there are a few proposals but said just under an there are numerous community gardens that are under an acre. >> i was curious. who initiated the president ordinance as has been proposed? >> it was initiated by the mayor and supervisor. >> thank you. if we have no other questions from the commissioners i would like to make it open up for public comment. >> at this time the commission will take public comment. once all of the cards are read if you would like to speak you can lineup on the sidewall. apologies if i get your name wrong. >> i will read a little

statement i wrote. it might not be under two minutes. little city gardens is a farm in mission terrace neighborhood. our goal is to be successful and provide a model for urban farming. we cannot only support ourselves as farmers but ignite important conversation busy sustainable food systems, active in the community and contribute to small businesses like grocery stores, restaurants and farmers market. urban farming is a vital piece to recreating a healthy food system. we believe that urban farming businesses are well suited to all zoning districts. it can beautify and add value to all neighborhoods. by eliminating blight, inviting neighbors to enjoy time out together. in order to foster urban farm

businesses the city must implement new zoning code that does not make it expensive to begin. little city gardens strongly recommends that the business commission endorse the legislation. we recommend that the commission support three amendments put forward by the san francisco urban agriculture alliance. for a business like ours decorative fencing would be an extra expense. to impose expensive fencing regulations puts an unfair burden on the farmer who may only use the land for the short-term. we do not know if we will succeed. we know in order to succeed we have to employ marketing strategies. one technique that would be useful is to process it into value added goods. not only cell cucumbers but

sell pickles. over the past six months we have grown hundreds of pounds of produce but haven't been able to sell. >> good evening commissioners. first i wanted to thank the planning commission for bringing this legislation forward and for you to hear us tonight. we are currently engaged in a study of presidio school of management we already know access to land and use of land is one of the largest barriers. the code will go a long way to solving the issues.

as noted by many people the fencing requirement could negatively affect many projects currently operating. hayes valley farm has fencing that would not meet this requirement. i suggest an alternate model for this code for projects zoned to allow their decorative fencing to be covered by plant materials. very attractive. fits with the project's overall goals and can be afforded by the projects as well. the fact that most of these gardens and projects will exist on borrowed land creates two problems in that likely they won't be able to forward large site improvement, major site changes and may not be able to gain position offering the use of the site for free to make

major site improvements as well. i am also interested in working with the other departments to discover an answer for the issue on value added project. i know he currently works with certified california farmers market and they have code describing what constitutes value added and also enforce that. that would be an easy solution. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am one of the cocoordinators of the urban agriculture alliance. we are a group with more than 30 members, mix of practitioners and urban farmers. all volunteer group. we have a number of business members.

i think the biggest message i would like to send is that we would like your support for the zoning measure. they have put a lot of time into crafting a proposal that fits well for san francisco and we would very much appreciate the business commission support of it. to talk briefly about the three amendments, the first two, the permit fees and the fencing requirements we wrote about it in the letter. it is really about reducing the entry for a noncommercial garden, and lowering the barriers by reducing or waiving permit fees and not requiring expensive fencing if a garden wants a fence. the third part is value added and pooled produce will open up the businesses to thrive and explore new possibilities. it would also put san francisco

at the leading edge of thinking about how gardens fit into the local economy. i would love to answer any of the questions you have. we would very much appreciate your support. have a great valentines day. >> any further public comment? >> i am actually here for another item but i live half a block from the hayes valley farm. i moved in before i knew the farm would happen. i would have to say since the farm has been created the process of the creation and the existence so far dramatically improved the quality of life in the neighborhood. i say it as someone who does not volunteer on site.

i haven't had a chance to buy anything and who doesn't have kids. definitely i have noticed it connected my part of hayes value which is an admittedly yuppie part. to the number of kids coming over from western addition as school groups to volunteer. i feel it stitches hayes valley into the broader communities around it. for me to see these people there, i think it makes my life better. i will say specifically about the fencing, the chain link fencing disappears to your eye when the landscape behind it is dark. you stop seeing the fencing. you see the farm. i don't think the fencing requirement is something that neighbors require to have a

beautiful landscape. i like the idea of plants over it and if the farm existed for a longer period of time, say 10 years or some number we might say then it is required. we don't need it now. it is great to have the farms. >> thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i don't see any commissioners requesting to speak out. i would like to -- ok. >> i do think the fence -- i know of several of these urban gardens in the city. and i just think it would be a burden with that fencing requirement. i feel lower permitting fees --

