Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
Research Memo: Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones in San Francisco, California
Nur Atiqa Asri PLAN 722B Prof. Jonathan Martin Fall 2014
1
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 2
Table of Contents
Page No. Executive Summary I. Introduction II. Urban Agriculture
3 3-4 4
Why Urban Agriculture?
4-5
Encouraging Urban Agriculture
5-6
The Case of Maryland
6-7
III. AB 551 Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone, San Francisco Regulations Who will benefit? Potential Problems
7 8-9 9-10 11
Analysis
12-15
The future of AB 551
15-16
Conclusion & Recommendations
16-17
Bibliography
18-19
Other References Appendix
20 21-28
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
Executive Summary Urban agriculture is a growing food source in the US, and California is leading the nation with the implementation of the first ever Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone in the city of San Francisco. The bold tax incentive program is set to increase and secure the availability of private land for urban farmers. Although in its infancy, the program is a remarkably integrated effort by San Francisco’s Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Planning and Department of Public Health, to incentivize urban agricultural activity while still enacting high standards of compliance to existing zoning, health and safety regulations. While the impacts of the program are still unknown, the report offers some administrative recommendations for future consideration by the City of San Francisco and other jurisdictions that are interested in offering similar tax incentive programs for urban agriculture. I. Introduction The report aims to inform other city and state leaders of San Francisco’s recent adoption of California AB551, which allows counties and cities to establish Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones for the purpose of supporting local food production. An in-depth study of the procedures, costs and benefits of the ordinance will hopefully serve as an encouraging example for other urban areas in the US to incentivize urban agricultural practices and also, act as a temporary but engaging solution to vacant lots.
In particular, an interview with Eli Zigas, Food Systems and Urban Agriculture Program Manager of SPUR provided great insight into the discussions between legislators behind the genesis and adoption of California AB 551 and San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 53A. Zigas was involved in providing feedback on early drafts of the legislation and has been in conversations with the various agencies that will administer the program. Unfortunately, Zigas has not been as actively involved in the implementation of the ordinance and could not comment extensively on the current cycle of applications. Representatives of the San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks were also not available for comment during the preparation of this report.
3
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 4
Existing literature on urban agriculture and available official documents on urban agriculture legislation and regulations in the US mostly highlight the benefits of the practice. They fail, however, to examine different types of ordinances and their varying impacts on urban farming practices.
II. Urban Agriculture Urban agriculture (UA) is widely accepted as the practice of growing, processing and distributing food and nonfood plant and crops and the raising of livestock, directly for the urban market, both within and on the fringe of urban areas1. This movement grew when the concern for food miles2 began in the late 1980s as the ever-increasing concentration of people in cities was found to further remove people from their sources of food. The increasingly heavy reliance on food grown and transported from hundreds or thousands of miles away, combined with commodity price volatility, made food unnecessarily expensive and inaccessible. It was not until early 2000s that local eating entered the mainstream.
Today, UA is a complementary practice to rural agriculture and is adopted in myriad ways across different urban areas and by different urban farmers. Common examples of places in which UA occurs include rooftops, window boxes, backyards and vacant lots of various sizes. UA generates resources, services and products largely for the urban area in which it is found by tapping on only locally available resources.
a. Why Urban Agriculture? There are a number of obvious reasons to promote UA in the light of improving public welfare. Around the US, states have increasingly acknowledged the ability of urban farms and gardens to generate more green spaces in cities that serve recreational and educational functions, in
1
Mougeot L. Growing Better Cities. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre; 2006.
2
Cockrall-King J. Food And The City. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books; 2012.
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
addition to offering healthy food access and security. In California alone, it is estimated that nearly one million people live in food deserts3 and this lack of affordable fresh and healthy food is associated with wider health problems such as risk of obesity and malnutrition. Therefore, urban agriculture presents a solution to improving the detrimental state of health in communities in the US by bringing nutritional food sources to the doorsteps of many.
Although not a primary motivator4, where UA is conducted on vacant lots that were previously abandoned and blighted, the practice also helps reduce illegal dumping that often occurs in such places by introducing constant community activity and maintenance of the lot. Cities that have actively introduced urban agriculture have also found that it creates opportunities to educate communities on healthy nutrition and build community rapport.
The various socio-economic and environmental benefits for urban communities have led to an increase in the number of states adopting legislation to increase access to urban land for agricultural or livestock production. Over 13 states have passed such legislation and even more jurisdictions are assisting local food producers increase access to urban food markets 5 by incorporating urban agriculture as part of their comprehensive plans (Appendix Table 1).
b. Encouraging Urban Agriculture Many of the programs implemented in the US involve establishing support for urban farmers by creating committees that study, authorize, regulate and make recommendations for urban farms, financing transportation and distribution of urban agricultural products to markets, or
3
www.cityofberkeley.info. City Council Report: Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone. 2014. Available at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aa05P0OM5GgJ:www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2014/05_Ma y/Documents/2014-05-20_Item_37_Urban_Agriculture_Incentive.aspx+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a. Accessed October 17, 2014.
