Growing Los Angeles' Urban Agriculture Policy by Urban AgLA

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy by Elizabeth Bowman in collaboration with Edna Bonacich and lots of support from the Urban Agriculture Working Group of the Los Angeles Food Policy Council March 2012 Master’s Program, Urban Sustainability Antioch University Los Angeles

Agricultural, industrial &c Map

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

TABLE OF CONTENT IntroducKon

Deﬁning Urban Agriculture

Beneﬁts of Urban Agriculture

Economics of Urban Agriculture

What can be grown in Los Angeles?

How much water is required to grow vegetables in LA?

What are the costs of other inputs?

How much food can be grown on a piece of land?

Could Los Angeles grow enough food for its popula=on?

Can workers employed in UA be paid a living wage?

What about the high cost of land in Los Angeles?

What about UA job opportunites in Los Angeles?

Urban Agriculture in Los Angeles

Urban Agriculture’s Top 10 CiKes

1. Minneapolis

2. Cleveland

3. Boston

4. Oakland

5. Milwaukee

6. Philadelphia

7. Portland, Oregon

8. SeaQle

9. San Francisco

10. San Diego

Urban Agriculture Working Group

Policy PrioriKes

References

Front cover Image courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library

IntroducEon All across North America, ciKes are developing policies and programs to support Urban Agriculture (UA) -‐ the pracKce of growing food in ciKes. OVen these policies insKtuKonalize, legalize and /or support UA acKviKes already taking place by an established grassroots network of farmers and gardeners. Los Angeles (LA) has a ﬂourishing urban agriculture acKvity but remains one of the only ciKes in the United States without a poliKcal strategy to nourish this bourgeoning network of UA pracKKoners, advocates and beneﬁciaries. Over the past six months, the UA Working Group (UAWG) of the Los Angeles Food Policy Council (LAFPC) – a growing and open collecKve of urban farmers, gardeners and other UA stakeholders – has been working to develop UA policy recommendaKons for the City of Los Angeles. As of May 16, 2012 the UA Working Group has 153 members (one year ago we started with 15!).

burdens related to maintaining vacant public property and health care costs. For example, one-‐third of California’s state budget is spent on health care costs and lost producKvity associated with adult obesity and physical inacKvity.1 We seek to develop partnerships with the City, and eventually, LA County to create the condiKons for a thriving regional UA culture. We don’t expect things to change overnight but already iniKal conversaKons with the city have been extremely posiKve and validaKng. This report outlines the beneﬁts and economics of UA, followed by the current landscape of UA in Los Angeles. We then brieﬂy examine the policies of the top 10 UA ciKes in the US. Finally, we will share our UA policy recommendaKons for the city of LA. This is a working document, and acKvely meant to engage all people to develop UA on a number of fronts.

The UA policy recommendaKons were developed through a collaboraKve process at the height of the group’s growth and are meant to open a dialog between UA stakeholders and the City of LA regarding poliKcal and regulatory barriers to UA acKviKes. We realize the City has few, if any, monetary and administraKve resources to commit to UA. However, we also recognize that UA has the ability to alleviate some of the City’s monetary and administraKve

1 California Center for Public Health Advocacy, “California’s Cost of Obesity Climbs to $41 Billion,” news release, July 9, 2009,

hFp://www.publichealthadvocacy.org/_PDFs/Costofobesity_PressRelease_070909.pdf. CCPHA aFributes $12 billion of this cost to LA County alone.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

Deﬁning Urban Agriculture UA refers to a diverse set of pracKces, all of which involve growing food in a metropolitan area. UAG has adopted the American Planning AssociaKon’s (APA) deﬁniKon of UA as, “the producKon of food for personal consumpKon, educaKon, donaKon, or sale and includes associated physical and organizaKonal infrastructure, policies, and programs within urban, suburban, and rural built environments.”2 They include the following: • Backyard (and front yard) gardens on residenKal lots. • Gardens connected with mulK-‐family dwellings. • Community gardens, divided into individual plots. • School gardens. • Other insKtuKonal gardens, such as those associated with parks, churches, hospitals, and prisons. • Commercial gardens (truck farming). • Urban commercial farms. • DemonstraKon farms, where growing is coupled with classes and food processing.

Beneﬁts of Urban Agriculture Direct access to fresh produce is more or less unadainable in any city without UA. Produce oVen travels from rural areas across state or country borders to get to city grocery stores and restaurants. This lag Kme compromises the inherent nutriKonal value of the food and reinforces larger, systemic problems with the

way in which food is produced – primarily monoculture farming, pesKcide and petroleum use, crop subsidies, and the geneKc modiﬁcaKon of fruit and vegetable seed. In addiKon, exploiKve labor pracKces reminiscent of, if not at Kmes idenKcal to, slavery that was legally abolished in 1865 are not uncommon in Industrial Agriculture (IA). Forced labor, toxic, life threatening and someKmes deadly working condiKons, and subsistence wages all contribute to the proliferaKon of cheap and unhealthy food. In addiKon, from ferKlizer to transportaKon fuels, IA is a petroleum dependent industry and subject to the volaKlity of the oil market. As oil prices increase so does the cost of food for consumers.3 The problems with food producKon travel into the city. Urban dwellers, especially inner city residents, endure access to produce that is oVen weeks old and/or processed food with insuﬃcient nutriKonal value. Fruits and vegetables of any quality do not even make it to supermarkets in some neighborhoods. This lack of access to healthy food choices contributes to diet-‐related health problems such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Increasing access to fresh and nutriKous foods in communiKes that need them most is one of the primary drivers of UA. While this is an overly simplisKc characterizaKon and criKcism of a very complex industry, the truth is that the food

2 Kimberly Hodgson, Marcia Caton Campbell, & MarUn Bailkey, Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places

(American Planning AssociaUon), 2. 3 Ross Devol, “The $110 Eﬀect: What Higher Gas Prices Could Really Do to the Economy,” The AtlanAc, March 13, 2012, hFp://

www.theatlanUc.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-‐110-‐eﬀect-‐what-‐higher-‐gas-‐prices-‐could-‐really-‐do-‐to-‐the-‐economy/ 254386/.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

we consume is far more costly than prices reflect. IA is not simply destrucKve, but in the most basic sense of the term, it is unsustainable. In it’s current form, IA is unable to sustain a healthy populaKon. As the cost of oil conKnues to rise and other natural resources, such as water and tradiKonally arable land, become more and more scarce, the need for sovereignty from these convenKonal food sources will become more and more apparent. With that in mind, the ability to grow food for one’s self, family or community is not as quaint as it may sound. It is a real response to large, complicated problems. Residents engage in local food producKon in a number of ways. Some parKcipate directly by gardening at home or in a nearby community garden. Some trade or barter with local growers or are the beneficiaries of a neighbor’s prolific fruit tree. Farmers markets have increased significantly in the past few years as a way of geing local food to consumers (see graph below) 4. Urban, local food producKon is one of many soluKons to a broken food system.

