here. my plea is that you would remain effective and continue that resolution along the lines of having option number two. actually insisting about you are about the only body in the city who we have any hope in of not being completely corrupted as our agencies, which we have proven. i am sure they are deleting emails much faster these days than they were in the past. agen from the navy, she just said that this is fine and methane gas is ok. you will not catch on fire. methane gas, at certain levels,

changes the oxygen, and can cause asphyxiation. you cannot see this or smell this, but this is only one discrepancy in with the navy is telling you. we know that the navy that we can trust in can continue with the only community points involved with the navy. that is how much that we know that we can trust them. i am so happy that you mentioned this. i was writing this down because they are showing this is 6 feet under. it does not take a rocket scientist to know about this. you know that this is constantly

moving up. this is ridiculous. and i went a little bit over. thank you. i have not been here for a long time. i just want that 30 seconds to say, continued that resolution that would put the number to alternative at harm, and insist that this is what the navy does, as well as -- thank you. >> next up is harrison. and then, mrs. donohue. >> i am here with our people organized for employment rights.

we have been involved with this issue for a long time. i think this is minimizing when the navy talks about the paint that glows in the dark. it would not cost $350 million if this is all that we have. the importance of what is before you today is that this is a remedial. the second was to completely remove this. what we say is that remedial action #2 most complete complies with the proposition and will of the city and the neighborhood, and the resolution when you passed the environmental impact report. you have approved the future use of this plan, and this board was in no way suggesting support

for a cap because of the contamination. the navy did not even consider the second remedial action. this only cost $87 million and we will not even consider the second option. $350 million is not unmanageable, people said they did not want this done only if this was an expensive. the navy is responsible for clearing this up. and also, will look at the lists of things to consider, we have to consider the long-term health interests of the community. this has cost insurance but this is the most important.

the community is not engaged in this process. thank you. >> this is maria harrison? >> i am here for health and environmental justice, representing the many members of bayview-hunters point. this body indicated that capt. would not be the alternative. but you are here with this notion -- and i really hate to do this by would like to draw your attention to the other areas, midway village in particular, and for every eight -- eight years, they have had to

do this over and over. and they have the plastic and all of those wonderful things that we are hearing about. this is midway village of los geneva. this is very close but one thing i would really like for you to consider, in the pass years we have come before you and we have said that people first -- we are the constituents that you were put here to represent. when we say 87% of the voices in san francisco are against this, cleanest to the fullest extent with residential standards, and you allow them to remove a segment of cleaning and they refused to review this because of the money.

money versus life is what you are being asked to consider. if you allow for this to move forward without revisiting your own statements made by your predecessors and review the documents that have been provided to you by the groups that i work with, i think this would be criminal. i do not think that any of you are criminals. i can tell that you are doing your homework. i understand that you have been doing your homework. i do not know you well but i hope to learn how well you think about people and want to impress upon you that people first, not dollars, just because we live in a poor community, and many of us to not speak the king's english, do not belittle us by saying, these organizations are

correct. not the epa or the navy, or the water board has had one real testing. they read you what the navy has given them. this is not satisfactory to the community and it should not be satisfactory to you. i realize if i keep on eye will preach to a sermon. >> next, we have mrs. donohue. >> good afternoon. i live a half blocks from the shipyard, and i have been before the board of supervisors many times. but i would just urge for you to

please, we need a complete cleaning of the shipyard. i know people that have died, three children have died here. my daughter -- daughter-in-law died in 2005, 28 years old and i was right there when they brought the navy and -- into our community. when they let them in the community over all of us, and our children. we were having headaches. they do not know what is going

on. i was having headaches. i would stand before you and like the one time -- the health department can sit here but they have not spent one night there, and they have not been knocking on one door, to assess the people. how can they say that we are okay? thank you. >> i live in the bay view area. i was living there when i could see the ships coming in, leaving

the debris in the bay, which they never cleaned up. those who are here listening to us, this is a dangerous area. i watched that fire for two months up there. it would still be burning because there was gas underneath this. in this article, on page 7, the gases out there. the health department says that this is so dangerous. those people are not telling the truth. the health department -- i have never had problems like this until they started missing with the shipyard out there. the navy has spent more time

saying they cannot claim this. they should stop procrastinating, get out there, clean that area. this does not work. i heard them talking about the plastics. but plastic bricks. they're having a bad problem right now with plastics. they put this in and what happens? can you see what is going on in the area where we are living? our people are dying up there. i watched him die from working in that shipyard. this horrible death.

please, clean up and do not procrastinate. they don't know what they are talking about. they do not live there and we do. >> supervisor -- worked to create amy's position, working with the epa to put this on the list and one of the authors of proposition t. we will focus on a couple of issues today. the proximity to the site and the landfill, compared to the other landfills. and if you look at the shoreline amphitheater, what you see is that this is no closer than 1

mile to any community neighborhood. and if you look at the landfill, the residential neighborhoods in berkeley. and what about the military base? on alameda, this is a residential neighborhood. this is a couple of miles. you have landfills in and around here, within 1,000 feet, almost 5,000 feet to where the landfills are at. there is the close proximity to the actual residence. and the other new developments. the presumptive remedy has

always been that the landfill should be capped. in many ways, this is the remedy that has been driving this. that the remedy should be consistent with the future landfill. we do not have enough information to support this plan. and we will support this analysis that is not done typically in this line of work. if you look at these -- and analysis, we will make a much better determination. this is less than 2% of what it would cost with the least expensive capping analysis to give us further confidence in what the navy is proposing.

