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. this is about how we allocate public land. i will wait until july 10. supervisor kim: i am also happy to wait. but the fact that there is not a

budget allocation needed, that this is putting together a diffuse items of budgets in various departments, under one department -- if i can get clarity on that before we vote on the motion, i would appreciate it. president chiu: i am happy to clarify that again. let me read the department's that have been part of the -- let me read the list of departments that have been part of this. the department of agriculture, the mayor's office of economic and workforce development, the puc, and a dozen others. these have all spent some budget on urban agriculture. because of this decentralization, and how these part-time city resources -- we

are setting ourselves back. i think this is a no-brainer to consolidate and centralize. if colleagues want to take a few weeks to get comfortable with that, i am happy for that to be the case. supervisor chu: i do want to be consistent. it seems there is not an additional budget request that comes along with this ordinance. i will not be supporting this ordinance. -- supervisor kim: supervisor chu: there are existing costs. my concern really is around how we intend to fund things. as we all know, many of these moneys are probably going toward grants to organizations in the community. perhaps we could reorganize so they could pay for these

objectives throughout funding. i want to be clear that i am not clear from this piece of legislation that the intention of the legislator is to cap it at the amount which currently are spending. it seems to me there are additional pieces we are asking for. a priority for me -- with garden resource centers, we already have huge operations with the rec and park apartment the do not have enough funding. i am not sure how we are able to open multiple centers throughout the city with the existing $500 that pay for grants and other things. supervisor wiener: i will not be supporting this motion, but i do want to say, through the chair, that i am going to miss supervisor elsbernd, come

january. one more reason term limits stink. president chiu: the supervision lays out the planning commission by which the city administrator will work with the seven agencies involved in urban agriculture to figure out the best way to do forward-looking planning. that is all this legislation does. "it is important to make sure we have all or agencies move in the right direction. if we want to and budget to this, that might be appropriate. that is not specifically what this legislation is about. supervisor chu: in the legislation, it is very specific. it says it will be city policy to fund one position in the budget. if that are being going -- borne

by all departments, i think it is unlikely we will be able to reallocate half a person from somewhere else and have a person from somewhere else. i look forward to cherry picking that legislation as we move forward. president chiu: i appreciate you suggesting we add that back in the budget process. supervisor chu: of course, it was not an ad back, it was never there. -- add back. president chiu: that is true. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor campos: on the motion to continue, a roll call. >> we will say to july 10. supervisor kim: no. supervisor mar: no. supervisor olague: no. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye.

supervisor chu: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. >> there are 7 ayes and 4 nos. supervisor campos: the item is continued to july 10. >> item 16 amends the administration code, authorizing employees to perform demolition, repair, and replacement work on piers under the jurisdiction of the san francisco port commission. supervisor chu: no problems from me on this. i just want to be added as a co- sponsor. president chiu: any other discussions are motions to continue? ok. roll-call vote. supervisor kim: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye.

supervisor campos: aye. supervisor chu: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the ordinance is passed on first reading. >> item 17 is an ordinance amending the police code to prohibit obstructing sidewalks adjacent to white-colored curbstones, and adopting the requisite findings. supervisor campos: colleagues, let me begin by thanking my colleagues who are cosponsoring this piece of legislation. this is a common-sense legislation that is essentially prohibits the obstruction of sidewalks that are adjacent to white zones in the city and county of san francisco. in the course of doing research about this issue, we realized

that even though you have white zones, that there is nothing prohibiting the obstruction of those areas on our street. we had a pretty extensive hearing in committee. many members of the san francisco community came and testified about the benefits of this legislation. we made an amendment that at the time was requested to address some concerns by our transportation agency. after further conversations with folks in the city, as well as consultation with the city attorney's office, we determined the amendment was no longer necessary. i have distributed to you, through the clerk, the amendment is essentially bringing the legislation back to its original form.