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.

>> the meeting will come back to order. mrs. miller, can you recall my number-one? >> item number one, the

ordinance for bowling alleys and theaters to provide alcoholic beverages. supervisor kim: there is a conversation today about making an amendment to the legislation in the mission and i believe this project may be moved forward in the mission, but i don't know if we can ask a question to the city attorney about whether there would be a deferral to the planning commission. >> after consulting with miss hayward, it sounds like planning did not really contemplate or consider the idea of having this theatre. they considered the idea of a single-screen theater for this legislation. and the modification to the

planning code amendments, they have to be referred back to planning for reconsideration. >> i have to say i do support this amendment, however, we did start this process early in the summer and many businesses we work with are working on a specific time line. i would prefer that we pass this out of committee today, with legislation that i am happy to co-sponsor. >> thank you. supervisor? >> i move that we eat for this with a positive recommendation. >> do we need to open for public comment? let's hold off on the motion and open this up for public comment. is there anyone who would like to speak from the public?

>> chair mar, supervisors cohen, weiner, kim. i would like to talk about the proposed legislation moving forward. it is crucially important to the local area, and i worked a block away from there for five years and have seen the economic revitalization and job creation and i am speaking on behalf of the new mission theater, a few blocks on 21st. we are looking at a few different uses, a few different uses for that theater. hopefully the ultimate adaptive reuse will be supportive. this is for the multi-screen theater, with a large cultural entertainment facility or a combination of the culture --

for the movie screen use and the different things that we are looking at would bring up to 100 more jobs for the community. this is a very important revitalization project for the mission, and i will be working with supervisor campos and supervisor kim on that legislation. we have met with the planning department and some of them have come to see the theater to look at the different options, and i am here to support the motion going forward and just to say hello, so you know that we will be back before you before too long. thank you so much. >> the next speaker? >> your theater will thrill me in the night

make the item turn on the beverage and alcoholic alright you're fighting for your beverage license in the night creatures come out on the theater you'll be scared like you should and creatures great and small make it turn out good and all. thrill me by handling this item right ♪ >> is there anyone else would like to speak? public comment is closed. >> i do know that we have given us -- this the positive recommendation -- and i hope that he will continue to be patient with this issue. i do continue to favor this --

this is a hindrance to business as -- that does not make any sense, with the undermining of different kinds of businesses, and we have seen this with the bowling alley and a single- screen theater, and over time, all three of us -- more and more businesses will come to us to say, we have an exemption to this or that and i believe we should exempt because of this theatre and that we will continue to accept this, and i look forward to the special use district. >> so we can move this forward with the positive recommendation without objection? thank you. i look forward to this as well. thank you, everyone. please call item no. 2. >> the ordnance for the

transportation code to authorize information on a residential permit application. >> we have diana from the mass transit authority. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the item before you is the transportation code for administrative penalties, for fraud on the resolution -- residential parking permits. the only action that can be taken -- we have identified the fraudulent permits. this is to notify the parking control officer. with approximately 70,000 permits issued each year, it is hard to isolate these vehicles. the only recourse is a residential parking violation ticket. the process does not have a great deterrent against fraud.

we will be allowed to establish penalties, looking at an estimate of up to $500 for each violation. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> can you explain, people at work in the business near the residential areas near where they live, to get this permit? who are the people who would be fined $500? >> there are a couple of examples. one issue is that people were using the post office box, and listing the post -- post office box as a unit, rather than an actual address. there were incidents where we found that the address -- after the investigation we saw this was a post office box.

in time could be said for the business owners. >> thank you. seeing no questions, we will openness for public comment. >> good afternoon. ♪ ask a parking patrolman. i don't want to pay that fee. can't you see. i want to park this car but you can do something in between parking patrolman, i'd like to park my car. you can ask supervisor eric mar. beep beep beep beep yeah beep beep thank you ♪ >> is there anyone else from the

public to would like to speak? public comment is closed. can we move this forward without objection. and are there any other items before us? the meeting is adjourned.