levels of tames and is the club going to be allowed to operate. >> they'll have to access operation during the clean up. >> it will be decided in the future. >> that will be a future decision by itself puc i believe the lease expired at the end of this calendar year and that the expiation is is will be up to the puc commission to decide what happens there if a new lease is proposed that will be up to the puc to decide and we'll do future sequa on whatever it proposed. >> i think you mentioned one of the pollutants are clay pigeons

i don't understand what the part of clay. >> the tar that was used to bind the clay material it's basically the tar that was binding it was the sources of the contamination that type of clay pigeon is not used those are legacy containments from decades prior. >> so presumably if the club comes back they'll not be using anything that causes a future clear up from the past and correct. >> okay. then one finally question you say you're only temporarily removing the high and low houses on the safety fence and the rest what about restored. >> yes. the features that were determined to be part of the historic period of significance

the orderly structures on the site will be protected in sight if they can't be moved those that can be moved will be moved off site so the soil can be replaced with clean fill. >> thank you. the other thing they have a social facility that is used for a lot of non-skeet shooting functions will that be open. >> my understanding the site will be closed to the public and to the gun club during the approximate 57 weeks of the clean up activities. >> okay. very good i think it answers all of my questions i'm only going to comment there was a question or comment by the club and others they want to be planters in the storage and maintenance of the facility and he hope that is possible even

though it's not part of the appeal itself. >> well, the puc is able to speak to that issue. >> good afternoon again yes. the club has indicated they will be interested if participating in some of the restoration i'd like to discuss that with them we'll been open with the remediation and see no reason for that to change. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. sir, i want to you will recognition that. >> 30 seconds commissioner antonini i want to be clear decades ago the lead was cleaned and we haven't shot lead since 1994 and target have been used since the year 2000 we're

talking about the pollution from the manufactured classes that were shot before the year 2000 that had asphalt based on and we've shot a bio degrapple if we have more range you'd see them desolved their bio degrapple but we're talking about the asphalt based materials. >> i understand what you're saying. >> and the shot didn't go into the lake it was years ago but the current shot does not it falls into the property and iron is a substance in property so that steel shot is not thought to be - >> i appreciate that one more question the club is stating they've done a clean obviously

not to the level by the agencies involved. >> yeah. the puc has some information regarding that. >> good afternoon clean up just to make sure we getty everything clear the clean up was there's been no clean up on the soil on site the clean up is referenced in the 86 we had a company do a drudging so they recycle some of the lead this was the only clean up absolutely no clean up has occurred on the site whatsoever. >> thank you. i'm pretty much done. >> commissioner hillis. >> so just to clarify the scope is limited that the puc is cleaning up this site and it's

great for ou were talking about the future and specific the gun club are not for the merits of the remediation plan but we're asked to do whatever the environmental review is adequate and i think other things will happen and hopefully, they'll happen at the puc so i'm fine with the mitigated deck and move to uphold that. >> second and commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much so i agree with commissioner hillis although i'll enter into commentary on the record as to why just really quickly first of all, there were comments in writing and today, the length of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration and the response to comment is an

indicator this is so much wording there should be an eir the purpose the negative declaration is to say if you do the mitigations your proposing you'll mitigate an environmental impact and therefore not needing an environmental impact report for the impacts that are invadeable it's the point of a night e mitigated negative impact so i want to make that clear i in terms of getting over the piecemealing this soil mitigation and the sediment and another other water tables sort of mitigation there's separate projects and i agree with doing

things when you get them instead of stretching it out for years and years and years on that point i understand those are mitigated projects and i understand why the project was put split up the way it was and funny commentary i think it's highly inironic we're talking about the redevelopment work and mission bay and hunters point shipyard it was the exact opposite reasoning we want all of the soil to be dug up we don't want caps or other potential mitigations and clean up methods that you know can degrade over time and within ottawa a generation so it's highly ironic in this case we have we're arguing for a less invasive form of clean up i

think its funny i definitely agree to have the clean up and the mi the miss - the only thing i'll say about the mid deck is i think you know comparing it to the shipyard there are hazard i didn't say substances in the soil and talking about the removal of soil is a different conversations on there wasn't enough information provided around how the removed soil will be contained while it's been tramped to whatever facility and i did not that's up holding the

