it continued th- funding of the public financing fund, put money into it we could not hope to spend in any timely manner. despite the fact we were not to the budget process yet. we could have just waited and seen, and seen if that was going to impact the budget, or if we wanted to spend it in other ways. this board made a policy determination that it was so important to find the public financing fund to that level, that we were just going to transfer the money in. i respect the decision, even though i happen to disagree with that measure. this is, in some ways, very similar. we are making a policy decision to support job creation for small businesses, to support equity in our tax policy, to

give incentives to smaller and larger businesses. you can agree or disagree with that policy objective, but to say it is not appropriate to consider this on its own merits, and it has to get thrown into the broader budget process, where we will always be able to find $2 million in needs, i disagree with that approach, so i will be voting against the continuance. supervisor kim: i do feel some confidence with this, given the we had a vote last week. i know the commitment many of us are making with these small businesses. i completely understand the points around the budget. it still is not in our budget currently, but the budget is going to change a lot in the next week. i hope it will be changing a lot in the next week. in this current budget, we do not have $2 million allocated for this tax exclusion. on a point of responsibility, i

feel we need to ensure that when we make these decisions over the next week and a half the we incorporate whatever it is our list of priorities are. there are 10 supervisors supporting this. we can ensure this is a priority. there are a number of things people will be looking to see. it is important for us to evaluate this decision amongst a marietta of things we are going to want to see in the budget. for me personally, it is the confidence of knowing we can pay for this tax occlusion the following year. it was not clear to me, when this was brought before me, that we have not taken this into account in the next fiscal year. i assumed this would impact following year revenues, not this year's fiscal year revenue. i am sorry. the controller's office -- do you want to? i want to be accurate in what i

am saying. >> through the president to supervisor kim, the impact is in the budget year, 1213-1214. it is approximately $1.50 million in year one, about $2.50 million in year two. as the board of supervisors are adjusting the budget to rebalance it if the legislation is approved, there would need to be $1.50 million added in year one, and 2.5 in year 2. supervisor kim: thank you for that clarification. we do not have $1.50 million allocated for this year. i would feel better if the mayor's office could say that within the current proposed budget that could include it, in which case i would feel comfortable voting for it today. i do not have that clarification

yet. i want to comment on many of my colleagues points above we have a no-cut budget this year, which i am thrilled about. but we as a city have been cut in services that are much needed for the last five years. we can celebrate not coming to cut more than we already have, but for the last five or six years, our city has been suffering through cuts to our public education. we shortened our school year this past year. we are looking at shortening it again. we have not raised the cost of living for our nonprofit employees that give service to our poorest residents, expecting our service providers to be poor themselves. there are a lot of things we need to think about. i think it is important that as we evaluate all of our priorities, whether it is around violence prevention,

services, recreation centers, but we are able to evaluate all of this in one piece next week. i do not think a two week continuance is a large delay. i do not think it is a statement to our small businesses that we do not support them. i would like to know that is allocated before we concerned -- confirm this legislation. supervisor chu: i will keep my comments brief. i appreciate my colleagues, especially my colleagues on the committee. i appreciate their respective -- perspective. i do take issue with the fact that we have a strong majority of our board saying that we think this is a priority, a vote of 10-1, and yet we are saying we are ok with it so long as we do not have to find the money to pay for it. i do not think that is fair irresponsible for us to do.

whenever we pass legislation that has a financial impact, we ought to think of how we will pay for it. i want to make that comment. i would hope that if we voted so strongly for this payroll tax exclusion, we would prioritize finding money for it. i think we all have a responsibility, not just the mayor, to find a way to pay for the things we want. president chiu: not to belabor other points, but i want to thank supervisor farrell for the work he has done on this issue, and for prioritizing the importance of making sure we focus on our small businesses. i do think a two week continuance, so we can work out details during the budget process -- i think that makes sense. i appreciate the comment mr.

elliott said, but i would like to know some specifics of how this would be fixed. i do plan to support this measure, when it comes back in two weeks. i think it gives us a little time to make sure we do this right and our questions are answered. supervisor elsbernd: will call on the motion to continue the item to july 10. >> that is a three week continuance. on the motion -- supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. >> there are 7 ayes and 4 nos. supervisor elsbernd: the motion

to continue passes. would you please read items 14 and 13? >> i am 13 amend the zoning map to change the height and bulk map classification along the drum street frontage of the property at 8 washington street. it makes the requisite findings. item 14 approves a general plan amendment for the eight washington street project. both of these are from the land use and economic development committee, without recommendation. president chiu: i want to thank you for your focus on this project. i will not belabor the many issues we have discussed. i would like you to consider, as you have undoubtedly read in the newspapers, that we all have many constituents preparing to engage in a signature gathering efforts, with regards to a

zoning ordinance that would increase to the height of the waterfront. the ordinance is very short, but the ordinance references and numerous documents. in fact, numerous voluminous documents that would be incorporated into this ordinance. i have been asked whether the ordinance, as it is circulated, needs to include these many long documents, which would include, for example, not just a full environmental impact report, but the general plan. this would literally add half a foot of documents. under the california state constitution, voters have a constitutional right of referendum. whether requiring folks collecting the signatures to carry around half a foot of documents while they collect documents -- that is a question

that is upon us. i have circulated to use some correspondence between my office and the city attorney's office, which lays out this question. just so i can point out, in my june 14 letter, i laid out all of the various documents, the 15 documents incorporated by reference, that some might suggest may need to be part of this referendum. i do not think it needs to be, but it is a bit unclear. there is a city memorandum that not all of these documents need to be included. for example, the environmental impact report does not need to be included in this document. the city attorney has suggested an amendment to the ordinance in front of us for a vote today, to revise it to make sure that is clear. that is the amendment you have in front of you. this is simple.

