Major City Council Victory on Front Yard Garden Ordinance

FRONT YARD GARDENS – HERE WE COME !!

Kim Glazzard
Organic Sacramento
April 6, 2007

Wow - miracle of miracles – success! We really did it !! After nearly
three years of often challenging negotiations, the Sacramento City Council
actually stepped up to the plate at last Tuesday’s City Council meeting
when they voted eight to one to uphold the City Planning Commission’s
unanimous recommendation to adopt the proposed Front Yard Landscape
Ordinance 17.68.010 with the deletion of subsection (a)(1)(c), which
restricted fruits and vegetables to 30% of the landscape setback area and
four feet in height.

Partly due to an immense effort to get the word out, and partly due to
some last-minute media support, including same day interviews on KFBK and
the Christine Craft radio program, there was an impressive turnout of
public support. While, at the request of the City Council, only a handful
of members of the community spoke, nearly 100 area residents attended the
City Council Meeting (many of whom wore available green armbands) to show
their support of front yard gardens.

Sacramento Citizens for Sustainable Landscapes (SCSL), which I co-chair on
behalf of Organic Sacramento, was allowed seven minutes for a formal
PowerPoint presentation which was very well received by the Council. It
not only illustrated the beauty diverse landscapes can offer to local
neighborhoods, but also reminded City Councilmembers how these landscapes
can address a multitude of issues and concerns of the city, including
water conservation, water and air quality, green waste management, food
security, and hunger, as well as helping the city successfully meet state
and federal mandates and their long-range sustainability goals.

Public comment began with Patsy Byers representing Relocalize Sacramento,
who identified many of the concerned residents as passionate gardeners and
stated that “keeping subsection ‘c’ would penalize people who want or need
to grow food.” Pointing to the Council’s later agenda items, she went on
to say it would be very ironic if the City Council restricted Sacramentans
in the fruits and vegetables they can grow “and at the same time tout
Sacramento as a city that’s moving toward sustainability.”

Sue Tracy, herself a front-yard gardener, emphasized the benefits of
organic gardening verses the downside of lawns. She also demonstrated how
gardening “brings people together” by having a number of her neighbors who
had attended the meeting stand up and confirm their support of her right
to garden in her front yard.

Other presenters expressed concerns about how this ordinance would be
enforced, with one person calling complaint-generated tactics used by Code
Enforcement as often “abusive.” Another gentleman gave personal testimony
to the importance of Victory Gardens during World War II, saying “that was
the patriotic thing to do.” He also expressed concern for Code
Enforcement’s unwieldy task of carting around tape measures and
calculating percentages, saying “this seems like a solution where there is
no problem.” Another resident also noted that the rights to produce and
consume your own food are protected by international law.

Landscape professional Dave Roberts challenged the City Council saying
“you need to give the citizens an opportunity to be part of the solution
or you can continue to restrict people’s choice.” He then asked all there
who were in support of the ordinance change with the deletion of
subsection “c” to stand up, which approximately three-fourths of the room
did.

Appropriately, Emery and Taylor Mesich, dressed as a tomato and carrot
respectively and sons of Karen Bauman whose April 2004 citation for an
“out-of-compliance” front yard garden inspired the move to request the
ordinance revision, wowed the City Council by extolling the virtues and
health benefits of tomatoes and carrots. Emery reminded the City Council
that many other cities do not discriminate against fruits and vegetables
and asked “isn’t Sacratomato named after me?” Taylor concluded public
comment with the question “does it really matter if I am in the back,
side, or front yard – as long as I am there?” while adding “let me
increase Sacramento’s vision – plant more carrots.”

Following public comment Mayor Fargo immediately set the stage by offering
support to SCSL’s proposal. “I came in here agreeing with the Planning
Commission and wanting to take out item ‘c’ and I’m still there.” She
also acknowledged that gardening not only helps with a person’s mental
health and peace of mind, but also that it “is a very social thing to do.”


Councilmembers Hammond and Sheedy expressed concerns about a perceived
likelihood of possible unkempt front yard gardens and requested community
assistance in helping educate residents in their districts on how to grow
and maintain sustainable landscapes. The only real holdout, however, was
Councilmember Waters, who upheld his opposition with concerns that it
would take more code enforcement staff to enforce an ordinance allowing
unrestricted growing of fruits and vegetables, and that it would
potentially be a “blighted situation because people just keep pushing and
pushing.”

Councilmember Tretheway clarified that the governance early on in the
ordinance was sufficient saying “the unpaved portions of front yards shall
be landscaped, irrigated, and maintained,” and that there was no reason to
go further than that.

“I don’t want to have vegetable police,” Councilmember Tretheway
continued. He additionally brought up the current problems of gross
overwatering and excessive application of fertilizers, pesticides, and
insecticides on lawns, while noting that the other extreme of code
violations - which often reduce the landscapable areas through over
application of concrete - are often ignored.

Councilmember Pennell was reminded that her concerns about possible safety
issues of corn plans were already addressed in subsection (a)(1)(d), which
has a four-foot height restriction in the areas where visibility is an
issue.

Early in the discussion Councilmember Cohn made a motion to accept the
proposed ordinance as unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission –
with the deletion of subsection (a)(1)(c), which was quickly seconded. He
also stated that “it just seems totally inconsistent with our
sustainability agenda to have a provision that limits the growing of
fruits and vegetables, particularly when you could grow any other plant
that isn’t a fruit or vegetable – and that would be ok, but not fruits and
vegetables.” He also reminded the Council that “there are people who will
create problems no matter how you write the ordinance.”

Councilmember McCarty echoed strong support of fruits and vegetables,
noting “this brings about choice, which is a paramount element of our
society.”

Councilmember Fong capped off the night by acknowledged this issue’s well
deserved importance and confirming that “this is a big step” and “it’s a
real issue.” He went on to observe that “this is really more than how our
yards look. It’s the resources we dedicate to sustaining whatever it is
we have in our yards. And if we can be better stewards of how we grow
things and can also eat some of the things we grow, I think it really
moves us very far down the road of sustainability.”

All in all, this issue has really piqued the interest of Sacramento
residents, and the ongoing publicity has made Sacramentans much more aware
that they need to consider a variety of choices in their landscaping
options and to begin to think “outside the lawn.” The next step is to
begin to educate more and more Sacramentans about the value of diverse
landscapes and help them understand the benefits not only to themselves
and their neighbors, but to the greater community, state and, ultimately,
the world.

This was a very exciting major benchmark victory for Sacramento’s future
sustainability. The City Council really “got it” and truly demonstrated
support for our shared vision of being the most livable city in America.

Kim Glazzard
Organic Sacramento