of the cadillac hotel. >> -- commissioner borden: i just wanted to add another name to end the meeting i am honored, and that is henry lancelot, who died on february 14. he was born to italian immigrants on telegraph hill. that is where he grew up. he ran the market in north beach for much of his life, and served on the commission of the boys and girls club until his death. he has been a huge supporter of the san francisco community at large and the italian-american community and north beach, and he will be sorely missed, and actually, today, is this -- today is his funeral and memorial service. commissioner olague: i just wanted to mention that i do support commissioner moore's request for some kind of an update, i guess, when it does get to the board. whether that is in the form of a

memo or what. just to understand the process, i think it is important to see how we ended, and how it evolves, especially something with this magnitude. the development agreement, i think, is something that is the purview of the board anyway. we recognize that, but i still think it would be interesting to see how a evolves -- how it evolves. >> i'm happy to ask michael or staff to give you an update on the final version, how it might differ from the version that you saw last, so we can get that to you by the time it gets to the board. and also in keeping of our policy of talking about any meetings we have had, i was taken by project sponsored to 1500 henrik grant to view the prospective installations of cell phone antennas, and it was very interesting.

an interesting eight-floor climb, which was better than the stairmaster, but you could see exactly where the projected installations would be and how large and how visually obvious or not they were, so it was a very good trip to take. commissioner borden: i just want to say i do support hearing about the evolution of the development agreement, and i would like to hear what happened with the hunters point shipyard. i know there were changes after that, in general, i think it would be interesting to look at the large projects and how they end up at the end, compared to what we saw. i think that is true with other projects as well. i'm equally interested in that as well. commissioner olague: just to let folks know, there is a list policy here that some of us will disclose some of the meetings we have had with different members of the public regarding various issues that relate to planning, but it is certainly the option of the commission. not all of us disclose that, but

it is certainly something we can discuss during the rules. but we all usually spend hours outside of here with the public and development community in different meetings. commissioner moore: in response to commissioner borden's comment, we need to remember that there is a difference between the project that is under the jurisdiction or is a redevelopment project compared to one that is in private hands of developers. there is a slight difference. i agree with the reading, but it is a little bit like apples and oranges. commissioner olague: -- >> thank you, commissioners. before we go on to call the director support, city attorney wants me to ask, for those people who are not here, for

item 7, for instance, if you are here for items 64 for any of the later items, if you would be willing to give up your seat and allow people in the hall who are here for item 7 to come in so they can hear the presentation and a speaking before them, so they can be part of the process of that item, we would very much appreciate that. we're now at directors import, directors announcements. >> i want to thank commissioner miguel for coming to the latest

meeting to discuss the housing element. it was, as you can imagine, a fairly lively discussion, which is often the case with the housing element, very diverse points of view. but we are bringing -- just as a reminder, we're bringing it to you next week as an informational items and asking you to initiate the action on the general plan, which is now scheduled for march 24. i think in the interest of time, i will leave my report at that. unless you have questions, i think ann marie had a short report on the board of appeals. >> good afternoon, commissioners. shall report on the board of appeals. for the supervisors. that has this week in upper market on final read this week as well as final week -- final read on the rincon ordinance.

board of appeals heard the variance on lombard street, across the street from an item that is on your calendar later today. but the case that was before the board of appeals was the subject of a subjectdr hearing -- of a joint dr hearing. the commission approved the project and the zoning administrator granted the variants. on december 15, last year, the board of appeals upheld the subject various four-one. it was initially scheduled for january 12. opponents initially appealed the ceqa determination, and that was of held through the board of supervisors. the board of appeals denied the jurisdiction request three-one- one, so that concludes the board of appeals report and the board of supervisors' report. >> thank you. commissioners, the historic

