Developing a Planning Framework for Accessible and Sustained Urban Agriculture

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFONIA

Santa Barbara

DEVELOPING A PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR ACCESSIBLE AND SUSTAINED

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN U.S. CITIES

Prepared by:

Jennifer Verhines

June 1, 2011

Thesis Advisor:

Paul Wack

Lecturer, UCSB

ABSTRACT

Developing a Planning Framework for Accessible and Sustained Urban Agriculture in U.S. Cities

by

Jennifer Verhines

Food insecurity threatens communities across the United States, characterized by

environmental degradation, decreasing agricultural land, rising social inequities, skewed

communities, and public health issues. Urban agriculture provides an opportunity to counteract

food system problems and empower individuals. Urban agriculture is broadly defined as food

production in urban spaces. Despite its benefits, urban agriculture is threatened by institutional

barriers. Urban agriculture is not fully supported by municipal laws and policies, making it

vulnerable and impermanent. Therefore, developing and implementing planning policies, laws,

and programs to support urban agriculture will establish its practices and support its benefits.

Research focuses on broad policies, comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and

organizational infrastructure. Samples are drawn from cities across the United States, including

San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, Seattle, and Chicago. Discussion, comparison, and

evaluation are based on public input and comment. Because of the very recent and ongoing

nature of urban agriculture planning measures, discussed policies, laws, and programs are

sometimes incomplete or in the process of being adopted.

This thesis establishes opportunities, examples, and boundaries for developing an urban

agriculture planning framework and potential nationwide municipal application.

Key Words: urban agriculture, urban food system, planning, comprehensive plan, zoning
ordinance
ii

Acknowledgments

As a food-lover and descendent of family farmers, I have always been interested in the

hows and whys of agriculture. However, my curiosity in the political, social, economic, and legal

aspects of food production has only been recently spurred. Last spring, a lecture in Paul Wack’s

Advanced Environmental Planning course prompted my attention to urban planning as it relates

to food. Once I began taking David Cleveland’s World Agriculture course, I was immersed.

Since then, I have attended discussions put on by UCSB’s Food Studies Research Focus

Group (part of the Interdisciplinary Humanities Center), heard from researchers at Occidental

College’s Urban and Environmental Policy Institute, viewed Scott Hamilton Kennedy’s The

Garden, and delved into the unsettling and controversial disbanding of the South Central Farm in

Los Angeles. Just as I searched for answers to the questions posed by peers, academics, and

affected peoples, I hope my research provides a space for others to expand their knowledge,

interest – and curiosity in the simultaneous simplicities and complexities that define urban

agriculture.

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................ iii

1.0 Urban Food Systems ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction to the Problem ................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Urban Agriculture as a Solution ......................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Barriers to Urban Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 8

2.0 Elements of a Planning Framework for Urban Agriculture .................................................................. 11

2.1 Broad Policies for Planners .............................................................................................................. 11

2.2 Comprehensive Plans ....................................................................................................................... 12

2.3 Zoning Ordinances ........................................................................................................................... 16

2.4 Organizational Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 27

3.0 Assessing Framework Feasibility ......................................................................................................... 33

3.1 Challenges to Implementation .......................................................................................................... 33

3.2 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 34

References ................................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................... B-1

Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D ............................................................................................................................................... D-1

Appendix E ............................................................................................................................................... E-1

iv

1

1.0 Urban Food Systems

1.1 Introduction to the Problem

Urban food systems consist of food policies, production, processing, distribution,

consumption, and waste, in the presence of economic, political, and physical infrastructure.

These systems are categorized at the local, regional, even global level. Ultimately, urban food

systems aim to provide city inhabitants with nourishment and nutrition. From farms to

supermarkets, establishments that make up urban food systems are responsible for feeding

people.

Yet serious problems plague urban food systems across the United States. Many cities,

especially those characterized by underserved poor areas, are plagued by food insecurity.

According to the Centre for Food Security Studies, food security is defined by five indicators:

availability, accessibility, adequacy, acceptability, and agency.1 Further, community food

security is defined as a “condition in which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally

acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes

community self-reliance, social justice, and democratic decision-making.”2

1
Ryerson University Centre for Studies in Food Security. “Food Security Defined.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.ryerson.ca/foodsecurity/definition/
2
Michael Hamm and Anne Bellows. “Community Food Security and Nutrition Educators.” Journal of Nutrition
Education and Behavior 35 (2003).

2

Emerging agricultural trends shape food insecurity within urban food systems at the

community level and beyond. Farmland is rapidly decreasing, especially in urban areas. Small

farms (between 50-500 acres) have decreased by 7 percent, smaller farms (500-1000 acres) have

decreased by 11 percent, while large farms over 2,000 acres have increased by 5 percent. As

farm owners age and younger generations assume different careers, traditional family farms are

lost, converted, or consolidated.3

According to the American Farmland Trust, United States farmland is decreasing by 1

acre per minute. The major loss in prime farmland over the past 25 years is attributed to

development and conversion of farmland. For example, over 4 million acres of agricultural land

(near the size of Massachusetts) was converted between 2002 and 2007 to accommodate sprawl-

style development.4

Today, people largely obtain their food from industrial, globalized sources that are

characterized by hybrid (and TGV) crop varieties, genetic uniformity, privatization/patented

rights, and mechanized practices. However, industrial agriculture has severe environmental,

social, and economic consequences. It depletes natural resources, destroys soil structure and

long-term stability, weakens crop resistance to pests and disease, produces excessive waste

product, pollutes waterways, threatens native/ancient plant species and biodiversity, and relies on

heavy chemical use. Socially, industrial agriculture reduces purchasing power and economic

3
American Planning Association. “Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning.” (2007): 4.
4
American Farmland Trust. “Farming on the Edge Report.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.farmland.org/resources/fote/default.asp

3

opportunities within local communities, and relies on exploitative labor. It also destroys culinary

traditions and cultural identities passed along many generations. As a whole, the inequity and

irresponsibility inherent in industrial agriculture, accompanied by lacking policy measures,

impairs quality food access across large factions of the United States population.

In recent years, consequential health issues have also become more apparent. According

to a report released by the Community Food Security Coalition, “federal farm policy since the

1950s has encouraged the overproduction…of a few commodities such as corn and soybeans, all

with serious implications for farmers, rural and urban communities, and the health of consumers.

Support for fruits and vegetables, on the other hand, has been low.”5 The products available to

the public are wholly unhealthy. As a result, people are provided with poor food from a young

age. They consume excessive saturated fats, sodium, and sugar, and lack sufficient portions of

fruit, whole grains, vegetable, and legumes.6

Food insecurity specifically affects minority groups. “People who are living in poverty

are likely also to experience food insecurity: children, inner-city residents, single parent female-

headed households, people of color, people living with disabilities, the elderly, and farm

workers.”7 In a 2001 report, Robert Pederson of the Danish Cancer Society and Aileen

Robertson of the World Health Organization state that “supermarkets are increasingly built on

5
6
USDA Nutrition Insight. “The Quality of Children’s Diets in 2003-04 as Measured by the Healthy Eating Index-
2005.” (2009): 2.
7
CFSC Urban Agriculture Committee. “Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States:
Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.foodsecurity.org/urbanag.html#intro

4

the periphery of cities making regular access, especially for vulnerable groups such as the elderly

or disabled, difficult.”8 Many vulnerable individuals are also without the sufficient

transportation (automobile or public transportation) needed to reach healthy food retailers.