UA is different in every city. Infrastructure, density, land values, and industry all play a key roll in determining how UA can and will take shape in specific ciKes. The UA acKviKes within each city reflect the dynamics and capacity specific to that city’s urban environment and ecology. Detroit, for example, has large pieces of abandoned industrial and residenKal land that the UA movement has used to great advantage. On the other hand, UA parKcipants in dense and growing ciKes, like San Francisco, Seadle and New York have to be a bit more creaKve – finding the spaces in between developments, on the rooVops of apartment and office buildings, etc. Food can be grown on rooVops and walls, along narrow strips of land, and in pots on balconies. UA can also involve the raising of bees, chickens, and livestock. UA can make use of very small spaces, turning them into green havens which help to beauKfy the city, improve the quality of the air, and contribute to healthy acKviKes and eaKng pracKces. Benefits of UA include: Improvement of Public Health + Urban Experience • Brings healthful produce to food insecure neighborhoods. • Contributes to community building as people work together growing crops and sharing the produce. • Offers safe recreaKonal space encouraging healthy exercise along with healthy eaKng.

4 United States Department of Agriculture, Farmers Market and Local Procurement: Farmers Market Growth: 1994 -‐2011, last

modiﬁed August 8, 2011, hFp://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do? template=TemplateS&navID=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&leiNav=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&page=WFMFarmersM arketGrowth&descripUon=Farmers%20Market%20Growth&acct=frmrdirmkt

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

•

• •

Improves the city experience by beauKfying and making producKve unused pieces of land, large and small. Supports the various tastes and tradiKons of LA’s diverse communiKes. Provides food that is tasKer and more nutriKous. Teaches children where food comes from.

Environmental/Ecological • Minimizes the need for polluKng long-‐ distance transportaKon and the use of fossil fuel-‐based ferKlizers that large-‐scale, industrial agriculture requires. • Develops and protects seed diversity and avoids the potenKal dangers of geneKc modificaKon. • Limits use of fossil fuels consumed transporKng food over long-‐ distances. • Creates opportuniKes for urban residents to connect with nature. • Provides much needed green space for urban residents. Economic Development • Contributes to the self-‐sufficiency of our communiKes; serving as a buffer against hard Kmes, by providing food even for the most desKtute. • Offers supplemental income for some industrious gardeners and farmers. • Creates entrepreneurial opportuniKes and jobs in growing, processing, and distribuKng locally grown foods.

Economics of Urban Agriculture To be economically viable, UA must compete successfully with IA. This is no small 8

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

challenge, since IA is capable of producing tons of food at a relaKvely low cost. Apart from the eﬃciency of large-‐scale food producKon, there are several important factors that contribute to the low cost of industrially produced food. One is the arKﬁcially low cost of farm labor, based on a system of exploiKng immigrant workers. Farm labor has been treated as an excepKon to federal labor laws, since the period of slavery and aVer ReconstrucKon, when the South insisted on regaining control over its African American labor force. Large-‐ scale California farmers have also fought to maintain such exempKons and were supported when Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have insKtuted overKme pay; a labor pracKces standard. A second factor that contributes to the low cost of industrially produced food is the heavy subsidies that IA receives from the U.S. government, amounKng to billions of dollars. A third factor includes the external environmental costs unaccounted for in the price for food. If farm workers were paid a living wage, or at least received the equivalent treatment of non-‐farm workers, and if the US government either ceased to subsidize industrial farming, or subsidized non-‐corporate agriculture, including UA, to an equivalent extent, one can imagine how much more compeKKve UA might be. We have not conducted the research to prove this point, and believe it would be useful to do so. The poliKcal implicaKons are fairly clear: farm labor ought to be treated on the same terms as all labor, and US subsidies to one type of farming only ought to cease.

UKlizing data provided by Dan Allen, the Chief Financial Oﬃcer of Farmscape (a local garden design and installaKon company), we have put together a preliminary assessment of the costs of inputs and the value of outputs for growing crops in Southern California. It should be noted that Farmscape’s data are based on the raised-‐ bed gardening services they provide. These data do not speak for UA in general, but provide a sense of the economics of UA.

tropical plants. It is not unusual to see a banana, guava, or mango tree on LA’s east side. Grape vines do well in cooler areas like Malibu. ArKchokes and asparagus are just a couple of the perennials that can grow and thrive in Southern California. How much water is required to grow vegetables in LA? For annual vegetable growth, Farmscape esKmates that gardens use less than 1 gallon per square foot per week. AccounKng for pathways in the garden area (usually mulched or hard-‐scaped), the total water use drops to about 0.5 gallons per square foot per week. By contrast, UC recommendaKons put the average water use for lawn at between 1.2 and 2 gallons per square foot per week. EﬀecKvely, that makes vegetables a 60 to 75 percent water savings relaKve to lawn. Perennials tend to use even less water than annuals (which are the basis of the calculaKon above) since they have more extensive root systems. Citrus requires some water to get established and then requires lidle to no watering.

What can be grown in Los Angeles? Winter season (September-‐March): • AromaKcs: Garlic, onions • Brassica: Broccoli, cabbage, cauliﬂower • Cooking greens: Bok Choy, chard, collard greens, mustard greens, Chinese cabbage, kale • Herbs: Cilantro, chives, parsley, sage, thyme • Peas • Root crops: Carrots, radishes, beets, turnips, parsnips, potatoes • Salad greens: Leduces, spinach, arugula, radicchio Summer crops (March-‐September): • Beans • Chard • Cucumber • Tobacco Family: Eggplant, tomatoes • Melons: Watermelon, cantaloupe • Herbs: Basil, chives, parsley sage, tarragon, thyme • Peppers: Jalapeños, bell peppers • Squash: Zucchini, yellow crookneck, budernut, pumpkin, etc. LA’s varying microclimates can accommodate a wide range of fruit trees as well as some

What are the costs of other inputs? According to Dan Allen of Farmscape, input costs would be: seeds, starts, compost, ferKlizer, pest control, and mulch. The cost of compost and mulch varies a great deal depending on the source. The city provides free compost and mulch through their Mulch Give Away Program. Retail outlets sell bagged products that cost between $2 to $5 per square foot. Organic ferKlizer is more expensive; most cost about $30 to $35 retail for a 25-‐pound bag. It is much more expensive (per pound) to purchase compost and mulch in smaller quanKKes. Organic pest

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

control is a similar story; pre-‐mixed are more expensive than concentrates which can be purchased for about $10; providing a lifeKme supply for most home gardeners. How much food can be grown on a piece of land? John Jevons is a world-‐renowned agriculture researcher who developed a “biointensive” method of growing a lot of food in a small space. His book, How to Grow More Vegetable: And Fruits, Nuts, Berries, Grains and Other Crops Than You Ever Thought Possible on Less Land Than You Can Imagine, documents this method. Jevons’ method opens up an opportunity for UA to have a signiﬁcant impact on food producKon. Jevons claims a farmer can net $20,000 to $40,000 plus per year on small farm (one-‐eigth acre), working a 40-‐hour week with an annual 4 month vacaKon. A backyard gardener in the US could grow a year’s supply of vegetables and fruits on 200 square feet in a 6-‐month growing season; a $600 value requiring 2 garden beds and 30 minutes of Kme. An enKre balanced diet, according to Jevons, could be grown on as lidle as 1,000 square feet per person in an 8-‐month growing season with another 1,000 square feet needed to make it sustainable. A more convenKonal method of planKng would require about 4,000 square feet to grow a complete diet for 1 person. An IA farmer would need at least 7,000 square feet to grow a similar diet – using commercial, industrial methods.

