caps. >> if i may, there is no requirement that it be opaque. and i think there is the impression if it's a wooden fence it has to be opaque, but it can be quite open and see through it. >> that is my understanding. >> and can you define what value added goods are? and there is a definition or put that in there? it sounds like there is maybe very good reasons to include value added goods but i don't know exactly what those are. >> what the department means by value added good is if you had blew blueberry and the value ud added would be the creation of jams or a pie, for instance. something more than the raw produce or food taken out. >> using that example, whoi would we want -- i understand the use of the primary concern and something like blueberries and jam doesn't seem that significant of a difference. >> i think part of the concern

is that as part of the -- well, this is especially in our district and part of the accessory use controls is that you cannot sell stock and trade from your home. another issue is that it's very hard for us to control if the pies you bake were actually from the blueberry bushes in your backyard. at what point -- i don't know if the planning department is equipped to say this is san francisco blueberries and these are from whatnot. and i believe we have an issue with how we grapple with the enforcement on that. commissioner borden: and if we added value added and the blueberry and would kitchen requirements be kicked in? >> i believe that would have to be regulated under the department of public health. and it is my understanding that they go around. >> and the guy from urban agriculture, can you answer that question about value added goods like the blueberry -- you can come to the podium and whether that would require a kitchen

facility. >> thank you. so many both of the cases of value added our proposal is for the planning commission to allow it on site and anyone who wanted to do it would have to follow any applicable health code laws and there are some. and i think quite a number may find it is not worth trying because once you do a processed good you have to follow quite a few regulations. for those that wanted to and wanted to make the jam and the pickles, and the planning commission can say, if you want to try it, it's okay on this site. >> but if you saw -- and you could still -- i guess i am confused because there is times when you go to fairs and there is jam made locally and don't have a kitchen. >> with quite a few there and we don't want to change the rules.

we wanted the sales allowed there and with the cucumbers in one place, couldn't you sell your pickles right next to it? commissioner borden: and value added goods would be a product in the direct line of linage of a product on the property and wouldn't i knitted a sweater and add that as something to sell. >> correct. and we had language in the letters that we sent to you under the letterhead that farmers' markets probably use this as well and find closer language and a majority of the ingredients came from that site. and there are questions of enforcement and i am not exactly sure how farmers' market does it but they have figured out ways to do it and if you made a salsa that most of the ingredients came from the garden, maybe you didn't make the salsa yourself.

>> and did you look at -- >> i would like the commissioners to check. >> and commissioner, i am working under the umbrella of the department of public health. and i spoke to the director of environmental health this morning and we discussed this very issue. value added product and the processed food. and which we allow both at certified farmers' markets and other events. and in those cases value added products are processed foods and must be prepared in a commercial or approved kitchen. and permitted by the city of san francisco or department of health at the state level. most kitchens have to be approved. and also they are subject to a fee for specific events or

mobile vendors. and whether you prepare the value added product from the production site and from another site, and those whoub subject to the regulations. >> thank you for carefullying. >> did you look at the definition of value added goods? >> i did not. >> and maybe at some point after i ask you a few questions and you can look at those and i would be in favor of allowing with additional regulations to have that in the legislation and requirements about how the goods are determined. i would like you to look at that legislation and language to see if that would make sense.

can you tell me what the fee is? i want to understand what the fee is per square foot or -- >> minimal change in use permit is the planning department fees are approximately $300. those are the fees coming from us. i am not clear how much department of building and inspection would tack on for their review and overhead. >> if they didn't have fencing -- >> we would like to have an inventory of where the urban agricultural uses are and if you have a vacant lot and registered vacant in the database, when someone comes to use that as the urban agricultural use, we would like to fill out a change of use form and we know this lot and block x is urban industrial and provides entitlements and the securities that go alongside. commissioner borden: that is

what the department of health deals with? >> we collected data and know how the land is being used throughout the city. commissioner borden: my only thing is i don't think $$300 is unreasonable, but we have to cover our costs and in deficit times and isn't exempt it and at their own expense and doesn't seem there shouldn't be additional fees and often called the $1 permit and simply construction cost is $1 to actually change the use to whatever you are doing. >> and i would think that because they were temporary, how is that affected? it is not a full change of use and it is temp flair some cases. >> i think the planning code treats temporary differently and

there is a different permit if you want it to be a temporary use and we are assuming it will be permanent use for x-number of years and there is, i think, the temporary use fees might be higher and around $400 for a temporary use permit. i can definitely get back to you. commissioner borden: i think particularly for temporary uses it would be cheaper and i can understand from the long-term they could afford to pay it back. i don't want to rewrite the code for this use, but how to look at that and is lest costly than the permanent use and that obviously i know you have to do a counting and tracking of what are temporary and permanent and that is the preference. and as a planning commissioner, i can't advocate for no fees unfortunately because everybody has to run the department, but

if we look at how to fix those two things in particular. i will turn it over to other commissioners and i will make -- should i make a motion? i would like to move to approve with the modification of exploring how to add value added goods to the legislation, clarifying that the fencing doesn't need to be opaque, that fencing is optional, and i know 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