chairperson mar: this is the regular meeting of a land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am the chair person. to my right is the vice chair person. to my left is supervisor weiner. >> please turn off all cellular

phones and pagers. speaker cards and documents should be submitted to the clerk. items docketed today will appear on the april 5 agenda unless otherwise stated. chairperson mar: the overflow room for this room is the north light court. if anyone is called to speak, they should come immediately to this room. please call item one. >> authorizing a settlement agreement with the forty-niners related to candlestick stadium. chairperson mar: we are joined by the recreation and parks department. >> the item we have before you is a supplement amendment and use agreements for a longstanding claim the 49ers have had against the city, dating back to the 1980's. the city and the 49ers have a dispute over the city's ongoing

maintenance of candlestick park. in 1998, we entered an agreement to try to temporarily resolve that dispute. since that time, we have entered a series of six agreements to address non maintenance needs at the stadium. on june 18, 2010, the 49ers submitted a government claim against the city alleging the city was in violation of police for failing to maintain the stadium. the klan did not have a monetary value. the 49ers have previously alleged the deferred maintenance at the stadium exceeded $60 million. the city attorney's office summarily denied that claim on august 2, 2010. since that time, the city attorney's office, mayor's office, and recreation and parks department have been speaking with the forty-niners and negotiating the settlement package you have before you. the settlement agreement would

do three things. it would amend the current lease term. the 49ers have two years left on their most recent lease extension before having five additional options for extension, ending in 2023. the proposed settlement would have the forty-niners, upon approval by the board of supervisors -- they would immediately execute a five-year lease extension with the city, and then there would be a series of 71-year lease extensions thereafter come up with the -- of seven one-year lease extensions thereafter, with the same eventual settlement date. there would be a capital improvement payment to the forty-niners of $3 million from

the litigation reserve fund, upon approval of the settlement agreement. a series of $3.50 million in additional rent credits over the five-year extension, and $6 million in rent reduction that the niners would be able to climb. the rent reductions are reflective of the condition of the stadium. they would be put off to the later years of the extension so that we would be making investments and saving in further years, the out years, when the city would receive lesser benefits from additional improvements of the stadium. we would grant the 49ers rent reductions in their blue -- the ir lieu. the 49ers would be waiving all of their claims as regard

condition of the stadium. that list of $60 million alleged ould waive their rio proceed with legal actioneir rio against the city. regarding those alleging deferred maintenance needs -- most importantly to the city, we would be for the first time defining the city's ongoing maintenance obligations at the stadium, maintaining the stadium in its as-is condition. currently, the lease is somewhat vague, and the city is a required to maintain the city in good condition for the exhibition of nfl football games. we would for the first time receive, i think, a clear indication of how we are supposed to maintain the stadium. our maintenance obligations would also be obligated to

fixing any additional conditions that arise, rather than any existing conditions that may or may not already exist at the stadium. with that, i will make myself available to any questions that the committee had. chairperson mar: i see no questions. let's open this up to the public. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward with a positive recommendation? without objection. we have two more items on the agenda. i am guessing the third item has a lot of people who would like to speak. why don't we call item 2 below? >> ordinance amending the planning code related to urban agriculture in uses of various zoning district. chairperson mar: this item is sponsored by the mayor and president david chiu.

president chiu: thank you. and someone who has been a strong supporter of urban agriculture, i am proud to help support and sponsor this legislation, along with the mayor. this has been a partnership between the mayor, the agricultural alliance, and the community of urban farmers in san francisco that is growing by the day. this legislation is about increasing the number of urban farms in san francisco. it will have incredible health and community benefits. across the united states, we have urban farmers' growing crops on vacant lots, abandoned fields, in greenhouses, on balconies is, in their schools, in prisons, in nursing homes, and other creative places.

urban gardens are providing benefits beyond good and healthy food. they are going communities, enhancing the health of residents, creating green jobs, producing locally-grown vegetables in a way that will connect people to their food and their land, as well as strengthening our environment through reduce fossil fuel dependents. i understand the mayor's office will be making several amendments today which i support, related to the sale of value-added products and the addition of language around water efficiency. i also want to ask colleagues if you will consider two technical amendments. the first is with regards to the term "industrial urban agriculture." i would like to change that term to "large-scale urban agriculture," which more accurately depicts the farming that will happen. the second amendment we have is

from "urban agriculture stakeholders" to allow the term "green fencing" to be added, to allow chain-link fencing if over half is covered by plant material, vegetation, or similar types within three years of insulation. this will ensure city -- ensure our city remains on the forefront of the urban agriculture movement in the united states. we have presentations from the mayor's office and planning. i ask for your consideration and support of this legislation today. chairperson mar: from the mayor's office, johanna parton. >> i am the director of climate