we are trying to encourage these small business owners to get out there and sell their produce. i like what is happening here. it made my neighborhood a lot nicer, so. >> commissioner. >> yes. i would like to know why is there a need for fencing and why is it a need for wooden fencing or a specific kind? is it for safety reasons? >> there is no fencing requirement at all. should ideas choose to use fencing they believe it should be in the line to maintain consistency. >> there is no fencing requirement. we are not requiring fencing. if someone decides to use

fencing we would like it for consistency reasons that it follows the planning code. part of the city wide greenland scaping ordinance. >> if they want to put up fencing it has to meet the requirement? >> yes. >> thank you. >> i would like to make a recommendation, commissioners, that we ask for a line to be added in the legislation that gives the zoning administrator discretion to approve fences that are not defined in the code. that would give flexibility to the different situations that we are seeing because i am concerned since these projects may be on borrowed land that the expense is just -- will be a barrier. so it is the zoning administrator has discretion then they can work with the surrounding environment and

maybe that would help. so, green fencing would be allowed or some variation -- >> that seems to make sense. i will make note of that and circle back. >> i want to follow up with the value added. i would like to make a recommendation that the sponsors, the proposal follow through with a value added component because the value added component is critical. if the fees are even reduced giving them a way to pay the fees is really important. the bay area produces eight times the food that we can consume. preserving food and having a means of distribution to the wider bay area or the wider

world is really important. i think it is an opportunity in san francisco to a value added component i think it is very important. if that could be done -- >> might i address that quickly. >> we agreed that there may be an opportunity on the value added component. we have already started setting up stakeholder meetings to talk about that. how many people would be accumulating in that spot and whether or not any neighbors might have concern busy that. i think from our perspective we would be open to the value added piece. on the fee and the permit fee side that is not something we would look at reducing. i am a gardener and an owner of solar panels and i still don't

support eliminating fees in the instaulation of solar panels or in gardens because in the current environment city departments need to cover their cost. from that perspective there is more room for opportunity on the value side than the fee reduction. i saw the president has arrived. i don't know if you want to make any comments as a co-sponsor. thank you very much. >> so it sounds like there is a general city ordinance in place for fencing requirements, period. >> that's correct. i presume part of it is driven by the work suggests that it is about aesthetic but i am sure it is also about safety. >> it is about consistency.

>> we have an odd situation where they don't have to have a fence at all. if they do they have to have a particular type of fence. >> that's correct. >> i would express a little bit of concern about starting the precedent of issuing out, you know, exceptions to what i agree with is a nice idea and something i want to be a supporter of which is locally home grown produce gets rid of fuel, machines carrying produce all over the world. i am totally behind that. but i also caution that every neat idea that comes along and people want to be treated with exceptions whether it be for abiding by city ordinances that

have been around for a long time and are there for a reason. and every idea and every new business that comes along, i would like to see the support and the encouragement of that business in the form of tax incentives. for being successful. as opposed for incentives for, you know, taking it on which is also an important component of any business. the risk element. it would be nice to see the incentive there at the other end of it. i am wondering how much of a burden it would place. the other thing is how long do these urban farms tend to last? a construction site as a pretty ugly fence on it we know it won't be there for more of the

construction process, 6-9 months depending on the size of the project. how long do they tend to be in existence for? >> i don't know. i know there are a few traditional ones that lasted a while. i don't have the exact figure. >> is there any way we can compromise with something that satisfies the aspects and then plants on the other side of it? would anything like that work at all? >> i think from a planning departments perspective i think that would work. i think at this point the planning department would like to see the consistency city

wide. >> ok. thank you. >> commissioners, do we have any motions on this item? is this an action item, director? >> correct. >> ok. >> can you recite the proposal? >> direct the legislative sponsors to add language allowing the zoning administrator to work with the urban agriculture, give the zoning administrator discretion to approve that are not expressly defined in the code and to work with the urban agriculture. >> may i ask for more clarity.

right now it is requiring that should a fencing go up it meets the current code requirements. what i am hearing you ask is should the farm want to put up a fence in this particular situation we are asking them to work with the farmers to come up with a viable solution. yes. >> we are just not trying to give a carte blanche clear, no need to wor bea fence. we want something to work for both sides. >> recognizing these are businesses and that there are fees and cost to running any business that we develop criteria for value added goods.

that the city develops and allow value added goods to be sold on site. i will say the request of the sponsors at language giving the zoning administrator discretion to approve a fence not specifically in the code and to work with the project sponsors and recognizing that there are fees and cost to any business allowing them the opportunity to sell value added goods through criteria that would be the second part of that motion.