4
5
Zigas E. Interview on SF Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. 2014.
Ncsl.org. NCSL Urban Agriculture State Legislation. 2014. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/agriculture-and-ruraldevelopment/urban-agriculture-state-legislation.aspx. Accessed September 29, 2014.
5
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 6
increasing available land for UA. Little effort has been made so far to provide incentives to UA farmers through grants or tax breaks. In fact, thus far, only Texas has established an urban farm microenterprise support program which supplies loans to expand, renovate, improve or establish new owner-operated urban farm microenterprise programs6. Urban agriculture land use regulation remains an emerging area of planning in the US and should be honed beyond simply removing barriers to the practice. Providing incentives, as we will uncover, can empower more stakeholders to participate in the urban farming movement.
c. The Case of Maryland In 2010, the state of Maryland finally set the stage for tax breaks for UA projects. It had authorized tax credit for properties used exclusively for UA purposes. However, there was much opposition in implementing the program for fear of eroding property tax bases and Council Bill 14-0420 has since been amended to become more inclusive. In early 2014, Maryland General Assembly passed the “Property Tax Credit – Urban Agricultural Property” bill authorizing Maryland counties and the City of Baltimore to implement a property tax credit for all urban land used for agricultural purposes.
The bill identifies Urban Agriculture Property to be any land larger than 1/8 acre and smaller than 5 acres, located in a priority funding area and used for urban agricultural purposes7. The Maryland state law is the most similar example to our case of San Francisco Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. However, as of today, Baltimore City Council have yet to decide whether to implement the tax credit in the City of Baltimore, leaving San Francisco as the pioneer implementer of urban agriculture tax incentives.
6
Capitol.state.tx.us. 82(R) HB 2994 - Introduced version - Bill Text. 2014. Available at: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB02994I.htm. Accessed October 7, 2014.
7
Maryland.gov. 2014 Regular Session - House Bill 223 Third Reader. 2014. Available at: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/hb/hb0223t.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2014.
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
III. AB 551 Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone, San Francisco AB 551 (2013) allows a county or city to establish an Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone (UAIZ) for the purpose of supporting local food production and to enter into contracts with landowners who agree to restrict the use of their land for a minimum of 5 years for small- scale agricultural production8. In the case of San Francisco, the entire city and county is defined as the ‘urbanized area’ in question with a combined total population of more than 837,000 people9—far greater than the minimum requirement of 250 000 in the legislation. The geographic boundaries may be seen in Appendix Figure 1.
The UAIZ program was modeled after a combination of California’s Williamson Act10 and Mills’ Act, programs that aimed to preserve prime agricultural land and offered tax incentives to historically preserved buildings11. Therefore, in return for agricultural uses in the urbanized area, the UAIZ program offers landowners property tax assessments below normal, based upon the average per-acre value of irrigated cropland in California as opposed to full market value.
Prior to the legislation, urban agricultural activity was already widely carried out in the city under two sub categories—neighborhood agriculture and urban industrial agriculture—each with their own physical size, production and sale restrictions. The operational and physical standards for UA were established in early 2000s as the city’s planners began to ride on mainstream concern for food miles and solving food desert concerns of the state. In fact, in 2011, zoning was updated so that small-scale farming no longer required a conditional use permit. This further removed any administrative barriers for urban farmers in the city, easing the process of
8
Byrne M, Chiu D, Cohen. Administrative Code- Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act Program And Procedures. San Francisco; 2013. U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits 10 th Fulton W. Guide To California Planning. 4 Edition. Point Arena, Calif.: Solano Press Books; 2012 11 Ting, Phil. Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Bill Analysis. California Senate Governance and Finance Committee; 2013. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0551-0600/ab_551_cfa_20130627_160004_sen_comm.html Accessed October 7, 2014. 9
7
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 8
application with the local government and also encouraged more people to participate in urban agricultural activities. In Appendix Table 2, a full list of the various types of urban agriculture carried out in San Francisco shows the growing practice on both public and private lands, and by a range of stakeholders. These include formal groups and organizations, individual farmers and also church groups. Their gardens, orchards and farms are scattered across the city (Appendix Figure 2), however, majority are located on city-owned land. This indicates that although UA and local food production was already a key component of the City’s plan, there was still a deficiency in private land accessible to UA.
a. Regulations This deficiency will hopefully be resolved by the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone, which increases the use of privately owned, vacant land for UA and improves land security for UA projects. There are, of course, a number of criteria for parcels of land to meet before becoming eligible for lower tax assessments and they include: Location:
within zoning district where Neighborhood Agricultural/ Large scale urban agricultural uses are permitted uses
Size:
0.1 – 3.0 acres
Character:
no dwelling units on land, but may include structures that are accessory to agricultural activity Source: www.cityofberkeley.info
Certificates of eligibility are issued by San Francisco Planning Department; however, they are not permits to begin work. A farther application process by the Department of Recreation and Park is mandatory, and a tax assessment and final approval by the Agricultural Commissioner must follow before a contract between the City and property owner can be drafted.