Therefore, poor inner-city residents often lack reasonable means for nutrition.

Inadequate access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate food plagues low-

income, minority, urban neighborhoods nationwide. As a result, residents in these communities

are forced to purchase their food at unhealthy retailers such as fast food chains, liquor stores, and

convenience markets. Not only do these outlets offer less healthy food options, but they are also

more expensive. A study conducted by Kami Pothukuchi at Wayne State University in 2001

surveyed Detroit grocery stores and found that those in downtown, low-income areas were 10

percent more expensive. Those same stores also carried a limited assortment of healthy food

options.9 As stated in a report by the Community Food Security Coalition, “low-income

consumers have less food shopping choices than middle-income consumers across the country:

they have fewer retail options, limited transportation options, and often face higher prices at

chain supermarkets.”10

Regions devoid of healthy, affordable, and fresh food vendors are labeled as food deserts.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines food deserts as “areas that lack access to

affordable fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat milk, and other foods that make up the full

8
Robert M. Pederson and Aileen Robertson. “Food Policies are Essential for Healthy Cities.” UA Magazine, March
2001, 10.
9
Kami Pothukuchi. “Personal Communication.” Wayne State University (2001).
10
CFSC. “Andy Fisher, Hot Peppers & Parking Lot Peaches: Evaluating Farmers’ Markets In Low-Income
Communities.” (1999): 6.

5

range of a healthy diet.”11 As a result, people in these areas have higher incidences of health

problems than the greater population, including disease, malnutrition, obesity, and development

issues. “The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (2006) reports that in

2005, 11 percent of all U.S. households were "food insecure" because of a lack of sufficient

food. Black (22.4 percent) and Hispanic (17.9 percent) households experienced food insecurity at

far higher rates than the national average.”12

National food assistance programs, such as food stamp initiatives and school lunches,

exist to help feed people. However, these programs often fail to take into account the quality of

food provided. The USDA’s nutritional Recommended Daily Allowances and ethnically-based

food pyramids, for example, do not correlate with the food provided by assistance programs,

which are generally unhealthy, highly sweetened, and lack produce, lean protein, and hearty

grains.13

Aside from purely health-related concerns, restricted access to food choices reduces

peoples’ sovereignty. While affluent individuals in food-secure neighborhoods are able to access

food of their choice, individuals in food insecure neighborhoods lack access to foods that are

healthy and culturally-ethnically appropriate. These social limitations reflect the injustice

present in urban food systems. Therefore, current agricultural practices and trends suggest that

11
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Food Deserts.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.cdc.gov/features/fooddeserts/
12
13
USDA National Agricultural Library. “Dietary Guidance: Ethnic/Cultural Food Guide Pyramid.” Accessed April 18,
2011.
http://riley.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=4&tax_level=3&tax_subject=256&topic_id=1348&lev
el3_id=5732&level4_id=0&level5_id=0&placement_default=0

6

alternative outlets for food production are necessary – especially those close to urban

populations.

1.2 Urban Agriculture as a Solution

Urban agriculture provides an opportunity to address, counterbalance, and solve issues

associated with urban food systems, as well as empower individuals with regards to their food

sources. According to the Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF),

urban agriculture is “the growing of plants and the raising of animals within and around cities” in

relation to urban economies, environments, and traditionally underserved people within the

population.14 With contemporary roots in World War II Victory Gardens of the 1940s, urban

agriculture now includes residential plots, rooftop gardens, food production in various public and

private spaces (including residential lots, lawns, rooftops, schools, parks, and abandoned lots),

community gardens, community supported agriculture (CSAs) on the urban periphery, and

produce stands and farmers markets that support these mechanisms. People can grow fruits,

vegetables, medicinal plants, and herbs, or raise animals such as chickens, goats, bees, and other

livestock.

Urban agriculture provides a multitude of socially progressive benefits and empowers

disenfranchised people to fight negative trends in their neighborhood: alleviating poverty and

easing financial strains, building local economies, encouraging healthy eating choices, building

14
Resources Centres on Urban Agriculture & Food Security. “What is Urban Agriculture?” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.ruaf.org/node/512

7

nutritional knowledge, providing recreational and exercise opportunities, beautifying industrial

landscapes, and reinforcing community values.15 Moreover, urban agriculture shifts power away

from the fast food retailers and industrial producers that contribute to food deserts and poor

health.

Discussing the South Central Farm in Los Angeles, Clara Irazabal, Assistant Professor of

Urban Planning at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation at Columbia

University, and Anita Punja of the University of Southern California, state that urban agriculture

succeeds in “building ethnic landscape” by providing “a medium to preserve and recreate

community traditions of agriculture and heirloom seeds, survival strategies of indigenous

cultural…as well as farmers’ ability to pass on their living traditions to their children.” 16 Thus,

urban agriculture is important for providing poor, often immigrant communities with a space to

preserve cultural traditions while producing healthy food.

Drawn from interviews conducted with Philadelphia community gardeners, other benefits

include recreation, mental and physical health, intergenerational interaction, civic engagement,

reduced crime/vandalism, produce quality and nutrition, spirituality, cost-saving and

convenience, self-expression and self-fulfillment. “Green space creates a place for social

gathering, creates a sense of community and has been found to reduce stress, anger and even

15
Anne Bellows, Katherine Brown, and Jac Smit, “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” (2003): 1-12.
16
Clara Irazabal and Anita Punja, “Cultivating Just Planning and Legal Institutions: A Critical Assessment of the
South Central Farm Struggle in Los Angeles.” Journal of Urban Affairs 31 (2009): 10.

8

blood pressure.” 17 In essence, urban agriculture serves as a medium for community members to

address food injustice and insecurity through independent production, community building, and

autonomous decision-making. By empowering people at personal and local levels, urban

agriculture contributes to healthier urban food systems.

1.3 Barriers to Urban Agriculture

Despite its benefits, urban agriculture is threatened by institutional barriers. Specifically,

the spaces and practices that define urban agriculture foster associations with temporary use and

impermanency – making them provisional and replaceable resources. This mindset ignores the

human labor and investment needed to create agricultural spaces; framing community gardens as

vacant, potentially developable sites.18 People’s personal, economic, and time-consuming

investments in food production are vulnerable when urban agriculture practices are not fully

supported by laws and policies.

When urban agriculture is not considered a best practice – the highest and best use for the

space – the land it occupies is consequently prone to alternative development. Thus, the

perceived illegitimacy of urban farming in planning contexts hinders urban agriculture efforts.19

Lawson (2007) states that a community farm “may have an aura of permanence, yet the

17
CFSC Urban Agriculture Committee. “Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States:
Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe.” (2003): 10.
18
Lawson. “The South Central Farm: Dilemmas in Practicing the Public,” 611.
19
Laura Lawson. “The South Central Farm: Dilemmas in Practicing the Public.” Cultural Geographies 14 (2007): 611-
616.

9

determining factor is not use but potential land use and ownership.”20 Although a site’s

agricultural benefits may be well received, its potential use as an industrial, commercial, or

residential space is ultimately more profitable and therefore compelling. The proliferated

illegitimacy of “user-initiated spaces”21 like community farms reinforces unjust planning policies

and laws. By failing to implement planning policies for urban agriculture, cities benefit from

these farm sites for their scenic, recreation, and open space qualities without having the political

and financial responsibilities of legally incorporating them.

