Definitions We developed our definition of urban agriculture from an early draft of the Neighborhood Food Act, currently before

the legislature. It includes reasonable regulations of agricultural activity and was amended to include agricultural practices currently employed on farms around the city. These practices (i.e., on site sales, building allowances, animal husbandry! are important to ma"ing sure that urban agriculture is economically viable, but are regulated in such a way to ensure that they are appropriate for the surrounding neighborhoods. Size & Zoning for Community Gardens #ne consistent message our group heard while doing community outreach is that the $ommunity %arden si&e limit was overly restrictive and financially infeasible for nonrevenue producing gardens. #ur proposal increases the potential si&e of those gardens to ' (one! acre but continues planning review for lots over ' (one! acre. Size & Zoning for Urban Agriculture other than Community Gardens (ight now, the $ity code effectively outlaws the growing of produce for sale on lots around the $ity. )nder the current code, agricultural activity is only allowed in lots &oned agriculturally (which are almost none*istent in the city limits! or re+uires a lengthy and e*pensive re&oning or permitting process. Through the combination of &oning codes and business regulations, it is e*ceedingly difficult and prohibitively e*pensive to practice urban agriculture in full compliance with $ity laws. The most basic re+uirement for addressing the $ity,s many barriers to urban agriculture is to adopt a commonsense, meaningfully regulated definition of -urban agriculture. (see above! and to allow it on all &ones across the city. #ur proposal uses a tiered approach to allow small, less intensive operations to operate with little or no permission from $ity agencies. At the same time, larger (over './ acres! operations would be re+uired to go through a more conventional permitting process. This tiered approach is reflects the direction many cities (including 0an Francisco, 0eattle, 1os Angeles, and 2ortland! have ta"en. 3y including regulation of agricultural activities in the definition of -urban agriculture,. our proposal ensures an easy to understand4 yet meaningfully regulated4 urban agriculture landscape. Zoning: Nonconforming uses ( grandfather clause!" The provisions in our proposal related to nonconforming uses would serve to protect urban agriculture operations e*isting before the ordinance was passed. #n$site Sales

$urrently, regulations allow only -incidental. sales of produce grown in any community garden, whether on private or public property. #ur proposal would clearly allow sales of produce grown in community gardens that are on private property. Additionally, sales could be allowed on community gardens that are on $ity owned land if the $ity so chooses. An alternative method of sale was developed by the $ity last year. $ommunity mar"ets have the potential to bring increased food access to underserved areas, but right now their operations are substantially limited by time, &oning, and fre+uency restrictions. #ur proposal would e*pand the number of days that community mar"ets could operate to ma"e them more economically viable and prevalent. $ities around the country have recogni&ed that sales occurring on site are an important method of revenue generation for urban agriculture operations. )nli"e farms in rural areas, urban agriculture can be, and in some cities already is, a convenient place community food access. (ecogni&ing this potential, our proposal ta"es the approach of cities li"e 0an Francisco, 2ortland, and $leveland to allow small scale urban agriculture stands to sell food on parcels where the food is grown. These stands would be limited in si&e, and fre+uency to ensure their compatibility with the surrounding area. %&ui'ment #ur proposal recogni&es the importance of ma"ing sure urban agriculture is a good neighbor in the community where it is located. While we see no reason to limit the use of consumer grade e+uipment (roto tillers, hedge trimmers, etc.!, the use of heavy machinery would be limited to initial land preparation. Accessory Structures #ur proposal does not change the building code regulations that re+uire permitting for new structures over a certain s+uare footage. Instead, it brings clarity of those regulations as they apply to structures useful to urban farms li"e greenhouses, sheds, rain barrels, and cold frames. (esticide Use (ecogni&ing that state law limits the $ity,s ability to regulate pesticide use in its boundaries, our proposal ma"es $ity offered incentives (ta* and water rates! contingent on compliance with the )nited 0tates 5epartment of Agriculture,s #rganics 2rogram. )ater Water rates and hoo" up fees are typically the most e*pensive aspects of operating community gardens and urban farms around the $ity. #ur proposal includes provisions to decrease initial hoo" up costs for urban agriculture users and allows those users to en6oy a lower water rate.

These decreased costs are contingent on practicing water conservation techni+ues and limiting pesticide and fertili&er use to only those products compliant with )05A #rganics 2rogram. Animal *usbandry Animals can be an integral part of urban agriculture systems. #ur proposal recogni&es that small animals li"e chic"ens, duc"s, rabbits, and fish are important to small agriculture systems and are unli"ely to cause undue noise or smell problems. To this end, a number of these animals would be allowed on urban agriculture parcels with ade+uate space. 1arger animals can also be beneficial to urban agriculture operations. 7owever, because they have more potential to create smell or noise issues, our proposal reflects the direction that many cities have ta"en and allows animals li"e roosters, geese, goats, pigs, and sheep only on lots large enough to minimi&e their potential impact to neighbors. This proposal does not reduce the number of chic"ens or bees already allowed by the $ity. Instead, the proposal ma"es accommodation for these animals on lots large enough to appropriately house more than are currently allowed. +ees To ma*imi&e urban agriculture,s potential in 0acramento, our proposal includes provisions for a temporary moratorium on any new fees associated with urban agriculture permitting. Urban Agriculture ,ncenti-e Zones (A. //0" A3 //' is a ta* brea" for parcel owners who commit their land to urban agriculture for a period of no less than five years. #ur proposal is necessary to implement A3 //' because in order for parcels to be used for urban agriculture, urban agriculture must be legal and an economically viable use. #ur proposal includes a draft ordinance that the $ity can use to begin to implement A3 //' as well as a draft contract the $ity can use for participating parcel owners. It will be necessary for the $ounty of 0acramento to pass an ordinance authori&ing the $ity to ta"e such steps, but we are confident that, wor"ing together, we can be one of the first 6urisdictions in the state to implement this new incentive for urban agriculture. ,nformation Gate1ay It is important that people see"ing to develop urban agriculture are aware of re+uirements and allowances under our proposal and e*isting state and local law. We propose the establishment of an information gateway to help clarify what is and is not allowed under the new laws, as well as resources to help practitioners abide by the best practices of food safety and low impact agriculture.

(ublic 2and The $ity of 0acramento owns the most land of any single entity in the city. )rban agriculture gives the $ity an opportunity to use that land to increase food production and literacy while creating partnerships with individuals and organi&ations to decrease maintenance costs.