Could Los Angeles grow enough food for its populaEon? Dan Allen oﬀers one answer to this quesKon with a graphic5:

In summary, if: one acre provides enough fruits and vegetables for 144 people and Los Angeles has a populaKon of 3,833,995, this would require 26,625 acres of growing space -‐ 3.55 Kmes the size of the Port of Los Angeles, 7.61 Kmes the size of LAX, or 8.9% of the City of Los Angeles. As recently as 1950, Los Angeles County had 97,000 acres dedicated to food and vegetable producKon, which is more than the 69,000 acres that the County would need to be self-‐suﬃcient in terms of produce. Can workers employed in UA be paid a living wage? Many UA and ethically minded small food businesses have made living wages a priority. Farmscape is an example of such a company. Dan Allen’s response to this quesKon: Yes, that's what we do. But it's an objec=ve that comes in direct tension with the goal of providing aﬀordable produce. Since you're mostly paying for the farmer's =me in small-‐scale organic agriculture,

5 Dan Allen, “Can Urban Agriculture Feed Los Angeles?,” Farmscape Blog, September 11, 2010, hFp://farmscapegardens.com/

blog/54

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

the cheaper the food the lower the wage...and the beQer the wage the more expensive the food is. So we have chosen to provide good jobs even if the food is expensive. I think a lot of opera=ons choose the opposite and choose instead to rely on some combina=on of volunteers and outside subsidiza=on.

What about the high cost of land in Los Angeles? This is clearly a serious problem, but it is not a universal problem. ConverKng the lawns of individually-‐owned homes into edible landscapes is a “free” use of land. The same can be said for the conversion of the extensive parkways of the City into food producKon. Unused public lands provide another low-‐cost opportunity. Many public and semi-‐public insKtuKons, such as schools, prisons, churches, and hospitals, may be willing and even eager to have their land used for growing food. UA can have “therapeuKc beneﬁts”6 which can be valuable for insKtuKons working with the people they serve – from the sick or elderly, incarcerated, people seeking psychological help, to mentally and/or physically handicap people. The hardest challenge is gaining access to vacant and blighted privately-‐owned land that could be used for development. Not only can the owner receive tax beneﬁts and the potenKal to make more money puing the land to use, but the City will also have an interest in the higher taxes that could be obtained. RealisKcally, UA cannot compete with real estate or commercial development alternaKves. But there are many land-‐

sources, including small, unusable pieces of property such as roof-‐tops, walls, balconies, and so on, that could be growing healthy produce. What about UA job opportunites in Los Angeles? The USDA reports that employment and income can increase in communiKes with, “expanding local food systems.”7 UA can potenKally generate both businesses and jobs. Not only can business and jobs be developed from growing and selling produce, as well as providing a service to help people put in edible gardens on their property, but ancillary industries can also be developed, including food processing, cooking classes, restaurants specializing in local foods, and so on. A full-‐blown industry could be developed from locally grown food. That industry could provide employment and meaningful work, as well as free and healthy food, for our large unemployed and under-‐employed populaKon, while contribuKng to the overall sustainability eﬀorts of LA. In order to accurately assess the economic opportuniKes and costs associated with UA, a more rigorous evaluaKon must be adopted and addiKonal quesKons must be asked. It would be valuable to know, for example, how much money could be made from selling locally grown produce! At this moment in Kme, we do not currently have the data nor the experKse to do a more comprehensive assessment and can only provide the roughest of sketches. The UAG would be happy to work with a University

6 Hodgson, K., et al., Urban Agriculture, 20. 7 Steve MarUnez et al. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues (Washington, DC: USDA, 2010), v.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

professor, graduate student, or even a department, interested in taking this project on.

Urban Agriculture in Los Angeles Los Angeles would seem to be an ideal locaKon for UA. First, our mild climate allows for year-‐round growing, a characterisKc that many Northern and Eastern ciKes must envy. Second, our urban sprawl and suburban-‐style development oﬀers a wide variety of land on which to culKvate food. From unused land to suburban lawns, low residenKal density translates into more available land for UA. In addiKon, LA sKll has some land that is zoned for agriculture within the city limits, much of it is not culKvated for growing food. Lastly, Los Angeles has a rich history of agricultural producKon; remnants of our famous orange groves are one example of this legacy that can be reclaimed through UA. We also have a thriving LA County Master Gardener Program run by the University of California CooperaKve Extension (UCCE). These MGs volunteer their Kme in community and school gardens, teaching “low-‐income and tradiKonally under-‐ represented”8 LA residents how to grow their own food. The Program trains dozens of new MGs annually. In 2011 alone, over 200 MGs volunteered more than 14,000 hours and served nearly 135,000 gardeners at 271 gardens, farmers markets, shelters and fairs.9 UCCE also leads the Grow LA Victory Garden IniKaKve. Victory garden classes teach

beginning gardeners how to start their own gardens. Classes are taught by MG Volunteers, at various locaKons throughout LA County every Spring. Both the MG Program and the Victory Garden IniKaKve have been very successful. In 2011 UCCE revitalized the LA County Master Food Preserver Program, a testament to the success of, and growing interest in, UCCE’s gardening programs. Despite these advantages, Los Angeles is far behind other US ciKes. In a 2008 study which ranked the 50 largest ciKes in terms of sustainability, Los Angeles was ranked 28th overall, but on “Local Food and Agriculture” we were ranked 46th out of 50!10 In the numerous studies that are rapidly being issued regarding the best UA pracKces of various ciKes, LA is nowhere to be found. If we are menKoned at all, it is in the context of the failed South Central Farm, which remains an embarrassing blot on our city’s reputaKon. True, LA faces some serious challenges to becoming a leading center for UA. One is our extremely high land values. Some of the ciKes that are moving rapidly ahead in UA are Rust Belt ciKes of the North East, such as Detroit, where land use and land values have plummeted. Here there are major compeKtors for land use, with whom it is diﬃcult for UA to compete. SKll, there are unused properKes scadered throughout Los Angeles that have been siing vacant for