do we need to reference documents our city attorney has stated we do not need to include, which would add to a significant burden of residents in san francisco the would be engaging in their constitutional right to referendum? i would ask that we move forward an amendment to insure we do not need to add all these documents, and ask for your support for that. supervisor elsbernd: the president has a motion to amend. commissioner avalos, seconded. to the amendment -- supervisor wiener: when this was first raised this morning, the question i had was whether this would result in a continuance for the second reading. i understand from the city

attorney this amendment would require continuance. >> that is correct. and the amendment on second read turns the item into a first read. supervisor wiener: the eir reference is a very bulky document. even though i am not really sure what i think about legislation to make it harder or easier for petition gatherers to apply their trade -- you can imagine going both ways on that. i was sympathetic to the eir aspect of it. if it would not result in a continuance, i would have been very open to supporting this. i did suggest getting a waiver from the project sponsor, committing to not raising the issue, so that the referendum

signatures are invalid. i understand the product sponsor is willing to do that to the eir. i think that is an elegant and simple solution that accomplishes the goal without delaying the vote on this project. i would very much prefer to proceed in this direction. there are additional documents on the list, in terms of what the waiver would have to include. given that, i will not be supporting this amendment. i regret that a lot, because i think there is a simple, easy, and elegant solution to this issue. president chiu: i appreciate the attempt to try to resolve this in a different way. colleagues, so you know, i was open to considering an approach whereby the project sponsor of waives rights, with respect to

certain documents. the problem is, look at the list of 15 documents that right now are incorporated by reference. this is a lot of documents. if you can think about residence inn san francisco collecting signatures needed to attach literally a box of documents, there are at in addition to the eir the general plan, which we know is a voluminous document in itself. i am willing, and if the project sponsor is willing, to consider to exempt the documents excluding those which are legally required -- the problem with the offer products sponsors made is that as the city attorney has already stated, it is clear the environmental impact report is required. -- is not required. i do not think that is much of a

concession, on the part of the development. if we can understand what it is that would be required under the likely extremely voluminous document that a volunteer signature gatherers would have to move out into the neighborhoods with. supervisor elsbernd: roll call, please. supervisor kim: no. supervisor mar: no. supervisor olague: no. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. >> there are 4 ayes and 7 nos.

supervisor elsbernd: the motion to amend fails. supervisor avalos: a question for the attorney. it is on the documentation accompanying the legislation we have before us. if there is a change in the height or bulk of the property, generally, there has to be authorization from the existing property owner to allow for that transfer. any height increase of property owned by a property owner for the eight washington project, the planning department should be receiving a copy of the letter allowing the city to rezone that part of golden gateway center. i wondered whether that was a requirement before we can vote on this legislation. >> i cannot speak for planning.

my understanding from seeing correspondence from them is that there is such a document that the property owner has signed. there is no requirement that that document be in today's board file, but you may want to confirm that document does exist. supervisor avalos: ok. we do not have anyone from planning here today. can we get a report from planning about whether this document exists? my motion is to propose -- to postpone this vote until later on the agenda. supervisor elsbernd: do you want to also ask us to call planning to see if this letter can be brought to you?

supervisor avalos: that would be in order, yes. supervisor elsbernd: any comment on this? seeing none, a roll call. supervisor kim: no. supervisor mar: no. supervisor olague: no. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. >> there are 4 ayes and 7 nos. supervisor elsbernd: seen no other comment, a roll call on items 13 and 14. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. >> supervisor campos?

supervisor avalos: sorry, no. supervisor campos: no. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. >> there are 8 ayes and 3 nos. supervisor elsbernd: the items are finally approved. item 15. >> item 15 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to establish an urban agricultural program to coordinate and oversee all of the city's urban and agricultural activities and adopt goals. president chiu: when a we move onto a more fun topic? i want to thank all of you who have supported our urban agriculture legislation, supervisors olague, mar, and cohen.