The terms of contract include a minimum dedication period of 5 years for the plot to be fully dedicated to commercial or non- commercial UA, the property owner’s obligation and
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
commitment to conduct UA in accordance with regulations, rules and requirements, and finally, the restricted use of pesticides or fertilizers.
The strict terms and regulations ensure minimum land tenure for City farmers and gardeners who are constantly faced with unpredictable circumstances and relying on month-to-month leases. A popular farm in San Francisco known as the Little City Gardens, for example, had been facing this problem in recent years12. The group often would not know how long they were able to stay on the land they had acquired and were suffering financially from such instability.
Furthermore, the regulations maintain that UA plots must be in compliance with existing zoning regulations and therefore have restrictions on the use of pesticides or fertilizers on plots located close to dwelling units. This prevents any possible nuisance attacks on the polluting effects on air and soil caused by UA. Also, the maximum plot size of 3 acres ensures intensity of UA activity on the land does not pose harm or act as nuisance to neighboring properties and its inhabitants.
b. Who will benefit? As mentioned earlier, urban farming groups such as Little City Gardens, who have long been suffering from the lack of stable land tenure, are one of the beneficiaries of the UAIZ. However, there are many others who stand to gain from the UAIZ in San Francisco, including owners of eligible properties, low-income households and whole communities—from school children to the elderly. The benefits that each of these stakeholders stands to gain may be economic, social or environmental.
Owners of eligible property for UAIZ, in particular, stand to gain financially from converting their
12
Zigas E. Interview on SF Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. 2014.
9
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 10
land or property to cultivate commercial UA. By having their lands valued below normal, based upon the average per-acre value of irrigated cropland in California, landowners pay much lower taxes and therefore lose less money from tax bills in the case where lands are not currently developable. In 2013, for example, the acreage value of cropland in California, based on the most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture statewide assessment, has been cited as low as $12,500 per acre, or $0.29 per square foot. However, this financial benefit should not be the main driver for implementing UAIZ. Instead, landowners should also consider the following social and environmental benefits to implementing UAIZ.
Needless to say there are potentially great environmental benefits to UAIZ that many proponents have named, including that city-grown foods can help cut down on traffic and greenhouse gas emissions because of reduced distances from field to table13. Also, the addition of open spaces in the city of San Francisco increases the city’s overall green infrastructure, in line with the City’s goals set forth in its General Plan’s Recreation and Open Space Element14.
UA also leads to increased community engagement with the establishment of education and outreach programs on farms. The San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department has thus far been supporting and managing many community gardens on City-owned property through the Community Gardens Program. The program not only conducts after-school classes for young children on urban agriculture and healthy eating, but also provides opportunities for local communities to come together, interact and maintain farms as volunteers during their free time. Community building occurs at all ages on these farms as a result of the Community Gardens Program and is set to extend to those on privately- owned land under the UAIZ program.
13
Wolf, K. (2012). Cities Cultivate New Approaches to Urban Agriculture. California Planning and Development Report. Retrieved from http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3252 San Francisco Planning Department. Recreation And Open Space: An Element Of The San Francisco General Plan. San Francisco: City and County of San Francisco; 2013.
14
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
Furthermore, being outdoors on urban farms also enables large portions of communities to take on more active lifestyles and engage in recreational activities, reinforcing healthy habits.
c. Potential Problems At the same time, however, the UAIZ would appear to pose some threats to the City’s housing stock. The dissent from public regarding use of land for agriculture during a housing shortage has been loud in the media with many arguing that vacant lots need to immediately be channeled to solve the housing crisis 15 . However, this remains a facial resistance of the ordinance. Given that the program targets land that is unlikely to be developed in the near future, the UAIZ would not be imposing on potential housing stock. Such undevelopable sites include those that are “oddly shaped, not well-suited for development, or where the owner (for personal or business reasons) does not intend to put up a building anytime soon”16. Instead, the UAIZ program acts as a temporary 5-year remedy for those landowners who may not be able to, for the time being, develop vacant lots.
Eli Zigas of SPUR also raised another concern of potentially high fees being charged by agencies to process applications and administer the program. This would act as a financial obstacle for smaller farmers, discouraging them from operating and essentially undermining the goals of the ordinance. While there are no fees for at least a year from the enactment of the ordinance, there are still tax-recording fees to be paid. As of May 2013, these would not amount to greater than $10017 and would therefore not seem to be a great barrier for farmers. However, application fees charged by the Board of Supervisors and additional fees to cover the time and materials needed for each relevant agency to monitor the Contracts have not been disclosed
15
Friedersdorf, C. (2014). How Urban Farming is Making San Francisco's Housing Crisis Worse. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/how-urban-farming-is-making-san-franciscos-housing-crisis-worse/379438/ 16 Zigas, E. (2014). Urban Farming is not Making San Francisco's Housing Crisis Worse. CityLab. Retrieved from http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/09/urban-farming-is-not-making-san-franciscos-housing-crisis-worse/379652/ 17 Sfassessor.org,. (2014). CCSF Office of Assessor-Recorder : Recorder Information. Available at: http://www.sfassessor.org/index.aspx?page=77#Fees. Accessed on 26 October 2014
11
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 12
and may still act as financial deterrents.