The South Central Farm in Los Angeles accurately depicts the imperfections of legal and

planning institutions with regard to urban agriculture. Initiated in 1994 by the Los Angeles

Regional Food Bank, the South Central Farm provided immeasurable sustenance, economic,

social, and beautifying qualities to the poor, foodless Los Angeles neighborhood. Despite 14

years of occupancy, hard work, and familial-like interdependency, dozens of Latino families

were evicted from the 350-plot farm in 2006. The 14-acre space allocated to the community

farm, acquired 20 years earlier through eminent domain, provided the community resources and

opportunities they could not acquire elsewhere. The eviction was approved by the LA City

Council in a closed session following an out-of-court settlement with the original land owner,

who claimed a violation of his rights. Farmers, community members, and general supporters

fought the decision through protesting, fundraising, and finally civil disobedience, until they

were physically removed from the site for bulldozing. This instance clearly demonstrates that

20
Lawson. “The South Central Farm: Dilemmas in Practicing the Public,” 614.
21
Lawson. “The South Central Farm: Dilemmas in Practicing the Public,” 611-616.

10

protections must be put in place to guard vulnerable individuals who experience what Irazabal &

Punja (2009) call “socially constructed disadvantage and lack decision-making power and

control over their city spaces.”22

The questions, contention, and suspected corruption that surround the South Central

Farm exemplify the entrenched inequities in United States planning policies, as well as lacking

legal support for urban agriculture. Serious problems with urban agriculture practices – and

urban food systems at large – therefore call for implementation of comprehensive planning

measures. “Planners play an important role in assessing existing food access disparities, shaping

the food environment of communities, and facilitating healthy eating.”23 Ultimately, planners

are responsible for legitimizing urban agriculture. “Strategies to secure user-initiated spaces like

community gardens require shifting public perception from appropriated space to validated

public resource.”24

I suggest that developing and implementing a planning framework (policies, laws, and

programs) for urban agriculture will help alleviate food insecurity issues, enhance local

communities, and ensure sustained and permanent practices. In the following I will analyze

various elements and approaches to planning for urban agriculture, how they have and are

developing, and community responses and criticism.

22
Clara Irazabal and Anita Punja, “Cultivating Just Planning and Legal Institutions: A Critical Assessment of the
South Central Farm Struggle in Los Angeles.” Journal of Urban Affairs 31 (2009): 5.
23
American Planning Association. “Planning and Community Health Research Center.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.planning.org/nationalcenters/health/food.htm
24
Laura Lawson. “The South Central Farm: Dilemmas in Practicing the Public.” Cultural Geographies 14 (2007): 611.

11

2.0 Elements of a Planning Framework for Urban Agriculture

This document outlines four areas within the planning framework: broad policies for

planners, comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and organizational infrastructure.

2.1 Broad Policies for Planners

While various stakeholders affect the decision-making process, planners ultimately

delineate the planning policies that direct the technical and legal aspects of urban agriculture.

The American Planning Association’s Policy Guide on community and regional food planning

outlines seven broad policies for planners:

1. Support comprehensive food planning process at the community and regional levels;
2. Support strengthening the local and regional economy by promoting local and regional food systems;
3. Support food systems that improve the health of the region's residents;
4. Support food systems that are ecologically sustainable;
5. Support food systems that are equitable and just;
6. Support food systems that preserve and sustain diverse traditional food cultures of Native American and
other ethnic minority communities;
7. Support the development of state and federal legislation to facilitate community and regional food
25
planning discussed in general policies 1 through 6.

Existing restrictions often limit food production in residential and/or urban spaces.

Lacking protection in comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances makes urban agriculture

vulnerable, illegal, or displaceable in urban environments. Therefore, planners’ standards must

be adapted to community needs for urban agriculture.

25

12

2.2 Comprehensive Plans

Comprehensive Plans (also known as General, Master, Community, or Area Plans)

establish municipalities’ planning policies, elements, and long-term development goals. The

document must be internally consistent, in compliance with state laws, relevant, and current. In

California, for example, municipalities are required to incorporate seven elements into their

general plan: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. Each

element defines specific goals and objectives for that area of interest, and outlines the policies

and actions necessary to enact them. Aside from these required sections, cities and counties may

choose to add elements they deem appropriate for their constituents. Optional elements may

include parks and recreation, design, historic preservation, environmental management, or

agriculture.26

Accordingly, comprehensive plans have the ability to support and protect urban

agriculture through policy inclusion. By devising an urban agriculture focused element or

incorporating urban agriculture into an existing element (i.e. agriculture, open space, parks and

recreation, environmental management, etc.), municipalities have the opportunity to establish,

enable, and sustain urban agriculture. Many cities across the country have already incorporated

urban agriculture into their comprehensive plans. However, the depth and scope of policy goals

and objectives vary greatly between different cities.

26
William Fulton and Paul Shigley, Guide to California Planning (Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books, 2005), 103-
125.

13

The City of Berkeley outlines simplistic policies for its community garden program in

both the Environmental Management Element (Policy EM-34 Local Food Systems) and the

Open Space and Recreation Element (Policy OS-8 Community Gardens) sections of the general

plan. Although the proposed actions are brief and encourage positive initiatives, they fail to

address how policies will be carried out. From a planning point of view, broad encourage and

promote statements lack tangible deadlines, goals, and means for achievement. While such

statements are common among comprehensive plan policies, they are lofty without more

substantive information. For instance, EM-34 Local Food Systems states: “Promote seed

distribution, lead testing, and composting programs for community gardens.”27 This point lists

goals broad in scope, but fails to recommend how they will be achieved. Missing reasoning

behind the infrastructure, finances, physical resources, outreach schemes, and processes for

developing partnerships between organizations, Berkeley’s policies are more idealistic than

implementable.

EM-34 Local Food Systems
Increase access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate foods for the people of Berkeley by
supporting efforts to build more complete and sustainable local food production and distribution systems.
(Also see Open Space and Recreation Policy OS-8.)

Actions:
A. Encourage efforts by the Berkeley Unified School District, the University of California, and other
institutions to provide training and instruction in food and plant production.
B. Support community outreach and education to strengthen organic sustainable food systems in the city
and the region.

27
City of Berkeley Planning & Development. “Open Space and Recreation Element.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/contentdisplay.aspx?id=494

14

C. Promote the purchase of food from local producers for schools, senior centers, after-school programs,
food provision programs, and other social programs. Encourage the donation of fresh produce from
community gardens to local food programs.
D. Continue to make the City’s composted waste available to community and school gardens.
E. Promote seed distribution, lead testing, and composting programs for community gardens.
F. Provide sites for local farmers’ markets and community gardens.
G. Encourage buildings that incorporate rooftop gardens that may be used for gardening.
H. Encourage neighborhood initiatives to grow native and fruit-bearing trees.

Policy OS-8 Community Gardens
Encourage and support community gardens as important open space resources that build communities and
provide a local food source. (Also see Environmental Management Policy EM-34.)
Actions:
A. Encourage neighborhood groups to organize, design, and manage community gardens particularly where
space is available that is not suitable for housing, parks, pathways, or recreation facilities. Ensure that
garden plots are allocated according to a fair and equitable formula.
B. Require all publicly subsidized community gardens to maintain regular "open to the public" hours.
C. Include community gardens in the planning for the Santa Fe Right-of-Way.
D. Pursue community gardens in high-density areas with little private open space suitable for gardening.
E. Increase support for community gardens through partnerships with other government agencies,
particularly the Berkeley Unified School District, neighborhood groups, businesses, and civic and gardening
organizations.
28
F. Support school-based gardens and the involvement of youth in growing and preparing their own food.