appeals to the negative deck but i'll definitely i know there's plans in place a couple of frarz how you're going to maintain the soil and water trucks and those sort of things i want to see that in future construction plans i hope we all have enough time to pay attention to that that's any comments i don't think that is up to the level of upholding the appeal. >> thank you commissioner richards. >> yes. question for staff did not utility i say it one action doesn't cover one i echo commissioner johnsons comments about the cubic yard of soil open the independent utility if we didn't ever clean up the lake it wouldn't matter independent

there could be no cross contamination later. >> actually sir, if i may clarify whether or not the lake needs to be sclaepd is yet to be determined it requires future study to satisfy the regional clear up order should those studies determine that, yes the organisms are added risk and animals at risk another proposal for a sequa document to he'd that clean up necessity and . >> and recontamination when you're doing the sediment. >> those orders proposed by the regulatory a well-regulated environment where those things

are already addressed by existing regulars and the case of existing regulation addresses an environmental concern we don't need mitigation above and beyond when we determine their adequate to address the potential and direct. >> if we were looking at a contamination will we need a full eir. >> sir we'll reach that conclusion first in the order of this we'll first produce an initial study to determine what is the appropriate level of sequa documentation mitigated deck versus eir so there's a preliminary where we gather the information we're not there yet. >> thank you

commissioner johnson. >> thank you commissioner richards i think in a hypothetical situation where the study is done in the water and let's say there was no method of cleaning up the sediments that will preclude an impact on the soil at this point you'll need an eir because you'll have an impact that you can't mitigate so if we get to the point of secondary study they'll go through the whole list they did not make up the soil there's a whole category of things you can do and none of those things allow to you mitigate in the soil or another areas we'll be looking at a deck we're looking

at an eir for this project hopefully it wouldn't need an eir if that's the case that totally you know x's out the work that was done through this project and i'll hope the puc will do the adequate work that could be the case. >> commissioners there's a we have a motion and a second to uphold the negative declaration commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards director vice president blalock and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes national anthem 6 to zero and places you on item 9 for case 20141414 stshgs amending the alcoholic use district a planning code amendment. >> guarantee good afternoon diego sanchez this will allow

the alcoholic restrictive use i'll give some time for the supervisor cohen's office. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and commissioner fong and commissioners my name is missouri i didn't protective aid to supervisor cohen a quick if i notes this is a mail congressman's to the alcoholic district that is small business friendly the alcoholic process was passed because of a high density of the liquor establishment we have related crimes since some of the will challenges still exist by we've been macro significant headway working with sfpd and others and as we make headway we're going

to be smart about the ordinances we create or all the time this opportunity came by the way of a brewery we've had the pleasure to work with in the past few months and received letters of support from a number of community organizations including the bright group, the india based on organization and the 32 neighborhood and the bayview hill and bayview merchants association this is just a small change again to the third street district that is business friendly and a job creator and brings the kinds of change we want to see in the third street corridor thank you. >> thank you. >> i've mentioned that there will allow the small absent

asbestos licenses to relocation and briefly the 57 barrels of beer and casings of beer and sale of beer i don't know about onsite or onsite and offsite packages dribble to the wholesalersers it prohibits the licenses for the consumers in and out premises to allow the small business beer the principle focus to control the proliferation of retail liquor stores and the preferred ordinance didn't allow for this but facilitates the will the city hall city uses given that the r u d allows the

establishment to sell the respectful food services like the veterans clubs and like the staff believes that permitting the small business beer sellers it seeks to audible the manufacturing base while capitalizing on the base and the property ordinances will support the employment for workers of all skill level within the neighborhood that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions and we will open for. bryan s and andrew costello >> good afternoon. my name is is bryan i'm the executive director of the san francisco breweries

guild a nonprofit representing the breweries that operate in the city our mission to restore the breweries and unit people with the beer that love it was a title of an article published in july the f a cited cleveland and brooklyn for neighborhood targeted the officer improvement after those businesses opposite side new businesses drew young people where more families plant roots they draw local residents and beer folks if around the world i met several visits from canada that designed their vacationed around breweries and in addition to the golden gate

bridge or alcatraz and the craft brewer industry according to a craft breweries association generated billion dollars and supported over 45 thousand jobs and paid more $850 million in local and state tax for the 40 percent of creativity beer it is relevant to this hearing it quotes it's crucial for the states lisp to continue to support this industry as a small businesses already facing a large tax burden california's breweries have notability to absorb takes by advancing those policies they can build nor businesses throughout the state therefore the san francisco

