San Diego County Healthy Food System: Strategic Plan

Healthy Works San Diego Regional Healthy Food System Strategic Plan — 18 March 2012

Credits This project is made possible by a grant from: Healthy Works: Paths to Healthy Living Healthy Works is a countywide initiative making systems and environmental changes promoting wellness and addressing the nationwide obesity epidemic. Healthy Works, administered by the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and includes the University of California San Diego, SANDAG, San Diego County Office of Education, Community Health Improvement Partners, and San Diego State University, along with numerous community-based partners. The project is part of the County’s “Live Well, San Diego! Building Better Health” initiative, a 10-year vision for improving health and wellness and combating the toll of chronic diseases, including obesity. Healthy Works engages San Diego County residents, businesses, and community leaders in systems and environmental approaches such as farmers markets, community gardens, bike-to-school and work programs, school exercise and nutrition programs, as well as changes involving land use and transportation.

Healthy Works creates “Paths to Healthy Living.”

This work was made possible by funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, through the County of San Diego. This publication was supported by the Cooperative Agreement Number 1U58DP002496-01 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Introduction Introduction Nationwide there is a groundswell of multiple, independent actions designed to reassert greater control over the food that we eat. No where is that more evident than in San Diego. We are at a very particular moment in history with a unique opportunity to chart a new course of our destiny, change our relationship with food, and embrace a future of health and prosperity. What if we could create a food system that provides fresh, local food for hundreds of thousands of people, increases food security, supports healthy communities, addresses critical environmental challenges, decreases energy consumption, and offers new economic opportunities for San Diego County? Across the United States, communities are discovering that addressing their regional food system can be a catalyst for such transformation.

The benefits of robust, sustainable, local food include stronger local economies, preservation of farmland and a cleaner, more resilient environment. According to a growing body of experts, these benefits can be replicated and amplified at a larger scale. Kate Clancy, Food Systems Consultant and Senior Fellow at the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, and Kathryn Ruhf, Coordinator of the Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, write, “…we think that ‘regionalizing’ the food system –emphasizing and focusing on regions– may be the optimal model to meet the goals of a sustainable, secure and resilient food system.” How can we create a more local and more sustainable agriculture that recognizes critical social, cultural, and economic needs of the residents of San Diego County? Could addressing our food system at the regional scale also be an approach capable of feeding a world with a global population rapidly passing through the threshold of seven billion? If so, can we accomplish this with so many competing demands: for land, for water, for energy, for economic resources in an increasingly volatile climate and while the biodiversity of the planet is in serious decline?

Agriculture in San Diego County seems to represent a series of contradictions rather than a single, clear direction for the future. While the County has the highest proportion of small scale growers in the state and the largest number of certified organic growers of any California County, the vast majority of farming operations by volume are dedicated to only a few crops –and most of these are either nonfood crops or are not marketed for local food consumption. Nonfood crops, such as flowers, ornamental plants, and turf, make up for two-thirds of annual agricultural value.

Avocados and citrus represent only 16% of annual agricultural value but take up 70% of all land area dedicated to farming. The harvest of tree fruit crops is largely shipped outside the county to markets across the United States and beyond.

Page 3

regionalizing the food system –emphasizing and focusing on regions– may be the optimal model to meet the goals of a sustainable, secure and resiliant food system

a Strategic Plan identifies the strategies, tactics, and resources necessary to achieve desired outcomes

The connection between growers and consumers is nearly always indirect –with multiple intermediaries, including brokers, wholesalers, distributors, food service providers, and retail grocery stores intervening between the farmer and the food that the consumer buys, cooks, and eats.

Where direct connections exist between growers and consumers, such as farmers’ markets, roadside farm stands, and Community Supported Agriculture, they provide only about one percent of food consumed by San Diego residents.

This report There are two major sections of this report: Executive Summary: An orientation to the scope of work, the project methodology, and an introduction to the strategies and tactics of the Strategic Plan and the Strategic Plan: The plan identifies the strategies, tactics, and resources necessary to achieve a desired outcome within a defined schedule and subject to measurement against established criteria for evaluation.

The Strategic Plan is supported by the: Needs Assessment: A needs assessment is the identification of a survey subject within its pool of total available data. A targeted sample survey is used to develop preliminary results for assessment and evaluation. If the pattern of results fails to support a clear direction, either process must be reevaluated or the project should be reconsidered or abandoned. If a discrete pattern of consistent results emerges, future decisions are clear and a plan for implementation can be developed from the data.

Asset Mapping: An asset map locates project resources in geographic space for the purpose of evaluating the potential for location or co-location of resources and services.

Feasibility Study: A feasibility study includes that examination of current conditions, assessment of current and future opportunities, identification of obstacles and constraints, and a survey of relevant examples of best practices that inform the development of a prototypical outcome or solution for testing and evaluation.

Page 4

Interviews and Analysis: The San Diego Farm Bureau conducted a series of 32 individual interviews with farmers, growers, and ranchers within the study area between November 2011 and March 2012. The questionnaire used in the Farm Bureau interviews was a simplified version of the questionnaire we previously developed and conducted between January 2011 and March 2011. The elements of the questionnaire were designed to elicit both quantitative and qualitative data that could inform this study on market potential, existing barriers to opportunity, and current attitudes about the status of local agriculture and local food production and consumption.

In addition to the Farm Bureau interviews, the project team met with and interviewed 51 key participants in the San Diego food system. The interviews included: fishermen; City and county elected officials’ staff; leaders of Community Based Organizations focused primarily on food policy and systems; City and County Land Use, Nutrition, Environmental Health and Public Works staff; school districts’ representatives; retailers and coops; chefs and restaurateurs; distributors; farmers market managers; UCSD personnel; and Farm Bureau staff.

Food Hub and Public Market: Food Hubs and Public Markets are not obsolete business enterprises representing a nostalgic yearning for a romanticized notion of a historic food system. Food Hubs in particular are an emerging trend that offers local growers increased autonomy to make the decisions about what, when, and how best to grow the foods that they feel are most appropriate to their soil, climate, and interest. Food hubs offer local wholesale markets increased reliable access to local food. Public markets offer growers the same advantages of food hubs with the added value of engaging individual consumers directly.

Page 5

farmers get to grow the products that they feel are the best fit for their soil conditions in the seasons that work best for their climate

Healthy Works San Diego Regional Healthy Food System Strategic Plan — 18 March 2012

Page 6

Table of Contents Contents Introduction

3

Table of Contents

7

Executive Summary

9

Strategic Plan

17

Needs Assessment

29

The “parking lot”

35

Asset Mapping

39

Urban–Rural Lands

47

Farmers Markets

49

Interviews

51

Farm Bureau Interviews

59

Food Hub & Public Market

65

Project Background

71

Bibliography

75

Project Team

81

Page 7

Page 8

Executive Summary Introduction Healthy Works: Paths to Healthy Living commissioned this work because they have a vision of the San Diego County of the future: a future where all county residents have regular, convenient, and complete access to those critical indicators that support active living by design. Among these are access to parks and open space and compact urban form that make walking, biking, and other forms of active transportation the convenient first choice for mobility. Equally important is sharing the benefits of healthy local foods as a part of the comprehensive plan developed by Healthy Works to combat the persistent public health issues resulting from poor diets and inactivity. This report places its focus on the benefits of local foods. The challenge set by Healthy Works was to examine the structural conditions of the current regional food system, identify its successes, failures, and opportunities and discover those areas where the established system is open to transformation.

The methodology supporting this work and its conclusions is based upon looking outside the county, state, and region to the national –and even international– models of success. For example, while dedicated citizens have been working on initiatives for farmers markets, a regional food hub, and a public market, we reviewed data from throughout the United States and Canada to insure that the work considered national models, but could ground them in the local conditions of San Diego County. Similarly we developed new research methodologies for soliciting detailed local data –the structured interviews with local farmers, growers, and ranchers conducted by the San Diego Farm Bureau– are an example.

These methodologies built upon other work completed in other studies to increase the scale of the sample size. The structured interviews were able to engage 32 farmers, ranchers, and growers; a questionnaire survey from early 2011 added 32 more to the sample size; and a 2010 study conducted by the Urban & Environmental Institute of Occidental College added 34 additional data sets. The integration of previous studies with contemporary research helped overcome the accelerated project schedule that limited the number of Farm Bureau interviews.

The executive summary frames the scope of the next steps for San Diego County and presents a narrative description of the goals, objectives, and strategies to pursue. The executive summary is followed by the strategic plan that offers the concrete steps for action and an overall project schedule with three timeframes: years one to three (immediate), years four to six (mid-term), and years seven to nine (long-term). The interdependent nature of all individual goals means that the objectives, strategies, and schedule are easier to predict for the immediate term.

Short-term successes and setbacks will mean that some mid-term or long-term goals may require adjustments to the schedule if milestones are missed or resources are unavailable.

Page 9

there is a near universal desire to combine traditional farming wisdom with sound farming practices that suit the local conditions

make certain that the food systems alliance is responsive to the needs of growers, producers, and eaters from all the diverse backgrounds of San Diego County

Wherever we have gone in San Diego over the last eighteen months, we have seen the groundswell of multiple, independent actions designed to reassert greater local control over the food offered to the citizens of San Diego. There is a near universal desire to combine traditional farming wisdom and sound farming practices that suit the local conditions, with contemporary technology and the benefits of international trade. The lessons learned from the work are the recognition that the regional food system network for San Diego is: ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

Being built and rebuilt every day; Inevitable, but not predetermined; Essential to a healthy sustainable, and equitable future for all; and Its potential will be achieved only through engagement and participation.

We have also found that this groundswell of interest and investment is disorganized and disconnected. Significant individual initiative and persistence has paid off in multiple ways –the consumer support of 55 neighborhood farmers markets is one small indicator. No matter how successful these emerging enterprises may be to date, they are at risk –and will continue to be at risk– unless we act. San Diego can forge a new regional food system network that is inclusive, innovative, healthy, soulful, and thriving – but only if we act. This strategic plan is a call for action.

At the beginning of our work, we posed a series of questions: ÆÆ

ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

How do we collect the multiple individual initiatives of a vast set of individual, local projects into a robust, sustainable, equitable, and networked regional food system?

Where are the resources that we could employ to best enable the citizens of San Diego to get involved, and stay engaged?

How do we enable the individual farmer, grower, and producer to thrive –both independently and as a collective?

How can we engage and transform the existing food distribution and delivery infrastructure to better satisfy the needs of San Diego farmers and San Diego residents?

How can we best share our knowledge, experience, and practices of our successful projects?

How can we share knowledge and resources to help activate local groups?

How does San Diego create and improve its local food network?

Imagine a food system network that brings all residents of San Diego together both regionally and globally. This is the first action in transforming the existing system of industrial agriculture into a sustainable, healthy, local food system. This executive summary provides the the narrative for this proposed transformation: each goal is identified, objectives defined, and strategies and tactics proposed for action. The next section of the report: the Strategic Plan is the concrete, step-by-step proposal for actions –and a proposed timeline– for achieving this work.

Page 10

Establish a Food Systems Alliance The first project goal is to establish , fund, and convene a Food Systems Alliance. Establish the Food Systems Alliance with sufficient financial and administrative support to design the new food policy future for San Diego County. Draw the initial pool of contributing members from the representatives of the 2011 Urban-Rural Roundtable and make certain that they can be responsive to the needs of growers, producers and eaters from all the diverse backgrounds of San Diego County. This was the key recommendation from the 2011 Urban Rural Round Table report. In time, this initial steering committee will gradually expand its membership to embrace a broader constituency.

Engage Ag Innovations to lead and facilitate the work of the Food Systems Alliance. Build an agenda for the work from the recommendations of the Urban-Rural Roundtable and this report. As the Food Systems Alliance is neither a government-appointed Food Policy Council nor a traditionally defined Community Based Organization, it must chart a unique, hybrid path to success. Advocating for systemic change in the regional food system is a high priority for the Alliance. Stable and adequate funding and the full political support of local governing bodies will provide the credibility that the Food Systems Alliance will depend upon to effect meaningful change.

Build an Information Network that Links and Informs The second goal will be to create an information and referral clearinghouse. Reliable access to accurate, real-time information will be essential in support of the work of the Food Systems Alliance. Members of the Alliance and those actively participating in the transformation of the regional food system must be able to rely upon a credible source that gathers information on the intersecting worlds of agriculture, food-policy, health, education, and commerce. Expanding the website designed and operated by the San Diego County Farm Bureau including its San Diego Grown Exchange is one part of this system. It should not be the sole responsibility of the Farm Bureau to create and maintain the only regional information system. Multiple, interdependent information systems, maintained by governments, agencies, schools and universities, CBOs, or even by individuals will better serve the long-term mission. Secure dedicated funding to fulfill this critical need. Provide grants to agencies, schools and universities, CBOs, and individuals to support their ongoing efforts. An unfunded mandate will not work beyond the initial period of enthusiastic euphoria. Enduring, sustainable results demand ongoing support.

Measure the Effect of Acting After work on the first two goals has begun, the third goal is to act with intention on those areas where some initial success can be more readily extended to the benefit of the entire food system network. Metrics matter, choosing the best indicators of a healthy local system is critical. The work of the Food Systems Alliance will contribute to a meaningful discussion –and build effective plans for transformation of the regional food system– if it has the means of tracking those most important indicators that will forecast a healthy system. Systematic measurement and regular reporting

Page 11

systemic measurement and regular reporting of key indicators will –over time–contribute to better outcomes

of those key indicators will –over time– contribute to better outcomes.

Model indices for consideration and emulation include the Silicon Valley Index and the Portland Pulse. There is no end to the possible individual metrics for measurement, tracking, and reporting, but the focus on an initial, limited set of baseline indicators that offers clear, concrete, measurable, data should include:

establish a San Diego County task force led by the Farm Bureau to develop the plan to lower water rates for agriculture to a sustainable $900 per acre-foot by 2015

ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

Total acreage of food under cultivation in the County; Percentage of local food staying in the County; Number of school and community gardens and their total acreage; Amount of local food in schools and how is it integrated; Amount of publicly and privately owned land identified/converted to support food production; Number of restaurants featuring local food for their primary offerings; and Fruit and vegetable consumption versus soda consumption.

Making Farmers Markets Successful We love our farmers markets. San Diego boasts 55 active farmers markets that serve neighborhoods across the county with a taste of the abundance that dedicated farmers, growers, and ranchers can provide. Not all markets are successful, however; and many farmers find it difficult to make money selling through farmers markets. Organize a panel of experts to closely examine the operational and management systems of farmers markets and offer a formulary for improvement.

Restore Local Fisheries Local seafood has been in the background of the agricultural renaissance that is beginning to take root in the area. The San Diego Fishermen’s Working Group, Carlsbad Aquafarm and other seafarers require significantly increased exposure to the public if they are to increase their sales. One way to accomplish this is by partnering with farmers markets to create site-specific fish markets that cater primarily to the wholesale trade. Ideally these would locate on or near wharf facilities along the Bay.

Water Rates and Sources Water is the keystone issue in San Diego agriculture. Unsustainably high water rates that fail to differentiate between residential, commercial or agricultural uses will continue to reduce farmland in cultivation, drive farmers out of farming, and limit any potential increase in the supply of local food. Led by the Farm Bureau representing farmers, growers, and producers, the full community must come together and forge a consensus plan that respects the value that agriculture adds to the local economy, to food security, and to the health of the region. Creating differential water rates will demand political attention of every leader within the County and engaging political leadership and agency administrators in Sacramento.

Establish a San Diego County task force, led by the Farm Bureau to develop the plan to lower water rates for agriculture to a sustainable $900 per acre-foot (2012 estimate) by 2015. Recognize that the path to this goal is a function of both urban and rural conservation and extends to include waste collection, waste stream diversion, composting regulations and programs, and continued exploration of recycled, grey water and desalinization.

Page 12

Slaughtering Facilities Federal and State regulations that govern the slaughter and processing of animals for food favor large-scale consolidated animal facilities. The result is that San Diego County –as so many other counties– no longer has local slaughtering facilities to serve local ranchers. Local growers and consumers have consistently expressed their disappointment that the path to local beef, pork, lamb and goats can be a circuitous one that takes animals off the farm and out of the county for processing at certified facilities. Smaller, custom, or mobile slaughter facilities would be better equipped to serve small and mid-size ranchers and will help fill a missing link in the local food chain. Even if the average diet is less focused on animal products than in years past, this will improve access by consumers to a rich variety of humanely processed, healthy, local meat. Establish a task force to identify impediments to local slaughter facilities: Federal and/or State regulation; City and/or County ordinances, regulations, licenses and/ or permits; education and/ or training; and financing –including education of the regional financial community. Provide financial and political support to engage existing regulatory barriers to local slaughter and processing.

Develop training programs for new jobs in an emerging industry and education for farmers, ranchers, chefs, and consumers that promote the value and benefits of local food.

School Food All of the parties involved in creating or consuming school food are dedicated to providing nutritious and satisfying meals. Unfortunately, strategic choices about budgets, value, and investment over time have created the current disconnect between the needs of school districts and the abundance of healthy food that is often grown within the boundaries of those very same districts. The lowest possible cost for each meal is now a primary determinant that forces the choice of what will be presented on the plate. Many school districts have mothballed or removed their fullservice kitchens from individual schools in favor of commissaries served by centralized kitchens. All parties are dissatisfied with the status quo, but there has been too little engagement by a constituency broad enough to make much needed progress. San Diego Unified School District has established a Farm to School Specialist charged with understanding the needs of farmers and food service professionals and matching the product to the plate. Make sure that each school district funds and staffs a similar position and supports the efforts to bring local food into neighborhood schools. Identify the most effective paths to increase the supply of local food in all school districts. Develop school gardens and integrate garden work into the full curriculum. Harvest school or nearby community gardens, targeting specific crops during their peak seasons for inclusion in school meals and snacks. Engage local growers and distributors to deliver to schools and overcome perceived legal and financial barriers that currently prevent this.

Establish a Task Force to develop a Regional Food Hub | San Diego Public Market The current work shows that the feasibility of a physical, bricks and mortar regional food hub in San Diego County is on the perilous edge of success and failure. The preliminary information developed for the draft business plan for the regional food hub indicated positive cash flow by the fifth year of its operations. However, current USDA data show that most

Page 13

area chefs understand the value of local food. every chef seeks quality and value in each individual ingredient that goes into a meal. local food is fresher, more nutritious, and often just tastes better

consumers are the largest segment of the market in San Diego County with over three million urban food consumers, San Diego represents a robust daily demand for food of all kinds

food hubs continue to rely upon outside grants and funding to support their operations. While there is no current recommendation supporting implementation of a food hub in the first three-year period, there are steps that should be taken to prepare for those conditions where a regional food hub will succeed. Build upon the work of the Farm Bureau and their current peer-to-peer exchange of crop information and customer need.

Establish a permanent committee dedicated to organization, management, and operation of the future regional food hub. Develop an extension of the current Farm Bureau P2P exchange that operates as a virtual food hub and marketplace for local San Diego County food –the Food Hub at the EcoTrust website may be one model for consideration. Encourage private, entrepreneurial individuals, companies, and teams to compete.