commit -- climate protection initiatives in the mayor's office. we strongly support the proposed ordinance. urban agriculture and local food production is seeing a welcome and dramatic upsurge in interest and is a key component of health and sustainability programs. the proposed ordinance was introduced by mayor gavin newsom and is now supported by mayor ed lee. it is an outgrowth of an executive directive which directed city departments to implement actions with the goal of improving food production in san francisco. the executive directive was put in place to promote local food for all residents, to reduce environmental impacts associated with food production, to create new opportunities for the use of fellow land in the city, and to foster local green jobs. based on discussions with the

department of the environment, sfpuc, and a number of advocates, mayor lee would like to introduce a number of amendments in addition to those introduced by president chiu. the first is on page 3, lines 9 through 12. we would like to change the language that currently says the sale of processed goods is prohibited and change that to sales and deliveries of site are permitted. in every district except a residential district, value added products where the ingredients are grown on site is permitted. this would get at what supervisor chiu mentioned to really allow urban agriculture practitioners to generate an income from these locations. the second amendment is at page

3, lines 17 through 24, adding a section on water conservation. any plot of land that exceeds 1000 square feet and is newly established for urban agriculture shall comply with applicable water use requirements of a minister to code chapter 23. per the in minister to code, no permit for any s.e.c. or the modified land area includes 135,000 square feet shall be issued until the committee has approved the documentation. that is a reminder about existing regulations around water conservation. two procedural amendments -- on page two, compost areas must be set back at least 3 feet from dwelling units and decks.

the final amendment, on page three line 15, changing from letters to numbers at the request of the city attorney's office. we are strongly in support of the proposed ordinance before you. i will turn it over to him marie rogers from the planning department -- anne marie rogers from the planning department to discuss the details. >> it is a pleasure to speak before you in support of this proposed ordinance. the planning commission is very supportive about this. this item was heard before it as a text amendment. there was no opposition to this. there was hours and hours of testimony by dozens of supporters. i am sure you will see them here as well.

as mentioned in the ordinance, this ordinance seeks to clarify how the city of san francisco classifies urban agriculture activities into two categories. there is a smaller neighborhood scale and a larger scale. we wanted to make the neighborhood of agriculture as permissible as possible everywhere. the larger use requires conditional use in districts that are not zoned industrial. in general, what differentiates the uses is operational standards. i think taken together, the planning commission is very happy about this ordinance and how it strikes a balance between intensities and uses in various parts of the city. we are very pleased to be part of this. thank you for the inclusion of our amendment.

if you have any other questions, i will answer anything regarding land use. chairperson mar: any questions? thank you so much to president chiu and ms. parton. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? we have a number of speaker cards. i am going to call them in order. the first is eli zigas from the urban agriculture alliance. thank you for the great work. 344 signed petitions. dana pearl. fred rinney from the urban agriculture alliance. karen heissler from mission pie. is eli here? two minutes per person.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for having this hearing. i am co-coordinator of the urban agriculture alliance. we are a volunteer community group with over 30 members that advocates the growing of food in san francisco. a number of our members are here today. they are not all planning on speaking. could the folks who are here to support this please raise your hand? a lot of people here to support this proposal. i hope you will. that is the main message i want to bring today. the corps proposal as well as the amendments are great additions to san francisco zoning code and i hope to support them. the bill's sponsors, as well as the planning department, drafted a proposal that is very well tailored to san francisco. i would like to emphasize that as much as i use the language of urban farms, what we are really

talking about is gardens. they are not going to be huge farms like you might think about in the country. most of them are going to be less than 1 acre. those that are not fall under another category. about the amendments -- defense an amendment is crucial because it keeps costs down. the original proposal would have required a wood or ornamental fence. this amendment would allow for a chain-link fence as long as it met the aesthetic concerns with vegetation. value added sales allows gardeners to maximize their produce. >> 30 seconds. >> we would prefer to see that value added sales were allowed in all districts, including residential, but we understand that would be a big step and accept the compromise that it is allowed everywhere except residential areas. we think the puc for listening

to our concerns. they have made the process easier for edible gardens. we do not oppose the amendment. i personally strongly supports the amendment to change the term from urban industrial to large scale. thank you very much. chairperson mar: if your name has been called, please come forward. let us try to keep to the two minutes, please. thank you. >> my name is dana pearls. i support pesticide watch. i will keep this short. pesticide watch is a nonprofit organization seeking to prevent pesticide exposure, build healthy communities, and advocate for sustainable solutions to a broken food system through the advocacy of urban local agriculture. thank you. we are actively promoting non-

toxic alternatives to the current food system which will support economically viable job opportunities, connect communities to nutritional and health the options, and allow people the option to consume non-toxic food. this ordinance will provide equitable access, proactively promote our visions for healthy communities, and allow people to enjoy a much greener san francisco. pesticide watch would like to support the proposed amendments, including the changing of the fencing language to allow for greener fencing, and removing language limiting only to wooden fencing. we would also like to support the value added goods and sale of those in mixed communities. thank you very much. chairperson mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is brokok budner.