preservation commission is here, and the two items i bring to your attention are the division pipeline, three and four, off by the u.s. army corps of engineers, and the commission, after discussion, found that they concur with the areas that were put before them for review. they also, after refusing two of their members, and one absence, so we just had decorum, but they did pass the soma historic resourced survey. for about the past six months, since they actually gave the department authority to approve, minor permits to alter, there have been no discussions. they have not pulled them out to further review by themselves, so they actually -- one of the members actually requested that we stop putting them on their calendar and just let the

department go forward with their approval process. there was no decision on that, but i just wanted you to know that they are satisfied with the work staff is doing, and they do not feel is necessary to add that extra step at a longer period with that, commissioners, that concludes my report. -- they do not feel it is necessary to add that extra step any longer. that concludes my report. >> are there plans to -- i ask the question because it is a little bit important, i think, for me, still getting up to speed, to find out what this thing is. >> commissioners, your concern is shared by quite a few people, commissioners included. at the moment, the department does not have a budget to allow them to be broadcast. what we do is we digitally record and up load that recording.

generally, the day after the hearing, you can go online and get the entire hearing. you do not get the visual, but you get the audio. >> i think, being the great historic city that we are, and myself, is wonderful to be interested in hearing what the commission is discussing, and to have the ability to see this on tv for many people i think would be great. we could find it in the budget, and of the general manager of sfgtv would help us out, that would be great. >> with that, commissioners, we can move forward to general public comment. members of the public may addressee on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, with the exception of agenda items, which may only be addressed at the time those items are reached on calendar. the public may address you for up to 3 minutes. keeping in mind that the tire category has a 50-minute time limit, and i do not have any speaker cards. commissioner olague: is there

any general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> thank you, commissioners. you are now on public comment, on agenda items. a public hearing has been closed. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on an agenda item that has already been reviewed at a public hearing and were members -- members of the public were allowed to testify. public hearing has been closed. they may do so at this time. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes on those items. the only item on the calendar that this will pertain to would be item 6, 519 ellis street and 41380 street. commissioner olague: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you, commissioners. you are now in consideration of finding final actions. the public hearing is closed. this is item 6, 519 ellis .

>> good afternoon. the item before you today is whether to reaffirm a motion of intent to disapprove a request to extend entitlements for two previously approved projects. products would constructed of the 05-story buildings containing a total of 46 and affordable housing units on two adjoining properties. these entitlements were approved. at the previous hearing on this item on january 13, several members of the public spoke in opposition to the extension, questioning the economic viability of the project. in addition, the speaker's alleged that the subject of race, which are currently serving as parking lots, have not been well maintained and attract criminal activity. the commission also expressed his concerns, adding that it did not appear that the project

sponsor had made efforts to pursue financing and diligently pursue development and completion of the projects. several commissioners emphasized the importance of delivering affordable housing in the tenderloin community, particularly on the subject companies, but seemed unlikely that these projects would come to fruition. the commission passed a motion of intent to disapprove the project and instructed staff to return with the draft motion for disapproval. this motion for disapproval is included in your packet and is available for action. this concludes my presentation, unless there are any questions. thank you. commissioner borden: move to take final action and disapprove. >> second. commissioner antonini: i'm going to vote against this, as i did when it came before us initially because we have always been fairly willing to grant extensions. i know that this one has gone quite a while. however, what is replacing

surface parking lots, which we are not using another news that i feel is valuable -- we're not losing another use that i feel is valuable, and i was hoping that by granting one more extension, it would happen, and the product they are trying to produce is affordable housing, but that was not the theory of the rest of the commission. i just wanted to explain my position on this. commissioner moore: i was just going to mentioned that it was more complicated than how commissioner antonini characterize it, but there's no need to elaborate at this point. let's take the vote. >> on the motion for disapproval of this project -- [roll call] aye. predent olague: aye. >> that passes with a 6-1 vote.