In contrast, Boston’s Parks and Recreation Department developed an extremely detailed

Open Space Plan (2002-2006) that contains a Community Gardens section. The Open Space

Plan includes comprehensive goals and in-depth recommendations for various aspects of

community garden management. Topics include community gardens and development,

acquisition and permanency, maintenance and support, capital investment, education, training,

programming, management, productivity, and resource development. The city now has more

28
City of Berkeley Planning & Development. “Open Space and Recreation Element.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
City of Berkeley Planning & Development. “Environmental Management Element.” Accessed April 18, 2011.

15

than 150 community gardens; ranging in size from small 10-plot spaces to large 300-plot spaces,

and producing approximately $1.5 million in food annually.29

Boston’s policy goals are more specific, and thus greatly practical, approachable, and

easily modeled after. For instance, a goal within the plan’s Maintenance and Support section is

to “reinforce and systematize basic maintenance services to community gardens citywide.”30

The corresponding recommendation is to “continue regular removal of trash by the Parks

Department and expedite a program for the Public Works Department to include such items in its

regular contracted waste removal process.”31 Although simple, these policies are clear and

executable – making them effective and preferable to more vague policies.

Regardless of their scope and depth, several cities across the United States have included

urban agriculture supported policies and programs into their comprehensive plans. Cities include

San Francisco, CA, Seattle, WA, Washington D.C., Oakland, CA, Berkeley, CA, Providence, RI,

and Madison, WI.32 Municipalities that need to develop comprehensive plan policies for urban

agriculture may borrow, adapt, or modify preexisting content from other cities. When

developing comprehensive plan polices, cities may also look to nonprofit and research-based

organizations that specialize in food planning and urban agriculture advocacy. The National

Policy and Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity (NPLAN), has created model

29
Boston Parks and Recreation Department Open Space Plan 2002-2006. “Open Space Management Mission:
Community Gardens.” 262-275.
30
Community Gardens.” 270.
31
Community Gardens.” 270.
32
PHLP. “Land Use and Planning Policies to Support Community and Urban Gardening.” (2008).

16

comprehensive plan language “to protect and expand community gardens.”33 Cities can use this

as a base to build upon for their needs. For NPLAN’s complete model comprehensive plan

language, see Appendix A.

In general, comprehensive plans are broader and less legally defined. Therefore, zoning

ordinances should be developed to enact the technical aspects of urban agriculture planning

policies.

2.3 Zoning Ordinances

Zoning ordinances carry out the policies of comprehensive plans through laws, codes,

and regulations. More specifically, “a zoning ordinance must be a set of parcel-specific

regulations intended to implement the policies of the general plan as they apply to every single

parcel of land.”34 Zoning dictates the use, bulk, and impact of development activities based on

their designated use district. Regulations pertain to specifications such as building density and

coverage, location, setbacks, and even landscaping. Overall, zoning ordinances do not exist to

limit landowners, but rather to segregate incompatible uses.

Unfortunately, existing zoning ordinances that fail to incorporate urban food system and

agricultural principles can hinder urban agriculture. Landscaping boundaries may limit

landowners’ abilities to grow food around their homes. Accessory restrictions may prevent

33
NPLAN. “Establishing Land Use Protections for Community Gardens.” (2010): 9.
34
William Fulton and Paul Shigley, Guide to California Planning (Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books, 2005), 103-
128.

17

community gardeners from erecting fences and tool facilities. And health and permitting laws

may stop urban farmers from selling their products locally.

While some cities have allowed urban agriculture as a variably permitted use, many have

yet to establish urban food production as a uniformly codified use in its zoning laws – hindering

its application and permanence. Therefore, enacting zoning ordinances that streamline the legal

aspects of urban agriculture is necessary for successful establishment and long-term operation.

Currently, many zoning ordinances define urban agriculture in terms of its location, operation

type, size, height, accessories, and sales. The American Planning Association also suggests that

planners define urban agriculture by the intensity and extent of a municipality’s desired

agricultural activities.35

Intensive Less Intensive

Extensive in Area Rural or periurban farms and associated Backyard and community gardens,

agricultural activities limited livestock, and farmstands

36
Less Extensive in Area Urban farms, farmers markets, and Backyard and community gardens

composting operations

By identifying desired operations – livestock, crop size, location, sales – a municipality

can decide how urban agriculture should be categorized in terms of planning policies. The

35
America Planning Association. “Practice Urban Agriculture: Zoning for Urban Agriculture.” Zoning Practice 3
(2010): 6.
36
America Planning Association. “Practice Urban Agriculture: Zoning for Urban Agriculture,” 5.

18

American Planning Association states that “urban agriculture can be treated either as a district or

as a use category.”37 Therefore, cities have the opportunity to classify urban agriculture as a

district, use, or both in its zoning code.

A district is an area of space with distinguishing characteristics. Examples include

industrial, residential, commercial, or open space districts. Defining urban agriculture as a

zoning district requires planners to specify where these areas will be located within a city, and

what uses will be permitted within these areas. More specifically, urban agriculture can be

designated as an independent district or a dedicated subdistrict (within another district).38

The City of Cleveland has started to develop and integrate Urban Garden Districts into its

zoning ordinance. Completed as of June 2010, these guidelines define districts in terms of

various goals, uses, physical structures, and accessories.

PART THREE — ZONING CODE
Title VII — Zoning Code | Chapter 336 — Urban Garden District | Complete to June 30, 2010

336.01 Urban Garden District
The “Urban Garden District” is hereby established as part of the Zoning Code to ensure that urban garden
areas are appropriately located and protected to meet needs for local food production, community health,
community education, garden-related job training, environmental enhancement, preservation of green
space, and community enjoyment on sites for which urban gardens represent the highest and best use for
the community.
(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)

336.02 Definitions
(a) “Community garden” means an area of land managed and maintained by a group of individuals to grow
and harvest food crops and/or non-food, ornamental crops, such as flowers, for personal or group use,
consumption or donation. Community gardens may be divided into separate plots for cultivation by one or

37
America Planning Association. “Practice Urban Agriculture: Zoning for Urban Agriculture,” Zoning Practice 3
(2010): 5.
38
America Planning Association. “Practice Urban Agriculture: Zoning for Urban Agriculture,” 14.