For over a decade, a group of motivated residents of San Diego has informally explored the potential for creating a true public market, a seven-day-a-week facility whose potential benefits include the combination of increased market opportunity for local growers and economic development in city neighborhoods. Make a political commitment and financial investment to establish a permanent committee dedicated to the organization, management, and operation of the future public market.

Research the opportunities and returns that a public market could offer and measure the feasibility of funding and developing such an important civic amenity. Encourage private, entrepreneurial individuals, companies, and teams to compete. Set in place the conditions for an eventual merger of the regional food hub and public market.

Chefs and Restaurant Food San Diego area chefs understand the value of local food. Every chef seeks quality and value in each individual ingredient that goes into a meal.

Local food is fresher, more nutritious, and often just tastes better than products shipped long distances. More important, the local farmer – chef connection gives each party a chance to be creative, strive for excellence, and benefit each other and, by extension, the local community. Making chefs a distinctive class of consumers and serving their needs offers multiple benefits to the sustainable food system. Chefs are expert in their knowledge and understanding of food, they buy regularly, in large quantities, and, if they promote the local ingredients on their menus, they extend the reach of any individual local farmer, grower, and producer.

Develop a program to engage, educate, train, and share information with this primary market for local food. Establish an event, such as the annual food festival: The Taste of Chicago, that brings together all the elements of San Diego food: fishermen, farmers, ranchers, vintners, brewers, chefs, and others to celebrate the quality and variety of local food.

Customers: the residents of San Diego County Consumers are the largest segment of the market in San Diego County and they purchase a vast amount of food. Unfortunately, the consumer market is not homogenous and uniform, but fragmented. Our research shows one strategic way of conceiving of this market that offers logical steps to identify and connect with its most compatible allies to the local food system. In the past decade, consumers have changed the way they think about environmental issues –especially food. The Natural Marketing Institute has characterized an important segment of the population by their lifestyle choices that reflect their commitment to a sustainable future.

Page 14

Accounting for almost 20 percent of the population, these individuals are committed to a lifestyle of health and sustainability where they tend to act in socially responsible ways such as practicing conservation, recycling and being politically active. They have the highest consumption rate of green products, forge the most loyal attachment to those companies that exhibit values most like their own and are insensitive to price. Responsibility for and stewardship of the environment is fundamental to their lifestyle and they continually look for ways to do more to better for the environment in every aspect of their daily lives. As early adopters, these consumers help push new products into the mainstream by being the first to “prescreen” and accept new green products and, by their adoption, influence others to purchase those products that meet their approval. For these reasons, these consumers are a critical market segment of the regional food system.

Acceptance by this type of consumer is fundamental to its success in the marketplace. Our best preliminary estimate is that there are 600,000 individuals in San Diego County who have committed to lifestyles of health and sustainability (LOHAS) and their annual food purchases are between $180,000,000 and $220,000,000.

Nearly equal in numbers is a second group that the Natural Marketing Institute identifies as “naturalites.” Members of this group have strong interests in environmental issues and wholesome, local, or organic food. They buy products considered sustainable, eco-friendly, or “green” whenever possible, but they are neither early adopters, nor are they willing to pay a premium for a higher degree of sustainability. Education is key to reaching this group of consumers; some of this education should be peerto-peer where naturalites observe and emulate purchasing choices modeled by their neighbor LOHAS. Local food can serve the needs of the elderly and those living in poverty.

Many farmers markets are able to accept electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. Some farmers markets support SNAP or WIC use by offering a bonus of up to 20% to encourage these at-risk populations to shop at farmers markets. Extending EBT acceptance to community supported agriculture or seafood CSAs would deliver healthy local food to those who need it most.

Universities, Community Colleges, Hospitals and other Institutions Institutions serve thousands of meals each day and always with the intent to provide nutritious, high-quality food that appeals to their customers. Every meal offers an opportunity to improve the connection between that institution and the local economy. Even nominal local additions to a meal prepared and served by an institution could mean significant benefits to the local farmer, rancher, and fisherman.

Each of these institutions also offers opportunities for ongoing education about healthy local food. Many colleges and hospital host farmers markets on their campuses for their faculty, staff, students, and the public.

In addition to all of the benefits above, community colleges are the ideal place to educate and train a new generation ready to enter the workforce as farmers, ranchers, fishermen, butchers, chefs, and many other jobs within the local food system. Education and training programs, regardless

Page 15

of where they are hosted, extend the benefit of local food economics by recycling additional money within the local economy.

Farmers and Fishermen An initial 2011 effort to organize farmers into a local cohort under a single organizational structure and brand failed because it failed to attract enough members with sufficient total acreage in production to make a meaningful contribution to changing the local food system. The San Diego Fishermen’s Working Group has organized and is laying a foundation for more effective and coordinated marketing and sales of local seafood. Link existing groups with distributors and markets. Encourage formation of new groups and associations. Provide support, education and training, and meeting facilities. Emerging programs like community supported agriculture (CSA) or seafood CSAs open new markets with higher profits to farmers and fishermen. Provide programs for training and education of farmers and fishermen that offer them access to these and similar programs. A 2011 study of bundled CSA boxes that would aggregate products from a variety of sources, including farms, ranches, and fishermen was interrupted and abandoned before completion. Review the work of this group and determine if or when it should be resumed.

Inventory of public and private lands for increasing urban agriculture Surplus publicly and privately owned land abounds throughout the urbanized areas of San Diego County. Many of these parcels, whether vacant lots or abandoned public rights of way, are suitable for community garden or urban farming. An accurate inventory, neighborhood by neighborhood, will allow residents and planners to know how to allocate these parcels to those interested in producing food for home, family and commercial consumption. This inventory should target the geographic areas where the amount of available land coincides with nearby users’ interest in converting it to an agricultural resource.

Identify rural lands at risk of development San Diego County has identified 72,000 acres of farmland for potential long-term protection from development. They have funded an initial $2,000,000 program for Purchasing Agricultural Conservation Easements (PACE). This program is currently evaluating applications for the first round of conservation easements. In year one –the only year with secure funding– 450 to 550 total acres and ten to twelve farms may receive protection.

Find new, reliable, and larger sources of funding for PACE. Identify and test alternate funding mechanisms, such as development offsets and the transfer of development rights (TDR). Review programs for managing the growth of urban areas such as those implemented by Ventura County, Sonoma County and others. Convene a task force from the County, Cities, Municipal Planning Authorities, CBOs, schools and universities to develop, test, and evaluate a model ordinance appropriate to the unique conditions in San Diego County.

Reconvene the Urban-Rural Roundtable In the last year of each three-year cycle, reconvene the Urban-Rural Roundtable. Enable their participation to serve as a think-tank panel

Page 16

Strategic Plan offering peer review of the process, the strategies and tactics, and the metrics and current data. Seek their critical review of the current set of short, medium, and long-term goals. Make adjustments as warranted.

Apply the benefits of their independent perspective, experience, and knowledge to adjust the tactics and metrics for the next three-year period.

Healthy Works Local Food System Strategic Plan Years 1 to 3 Goal 1: Establish, fund, and convene the San Diego Food Systems Alliance Objective: 1.1 Establish a regional Food System Alliance with a representative constituency drawn from the participants in the 2011 Urban-Rural Roundtable. ÆÆ Strategy 1.1.1 Secure initial funding for organization and operation of the Food Systems Alliance. Spring 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 1.1.2 Provide initial leadership and facilitation. Retain Ag Innovations to lead the process. Spring 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 1.1.3 Define the operational and management structure for the Food Systems Alliance and set internal working protocols.

Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 1.1.4 Recruit and retain interim staff. Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 1.1.5 Define relationships with governing bodies and other community based food organizations. Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 1.1.6 Secure resolutions of support from local cities, San Diego County and Community Based Organizations.

Summer 2012

Objective: 1.2 Develop an agenda for the Food System based upon the work of the UrbanRural Roundtable’s set of recommendations and this report. ÆÆ Strategy 1.2.1 Food Systems Alliance defines its role as advocates for transforming the regional food system, but not as government-sponsored Food Policy Council. Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 1.2.2 Food Systems Alliance refines recommendations and sets priorities for action. F all 2012

Objective 1.3 The FSA establishes stable funding sources for future operations ÆÆ Strategy 1.3.1 Secure commitment to ongoing operation of the FSA by the California Endowment. Spring 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 1.3.2 Advertise, recruit, and retain an administrative director for the FSA. Fall 2012

Goal 2: Data collection and communication Objective 2.1 Create a clearinghouse for information collection, storage, and referral. ÆÆ Strategy 2.2.1 I dentify and assess needs of Food Systems Alliance members. Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 2.2.2 Identify and assess needs of non-Alliance members. Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 2.2.3 Determine scope for data collection and functionality of communication tools. Fall 2012

Page 17

Objective 2.2

“the most fundamental requirement for survival is food. hence, how and where food is grown is foundational to an economics for community.”

Herman Daly

Identify member organization that will assume responsibility for data collection and communication ÆÆ Strategy 2.2.1 Define core project responsibilities. Spring 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 2.2.2 Develop and advertise Request for Proposal for outside services, if necessary. Review and rank proposals received. Interview and select vendor. Summer 2012

Objective 2.3 Define services and functionality for the clearinghouse for information collection, storage, and referral. ÆÆ Strategy 2.3.1 Identify funding options in addition to Cal Endowment for collaborative projects involving multiple partners. Winter 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 2.3.2 Share personnel and administrative services among collaborative partners. Spring 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 2.33: Identify where redundant efforts exist and streamline the process. W inter 2012

Goal 3: Begin intentional process to develop a robust regional food system Objective 3.1 Establishes evaluation metrics against which to measure progress. ÆÆ Strategy 1.3.1 Use existing data from Food System Assessment to measure efforts. S ummer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 1.3.2 Identify gaps where current data is not available.

Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 1.3.3 Research successes from other regions. Apply additional metrics from research to project, as appropriate.

Winter 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 1.3.4 Determine what other data to measure Winter 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 1.3.5 Begin regular publication of data collected and information received. Spring 2013

Objective 3.2 Increase success of farmers markets ÆÆ Strategy 3.2.1 Identify characteristics of successful markets. Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.2.2 Share information with current 55 markets. Winter 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 3.2.3 Identify means for Farmers Market’s to improve performance. Spring 2013

Page 18

ÆÆ

Strategy 3.2.4 Determine if region can absorb more Farmers Markets or if the saturation level has been reached. Fall 2013

Objective 3.3 Increase sales for local fishermen and aquaculture ÆÆ Strategy 3.3.1 Identify wholesale opportunities for direct sales.

Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.3.2 Implement a program for co-locating seafood sales with farmers markets. Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.3.3 Develop free standing wholesale processing and retail facility (or facilities). Fall 2014

Objective 3.4 Establish a permanent San Diego Public Market committee ÆÆ Strategy 3.4.1 Develop political commitment from elected leaders. Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy: 3.4.2 Secure funding for planning and feasibility study.

Winter 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 3.4.3 Build alliances with entrepreneurs and funding sources. Winter 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 3.4.4 Evaluate San Diego Regional Food Hub as a partner. Spring 2014

Objective 3.5 Achieve stable, long-term differential price for agriculture water ÆÆ Strategy 3.5.1 Farm Bureau leads community-wide effort.

Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.5.2 Seek urban dwellers’ acceptance of lower-price water use for agricultural water users. Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.5.3 Achieve measurable conservation goals. Summer 2014 ÆÆ Strategy 3.5.4 Stabilize water rates for agricultural use to $900 acre-foot. Summer 2015

Objective 3.6 Remove regulatory barriers for local slaughtering facilities ÆÆ Strategy 3.6.1 Establish task force to review federal, state, county, and city codes, ordinances, and regulations. Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.6.2 Develop program of public education on the values of sustainably produced local meat. Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.6.3 Secure ongoing financial and political support for task force work. Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.6.4 Explore feasibility of mobile slaughtering unit.

Identify costs for pilot program. Winter 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.6.5 Educate and train for new jobs for ranchers, butchers, chefs and consumers using local meats. Fall 2013

Page 19

“policy should protect the future from the past, not the past from the future.” Tim O’Reilly

Objective 3.7 Increase the quantity of local foods in all County schools ÆÆ Strategy 3.7.1 Lower cost barriers for using local foods. Fall 2015 ÆÆ Strategy 3.7.2 Hire school food specialists for each district. Fall 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 3.7.3 Develop school gardens and integrate into curriculum. Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.7.4 Local growers/distributors target seasonal foods to deliver to each district. Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.7.5 Remove legal barriers for using safe, local foods in schools. Summer 2012

Objective 3.8 Educate local chefs to the value of local food. Increase knowledge and understanding of the healthy regional food system ÆÆ Strategy 3.8.1 Increase number of chefs seeking direct sources for local ingredients. Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.8.2 Target chefs as a distinctive class of consumer.

Survey their needs. Develop a program to address opportunities.

Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.8.3 Develop and implement measurement tools and evaluation protocols to track how regularly chefs buy from and promote local sources. Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.8.4 Train chefs in value of locally sourced food. Spring 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.8.5 Develop, plan, and hold an inaugural San Diego food festival event. Summer 2014

Objective 3.9 Develop strategies to sell more local food to San Diego residents ÆÆ Strategy 3.9.1 Identify preferred market segments for marketing programs. Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.9.2 Develop marketing tactics to reach primary market segment (LOHAS). Winter 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 3.9.3 Develop marketing tactics to reach secondary market segment (naturalites). Winter 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 3.9.4 Develop incentives for low income and elderly shoppers at farmers markets and where they buy direct from farmers, growers, and ranchers using EBT bonus programs.

Summer 2013

Objective 3.10 Expand the role of Universities, Community Colleges, Hospitals and Institutions ÆÆ Strategy 3.10.1 Increase share of local food served to students, faculty, and staff. Fall 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 3.10.2 D evelop and implement education programs on the values and benefits of local food for students, faculty, and staff. Winter 2013

Page 20

ÆÆ ÆÆ

Strategy 3.10.3 Develop and implement a program for educating and training food trade workers. Fall 2013 Strategy 3.10.4 E ngage universities in applied research to solve real problems. Fall 2012

Objective 3.11 Organize Farmers, Ranchers, and Fishermen ÆÆ Strategy 3.11.1 Provide support, training and meeting facilities.

Summer 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.11.2 Link existing groups with markets and distributors. Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.11.3 Encourage formation of new affinity groups. Fall 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.11.4 Expand CSAs to include Seafood CSAs. Winter 2012 ÆÆ Strategy 3.11.5 Explore bundled CSAs for meats, seafood, and vegetables. Summer 2012

Objective 3.12 Inventory Public and Private Lands for Increasing Urban Agriculture ÆÆ Strategy 3.12.1 Survey available lands by neighborhood. Summer 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 3.12.2 Determine and enhance soil conditions for growing food. Fall 2013 ÆÆ Strategy 3.12.3 Match interested growers with available land.

Winter 2013

Objective 3.13 Identify Rural Lands at Risk of Development ÆÆ Strategy 3.13.1 Secure stable, long-term, and increasing year-afteryear funding for Purchasing Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) program. Winter 2014 ÆÆ Strategy 3.13.2: Increase PACE program acreage to 2,000 acres of land preserved through easements. Spring 2015 ÆÆ Strategy 3.13.3 Review programs for managing growth in urban areas in other cities and counties. Winter 2013

Objective 3.14 Reconvene Urban-Rural Round Table every three years ÆÆ Strategy 3.14.1 Use the Urban-Rural Roundtable as a sounding board to review goals, objectives, strategies, tactics, and metrics for measurement and evaluation. Summer 2014 ÆÆ Strategy 3.14.2 Review and recalibrate goals, objectives, strategies, tactics, and metrics for measurement and evaluation.

Make revisions and adjustments as necessary. Summer 2014

Page 21

Timeline:

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Identify | Link | Inform | Educate Institutions

Engage local schools & universities

UCSD San Diego County Cities

Food Systems Water rates and Alliance: organize, access establish, fund and support

Review existing codes & ordinances

Adjust/ modify existing codes & ordinances.

Encourage microenterprise

Feds Food Systems Alliance: organize, establish, fund and support

Farm Bureau Institutions CBOs Agents

Engage local restaurants

Farmers

Improve farm market functi

Match new farmers to available land

Improve farm market functi Community C & university programs for farmers Community C & university programs for fishermen Improve farm market functi

Affinity group/ alliance: San Diego Growers Affinity group/ alliance: San Diego Fish

Fishermen

Match new farmers Engage local to available land schools & universities

Engage local schools & universities Fisheries protections: streams & seas

Engage local distributors: improve local food distribution infrastructure

Other Improvements to local food distribution infrastructure

Distributors

Consumers

Engage local farms and fishermen

Restaurants

Improve farm market functi

Public Identify, educate

LOHAS

Implement targeted 40% market marketing program: penetration this Farmers Markets group

Implement targeted marketing program: CSA Identify, educate

Naturalites

Identify, educate

Poor Elderly

Expand access to Cal-Fresh and WIC through discounts

Other at risk

Create | Support Institutions

UCSD San Diego County Cities

Feds

Farm Bureau

“the conceptual question that must be further clarified is how much self-sufficiency is to be sought at what levels of community. the ultimate end of the new operative policies would be a self-sufficient world in which all less-than-global CSA education units would be dependent for their survival on program(s) farmer Assess existing and public Farmers Market the and functioning of CSA drop-off Localthe animal global trading system. the operations processing: engage management issues locations Feds, State, & Local governments opposite extreme would be a world made up Local animal processing: engage Feds, State, & Local entirely of subsistence farmers and hunters and governments Farm Bureau CSA education Local animal Upgrade FB website gatherers. their Website program(s) farmer community processing: engage to P2P can hardly extend and public Feds, State, & Local governments

Institutions

CBOs

Increase use of local produce in all Page 22 school meals

Link schools & universities to P2P website

Implement ta marketing pr Farmers Mar

Years 1-3

mers ionality

Years 4-6

Years 4-6

Years 4-6

Years 4-6

Years 7-9

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable

mers ionality College Affinity group/ alliance: 800 acres, r new min.