d. Analysis In order to examine the ordinance in San Francisco more closely, we identify i) the relevant obstacles removed, ii) incentives provided and ii) regulations enacted by the UAIZ. These criteria have been identified by the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute as part of their Sustainable Community Development Code Framework and are commonly used to assess the effectiveness of sustainable land use regulations by aligning means with ends. Unlike other approaches, the Code Framework allows for contextual and place-based evaluations, enabling communities to customize their land use and development rules according to their own particular political, economic and environmental circumstances18.
i) Remove barriers In the case of San Francisco, most obstacles to urban agriculture had already been removed by earlier legislation, particularly for community gardens, gardens in dwellings and gardens on industrial sites. This is because the sale of products grown in such sites was already permitted onsite and offsite with appropriate permits. Also, conditional use permits for small-scale farming, as mentioned earlier, was no longer required for small-scale farming. Essentially, the UAIZ program takes on a more aggressive approach in removing barriers as it provides a more comprehensive support for urban agriculture by acting as a “one-stop” shop of application processes for farmers. By also providing information and technical assistance19 to farmers, the entire process of setting up is easier and cheaper to do.
In addition, more private land is now made available to farmers compared with levels before the legislation. These lands, with a minimum contracted commitment of 5 years, provide urban
18
Introduction. (2013). In Sustainable Community Development Code Framework (1st ed.). Denver. RMLUI Byrne M, Chiu D, Cohen. Administrative Code- Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act Program And Procedures. San Francisco; 2013.
19
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
farmers with more space and opportunity to cultivate larger amounts of crops and with greater financial stability. Unlike before, farmers need not worry about losing land to greater profitmaximizing pressures and they may now have a wider range of location options.
Although the legislation clearly removes barriers to land security and accessibility, there are still obstacles to the sale of products of larger farms or commercial UA lots and this can still be a huge discouragement to farmers. In particular, the sale of processed and prepared foods, anything that has been cut or packed, may require additional permits and the time and cost of such administrative requirements can potentially eat into revenue of farms. Sale permits, and other accessory structure permits can amount to substantial costs for some farmers, creating barriers to their participation in urban agriculture.
ii) Provide incentives The UAIZ program is the first of its kind in the country to create monetary incentives for urban agriculture. Prior to the legislation in San Francisco, no city in the US had provided tax breaks as many feared the drastic erosion of tax bases in cities. Many had merely attempted to streamline administrative processes such as the review and application of urban agricultural developments, or provided density bonuses and open space credits in exchange for conducting urban agricultural activity20. This daring leap by San Francisco will indeed set the tone for other pro-UA cities around the country, especially if it proves to be successful in the next few years. The tax incentive is desperately required to encourage landowners of vacant, blighted properties in urban areas, who are unable to develop their land for a variety of reasons, to allow the land to be used for food production. Without the lower tax assessments, many such landowners would rather leave their properties unattended rather than run the risk of operating an urban farm—which may affect soil conditions. Therefore, it can be said that the tax incentives are an aggressive approach by the City to encourage urban agriculture at greater intensity.
20
Food Production and Security. (2013). In Sustainable Community Development Code Framework (1st ed.). Denver. RMLUI
13
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 14
iii) Standards & Regulations Finally, the thorough standards and regulations of the UAIZ program ensure that urban agricultural sites are maximized in the City and are in compliance with existing zoning regulations and city plans. Given that the boundary of the legislation is that of the entire city and county, no urban sites are excluded from the program. This allows for maximum opportunity for landowners to participate.
At the same time, the legislation is careful to avoid nuisance claims and nonconforming uses as the Planning Department, as part of the application process, ensures that all properties in the program meet the eligibility criteria set forth and are consistent with existing zoning regulations. All urban agriculture projects in the contract must have all necessary land use approvals before being issued a Certificate of Eligibility; this might even include a change of use permit. Periodical checks by the Department of Public Health additionally ensure that sites are safe and healthy for use by public and that farmers comply with pre-established restrictions on pesticides and fertilizers.
Next, by attaching contracts to properties, subsequent owners are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract, and obligated to comply with the terms identified in the contract unless the new owner terminates the contract and pays the cancellation fee. These regulations in a transfer of ownership ensures land tenureship for urban farmers in San Francisco for a minimum of 5 years and this is important in maintaining local food production levels, as laid out in the Food System Policy Program21, and boosting confidence so that in the long-term, more farmers will be encouraged to get involved in urban agriculture.
