Definitions

We developed our definition of urban agriculture from an early draft of the Neighborhood Food Act, currently before the legislature. It includes reasonable regulations of agricultural activity and was amended to include agricultural practices currently employed on farms around the city. These practices (i.e., on-site sales, building allowances, animal husbandry) are important to making sure that urban agriculture is economically viable, but are regulated in such a way to ensure that they are appropriate for the surrounding neighborhoods.

Size & Zoning for Community Gardens

One consistent message our group heard while doing community outreach is that the Community Garden size limit was overly restrictive and financially infeasible for nonrevenue-producing gardens. Our proposal increases the potential size of those gardens to 1 (one) acre but continues planning review for lots over 1 (one) acre.

Size & Zoning for Urban Agriculture other than Community Gardens

Right now, the City code effectively outlaws the growing of produce for sale on lots around the City. Under the current code, agricultural activity is only allowed in lots zoned agriculturally (which are almost nonexistent in the city limits) or requires a lengthy and expensive rezoning or permitting process. Through the combination of zoning codes and business regulations, it is exceedingly difficult and prohibitively expensive to practice urban agriculture in full compliance with City laws.

The most basic requirement for addressing the City’s many barriers to urban agriculture is to adopt a commonsense, meaningfully regulated definition of “urban agriculture” (see above) and to allow it on all zones across the city. Our proposal uses a tiered approach to allow small, less-intensive operations to operate with little or no permission from City agencies. At the same time, larger (over 1.5 acres) operations would be required to go through a more conventional permitting process.

This tiered approach is reflects the direction many cities (including San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Portland) have taken. By including regulation of agricultural activities in the definition of “urban agriculture,” our proposal ensures an easy-to-understand– yet meaningfully regulated– urban agriculture landscape.

Zoning: Nonconforming uses (“grandfather clause”)

The provisions in our proposal related to nonconforming uses would serve to protect urban agriculture operations existing before the ordinance was passed.

On-site Sales

Currently, regulations allow only “incidental” sales of produce grown in any community garden, whether on private or public property. Our proposal would clearly allow sales of produce grown in community gardens that are on private property. Additionally, sales could be allowed on community gardens that are on City-owned land if the City so chooses.

An alternative method of sale was developed by the City last year. Community markets have the potential to bring increased food access to underserved areas, but right now their operations are substantially limited by time, zoning, and frequency restrictions. Our proposal would expand the number of days that community markets could operate to make them more economically viable and prevalent.

Cities around the country have recognized that sales occurring on-site are an important method of revenue generation for urban agriculture operations. Unlike farms in rural areas, urban agriculture can be, and in some cities already is, a convenient place community food access. Recognizing this potential, our proposal takes the approach of cities like San Francisco, Portland, and Cleveland to allow small-scale urban agriculture stands to sell food on parcels where the food is grown. These stands would be limited in size, and frequency to ensure their compatibility with the surrounding area.

Equipment

Our proposal recognizes the importance of making sure urban agriculture is a good neighbor in the community where it is located. While we see no reason to limit the use of consumer-grade equipment (roto-tillers, hedge trimmers, etc.), the use of heavy machinery would be limited to initial land preparation.

Accessory Structures

Our proposal does not change the building code regulations that require permitting for new structures over a certain square footage. Instead, it brings clarity of those regulations as they apply to structures useful to urban farms like greenhouses, sheds, rain barrels, and cold frames.

Pesticide Use

Recognizing that state law limits the City’s ability to regulate pesticide use in its boundaries, our proposal makes City-offered incentives (tax and water rates) contingent on compliance with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Organics Program.

Water

Water rates and hook-up fees are typically the most expensive aspects of operating community gardens and urban farms around the City. Our proposal includes provisions to decrease initial hook-up costs for urban agriculture users and allows those users to enjoy a lower water rate.

These decreased costs are contingent on practicing water conservation techniques and limiting pesticide and fertilizer use to only those products compliant with USDA Organics Program.

Animal Husbandry

Animals can be an integral part of urban agriculture systems. Our proposal recognizes that small animals like chickens, ducks, rabbits, and fish are important to small agriculture systems and are unlikely to cause undue noise or smell problems. To this end, a number of these animals would be allowed on urban agriculture parcels with adequate space.

Larger animals can also be beneficial to urban agriculture operations. However, because they have more potential to create smell or noise issues, our proposal reflects the direction that many cities have taken and allows animals like roosters, geese, goats, pigs, and sheep only on lots large enough to minimize their potential impact to neighbors.

This proposal does not reduce the number of chickens or bees already allowed by the City. Instead, the proposal makes accommodation for these animals on lots large enough to appropriately house more than are currently allowed.

Fees

To maximize urban agriculture’s potential in Sacramento, our proposal includes provisions for a temporary moratorium on any new fees associated with urban agriculture permitting.

Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones (AB 551)

AB 551 is a tax break for parcel owners who commit their land to urban agriculture for a period of no less than five years. Our proposal is necessary to implement AB 551 because in order for parcels to be used for urban agriculture, urban agriculture must be legal and an economically viable use.

Our proposal includes a draft ordinance that the City can use to begin to implement AB 551 as well as a draft contract the City can use for participating parcel owners. It will be necessary for the County of Sacramento to pass an ordinance authorizing the City to take such steps, but we are confident that, working together, we can be one of the first jurisdictions in the state to implement this new incentive for urban agriculture.

Information Gateway

It is important that people seeking to develop urban agriculture are aware of requirements and allowances under our proposal and existing state and local law. We propose the establishment of an information gateway to help clarify what is and is not allowed under the new laws, as well as resources to help practitioners abide by the best practices of food safety and low-impact agriculture.

Public Land

The City of Sacramento owns the most land of any single entity in the city. Urban agriculture gives the City an opportunity to use that land to increase food production and literacy while creating partnerships with individuals and organizations to decrease maintenance costs.