Community College Affinity group/ & university alliance: 1,200 acres, programs for new min. farmers Community College & university programs for new fishermen

College

r new

Years 7-9

Years 7-9

Years 7-9

Community College & university programs for new farmers Community College & university programs for new fishermen

mers ionality

mers ionality

75 Farmers Markets 60% market penetration this group

argeted rogram: rkets

Implement targeted marketing program: bundled CSA Implement targeted marketing program: CSA

80% market penetration this group 20% market penetration this group 80% of need met

70% of need met

150 Farmers Markets

Implement targeted marketing program: bundled CSA

beyond the tribe or the village. between these extremes is an image of a world made up of communities of communities. the smallest community is the family, the next is the fact-toface community, and beyond that are towns and cities, larger regions, nations, continents, and the Align composting County-wide food regulations with scrap pick-up world. obviously,Statethe degrees of self-sufficiency to be sought at each level vary. what guidelines can help determine what is appropriate?�

Upgrade P2P P2P website Herman Daly website to virtual supports Food Hub Food Hub Link schools & universities to virtual Food Hub

Link schools & universities to Food Page Hub Food Systems Alliance working groups advocate for

23 Food Systems Alliance working groups explore

Expand school gardens throughout County

40% market penetration this group 90% of need met

Timeline: Institutions Institutions

UCSD San Diego County San Diego County Cities Cities

Feds Feds Farm Bureau

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Food Systems Alliance: organize, Assess existing establish, fund and Farmers Market support operations and management issues

CSA Watereducation rates and program(s) farmer access and public CSA drop-off locations

Review existing codes & ordinances

Food Systems Alliance: organize, establish, fund and support Farm Bureau CSA education Website program(s) farmer and public Engage local restaurants Increase use of local produce in all school meals

Institutions Farm Bureau CBOs Agents

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Identify | Link | Inform | Educate Create | Support UCSD

Farmers Institutions Fishermen CBOs

Local animal processing: engage Feds, State, & Local governments Local animal processing: engage Feds, State, & Local governments Local animal processing: engage Feds, State, & Local Affinity group/ governments alliance: San Diego Growers Affinity group/ alliance: San Diego Fish

Years 1-3 Engage local schools & universities

Match new farmers Engage local to available land schools & universities Upgrade FB website Match new farmers to P2P to available land Engage local schools & Link schools & universities universities to P2P website Fisheries protections: streams & seas

Years 1-3

Adjust/ modify existing codes & ordinances.

Encourage microenterprise

Improve farm market functi

Engage local distributors: improve local food distribution infrastructure

Other Agents

Assess existing CSA education Farmers Market program(s) farmer operations and and public management issues

Farmers Distributors Farm Stands

Consumers

Engage local farms and fishermen CSA education program(s) farmer and public Identify, educate CSA education program(s) farmer and public

Restaurants Farmers Markets Public CSA

LOHAS

Food Hub

Naturalites

Public Market Poor Elderly

Regional Food Hub: organize, establish, fund and support Identify, educate Public Market: organize, establish, fund and support

Other at risk Local animal processing

Fishermen

Aqua CSA

Establish retail sales CSA education facility in farmers program(s) market fishermen and public CSA education program(s) fishermen and public

Assess County standards & codes

San Diego County farm/ farm stand route map

Implement targeted 40% market CSA program(s) marketing program: penetration this Farmers Markets group

Years 1-3

Improve farm market functi Community C & university programs for farmers Community C & university programs for fishermen Improve farm market functi

Improvements to local food distribution infrastructure Map underserved neighborhoods

Mobile food Improve farm test program market functi

Identify, educate

Implement ta marketing pr Farmers Mar

Implement targeted Develop bundled marketing program: CSA program CSA

Expand access to Cal-Fresh and WIC through discounts Local animal processing: engage Feds, State, & Local governments Establish permanent retail sales and wholesale processing facility Develop seafood CSA program (s)

Seafood CSA available

Other Investigate potential for CSA distribution using existing infrastructure

Distributors

Consumers

Institutions Institutions

Create Public | Support UCSD Map | Protect San Diego County UCSD Cities San Diego County Cities Feds Feds Farm Bureau Farm Bureau Institutions CBOs Institutions

Agents

Festival of Local Food

Restaurants

Farmers CBOs Farmers Markets

CSA program(s) CSA education program(s) farmer Assess existing and public Farmers Market CSA drop-off operations and Map vacant/ Map agricultural management issues locations underutilized land land for protection for reuse as community garden/ urban agriculture

Local animal

Map vacant/engage Continue Map target edges of Survey mode “the future is notprocessing: aState, result of choices among underutilized implementation of urbanization Sonoma Cou Feds, &land Local for food cart pods smart growth Ventura Coun governments principles others Local animal alternative pathsprocessing: offered by the present, but a engage Feds, State, & Local governments Map vacant/ Map agricultural place that is created –created first in mind and will, underutilized land education for protection Local animal Farm Bureau land CSA Upgrade FB website for reuse as Website community garden/ urban agriculture Increase use of local produce in all Page 24 school meals

Map vacant/

program(s) farmer and public Map agricultural land for protection

processing: engage to P2P Feds, State, & Local governments Link schools & universities to P2P website

Develop dedicated funding for Farmers Market site and facility development

Develop dedicated

Years 1-3

Years 4-6

Years 4-6

Years 4-6

Years 4-6

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable

Upgrade P2P mers website to virtual ionality Food Hub College Affinity group/ alliance: 800 acres, Link schools & r new min. universities to virtual Food Hub College

P2P website supports Food Hub

r new

mers ionality

market Bundled CSA mers m ionality 60% market Bundled CSA penetration this group argeted rogram: rkets 70% of need met

Local animal processing: Local regulatory codes

Link schools & universities to Food Hub Food Systems Alliance working groups advocate for policy change

Years 7-9

Years 7-9

County-wide food scrap pick-up

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable

Food Systems Alliance working groups explore rooftop & vertical farming

Community College Affinity group/ & university alliance: 1,200 acres, Expand school programs for new min. gardens throughout farmers County Community College & university programs for new fishermen

75 Farmers Markets Implement targeted marketing program: bundled CSA Implement targeted marketing program: CSA

80% market penetration this group 20% market penetration this group 80% of need met

Identify site and test feasibility Local animal processing: engage State regulatory codes

Years 7-9

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable Align composting regulations with State

mers ionality

Years 7-9

Community College Fund seed capital Local animal butchery classes for mobile slaughter processing: engage truck & training Feds, State, & Local governments

Community College & university programs for new farmers Community College & university programs for new fishermen

150 Farmers Markets

Implement targeted Regional Food Hub | marketing program: Public Market bundled CSA Open San Diego Public Market

40% market penetration this group 90% of need met

Fund seed capital for start-up neighborhood butcher shops Open San Diego Public Market

Seafood CSA: possibly bundled w/ other CSA program(s)

Bundled CSA (include fish) Align composting regulations with State

County-wide food scrap pick-up

model codes Implement Urban createdTest in activity. the future is not some fornext Urban Growth Growth Boundaries Boundary place we are going to, but one we are creating.�

John Schaar Upgrade P2P P2P website

el codes: Develop model unty, codes for Urban nty, and Growth Boundary

website to virtual Food Hub

Link schools & universities to virtual Food Hub Measure/ review/ test agricultural land in production

supports Food Hub

Farmers Market site and facility Link schools & development universities endowment to Food Page Hub Food Systems Alliance working groups advocate for Farmers Market site

25 Food Systems Alliance working groups explore

Measure/ review/ test agricultural land in production

Expand school gardens throughout County

Measure/ review/ test agricultural land in production

program(s) fishermen and public

CSA program (s)

available

Other Investigate potential for CSA distribution using existing infrastructure

Distributors

Consumers

Timeline:

Festival of Local Food

Restaurants Public

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

CSA program(s)

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Years 1-3

Map | Protect Identify | Link | Inform | Educate Institutions Institutions

UCSD UCSD San SanDiego DiegoCounty County Cities Cities

Map vacant/ Map agricultural Food Systems Water rates and underutilized land land for protection Alliance: organize, access forestablish, reuse asfund and community support garden/ urban agriculture

Engage local schools & Continue universities implementation of smart growth principles

Map vacant/ Review existing underutilized land codes & ordinances for food cart pods

Feds Map vacant/ Map agricultural underutilized land land for protection Food Systems for reuse as Alliance: organize, community garden/ establish, fund and Map agricultural urban agriculture support land for protection

Farm FedsBureau Farm Bureau Institutions CBOs Institutions CBOs Agents Agents

Engage local restaurants

Farmers Farmers

Farmers Markets Fishermen

CSA Other

Map vacant/ underutilized land for reuse as Farmers Markets Map/ identify CSA distribution sites

Affinity group/ alliance: San Diego Growers Affinity group/ alliance: San Diego Fish

Match new farmers Engage local to available land schools & universities Develop dedicated funding for Farmers Match new farmers Market site and to available land facility development Engage local schools & universities Fisheries protections: streams & seas

Review/ refine site selection criteria Review/ refine site selection criteria

Food Hub Distributors Public Market Consumers

Develop dedicated funding for Farmers Market site and facility development

Local animal processing Restaurants Fishermen Public Aqua CSA LOHAS Other Community Gardens Naturalites Urban Agriculture Poor

Engage local farms and fishermen Map/ identify CSA distribution sites Map vacant/ underutilized land for reuse as community garden/ urban agriculture

Identify, educate

Map target edges of urbanization Adjust/ modify existing codes & ordinances.

Encourage microenterprise

Survey model c Sonoma Coun Ventura Count others

Improve farm market functi

Engage local distributors: improve local food distribution infrastructure

Improvements to local food distribution infrastructure

Review/ refine site selection criteria Implement targeted 40% market marketing program: penetration this Farmers Markets group

Improve farm market functi

Implement targeted marketing program: CSA Identify, educate

Identify, educate

Elderly

Expand access to Cal-Fresh and WIC through discounts

Evaluate local urban agriculture education programs

Other at risk

Create | Support Institutions

UCSD San Diego County Cities

“farming these days is variously dirty, hot, sweaty, boring, menial, messy, wet, cold, frustrating, and dirtier still. and that’s when things are going well. policy makers would be more helpful to farmers if they got out from behind their desks, rolled up CSA education program(s) farmer Assess existing their sleeves, and helped wit the work. the notion and public Farmers Market CSA drop-off operations and management issues locations

Feds

Farm Bureau

Farm Bureau Website

Institutions

Increase use of local produce in all Page 26 school meals

CBOs

CSA education program(s) farmer and public

Improve farm market functi Community C & university programs for farmers Community C & university programs for fishermen Improve farm market functi

Local animal processing: engage Feds, State, & Local governments Local animal processing: engage Feds, State, & Local governments Local animal Upgrade FB website processing: engage to P2P Feds, State, & Local governments Link schools & universities to P2P website

Implement ta marketing pr Farmers Mar

possibly bundled w/ other CSA program(s)

Bundled CSA Years 1-3 (include fish)

codes: Develop model nty, codes for Urban ty, and Growth Boundary

mers ionality

mers ionality College Affinity group/ Measure/ review/ alliance: 800 acres, test agricultural land r new min. in production

Years 4-6

Years 4-6

r new

Years 4-6

Years 7-9

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable Test model codes for Urban Growth Boundary

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable Implement Urban Growth Boundaries

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable Farmers Market site and facility development endowment

Reconvene UrbanRural Roundtable

Farmers Market site and facility development endowment

College

Years 4-6

Years 7-9

Years 7-9

Years 7-9

Community College Affinity group/ Measure/ review/ & university alliance: 1,200 acres, test agricultural land programs for new min. in production farmers

Community College Measure/ review/ & university test agricultural land programs for new in production farmers

Community College & university programs for new fishermen

Community College & university programs for new fishermen

mers ionality

mers ionality

75 Farmers Markets 60% market penetration this group

argeted rogram: rkets Develop model urban agriculture 70% of need met program

Implement targeted marketing program: bundled CSA Double community Implement targeted garden acreage marketing program: Increase CSA educational offerings for urban agriculture

80% market penetration this group 20% market penetration this group 80% of need met

150 Farmers Markets

Implement targeted marketing program: bundled CSA

of delegating the workload, be it with chemicals, fancy machinery, or migrant workers is a tired initiative of the 20th century. a new generation of farmers, whether they are 18 or 80, knows that the future of successful food-growing is in the Align composting County-wide food soil.� Les Bowser regulations with scrap pick-up State

Upgrade P2P website to virtual Food Hub

P2P website supports Food Hub

Link schools & universities to virtual Food Hub

Link schools & universities to Food Page Hub Food Systems Alliance working groups advocate for

27 Food Systems Alliance working groups explore

Expand school gardens throughout County

40% market penetration this group 90% of need met

Page 28

Needs Assessment

What is local?

Things are much different now. Over the last 50 years our food production and distribution system has been engineered and altered to the point where almost 95% of the food consumed here comes from outside of San Diego County and almost all food grown in San Diego County is exported beyond its borders. Improvements in technology; local, state, and federal policies; and advertising and lifestyle changes are responsible for this shift. While it may represent a radical upset of the historic pattern, it seems unlikely that we would want to completely reverse years of investment in food system infrastructure and return to relying upon the farms and farmers of San Diego to meet all of our food needs. Recent studies including, Think Globally – Eat Locally: San Francisco Foodshed Assessment, show that the food needs of San Franciscans could be met within a 100-mile range, but that the types of foods that they enjoy would be very, very different and that many foods of cultural importance would be unavailable.

C U LT U R A L

WINDOW SILL

C U LT U R A L

“Local” may well be the key to a successful new marketing opportunity for San Diego food. Over the last twenty-five years, “local” has become a part of our national consciousness. It has gained more widespread acceptance and a broader shared understanding than the terms “organic” or “sustainable.” In the last ten years, the frequency of use of “local foods” in popular articles has increased seven times. More than three quarters of American consumers state that they actively seek out and buy products they perceive to be local. Once, all food was local food. People have lived in the region we now know as San Diego County for at least 10,000 years. For nearly 99% of its long history of human occupation the food that those San Diego residents ate came from the soils, streams, and seas of San Diego.

B A C K YA R D G A R D E N

COMMUNITY GARDEN

FA R M E R S M A R K E T

The Economics of Local Food Systems Many agricultural economists have pointed out that the combined market for local and organic food has only reached around two percent of total sales food sales. The reason is simple and lies in the twofold challenge of making sustainable farming more profitable for producers and sustainable food more affordable and available to consumers. Most regular shoppers of farmers markets report that their food choices are more expensive than similar products for sale at their local grocery store.

Recalling the $4 or $5 heirloom tomato that you bought there last summer might reinforce that impression. However, several studies show that total market basket costs between shopping at the grocery store and shopping at the farmers markets are virtually identical. Other studies support the conclusion that local food is more expensive, only because demand far exceeds supply.

The economics of local food systems are impressive. Dollars spent on local food are recycled through the local economy at a rate of 1.47 to 2.68 times, which can significantly increase regional economic development and job creation. A food system based solely on economics, efficiency, and lowest possible cost doesn’t build community or security.

Page 29

GROCERY STORE

BIG BOX

a food shopper in San Diego gets to choose from an average of 50,000 different food products on the typical supermarket shopping trip fewer than 1% of these are local products

A food shopper in San Diego gets to choose from an average of 50,000 different food products on the typical supermarket shopping trip. Fewer than 1% of these are local products. Demand for locally grown food is strong and increasing. According to Mintel, a leading market research company which tracks consumer purchasing and lifestyle trends, “Local procurement is a fast-growing category with tremendous promise, and marketers that are aware of the many dynamics at play can generate significant revenues.” As reported by Food Navigator USA, Mintel found that one out of six Americans goes out of their way to buy local products.

Locally sourced fruits and vegetables hold greatest consumer interest, with 31% purchasing these products from local sources at least once per week.

Food Security The flaws in the current food system network are mostly hidden from us in our daily lives. The first is that relatively few companies control much of what is being sold. For example, five companies control 90% of the worldwide market of grain; four companies control more than 90% of all meat supplied in the United States; and genetically modified seed from Monsanto accounts for 85% of the corn grown in the United States (and processed corn finds it way into more than 25% of all of those 50,000 products in the local supermarket). Economic pressure on those companies drives them to focus on their own prosperity often at the expense of the success of the farmers, environmental pollution, or even our own dietary well-being.

The global food system network is thin and long. It is thin because there are relatively few players and long because the industrial efficiencies of scale disconnect the sources of production far from the sources of their inputs –fossil fuel, fertilizers, and pesticides, and very far from their ultimate destination: the consumer. The average food item travels over 1,500 miles from farm to fork. Interruptions anywhere along the path could lead to significant disruptions in food delivery. Leaving critical aspects of this global system under the complete control of foreign governments or multinational corporations represents a risk –perhaps only a small one– to national food security.

Food Safety Some locavores prefer local food because of reservations they hold about the safety of industrial food from unknown locations. With local food, there is the impression –often correct– that the shorter the distance between farm and fork, the healthier the food will be. There is reason to take notice of the safety of industrial food, in 2010 almost half a billion eggs had to be recalled because of salmonella contamination that became apparent when 1,900 people across 14 states became seriously ill. In 2009, peanuts were the culprit and nearly 4,000 separate products were subject to restriction or recall. In 2008, almost 150,000,000 pounds of ground beef were recalled –some of it from the National School Program.

Local food is not immune from the dangers of contamination and food safety is a critical aspect of the local food network system. But efforts to ensure that food is safe and nutritious that serve the industrial scale are often far beyond the means of the small-scale local farmer, grower, and

Page 30

producer to manage. Joel Salatin, author and farmer at Polyface Farm says, “The reason local food is expensive is non-scalable regulations that discriminate against small producers.” The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010 has more realistic standards for small farmers, growers, and producers who sell directly to the public from roadside stands, at farmers markets, or through community supported agriculture. But more –and more appropriate– regulation is necessary to support these same farmers in selling through other market channels.

Changes to federal meat inspection standards are necessary if local lamb, goat, pork, and beef are to be regularly available to San Diego residents at an affordable price.

Water

wholesale buyers efforts to purchase locally have had marketly different levels of success

The amount of farmland in San Diego County has decreased over the last twenty years from nearly 530,000 acres in 1987 to 304,000 acres in 2007. This 43 percent decrease is largely a function of the rising cost of water, and supported in many cases, by development pressure. In contrast, nursery crops and ornamentals have shown significant growth. This growth is due in large part to the larger economic return that ornamentals and nursery crops provide in comparison to other agricultural commodities.

And this larger economic return largely offsets the high cost of water. If water prices continue to rise and access to water continues to diminish, it is likely that the trend to the nursery crop sector will continue and local food –including citrus and avocados– will become less plentiful and more expensive.

Land

Truly sustainable farming maintains the resilience of the entire ecosystem by encouraging biodiversity in the soil, conserving and safeguarding the water supply, and supporting the wildlife — the birds, insects and bees that maintain the health of the whole system.

Sustainable farming also recognizes the importance of planting trees to the preservation of topsoil; of protecting and enhancing water-catchment systems; and of mitigating the effects of human-caused climate change.

The distinct climate of San Diego County sets it apart from nearly every other county in the nation. With the ability to grow food year-round, San Diego County has the capacity to successfully market fresh local food.

However, high land costs and land use regulations combined with access to and the price of water place additional pressures on the livelihood

Page 31

Challenge: Protecting Agricultural Land

Protected

acres

500

72,000

acres

In the United States one acre of farm land is lost to development every minute of every day: since 1982, farmland the area of Indiana has been paved over and lost to development. What will a “sustainable food production” system look like? If we are not very clear about our expectations, we will end up with nothing more than a “green washed” version of the very system that we have now. A sustainable place to begin would be a form of agriculture that does not exceed the carrying capacity of its ecosystem and recognizes that the soil is our planet’s most vital renewable resource. Topsoil is the cornerstone of the prosperity of farms. It serves as a buffer against drought and as a carbon sink and it is the primary source of the health of all animals, plants and people.