21
Sf-planning.org,. (2014). San Francisco Planning Department : Food System Policy Program. Retrieved 8 November 2014, from http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=3539#resources
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
The UAIZ also requires sites to periodically be open to the public through “agricultural education or outreach, distribution and/ or sales of agricultural products, or general public open hours like a community garden”. This is especially crucial to achieving the fifth objective of the Recreation and Open Space Element in the City’s general plan22 which is to engage communities in the stewardship of recreation programs and open spaces. The volunteer and outreach programs serve to educate communities on local biodiversity and habitat values, and foster responsible actions toward local ecologies. This requirement stands to benefit communities in the long-term as more locals engage in the urban agricultural process and recognize its importance in their neighborhoods. Without the UA sites being open to public, communities will risk being left out of the food production process and will therefore be unable to fully understand the value of UA.
e. The Future of AB551 San Francisco, the first and only city to implement the law, began its first round of applications October 1st 2014 and the results of this cycle has yet to be disclosed by the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department and success rates cannot currently be determined23. Its full effectiveness in increasing land access and land use tenure remains to be seen. However, California as a state is seeing an increased acceptance of this move toward incentivizing UA.
Even in its genesis, there was little organized opposition against AB551 in the state legislature. The only concern raised was of the tax exemption that was feared would create ‘a slippery slope of exemptions that would slowly erode the property tax base’24. The Board of Supervisors’ concerns were quickly addressed by limiting the size of parcels to 3.0 acres and limiting total value of all contracts to $250 000 in any given year, which is believed to strongly prevent high tax revenue losses.
San Francisco Planning Department. Recreation And Open Space: An Element Of The San Francisco General Plan. San Francisco: City and County of San Francisco; 2013. 22
23 24
Zigas E. Interview on SF Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. 2014. Zigas E. Interview on SF Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. 2014.
15
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 16
Also, within its first year, two more cities have held preliminary discussions about implementing AB551—City of Sacramento and City of Berkeley. According to Eli Zigas, the state’s long history of being at the forefront of sustainable policy development and the ‘willingness of policymakers to do things that have not been tried elsewhere [has] certainly [helped the state] be at the forefront of urban agriculture policy’.
IV. Conclusion & Recommendation Overall, the legislation is targeted to do two main things: provide urban agriculture projects more security and incentivize the use of private land for urban agriculture. Unpredictable land tenure in San Francisco has made investments in irrigation systems or long-term crops risky for urban agriculture projects. The UAIZ program will therefore address this issue of financial pressures on small urban farmers while also addressing issues of degradation on vacant lots. Also, the program must also be commended on the enormous integrated effort between the Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Planning and Department of Public Health, to ensure a healthy and safe implementation of the UAIZ program. The synchronization of their efforts and regulations has also created a more efficient application process for urban farmers in San Francisco. The program, however, can still be further improved by:
•
Amending the legislation to address the barriers to food sale production
•
Creating a robust database of maps and a publicly-accessible monitoring system of farms in the UAIZ program
Currently, the UAIZ program still requires that contracted farms obtain Certified Producers Certificates from a separate agency in order to sell produce and plants offsite at a farmers market, for example. Future legislation amendments should consider integrating the application
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
process for such sale permits and certification into the UAIZ program in order to streamline the process for urban farmers and incentivize their participation in UA. This may involve greater coordination with the California Department of Food and Agriculture, who oversees the distribution of relevant sale permits to urban agricultural products. Should this be achieved, the program’s position as the ‘one-stop’ shop for UA in San Francisco will be further boosted.
Also, there is currently an absence of resources that inform interested farmers in the City of the available lots in the program. Available online resources on the Department of Planning and Department of Recreation and Parks’ websites describe the program in detail, explain the application process and suggest funding options, however, there is no notice page that lists or maps geographically the location of participating lots in the Program. A live monitoring system made publicly-accessible will enable potential farmers to gauge the availability of privatelyowned lots for future projects.
Finally, the program should consider an application process that is rolling in order to encourage even more new farms to set up throughout the year. In 2015, there are only three application cycle deadlines scheduled: March 1st, June 1st, and August 1st. Understandably, the team working on processing the applications may not be substantial enough to support a rolling process, however, as the movement grows, the Department should offer this more proactive application process.
Despite this, San Francisco is clearly continuing its support towards those who are trying to grow food locally, and in increasingly more creative and bold ways. The city as a whole stands to benefit from such a movement and should the UAIZ prove to be a success in the near future, other cities in the US should ride on the Californian wave toward monetarily incentivizing UA to sustain local food production.
17
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 18
 Bibliography 1.
Mougeot L. Growing Better Cities. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre; 2006.
2.
Cockrall-King J. Food And The City. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books; 2012.
3.
www.cityofberkeley.info. City Council Report: Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone. 2014. Available at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aa05P0OM5GgJ:www.cityofberkele y.info/Clerk/City_Council/2014/05_May/Documents/2014-0520_Item_37_Urban_Agriculture_Incentive.aspx+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Accessed October 17, 2014.