urban agriculture is happening around the country, and reflects an interest in how the and sustainable living. since 2008, more than two dozen forms have sprouted across san francisco. the lack of coordination between the city agencies that have a plan in urban agriculture has led to an overall decline in city resources, related to funding from the 1990's. there is also no cross department agenda, and there have not been a full-time staff dedicated to this issue. this legislation creates a centralized urban agriculture program that will help, hopefully, to bring cohesion to city management of the urban agriculture strategy. in addition to serving as a one- stop shop for technical assistance, we hope it will enhance urban agriculture in san francisco. i want to thank the many city departments that have worked on this issue, including the

mayor's office, the rec and park department, puc, planning, and the department of public works. i also want to thank the urban agriculture alliance, and in particular, spur, whose staff wrote and researched the report that has led to this legislation. i also want to thank my aid for the work that she has done not just on this ordinance, but on the ordinance passed last year to make sure san francisco is on the forefront of the urban agriculture movement. i hope that in the coming years, everywhere throughout the city, we will be able to identify unused and vacant spaces, as well as underutilized properties we can turn into greenery, where people can grow foods that would be sustainable for us and bring money off of it at the same time. i ask for your support. supervisor chu: thank you very

much. i wanted to comment on this item. i support the goal of presenting incentives for the use that is vacant. i support the coordination of the urban agricultural activities across the city. another is about a half a million dollars that get spent in various departments for this area. however, i will be voting against this, probably in the minority. i want to explain why. the areas that concern me are not necessarily the intent, but some of the things it would obligate us to. it does obligate us to at least one full-time staff position. i am not sure i think that is justified at this time. second, it creates a one-stop shop in terms of a goal. it puts a goal of the least 10 new locations of urban agriculture to be completed by january 1. i am not sure what the plans are

or whether the funding sources are there to create it. in addition, part of the goals specify which would open garden resource centers in their herds across the city. we have issues as relates to even run our existing recreation and parks services, among other things. it is unclear to me where we would find the funding to do some of the goals put out there. i do not want to vote for something that i am not sure what the plans are, in terms of funding. i am very supportive of the general goals of creating incentives for the properties to be used for urban agriculture, and support the desire to better the coordination of the efforts. i absolutely understand the value of urban agriculture. i simply do not want to commit yet to positions that i do not know whether they are fully justified, nor to the creation of new locations, or the opening of additional resource centers across the city, when we already have operational strains

within our existing recreation and parks department. i simply wanted to say why i am voting against it. thank you. supervisor mar: i just wanted to thank the san francisco urban agriculture alliance and president chiu's office for working out concrete goals. i know a key part of it will be implementation. as the budget committee goes through its process, the question supervisor chu just raised is critical. i am sympathetic of the desire to expand urban farms to every district in the city, and to work with the budget committee to insure these goals are met and we work with stakeholder groups and the urban agriculture alliance to bring about in the future. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: i would like to move that we continue this item to july 10, simply based on the precedents of a

half-hour ago. i think it would be borderline hypocritical for us to vote for an ordinance when we know it is not funded. that was the lesson i learned a half hour ago. hopefully, we have all learned that. i would like to continue this to july 10, see if the budget committee funds these priorities, and then vote on it. president chiu: i will second that. i will speak to this. first of all, i am glad we are having a little bit of fun today, colleagues. [laughter] i would like to respond to some of the issues supervisor chu has raised. some of you might suggest this is an unfunded mandate. we right now have over half a million dollars spread across several different departments that we spend on urban agriculture. we have little bits of budget that we spend in different paths around the city, and yet,

because it is not coordinated, we are not moving forward with our strategy in an effective way. this ordinance is simply stating, why don't we think about our budget and house this in one individual, so that one person can corral seven different bureaucracies. this is not about an unfunded mandate. it is about using what we are currently spending on urban agriculture, spending that in a smarter way today. with regards to the issues around the goal, it is simply a goal. it is not stating we have to do this. it is an aspiration that we identify 10 locations around the city. i was a little worried about not stating that we would have 11, but i now know we do not have to site this in district 4. we have gardens and spaces around the city. this is not about identifying new spaces, but insuring that we

are creating spaces in every neighborhood of the city, hopefully every district of the city, where people can find garden resources. let me ask the maker of the motion if you will work with my office to see if we can resolve some of these issues over the next few weeks. i know there is a very robust community of urban agriculture activists that wish to ensure we are moving this forward. i hope there is an opportunity to work with the urban agriculture committee. we can work with these healthy and sustainable efforts in every district, in every part of the city.

supervisor elsbernd: for me, creating jobs in san francisco is a higher budget priority than creating urban farms. first, i want to create jobs. if there is money left over in the budget, i will work with you to create urban farms. foremost, i want to create jobs. president chiu: i think that suggests a misperception about the urban agriculture movement. this is a movement that is creating jobs. in fact, that has been a major thrust of many activists, who want to make sure you are growing things you think you can sell. rather than having multinational corporations selling and our grocery store is here, san francisco residents are able to grow produce that they sell, with produce the make. i do this as an economic development activity, but i am happy to support the motion to continue. supervisor campos: on that

motion? supervisor avalos: i think allowing for inconsistency at the board of supervisors is common as people running stop signs at the excelsior district. but i will support this motion to continue. i was actually interested in looking at whether this ordinance would require a budget allocation. i would argue it was not, prior to the meeting. i would rather have the answer before me. i am sure i can get it clear within the next two weeks. i support this measure. i think we could do a lot of work around urban agriculture by doing the work in the budget, without having to do an ordinance. this does have job creation.