Eligible

of farmers, growers, and ranchers. In some urban areas, excessively complex or bureaucratic land use policies and planning procedures have unintentionally created barriers to creating new community gardens and urban agriculture. Both County and city policies are needed to ensure continued access to agricultural land and capitalizing on the county’s largely ideal growing conditions.

dollars spent on local food are recycled through the local economy at a rate of 1.47 to 2.68 times

Energy On average, every calorie of food that makes it onto your fork has an additional eleven calories of energy –almost always fossil-fuel based energy– invested in its sowing, growing, harvesting, processing, and shipping. Our food system is dependent upon oil for much of its materials at every stage of production and processing. The average American “eats” almost a gallon of diesel fuel every day. Fertilizers, farm equipment, processing, distribution, refrigeration, and delivery all run on oil. The best way to reduce our dependency on oil is to eat more local food – local food that is grown.

The food system consumes more fossil fuel energy –about one-fifth of the U.S. total– than we can reliably count on in the future and emits more greenhouse gas than we can afford to endure –particularly since agriculture should be able to substantially rely on solar energy through photosynthesis.

The use of fossil fuel, especially oil, natural gas, and coal, is one the primary causes of greenhouse gas emissions and a major contributor to climate change in the United States and around the world. Agriculture –and its corollary distribution system– rely extensively on fossil fuels and thereby contribute significantly to the conditions that drive climate change. The use of nitrogen-based fertilizers makes up nearly 75 percent of U.S. emissions of nitrous oxide –a potent greenhouse gas. The crop under cultivation –and its method of cultivation– play significant roles in the extent to which agriculture will continue to contribute to climate change.

Local isn’t always the least energy intensive, however. Home storage and preparation account for almost a third of all energy use in the complete food system network. Author Stephen Budiansky concludes in his 2010 editorial in the New York Times that, “The best way to make the most of these precious resources of land, favorable climates, and human labor is to grow lettuce, oranges, wheat, peppers, bananas, whatever, in the places where they grow best and with the most efficient technologies – and then pay the relatively tiny energy cost to get them to market, as we do with every other commodity in the economy. Sometimes that means growing vegetables in your backyard. Sometimes that means buying vegetables grown in California…”

Waste Natural systems are sometimes cited as models for investigation, examination, and emulation. Natural systems work because they are fat –they have redundancies in both sources and paths, and there are multiple paths –some long, but many short, that connect. We often believe that natural systems are efficient: they are not. Natural systems “work” in overall balance with our environment only because nothing is wasted.

Page 32

Nature builds in multiple experiments and mutations at every stage of creation. Many of these experiments could be considered “failures.”

Natural systems are inefficient, but waste nothing. Every natural product, successful or not, finds its way back to its component sources and can be recombined again and again into new products. Our manmade food system has become hyper-efficient, but wastes much. Almost 40% of all food grown is lost between the farm and the fork. A vast majority of that waste is removed from a natural system of recovery and placed in sanitary landfills where it may not be available for reuse for thousands of years.

Demand for finished compost in San Diego County far exceeds the amount of organic waste currently being recovered at local and regional composting facilities. Composting involves the biological decomposition of organic matter that can be used to improve soil. Mature compost is stable.

Composting is an aerobic (oxygenated) process. Anaerobic putrefaction –the result of waste stream misdirection to landfills produces methane and hydrogen sulfide –each potent greenhouse gases and far more volatile than the carbon dioxide produced by aerobic digestion. Beyond the benefit of reducing the waste stream, composted food waste used for agriculture can suppress plant diseases and pests, reduce or eliminate the need for chemical fertilizers, and promote higher yields. Composting is especially well-suited to San Diego agriculture because of the utility of compost for enhancing and maintaining what are often otherwise nutrient-poor soils and even for remediating contaminated soil. A primary advantage of using compost for agriculture in San Diego is that it reduces the amount of waste that must be transported to landfills.

As with all urbanized areas, the cities and municipalities in San Diego County continues to grapple with how best to cost-effectively dispose of the large amount of waste produced by its residents. Inherent in the term “waste” is our attitudes as Americans toward disposability; it represents a grossly inefficient use of resources. Much of what ends up in our waste stream consists of potentially valuable materials and food waste is an unfortunate example of this. Over 40% of food produced on US farms is not consumed. This represents a monumental transfer of resources and nutrients from productive farmland to landfills –one that is particularly critical in an age of increasing food insecurity. Landfill space is limited and the cost of disposal –land costs and fuel costs– will continue to increase. A much greater percentage of the waste that contributes to these problems could be up-cycled, recycled, or composted, if we are willing to confront our own attitudes and address the systematic and structural changes to our existing waste system.

Page 33

Page 34

The “parking lot” the “parking lot” Despite all of the careful consideration that went into the creation of the questionnaire survey for farmers, we were aware of its limitations. Among these were the “generic” quality of the content, designed to appeal to the broadest group rather than the outliers in the community. The true value of the questionnaire was the process of the person-to-person inteview format that made spontaneous identification and discussion of critical issues that were not on the questionnaire possible.

The following three pages shows the complete list of the issues raised, ranked in priority for action, some general remarks relevant to the issue and how it might be addressed, and whether there are current funding opportunities available to address the issue.

Priority

Issue | Need

High

No federally-inspected regional or mobile slaughter and processing facility that allow sales of locallyraised meat by the cut.

San Diego Grown Exchange for farmers, local distributors, retailers, restaurants, and institutional buyers including schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities, and corporate kitchens.

Illegal roadside fruit sellers: compete with legitimate sellers and provide an outlet for stolen goods.

High

High

High High High

High High High Medium

Medium

Medium

Promotion of the San Diego Grown 365™ certification mark to farmers and buyers.

Farmers Markets enforcement needed for individuals posing as producers.

Need single point of contact for San Diego County with training, knowlege, and experience to answer grower questions about regulation of direct marketing for local ag products.

Readily available list of brokers marketing and/ or distrubuting products from small growers.

Include Food Banks as buyers on the San Diego Grown Exchange.

Include Farm-to-School brokers and middlemen as buyers on the San Diego Grown Exchange.

Improve access to education and training on grade and pack standards for crops grown in San Diego County.

Investigate need for a “chef’s market” to serve needs of San Diego County restaurants e.g. the Santa Monica Farmers’ Market, Los Angeles.

Create a mechanism for matching available farm land with current or new farmers.

Page 35

Actions | Remarks

Funded No

Farm Bureau has web-based peer-to-peer exchange under development. Implementation spring 2012.

No

Additional law enforcement needed. The Sheriff’s Department has made a commitment to respond to complaints. Funding will be needed for future enforcement.

County of San Diego Deparment of Agriculuture Weights and Measures has applied to California Department of Food & Agriculture for limited funding for enforcement.

Farm Bureau lead.

No

Yes

Farm Bureau and County of San Diego Deparment of Yes Weights & Measures.

Farm Bureau and County of San Diego Deparment of Yes Weights & Measures.

The San Diego Grown Exchange will include profiles for brokers and growers.

Farm Bureau lead.

Yes

Farm Bureau lead.

Yes

County of San Diego Deparment of Weights & Measures has applied for limited California Departement of Food & Agriculture funding.

Farm Bureau will lead study of economic feasibility.

No

Farm Bureau lead. Possible addition to the San Diego Grown Exchange.

No

Yes

No

“if economics is reconceived in the service of community, it will begin with a concern for agriculture and specifically for the production of food. this is because a healthy community will be a relatively self-sufficient one. a community’s complete dependency on outsiders for its mere

Priority

Issue | Need

Actions | Remarks

Funded

Medium

Create a mechanism for matching up agricultural workers/professionals with prospective employers.

Provide available, affordable insurance coverage for Agritourism.

Create training and education program about food safety, product liability, and insurance. Link farmers to insurers Promote USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service website, wholesale price reports for the Los Angeles terminal market, and other sources.

Farmers need reliable source for small quantities of boxes for standard pack and other packaging materials.

Brokers and middlemen aggregating products from farmers to supply schools. Are they bonded? What happens if there is a cross-contamination/food safety issue? What if a farmer doesn’t get paid?

Farm Bureau lead. Possible addition to the San Diego Grown Exchange.

Farm Bureau lead.

No

Farm Bureau lead.

Yes

Farm Bureau will develop and conduct education programs.

Yes

Farm Bureau research shows that vendors exist and product is availale. Farm Bureau lead.

Yes

Farmers are responsible and must conduct due diligence on their business partners. California Department of Food & Agriculture operates a Market Enforcement Branch tht oversees bonded brokers. Farm Bureau will conduct education programs.

Farm Bureau lead.

Yes

Farm Bureau lead with County of San Diego Department of Agriculture Weights & Measures.

Yes

Farm Bureau lead with County of San Diego Department of Agriculture Weights & Measures.

Yes

Medium Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Low

Educatte and train quarantine inspectors on current rules and regulatios. Share education and training with Farmers and Growers.

County of San Diego Department of Agriculture Weights & Measures conducts multiple, independent inspections of egg ranchesthroughout the calendar year.. Simplify inspection program: one trip by one inspector?

Certified Producer Certificates inspections by County of San Diego Department of Agriculture Weights & Measures require inspections for each new row crop. Investigate new ways to streamline process for growers with a history of compliance?

Address distribution and transportation challenges for small farmers and growers.

Page 36

Yes

Yes

Organize farmer and grower ad hoc group to explore Yes issue.

survival weakens it. it is often unable to develop the policies it desires for the sake of its own members, since its survival depends on terms dictated by others. the most fundamental requirement for survival is food. hence, how and where food is grown is foundational to an economics for community.”

Herman Daly

Priority

Issue | Need

Actions | Remarks

Funded

Low

County regulations prohibit farmers from selling products from a neighboring farm at his/her farmstand.

Would require changing current San Diego County ordinance.

State and County regulations prohibit fresh produce sales from motorized vehicles, such as a “mobile farmers’ market truck” operating in residential neighborhoods.

Would require changing current State and San Diego County ordinance.

State law regulating sales of non-farm merchandise at Farmers Market prohibit farmer vendors from selling Mercahndise, e.g. shopping bags, t-shirts, hats, etc.

Would require changing current State law.

Farmers Market regulations prohibit farmer vendors from selling products from more than one other certified producer.

Would require changing current State law.

Explore small processor exemption for cattle, hogs, sheep and goats, similar to current exemption for chickens, turkeys and rabbits.

Would require changing current State law.

Review, revise, and amend current regulations governing County agritourism.

Would require changing current San Diego County ordinance(s).

County of San Diego lead.

Yes

Low

Low

N/A

N/A

Done

Page 37

No

No

Recent consensus by the Direct Market Advisory Committee of the Callifornia Farm Bureau Federation recommends no change in current regulation.

Would permit farmers to process livestock on their property.

No

Revisions and updates to current regulations were recently completed by San Diego County.

No

No

Page 38

Asset Mapping Farmers Agriculture in San Diego is clearly still a successful industry and plays a role vital to the region’s economy. Much of that success, however, is due to the effective work by growers who specialize in nursery crops. San Diego represents almost a third of all California nursery crops sold. Take away nursery crops and San Diego agriculture is still significant. It is nationally ranked in multiple crops grown here. San Diego is: ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

1st in number of small farms; 2nd in number of farms; 1st in avocado acreage and production; 6th in market value of land and buildings; 8th in pounds of strawberries harvested for sale; 9th in pounds of grapefruit produced; 16th in value of fruits, nuts and berries sold; 19th in the value of products sold at farmstands, farmer’s markets and other direct consumption outlets; 19th in the amount of land planted to orchards; 19th in pounds of oranges produced; 20th in market value of agricultural products sold; and 28th in value of vegetables, sweet corn and melons sold.

agriculture in San Diego is still a successful industry that plays a vital role in the regional economy

San Diego’s southern California location and warm Pacific Ocean waters offer one of the most temperate Mediterranean climate in the world. An average annual temperature of 63 degrees and abundant sunshine makes San Diego an ideal climate for agriculture. The growing seasons in San Diego are long –in some parts of the county year-round agriculture is possible. San Diego growers raise more than 100 different crops.

Survey of farmers, growers, and producers In lieu of formal surveys, we used in-person meetings with each farmer on their farm. These conversations with farmers were designed to assess their capacity to supply fresh produce to institutions and markets.

Information used for this report incorporates two independent surveys –targeting similar information– conducted in January 2011 and from November 2011 through February 2012. The initial survey data was selfreported by farmers who completed a survey questionnaire. The second survey was conducted in face-to-face interviews that ranged from one- to four-hours in duration. This pair of surveys reached over 60 individual farmers. The survey results support findings from a previous survey of 32 farmers conducted by the Center for Food and Justice, part of the Urban & Environmental Policy Institute of Occidental College in 2010. Data obtained through these three sources represents nearly half of all farmers who currently sell through the certified farmers markets in San Diego. We feel confident that we have engaged a representative sample of farmers, growers, and producers.

The 2010 survey map of agricultural land compiled by the County Agricultural Commissioner shows the urbanized development interlocked with the majority of farmland. This offers the region a strategic opportunity to forge local connections between the farm and the family that prepares and eats that food grown by San Diego farmers, growers, and ranchers. This close proximity minmizes the distance between where the food is grown

Page 39

Annual Agrcultural Value of Food vs. Non-food for San Diego County

Non-food

Food

and where it will be prepared and consumed. It offers the potential for efficient, low-carbon, aggregation and delivery using existing distribution networks and new networks that could emerge as a result of the food hub and/ or public market initiatives.

Protection of Agricultural Land

farmland under production in San Diego has decreased 43% since 1987 –primarily due to rising costs of reliable water for agricultural use

We can’t have local food without local farms. More than 40% of all land in California is used for agriculture – 43,000,000 acres. 62% of all agricultural land is cropland – 27,000,000 acres.

California has a complicated set of policies intended to promote the retention of farmland for agriculture. The 2003 AB 857 is the closest thing that the state has to an official policy that established farmland retention as one of three state planning priorities. A second priority, efficient urban development, would also conserve farmland. AB 857 has had mixed success to date. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also identifies loss of farmland as a significant negative impact to be avoided or mitigated.

Some mitigation has occurred with several thousand acres of land now under conservation easement. The California Farmland Conservancy Program (CFCP), administered by the Department of Conservation, has invested $62 million in the acquisition of conservation easements on 41,000 acres, leveraging its funds with $51 million in local, federal and private contributions. State funds have come from bond acts and Williamson Act cancellation fees. Since its inception, the state has spent about 17 cents per capita per year on agricultural conservation easements –well below national leaders like Maryland that spend up to $4 per capita per year to protect 336,000 acres and Pennsylvania that spends $2.70 to protect 408,000 acres. Private land trusts have been significantly more effective in protecting California agricultural land, placing conservation easements over at least 200,000 acres of California agricultural land.

Many California counties and cities have farmland retention policies, most often as a part of their general plans. They call for avoiding the best agricultural land and developing urban lands more efficiently. However, as farmland conversion data demonstrate, these policies have been marginally effective. Local governments seldom apply them to actual development proposals or implement standards by which to measure actual performance against stated policies. A few local governments in California have effective farmland conservation programs that are considered national models.

Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Ventura and Yolo Counties are examples. ÆÆ ÆÆ

ÆÆ ÆÆ

Page 40

Is there a level of farmland loss is acceptable in San Diego?

What level of farmland conservation will be necessary to preserve a land base that can sustain San Diego agriculture in the face of so many pressures and uncertainties?

What farmland conservation policies will be sufficiently robust to limit further unnecessary loss?

How can we measure our progress and, ultimately, success?

Farmland under production in San Diego has decreased 43% from 530,000 acres in 1987 to 304,000 acres in 2007 primarily due to rising costs of reliable water for agricultural use. Until the 2008 financial crisis, pressure to redevelop agricultural land into urban land has been relentless.

In the United States one acre of farm land has been lost to development every minute of every day: since 1982, farmland the area of Indiana has been paved over and lost to development.

Agricultural Protection – other examples King County, Washington established Agriculture Production Districts (APDs) consisting of blocks of contiguous farmland totaling about 42,000 acres in 1992. Their County policy is that land should not be removed from APD unless offset with farmland of equal or greater value: “No net loss of ag land.” In APDs new homes are allowed at density of one dwelling unit (DU) per at least 35 acres. State law mandated that King County government and the county’s municipalities cooperate on growth management principles, ordinances, and regulations. In 1992 they agreed on a joint urban growth boundary (UGB) that directed new development to the west side of the line, where most urbanization had already occurred.

The urban boundary set in 1992 remains in place –with minor changes– in 2012.

Sonoma County, California identified areas “best suited for agricultural use” and limited new homes to densities of from one home per 60 or more acres to one per 320 in areas “capable of relatively low production per acre,” and one home per acre from 20 to 60 acres in areas of high production. Exclusive agricultural use districts were created and most nonagricultural uses are not permitted without rezoning. Agricultural zoned districts allowed a second dwelling unit per lot that could be occupied by owner’s family members or rented, but not separately sold. As of April 2008 eight of the nine larger cities in county had voted for 20-year Urban Growth Boundaries. Since they are voter-authorized, UGBs can never be altered without voter approval. Petaluma, one of the initial eight cities has been a pioneer in growth management. Through September 2007, no voters from any city had approved changes in their UGB. Ventura County, California established exclusive agricultural zoning districts, with a 40-acre minimum lot size, “to preserve . . . commercial agricultural lands as a limited and irreplaceable resource, to preserve and maintain agricultural as a major industry in Ventura County, and to protect these areas from the encroachment of non-related uses which, by their nature, would have detrimental effects upon the agricultural industry.”

Under the 1998 SOAR ordinance (Save Open-Space and Agricultural Resources), voter approval will be needed to rezone land for other use on any land designated “Agricultural, Open Space, or Rural” by the General Land Use Map of September 1997.

Page 41

a person eating the typical Western diet today is –in effect– consuming almost a gallon of diesel fuel every day

Eight of the county’s 10 cities adopted SOAR-like restrictions. Voter approval is needed for expanding sewer services or otherwise enabling urban densities beyond the city’s existing urban services boundary.

Elections held in 1999–2006 on such expansions had mixed results, with either “no” votes or minor extensions.

San Diego County

the cost of water is universally the highest input cost for every San Diego grower.

They pay some of the highest prices in California for water.

There are no current, widespread mechanisms for protecting agricultural land in San Diego County. County policies as outlined in the Regional Land Use Element of the San Diego County General Plan promote the wise uses of the land resources, including encouraging urban growth to be contiguous with existing urban areas and maximizing urban infill while also encouraging agricultural use and retaining the natural character of non-urban lands. The County has funded a voluntary new pilot program for purchasing agricultural easements (PACE) this year. The PACE program will promote the long term preservation of agriculture in the County. The program is based on the framework of what is traditionally referred to as a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. $2,000,000 from the County’s general fund has been allocated, with every hope that it may be supplemented by state and federal grants. Interest in this program on the part of farmers and land owners has been extremely high; by the end of February 2012 more than 200 online responses and 100 telephone calls had been placed and 60 applications submitted to the County of San Diego Department of Planing and Land Use which is administering the program. Program manager Matt Schneider expected these numbers to rise significantly higher with the mid-March deadline for applications. Under PACE, willing partners will receive compensation for placing a perpetual easement on their property that will limit future uses and eliminate any further potential for urbanization or development. The land is preserved for agricultural use and the owner receives compensation that can help support current farm operations. There are three eligibility requirements for a property to participate in the PACE program. ÆÆ ÆÆ

ÆÆ

The property must have been actively farmed or ranched for a minimum of two years prior to applying for the program; The property must have realized a density reduction as a result of the General Plan Update adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 3, 2011; and The property must have been eligible for subdivision under the previous General Plan.