4.
Zigas E. Interview on SF Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. 2014.
5.
Ncsl.org. NCSL Urban Agriculture State Legislation. 2014. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/agriculture-and-rural-development/urban-agriculture-statelegislation.aspx. Accessed September 29, 2014.
6.
Capitol.state.tx.us. 82(R) HB 2994 - Introduced version - Bill Text. 2014. Available at: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB02994I.htm. Accessed October 7, 2014.
7.
Maryland.gov. 2014 Regular Session - House Bill 223 Third Reader. 2014. Available at: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/hb/hb0223t.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2014.
8.
Byrne M, Chiu D, Cohen. Administrative Code- Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act Program And Procedures. San Francisco; 2013.
9.
U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits
10.
Fulton W. Guide To California Planning. 4th Edition. Point Arena, Calif.: Solano Press Books; 2012
11.
Ting, Phil. Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Bill Analysis. California Senate Governance and Finance Committee; 2013. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/1314/bill/asm/ab_0551-0600/ab_551_cfa_20130627_160004_sen_comm.html Accessed October 7, 2014.
12.
Zigas E. Interview on SF Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. 2014.
13.
Wolf, K. (2012). Cities Cultivate New Approaches to Urban Agriculture. California Planning and Development Report. Retrieved from http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3252
Â
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri 14.
San Francisco Planning Department. Recreation And Open Space: An Element Of The San Francisco General Plan. San Francisco: City and County of San Francisco; 2013.
15.
Friedersdorf, C. (2014). How Urban Farming is Making San Francisco's Housing Crisis Worse. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/how-urbanfarming-is-making-san-franciscos-housing-crisis-worse/379438/
16.
Zigas, E. (2014). Urban Farming is not Making San Francisco's Housing Crisis Worse. CityLab. Retrieved from http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/09/urban-farming-is-not-makingsan-franciscos-housing-crisis-worse/379652/
17.
Sfassessor.org,. (2014). CCSF Office of Assessor-Recorder : Recorder Information. Available at: http://www.sfassessor.org/index.aspx?page=77#Fees. Accessed on 26 October 2014
18.
Introduction. (2013). In Sustainable Community Development Code Framework (1st ed.). Denver. RMLUI
19.
Byrne M, Chiu D, Cohen. Administrative Code- Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act Program And Procedures. San Francisco; 2013.
20.
Food Production and Security. (2013). In Sustainable Community Development Code Framework (1st ed.). Denver. RMLUI
21.
Sf-planning.org,. (2014). San Francisco Planning Department : Food System Policy Program. Retrieved 8 November 2014, from http://www.sfplanning.org/index.aspx?page=3539#resources
22.
San Francisco Planning Department. Recreation And Open Space: An Element Of The San Francisco General Plan. San Francisco: City and County of San Francisco; 2013.
23.
Zigas E. Interview on SF Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. 2014.
24.
Zigas E. Interview on SF Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. 2014.
Appendix Figure 1 Sf-planning.org. San Francisco Planning Department: Map Library. 2014. Available at: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2426. Accessed November 4, 2014. Appendix Figure 2 “Harvesting the City” Table 2. The Urbanist. May 2012. SPUR. Available at: http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/harvesting-city. Accessed October 17, 2014. Appendix Table 1 Hodgson K. Planning For Food Access And Community- Based Food Systems. American Planning Association; 2012. Appendix Table 2 “What types of Urban Agriculture does San Francisco Have?” Figure 2. May 2012. SPUR. Available at: http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2012-05-14/harvesting-city. Accessed October 17, 2014.
19
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 20
Other References Balmer, Kevin, James Gill, Heather Kaplinger, Joe Miller, Melissa Peterson, Amanda Rhoads, Paul Rosenbloom, and Teak Wall. The Diggable City: Making Urban Agriculture a Planning Priority. Rep. Portland, OR: Portland State University, 2005. Beery, Moira. "Planning to Support Urban Agriculture." Web log post. UEPI News and Commentary. The Urban & Environmental Policy Institute (UEPI), 17 June 2009. <http://uepi.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/let%E2%80%99s‐plan‐tosupport‐urban‐agriculture/>. Best A. Urban Farming Law Breaks New Ground. American Planning Association; 2013:10-11. Available at: http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/handy/ESP171/Urban_farming_law.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2014. Community Law Center. Maryland State Legislature Passes New Urban Agriculture Tax Credit Bill. 2014. Available at: http://communitylaw.org/urbanagriculturelaw/propertytaxcredit. Accessed November 5, 2014. Jacobi, Petra, Axel Drescher, and Jorg Amend. Urban Agriculture Justification And Planning Guidelines. City Farmer, Canada's Office of Urban Agriculture, 22 June 2000. <http://www.cityfarmer.org/uajustification.html>. Kaufman, Jerry, and Martin Bailkey. Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States. Working paper. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2000. Sfgov.legistar.com. Administrative Code - Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act Program and Procedures. 2014. Available at: https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=3213053&GUID=EFB99645-BD09-4B4E-9CDB5EA1A685BCFA. Accessed September 17, 2014. Zeeuw, Henk, Sabine Guendel, and Hermann Waibel. "The integration of agriculture in urban policies." Urban Agriculture Magazine. Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF), July 2000. <http://www.ruaf.org/node/108>.