at the risk of misstating your rules and regulations, let me just -- this is the second time in recent weeks that someone has asked to call in question once emotion as on the floor. awhile back, this commission changed the rules and regulations to address that. if someone is speaking, does the commission actually have to vote? commissioners don't necessarily want to stop the discussion. if they don't actually support continues. however f the vote for call the question is to call the question and we stop the question and call the question, but i just thought since that has come up a couple of times recently, i should explain that once again. commissioner borden: it is an easy way of manipulating the

process and that has happened in the past where there have been several commissioner who is want to continue to discussion interrupt and that is why we take a vote or at the call of the chair or the majority of the commissioners is how we do it here secretary aver secretary avery: i am well ahair robert's rules of order call for stopping the discussion and i don't want you to think before i look at the chair that i am not responding to the call the question, but because the rules and regulations have addressed it. thank you. commissioners, you have disapproved item six. we are on item 7 and if you

would willingly give up your seat for those in the hall who are here for item 7, that would be very much appreciated. again, item 7 is case 2010.571t. amending planning code controls for urban agriculture. >> good afternoon, commissioners. dee yay goe sanchez with the san francisco planning department and seeks to add 102.34 and including agriculture neighborhood and urban industrial agriculture and to amend sections and 209.5 and 227 and 234.1 and 234.2 and articles 7 and 8. prior to the full presentation, i would like to allow speakers from the mayor's office and katherine rosh from david chiu's

office to present and i will complete my presentation and allow some other comments and adjust for your -- and just for your information, the agricultural commissioner for the county is also here to answer questions. i will turn it over now. >> good afternoon, commissioners. joanna parton, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. as you know, urban agricultural and local food production is seeing a dramatic upsurge lately and is a key component of the city's health policy and the sustainability program. the proposed ordinance was introduced by then mayor gavin newsome and supervisor chiu and is supported by current mayor ed lee. and as the outgrowth of directive 0903 with the san francisco directive which

directed all city departments to implement actions consistent with the goal of fostering local food production in san francisco. and the main objectives of the city's local food program and policy and of the executive directive are to promote healthy, locally grown food for all residents and reduce the environmental impact with food production and create new opportunities for the use of land in san francisco and foster green jobs and we feel it achieved all the objectives. and we are supportive of the ordinance before you. and we have been in discussion with the department of the environment and the san francisco public utilities commission and a number of urban practitioners about a few possible amendments that would do two things. one, insure compliance and offer additional possibilities to earn income from the produce they grow on the land and to promote

water conservation which you will be hearing more about from spfc. we are open to discussion about allowing urban practitioners to sell value-added products on site and are open the discussion to further discussion these issues scheduled for next week. we would not, however, be supportive of an amendment that would waive permit fees because we are very aware and sensitive to department needs and am willing to ask any other questions later. commissioner borden: madam chair, maybe we can call for a brief recess to allow at least 10 to 20 people to enter. >> that is great. commissioner borden: we'll take a 5-minute recess to allow more

people to come in. secretary avery: esentation fo. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am katherine roshburger and i am representing the office of david chiu who is a co-sponsor and wishes to express his strong support for the urban agricultural zoning proposal and believes increasing the number of urban farms in san francisco will have environmental, health, community, and economic benefits. there have been several amendments to the legislation proposed by our allies and the urb urban agricultural community and supervisor chiu is open to discussion about several of these, specifically that value add and pooled products could be sold at urban farms if the potential neighborhood concerns can be fairly addressed. he is open to exploring the proposal that the fencing requirement for urban farms be amended to include green fencing

as an option. and we respectfully request your support and thank you for your consideration. commissioner borden: thank you. >> i will provide my presentation and briefly t proposed ordinance seeks to clarify the intensity of the agricultural activity for consolidating the current array of use categories and seeks to create a new agricultural use category with two subuses of differing intensity to apply throughout all zones districts and create consistency throughout the planning code. currently it cites multiple urban use within different zoning districts and certain use categories are referenced and others are not in different zoning district. the two proposed urban use a neighborhood agricultural and urban industrial agricultural. neighborhood agriculture is the lesser intense use characterized by the following. being less than one acre, having