State and Federal matching grants and support may be difficult to secure for PACE in San Diego. Such grants are typically targeted to large farms and prime agricultural soils. San Diego farms are small in size: they average almost eleven acres and only 6% of soils in San Diego County are considered prime. Historically local funding for land conservation and protection is 50- to 60-percent. San Diego County anticipates that they may have to provide as much as 90- to 100-percent of all funding for each easement acquired. The PACE pilot program in San Diego County hopes to protect between 10 to 12 farms with a total acreage of 450- to 550-acres.

As a measure of its intent, this program is a credit to the initiative of San Diego County government. However, the County of San Diego Department

Page 42

of Planing and Land Use has identified almost 72,000 acres as potentially suitable for protection under the PACE plan or any of its successors. One source of funding that may become available as the economy improves and development pressure rises would be to use the mitigation requirement to fund the conservation easement program.

Water The cost of water is universally the highest input cost for every San Diego grower. They pay some of the highest prices in California for water.

Even in those parts of the county that have ample groundwater supplies, many farmers must rely on very expensive water supplied from the Colorado River and Northern California. Agricultural water rates in the County Water Authority are more than thirty times rates for the Central Valley Project or water provided by the Imperial Irrigation District. Because of the high cost of water, San Diego growers cannot compete with other counties in growing water-intensive crops.

The high cost of water makes efficient irrigation a priority for San Diego farmers. They are recognized statewide for their low rate of water use, irrigation methods, and ability to grow crops with minimal amounts of water. Compared with other California counties the level of water efficiency practiced by San Diego farmers and growers is extremely impressive.

And that efficiency has increased year over year for the past five years.

Agricultural water use has fallen from a peak in 1990, of 122,297 acre-feet, when costs were $400 to $500 per acre-foot to just 57,301 acre-feet in 2009 when costs are closer to $1,400 per acre-foot. San Diego farmers got efficient with water. The significant decrease in water use conceals the truth that much of the decrease in water use is due to removing acreage from production, or abandoning farming altogether. In the past six years, as the price of water has doubled, 10,000 acres of food crops have vanished.

Using the San Diego County adjusted average of 3.5 acre-feet of water used per year, per acre, 35,000 acre-feet –more than half– of the measured reduction in water use can be attributed to lost acreage and production.

Page 43

urban water conservation is an agricultural act

Challenge: Access to Affordable Water

Much of California’s water management is highly decentralized, and many hundreds of local and regional agencies responsible for water supply, wastewater treatment, flood control, and related land use decisions.

This system may have some advantages but has more often resulted in uncoordinated water and land use decisions. Given the severity of water problems in San Diego County, an ambitious set of reforms is necessary.

The focus should be: ÆÆ ÆÆ

$1400 PER AC RE/FOOT

ÆÆ ÆÆ

San Diego County

$100 PER AC RE/FOOT

Central Valley

ÆÆ

Reconciling water use for residents and farmers through comprehensive ecosystem management; Expanding water supply, water quality, and flood management methodologies; Educating residents and farmers to the critical role of water as a public commodity; Making the institutions responsible for water management better integrated, more effective, and adaptable to changing conditions; and Creation of differential water pricing for farmers.

Traditional methods to meet economic and environmental objectives, manage the supply of water, maintain water quality, and mitigate flooding have relied heavily on major public works: dams, levees, conveyance facilities, and treatment plants. Two large-scale projects continue to compete for resources: a potential $13 billion Delta water conveyance project and two large long-term storage facilities capable of storing 3.3 million acre-feet of water. New infrastructure will have to be lighter in imprint and greener in effect. The era of large- scale infrastructure development is now largely past.

Increased urban water conservation is an agricultural act. Although per capita urban water use has been falling as education increases, San Diego residents still use far more water than other places with similar climates, such as Australia, Israel, Italy, and Spain. Aggressive conservation could curb urban demand growth, despite population and economic growth, but only if reduced urban usage no longer results in higher water prices for farmers as water agencies raise prices to cover their fixed costs as less water runs through the system. Water management in a future of diminished supply and higher costs will require a shared understanding that water is a public commodity.

Page 44

California’s interconnected water supply grid is an asset for managing this critical resource. However, the system is institutionally fragmented, split across state, federal, and local operators. San Diego County is at a particular disadvantage with twenty autonomous water districts. These water districts have placed urban interests ahead of agricultural interests.

Surveys have shown that urban users recognize the value of water for agriculture and would pay more for their domestic water, to subsidize water for agricultural use, but State regulations currently prohibit the differential water rates that will be critical to longterm support of San Diego agriculture.

Cooperative agreements can improve operational efficiencies, but the rules for transferring water from different types of agencies need revision.

A new clearinghouse, similar to the independent system operator for the state’s electricity grid, will make the statewide water market more integrated and efficient and improve access for San Diego farmers, growers, and producers. While this may lower barriers to a regular supply of water, it does not guarantee a competitive price for water, which is the fundamental issue for San Diego. The price of water in San Diego County is largely a function of transportation and –with the sources 300-500 miles away– a new “clearinghouse” doesn’t bring the water any closer.

Page 45

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

PA C I F I C O C E A N

Urban Page 46

Urban–Rural Lands

S A LT O N S E A

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Farmland farmland in San Diego County is proximate to –even integrated with– urban land

Y O COUNT SAN DIEG

Page 47

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

PA C I F I C O C E A N

Page 48

Farmers Markets S A LT O N S E A

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Farmers Markets farmers markets are beginning to be well distrbuted across the urbanized areas of San Diego County

COUNTY SAN DIEGO

Page 49

Page 50

Interviews Interview Summary From October 2011 through March 2012 the project team met with more than 50 key participants in the San Diego regional food system. Information obtained through these interviews supplemented the parallel process led by the San Diego Farm Bureau which conducted 32 individual interviews with regional growers.

The interviews included fishermen and aqua-culturists; representatives, officials, and staff of the City of San Diego and San Diego County; leaders of Community Based Organizations that focus primarily on food policy and food systems; City and County staff representing land use, nutrition, environmental health and public works; school district representatives; food coop and food retailers; chefs and restaurateurs; distributors; farmers market managers; Healthy Works staff at UCSD; and Farm Bureau staff.

Thirty-three (33) percent of those interviewed had participated in the 2011 San Diego Urban-Rural Roundtable.

Because of the variety of interests held by each individual and the diversity of the constituencies they represented, each conversation was conducted in a discussion format without a pre-scripted, formal questionnaire. In order to get the most extensive, unfiltered, and candid response, each individual was assured that their individual remarks would not be directly attributed, but rather collected into a summary that captured the essence of each conversation. Everyone interviewed has a direct and vital connection to local food systems and food policy in San Diego County. Each expressed their interest and support for examining the barriers and analyzing the opportunities to meet an increasing demand for high-quality local food.

Several key themes emerged across sectors whether from producers, regulatory bodies, Community Based Organizations, distributors, or the variety of consumer categories sampled in this survey: Widespread disappointment that momentum created through the work of the Urban Rural Round Table in June 2011, did not endure. The initial enthusiasm that the work of the Round Table generated within the food community faded as each month passed without noticeable progress.

Without a central clearinghouse for information, the many efforts underway to influence changes within the local food system failed to attract the interest, attention, or action that they deserved.

Establishing the Food Systems Alliance is seen as one answer to this problem.

The high hopes and expectations that respondents assign to the potential of the Alliance speak to this unmet need. Especially for those involved in food policy work, the Alliance represents an important opportunity for collaboration among the many people and programs devoted to food policy issues and a broader shared understanding of the needs, challenges, and opportunities to make enduring changes in the food system. How the Alliance forms –the process by which the participants convene and shape its structure and its role in the community– was a topic around which many people expressed their views. It will be important to define its mission in sufficiently broad terms such that it can have a meaningful effect upon food policy and practices.

The imminent formation of a Food Alliance has stirred a great deal of anticipation within the community and has become a catalyst to unite food policy and politics. This is viewed as especially critical given the multiple

Page 51

false starts that have previously disrupted the path to action in San Diego County.

With so many beginning to express interest in food issues, the Food Alliance and other organizations should be able to focus on important structural issues. Primary among these is solving the existing condition where there is no systematic tracking of “who” is doing “what,” let alone “how” and “why.” New players are emerging that are intent upon engaging the regional food system network through their own interest groups. These include local and regional government departments responsible for land use and planning, solid waste and recycling, public and environmental health, and transportation. Even subsets of these agencies are beginning to connect with food policy issues. Community Based Organizations are moving to fill unmet needs, but they often do so in isolation and without the realization or understanding that other groups are also working on similar issues. While occasional turf battles will naturally occur –more common within and among government bodies– the spirit of collaboration is strong, especially among CBOs. In response to the baseline question of “how more locally produced food can enter the San Diego supply chain,” the responses varied significantly as a function of the diverse perspectives represented. Many thought the answer would come from expanded interest in and capacity for urban agriculture. Backyard- community- and school-gardens all foster an understanding of the role and benefits of hyper-local food to County residents. There is a strong commitment, especially among CBOs, that homegrown food is better and that any significant increase in the percentage of foods grown and consumed in their own communities will help solve many current endemic problems.

Many CBOs are successfully organizing their constituencies around urban agriculture to improve health outcomes, empower communities, and provide economic self-sufficiency. Some of the gains made have been impressive, but for every success there are others in need who receive less attention and philanthropic support and are struggling to grow their capacity without much assistance.

In the commercial realm of farmers markets and specialty food retailers, the amount of local food grown and consumed in San Diego County continues to increase year after year. The fifty-five farmers markets have had varied success. Some are hugely popular and well-located to serve residents, visitors, and tourists. Others struggle with less desirable locations, poor management, and farm vendors who may not have yet mastered the finer points of merchandising and selling fresh food. Expect some future consolidation of markets as many growers find some markets difficult to justify attending when their sales fall below break-even points.

Retail grocers specializing in full-service produce departments want in on the local food action. Regardless of their size, locations or customer mix, local foods are must-have items. Those who buy directly from farmers have established close business –and, in many cases, personal– relationships with their suppliers. Grocers and produce departments try to fill their display bins with local products that promote both the farms and the market itself. Tastings and promotions help “romance” local food

Page 52

specialties. While citrus and avocados predominate, apples from Julian –only in season since there is no cold storage, berries, tomatoes and many other items regularly appear. Retailers need for local product exceeds the available supply for row crops, pointing to the commercial opportunities that exist.

Mid-size distributors express their role as the vital link between commercial farmers and the individuals who buy, prepare, and serve the food. Many are paying very close attention to the shifts in consumer demand for local foods. At the same time, they understand the capacity of local farmers and the challenges those farmers face if they are to meet a larger share of those needs. Distributors have specific requirements and certifications, especially regarding food safety. Distributors expressed a surprising willingness to serve smaller growers with specialty, niche products that are unavailable from other sources or who may not have achieved the certification benchmarks the distributors usually require. While some farmers prefer to sell direct, especially to chef-owned restaurants, the distributors see growers who sell through them as one of their channels to the restaurant industry.

Chef-owned restaurants are at the vanguard of connecting their customers with local specialty producers. Unfortunately, the number of establishments with locally inspired menus that credit their sources seems very low. The number of growers dealing directly with those restaurants is also low. Chefs expressed concern for potential co-dependencies where they might become too dependent on a limited number of growers and supplies could be interrupted. Distributors can fill in when emergencies occur, but those emergencies can become awkward moments for restaurants that haven’t carried major accounts with those distributors for years.

Local sources for protein pose one of the most significant deficiencies in the local food system. Those raising cattle, hogs, lambs and goats and who want to sell their animals cut and wrapped face daunting challenges.

There are no licensed slaughtering facilities in the County and the nearest ones are in Brawley or Los Angeles. Whole animal sales from the farm are allowed, up to a certain legal limit, but the inconvenience of that far outweighs the commercial value. Many people interviewed mentioned this gap, regardless of their role or position in the food chain. State and federal regulations are designed to support the industrial scale processing of animal protein and create impossible barriers for small and mid-size producers who want to offer local, pasture-raised and finished, humanely slaughtered, and artisan-finished product. All obvious remedies are extensive and expensive and will involve engaging multiple Federal, State, County, and local agencies and jurisdictions. Mobile slaughtering facilities offer one option, but the requirement that each site the vehicle visits must also be properly zoned, licensed and inspected creates additional obstacles.

Once a thriving part of the Port of San Diego, seafood has diminished for many years. Fisheries are depleted and commercial catches plummeting.

San Diego streams, rivers, and seas are polluted. At 60 years old, the average age of the average fisherman now exceeds that of farmers. Still, there are those seeking to revitalize the once vibrant seafood culture that

Page 53

San Diego historically enjoyed. Their strategies include creating a local seafood market for wholesale and retail customers to be located on the working wharfs –perhaps in conjunction with a farmers market– to attract more customers.

Aquaculture is another successful means for increasing the amount of seafood in the local area through multiple distribution channels that include wholesale and farmers markets.

Farmers, ranchers and fishermen indicated that a central Public Market for San Diego would create an important opportunity to sell more and to sell it locally. A seven-day-a-week venue would provide the opportunity to either sell to locally-owned merchants (greengrocers, fishmongers, butchers) or to form coops that sell directly to the public. The Public Market would offer higher volume and profitable margins. Community members have been proposing a Public Market for almost a decade with little formal progress.

The acknowledged challenges include clearly defining the goals, seeking a suitable site and raising significant amounts of money from public and private sources.

On the regulatory side, local officials were for the most part willing to see beyond political and bureaucratic boundaries in understanding how the local food system intersects with their areas of responsibility. There was genuine interest among government professionals to engage in the issues and determine their best roles to help. Having a cross-jurisdictional Food Systems Alliance appealed to many officials as a way to break down the “silos” that exist between government agencies and departments and make institutionalizing collaboration difficult to achieve.

The City of San Diego implemented a code update in February of 2012 in response to citizens struggling to comply with arcane regulations for opening community gardens. To its credit, the city used the opportunity to broaden its inquiry and address an expanded list of reforms that will eventually add flexibility to the local land use code for urban agriculture and commerce, including calling out a public market as a community resource.

San Diego County has a patchwork of often conflicting land use regulations that govern the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Each municipal jurisdiction has authority within its own boundaries making comprehensive, county-wide change more difficult and time consuming to accomplish. For example, multiple ordinances and policies send conflicting messages about reclaiming land that could be suitable for agriculture. The County expects a 40% population increase in the next 40 years adding strains to an already fractured system. If the predominant development patterns continue, intense development pressure will put more rural land at risk for development. Existing water policies, politics, and rates make the situation even worse. Differential pricing for agricultural water is necessary to provide stability. Without it, agriculture land currently under cultivation could become fallow –placing it at risk for development.

Water Districts operate autonomously and have a distinctive urban bias that places additional burdens on farmers. Even though some customer surveys indicate that urban water users would favor differential rates to preserve agriculture lands, water district politics have continued the status quo. Even conservation programs seem to place undue burden on farmers

Page 54

when the water districts bill to recover their fixed costs associated with the construction and maintenance of infrastructure. The consistent message is that until water rates are changed, the future of local agriculture was grim. Rates will reach $1400 per acre-foot by the end of 2012, continuing a stratospheric rise. The consensus appears to be that local agriculture can survive with a constant price of $900 per acre-foot adjusted for inflation.

Understanding the history and dynamics of the county’s water districts and the San Diego Water Authority is a full-time job.

Conservation entered the conversations on many occasions, but with some surprising twists. Urban water use accounts for the majority of acre-feet and any reductions in that use could logically improve farm allocations. But surprising savings can occur on farmland by improving the health of the topsoil through more composting. San Diego County has more restrictive composting regulations than the State of California has. By aligning them, the compost that is now readily available through yard debris pick-up would marginally improve soil health. But by mustering the political will to have curbside pick-up for food scraps throughout the County, composting would so significantly improve soil health that agricultural water usage over time could diminish by up to 50%.

Interviewees 16 January 2012 ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

Peter Halmay, San Diego Fishermen’s Working Group Congressman and Mayoral Candidate Bob Filner Squeeze Play Organics Nancy Casady, Ocean Beach People’s Organic Food Coop

17 January 2012 ÆÆ ÆÆ

Devon Muto and Joe Farage, San Diego County Land Use and Planning Elizabeth Pozzebom, Assistant Director Department of Environmental Health

ÆÆ

Ruthi Solari and colleagues, San Diego County Nutrition Education/ Healthy Works

ÆÆ

Mark McPherson, Chief, Land and Water Quality, San Diego County Environmental Health

ÆÆ

Vanessa Zajfen, Farm to School Coordinator, San Diego Unified School District

18 January 2012 “Food Link” meeting with: ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

Page 55

Michelle Zive, Bev Tuzin, Jen Chandler Brian French—UCSD Anchi Mei, International Rescue Committee Sadie Sponsler, San Diego Hunger Coalition Eric Larson, San Diego County Farm Bureau Stephanie Gioia, San Diego County Commissioner Ron Robert’s office Candice Woo, Slow Food Urban San Diego

30 January 2012 Regional Chefs discussion at Alchemy Restaurant with: ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

Ron Troyano - Alchemy Jay Porter – Linkery owner Jeff Rossman – Terra Restaurant Chef/Owner Chad White – Sea Rocket Chef Hanis Cavin – Carnitas Snack Shack Chef/Owner

31 January 2012 ÆÆ

Naomi Butler, Tracy Delaney, San Diego County Nutrition and Health

ÆÆ

Martin Annenberg, Fresh Point Produce

ÆÆ

Robert Farmer, Moceri Produce

ÆÆ

Steve Eldred, California Endowment

01 February 2012 ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

Michael Wonsidler, Recycling Specialist, San Diego County Department of Public Works Richard Anthony, his predecessor Wayne Williams, his predecessor Catt White, San Diego Farmers Markets Roger and Bob Harrington, Specialty Produce Sadie Sponsler, SD Hunger Coalition, Network Manager JuliAnna Arnett, Food Policy Manager, Community Health Improvement Partners (CHIP) Anchi Mei, Food Security and Community Health Manager, International Rescue Committee (IRC)

06 February 2012 ÆÆ

Phone interview with Joseph McIntyre, Ag Innovations

06 February 2012 ÆÆ

Phone interivew with Matt Schneider, San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use – PACE Program Project Manager

13 February 2012 ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

Page 56

Ryan Peterson, Regional Produce Supervisor, Jimbo’s Markets Eric Larson, Director, San Diego County Farm Bureau Dennis Peterson, Director of Science, Carlsbad Aquafarm, Inc.