19

more individuals or may be farmed collectively by members of the group and may include common areas
maintained and used by group members.
(b) “Market garden” means an area of land managed and maintained by an individual or group of
individuals to grow and harvest food crops and/or non-food, ornamental crops, such as flowers, to be sold
for profit.
(c) “Greenhouse” means a building made of glass, plastic, or fiberglass in which plants are cultivated.
(d) “Hoophouse” means a structure made of PVC piping or other material covered with translucent plastic,
constructed in a “half-round” or “hoop” shape.
(e) “Coldframe” means an unheated outdoor structure consisting of a wooden or concrete frame and a top
of glass or clear plastic, used for protecting seedlings and plants from the cold.
(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)

336.03 Permitted Main Uses
Only the following main uses shall be permitted in an Urban Garden District:
(a) community gardens which may have occasional sales of items grown at the site;
(b) market gardens, including the sale of crops produced on the site.
(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)

336.04 Permitted Accessory Uses
Only the following accessory uses and structures shall be permitted in an Urban Garden District:
(a) greenhouses, hoophouses, cold-frames, and similar structures used to extend the growing season;
(b) open space associated with and intended for use as garden areas;
(c) signs limited to identification, information and directional signs, including sponsorship information
where the sponsorship information is clearly secondary to other permitted information on any particular
sign, in conformance with the regulations of Section 336.05;
(d) benches, bike racks, raised/accessible planting beds, compost bins, picnic tables, seasonal farm stands,
fences, garden art, rain barrel systems, chicken coops, beehives, and children's play areas;
(e) buildings, limited to tool sheds, shade pavilions, barns, rest-room facilities with composting toilets, and
planting preparation houses, in conformance with the regulations of Section 336.05;
(f) off-street parking and walkways, in conformance with the regulations of Section 336.05.
(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)

336.05 Supplemental Regulations
Uses and structures in an Urban Garden District shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the
following regulations.
(a) Location. Buildings shall be set back from property lines of a Residential District a minimum distance of
five (5) feet.
(b) Height. No building or other structure shall be greater than twenty-five (25) feet in height.
(c) Building Coverage. The combined area of all buildings, excluding greenhouses and hoophouses, shall not
exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the garden site lot area.
(d) Parking and Walkways. Off-street parking shall be permitted only for those garden sites exceeding
15,000 square feet in lot area. Such parking shall be limited in size to ten percent (10%) of the garden site
lot area and shall be either unpaved or surfaced with gravel or similar loose material or shall be paved with
pervious paving material. Walkways shall be unpaved except as necessary to meet the needs of individuals
with disabilities.
(e) Signs. Signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area per side and shall not exceed six (6) feet in
height.
(f) Seasonal Farm Stands. Seasonal farm stands shall be removed from the premises or stored inside a
building on the premises during that time of the year when the garden is not open for public use.
(g) Fences. Fences shall not exceed six (6) feet in height, shall be at least fifty percent (50%) open if they are
taller than four (4) feet, and shall be constructed of wood, chain link, or ornamental metal. For any garden
that is 15,000 square feet in area or greater and is in a location that is subject to design review and approval
by the City Planning Commission or Landmarks Commission, no fence shall be installed without review by
the City Planning Director, on behalf of the Commission, who may confer with a neighborhood design
review committee, if one exists, so that best efforts are taken to ensure that the fence is compatible in

20

appearance and placement with the character of nearby properties.
39
(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)

Although relatively simple, Cleveland’s district-based zoning ordinance for urban

agriculture offers flexibility in food production types, physical infrastructure, artistic expression,

recreational use, and even seasonal sales. Thus, Cleveland’s zoning code serves as a solid

example for defining Urban Gardens Districts and other independent agricultural districts across

the United States. Other cities, such as Boston, MA and Portland, OR have too protected urban

agriculture under designated subdistricts. Both municipalities have chosen to place these

subdistricts within their open space zones and related management plans.

Boston, MA
Article 33 of the Boston Zoning Code created an Open Space designation, encouraging the preservation of
such lands. Section 33-8 established a subdistrict specifically for Community Gardens.

SECTION 33-8. Community Garden Open Space Subdistricts. Section 33-8- Community Garden Open Space
Subdistricts. Community garden open space (OS-G) subdistricts shall consist of land appropriate for and
limited to the cultivation of herbs, fruits, flowers, or vegetables, including the cultivation and tillage of soil
and the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural, floricultural, or horticultural
commodity; such land may include Vacant Public Land.

Portland, OR
Portland's definition of a Parks and Open Areas zone includes Community Gardens. Other places in the code
state a purpose to preserve and enhance Open Space zones.

33.920.460 Parks And Open Areas A. Characteristics. Parks And Open Areas are uses of land focusing on
natural areas, large areas consisting mostly of vegetative landscaping or outdoor recreation, community
gardens, or public squares. Lands tend to have few structures.40

39
Find Law. “Cleveland Zoning Code: Urban Garden District.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/clevelandcodes/cco_part3_336.html
40
Leah Erickson et al. “Urban Agriculture in Seattle: Policy & Barriers.” Report for University of Washington
certificate program in Environmental Law and Regulation. (2009).

21

The National Policy and Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity

(NPLAN) has written model zoning ordinance language for establishing urban agriculture

subdistricts within larger open space districts. Municipalities can use this model as a simple base

to shape their zoning ordinances. For NPLAN’s complete model zoning ordinance language for

subdistricts, see Appendix B.

While urban agriculture-based districts and subdistricts are extremely important, they

place emphasis on community-level food production versus at-home, residential growing

schemes. For this reason, NPLAN asserts that urban agriculture should be an “approved use of

land in residential, multifamily, mixed-use, open space, industrial, and any other districts.”41

When urban agriculture is classified as a zoning use, it may be imbedded within cities’

preexisting parcels or districts. This zoning technique is useful because districts, exclusively for

urban agriculture, do not have to be freshly delineated.

A use is a permitted, conditional, or forbidden activity or development type within a

district. Permitted uses are categorized as either primary or accessory. A primary permitted use

is the principle activity or use of a property, as defined in the zoning ordinance. An accessory

permitted use is the secondary activity or use of a property, as defined in the zoning ordinance.

Some accessory uses require conditional use permits.42

41
42
America Planning Association. “Practice Urban Agriculture: Zoning for Urban Agriculture.” Zoning Practice 3
(2010): 14.

22

Sanctioning urban agriculture as a zoning use requires planners to specify parameters on

agricultural development activities. Urban agriculture uses, depending on a municipalities’

definition, may include livestock, gardening, and community-supported agriculture (CSAs).

(See above discussion of intensity and extent.) From there, planners can decide where urban

agriculture uses belong within the city: open space, parks, government spaces (City Hall,

departments, etc.), industrial, residential, and other. Some cities that have created urban

agriculture uses include Milwaukee, WI, Nashville, TN, Kansas City, MO, Portland, OR, Seattle,

WA, Chicago, IL, San Francisco, CA, and New York, NY.

Portland, for example, has developed an agriculture use within its zoning code; permitted

in industrial and low-density residential districts, and allowed as a conditional use in medium-

density residential and commercial districts.43

33.920.500 Agriculture
A. Characteristics. Agriculture includes activities that raise, produce or keep plants or animals.
B. Accessory uses. Accessory uses include dwellings for proprietors and employees of the use, and animal
training. Chapter 33.920 Title 33, Planning and Zoning Descriptions of the Use Categories 4/24/10 920-16
C. Examples. Examples include breeding or raising of fowl or other animals; dairy farms; stables; riding
academies; kennels or other animal boarding places; farming, truck gardening, forestry, tree farming; and
wholesale plant nurseries.
D. Exceptions.
1. Processing of animal or plant products, including milk, and feed lots, are classified as Manufacturing And
Production.
2. Livestock auctions are classified as Wholesale Sales.
3. Plant nurseries that are oriented to retail sales are classified as Retail Sales And Service.
4. When kennels are limited to boarding, with no breeding, the applicant may choose to classify the use as
Agriculture or Retail Sales And Service44

43
City of Portland Planning and Zoning. “Description of the Use Categories.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?a=53501&c=34567
44
City of Portland Planning and Zoning. “Description of the Use Categories.” Accessed April 18, 2011.

