it says that for the public record for everyone to know that it is not required. it is optional and doesn't need to be opaque as many people were concerned. and that we look at the issue around the fees and how we can differentiate a temporarying a agriculture use and make the fees and minimal as possible. president olague: second. >> some of my questions have been cleared up. i am particularly taken with casey allen's comments on hours. which are currentfully there at 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and obviously that can be seven days a week with no other statement. i have no problem with crops growing seven days a week. they're going to. 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and additional. however, it comes to sales. when you get into residential

neighborhoods in the middle of them and please correct me if i am incorrect and i could set up a store selling my agricultural goods including value added from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days a week all year. is that correct? >> i think my take on the legislation is you could sell your produce vegetables, lettuce, et, seven days a week 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. >> all right. because i would object to that and there should be much more stringent regulations to hours and how many days per week that can be done if we are going into residential neighborhoods.

and the real problem with that one. and we're familiar, some of us, with agriculture every day of the week and you have the lot on mcalester street and i have three on catrell hill where i live and there's probably more and community gardens that have been there for a long, long time. and when you were talking about just a few moments ago about change of use and what is permanent and what is not permanent -- >> teawe temporary. >> and there are different definitions of the term temporary in san francisco code and sometimes it means a one-day event and i think that should be checked out a little more and there is some specificity to it.

and i have one problem that commissioner borden touched upon and that is using the same example of blueberry, i don't know where they are coming from when they get into value added. and for that matter, i don't know where they're coming from when they're in a basket. and i would not like to see berries, let us say, being grown or squash or pumpkins being grown that are being brought in commercially because all of a sudden a particular site has become a hot selling site which could happen. i know that is not the intent of the urban agriculture people who have presented to us today and who are -- i know that is not your intent. and i understand that. but it could happen. because there are people who

would do that sort of thing. we have on the street of san francisco ere day on corners people selling agricultural product that have no relationship to this city as far as their growing concerns if at all let alone to the country in most instances. so when we have that experience in front of us, i think we have to be very careful how we craft legislation in order to have the possibility of enforcement to do what it's supposed to do. and that is why we have to have some fees of some kind and you raise money for enforcement either by taxes or fees. and it is one or the other. and in this case it's appropriate for fees to be assessed there.

and as far as the chain link with minimal structure and totally opaque and that is no problem at all. and i think we've heard sufficient as far as with the pickling or baking or whatever and that is the case for a long, long time in san francisco. and the oh thing is about the puc that set clear the concept of systems and i am pleased with that. and the only other thing i have to ask is about pesticides and i

know there are state regulations and city regulations and it is my understanding if i'm correct that the city's regulations are somewhat more stringent than the state. i don't know if that's true. i vice president been able to check it out. -- i haven't been able to check it out. and in any case, do you know that and does it apply? >> our understanding is that the city's more stringent are for city funded or city property and when you have an abbreviated list or truncated list of pesticide and fertilizers and that does not apply and allow the commissioner to clarify on privately held land that regulation defers to the state. commissioner antonini: that is what i thought. i would loik that changed. >> it was our understanding out the gate we had certain language regarding inorganic fertilizers and pesticides and in our crafting the legislation we were warned of the following.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. and dee ydiego is correct and w have an agricultural commission regulates the use of pesticides in the county. and as long as those are use according to the label which is a legal document for the use, that falls under my jurisdiction. commissioner antonini: could you tell me which would be the more stringent? >> which are more stringent? it depend on the label. that is why i brought the label. it depend. the label is a document that directs the user to use that material and it's not legal and there's different levels and toxicities of pesticides.

and the label determines how toxic the pesticide is. >> the reason i ask the question is normally with state regulations the city could not set up it own regulations that were less stringent normally. they would have to set up regulations that were more stringent on the use of pesticide and that is why i am making the presuchgs. >> the city cannot set up regulations that are more stringent. the city cannot set up more stringent regulations than the state. what the city has in place are regulations that allow the use

of certain pesticides, but it is not actually more strict than how you use a pesticide. >> in other words, and can you tell me why the city's regulation differs from the state? >> they are -- they use herbicides and they maintain a list -- let me see if i can explain this. commissioner miguel: what the city uses, could be used on private property under the state regulation? >> yes. commissioner miguel: then why is the city having it own regulations? do you have any idea at all? >> i wasn't here when the ordinances were established. commissioner miguel: thank you. thank you very much.