14 February 2012 ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

Mel Lions, Director, San Diego Roots Sustainable Food Project and Wild Willow Farm and Education Center Diane Moss, CEO Project New Village and People’s Produce Project Eric Span, General Manager Child Nutrition Services, Sodexo Renee Corti, Food Service Manager, San Ysidro School District, Sodexo Mariana Osuna, CPPW Wellness Coordinator, San Ysidro School District

15 February 2012 ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ ÆÆ

Dan Joyce, Senior Planner, Land Development Code, City of San Diego Nancy Bragado, Principal Planner, City of San Diego Don Nishiguchi, Whole Foods Market, Regional Local Food Buyer Stephen Heverly, Council Representative, Councilmember Sherri Lightner, San Diego City Council Lisa Perkins, Committee Consultant, Land Use and Housing, San Diego Councilmember Lorie Zapf

21 February 2012 ÆÆ ÆÆ

Page 57

Dale Steele, Public Market Activist Kathy Driscoll, Driscoll’s Wharf

Page 58

Farm Bureau Interviews Farm Bureau Interviews: A Summary The following is an analysis of the results of thirty-two semi-structured interviews conducted in San Diego County 1 between November 2011 and February 2012 2 by a former San Diego Farm Bureau employee3 with farmers engaged in or interested in direct marketing. 4Interviews covered the farmers’ scope and scale of operations, with a focus on their direct marketing efforts and barriers.5 According to the San Diego County Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures, there are 6,687 farms operating in San Diego County with sixty-eight percent of these reported as one to nine acres in size,6and, according to the interviewer, the majority do not engage in direct marketing. These thirtytwo interviews present the perspectives of a convenience sample of those with a particular interest in the topic.

Among those interviewed the most commonly mentioned barriers to direct marketing are scarcity of time and money and information gaps (e.g., from lack of consumer awareness to the farmers’ lack of knowledge of new buyers and marketing channels). One emphasis of the interviews was to learn how the farmers reach their markets, and if they would like to do more direct marketing using an on-line marketplace (e.g., such as the LocalHarvest website7 or the proposed San Diego Grown Exchange 8). Three interviewees did not see a need for an on-line marketplace to reach their markets, because they do not want to engage in direct marketing, are too small, or are satisfied with (or overwhelmed by) their existing customer base; the rest of the interviewees were interested in learning more about a possible on-line marketplace or volunteered to be beta-testers for it. Most interviewees were already using internet tools to reach markets in some capacity, but the level of effectiveness of the different tools for different farmers was not addressed in the interviews. Forty-one percent of those interviewed indicated an interest in upgrading their websites or otherwise increasing their use (or the effectiveness of their use) of internet tools for marketing.

Brief Project Background “San Diego Grown” is part of a larger project by the San Diego County Healthy Works Project whose goal is to improve residents’ access to healthy local food. The goal of San Diego Grown is to promote locally grown products, in part by identifying the types of barriers faced by farmers engaged in direct marketing.9

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

One farmer outside San Diego County was interviewed because he played a key role in the San Diego Growers Group; he farms within twenty-five miles of the county border.

Interviews took place between Nov 18, 2011, and Feb. 18, 2012.

Interviewer Kristen Hukari worked from 2004-2008 as a Program Manager at the San Diego County Farm Bureau. Additionally, she comes from a fourth-generation San Diego County farming family, and received a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from Pomona College in 1991 and a Master of Agriculture and Management from UC Davis in 1995. As a member of the local farming community, a supporter of local farmers in her role at the Farm Bureau, and someone trained in social research tools and business practices, she was uniquely qualified to take on the project of interviewing local farmers about their marketing practices and barriers.

The thirty-two interviewees were selected based on the interviewer’s knowledge of the local farm industry.

Criteria for selection are described further below.

While the intention of the interviews was to focus on direct marketing barriers, not operational barriers (e.g., water supply and cost), farmers did discuss operational issues throughout the interviews.

See the San Diego County 2010 Crop Statistics and Annual Report (released in 2011; accessed March 1, 2012): http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/reusable_components/images/awm/Docs/2010_Crop_Report_21_2. pdf See the LocalHarvest website (accessed March 1, 2012): http://www.localharvest.org/ See the San Diego Grown Exchange website (accessed March 1, 2023): http://sandiegogrown.com/ See the report by Feenstra and Ellsworth 2010 (UC Davis) “Assessing the San Diego County Food System: Indicators for a More Food Secure Future” (accessed February 28, 2012): http://www.sarep.ucdavis. edu/CDPP/Report/sandiegoreport.pdf

Page 59

Description of the Data, Method of Data Collection The semi-structured interviews involved thirty-nine questions covering qualitative and quantitative indicators. The questions were derived from a six-page survey written by Joseph Readdy and Ron Paul.10Answers were given verbally and summarized by the interviewer. Not all interviewees were asked all thirty-nine questions: the interviews were judged by the interviewer to be too lengthy, and so two questions concerning pricing were eliminated from some interviews (with the consent of the project lead).

No human subjects review was required or undertaken for this project.

Farmers weren’t financially compensated for their participation.11 The thirty-two interviewees were selected by the interviewer on the basis of her knowledge of the local farm industry.12Criteria for interviewee selection (not weighted) included: (1) the farmer was operating in San Diego County or within twenty-five miles of the county border; (2) the farmer appeared on a list from UC San Diego of participants in a series of meetings regarding the creation of a regional food hub (had invested time in a direct marketing initiative); (3) the interviewer had direct knowledge that the farmer was interested in direct marketing (some via the Farm Bureau, some names recommended by other farmers as people she should talk to); (4) the farmer responded to announcements published in various San Diego County Farm Bureau communications to its members or otherwise showed an interest in talking to the interviewer; (5) the farmer added diversity to the interviewee pool either through the farm’s type of production or his/her level of experience (there was an effort to include both newcomers to farming and long-time farmers).

Interviews took from one to four hours (depending on whether the farmer wanted to give the interviewer a tour of the operation), and took place at locations convenient to the farmer (e.g., inside the farmer’s office or home, outside on the farm, at the Farm Bureau offices, etc.).

The interviewer met the farmer alone, but the farmer was sometimes accompanied by colleagues or family members, and sometimes called on others to help answer specific questions.

10 Readdy and Paul developed the survey with the input of a number of stakeholders in San Diego and with the guidance of other questionnaires in use for similar purposes elsewhere, including at Oregon State University and the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

11 The interviewer entered into a verbal agreement with farmers ensuring their anonymity (assigning numbers in place of names). She also offered follow-up support to help connect farmers with buyers and to provide technical assistance (e.g., passing on a publication about meat and poultry sales laws to farmers who feed animals on their properties).

12 The interviewer described the variety of interviewees in a 2012 report to the funder (County of San Diego Health & Human Services Agency) thus: “Interviewees included farmers previously active in the Regional Food Hub/San Diego Growers meetings, Farm Bureau members, and non-Farm Bureau members. Interviewees included producers of fruit/tree crops, vegetable/ row crops, mushrooms, chicken eggs, cow’s milk, beef cattle, meat chickens (broilers), turkeys, meat goats, hogs, and sheep. A diverse group of farmers have been interviewed: conventional and organic; first-generation and multigeneration; male and female; young and old; and part-time and full-time.”

Page 60

There are some inconsistencies in the data. Some interviewees answered on behalf of a collective, some on their own behalf.13 The question about the scale of production was answered in a variety of units14 and cannot be easily summarized. Also, as noted above, not all questions were given to all interviewees, and in some cases answers are missing where farmers felt that answering the question would compromise their business or it was irrelevant to their type of production.

Farmer Baseline Data How Long Had Interviewees Been Farming in the San Diego Region?

The interviewer selected interviewees in part to reflect the different perspectives of newcomers to farming alongside those of long-time farmers. Of the thirty-two interviewees, ten had been farming less than ten years: from 1 to 8 years, 4 years average, 3.5 years median. Twenty-two had been farming over ten years: based on the fifteen estimating their time farming in years,15the range was 13 to 42 years, averaging 28 years, with a median of 30 years. Overall, the range was 1 to 42 years, the average number of years farming was 18 years, the median 15 years.

The question pertaining to the level of sustainability of the farming production asked “Is farming your primary source of income?” Of all thirty-two interviewed, 69% said yes, 25% said no, and 0.06% gave unclear answers. Of the newer set of farmers (farming less than ten years) only 40% said yes, while 50% said no (with two breaking even/ almost breaking even, two losing money). Of the more experienced set of farmers, 82% said yes, only 14% said no. These are trends one would expect given the advantages held by a longer-running operation.

Scope of Production: Mixed/ Single-Product Operations and Range of Products The interviewees represented a diverse range of types of productions, with the majority producing fruits and vegetables. Farmers produced fruit and tree crops (including macadamia nuts), vegetable row crops, mushrooms, chicken eggs, cow milk, beef cattle, meat chickens (broilers), turkeys, meat goats, hogs, and sheep. For analysis, these types of production have been simplified to fruits and vegetables (including mushrooms, berries, potatoes, and herbs), dairy, meat, eggs, nuts, and other products (one farm offers hay, another offers flowers and flower products, and a third farm offers fertilizer and agricultural tourism).

Seventeen farmers (56% of those interviewed) produce just fruits and vegetables, and of these, four produce just one kind of fruit or vegetable.

Two farms (6% of total) produce just meat, and one (3% of total) produces just eggs. Eleven farms (34% of total) are mixed productions. Three of 13 For example: the question “how long have you been farming” was interpreted variously as how long the individual had been farming, how long the company had been operating, and how many generations the farmer’s family had been farming.

14 Units used include pounds of produce, dollars, gallons of milk, heads of animal, heads of lettuce, flats of berries, and dozens of eggs.

15 Seven answers about length of time farming were numerically unclear (e.g., “all my life”) but indicated a long-time involvement with farming, or were later clarified as representing a long-time farming perspective.

Page 61

the four farms producing only one kind of fruit or vegetable fall under the category of newer farms.

Fruits and vegetables are offered by twenty-seven farms (84% of total).

Eggs are offered by six farms (19%); meat by five farms (16%); nuts by three farms (9%); and dairy by two farms (6%). If this is broken down by newcomer versus long-time farms, among the ten new farms eight are doing fruit and vegetables, three offer meat, two offer eggs, and one each dairy and nuts. Among the twenty-two older farms, nineteen offer fruit and vegetables, four offer eggs, two offer nuts and one dairy. The farms offering hay, fertilizer, flowers and flower products, and agricultural tourism fall in the category of older operations. There don’t appear to be any trends in newer farmers undertaking different kinds of operations from the older institutions, and the younger farms are as mixed in production as the older ones.Eleven farmers (34%) interviewed said their operations were certified organic.16Twelve (38%) said components of their operation were organic (e.g., feed) but not certified organic and nine (28%) said all their products were farmed conventionally. The newer farms are more likely to be engaged in organic practices. Among the newer farms, four farms (40%) have certified organic products and six farms (60%) have organic components. None of the newer farmers said their products were produced by conventional methods. By contrast, nine (40%) of the older farm operations are using conventional methods; seven (32%) of older farms have organic certification and six (27%) have organic components.

Level of Production in Acreage and Dollars In the interviews the scale of production was measured variously. In one question, farmers were asked “What is your annual production volume?” and the answers came in pounds of vegetables, dozens of eggs, head of cattle, gallons of milk, etc. It is hard to utilize the data for analysis as such.

17 18 , The total number of acres in use by the interviewees is 15,651 acres. The range of acreage runs from half an acre to 14,000 acres of grazing land (an outlier). The average amount of acreage in use (489 acres) is thrown off 16 Other certifications mentioned by farmers include Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), Naturally Grown (an alternate to organic certification, indicating [ for example] that the product is grown in the ground, not hydroponically), Animal Welfare Approved (AWA), and American Grassfed Association (AGA) certification.

17 The largest volume of production comes from fruits and vegetables measured in pounds. 60% of those answering gave their answer in pounds of fruits or vegetables; the total for one year came to 14,687,900 pounds (ranging from 3,000 lbs. to 5.5 million lbs., with an average of 863,994 lbs. and a median of 224,400 lbs.). Among the newer farmers, five gave production volume in pounds of fruits and vegetables, totaling 3,706,400 (25% of the total reported), 741,280 lbs. on average (ranging from 3,000 to 3.2 million lbs.).

This measure doesn’t include the farmers who gave their volume in heads of lettuce and flats of berries.

18 The interviewer notes that organic certification is more important for farmers selling to a retailer; if a farmer is selling to customers familiar with the operation (e.g., at a farmer’s market, where a customer/farmer relationship is established), certification is less important to marketability.

Page 62

by the outlier; the median, 20.5 acres, is a better illustration of a common acreage. The average acreage without the 14,000 acre grazing land figure is 53 acres.

The farmers were asked to classify themselves according to three categories of gross annual sales: under $100,000 (fourteen farmers), $100,000 to $250,000 (one farmer), over $250,000 (fifteen farmers). Three farmers declined to state. The categories were created along arbitrary lines which are intended to describe small, medium, and large-scale productions.

It appears the interviewees represented smaller and larger enterprises equally, with the medium-scale enterprise less-well represented.

Seven of the ten newer farmers (70%) interviewed fell in the lowest category, two (20%) in the highest category, and one declined to state.

Seven of the twenty-two more established farmers (32%) fell in the lowest category, thirteen (59%) in the highest, one in the middle category, and two declined to state. These trends follow expectations.

Farm to Market: How Products Reach Consumers The majority of farmers used multiple channels to reach consumers.

The few with a single channel sold products to CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture businesses), to consumers directly via agricultural tourism, direct sales (of animals to consumers), and via one farmers market. Farmers markets are the most frequent way farmers reach consumers (59% of interviewees), followed (in descending order of frequency of use) by grocery stores, restaurants, local distributors, other direct sales, wholesalers, CSAs, schools, packing houses, farm stands, and internet sales.19 It’s interesting to note that the two farmers who mentioned distributing products via internet sales belong to the more established category; none of the newer farmers mentioned internet sales.

As one might expect, seven of the ten newer farmers mention the internet among their tools for reaching markets (social media such as Facebook and Twitter, farm websites/ blogs, YouTube, etc.); however, twenty of the twenty-two older farm enterprises also mention using internet tools for reaching markets.

Outliers It is hard to determine outliers when the thirty-two farm enterprises described by the data are so different. The interviewer noted that she was surprised (in a positive way) by the farmers’ creativity and innovation, for example, the discovery of a hydroponic farm being run by a young computer engineer (both a rare type of farm and rare type of farmer), and the variety of niche markets the producers are finding, e.g., a $125 customraised turkey for Thanksgiving dinners. It may be noteworthy that all but four farmers are selling the majority of products in San Diego County or Southern California. One mushroom seller sells across North America, and

19 Of the thirty-two farmers interviewed, 19 (59%) sell at farmers markets, 17 (53%) to grocery stores/ food co-ops; 16 (50%) to restaurants/ caterers/ chefs, 15 (47%) to local distributors (directly or via broker), 11 (34%) through other direct sales to customers, 8 (25%) to wholesalers, 8 (25%) to CSAs, 6 (19%) sell to schools, 6 (19%) sell to packing houses, 5 (16%) sell at farm stands, and 2 (6%) via internet sales.

Page 63

three citrus and avocado sellers use packing houses which distribute widely (the farmers may not know where).

Possible barriers and opportunities The interviewees mentioned a wide variety of barriers and opportunities for improving the distribution of local food into the hands of local people.

The barriers to direct marketing mentioned include county and state fees, lack of support for small meat production enterprises, informational barriers, and multiple county inspections for new crops (redundant inspections).

Some of the information gaps which might represent opportunities for county-level intervention include farmer unfamiliarity with some online tools for marketing (improving the effectiveness of what is already in use, such as farm websites); unfamiliarity with grade/ pack standards for selling direct to retail stores and local distributors; lack of familiarity among farmers and buyers with the San Diego Grown Exchange and the San Diego Grown 365™ certification mark; farmer unfamiliarity with direct marketing regulations for local agricultural products; lack of a clearinghouse of information on brokers who will carry products from smaller growers and reliable shipping options for smaller growers (less-than-truckload shippers). Some more challenging barriers mentioned by farmers include the lack of a local or mobile federally-inspected slaughter and processing facility to allow sales of local meat by the cut (vs. buying the live animal on-the-hoof ), and the lack of enforcement of laws regarding roadside fruit sellers (sometimes selling stolen goods) and sellers appearing at farmers markets who aren’t representing farms. Overall, farmers want more customers, and want those to be more knowledgeable, quality-minded customers. The county might be able to play a role in helping cultivate that pool of customers and helping farmers reach them through public education and targeted informational assistance campaigns. The persistent problem of a scarcity of time and money—that falls beyond the purview of the county, but to any degree existing regulatory systems can be made less costly and cumbersome for farmers without compromising effectiveness, it will improve farmers’ ability to engage in more direct marketing to local consumers.

Page 64

Food Hub & Public Market Regional Food Hub: a working definition for San Diego County The USDA defines a food hub as “a centrally located facility with a business management structure facilitating the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and/or marketing of locally/regionally produced food products.” The target markets for these services are typically wholesale customers – institutions, restaurants and grocery stores – who have a harder time buying local product in the desired volumes. Hubs also provide far greater delivery reliability than can be obtained through purchasing from many small producers acting independently. A regional food hub for San Diego County would be a strategically located facility that supports the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and marketing of locally produced food products operating under a single business management structure. The Regional Food Hub for San Diego County will be a strategically located facility that supports the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and marketing of locally produced food products operating under a single business management structure.

Core components of the Regional Food Hub Aggregation/Distribution-Wholesale: A Regional Food Hub provides a consistent and reliable supply of locally produced foods from small-to mid-sized farms. A Regional Food Hub provides a drop-off point for local produce grown by area farmers and a pick up point for distribution firms and customers who want to buy source-verified local and regional food.

Active Coordination: A Regional Food Hub has in place a business management team that actively coordinates the logistics of the supply chain, including seeking market for producers, and coordinating efforts with distributors, processors, and buyers. Food Hubs can provide the business management systems and capabilities that many farmers lack.

Food Hub management oversees the local food supply and maintains an adequate supply of locally produced food. Food Hub management works with farmers to coordinate planting and harvest schedules and manage product varieties.

Other Possible Services: A Regional Food Hub may provide wholesale and retail vending space, offer space for health and social service programs, community kitchens, community meetings, etc. Food Hubs can provide space for the promotion of local health and social services. They can sometimes be excellent locations for farmers markets.

USDA 2011 Survey of Food Hubs The USDA is currently conducting a survey of regional food hubs and public markets. Forty-five food hub surveys were complete in time for this report. They indicate that the prototypical regional food hub is a sociallydriven business enterprise with an emphasis on providing “good prices” to producers and “good food” to consumers. It has been operating for five years and employs six full-time or part-time staff. It has a robust program of producer engagement and participation that extends to the operation of the food hub and its activities. It has forty regular small- or mid-sized farmers and ranchers who raise the food. It offers a wide-range of products –with an emphasis on fresh produce. It sells through multiple market channels –with restaurants serving as an important entry point to other markets.

It is actively involved with its local community and offers benefits and

Page 65

services to both producers and customers. It generates gross annual sales of $700,000, but is not completely self-sufficient financially and still relies upon some external support for some services and activities.