at our farm, we grow salad greens and culinary herbs. with an updating zoning code, we would be able to sell to restaurants, neighbors, caterers, and france. i think these businesses have real potential to demonstrate not only ecological sustainability, but economic stability. since much of the city's vacant land is located in residential neighborhoods, i will briefly describe how are form has fit into a residential neighborhood so far. my partner and i work on site four days a week within normal business hours, using mostly hand tools. we occasionally use a week wacker for larger tasks, usually no more than once a week. we have volunteered days, hosting want to 10 people on these days. we have received no complaints about noise. we have been told we are good

neighbors. i think our farm illustrates that small-scale farming is a relatively quiet activity, usually creating less noise than a typical landscaper and less traffic than an occasional dinner party. to give you a sense of our scale, we came to grow and sell 50 pounds of produce per week. i have experienced firsthand the filling relationships that can form around a farm located in a residential neighborhood. we are visited daily by neighbors. some pass by to say hello and check on the progress of the crops. other step outside to offer hot tea. others share stories of their former grandparents. -- farmer grandparents. others ask when they will be able to buy or cabbage. our farm has become an integral part of this neighborhood by presenting a connection to something we all share, the need for food.

chairperson mar: thank you. >> i live next door to the farm. i think it is terrific, and the neighbors love it. it contributes greatly to the safety and quality and character of the neighborhood. chairperson mar: what is your name? >> [unintelligible] chairperson mar: thank you. >> my name is karen heissler. i am an owner of a bakery and named mission pi. -- mission pie. part of what we are doing is running our business with as high in the instrumental -- with as high environmental standards as possible, which includes local food. for us, the obvious benefit of this ordinance would be the increase in production of food

grown locally. beyond that, what is really exciting to us is the prospect of, especially in this economic time, a new small-business sector as colleagues. we have been particularly inspired to watch the growth of little city gardens and to fill the possibility of a demonstration by them and many other small businesses of a viable new sector that would provide jobs. i would like to say it is delightful to see how much support there has been for all the amendments. it seems like there is a full steam ahead feeling behind this. i would encourage as much generosity, if that is inappropriate word to use, as possible toward the development of small-scaled businesses like little city. i am sure you hear this all the time. this is not the easiest city to

do business in, for a lot of good reasons, because we have high standards. so we should look for places like the value added products to help young forming businesses succeed. thanks very much. chairperson mar: i have called all the cards. is there anyone else that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. i guess i will just say that i really think this coalition of organizations and urban farmers and environmentalists is tremendous. i applaud the mayor's office and joanne parton for bringing this open -- bring this before us. i will also say it is not just about health and sustainability. it is also growing local food court tremendous numbers of growing people who are facing food insecurity in our city. i think the chronicle article that was either today or sunday

acknowledges that one in five people are food insecurity and hungry. one of the food security task force points is that 85,000 people rely on some form of food from countries. the more we can grow locally, the better. it addresses some equity and food insecurity in many of our neighborhoods in the city. i strongly support this effort and applaud the coalition, including everyone who signed the petition and that has been calling and informing us over the past couple of weeks. president chiu: i also want to echo your comments. it is great to see all the green in this chamber. we look forward to seeing a lot more grain around san francisco. i particularly want to thank the folks from the san francisco urban agriculture alliance for all the info on this legislation, as well as to ms. parton, the mayor's office, and the planning department.

we have the densest neighborhoods west of the mississippi. if we can prove here in san francisco that urban gardens are possible, this will be a beacon to the rest of the state and the rest of the country what is possible. i strongly urge your support and hope you will adopt the amendments from the mayor's office and from myself. supervisor weiner: i also want to thank everyone for coming out today and for moving this legislation forward. we are a very modern city, constantly looking for ways to become more modern. one of the unfortunate things that happened in the 20th century was that as we modernized we started to lose touch with some of the great things about human interaction, whether we are talking about great public spaces, or things like streetcars or biking