23

In September 2010, Seattle’s City Council implemented zoning changes that permit urban

agriculture as a use in virtually all districts. In residential districts, small urban farms (less than

4,000 sq ft) are permitted as an accessory use without a permit; large urban farms (greater than

4,000 sq ft) require a conditional use permit. In commercial districts, urban farms are permitted

as a principle or accessory use (less than 10,000 sq ft in NC1 zones, less than 25,000 sq ft in

NC2 zones, and any size in NC3 and C zones). And in industrial districts, urban farms are

permitted as a principle or accessory use.45

A few months later in December 2010, Mayor Richard Daley proposed amendments to

Chicago’s zoning ordinance in order to better meet the goals addressed in the Food Systems

Report (created by the Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council and the city’s Department of

Zoning and Planning) and GO TO 2040, a sustainability-centered regional plan developed by

Chicago’s Metropolitan Agency for Planning. The proposed amendments broadly tackle issues

of food access. More specifically, Mayor Daley’s proposed amendments better integrate urban

agriculture and officially recognize it as a permitted use. The amendments define urban

agriculture sites as community gardens, or commercial gardens and greenhouses, as discussed

below.

45
Urban Food Policy. “Chicago’s Urban Agriculture Zoning Proposal.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.urbanfoodpolicy.com/2011/01/chicagos-urban-agriculture-zoning.html

24

Community gardens would be defined as neighborhood-based developments that provide space for
volunteers to grow plants for beautification, education, recreation, local distribution or personal use. They
would be allowed in virtually every part of the city with the exception of manufacturing districts.

Commercial gardens and greenhouses would be defined as growing locations used for the propagation,
processing, storage and sale of plants and plant products. These recommendations include specific
provisions for hydroponics and vertical farming, typically conducted indoors, and outdoor growing in raised
plant beds. Outdoor locations would be allowed in all C, B-3, M-2 and M-3 districts, along with the
Northwest, West Pullman and Greater Southwest Planned Manufacturing Districts (PMDs). Indoor locations
46
would be allowed in the above districts and every PMD citywide.

Additionally, community gardens in Chicago must be owned, operated, and managed by

community organizations (nonprofit, civic, or public). In residential districts, community

gardens are restricted to less than 18,750 sq ft. In park and open space districts, community

gardens can be greater than 18,750 sq ft.47

The effectiveness of Chicago’s proposed zoning ordinance and protocols are

questionable. The amendments may restrict the size of preexisting agricultural operations48 –

currently many established urban farms in Chicago exceed the proposed size limitations. Other

restrictions include accessory size, composting materials and sourcing, processing, storage, and

sales.

46
City of Chicago. “News Release: Zoning Amendment Would Nourish Urban Agriculture.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/provdrs/sustain/news/2010/dec/zoning_amendmentwouldnouri
shurbanagriculturecitywise.html
47
48
Eng, Monica. “The City That Grows.” The Chicago Tribune, January 3, 2011. Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-03/news/ct-met-urban-agriculture--20101228_1_city-farm-urban-
farming-urban-agriculture

25

Sheds and greenhouses may not take up more than 10% of the community garden site, or 100 square feet,
whichever is greater. Composting is limited to the materials generated on-site, not organic matter brought
to the garden by local residents. And the processing, storage and sale of plants or plant products are
49
prohibited on site.

Many individuals and organizations have voiced concerns over the restrictions posed by

the Mayor’s amendments. The Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council (CFPAC) argues that the

amendments specifically set unnecessary limits on urban agriculture in residential districts, size

and sale of community gardens, and composting materials.50 Seeking alternatives, CFPAC

discusses how barriers to produce sales have been addressed in other cities’ zoning codes. For

example, Kansas City allows home and community gardeners to sell whole and uncut produce

from their on-site growing locations during a defined season. (CSA and large scale farmers must

obtain permits to sell produce on-site.)

In December 2010, Mayor Gavin Newsom and the San Francisco Planning Commission

also proposed amendments to San Francisco’s zoning ordinance that permit gardens (both non-

commercial and commercial) and consequent produce sales. Planning Code 102.34 defines

urban agriculture as neighborhood agriculture or urban industrial agriculture. Neighborhood

agriculture is less than 43,560 sq ft (1 acre) and includes community gardens, community

supported agriculture, market gardens, and private farms. Urban industrial agriculture is greater

than 43,560 sq ft (or smaller parcels that do not meet the standards for neighborhood agriculture)

49
50
Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council. “Proposed Recommendations.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.chicagofoodpolicy.org/CFPAC%20Response%20to%20Urban%20Agriculture%20Zoning%20Amendmen
t.pdf

26

and includes larger scale food production.51 Designations are based on size and performance

criteria (produce sales, equipment storage, etc).52 Because urban agriculture is greatly defined by

size and use, contention and disagreement often form in trying to define these areas. The San

Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance criticizes the proposed amendments based on compost site

setback restrictions, fencing requirements, limits on mechanized farm equipment use and storage,

“change of use” permitting fees, and restrictions on sales of “processed or value added goods”53

However, the proposed amendments have yet to be adopted. The public hearing process began

on February 17, 2011.

More generally, in creating a comprehensive zoning ordinance, it is important to consider

codes, regulations, and licenses as they pertain to local, state, and federal laws. As discussed

previously, the National Policy and Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity

(NPLAN) has created model zoning ordinance language for establishing urban agriculture as an

approved use. Although the model specifically discusses community gardens, cities can use it to

amend their zoning ordinances. The model is unique because it takes into account issues relating

to the Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), and

guidelines for operating rules and fair management.54 The Americans with Disabilities Act

51
52
Chandler, Jeri Lynn. “Mayor proposes code amendment for urban agriculture in San Francisco.” Examiner,
December 15, 2010. Accessed April 18, 2011. http://www.examiner.com/sustainable-food-in-san-francisco/mayor-
proposes-code-amendment-for-urban-agriculture-san-francisco
53
San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance. “SF Urban Agriculture Zoning Proposal.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.sfuaa.org/urban-ag-zoning-proposal.html
54

27

ensures protections and equal access to those with disabilities. And Environmental Site

Assessment involves waste, soil, water, and chemical testing at a development site. In

combination with operational guidelines, these added measures account for social and public

health concerns not addressed by other municipalities. (For NPLAN’s complete model zoning

ordinance language, see Appendix C.)

Outside of district or use definitions, other municipalities have incorporated general

standards to support urban agriculture in their zoning ordinances. Some cities include Cleveland,

OH, Sacramento, CA, Escondido, CA, and Providence, RI.55 Within Cleveland’s zoning codes,

urban agriculture is protected under Urban Garden Districts and labeled as the highest and best

use for the community. Sacramento has altered its residential landscaping requirements to allow

for flexibility in landscape design and function. This includes everything from plants grown to

locations plantable (front yards, side yards, etc).56 Other cities’ zoning ordinances delineate

restrictions and requirements based on the size and use of an urban agriculture site.