Food Hub Benefits Regional Food Hubs provide an integrated approach that promises multiple potential benefits, including: expanded market opportunities for agricultural producers; job creation in rural areas; increased access to fresh healthy foods for consumers, with the potential to reach underserved areas and diminish the effect of food deserts.

Farmers get to grow the products that they feel are the best fit for their soil conditions in the seasons that work best for their climate and microclimate –even to the point of growing unusual or heirloom varieties that may not have widespread, mainstream commercial appeal.

In Oregon, Frog Eyes Wasabi, one of only a handful of wasabi growers in the United States began harvesting their first wasabi in the spring of 2011. Their prized rhizomes have caught the eye of chefs on both coasts and show up on tables in Michelin-starred restaurants throughout Europe.

Wasabi turned out to be a perfect match for land the couple already owned near Tillamook. “It’s light-phobic and it doesn’t like to freeze or get too hot, which fits the coast perfectly,” owner Markus Mead says. Only a year into the business, Frog Eyes Wasabi is producing high-quality wasabi. Chef Masaharu Morimoto of “Iron Chef America” appreciates its quality, Mead says, and begged for an emergency shipment to his New York restaurant earlier this year.

Regional Food Hubs provide alternative models for distribution that serve small- and mid-scale producers well. Food Hubs can help identify and promote those best practices with the relative effectiveness that promote the economic benefit of small-scale and limited-resource producers.

We have identified the following nine areas for further exploration.

Between November 2011, and February 2012, the San Diego County Farm Bureau conducted interviews with 32 food growers of varying sizes and scales throughout the county (with one beyond the County boundary but within 25 miles). The consultants interviewed two seafood entrepreneurs, three representative distributors dealing with locally sourced foods; three retailers specializing in selling local foods; and five restaurant chef/owners whose culinary identities are closely tied to the local food movement. Their comments have informed this discussion.

1 Customer and markets: who are the groups of people and what are the organizations that the regional food hub aims to reach and serve?

What common attributes or sets of needs and behaviors do they share?

We should be able to identify and choose which market segments to immediately pursue –and which to ignore until some future moment. Some customers may justify a demand for a distinct offer of services and values; some customers might be reached through distinctly different channels of distribution; and some customers might require different modes of communication and different types of relationships; some customers might offer different –and better– profit margins and opportunities.

Page 66

2 Value: the bundle of services and products should create value for the food hub for each specific, individual customer segment. The value delivered is the reason customers will choose this business. We must either be innovative –a revolutionary new way of doing business– or provide new attributes, features, or benefits to the established way of doing business. What is the value that the food hub will deliver to each customer segment? Which of our customer’s problems will we be solving? What bundle of services must we offer to each customer segment? Maybe the food hub itself will be perceived as a new offering, technologically, ethically, and in quality. It is to be hoped that its performance will be superior to the existing paradigm. Perhaps it will be customizable with the customer serving as co-creator where mass customization –using technology– will allow unique products that leverage the economies of scale. Finally, the food hub brand itself will be an important part of the value proposition.

3 Channels: how are we going to communicate with each of our customer segments in a way that clearly communicates the value? What is the message?

4 Customer relationships: the nature, type, and quality of the relationship with each customer segment. What is the food hub strategy for customer acquisition, customer retention, and customer up-selling.

What types of relationship will each customer segment expect the food hub to establish and maintain? What are the costs associated with this effort?

How will it be effectively integrated into the business model? Some types of relationship models for discussion: personal assistance, based on human interaction; self-service; automated services that recognizes individual customers and their attributes; social communities –especially on-line; and co-creation—inviting customers to create mutually beneficial value.

5 Revenue: how well will we be able to predict the cash generated from any of these customer segments? Each stream and each customer segment might have a distinct pricing mechanism –fixed-prices, market rates, yield management, auctioning, or bargaining. We hope that food hub revenues will be primarily based on recurring payments representing on-going accounts as opposed to one-time sales. What will our customers be willing to pay –and for what value? For what value do they currently pay? How are they currently paying? How might they prefer to pay? How much will each customer segment stream of payments contribute to the business model?

6 Resources: particularly now at start-up, we have the human and intellectual resources (for the most part) necessary to begin. What are the physical and financial resources that we need? What human and/ or intellectual resources are we missing? How will we fill them? We should consider models that represent a minimum functional level of service and “ideal” level of service.

7 Production: the design and delivery of a product of superior quality that solves the existing problems that each customer segment currently faces. What is our platform? How do we describe our network?

8 Partnerships: who are they? Where do they come from? How do we connect with them? Are there strategic alliances between non-competitors that we can exploit? Are there strategic partnerships between competitors

Page 67

that we can manage? Are there potential joint-ventures that will help us develop new business? Are there the supplier relationships that assure reliable supply?

9 Cost structure: what are the most important costs inherent in our business model? Which of the key resources are the most expensive? Which of the key production activities are the most expensive? While costs should be minimized in any business model, what represents the best opportunity for success? Can we survive by using a higher-degree of personalized service that is value-driven –and provides more revenue as measured against costs?

Demand General There is strong market potential that argues for expanding the production, supply, sales and consumption of San Diego fruits and vegetables through wholesale marketing channels. The model for a Regional Food Hub in San Diego County should be capable of describing the “how” and the “why” of the Food Hub as an organization that creates, delivers, and captures value. We need a shared understanding and a common vocabulary: something simply expressed, relevant, intuitively understandable, that clearly presents the complexities of “how” and “why.”

Restaurants The trend toward “local” is extremely strong in the restaurant industry. Chefs surveyed in 2010 by the National Restaurant Association ranked locally grown produce as the number one menu trend. Editors of FoodChannel.com rank “Locavore” (local food) as first among the top food influencers of the last decade. According to National Restaurant Association research, eighty-nine percent of fine-dining operators serve locally sourced items, and ninety percent believe that demand for locally sourced items will continue to grow. Their choices are being supported by consumer demand; seventy percent of adults surveyed indicate that they are more likely to visit a restaurant that offers locally produced food items.

White tablecloth restaurants in San Diego, as across the United States, are supportive of local foods and demonstrate such commitment by developing relationships with and buying directly from growers. These restaurants are extremely visible markets for locally grown produce and for the farmers that raise such produce. In the preliminary research of the initial phase of the feasibility study, almost twenty fine-dining restaurants indicated that they would incorporate a well-branded regional source of local food into future purchasing provided it supported the economic success of individual growers. Such a program would not necessarily eliminate any direct relationships that individual restaurants might have with individual farmers.

Chef-owned, white tablecloth restaurants are considered a critical market for the Regional Food Hub because their owners are educated to the value of local, high-quality food, they buy regularly, they buy large quantities, and they educate their customers by promoting their use of local foods and the farmers that produce them.

Page 68

Consumers With over three million urban food consumers, San Diego represents a robust daily demand for food of all kinds.

Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability In the past decade, consumers have changed the way they think about environmental issues. Their concern and discussion about environmental issues has soared, with 30% more consumers reporting that everywhere they turn people are talking about the environment. Similarly, 26% more consumers identify themselves as opinion leaders on eco-friendly products, which is another indication that the buzz around these products has rapidly increased as more people consider themselves experts. The Natural Marketing Institute has characterized an important segment of the population by their lifestyle choices which reflect their commitment to a sustainable future. Accounting for almost 20 percent of the population, these individuals are committed to a lifestyle of health and sustainability where they tend to act in socially responsible ways such as practicing conservation, recycling and being politically active. They have the highest consumption rate of green products, forge the most loyal attachment to those companies that exhibit values most like their own and are insensitive to price. Responsibility for and stewardship of the environment is fundamental to their lifestyle and they continually look for ways to do more to better the environment in every aspect of their daily lives. As early adopters, these consumers help push new products into the mainstream by being the first to “prescreen� and accept new green products and, by their adoption, influence others to purchase those products that meet their approval. For these reasons, these consumers are a critical market for the Regional Food Hub. Acceptance by this type of consumer is fundamental to its success in the marketplace. There are an estimated 600,000 individuals in San Diego County who have committed to lifestyles of health and sustainability and their annual food purchases are estimated between $180,000,000 and $220,000,000.

Consumer-supported Agriculture Work completed in 2009 by the California Center for Cooperative Development identified a hybrid model Community Supported Agriculture program with a direct-to-consumer system that involves a larger set of smaller scale growers and would rely upon a web-based customer interface for the entire transaction, from informing customers about product availability to handling payment and remittance to growers. This strategy aims to reach a segment of the population that would like to participate in Community Supported Agriculture programs, but demand increased flexibility in commitment and the ability to make product selection choices.

Wholesale Direct-to-consumer channels such as farmers markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) are growing rapidly, yet more than 99% of agricultural products consumed in the U.S. are purchased through traditional wholesale channels. Any successful plan to increase local food production demands a system that reaches wholesale markets.

In preliminary work, a snap survey of wholesalers serving San Diego showed substantial commitment to local agriculture with more than $60,000,000 in annual purchases. All those interviewed stated that locally

Page 69

grown produce was an active part of their current purchasing program.

Such responses indicated that there should be the potential for developing a marketing strategy for farmers, growers, and producers based upon the regional geographic location of San Diego County.

In spite of widespread support for the concept of San Diego County grown fruits and vegetables, wholesale buyers efforts to purchase locally grown products have had markedly different levels of success primarily as a function of their commitment to “local;” their established relationships with farmers growers, and producers; their operating procedures; and the limitations of their annual budgets.

Institutions Regional food hubs in other geographic locations across the United States have been successful in engaging institutional clients. The Charlottesville, Virginia based Local Food Hub offers fresh produce and other foods to 45 public schools, four senior centers, three college dining halls, and one hospital as well as to 20 restaurants and ten grocery stores.

In Portland, Oregon the Oregon Health and Sciences University actively recruits local farmers, growers, and producers for their food service program that markets to staff and visitors. They also host a weekly farmers market on site from May through October.

Institutional clients often present initial obstacles to purchasing, such as annual budgeting protocols and accountability. All were concerned that “local” might also mean greater waste. However, most food service directors felt “local” was an important consideration that their programs must address –especially in terms of providing superior nutrition and better customer information and education. All were dedicated to finding solutions to such structural obstacles. Public and private universities generally displayed more advanced experience with local programs. Two respondents had “sustainable dining” programs that educate their student customer about the multiple benefits of “local.” All of these institutional buyers currently rely on regional distributors and none indicated that they had been able to engage growers directly.

Page 70

Project Background Background An initial attempt to measure interest, forecast demand, and predict the feasibility for a regional food hub for San Diego County failed to offer meaningful results. After almost five months of work, preliminary results presented at the 27 April 2011 project status meeting showed the potential for a regional food hub, but identified signifiant obstacles to its success.

The challenges presented were intended as a call to action, but resulted in limited progress in general and abject failure in the critical areas of organization and administration. Leadership by representatives of San Diego County and the University of California San Diego has made possible a reevaluation of the process; a reassessment of project team capabilities and leadership; and a reenergized restart of an assessment of need, and strategic plan for a regional food hub for San Diego County.

Our project team was selected by in November 2010 by the Tierra Miguel Foundation to provide a feasibility study and business plan for a regional food hub. By January 2011 we had completed preliminary market assessment and analysis and identified the size of the current pool of potential growers, farmers, and producers. The team identified the primary market segments that a regional food hub might serve; developed functional criteria for identification and selection of potential sites for a regional food hub; and quantified probable initial and long-term costs associated with its start-up and long-term operation.

By mid-January 2011, our team completed a questionnaire survey for growers, farmers, and producers that could have been administered in person, by telephone, mail or electronic mail, or by means of an on-line survey. It was the intent of our team to survey a representative sample of the potential market pool of 695 growers with a special emphasis on surveying as many of the nearly 200 growers that are certified to sell at Farmers Markets. The questionnaire was administered only once, at the 26 January 2011 meeting of the San Diego Growers and only fifteen total responses were received. Project managers representing the Tierra Miguel Foundation (TMF) did not support requests by our project team for access to other growers, farmers, and producers that would augment the initial, limited survey results and inform the conclusions of the Feasibility Study and support the calculations of the Business Plan.

TMF project managers organized all San Diego-based project meetings from January through April 2011 and invited all participants. While some of these meetings were held in the Escondido offices of the San Diego Farm Bureau, TMF project managers engaged with the Farm Bureau to a very limited extent. TMF project managers did not actively engage the resources of the San Diego Farm Bureau that may have provided critical or strategic value to the project. TMF project managers were unable to expand the group of farmers actively committed to participation in the creation of a regional food hub beyond the limited circle of 25 growers representing less than 450 total acres.

By 27 April 2011 when a preliminary report on the feasibility of a regional food hub was presented to a joint meeting of the San Diego Growers and San Diego County, our team was convinced that TMF was either unable or unwilling to engage with farmers, growers, and producers beyond the very limited group of initial contacts. Although the results of the business

Page 71

plan showed preliminary support for the operation of a regional food hub, the April presentation focused on the challenges that a small group with limited resources would inevitably face. The presentation was intended to provoke a committed response with new action of increased outreach and engagement by TMF. Instead –in less than a month– the Tierra Miguel Foundation board fired the TMF project management team. The TMF board had no institutional knowledge of the project, its work process or the work completed to date. Without the continuity in personnel, TMF was unable to offer a compelling argument in favor of continued involvement in the project –particularly its day-to-day project management and filed for bankruptcy shortly thereafter.

The University of California San Diego selected our team and negotiated a new agreement for revisiting the Feasibility Study and Needs Assessment for the San Diego Regional Food Hub and engaging in a broader needs assessment and strategic planning initiative for a more robust local food system. That agreement took effect on 18 November 2011. Final work products covered by the new agreement were delivered on 18 March 2012.

In all of our work to date, we have tried to approach this work without preconceptions and with an appreciation for the needs of all San Diegans, rather than any individual constituency. Our approach has been to look very broadly at the existing conditions and our goal is to apply our findings to creating a more robust local food system rather than a single element of that system, such as a food hub.

Page 72

Bibliography

Ackerman, K., Plunz, R., Conard, M., Katz, R., Brennan, S., Culligan, P., The Potential for Urban Agriculture in New York City: Growing Capacity, Food Security, & Green Infrastructure, 2011. Urban Design Lab, The Earth Institute, Columbia University.

Allen, W., An Urban Farmer is Rewarded for His Dream, 2008. New York Times Magazine.

Alston, J., P. Pardey and J. James, Setting Agricultural Science Strategy in Tumultuous Economic Times, 2009. California Agriculture. Retrieved from http://ucanr.org/repository/cao/landingpage.cfm?article=ca. v063n01p2&fulltext=yes Angima S.D., & Sullivan, D.M. Evaluating and Reducing Lead Hazard in Gardens and Landscapes, Extension Guide EC-1616-E. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Extension Service, 2008. Retrieved from http:// extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/ec/ec1616-e.pdf Badgley, C. & Perfecto, I. Can organic agriculture feed the world?

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2007.

Bailkey, M., Brown, K., Buchanan, T., Carter, A., Mann, P., Nasr, J., Smit, J., Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe, 2003. Community Food Security Coalition’s North American Urban Agriculture Committee Balmer, K., et al. The Diggable City: Making Urban Agriculture a Planning Priority. PowerPoint pre- sentation prepared for The City of Portland, Oregon, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.portlandonline.com/ bps/index.cfm?c=42793.

Bower, J., Doetch, R., Fields, M., Tiers of the Food System: A New Way of Thinking About Local and Regional Food, 2010. Univesity of Wisconsin – Madison, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems. www.cias.wisc.edu Brady, E., The New Mainstream: A Sustainable Food Agenda for California, 2005. Roots of Change Council/ EcoTrust.

Brown, C., Miller, S., The Impacts of Local Markets: A Review of Research on Farmers Markets and Community Supported Agriculture, 2008. American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Brown, K., and Jameton, A., Public Health Implications of Urban Agriculture. Journal of Public Health Policy Vol. 21, No. 1, 2000.

Brown, K. H., Carter, A, et al. Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe, 2003. Urban Agriculture Committee of the Community Food Security Coalition. Retrieved from http://www.foodsecurity.org/pubs. html#urban_ag Buck, M., Strategic Considerations for Investment in Sustainable Agriculture and Local/ Community Food Systems in Oregon, 2011. Meyer Memorial Trust, Portland, Oregon.

Budiansky, S., Math Lessons for Locavores, 2010. The New York Times Buttery, C., Leach, T., Miller, C., Reynolds, B. Edible Cities: A Report of a Visit to Urban Agriculture Projects in the U.S.A: London, 2008, Sustain Publications.

Barnham, J., Regional Food Hubs: Understanding the Scope and Scale of Food Hub Operations, 03 March 2011. Presentation to Regional Stakeholders Meeting, EcoTrust, Portland, Oregon.

Buzby, J., Wells, H., Vocke, G. Possible Implications for U.S. Agriculture From Adoption of Select Dietary Guidelines. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2006. Retrieved from http://www. ers.usda.gov/publications/err31/err31.pdf.

Bellows, A.. Brown, K., Smit, J. Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture, 2011.

California Network of Regional Food Hubs: A Vision Statement and Strategic Implementation Plan, 2010. Regional Food Hub Advisory Council.

Bhatt, V., Kongshaug, R. (Ed.s). Making the Edible Landscape: A Study of Urban Agriculture in Montreal. Canada, MP Reproduction Inc. 2005.

Retrieved from http://www.mcgill.ca/files/mchg/Intro.pdf.

Camponeschi, C., The Enabling City, 2010. Masters Thesis, York University, Toronto, Canada. www.enablingcity.com

Bickerdike, C. et al. From Factories to Fresh Food: Planning for Urban Agriculture in Somerville. Tufts Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, 2010. Retrieved from http://ase.tufts.edu/uep/ Degrees/field_project_reports/2010/Team_5_Final_Report.pdf.

Bristol’s Local Food – Update, 2011. Bristol Local Food, Bristol, United Kingdom. http://www.bristolfoodnetwork.org/ Bittman, M., New Farmers Finding Their Footing, 16 August 2011. The New York Times.

Page 73

Canning, P., Charles, A., Huang, S., Polenske, K.R., Waters, A. (2010).

Energy Use in the U.S. Food System. ERR- 94,U.S. Dept. of Agri., Econ. Res. Serv. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR94/ERR94. pdf.

Caplow, T. & Nelkin, J. Building-integrated Greenhouse Systems for Low Energy Cooling, 2007. Presented at the 2nd PALENC Conference and 28th AIVC Conference on Building Low Energy Cooling and Advanced Ventilation Technologies in the 21st Century, Crete Island, Greece.

Change is in the Air: LOHAS Consumer Attitudes Shift with the Current Times, 2009. LOHAS Journal, Natural Marketing Institute (NMI). wwwnmisolutions.com Cheng, Z. Urban Soil Contamination: An Obstacle to Successful Urban Agriculture, 2010. Paper presented at the Geological Society of America, Baltimore,MD. Retrieved from: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2010NE/ finalprogram/abstract_169603.htm.