this is part of the commentary. >> you see that this is 2% -- >> this can be $4 million depending on the number of samples and the cost of the individual samples. we will use the average numbers of $50,000 for each sample. 44 samples in the area, with the sufficient confidence, with the analysis that would be proposed. >> and who are you going to make this request to? >> this is part of our comments. this is on november 21 as we requested the extension at the time for the public comment. of what would give us more confidence in the selective alternative. and at this time, will not have

enough understanding of the site. and if you look at these aerial pictures, and if you correspond those times, with the activities recuring on the shipyard, you have very different results. what we're looking for is better confidence in terms of what we are understanding with the composition of the landfill and the physical structure, the reconstruction and the removal of whatever is there will be done in a competent manner, and to reject all of the factory issues including on the landfill -- we simply don't have the same kinds of problems. we're trying to get to the place where we have a good remedy -- >> have you written down the standard level that would bring the kind of confidence that you

are looking for, to document? >> i will be happy to speak to this. i think the community deserves the best possible cleanup. and the policy of the san francisco board of supervisors. unanimously. and there are a lot of differences between a 100% removal of every ounce of material, and the responsible cleanup. we don't know the full extent. and we have a full understanding of the depth of the landfill. we are not looking at a wedge, and we don't know if the material is purchased. there are a variety of things we don't know. we're looking for the

relatively inexpensive set of analysis before make a determination about what we would recommend. what we have is a level of solutions for the levels -- this is within the navy's proposed plan. >> i will have to cut you off there. >> thank you very much, for your time. >> do you have any questions for any members of the public? >> i did want asked -- the representative from the environmental protection agency to respond to the grid analysis, i am looking at page

13 from his report and it does seem that the test samples in the landfill area, as mr. bloom has mentioned, there is need for analysis that seems to make some sense. i know the samples were done -- also because you know where the hot spot area is, and the additional excavation areas, but how do you know that there are not other hot spots with in this area, if you did not do any sampling of this. and this would respond to the analysis that was mentioned by mr. bloom. >> do we want to put that figure up for people? >> the first thing to think about when you collected that is what you will gain from this,

and if this will be full and will add value. and i feel that we have a good understanding of the dimensions of the landfill, where this is that. can we turn on the power point? in the remedial investigations -- they did cross sections of vertical line looking to the soil type and what is going on, and just to address that part -- i feel very confident that we understand where the ledges are at. and what is going on underneath. i will go back to this. these are all the trenches. the sole purpose of finding the

edge of the landfill. all around the landfill. this could be interpreted to look a little bit sparse. >> this looks very sparse. >> it does, but we knew what was going on. we saw the idea of the kind of materials that we had, and we weren't finding ground water -- but this is when you have taken had met in the ground water -- we did not see that sort of thing. this is on the other parcels. if we have this kind of contamination in the landfill, we did the groundwater study in 2007, downgrading the flow, down through the landfill and down to the bay.

and if there had been contamination, we absolutely would have seen this. and there could be something perched above the ground water table, you remember that this is a very old landfill, and there is always a possibility that we feel that this far along, we would have seen this by now. the other thing is in the future, after the landfill is closed, samples will be continually collected and some of those wells will stay, the guard wells and samples will be collected. every three months, the ground water will be analyzed and reported to the regulatory agency and accessible to the public to see if anything is getting through. we do not expect to see any

contamination. >> say that something happens here, in the second quarter of the testing. and you see something that indicates that there is major contamination and things are not going according to plan. what is your backup plan? >> this is a good question and this is why we have the monitoring. the navy cannot walk away. we have we call the comeback policy. if something is found 20 years from now, we are required to cut back to address this. we will pump this or whenever we decide to do, but we will not just leave it. if something is contaminated, from the regulatory standard, we would clean this up. >> how you clean this up if there are houses? >> this is going to be open

space and none of this area, especially the landfill, this will be park land. >> may i jump in? i know that she mentioned that the plastic -- bel-air, in other spots had ruptured at different times and there was the example that this was so close to mariners village and a number of housing areas already and whether you look at shoreline amphitheater or a number of other alameda -- this is much further away from where you have the landfill, as well. can you talk about the rupturing of the plastic or mr. bloom and his question about the landfill

residential areas being further away from landfills. >> his analysis is probably correct but i have not verified this information. i would say that there is a required buffer zone and i think that this is a thousand feet. we are required by law to have a buffer zone at the edge of the landfill. this is something that is definitely on our minds. this material is engineered to not rupture. i was talking before about the earthquake that happened -- and this did rupture. i think that this would be addressed. we would come back to fix this and this would be repaired. on the everyday operations, the

everyday wear and tear, this is not going to happen. this is a fairly temperate climate, and it will allow hundreds of years and after that, the landfill to grades, 500 years from now, this is no longer a hazard. >> can you give me the perspective of the navy as to why this happened? >> this is a question had of my realm of expertise and i am not really the person to answer that question. i do not need to be disc -- mean to be disrespectful, but this needs to be given to keep foreman, and i would definitely encourage you to talk to him about that. the base environmental coordinator in charge of public outrage. he would be happy to speak to you about this.

>> that is everything for me. >> thank you so much for testifying and for the difference federal and state representatives. i think that we should keep this item open to the call of the chair. without objection? thank you. can you please call in number to. in number one. >> the ordinance to -- permitting bowling alleys -- let me give a moment for supervisor kim to arrive. and i know that for item number one, the sponsors -- i think we

have a presentation from sophie of the planning staff. actually, he presented this last time. supervisor winneeiner: i do not know if there'll be any further amendments or not. >> we will give her a few moments -- and let's just recessed for a moment. -- recess for a moment.