i would appreciate diego if you would check into that because i would prefer the stricter regulations in that regard. >> it was staff's understanding that the state trumps the city's more truncated list so we could not apply that -- we cannot force privately held property to abide by the truncated city list of pesticides and fertilizers, is that correct? commissioner miguel: at any rate, i would appreciate a comment from the department of the environment. and i am making a presumption, although it's not in there, if you know, whether or not if there is sales that would occur and these groups or a group that is doing the sales would have to

register for any taxes and would have to register as far as any business permits from the city and that sort of thing. and i am presuming that that is cover and all included automatically? >> i think the assumption is if you set up a business going forward that you should secure your business license and pay the taxes. miguel were thank you. president olague: commissioner apt apt. apt commissioner antonini thank you. i have a lot of support for the proposal and a few questions. i grew up out in the livermore valley and i can remember when at a time when most of the population lived in the area and the food sources were much closer to the population and not too distant past we had areas in berkley and citrus fruits and orchards and now they come from

probably the lower central valley and the produce and that' been displaced by the housing and businesses and we have to get that from the central valley and further and you are all on the right track and i hope you communicate with your friends in the north bay and the south bay and east bay to have them have the same attitude and try to cut down on suburban sprawl and some of the worst land uses are in some of the areas that were previously very rich agricultural areas. a couple of years ago we had a report where two high-rises had about the same amount of square foot j and use 50 times as much lapped for -- land for bishop branch with the sprawl and no

parking and public transit close and we have to redirect our entire thinking, then this is a beginning for sure. i do have a couple of concerns and the first was as far as the puc comment and always a big comment of puc and you kind of snuck this in, but the restriction on minor uses of foiage around one's house and i understand you have to get a permit if you want a postage stamp lawn in front of the house and the same is true if you want to grow vegetables in your backyard. i am not sure we really should look to the big users more than the small users in san francisco. we're the best in anywhere of water use. we use very little water in san francisco and while we can always improve a little, i think we don't want to discourage people from eliminating pavement and eliminating gravel and all these other things and putting green things in front or back of their houses.

and i will have a few concerns. i guess the first is and maybe you can answer my question. i don't think this would ever block a situation where if swup has a parcel and they are using it as a garden temporarily but they are able to get a permitted use or a conditional use to put housing or another use, that would, of course, be permitted. the gardening would not stop another use in the future. >> yes. if you were to put housing there slopgs you go through the -- as long as you go through the permit process, this is not going to indefinitely tie up land for one use. commissioner antonini: the only other concern i had was certainly any gardening uses have to be consistent with neighborhood policies, particularly cc&r's of the areas that have them and i would not envision this being appropriate in front yards. i think the neighbors would have a lot of say about that and wouldn't be too happy. and certainly backyard use or

vacant use is appropriate. >> i think this ordinance is silent versus front versus back or side yards. and a lot of places in san francisco don't have front setbacks, but those that do, this is not restricting where you can put that. commissioner antonini: i would think we have to take a look at that part of it and maybe address neighborhood concerns carefully. there may be places that you say may be set back with a fenced off open space and that might be a way to have a front yard use, but if it was a visible one, i think it probably would have to get some approval from the neighbors or at least it would not be something that could not be restricted. there has to be a give and take on that. and then i can't think of any oh neighborhood impacts. i don't assume anybody would grow anything tall enough to

block light to a neighbor's house. this isn't iowa. i don't think we're going to get corn that high that will do it. i think that's fine. as far as the discussion of herbicides and pesticides, we have to make the distinction between privately owned land and publicly owned. we have very strict policies for publicly owned land with hard time keeping these up because it's difficult to get rid of weeds. and it's the wrong step to start being restrictive on private use as long as it's consistent with state laws and that has a lot of overreaching problems and this may be something we have to look at carefully. and you have to pay for the appropriate fees and should be minimal and generally supportive as long as we address the concerns i brought up. >> commissioner fond.

>> thank you. i continue to be imprezzed by this commission's farming background. my great grandparents were farmers in the delta and we come from hardy stock, i suppose. a couple of questions and some comments regarding fencing. i understand in the proposed ordinance we're not requiring fencing. it seems we are producing food for human consumption and there should be some type of barrier as the comment was made about a garden becoming a dog park if there is a delineation from a safety perspective of what can be introduced in the middle of the night, but i am not going to bring that up as a modification and make that a practical sense unless the fellow commissioners want to bring that up. regarding fees, it is appropriate to track what is happening in different parts of the city and different lots and a question about the public property and let's say there is a vacant lot right now.