>> ok. >> do we have a seconder? >> i second. >> ok. >> do you want a role call for that one? >> yeah. >> on that motion -- let's see. just a moment. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> commissioners, that motion passes. >> thank you. next item please. >> discussion and possible tooks make recommendations to the board of supervisors on file 101 -- 110114 environment

code yellow page distribution pilot program. this is an ordinance adding to the san francisco environment code to establish a three-year pilot program to reduce waste from the yellow page phone directorys to private residences in san francisco and reduce neighborhood blight by restricting the distribution to circumstances where one, there is personal delivery of the directory to human beings and two there is a request to the residence or business or directories are maintained for pick up as a distribution center or business open to the public. develop and publicize alternatives to private possession of such directories and inform the public of the option and means for obtaining

such directories and making environmental findings. in your packet is the file number along with the legislated digest and a document entitled ordinance proposed, frequently asked questions. also in your packets is one letter and opposition, one letter of support along with a series of emails that include an order six business emails in support, 70 nonbusinesses are not specified persons in support and five nonbusinesses opposed. lastly i have to distribute a letter plus attachments in opposition.

>> i would like to request permission to recuse myself from this item. it is listing i might have a personal conflict of interest with it. >> ok. do we have to take a motion to approve that? >> yes. that is correct. >> may i have a motion? >> i move. >> i second. >> all those in favor. >> aye. >> you are recused. >> first of all, thank you for having me here today. good to be back in front of the small business commission and i want to thank you for your service on this valentines day. as i think you know the proposal in front of you is first and foremost about

honoring consumer preference and giving all a choice in whether to receive their yellow pages. it allows distributors to distribute yellow pages to all and any san francisco residents and businesses who want one. anyone who wants a phone directory will get one. i think there has been a misunderstanding. this is not a ban on yellow pages in any way, shape or form. under my proposal they will still be delivered to anyone who personally accepts the directories as well as homes or businesses that request one. legislation is clear. there is no limitation on how yellow page distributors can contact residents to confirm that delivery of yellow pages is desired. they can email residents, call them, send direct mail or they can, for example, leave a sticky note on the door letting

a resident know that a delivery is requested and that resident can check a box so they can receive the yellow pages again if they want one. under this ordinance the city is required to undertake a robust outreach program to advise residents about the numerous ways they can receive their yellow pages. we want the city to do it with an emphasis on the seniors, disabled and others who might need additional assistance. this legislation as you understand will result in a significant reduction in the number of unwanted yellow pages in san francisco. but again because of the many alternative methods of delivery left to distributors and because of the city's out reach program we don't expect the legislation will significantly reduce the number of san francisco residents or businesses who are active users of the yellow pages. why are we doing this? we introduced the legislation

because we need to save our resources and promote green and 21st century business practices and shrink our carbon footprint. i thought of this topic because of my own apartment building year after year. during the winter i noticed a pile of abandoned, untouched phone books. we started to look into what the statistics were of yellow page phone book. it is estimated people of san francisco receive 1.6 unsolicited yellow page phone books. stack them on top of each other it is equal to over eight mount everest. we know the amount of natural resources to produce ask dispose of all of these yellow pages is staggering.

in addition to the environmental impact this has a real cost. it is estimated the total cost to dispose or recycle phone books in san francisco is estimated to be about $1 million per year, a cost borne by residents, taxpayers and small businesses. i want to also know and thank the many folks who have come out tonight to speak in support of this measure. and want to invite them up in case they have any comments that they would like to make. >> good evening commissioners. i am the waste coordinator for the city's department of environment.

there is a tremendous amount of resources in play here. and i believe the impact would be great. we want to see that conservation wherever we can get it when it does not have any negative impacts on our activities. >> i know there will be questions of the impact of this legislation on small businesses. and i want to mention as we all know every small business in the city looks to figure out how to get the biggest bang for their advertising dollar. it costs small businesses a lot to advertise in yellow pages. we looked at the largest 5 directories. the average cost for a double half column ad was almost $17,000.