8 University of California CooperaUve Extension, Los Angeles County, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2010

Annual Report. (Los Angeles, CA: UCCE, 2010), 7, hFp://celosangeles.ucdavis.edu/ﬁles/97121.pdf. 9 ibid. 10 Sustainlane 2008 US City Rankings, Local Food and Agriculture, accessed on March 25, 2012, hFp://www.sustainlane.com/us-‐

city-‐rankings/categories/local-‐food-‐agriculture.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

years. These plots of land are more common in low-‐income and under-‐served neighborhoods and are oVen a source of community discontent. Gaining access to these lands for UA is extremely difficult. This struggle was made famous when the South Central Farmers were forced to shut down aVer a long fight with a developer and the city regarding rights to the land. Despite large development plans that promise jobs and economic development opportuniKes, the land remains vacant -‐ a devastaKng symbol for LA’s UA advocates. There are also regulatory barriers that make it difficult for LA residents to grow their own food and connect to a local food system. City of LA ordinances are difficult to find on-‐line and many of the land use policies that impact UA are vague or veiled in layers of bureaucracy. Other ciKes have departments dedicated to UA. Seadle, for example, runs P-‐ Patch, the city’s community garden program. Residents of Seadle can go to this department’s website to find informaKon about community garden funding and development opportuniKes, market gardening, and other resources. 11 The lack of such resources or transparency of informaKon in Los Angeles is very discouraging and keeps new projects from developing. Another challenge concerns our poliKcal fragmentaKon. Growing food is really a regional enterprise, and it is essenKal, in the

long run, to involve high levels of government, such as the County, and SCAG. Some of the smaller ciKes in the region already have strong UA programs and policies. The City of Santa Monica, for example, recently legalized backyard beekeeping in single-‐family homes and Long Beach has a policy to “establish a community garden in every park five acres or larger by the year 2020.”12 The policies these ciKes have implemented are valuable, offering working models within the region. We should cooperate with them, learn from them, and help to lead those that are just beginning. Despite the challenges, UA is going on all over LA, both legally and illegally. Community gardens are flourishing. Farmers Markets are growing. Some restaurants and grocery stores are specializing in locally grown produce. These insKtuKons take pride in supporKng local agriculture and oVen go out of their way to do so. For example, three local restaurants, Larchmont Grill, Square One Diner, and Homegirl Café all support Farmworks Los Angeles (FLA) as subscribers to FLA’s Restaurant Supported Agriculture (RSA) 13 program. FLA, led by Charles Lee and Al Renner, is a non-‐profit urban farm in the heart of Los Angeles that offers job training and workforce development skills to inner city youth. These restaurants do not know what is going to arrive in their farm boxes every week and have to make an effort to incorporate FLA’s produce into their menu.

11 SeaFle Department of Neighborhoods, P-‐Patch community gardens-‐Growing CommuniAes, accessed on March 25, 2012,

hFp://www.seaFle.gov/neighborhoods/ppatch/ 12 Cyndi Hubach, “Urban Agriculture in Los Angeles County: A Survey and Assessment” (Report to the Urban Agriculture

Working Group of the Los Angeles Food Policy Council, 2012), 8. 13 An RSA is a restaurant version of a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

They make the eﬀort because they support FLA’s mission and they understand that, in order for UA to thrive, it needs to be nurtured and supported.

Urban Agriculture’s Top 10 CiEes In 2008, SustainLane ranked the 50 largest US ciKes on their sustainability pracKces in terms of a number of criteria, one of which was “Local Food and Agriculture.” The ranking was based on the number of community gardens and farmers’ markets per capita. Admidedly, this is not a thorough measure of what ciKes are doing, but one of the only assessments available. According to SustainLane, the top ciKes are: 1. Minneapolis 2. Cleveland 3. Boston 4. Oakland 5. Washington DC 6. Milwaukee 7. Philadelphia 8. Portland 9. Seadle 10. Honolulu Los Angeles was ranked 43. The report Urban Agriculture: A Sixteen City Survey of Urban Agriculture Prac=ces Across the Country,14 looks into the speciﬁcs of UA policy. Here we summarize their ﬁndings for eight out of ten of the SustainLane’s ciKes – omiing Honolulu and Washington DC and adding San Francisco and San Diego. San

Diego was not included in the report. We used the city’s internal resources to summarize their policies. We believe it is especially useful for Los Angeles to be aware of what other California ciKes are doing, since we share much with them, including climate, legal environment, and high land values. Thus the ciKes we plan to examine are: 1. Minneapolis 2. Cleveland 3. Boston 4. Oakland 5. Milwaukee 6. Philadelphia 7. Portland 8. Seadle 9. San Francisco 10. San Diego 1. Minneapolis 15 The city has enthusiasKcally encouraged the UA movement. In 2003 it adopted a Sustainability Program. In 2009 the City started Homegrown Minneapolis (HGM) a local food and urban agriculture iniKaKve: • Goal is to improve the growth, sales, distribuKon, and consumpKon of healthy, locally grown foods. • Led by the Department of Health and Family Service, which administers a 5-‐ year federal grant focused on obesity prevenKon, called Steps to a Healthier Minneapolis. • Composed of community stakeholders.

14 Mindy Goldstein, et al., “Urban Agriculture: A Sixteen City Survey of Urban Agriculture PracUces Across the Country,” Atlanta:

Turner Environmental Law Clinic, Emory Law, 2011. (Hereaier referred to as Goldstein Report.) 15 Pp. 28-‐32 in Goldstein Report.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

•

Has an ImplementaKon Task Force, with 8 working groups that handle speciﬁc issues relaKng to UA. HGM is collaboraKve, building on exisKng community resources and bringing together exisKng groups. To date they have: -‐ Amended city ordinances and regulaKon, and promoted policies to allow beekeeping and indoor farmers markets. -‐ Created and worked with resources networks to expand UA, including a land inventory. -‐ Created an UA Policy Plan, which idenKﬁes changes to zoning ordinances, and which was adopted by the Minneapolis City Council 4/5/11.

Code Status The City had not yet fully amended the Zoning Code at the Kme of the Goldstein Report. The Plan’s recommendaKons will be incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Before adopKng the Plan, some Zoning Code changes had been adopted to allow the following: • • • • •

Beekeeping Indoor Farmers Markets Grocery stores hosKng Farmers Market vendors Requiring corner stores to oﬀer at least 5 varieKes of fresh fruits and vegetables Food vendors selling non-‐packaged food downtown.