Churchill, A., Sierra, L., Agricultural Cooperatives Engaged in Local Foods Distribution: Three Case Studies, 2010. CA Center for Cooperative Development.

Clancy, K., Ruhf, K., Is Local Enough? Some Arguments for Regional Food Systems, 2010. Choices Magazine, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Claro, J. Vermont Farmers’ Markets and Grocery Stores: A Price Comparison. Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, 2011.

Retrieved from http://nofavt.org/sites/default/files/NOFA%20Price%20 Study.pdf.

Clfford, S., Wal-Mart to Buy More Local Produce, 2010. The New York Times.

Climate Action Plan 2009: City of Portland and Multnomah County, 2010. Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and Multnomah County Sustainability Program.

Cochran, J., Yee, L., The Food Commons 2.0: Imagine, Design, Build…, 2011. The Food Commons. www.thefoodcommons.org Cochran, J., A New Architecture for the California Food System, 2005.

The Vivid Picture Project/ EcoTrust. www.vividpicture.net Cofie, O., Dreschel, P., de Zeeuw, H., Improving Agricultural Productivity in the Rural-Urban Interface through Recycling of Urban Waste, 2003. International Water-Management Institute.

Colasanti, K., Litjens, C., Hamm, M., Growing Food in the City: The Production Potential of Detroit’s Vacant Land, 2010. Detroit: The C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at MSU. Retrieved from http://www. fairfoodnetwork.org/sites/default/files/growing_food_in_the_city.pdf.

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, Supermarketled Development: Asset or Liability, 2010. London, United Kingdom. www. cabe.org/ukx Connecting Values with Consumers: Unlocking Unique and Meaning ful Approaches for Connecting Values with Consumers, 2008. LOHAS Journal, Natural Marketing Institute (NMI). wwwnmisolutions.com Cribb, J. The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It, 2010. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Page 74

Cruse, M.J., Liebman,M., Raman, D.R., Wiedenhoeft, M.H. Fossil Energy Use in Conventional and Low-External-Input Cropping Systems, 2010. Agronomy Journal. Retrieved from https://www.agronomy.org/ story/2010/apr/fri/fossil-energy-use-in-conventional-and-low-externalinput-cropping-systems Daley, J., Growing biofuels on idle land in Salt Lake City. City Farmer News, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.cityfarmer.info/2010/03/16/ growing-biofuels-on-idle-land-in-salt-lake-city/.

Deelstra, T., Boyd,D., Biggelaar, M. Multifunctional Land Use: An Opportunity for Promoting Urban Agriculture in Europe, 2001. UA Magazine. No.1. Retrieved from http://www.ruaf.org/node/183.

Delor, M., Current State of Building-Integrated Agriculture: Its Energy Benefits and Comparison with Green Roofs – Summary, 2001. Mini-project report summary presented at University of Sheffield. Retrieved from http://e-futures.group.shef.ac.uk/publications/pdf/103_12%20Milan%20 Delor%20summary.pdf. de Roo, M., The Green City Guidelines: Techniques for a Healthy Livable City, 2011. www.thegreencity.com Despommier, D. The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century, 2010. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. de Zeeuw, H., Dubbeling, M., Cities, Food, and Agriculture: Challenges and the Way Forward, 2009. AB Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation International Network of Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security. de Zeeuw, H. The Development of Urban Agriculture: Some Lessons Learnt, 2004. Urban Agriculture, Agro-tourism and City Region Development, Beijing, 10-14 October 2004 Dinour, L., Fuentes, L., Freudenberg, N., Reversing Obesity in New York City: An Action Plan for Reducing the Promotion and Accessibility of Unhealthy Food. CUNY Campaign Against Diabetes and Obesity, Public Health Association of New York City, 2008. Retrieved from http://www. phanyc.org/pdfs/2008unhealthyfoodreport.pdf.

Donald, B., Gertler, M., Gray, M., Lobao, L., Re-regionalizing the food system? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2010.

Retrieved from http://cjres.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/2/171.full.

Dossey, L., LOHAS Market Size: U.S. Consumer Sales Soar to Close to $300 Billion, 2010. LOHAS Journal, Natural Marketing Institute (NMI). wwwnmisolutions.com Draft Sustainable Communities Strategy: Fact Sheet, 2011. San Diego Association of Governments. www.sandag.org

Ellsworth, S., Feenstra, G., Assessing the San Diego County Food System: Indicators for a More Secure Future, 2010. San Diego Food System/ UC Davis Agricultural Sustainability Institute.

Heingbert, R., Bomford, M., The Food and Farming Transition: Toward a Post-Carbon Food System, 2009, Post Carbon Institute. Retrieved from www.postcarbon.org/food

Esseks, D., Oberholtzer, L., Clancy, K., Lapping, M., Zurbrugg, A., Sustaining Agriculture in Urbanizing Counties: Insights from 15 Coordinated Case Studies, 2009. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Heinegg, A., et. al. Soil Contamination and Urban Agriculture: A Practical Guide to Soil Contamination Issues for Individuals and Groups, 2002. Montreal: McGill School of Environment, McGill University.

Retreived from: http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/guide%20on%20 soil%20contamination.pdf

Fact Sheet: Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE), 2011. Department of Planning and Land Use, County of San Diego.

Farming Concrete. Farming Concrete 2010 Report, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/53285030/.

Hewitt, B., The Town That Food Saved: How One Community Found Vitality in Local Food, 2009. Rodale

Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, California Department of Conservation, reports Retrieved from http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ FMMP/Pages/Index.aspx

Higgins, B., et al., Institute for Local Self-Government, Farmland Protection Action Guide: 24 Strategies for California, 2002. Retrieved from http://water.lgc.org/resource-tools/Farmland%20Protection%20Action%20 Guide.pdf

Feenstra, G., McGrew, S., Campbell, D., Entrepreneurial Community Gardens: Growing Food, Skills, Jobs, and Communities, 1999. University of California Sustainable Agriculture and Research Program.

Horst, M. Growing Green: An Inventory of Public Lands Suitable for Community Gardening in Seattle, Washington, 2008. Seattle: University of Washington, College of Architecture and Urban Planning.

Feenstra, G., Jaramillo, C., McGrath, S., Grunnell, A.N., Proposed Indicators for Sustainable Food Systems, 2005. Roots of Change Council/ EcoTrust.

Hunt, A., Conserving the Agricultural Landscape Through Farmers Markets, 2005. Master’s Thesis, Duke University.

Gale, F., Direct Farm Marketing as a Rural Development Tool, 1997.

Rural Development Perspectives, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

George, Charles, HRH, Prince of Wales, On the Future of Food, 2012.

Getting to Scale with Regional Food Hubs, 2010. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://blogs.usda. gov/2010/12/14/getting-to-scale-with-regional-food-hubs/ Grimm, J., Food Urbanism: A Sustainable Design Option for Urban Communities, 2009. Ames, Iowa: College of Design, Iowa State University.

Hanak, Ellen, et al., Managing California’s Water From Conflict to Reconciliation, 2007.

Hand, M. Martinez, S., Just What Does Local Mean?, 2010. Choices Magazine, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Hanson, K., Community Food Systems in Oregon: Opportunities to Build Capacity for Food Security, Health, and Economic Vitality, 2010.

Meyer Memorial Trust, Portland, Oregon.

Heimlich, R., Anderson, W., Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agricultural and Rural Land. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Page 75

Jeavons, J. How to Grow More Vegetables Than You Ever Thought Possible on Less Land Than You Can Imagine, 2006. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press.

Kaethler, T.M. Growing Space: The Potential for Urban Agriculture in the City of Vancouver, 2006. Vancouver: School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia.

Karl, T., Melillo, J., Peterson, T., editors. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 2009. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kane, D., Foodhub is Fast Becoming the Facebook of Local Food, 2010.

The Oregonian.

Kaufman, J. & Bailkey, M., Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States, 2000. Institute for Innovations in Local Farming: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper.

King, R., Hand, S., DiGiacomo, G., Clancy, K, Gomez, M., Hardesty, S., Lev, L., McLaughlin, E., Comparing the Structure, Size, and Performance of Local and Mainstream Food Supply Chains, 2010. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Kingsolver, B., Hopp, Sl, Kingsolver, C., Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life, 2007. Harper Collins.

Koc, M., MacRae, R., Mougeot, L. J.A., Welsh, J., editors. For Hungerproof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems, 1999. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

Morgan, K. & Sonnino, R. The Urban Foodscape: World Cities and The New Food Equation, 2010. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society.

Korkki, P., Land Spreading Out, but Not So Far and Wide, 29 February 2012. The New York Times

Morland, K., Diez Roux, A.V., Wing, S., Supermarkets, Other Food Stores, and Obesity: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, 2006.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Kuminoff, N., A. Sokolow and D. Sumner, University of California Agriculture Issues Center, Farmland Conversion: Perceptions and Realities, AIC Issues Brief #16, 2001. Retrieved from http://aic.ucdavis.edu/oa/ brief16.pdf Ladner, P., The Urban Food Revolution: Changing the Way We Feed Cities, 2011. New Society Publishers Lev, L., Gwin, L., Filling the Gaps: Eight Things to Recognize about Farm-Direct Marketing, 2010. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Littman, M., Green City: Gardening and Urban Agriculture Resources, 1996. Neighborhood Works.

Live Well, San Diego! Building Better Health, 2011. County of San Diego, San Diego, California.

Locke, M., Earth to Earth: San Francisco Food Makes Good Compost, 2004. Associate Press.

Low, S. Vogel, S., Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States, 2011. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Report 128.

Lyson, T., Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community, 2004. Lebanon, New Hampshire: Tufts University Press.

Masumoto, D., Epitaph for A Peach: Four Seasons on My Family Farm, 1995. Harper San Francisco

Mougot, L., Growing Better Cities: Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Development, 2006. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

Murphy, S. Is Decentralized Urban Farming the Future of food?, 2010.

GOOD. Retrieved from http://www.good.is/post/is-decentralized-urbanfarming-the-future-of-food/.

Mudd, M., et al., Agricultural Protection in Montana: Local Planning Regulation and Incentives, 2012, Land Use Clinic, University of Montana, School of Law. Myers, A. Vitalizing the Vacant: The Logistics and Benefits Of Middleto Large-Scale Agricultural Production on Urban Land, 2008. Berkeley, California: University of California, Department of Urban and Regional Planning. Retrieved from http://thoughtsonthetable.files.wordpress. com/2008/05/myersvitalizingthevacant1.pdf.

Nairn, M. & Vitiello, D. Lush Lots: Everyday Urban Agriculture from Community Gardening to Community Food Security, 2010. Harvard Design Magazine. Fall/Winter 2009/10, Number 31.

Nasr, J., MacRae, R., Kuhns, J. Scaling up Urban Agriculture in Toronto: Building the Infrastructure, 2010. Metcalf Food Solutions. Toronto, Ontario: George Cedric Metcalf Charitable Foundation.

NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable Strategy for Clean Waterways, 2011. PlanNYC, NYC Environmental Protection.

Matteson, G., Heuer, R., Growing Opportunity: Outlook for the Local Food Systems Marketplace, 2008. Farm Credit Council, Beginning and Small Farmer Program, Washington, D.C.

Nickerson, C., Smart Growth: Implications for Agriculture in Urban Fringe Areas, 2001. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ agoutlook/april2001/ao280g.pdf

McInelly, M., Readdy, J., Olson, S., Portland Public Market: 2 Site Feasibility Study, 2002. The Portland Development Commission

Nyka, L., Water for Urban Strategies, 2007. Verlag der BauhausUniversit채t Weinmar

Mertens, M. and Silverman, H. Estimating Spatially Explicit Population Distribution and Urban Area Expansion in California for the Year 2030, 2005.

Otterman, S. Turning Asphalt Into Edible Education, 2010.The New York Times. Retrieved from http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/ turning-asphalt-into-edible-education/

Mertens, M. and Silverman, H. Ago-ecological Zone Analysis and Evaluation of Correlated Crops in 2030 in California, 2005.

Our Region. Our Future: Creating Sustainable Communities in the San Diego Region, 2011. San Diego Association of Governments. www.sandag. org

Page 76

Philadelphia Orchard Project. About POP, 2007. Retrieved from http:// www.phillyorchards.org/

Saving Americas Farmland: What Works, American Farmland Trust, 1997 — Farmland Preservation

Plunz, R. & Sutto, M.P., Urban Climate Change Crossroads, 2008. New York: Urban Design Lab at the Earth Institute, Columbia University.

San Joaquin Valley Blueprint, Comparison of Performance Measures,2009. Retrieved from http://www.valleyblueprint.org/documents/ Summit_09/summit.followup/scenario.performance.measures.pdf

Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, 2009. New York: Penguin Books.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, 2006. New York: Penguin Books.

Sierra, L., Market Assessment of Buyers of Locally Grown Produce in and Around San Diego County, 2009.

Pons, E., Long, M.A., Pomares, R., Promoting Sustainable Food Systems Through Impact Investing, 2011. The Springcreek Foundation.

Song, Y., Impacts of Urban Growth Management on Urban Form: A Comparative Study of Portland, Oregon, Orange County, Florida and Montgomery County, Maryland, 2003. National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education University of Maryland.

Pothukuchi, K., Joseph, H., Burton, H., Fisher, A., What’s Cooking in Your Food System? A Guide to Community Food Assessment, 2002.

Community Food Security Coalition. Portland, Oregon www.foodsecurity. org

Sommers, P. and Smit, J., Promoting Urban Agriculture: A Strategy for Planners in North America, Europe, and Asia, 1994. Cities Feeding People Report Series, number 9. Ottawa, Canada. International Development Research Centre.

Quelch, J.A., Jocz, K.E., All Business is Local: Why Place Matters More Than Ever in a Global, Virtual, World, 2012

Sontaag, V., Are Food Hubs the Next Big Thing? 2011. Good Food World.

Retrieved from http://www.goodfoodworld.com/2011/01/are-food-hubs-thenext-big-thing/

Reinhardt, B. Global Oil Depletion, The Local Food Movement and the Implications for Agriculture in New York State, 2008. PowerPoint presented at NYSERDA Innovations in Agriculture Conference. Thursday February 21, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/~/media/Files/EIBD/CEA/ bill-reinhardt.ashx?sc_database=web.

Resh, H., Hydroponic Food Production: A Definitive Guidebook of Soilless Food Growing Methods, 2001. Woodbridge Press Publishing Company.

Rhoads, Amanda, et al. The Diggable City, Phase II: Urban Agriculture Inventory Findings and Recommendations, 2006.

Roberts, W., How Bok Choy Can Beat Sprawl, 2005. Now Magazine.

Retrieved from http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=1459 84&archive=24,25,2005 Sacramento Region: Rural-Urban Connections Strategy, 2010.

Sacramento Council of Governments. www.sacog.org/rucs Salatin, J., Folks, This Ain’t Normal: A Farmer’s Advice for Happier Hens, Healthier People, and a Better World, 2011. Center Street Publishing Group.

Salatin, J., The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer, 2010. Polyface.

Salatin, J., Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal, 2007. Polyface.

Saldivar-Tanaka, L., Culturing Neighborhood Open Space, Civic Agriculture, and Community Development: the Case of Latino Community Gardens in New York City, 2002. Masters Thesis, Cornell University.

Page 77

Shuman, M., Barron, A., Wasserman, W., Community Food Enterprise: Local Success in a Global Marketplace, 2009, Wallace Center at Winrock International.

Shuman, M., Masi, B., Schaller, L., The 25% Shift: The Benefits of Food Localization for Northeast Ohio and How to Realize Them, 2010. Cleveland Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.

Sponsler, S., Dimrock, M., Final Recommendations of the San Diego Urban-Rural Roundtable, 2011. San Diego Food System Workign Group/ Roots of Change, San Diego, California.

Steele, D., Proposal for a Public Market at the Existing San Diego Farmers Market, 2008. Public Market Group, San Diego, California.

Stein, D., Wood, S., Gisler, J., Cohen, S., Richaman, J., Gilroy, A., Sanders, B., Urban Food Zoning Code Update Discussion Draft: Enhancing Portlander’s Connection to Their Food and Community, 2012. Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. Portland, Oregon.

The Driftless Region Food and Farm Project: Building a Robust, Regional Food System in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, 2010.

Univesity of Wisconsin – Madison, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems. www.cias.wisc.edu Thomson, E., California Agricultural Vision: Strategies for Sustainability, 2010. American Farmland Trust. http://www.farmland.org

Thompson, E., California Agricultural Land Loss & Conservation: The Basic Facts, 2009. Retrieved from www.farmland.org/california — Farmland Preservation Thomson, E., Harper, A., Kraus, S., Think Globally – Eat Locally: San Francisco Foodshed Assessment, 2008. American Farmland Trust. http:// www.farmland.org Thomson, E., Paving Paradise: A New Perspective on California Farmland Conversion, 2007. American Farmland Trust. http://www. farmland.org Thompson, E., American Farmland Trust, The Future Is Now: Central Valley Farmland at the Tipping Point? 2006. Retrieved from http://www. farmland.org/programs/states/futureisnow/default.asp Tomkins, M. The Edible Urban Landscape: An Assessment Method for Retro-Fitting Urban Agriculture Into an Inner London Test Site, 2006.

Dagenham, UK: MS Architecture, Advanced Environment and Energy Studies.

Urban Partners. Farming in Philadelphia: Feasibility Analysis and Next Steps. Philadelphia: Institute for Innovations in Local Farming, 2007.

Retrieved from http://www.spinfarming.com/common/pdfs/STF_inst_for_ innovations_dec07.pdf.

Viljoen, A., Bohn, K. Howe, J., CPULs: Continuously Productive Urban Landscapes: Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities, 2005.

Architectural Press.

Vitiello, D. and Nairn, M. Community Gardening in Philadelphia, 2008 Harvest Report, 2009. Philadelphia: Penn Planning and Urban Studies.

University of Pennsylvania.

Vogel, S., Low, S., Farmers’ Direct Sales to Consumers Growing, 2010.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

West, K., Local, Healthy, Equitable, Prosperous: Strategic Planning for a Sustainable Food System, 2010. Multnomah Food Action Plan – 2025.

Multnomah County, Oregon.

Wilson, D.S., The Neighborhood Project: Using Evolution to Improve My City, One Block at a Time, 2011. Little Brown & Company.

Zajfen, V., Fresh Food Distribution Models for the Greater Los Angeles Region, 2008. Center for Food and Justice. Urban & Environmental Policy Institute, Occidental College.

Page 78

Project Team

Joseph Readdy Architect, Inc. 3845 sw Condor Avenue | Portland | Oregon | 97239 50.260.0850 www.josephreaddy.com The project team included: Joseph Readdy Architect, Inc. Ron Paul Consulting Urbsworks, Inc. Paste in Place Jerome Pollock Sara Moore

Joseph Readdy Ron Paul Marcy McInelly Ryan Sullivan

The project team is grateful to our collaborators from the San Diego County Farm Bureau: Eric Larson Kristin Hukari

Healthy Works San Diego Regional Healthy Food System Strategic Plan

joseph readdy architect, inc.

3845 sw condor avenue | portland | oregon | 97239 www.josephreaddy.com