do we have a listing of those that are potentially candidates for this type of year and is there a rolling website? >> i believe that is part of the directive and i am sure other agencies of publicly owned land and take stock of the all the land with the potential use for urban agriculture. and that list exists and i don't know where on the list that is but we can hunt that down for you. >> at some point in the inventory of those that are potentially available. >> if that does exist. >> another thought i had and tried to look for and couldn't find anything but related to the soil and maybe in the ground now in the vacant lot. is there any requirement for testing of that soil? or is there a requirement that planter boxes be used instead of probably list all the fears of lead paint or whatever that

might be there? >> this is silent on that. i think we are heaving it to the best judgment of the urban agriculture community to produce safe, lead-freeshgs other arsenic free, other heavy metal free produce, and no where in there is there a mandate for lead testing or other metals or the requirement of planter boxes. >> i would hope that the growers use the best precautions possible and keep that in consideration. and maybe my fellow commissioners have another thought on that. and in related to the sales of oh goods whether they are in whole or processed, and is there language that puts a maximum square footage in the lot for retail use? >> within our district if you were to use that as an accessory

dwelling -- actually, we did exempt that. you cannot sell from the dwelling unit. there are no retail controls as i understand. >> again, i know that is not the intention, but i wouldn't want it to become farmers' market and one acheer is the farm and the oh re-- and one acheer is the farm and the other is a flea market or farmers' market atmosphere. >> that was the fear and that is why we entered that pooled produce language where we didn't want that farmer's market opening up next to your home in the middle of an r district because of the disruption compatibility. that is why we kept it to what you can grow on site. >> and if this goes forward, i hope you take the opportunity to educate people and use these little sites to tell people how to bring food in and let some of the younger folks who live in san francisco see what's going

on here and pick up some of the trend. >> definitely. president olague: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i want to express my general support for this particular proposal in front of us. i commend the planning department for bringing in everybody to go to all the critical aspects that we need to hear about it and appreciate the commissioner's comments taking the discussion further and probing how deep you have examined what is in front of us. i would like to make two comments. one is on fencing and that fence, no fence, i support whatever you are suggesting in your ed verbiage. and if we are using chain link which is a neighborhood deterrent, i think many communities and not quite sure the san francisco code reads

that plain chain link is considered to have a blighting effect and i would ep can you remembering if chain link is used -- and i would encourage that it is used like a trellis to train plants up and require either wires or chain link are part of the type of food production which you have be that pea or whatever you are using. i am not 100% expert but know enough about what climbing plants are. and commissioner antonini, there are cities like los angeles where growing edible plants in front yards is very much encouraged and they are fantastic and high end, super high-end design and understood ways of arranging edible plants by season, color, and texture and are perhaps amazing and i would like to show commissioner antonini pictures of that and until i saw it, i wouldn't have

believed it either but they add to the quality of active urban landscape. that is not as much what you are planning to do but add one comment on the added value of fruit selling and while i think the commission is not prepared to support it as you are suggesting it, i would encourage an ongoing discussion with the mayor's off for economic and workforce development because if there is an idea xh n there and if you can organize under the aheadlines of your san francisco urban agricultural alliance there might be a way of finding a way to collectively find a method in term of where it's done, how it's done, and how it seasonally responds and similar harvesting ideas and get the store or store front and stand

within existing stores where you can do that. and i think there's a will, there's a way. i talked with the director for a moment and i think that lending support for those who took it further if i understood you correctly is well within that. >> absolutely. we can work with the mayor's office of economic development to figure out different alternatives of value added products at different locations or something. our concern to reiterate is essentially what might become a commercial operation in the middle of a neighborhood. that is the concern. >> that is why the commission can't afford and commissioner miguel summarized that we are in report from of the idea but might need to find another avenue and pointing you to the mayor's office and the correct

route to go and take more work but is still worthwhile and it will take you a while before you get going anyway. and you have a harvest or two and the microclimate and the growing environment and what you can do. and i am in support with the other commissioners. president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: for all your younger people out there, it is a great idea and then you ran into the bureaucracy. there is something that confuses me and we have been talking about how small these operations can be and they can be on vacant lots which make them quite viz to believe the neighborhood and

it sounded like there would be a lot of possibility for backyard agriculture. but

>> so this kind of thing we're having some difficulty, i think, try i trying of what can or can't take place. that aside, i think a couple more things, almost everybody up here said they had families or grew up on a farm except for commissioner moore, but my father when he was an immigrant came to the united states and picked strawberries and worked in fields and that is about as close as i got. but we did have two acres there. not my father, but the people that we worked for. and he was a chef, by the way. and so we had produce in the back. and we had apricots, figs, and

artichokes and asparagus. i don't know how much water they took, but berries, and it was great. and that is quite a bit more land than i think most people have here in the city. but it was a great experience for me. and then last friday i think some of you were here when i was on a tour of the tenderloin and i would like to encourage you at some point and are early in the game for everybody and obviously this hasn't passed yet but if you could think about other populations that really, really could benefit from what you are doing and set up central alliances and the city collaborative is the organization that set up the tour for me and there are other organizations and tndc and others that staff know about it and jane kim, sup