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
Appendix 1 Interview on SF Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. 2014. Interviewer: Nur Atiqa Asri Date: October 21st 2014 Interviewee: Eli Zigas, Food Systems and Urban Agriculture Program Manager San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
1. Many of the barriers to urban agriculture had already been removed prior to the ordinance in question. The movement was also gaining popularity in San Francisco. What then was the main motivation for taking the next step and providing incentives? a. Was there a serious problem of illegal dumping/ social ills breeding on vacant land that led to the inception of the ordinance? It is true that many of the regulatory barriers to urban ag in SF had been removed. However, for urban ag to thrive, there were still two barriers that this legislation sought to address. The first was an issue of land access. Some urban ag advocates, including those from the Greenhouse Project, were seeking a tool that could help encourage a private landowner to allow urban ag on their land when they otherwise might not. The second was an issue of land tenure. The urban farm Little City Gardens, while it had access to land, was on a month-to-month lease and did not know how long it would be able to stay on the land. The issue of illegal dumping or other activity on vacant land was not a primary motivator of the legislation. 2. What were initial barriers to the passing of the bill? Where was main opposition coming from, if any? In the state legislature, there was not much organized opposition. The only example of opposition was from the state assessor’s association. The legislation’s sponsor, Phil Ting, made some changes to address some of their concerns (including a maximum parcel size of 3 acres and making the calculation of the tax reduction very simple and straightforward). The Assessors Assc. was concerned that this kind of tax exemption would create a slippery slope of exemptions that would slowly erode the property tax base. 3. How was the 5-year contract period decided upon? The original proposal had 10 years, but we got feedback that both property owners and some urban ag practitioners might be hesitant to commit to that long of a time period, which would reduce the impact of the incentive. However, advocates for the law also felt that for both the city/county to get a good deal from its tax break, and for urban ag projects to have greater land security, the commitment should not be less than 5 years. 4. Do you expect the tax reductions will become a financial burden on the city when the program takes off? No. In San Francisco, I don’t expect that there will be many landowners who seek to take advantage of the law. It will support a handful of projects, but we are not going
21
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 22
to see a flood of new urban ag projects in San Francisco. Also, the law requires that if the total values of all the contracts exceeds $250,000 in any given year that any additional contracts must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. I do not think we will hit that $250,000 threshold and, if we do, I think that threshold triggering Board of Supervisor review will help keep the revenue loss under control. 5. Which part of the City is the UAIZ expected to take off and why? The UAIZ covers the whole city and I don’t think there’s one part of the city that will necessarily benefit from this more than any other. 6. Are there specific regulations in the ordinance that you feel needs modification? Why? I think the ordinance is a good one. I’m a little concerned about how much city agencies may charge in fees to process applications and administer the program in the subsequent years. But, for now, I don’t think the law needs any modifications. 7. Other than developers sitting on vacant land and waiting for right time to develop, who will reap greatest benefits from the UAIZ? Urban ag projects will get either access to land and/or land tenure – so that will be a great benefit to gardeners, farmers and those they interact with. More broadly, SPUR believes that the city benefits generally from urban agriculture in a number of way. For an articulation of how, see: www.spur.org/publicharvest 8. Are there foreseeable problems with implementation of the ordinance? As with anything new, there will be some adjustment period in figuring out how to administer the applications and enforce the contracts. But, that is not specific to this ordinance. 9. Can you comment on the first cycle of applications that took place October 1st (Application numbers, success rates, problems faced by applicants) I believe two projects have applied. One other project considered it but was not able to convince their landlord to apply. The Agricultural Commissioner is currently reviewing the applications, so there’s no way to determine success rate. 10. With Sacramento and Berkeley in talks to implement AB551, do you think California is a unique state with regards to the advancement of urban agriculture trends and developments? Is political background a key factor in the success of urban agriculture? (This question is in reference to the case of Maryland and Baltimore that are still negotiating the property Tax Credit bill)
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
California and San Francisco have a history of being at the forefront of policy development in lots of areas (composting, plastic bag bans, higher minimum wages, paid sick days (in SF, at least), to name a few). I think the willingness of policymakers here to do things that have not been tried elsewhere certainly helps us be at the forefront of urban ag policy. That said, as you noted, Maryland was the first place to codify this idea. I think SF may have now passed Maryland/Baltimore in terms of implementation, but we have to share credit with them for promoting urban agriculture in this way. Also â&#x20AC;&#x201C; do you have more details about Berkeley considering implementing AB 551. I hadnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t heard that they were officially considering it.