At the end of 2010, had about 100 gardens on 18 acres of land. Farmers Markets tripled from 7 to 21. Other Steps apart from HGM and Code Revisions include: • IniKated Food PreservaKon and Local Food Resources Networks. • Developed small business training and financing resource guide for food-‐related business. • Started the EMERGE Youth Community Garden for teenagers. • Created an inventory of community kitchens around the city. • Helped Farmers Markets use EBT. • Inventoried its parcels available for community gardens and made the informaKon accessible on the Homegrown Minneapolis website. • Hired planning firm to analyze the city’s capacity for UA over the next 20 years. • Launched Community Garden Pilot Program on city lands in March, 2010 which permided the lease of land for $1 with a $250 security deposit. • Published Community Garden Resource list. 2. Cleveland16 This is a city that has suffered from deindustrializaKon and populaKon decline, so it has large, unused, land tracts. Community groups have helped city’s UA efforts, i.e. the New Agrarian Center (NAC), formed in 2000, which hosted a regional Food Congress in 2003. Have a City Fresh iniKaKve to provide locally-‐ grown food to urban food deserts.

Status of UA 16 Goldstein, pp.18-‐19.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

In 2005 City Fresh was awarded a Community Food Project grant from USDA: • • • •

To assist in training new urban farmers To convert vacant lots into market gardens To convert abandoned grocery store into community food distribuKon center. Formed regional food coaliKon (Cleveland-‐Cuyahoga County Food Policy CoaliKon, CCC).

Code Status In 2007, passed the “Urban Garden District” zoning ordinance. It allows for community gardens with some on-‐site sales, and for market gardens with full on-‐site sales. Its purpose was to: • Enhance local food producKon • Provide garden-‐related job training • Preserve green space and enhance the environment • Enrich the surrounding communiKes. Status of UA The Urban Garden District ordinance has successfully fostered urban farm and community garden growth. They have over 200 community gardens, many of which have turned into for-‐proﬁt market gardens. Over 120 land bank lots have been converted to gardens, nurseries, pocket parks, and orchards. The City works with community groups and collaborates with funders to support: The Cuyahoga Community Land Trust and The Ohio State University Extension.

3. Boston17 In 2002 Massachuseds established a State Sustainability Program. It led to a 2004 iniKaKve to promote environmentally sound pracKces. In 2005, in conjuncKon with the iniKaKve, the Boston metro region received an EPA grant to support sustainable regional planning. Community groups were already acKve, including: • Boston Natural Areas Network (BNAN), founded in 1977. It has broader goals, but one of its acKviKes is to protect 44 community gardens through ownership by steadily purchasing land and operaKng a Master Urban Gardening Program. • The Food Project, started in 1992. It now farms 4 acres in 7 urban communiKes, and has 36 suburban acres. They teach youth to culKvate organic food and sells produce through ﬁve CSAs and four farmers markets in low-‐income neighborhoods. • The Tellus InsKtute of Boston, an interdisciplinary, not-‐for-‐proﬁt research and policy organizaKon, that was founded in 1976 to address sustainability issues. In 2005 it consolidated its program. The city worked with the Tellus InsKtute, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), and the State Sustainability Program to create MetroFuture, a regional, stakeholder-‐ based planning process. They created a MetroFuture Regional Plan, which was formally adopted by MAPC in 2008. Among other things it encourages UA.

17 Goldstein pp.12-‐14.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

page recommendaKons on various policy topics. Among the OFPC’s recommendaKons:

Code Status Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) is working with state oﬃcials and organizaKons on statutory reforms. They have introduced 2 land-‐use bills, which promote UA by relaxing permiing requirements, and seing no limits on agricultural sales. This will allow Boston to implement its own zoning codes.

• • • •

Status of UA Boston has over 44 community gardens. It has 18 registered farmers’ markets. Community groups like The Food Project and BNAN conKnue to support the local food movement. 4. Oakland The city has a vital urban farming movement. They have non-‐proﬁts that are acKve in promoKng UA, such as PlanKng JusKce. Oakland has partnered with UC Berkeley to aim to grow 30% of their food locally. Between 2006 and 2008, Oakland signiﬁcantly improved their score in SustainLane’s Local Food & Agriculture Sustainability Rankings. The number of farmers’ markets in Oakland doubled between 2005 and 2007. In addiKon, Oakland's tally of community gardens increased slightly. The Oakland Food Policy Council produced “A Plan for AcKon 18,” which included one-‐

•

Promote and expand urban agriculture Encourage accessible and aﬀordable Farmers’ Markets Expand composKng and food scrap recycling Create syntheKc pesKcide and GMO-‐ free zones Scale up purchasing from local producers

Code Status As of 2011, Oakland was updaKng its zoning regulaKons related to UA. On March 15, 2011, the City Council adopted an interim Zoning measure to allow crop and animal-‐ raising in residenKal and commercial zones. The city intended to develop a comprehensive update to address all aspects of UA.19 Status of UA Novella Carpenter, author of Farm City, has an inner-‐city farm called Ghost Town Farm. Another successful organizaKon is City Slickers Farm. 5. Milwaukee20 Milwaukee’s UA has been largely driven by community and non-‐proﬁts groups. In 2004 the City created an Oﬃce of Environmental Sustainability, but it didn’t address UA.

18 Oakland Food Policy Council, Transforming the Oakland Food System: A Plan for AcAon. (Oakland, CA, 2010), accessed on

March 25, 2012, hFp://www.oaklandfood.org/media/AA/AD/oaklandfood-‐org/downloads/105491/ OFPC_2010_plan_for_acUon_FINAL.pdf 19 City of Oakland, Planning and Zoning, Urban Agriculture Citywide Update, accessed on March 25, 2012, hFp://

www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PBN/OurOrganizaUon/PlanningZoning/OAK029859 20 Goldstein pp.25-‐27.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

Milwaukee Urban Gardens is a non-‐profit land trust that acquires land for community gardens, and provides support for urban gardeners. Will Allen’s Growing Power is located in Milwaukee. Will Allen has received a lot of adenKon for his efforts, most notably he was featured as one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influenKal people in 2010. Will Allen created Growing Power in 1995 and does the following: • Runs a 2 acre farm within city limits. • Maintains 14 greenhouses that feed over 10,000 people. • Works with other community groups to support UA, and provides fresh food access for low-‐income people. • Plans to build a 5-‐story verKcal farm. The City supports local food efforts through: • A Seasonal Plot Permit Program that allows people to license land for a single season. • Three-‐year leases with community agriculture groups through the Department of City Development makes. • The City has not developed its own UA iniKaKve yet. Code Status The Milwaukee Zoning Code doesn’t menKon UA, but it has an “agriculture use” category that allows gardens in residenKal, commercial, insKtuKonal, and parks districts. They have been amending the code to remove barriers and acKvely promote UA. In 2010: They passed an ordinance to allow bee-‐keeping. In addiKon, Milwaukee allowed:

• •

Status of UA Under “Agriculture Uses” the City allows nurseries and greenhouses, and raising crops and livestock in all residenKal and parks districts. In commercial and insKtuKonal districts they require condiKonal use permits. 6. Philadelphia21 Economic downturn has led to a ciKzen-‐drive UA movement in Philadelphia. UA declined in the city between 1996 and 2008, with community and squader gardens dropping from 501 to 226. But now the city and local organizaKons are increasing their acKvity. One acKve organizaKon is the Neighborhood Gardens AssociaKon/A Philadelphia Land Trust (NGA). It was organized in 1986 by the Pennsylvania HorKcultural Society, Penn State University Urban Gardening Program, businesses, and community gardeners. Marathon Loves Philadelphia is another group. It runs Marathon Farm, a 15,750 square foot parcel leased from the City for 2 years, starKng in January 4, 2011. If successful, the lease will be extended. In spring 2010, the City proposed an “urban farm incubator” called Manatawna Farm at a historic farmstead that is part of the park system. It is dedicated to chemical-‐free, commercial farming. Farmers would have paid $500 for a one-‐year lease of a half-‐acre. There was opposiKon to the locaKon, and they are trying to ﬁnd another.

21 Goldstein pp.39-‐43.

Seasonal markets to operate more days per year. Raising crops and livestock in certain districts, etc.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

Code Status The Philadelphia Zoning Code Commission is engaged in a comprehensive revision of its zoning laws. As of 2011, they had a DraV, which included “Urban Agriculture Use Category” as a primary land use. This would entail 4 subcategories: animal husbandry, community gardens, market or community-‐ supported farms, and horKculture nurseries and greenhouses.22 The DraV also addresses other issues, such as sales, water, ferKlizer, and parking. 7. Portland, Oregon23 Portland is the highest ranked city in the US by SustainLane for overall sustainability. UA is well established and supported in the city. “The city of Portland has fully embraced the urban agriculture movement.” In 1975, the Department of Parks and RecreaKon adopted the Community Garden Program (CGP). There are now 35 city-‐ supported community gardens, with 3-‐year waiKng lists. Parks and RecreaKon also created Produce for the People, a program that links community gardens with emergency food agencies. In 2005, students in the Masters of Urban and Regional Planning Department at Portland State University prepared a report Ktled: “The Diggable City: Making Urban Agriculture a Planning Priority” for the City Council. The report team did an inventory of vacant, publicly-‐held land.

In 2009 the Portland City Commissioner organized an assessment to increase gardening opportuniKes in the City. Various organizaKons and city departments are working together to expand UA. Code Status Portland has UA programs in place, but it is currently updaKng its Zoning Code to revise and improve its policies. It was in its early stages in 2011.

Status of UA The CGP is a municipal community gardens program. It provides lots of direcKves and guidance for establishing community gardens. Having the City run the program lets them handle insurance issues beder, and protects the land from development. The Department of Parks and RecreaKon also recommends home gardening, including in front yards and on parkways. Portland’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability has an Urban Food Zoning Code Update Project Advisory Group (PAG), which is working on improving the code. Among other things, they plan to address animals and bees. 8. Sea[le24 Seadle has long-‐established UA pracKces, and recently adopted Code changes to reﬂect their commitment to it. Students at the University of Washington’s Environmental

22 Details are provided on each of these categories. 23 Goldstein pp.44-‐48. 24 Goldstein pp.52-‐55.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

Law and RegulaKon wrote a report on Seadle’s programs.

separately. (There are more details about the new code.)

One of their leading programs is the P-‐Patch Community Garden Program, which oversees 75 community gardens. The program has been very successful, and has a waiKng list. In 2008, the City Council passed the Local Food AcKon IniKaKve. Its goals include: race and social jusKce, environmental sustainability, economic development, and emergency readiness. They announced 2010 as the “The Year of Urban Agriculture.” They opened a new urban food bank farm that year.

Seadle has recently announced the development of a 7-‐acre public food forest25, which would include fruit and nut trees, berry bushes, and vegetable patches.26

Code Status In 2010 they passed urban farm and community garden legislaKon, which updated the City’s Land Use Code, providing easier access to locally grown food. Status of UA The 2010 Code Revisions added an Urban Farms secKon, seing various rules about them. Urban farms are permided in all residenKal zones. In commercial and industrial zones they are permided, but with some restricKons. It also made it easier to raise animals, including small animals, farm animals, chickens, and bees. Farm animals include cows, horses and sheep. Animal husbandry, i.e. raising animals for sale or for the sale of their products, is treated

9. San Francisco27 San Francisco is ranked 19th by SustainLane for Local Food and Agriculture, but ranks 2nd in overall sustainability. UA started with a push by NGOs and grassroots organizaKons, such as the San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance (SFUAA). Some organizaKons, such as Lidle City Farms, and Hayes Valley Farm, are running small-‐scale farms. The lader is a 2.2 acre non-‐proﬁt, community-‐run farm. In 2009, the City’s outgoing Mayor, Gavin Newsom, issued a strong statement direcKng all City Departments to support local food producKon in the city. He also helped launch a design contest, “Digging Deeper, Building Blocks for Sustainable Design,” to promote innovaKve designs and approaches to UA. Code Status San Francisco’s current Mayor recently signed a UA ordinance, which became law in 2011. It was unanimously supported by the Planning Commission and the Land Use Commidee of the Board of Supervisors. The Zoning Code created a new land use category for UA, dividing it into Neighborhood

25 A food forest is like a perennial garden, which is based on the natural system of a forest. This would be the naUon’s ﬁrst. 26 Claire Thompson, “Into the Woods: SeaFle Plants a Public Food Forest,” Grist, February 28, 2012, hFp://grist.org/urban-‐

agriculture/into-‐the-‐woods-‐seaFle-‐plants-‐a-‐public-‐food-‐forest/ 27 Goldstein Report, pp. 49 – 51.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

Agriculture, Large-‐Scale Urban Agriculture, and Water ConservaKon. Status of UA There are sKll some ordinances on the books that will need adenKon, including a change of use fee that potenKal gardeners would have to pay. This issue faces opposiKon from the public and the SFUAA, which is posiKoning to pursue addiKonal UA policy interests. 10. San Diego28 San Diego was ranked 38th for Local Food and Agriculture in 2008 by SustainLane, but the city appears to have come a long way since then. In January 2012, the San Diego City Council unanimously passed amendments to the municipal code supporKng UA. The City has received a $50,000 grant the previous March to pursue UA with the goal of cuing down obesity through physical acKvity and access to healthy foods. San Diego City College has a UA educaKonal program called Seeds @ City Urban Farm. Code Status The new amendments simplify the process of approving farmers markets on private property, make minor adjustments to community gardens regulaKons, and ease restricKons for raising chickens, goats, and bees.