breweries state supports the amendment as currently written thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. and good afternoon, commissioners i'll be brief aim ann bra from the laughing brewery i'm eager to be part of the bayview neighborhood we were logan for some place to bring our beer we are revolved that the beautification and support this draft and thank you for your time. >> is there any additional public comment okay seeing none, public comment is closed me, i'm happy to support in amendment i do think it's a slight one and looking especially at where pdr is going this is may give us an dictation a indication for the conversation

commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have a question for staff where the laughing monk located what's the address. >> laughing monk diego with the staff on 1439 gengz and ed group. >> okay. thank you i know there are a number of other craft breweries in the area one that is larger speak easy italy outside of the zone. >> its outside of restricted location. >> and my final question is with were there to be other craft breweries this legislation applies to them also. >> yes. that's the intent and i'm very supportive of this as pointed out in the staff report a similar thing was done for a

winery it is not the intent of the legislation as i understand was to minimize a number of new bars or facilities selling retail alcohol without licenses this has food service and beer tastings and that fits together an off sale so it's benefits far out weigh the fact it will be more alcohol i'm supportive. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much also extremely supportive of this legislation i and staff report did an excellent job of outlining why future uses including alcohol are different than the ones in the first place

the one question i'll start with the representative from the supervisor cohen's office if he could come up what was supervisor cohen's thoughts or reasoning behind not including the cu authorization as part of the process? does she have an opinion >> that wasn't part of the consideration i mean, i guess i'll say there's no real opinion for instant - >> okay. the reason i ask the question is i'm actually a buildingable in the process it allows us to have a boarder legislation we can take away some of the spot zoning at the cu to look at project by project and the fact that was included here surprise me and thinking there's a reason if not, i i

want to propose we add a cu requirement for those uses again not restricting or changing anything else but commissioners think about it and if no strong opposition the other way to add it. >> supervisor cohen will be okay with that. >> commissioner richards and so we'll be taking a right to a cu. >> right. >> i support that. >> yeah. so i'll make a motion to approve or recommend this to this board of supervisors with the modification we change the use as a right to by conditional use authorization and thank you. >> can i ask staff to comment on the kind of implementations that will have changing this

legislation but to be clear this is a recommendation to the board of supervisors so. >> that's correct. >> it's a recommendation. >> they'll be under their jurisdiction. >> the question was the implementation given the high activity for a motion this is principally be a shorter permitting process there was concerns about the spot zoning this legislation paroling proposed ordinance will stretch many blocks not necessarily focusing on one spot grant it was phenomenon one location but the spot zoning is what the staff believes this kind of light industrial activity is allowed and many other light industrial districts this is

preventing the proliferation of the corner liquor stores. >> for me, i'm open but somewhat hesitant to make the decision right now i think i'll prefer to have more of a conversation with the supervisors office but knowing it's a recommendation that could still happen if we forwarded this recommendation today anyways commissioner antonini. >> i'd like to recognize the gentleman from any think the breweries guild and whichever one of you wants to speak about your feelings to a.d. the cu to this process. >> thank you for the time mime feelings the current rules for p d u to allow for the brewery use

without conditional use so it adds another barrier as uncertainty so my hope to make the bayview nor thriving and love to have other breweries near us so this is my concern it is the uncertainty of the flavor of the costs so i want to encourage building in the bayview. >> i have a question for staff with the cu there's a cost incumbent can you talk about the prices through the urgent care cu and it's definitely based on the construction costs we're talking about three or four thousand dollars approximately potentially more depending on the ti or another work the points we're looking 6 to 8 most process given the high permit

volume it's vs. costs iceberg to string out a project that goes through planning a week or two now, it's up to 12 months. >> if we didn't include the urgent care cu any additional brewery in addition to laughing monk will have to come through staff approval. >> it would be - >> it would be conforming to what is being passed and staff will have to grant them the permission they'll not been able to set up operation and any establishment seeking to use it will have to go through the planning department to look at the performance should it pass. >> thank you very much i'm more inclined and appreciate the thoughts of commissioner

johnson more inclined to leave it as it is originally proposed with the confidence that staff will look at future proposals and if this met the criteria it will go forward if not we'll deny it and they'll be an appeal process for the sponsor to go forward to have it approved by the planning commission or the board of supervisors i think commissioner hillis. >> i think given this is allowed in an industrial area and not require a fee in this adjacent area and maybe i'm not comfortable requiring the if upper recommending that because we have not looked this in detail so maybe we require or make