary fact sheet that we posted on our website, frequently asked questions on our website, we formed an e-mail address for residents who could send us questions directly and we could reply to them directly. we had an information table on site, at least for the first five weeks, in case any residents had any direct questions, it is quicker to get the answers to them that way.

there we go. sorry about that okay. what was our methodology for parcel a1. we had three main ideas when we started our survey. first was we're going to do a walk over survey scan. this takes a lot of physical work and this was a large, 50- acre parcel so show you the instruments and how we did that walk over it scanned survey. we also employed what we call a scanning system. it is a four-wheel-drive vehicle the pulls a trailer. it has two very large volume sensitive sodium iodine -- detectors. they're connected to a laptop, and every second is conflicting a piece of data as to what is beneath that detector. any anomalies we would found

would go back and check with another instrument that i will demonstrate in a few minutes. this is going the wrong way. parcel a1 is constructed of survey units. they were composed of all kinds of different natural materials, man-made materials. you have different wood chips and clay material, you had different degrees of vegetation, different types of rocks such as granite and serpentine, the hilltop is actually covered in serpentine. we walked over those areas. it was very sensitive with sodium iodide detectors.

here is a visual of the site. parcel a1. all the green you see is everything that we completed, both with walk over survey and other surveys. at the walk over survey was performed by two staff people for safety reasons. and every 50 feet, they would stop to take a static reading. imagine doing that over 50 acres that was a lot of static reading we did over 4500 static readings here is a visual of my staff performing that work with the instruments that i will describe here in a minute. on the bottom right is what they call a sodium iodide detector. it is a two by 2-inch crystal, highly sensitive to gamma radiation. we connect that survey detector to the box on the left which is called a rate meat -- reader, and what happens is the gammaray

forms a piece of light inside the crystal, it shows an electron and a current, the current goes to the box and it is converted into what we call counts per minute, and we now have a real reading of what radiation levels are on the site as we walk over with that detector. an estimate on the upper right -- the instrument on the upper right is a gamma survey instrument. it measures very low levels of gamma radiation. that is called a level model 19. all of our staff use that, as well. just in case they ran into a large source to be able to see it right away. here is a visual of our system. it is a little bit harder to see , but on the bottom left, you can see the black boxes on the bottom. those are the radiation solution

700 model, large-volume sodium iodide projectors. they're connected to a laptop, and every second we are collecting data and you can imagine over the vast acreage that this system drove over, there's literally hundreds of thousands of data points that we had to analyse. this is a visual of the ray. you can see the little dotted lines, we did all of the streets with this. you can see a few flat areas, a park area where we were able to use the system, as well. these two detectors were our work horses when we discovered an anomaly. the top instrument is a falcon 5,000." uses a high purity geranium detector. the bottom ways is called the inspector 1,000 which uses a

bromide detector. both of those instruments are able to generate a spectrum. think of it as a fingerprint. both these instruments can see whatever gamma rays are coming off the ground, from whatever natural or man-made radio -- radioisotopes are there. each isotope has its own fingerprint, so the spectrum literally visualizes each fingerprint for each radionuclide in the soil. so if we found an anomaly, and i can discuss anomalies later, if we found an anomaly, we would go to the spot, and we we do use the inspector 1,000 and set the detector on it for 30 minutes. it is a long count time. we would generate a nice looking spectrum, and then from that spectrum, using the fingerprint knowledge, we know what is president -- present in the soil overall, here is a demonstration

, a visual of our staff using the inspector 1,000 on an anomaly. there were 100 anomalies found on parcel a one. in addition, we did 55 supplemental shots. they weren't anomalies, but we decided to do some extra shots just to be conservative. and anomaly, essentially is defined as, as you walk over a survey units, and sometimes she would break down one of those units into a smaller unit, and you would have the serpentine, the granite, the wood chips, the clay, you would have all kinds of varieties of background. and so you would take a background average in that spot, and then we decided then we would use a three sigma anomaly level. three sigma above that level would be considered anomaly. we found 110 of those.

the walk over survey found 64 anomalies and the other found 46 we did the 55 supplemental. 108 of those you anomalies were naturally occurring potassium 40 the hundred and ninth was the now infamous navy deck marker that was discovered on the boundary of the site next to galvez avenue. and the 110th anomaly was a low energy peak that we discovered that i spoke of earlier. i will get to that in a moment. [please stand by] todd t

. >> another example to put in context is a flight from los angeles to new york city. you get about 3 to 3.5 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.

okay. so a-2, we wanted to decide if anybody on the site right now would be exposed to high levels of radio activity of man made materials, and we wanted to investigate any anomaly that we detected. the project began october 22, 2018. here is a visual of parcel a-2. it's approximately 25 acres. 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 risk. questions? >> we're going to ask the speakers first if they have any

questions. madam clerk, any speaker cards? >> doris vinson. >> commissioners, doris vinson, resident, hunters point. since i don't believe any of you were commissioners when we started building on parcel a-1, 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 analysis, soil analysis. we were there to do going

to ask our commissioners if we can take another item out of order and hear the workshop and the annual certificate of preference and marketing outreach before now, and then, we'll go back to our schedule. is that okay? thank you. >> okay. >> 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