2.4 Organizational Infrastructure

Although policies and zoning ordinances lay the technical and legal framework for urban

agriculture, people must implement tangible improvements. Therefore, organizations play a

critical role in actualizing urban agriculture within a community. They facilitate funding,

55
56

28

communication and community outreach, policy creation, advocacy, education, and training.57

(See Appendix E for detailed chart of organizational roles in Seattle urban agriculture system.)

Broadly, organizations include government departments, nonprofits, grant foundations, citizen

groups, entrepreneurial programs, and educational institutions.

Government departments reside over the planning infrastructure and legal enforcement of

urban agriculture. As discussed previously, they are directly responsible for implementing

policies and codes, establishing city gardening programs, and creating supportive resources.

Decision-making bodies currently work within offices planning, agriculture, parks and

recreation, open space, neighborhood interest, nutrition, education, sustainability, and

environment. Some specific examples include Board of Supervisors, City Council, Department

of Neighborhoods, Food and Drugs Code, Planning and Development Department, and Office of

Sustainability.58

Nonprofits facilitate community interest and engagement with specific goals and

programs. Across the country, many nonprofit organizations work to support urban agriculture.

They advocate for all aspects of urban agriculture (and related facets), including regional health

and nutrition, land trusts, elementary school gardening, school lunch programs, local foods, roof

and yard gardening, food justice, CSAs, obesity prevention, and food banks. More importantly,

many nonprofits manage urban agricultural programs in cities – securing funds and government

57
Amelia Conlen. “Urban Agriculture in Seattle: Organizational Roles and Needs.” Community Environment and
Planning, University of Washington. (2009).
58

29

partnerships to enact their objectives. Examples include NeighborSpace in Chicago, IL,

Community Action Coalition in Madison, WI, P-Patch in Seattle, WA, GreenThumb in New

York, NY, and Friends of Portland Community Gardens in Portland, OR.59

Grant foundations (nonprofit, private, or government) provide individual and

communities with financial resources to incorporate urban agriculture into their lifestyles. Like

nonprofits, they usually operate within a mission and specific set of goals. Grant foundations are

excellent for financing start-up resources (land, equipment/tools, seeds, soil, etc.), educator

stipends, public gardens maintenance and staff, and other forms of assistance. The Center for

Civic Partnerships’ California Healthy Cities and Communities program financially supports

community gardens across California.60 (See Appendix D for detailed table.) Other sample

grant foundations include the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Community

Food Projects fund, Ben & Jerry’s Foundation National Grassroots Grant Program, Annie’s

Grants for Gardens, and Lowe’s Charitable and Educational Foundation.

Citizen groups are stakeholders in the community. They directly represent and advocate

for their special interests. Groups may include farmers, agriculture experts, food and nutrition

specialists, residents concerned with zoning restrictions, elementary educators, etc. These voices

are critical in establishing an equitable and comprehensive planning framework for urban

agriculture, because they represent the interests of those affected.

59
60
Twiss et al. “Field Action Report - Community Gardens: Lessons Learned From
California Healthy Cities and Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 93 (2003): 1437.

30

Entrepreneurial programs turn urban agriculture into for-market, value-added products.

An excellent sample organization is Food From the ‘Hood (FFTH), based in South Central Los

Angeles. Since its inception in 1992, FFTH has been owned and managed by Crenshaw High

School students. FFTH delivers natural products made from the produce grown in their own

converted garden.61 The organization donates 25 percent to those in need and sells the

remainder. In a report, the Corporation for Educational Radio and Television said, “Fifty percent

of the profits go back into the organization to keep it running and fifty percent is awarded

through scholarships to student managers upon high school graduation. To date, over $250,000

in scholarships have been generated.”62 FFTH and other entrepreneurial programs demonstrate

how urban agriculture can meet market demands to deliver local community benefits.

Finally, educational institutions are responsible for teaching community members about

gardening and agriculture. More specifically, these organizations educate individuals about why

urban agriculture is important and how to get started. Topics may include how to choose plants

(based on seasons, light, moisture, temperature, etc.), how to use tools, where to acquire start-up

funds, where to garden, and how to understand legal restrictions. Programs may cater to

different audiences, such as elementary school children, senior citizens, or non-English speakers.

Additionally, Master Gardeners are an important aspect of educational efforts. As

defined by the Washington State University Master Gardener Program and the King County

61
Jerry Kaufman and Martin Bailkey. “Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United
States.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper (2000).
62
Corporation for Educational Radio and Television. “Food From the ‘Hood.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.certnyc.org/ffth.html

31

Master Gardener Foundation, Master Gardeners provide community members with plant

information, garden management advice, problem diagnosis, training classes, resources, and

events.63 Essentially, Master Gardeners serve their communities as overseeing educators and go-

to experts. Master Gardener programs can be facilitated through educational institutions and

nonprofits, as demonstrated in King County, or government agencies as they so choose.

As demonstrated by the infrastructure of organizations discussed, strong networks

surround the social and political aspects of urban agriculture. Therefore, such diverse

stakeholders and experts in the community should be drawn on to create food policy councils. In

general, food policy councils are defined as advisory boards that moderate local food policies

and access issues.64 However, the exact mission, goals, and stake-holder make up of these

councils vary. They exist at the state, regional, county, and local/city levels.65 Over the past 10

years alone, over 35 food policy councils were founded in North America.66 These councils not

only broadly “strengthen local and regional food systems,”67 but work to ensure that the

development and maintenance of urban agriculture is both equitable and representative of the

community as a whole.

Food policy councils’ collaborative endeavors should establish, implement, and regulate

planning policies and laws as they pertain to urban agriculture. This involves monitoring

63
King County Extension and WSU. “Master Gardeners.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://king.wsu.edu/gardening/mastergardener.htm
64
Lane County Food Policy Council. “Who We Are.” Accessed April 18, 2011. http://www.fpclanecounty.org/
65
CFSC’s North American Food Policy Council. “Council List.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
www.foodsecurity.org/FPC/council.html
66
67

32

existing projects, advocating just policies, outreaching, and providing financial and educational

resources for community members.68

68
Robert M. Pederson and Aileen Robertson. “Food Policies are Essential for Healthy Cities.” UA Magazine, March
2001, 10 -11.

33

3.0 Assessing Framework Feasibility

3.1 Challenges to Implementation

Several barriers limit successful planning for urban agriculture. These challenges are

based on the physical, economic, and social demographics of a community:

Physical limitations constrain growing varieties. This includes weather, seasonal

variation, soil quality, fresh water access, moisture, sunlight, and so on. These limitations are

not totally changeable because they are inherent to the permanent and physical location of an

urban growing space. However, inputs may aid or improve the physical conditions of a space,

pending resource availability, manpower, and financial support.

Economic constraints restrict the development and implementation of urban agriculture

on many levels. From a planning perspective, insufficient finances may limit resources available

for the development of policies, laws, and programs. Inadequate funds may also limit the

establishment of agricultural spaces (both public and private), land resources, start-up assistance,

equipment, tools, seeds, soil, and infrastructure. These limitations can be offset by municipal

budgetary accommodations and fundraising partnerships with nonprofits, grant foundations,

citizen groups, entrepreneurial programs, educational institutions, Master Gardener programs,

and food policy councils. The Community Food Security Coalition, an organization that works

to implement just, sustainable, and nutritious food systems, also suggests that municipalities

34

support individuals by providing tool banks, seed grants, grower micro-credit, community

production facilities, loans, and insurance.69

Finally, social and population demographics are critical. They are shaped by individual

wealth, cultural background, language, employment, education, housing, and access to

information. Demographics shape the needs, wants, and demands for planning, as well as the

execution of these measures. As previously discussed, food policy councils are essential for

acknowledging varying demographics, educating and outreaching to individuals, creating

community-wide comprehensive policies, and implementing accessible programs. Population

density may also impact urban agriculture programs, in terms of community garden space, tools,

training, and funding. For municipal gardening spaces and resources, individuals typically

submit an application to the responsible or sponsoring government agency. However, applicants

may be waitlisted for extended periods of time. As a result, these individuals may not be able to

start growing food immediately.