23
Appendix Table 1: Adopted Comprehensive Plans by jurisdiction Source: American Planning Association
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 24
Adopted Comprehensive Plans: Food System Topics Jurisdiction
State
Rural agriculture
Urban agriculture
Food processing
1
1
Food distribution
Food retail
Food marketing
Food access & availability
El Mirage
AZ
Yuma City
AZ
1
Anderson
CA
1
1
Chico
CA
1
1
Emeryville
CA
Kings County
CA
1
1
Laguna Hills
CA
Marin County
CA
1
1
1
Napa County
CA
1
1
1
Novato
CA
Sacramento
CA
San Benito
CA
1
1
San Diego
CA
1
1
San Jose
CA
1
1
San Rafael
CA
Santa Rosa
CA
South Gate
CA
Aurora
CO
Salida
CO
Farmington
CT
Mashatucket Pequot Tribal Nation
CT
Windsor
CT
1
Woodbury
CT
1
Alachua County
FL
1
1
Food assistance
Food consumption
Food waste
None of the above
Other
1
1 1 1
1
1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Orange County
FL FL
1
Lake County
IL
1
Concord
MA
1
Easthampton
MA
1
Bar Harbor
ME
1
Alpine Township
MI
1
Monroe County
MI
1
St. Clair County
MI
1
1
Washtenaw County
MI
1
1
Saint Paul
MN
Scott County
MN
1
Victoria
MN
1
Parkville
MO
Bessemer City
NC
1
Chatham County
NC
1
Davidson
NC
1 1
5
50
2
20
5
50
1
10
4
40
3
30
0
0
5
50
7
70
5
50
7
70
1
2
20
0
0
5
50
0
0
0
0
1
10
2
20
2
20
1
10
8
80
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30
1
1 1
3
1
1
Winter Springs
20
1
1
1
40
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
% of Topics
1 1
1
1
Number of Topics
1 1
1
1
1
1
10
1
10
5
50
2
20
1
10
3
30
2
20
6
60
1
7
70
1
3
30
1
1
10
1
2
20
1
4
40
1
1
10
1
10
1
10
5
50
1
1
1
Guilford County
NC
1
10
Havelock
NC
1
0
0
Iredell County
NC
0
0
Morrisville
NC
1
10
Onslow County
NC
1
Pender County
NC
1
Polk County
NC
1
Wayne County
NC
1
1
Omaha
NE
1
1
Concord
NH
Milford
NH
1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
10 20
5
50
5
50
8
80
0
0
2
20
1
3
30
1
1
10
4
40
2
20
0
0
4
40
0
0
6
60
2
20
0
0
4
40
4
40
1
10
5
50
WI
0
0
Madison
WI
0
0
St. Croix County
WI
1
10
Monmouth County
NJ
1
Marlborough
NY
1
Franklin County
OH
1
Geauga County
OH
1
Gresham
OR
Multnomah County
OR
East Pennsboro Township
PA
Easton
PA
Beaufort County
SC
Mount Pleasant
SC
Santaquin City
UT
1
1
South Jordan
UT
1
1
Chesapeake
VA
1
King County
WA
1
Fitchburg
1
1
1
1
1 2
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
1
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
Appendix Table 1: Adopted Sustainability Plans by jurisdiction
25
Source: American Planning Association
Adopted Comprehensive Plans: Food System Topics Jurisdiction
State
Sacramento City
CA
San Francisco
CA
San Rafael
CA
Mansfield
CT
Doral
FL
Martin County
FL
Baltimore
MD
Winston-Salem
NC
Keene
NH
Rural agriculture
Urban agriculture
Food processing
Food distribution
Food retail
Food marketing
Food access & availability
Food assistance
Food consumption
Food waste
None of the above
Other
Number of Topics
% of Topics
1
10
1
9
90
1
3
30
1
10
2
20
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1 1
1 1
Santa Fe
NM
1
Henderson
NV
1
New York City
NY
Portland and Multnomah County
OR
Easton
PA
Philadelphia
PA
Burlington
VT
La Crosse Wisconsin
WI
1 1
1
1
10
1
2
20
1
4
40
1
4
40
2
20
3
30
1
10
9
90
0
0
5
50
1 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
3
30
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 26
E XI S T I NGURBANAGRI CUL T URES I T E S POT E NT I ALURBAN AGRI CUL T URES I T E S S ANF RANCI S COCOUNTYI NCL UDE ST HE RARL L ONI S L ANDST OT HEWE S T , AL CAT RAZI S L ANDT OT HENORT H, YE RBABUE NAANDT RE AS UREI S L ANDS T OT HENORT HE AS T( NOTS HOWNONMAP)
Appendix Figure 1 Map of Urban Agriculture Sites Source: SF Planning Department, 2014, Nur Asri
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS Nur Atiqa Asri
27
Appendix Figure 2 Urban Agriculture projects by size and type of land Source: SPUR, 2012
Pratt Institute PLAN 722B LAND USE REGULATIONS | 28
Appendix Table 2 Source: SPUR, 2012