Status of UA The amendments were supported by several groups, including: the San Diego Beekeeping Society, the San Diego County Farm Bureau, the Goat JusKce League, Food Not Bombs, New Roots Community Farm, San Diego Hunger CoaliKon, and several others. The existence of these organizaKons and their ability to combine to get legislaKon passed is a tesKmony to the vitality of UA in San Diego. Many of these ciKes had commonaliKes with respect to their poliKcal process. They are brieﬂy listed below: 1. Formal city commitment to Urban Agriculture. 2. SupporKve state legislaKon. 3. CreaKon of a community-‐based task force that works closely with a city department (e.g. Sustainability, Health). 4. Grant from the federal government (e.g. USDA). 5. Amended Zoning Code. 6. Census of available land. 7. Land Bank. 8. ConnecKon with University program in sustainability, agriculture, urban gardening, etc. 9. Model Farm.

Urban Agriculture Working Group The UAWG would like to commend the City of Los Angeles for passing the Food & Flowers Freedom Act (F&FFA) in 2010. F&FFA

28 Chad Deal, “City Council Unanimously in Favor of Urban Agriculture Amendments,” San Diego Reader, January 31, 2012.

hFp://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-‐Ucker/2012/jan/31/city-‐council-‐unanimously-‐in-‐favor-‐of-‐urban-‐agricul/

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

added fruits and ﬂowers to the list of agricultural items (vegetables were already okay) allowed to be sold on-‐ and oﬀ-‐site. F&FFA passed unanimously by the LA City Council.29 This win for UA in LA validated and opened up economic opportunity for UA pracKKoners in LA. The UAG hopes to build on this commitment with a more comprehensive set of policies that can support and structure UA. Our goal is not to clamp down on and regulate what is now happening, but on the contrary, to facilitate it and make it easier for people to join in. We want to assist those who want to ensure access to healthy food for their family by growing fruits and vegetables and/or raising animals, whether it’s in their backyard, on their balcony, in their housing development, in a community garden, etc. EJ: See Insert B for everything in red. Our policy recommendaKons aim to bring food jusKce to: 1) communiKes hit hardest by the economic downturn (and who didn’t really experience the bubble either); 2) those who are always within walking distance of a McDonalds, but rarely within walking distance of a tree, park or even a grocery store. We support people who want to be part of an equitable food system, who want to reinvigorate the local economy and capitalize on this new interest in local food.

We want to help the City develop a comprehensive UA strategy that makes LA a haven for best pracKces in UA. UA is gaining in popularity and interest but there are sKll some problems. A map 30 of Los Angeles’ community gardens and farmers markets reflects this same geographical inequiKes within UA. Simply put, there are more farmers markets and community gardens per capita in neighborhoods that are predominantly white and affluent. LA’s East Side has 1 Farmers Market for nearly 300,000 residents while LA’s West Side has 14 Farmers Markets for it’s 530,000 residents!31 Many of the UA projects in LA are dedicated to increasing food access in communiKes that need it most. In order to be effecKve, we must be careful that UA does not mimic the social dynamics we are working to change. Our policy recommendaKons aim to address this challenge and were developed with equity in mind (see the Community RelaKons category). Despite community interest in UA type projects and recreaKonal space, the city has neglected to fund such projects, even when money has been available. In 1996, the City of Los Angeles was authorized by voters to spend $25 million a year32 on park development and maintenance. The funding

29 Zach Behrens, “’Fruit & Flowers Freedom Act’ Set to Become City Law,” LAist, April 16, 2010, hFp://laist.com/2010/04/16/

food_ﬂowers_freedom_act_approved_t.php 30 hFp://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=ml&authuser=0 31 Elizabeth Bowman, “Community Gardens and Farmers’ Markets: ReﬂecUons of Neighborhood StaUsUcs?,” (Master’s paper,

AnUoch University, 2011). 32 Funding ended in the year 2000.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

was to be distributed equitably, according to the need for park and recreaKonal space and the interests of community members in neighborhoods receiving the funding. The City received more applicaKons for projects under the “Urban Greening” category (i.e. community gardens and recreaKonal space) than almost any other type of project it received).33 Interest in starKng UA projects are oVen followed by logisKcal quesKons about how to get started, find land, funding, etc. There are people who are deeply invested in the future of agriculture in Los Angeles who are ready to take the next step, start a business, grow their non-‐profit, and increase the circulaKon of locally grown food in Los Angeles, to make it affordable and equitable, as a way of making their communiKes, families and selves beder and healthier. They need to know that the City is on their side. We have been inspired by other ciKes throughout North America that have successfully developed and passed comprehensive urban agriculture policies. Most recently San Diego gave us a renewed sense of purpose aVer their city council unanimously passed one of the most progressive UA policies in California. We researched policies and programs in other ciKes to help build our recommendaKons for Los Angeles. This report is not just a set of policy recommendaKons to the city, but an adempt at idenKfying the needs of the budding urban agriculture community in Los Angeles. We realize that some of these changes require adenKon from the city, (i.e.

zoning). We recognize that the City faces important economic challenges, and we want to contribute to their soluKon, rather than be a drain on the public coffers. During the process we have assembled and consulted with numerous UA stakeholders throughout the LA metropolitan area. Our group consists of urban farmers and community, home and school gardeners – our foot soldiers who are literally on the ground. In addiKon, our group includes community organizers working on a number of interconnected social, economic and health jusKce issues, food and agriculture policy and law experts, and other important and hard working stakeholders. There are nearly 100 people “officially” in our working group as of the wriKng of this report. Six months ago we started by researching other ciKes’ UA policies, looking for effecKve pracKces and precedent. AVer compleKng the research, we broke into 13 different policy development groups to start craVing policy recommendaKons for Los Angeles. We started with 13 policy categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Land Use Parkways Private Development Guidelines Water Soil, Environmental RemediaKon and Brownﬁelds Cleanup ComposKng Beekeeping and Small Farm Animals DistribuKon, MarkeKng and Local Procurement Community Gardens DemonstraKon Farms

33 Jennifer Wolch et al., “Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity Mapping Analysis,” University of Southern California,

Sustainable CiUes Program, GIS Research Laboratory, Los, Angeles: CA, 2002.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

11. EducaKon, Job Training & Youth

Development 12. School Gardens 13. Community RelaKons

Our top prioriEes for implemenEng these goals are:

The policy recommendaKons were then circulated to the Working Group at large, and reviewed by diﬀerent commidees numerous Kmes over a two-‐month period. Through the ediKng process we combined a few policy categories and regredably had to set a few aside for further development. In the end, we focused on ﬁve of the 13 policy categories: Land Use, Water, ComposKng, Soil RemediaKon, and Community RelaKons. Parkways and Private Development recommendaKons fall under the Land Use category. We will conKnue to work on Beekeeping and Small Farm Animals, DistribuKon, MarkeKng and Local Procurement, and School Gardens and Community Gardens. We were careful not to draV policy but to point the City in a direcKon that can meet the needs of the UA community and open a dialog between UA stakeholders and the City of LA regarding poliKcal and regulatory barriers to UA acKviKes. They are working documents and we solicit your feedback as well as your support.