3.2 Conclusion

Food insecurity threatens communities across the United States, so accessible and

sustained urban agriculture practices must be rapidly realized in planning efforts. Municipalities

benefit from developing and implementing a planning framework for urban agriculture because

69
Urban Agriculture Committee. “Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States:
Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.foodsecurity.org/urbanag.html#V

35

policies, laws, and programs alleviate food insecurity issues, improve urban food systems,

enhance communities, and sustain agricultural practices. Likewise, critical opportunities,

examples, and boundaries exist in developing a successful planning framework. This document

provides an overview of broad policies for planners, comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances,

and organization infrastructure, based on existing practices and suggested plans. All the

discussed policies, laws, and programs range in scope, depth, detail, and clout at the discretion of

those who have developed them. As evident, municipalities prioritize varying aspects of

planning, development, and agriculture, are comprised by different stakeholder demographics,

reconcile distinct community values, and respond to diverse criticism. Planning schemes have

both beneficial aspects and areas that need improvement. However, municipalities as a whole

are using planning measures to promote local food systems and protect urban agriculture for

community health and empowerment.

36

References

Amelia Conlen. “Urban Agriculture in Seattle: Organizational Roles and Needs.” Community
Environment and Planning, University of Washington. (2009).
American Farmland Trust. “Farming on the Edge Report.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.farmland.org/resources/fote/default.asp
American Planning Association. “Planning and Community Health Research Center.” Accessed
April 18, 2011. http://www.planning.org/nationalcenters/health/food.htm
American Planning Association. “Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning.”
(2007): 2-7.
America Planning Association. “Practice Urban Agriculture: Zoning for Urban Agriculture.”
Zoning Practice 3 (2010): 5-6.
Anne Bellows, Katherine Brown, and Jac Smit, “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” (2003):
1-12.
Boston Parks and Recreation Department Open Space Plan 2002-2006. “Open Space
Management Mission: Community Gardens.” 262-275.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Food Deserts.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.cdc.gov/features/fooddeserts/
CFSC. “Andy Fisher, Hot Peppers & Parking Lot Peaches: Evaluating Farmers’ Markets In
Low-Income Communities.” (1999): 6.
CFSC Urban Agriculture Committee. “Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the
United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe.” (2003): 10.
Chandler, Jeri Lynn. “Mayor proposes code amendment for urban agriculture in San Francisco.”
Examiner, December 15, 2010. Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.examiner.com/sustainable-food-in-san-francisco/mayor-proposes-code-
amendment-for-urban-agriculture-san-francisco
Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council. “Proposed Recommendations.” Accessed April 18,
2011.
http://www.chicagofoodpolicy.org/CFPAC%20Response%20to%20Urban%20Agricultur
e%20Zoning%20Amendment.pdf
City of Berkeley Planning & Development. “Open Space and Recreation Element.” Accessed
April 18, 2011. http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/contentdisplay.aspx?id=494
City of Berkeley Planning & Development. “Environmental Management Element.” Accessed
April 18, 2011. http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/contentdisplay.aspx?id=478
City of Chicago. “News Release: Zoning Amendment Would Nourish Urban Agriculture.”
Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/provdrs/sustain/news/2010/dec/zoning_a
mendmentwouldnourishurbanagriculturecitywise.htmlCity of Portland Planning and
Zoning. “Description of the Use Categories.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
Clara Irazabal and Anita Punja, “Cultivating Just Planning and Legal Institutions: A Critical
Assessment of the South Central Farm Struggle in Los Angeles.” Journal of Urban
Affairs 31 (2009): 5-10.

37

Corporation for Educational Radio and Television. “Food From the ‘Hood.” Accessed April 18,
2011. http://www.certnyc.org/ffth.html
Eng, Monica. “The City That Grows.” The Chicago Tribune, January 3, 2011. Accessed April
18, 2011. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-03/news/ct-met-urban-agriculture--
20101228_1_city-farm-urban-farming-urban-agriculture
Find Law. “Cleveland Zoning Code: Urban Garden District.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/clevelandcodes/cco_part3_336.html
Jerry Kaufman and Martin Bailkey. “Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in
the United States.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper (2000).
Kami Pothukuchi. “Personal Communication.” Wayne State University (2001).
King County Extension and WSU. “Master Gardeners.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://king.wsu.edu/gardening/mastergardener.htm
Lane County Food Policy Council. “Who We Are.” Accessed April 18, 2011.
http://www.fpclanecounty.org/
Laura Lawson. “The South Central Farm: Dilemmas in Practicing the Public.” Cultural
Geographies 14 (2007): 611-616.
Leah Erickson et al. “Urban Agriculture in Seattle: Policy & Barriers.” Report for University of
Washington certificate program in Environmental Law and Regulation. (2009).
Michael Hamm and Anne Bellows. “Community Food Security and Nutrition Educators.”
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 35 (2003).
NPLAN. “Establishing Land Use Protections for Community Gardens.” (2010): 9-12.
Resources Centres on Urban Agriculture & Food Security. “What is Urban Agriculture?”
Accessed April 18, 2011. http://www.ruaf.org/node/512
Robert M. Pederson and Aileen Robertson. “Food Policies are Essential for Healthy Cities.” UA
Magazine, March 2001, 10-11.
Ryerson University Centre for Studies in Food Security. “Food Security Defined.” Accessed
April 18, 2011. http://www.ryerson.ca/foodsecurity/definition/
San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance. “SF Urban Agriculture Zoning Proposal.” Accessed
April 18, 2011. http://www.sfuaa.org/urban-ag-zoning-proposal.html
Schukoske, Jane. “Elements to Include in a Community Garden Ordinance.” Community
Greening Review (2000).
Twiss et al. “Field Action Report - Community Gardens: Lessons Learned From
California Healthy Cities and Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 93 (2003):
1437.
USDA National Agricultural Library. “Dietary Guidance: Ethnic/Cultural Food Guide Pyramid.”
Accessed April 18, 2011.
riley.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=4&tax_level=3&tax_subject=256
&topic_id=1348&level3_id=5732&level4_id=0&level5_id=0&placement_default=0
USDA Nutrition Insight. “The Quality of Children’s Diets in 2003-04 as Measured by the
Healthy Eating Index-2005.” (2009): 2.
William Fulton and Paul Shigley, Guide to California Planning (Point Arena, CA: Solano Press
Books, 2005), 103-128.

Developing a Planning Framework for Accessible and Sustained Urban Agriculture

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Developing a Planning Framework for Accessible and Sustained Urban Agriculture

Semelhante a Developing a Planning Framework for Accessible and Sustained Urban Agriculture (20)

Mais de GeoAnitia

Mais de GeoAnitia (20)

Último

Último (20)

Developing a Planning Framework for Accessible and Sustained Urban Agriculture