⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 6 findings
F1
Recommendation 1 SFDPH – The Jury found that the SFDPH is not The Department of Public Health Environmental Health in compliance with its pledge to the (SFDPH) should strictly adhere to its Department California Department of Public self‐proclaimed pledge to keep the Health to keep residents informed of residents of San Francisco appraised developments at HPS. The website of developments at HPS by updating is not regularly updated. its HPS Project website ”… on a weekly or monthly basis.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Department of Public Health (SFDPH) should strictly adhere to its self‐proclaimed pledge to keep the residents of San Francisco appraised of developments at HPS by updating its HPS Project website ”… on a weekly or monthly basis.”
F2
Recommendation 2 The Jury found the City has placed In order to erase any doubt among SFDPH itself in a potentially compromising the public with respect to its ability situation with Lennar where in to remain independent and essence the wolf is paying the impartial in overseeing the cleanup shepherd to guard the flock. By work at HPS, the SFDPH should having the developer, Lennar, immediately stop accepting money reimburse the city for monitoring from Lennar to pay for monitors at expenses associated with the HPS HPS and cover the cost from its own redevelopment project, the SFDPH resources. has created a situation that could raise doubt in the public’s mind about its commitment to proactively and impartially enforce environmental health regulations even when it might adversely impact Lennar. Public trust in the SFDPH has been further jeopardized by its failure to update its website in a timely manner, and its apparent reluctance to comment publicly on the best method to deal with the cleanup of Parcel E‐2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
In order to erase any doubt among the public with respect to its ability to remain independent and impartial in overseeing the cleanup work at HPS, the SFDPH should immediately stop accepting money from Lennar to pay for monitors at HPS and cover the cost from its own resources.
F3
Recommendation 3 These concerns were further In order to avoid even the SFDPH reinforced by the recent release of e‐ semblance of inappropriate mail messages that purportedly behavior, government agencies such show inappropriate communications as the SFDPH should rigorously between senior officials at the enforce conflict of interest SFDPH and the EPA and Lennar and guidelines governing dealings one of its consultants. between its officials and the companies they monitor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
In order to avoid even the semblance of inappropriate behavior, government agencies such as the SFDPH should rigorously enforce conflict of interest guidelines governing dealings between its officials and the companies they are monitoring.
F4
Recommendation 4 With the exception of Parcel A, the SFDPH should conduct its own SFDPH – Environmental City has no legal control over the environmental assessment on Health remaining HPS property. capping Parcel E‐2 and make its Consequently, in a technical sense findings available to the public for the City has no authority over comment. This should occur before matters dealing with deadlines and the Board of Supervisors holds its deliverables for environmental next hearing on the HPS clean‐up. However, the City does in redevelopment project. fact have some standing in these matters via the 2004 Conveyance Recommendation 5 Agreement between the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency The Navy still owns the majority of BAAQMD (SFRA) and the Navy. The agreement the land comprising HPS and stipulates that the Navy will work consequently the city has no direct SFDPH – Environmental collaboratively with the SFRA and control over matters dealing with Health share information about cleanup deadlines and deliverables for work. environmental cleanup. It is critical that the Bay Area Air Quality Management and the SFDPH be particularly vigilant in monitoring clean‐up activities at HPS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
SFDPH should conduct its own environmental assessment of the issue of capping Parcel E‐2 and make its findings available to the public for comment. This process should occur before the Board of Supervisors holds its next hearing on the HPS redevelopment project.
F5
Recommendation 6 Governor Brown’s announcement The City and the SFRA should have Mayor’s Office earlier this year that he intends to contingency plans in place for cut funding to redevelopment continuing SFRA related projects, Board of Supervisors agencies in the next fiscal year including the HPS redevelopment directly threatens the HPS project, in the event that State OEWD redevelopment project. Up to now, redevelopment funds are cut or there has been no indication from eliminated. SFRA either the City or the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency how they intend to continue the HPS redevelopment project should redevelopment funds actually be cut or eliminated by the State.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Due to the fact that the Navy still owns the majority of the land comprising HPS and consequently the city has no direct control over matters dealing with deadlines and deliverables for environmental cleanup, it is critical that the Bay Area Air Quality Management and the SFDPH be particularly vigilant in monitoring clean‐up activities at HPS.
F6
Recommendation 7 Previous efforts by the City to In order to ensure that the job OEWD implement work force policies at creation goals promised for the HPS city‐funded construction projects redevelopment project are realized, Board of Supervisors such as the HPS redevelopment the City should insure that the Office project have largely proved of Labor Standards Enforcement has OLSE ineffective as they only require a sufficient resources to allow it to contractor to make a good faith effectively enforce the provisions of effort to hire local workers. Earlier the new workforce laws. this year a new work force ordinance came into effect that has stricter requirements and mandates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The City and the SFRA should have contingency plans in place for continuing SFRA related projects, including the HPS redevelopment project, in the event that State redevelopment funds are cut or eliminated.
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R7In order to ensure that the job creation goals promised for the HPS redevelopment project are realized, the City should insure that the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement has sufficient resources to allow it to effectively enforce the provisions of the new workforce laws. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION In preparing this report, the Jury reviewed various reports and conducted interviews with local and state officials, community stakeholders, environmental organizations and county agencies. While investigating the topic, the Jury learned that one of its jurors may have a perceived conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof, due to their past occupation from which the juror has since retired. Due to this fact, the juror voluntarily recused himself from investigating, deliberating, or voting on this report. Finally, in preparing this report the Jury did not utilize any information provided by this juror.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The Civil Grand Jury concludes that the Hunter’s Point Shipyard redevelopment project will require more communication, more transparency, and more commitment from the City in order to achieve its goals of providing housing, jobs and economic development, tax revenue and open spaces to San Francisco, and its residents, particularly those residing in the surrounding neighborhoods. __________________________________________________________________________ 10 HUNTERS’ POINT