Policy PrioriEes We believe that the ability to grow food and raise animals should be readily available to everyone in Los Angeles. We believe that everybody should have access to aﬀordable, fresh, locally grown, and healthy foods.

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

1. Securing a strong statement from the 2.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10.

Mayor supporKng urban agriculture. Enhancing zoning that facilitates Urban Agriculture throughout every region in the city. Developing a publically available Inventory of all city-‐owned vacant land. CreaKng incenKves for private landowners to lease land for urban agriculture. Linking water eﬃciency and water rates to facilitate urban agriculture acKviKes. Legalizing beekeeping and the culKvaKon of small farm animals. PrioriKzing the establishment and longevity of community gardens on vacant, city owned property in every neighborhood SupporKng the development of school gardens in every school. Allowing growers to sell, market and distribute their goods in all neighborhoods. Reducing food and yard waste through enhanced public composKng

References Allen, Dan. “Can Urban Agriculture Feed Los Angeles?” Farmscape Blog. September 11, 2010, hdp://farmscapegardens.com/blog/ 54 Behrens, Zach. “’Fruit & Flowers Freedom Act’ Set to Become City Law.” LAist, April 16, 2010, hdp://laist.com/2010/04/16/ food_ﬂowers_freedom_act_approved_t.ph p Bowman, Elizabeth. “Community Gardens and Farmers’ Markets: ReﬂecKons of Neighborhood StaKsKcs?” Master’s paper, AnKoch University, 2011. California Center for Public Health Advocacy, “California’s Cost of Obesity Climbs to $41 Billion,” news release, July 9, 2009, hdp://www.publichealthadvocacy.org/ _PDFs/ Costofobesity_PressRelease_070909.pdf. City of Los Angeles SanitaKon Department of Public Works, Solid Resources Processing and ConstrucKon Division. Free Mulch Give-‐Away. hdp://www.lacitysan.org/ srpcd/mulch_giveaway.htm City of Oakland, Planning and Zoning. Urban Agriculture Citywide Update. hdp:// www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/ PBN/OurOrganizaKon/PlanningZoning/ OAK029859 Deal, Chad. “City Council Unanimously in Favor of Urban Agriculture Amendments.” San Diego Reader, January 31, 2012. hdp://

www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/ news-‐Kcker/2012/jan/31/city-‐council-‐ unanimously-‐in-‐favor-‐of-‐urban-‐agricul/ Devol, Ross. “The $110 Eﬀect: What Higher Gas Prices Could Really Do to the Economy.” The Atlan=c, March 13, 2012, hdp://www.theatlanKc.com/business/ archive/2012/03/the-‐110-‐eﬀect-‐what-‐ higher-‐gas-‐prices-‐could-‐really-‐do-‐to-‐the-‐ economy/254386/. Goldstein, Mindy, Jennifer Bellis, Sarah Morse, Amelia Myers, and Elizabeth Ura. “Urban Agriculture: A Sixteen City Survey of Urban Agriculture PracKces Across the Country.” Atlanta: Turner Environmental Law Clinic, Emory Law, 2011. hdp:// www.georgiaorganics.org/Advocacy/ urbanagreport.pdf Hodgson, K., Campbell, M.C., & Bailkey, M. Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places. American Planning AssociaKon, 2011. Jeavons, John. How to Grow More Vegetables (and fruits, nuts, berries, grains and other crops) than you ever thought possible on less land than you can imagine. 7th ed. Berkeley: 10 Speed Press, 2007. Los Angeles Community Garden and Farmers’ Market Equity map. Accessed on March 25, 2012, hdp://maps.google.com/maps? hl=en&tab=ml&authuser=0 Los Angeles Public Library. Agricultural and industrial map, Los Angeles County. 1936. Retrieved from: hdp://photos.lapl.org/

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy

carlweb/jsp/DoSearch? databaseID=968&index=-‐1&iniKalsearch=tr ue&count=10&ﬁnish=photosearch_pageAD V.jsp&mode=manual&keyword=agricultura l+industrial+map&terms=%2F %2Fwagricultural+industrial +map&author=&Search=Search&aVer=&sp eciﬁc=&before=&lowdate=&hidate= MarKnez, Steve, Michael Hand, Michelle Da Pra, Susan Pollack, Katherine Ralston, Travis Smith, Stephen Vogel, Shellye Clark, Luanne Lohr, Sarah Low, and Constance Newman. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues (Washington, DC: USDA, 2010), v. hdp:// www.ers.usda.gov/PublicaKons/ERR97/ ERR97.pdf Oakland Food Policy Council. Transforming the Oakland Food System: A Plan for Ac=on. Oakland, CA, 2010. hdp:// www.oaklandfood.org/media/AA/AD/ oaklandfood-‐org/downloads/105491/ OFPC_2010_plan_for_acKon_FINAL.pdf Seadle Department of Neighborhoods. P-‐ Patch community gardens-‐Growing Communi=es. Accessed on March 25, 2012, hdp://www.seadle.gov/ neighborhoods/ppatch/

urban-‐agriculture/into-‐the-‐woods-‐ seadle-‐plants-‐a-‐public-‐food-‐forest/ University of California CooperaKve Extension, Los Angeles County, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 2010 Annual Report. Los Angeles, CA: UCCE, 2010. Last accessed March 25, 2012, hdp://celosangeles.ucdavis.edu/ ﬁles/97121.pdf United States Department of Agriculture, Farmers Market and Local Procurement. Farmers Market Growth: 1994 -‐2011. Last modiﬁed August 8, 2011, hdp:// www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ ams.fetchTemplateData.do? template=TemplateS&navID=Wholesalea ndFarmersMarkets&leVNav=Wholesalea ndFarmersMarkets&page=WFMFarmers MarketGrowth&descripKon=Farmers %20Market%20Growth&acct=frmrdirmkt Wolch, Jennifer, John P. Wilson, and Jed Fehrenbach. “Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity Mapping Analysis.” University of Southern California, Sustainable CiKes Program, GIS Research Laboratory. Los, Angeles: CA, 2002.

SustainLane. 2008 US City Rankings, Local Food and Agriculture. Accessed on March 25, 2012. hdp://www.sustainlane.com/ us-‐city-‐rankings/categories/local-‐food-‐ agriculture. Thompson, Claire. “Into the Woods: Seadle Plants a Public Food Forest.” Grist, February 28, 2012. hdp://grist.org/

Growing Los Angeles’ Urban Agriculture Policy