met the physical and operational standards which are, excuse me, a setback of the compost areas if fencing is used, and that it be wood or follow the citywide fencing requirements. it is characterized by the limited use of mechanical farm equipment and that equipment be screened from sight. and that sales of produce grown on the site is restricted from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and the higher intensity use and is characterized by the following, being larger than one achor in size and not able to meet that and the unlimited sales and donation and fresh food and the urban use category. and be principally permitted in all zoning districts and urban

industrial agricultural requires the zoning districts except for the industrial use districts where it's permitted. i would like to make a note that the neighborhood al cultural use is exempt from neighborhood notification section 311 and 312 except in the eastern neighborhoods mixed use district where there is an introduction of a use that jumps the use categories. the planning department has received numerous letters and chief concerns with the elimination of the fencing requirement and the change of use fees and allowing the sale of value added goods and produce to be sold at one residential site. the planning department believing eliminating the fencing requirements and the fee requirements would set an undesirable precedent if propoedz ordinance does not obligate the use of a fence. however, should a fence be used, it should comply with the citywide standard set forth in

the green landscaping ordinance. regarding fees, all proposals must pay fees in accordance of the planning code and the planning department believes this should remain consistent with the agricultural uses. the planning department believes that allowing the sale of value-added goods and produce grown at multiple sites to be pooled and sold at one residential site would potentially escalate the residential activity to create a velvet of excessive disturbance. and for the further comment that we have received from the sfpuc and as i mentioned earlier, they will be commenting after my presentation and i would like to take a minute to note the relation of this ordinance with controlled substances and this ordinance does not augment, alter, or elimb gnat any existing -- or eliminate any existing on controlled substances for commercial use or sale which would continue to be reviewed under the planning code as a greenhouse use and will be

applied according to the district her in. and commissioners, the planning department recommends the following changes. and it may occur at the following proposed section and limited sales of produce may occur on otherwise vacant property. and we would like you to read the unlimited donation and not within the dwelling unit. and would modify the setback and one modification that was not in the case report proposes the urban planning code section and

currently 102.34 is the mobile food facility with 102.35. and taken together, it strikes the appropriate balance and allowing planning commission discretion in future projects. with the growth of small scale and permitting the lower intensity neighborhood and agricultural zoning districts and exempting from neighborhood notifications section 311 and 312 and with the directive 29.03 of the local food growth and this concludes the presentation and i will give the floor over to mr. bart groom.

>> good afternoon. the sfpuc has worked with mayor's office, planning department, and urban agriculturaled a voe t cass on water conservation amendments to the ordinance before you. and the sfpuc support. cultural and economic and canning cultural benefits but edible plants are typically high water use plants and they typically consume more water than the landscape or sallow land they replace. and water conservation practices can greatly reduce the amount of water that would be applied in the situations. last december san francisco

enacted the water efficient irrigation ordinance which requires that planted area installed after january 21, 2011, that exceed 1,000 square feet to comply with state mandated water allowances and also to meet other water efficient irrigation requirements. the irrigation ordinance already applies to neighborhood agriculture and urban industrial agriculture as proposed in the ordinance and under the terms of the irrigation ordinance, the spf -- the sfpuc are required prior to issuance of any permit to enable the installation of new planted areas, including those contemplated in this ordinance. the sfpuc suggests that we insert a cross reference to chapter 63 of the administrative code which is the irrigation

ordinance. and this serves as a reminder to those seeking to establish an urban agricultural project and to city officials that water efficiency requirements apply and the sfpuc approval is necessary prior to permit issuance. again, this is existing law. the introduction has prompted the water conservation team to look at ways to streamline the state landscaping documentation process for neighborhood agriculture and our primary concern is to enforce the state maximum applied water allowance which already permits 30% more water for edible plants. the water budget is reasonable and our streamlined compliance would remove requirements for a landscape architect's plans, for detailed list, and other requirements that just don't make sense or