Uploaded on

Slideshow comparing various options to ID land opportunities within San Francisco city limits. This presentation accompanied Garden City Workshop I

Slideshow comparing various options to ID land opportunities within San Francisco city limits. This presentation accompanied Garden City Workshop I

More in: Technology , Sports
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,583
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Garden City: Workshop I Identifying Land for Gardens in San Francisco, CA October, 2009
  • 2. Site Types – Land Estimates LAND ACRES Backyards 1,887* Street Parks 400 * Private Vacant Lots 108 Sidewalk landscaping 650 * Presidio Trust 1,491 RPD 3,466
  • 3. Community Gardens
  • 4. Recreation and Parks Dept.
    • PRO
    • Space
    • May be depaved already
    • May have water meter
    • Access
    • CON
    • Space – no conflicting uses
    • Funding
    • Can take time
    • Conforming to RPD design
    Resources: http://www.sfgro.org/ http://www.parks.sfgov.org/site/recpark_index.asp?id=27048
  • 5. Street Parks
  • 6. Unaccepted Streets www.sfpt.org
  • 7. Street Parks Program
    • PRO
    • Space
    • Programmatic support from SFPT
    • Access
    • CON
    • Can take time
    • Funding
    • Community organizing
    Resources: http://www.sfpt.org/Default.aspx?tabid=86 http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfdpw_page.asp?id=66230
  • 8. Vacant Lots (Private)
  • 9. Privately Owned Vacant Lots
    • PRO
    • Space
    • Potential for “site control”
    • New GDA's being developed by Planning
    • CON
    • Can take time
    • Water may or may not be available
    • Legal agreements site dependent
    Resources: http://www.permaculture-sf.org
  • 10. F. U. E. L.
    • Friends of the Urban Edible Landscape
      • Utilize privately owned vacant lots
      • Remediate soil
      • Design Food/Fuel/Fiber Forests
      • Perennial Polyculture Landscapes
      • To grow fresh organic food in the city to be distributed to:
        • Volunteer urban farmers
        • Local homeless populations
        • Local food banks
        • Local communities in need of fresh organic options
        • Local farmer’s markets or other market opportunities
      • Other yields include
        • “ Nursery” stock of important vegetation for SF climate
        • Waste diversion through heavy OM mulches
        • Education opportunities
        • Urban beautification
        • And more…
  • 11. F U E L – How?
    • Source then communicate
      • Cross reference two web resources
      • Create database of potential sites
      • Contact property owners with form letter
      • Set up email and phone for follow up
      • Respond to opportunities
    • Design then implement
      • Coordinate gardening teams to soil test
      • Analyze water situation
      • Remediate, sheet mulch
      • Plant starts/trees
  • 12. F U E L – How?
    • Vacant lot database
      • Vacant Infill site locator:     http://infill.gisc.berkeley.edu/
    • Cross reference lot addresses with  this:
    • Owner dB:     http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfparcel/INDEX.htm
    • Also: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/nuviewer/planningmap.asp
  • 13. F U E L – Who Benefits?
    • - Free opportunity to utilize your land for community service     - Intention: to produce food on private vacant land     - Volunteer effort     - No cost     - Benefits for property owner        - Soil remediation = increase in property value        - Plants on site = potential increase in property value        - No cost for weed abatement        - Good press exposure for public service        - Increase in value of adjacent property values (in case they own)        - Improved community health        - Risk free     - No liability (community garden model)
    •     - $1 annual lease proposal     - 10 day (? Could be more, could be less) notice to remove all plants if owner decides to develop     property guaranteed by agreement   
    • - Specific request for next action - follow up phone call or email to     kick off the process
  • 14. How Many?
  • 15. F U E L – Let’s Get Started
    • Get Address of Owner
      • Go to http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfparcel/INDEX.htm
      • Click appropriate connection
        • E.g., Broadband Connection and then click “I understand the disclaimer - GO”
      • Click –”Find Address or Intersection”
      • Enter property address of vacant lot and click “Click to Locate Address”
      • Click on “Block/Lot Number e.g., 1228 013A”
      • Populate database with mailing address for property
      • See example as follows
  • 16.  
  • 17.  
  • 18.  
  • 19.  
  • 20.  
  • 21.  
  • 22.  
  • 23.  
  • 24.  
  • 25.  
  • 26.  
  • 27.  
  • 28.  
  • 29. Save FUEL db file or send to kevin@uas.coop
  • 30. Database
  • 31.  
  • 32. Sidewalks
  • 33. Privately Owned Sidewalks
    • PRO
    • Space
    • Aquifer recharge
    • Access
    • CON
    • Can be expensive
    • Vegetation selection limited by conditions
    • Water access
    Resources: http://www.plantsf.org http://www.sfpt.org/Portals/0/SLP%20guidelines%20commentary.pdf
  • 34. Gleaning
  • 35. Gleaning
    • PRO
    • Immediate if existing trees
    • Full utilization
    • If donated, legal on private land
    • CON
    • Community research
    • Harvests small at first
    • Violation of park code for parkland
    Resources: http://www.sfglean.org/ California Code Section 58501-58509 Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act
  • 36. School Sites
    • 72 elementary and K-8 schools
    • 13 middle schools
    • 19 senior high schools
    • 37 state-funded preschool sites
    • 9 active charter schools authorized by the district
  • 37. SFUSD
    • PRO
    • Space
    • Desire and need for maintenance
    • CON
    • Can take time
    • Water may or may not be available
    • Funding
    • Access can be challenging
    Resources: http://portal.sfusd.edu/apps/SCHFIND/showmap.cfm http://www.sfgreenschools.org/home.html
  • 38. Backyards www.sfvictorygardens.org
  • 39. Backyards
  • 40. Privately Owned Backyards
    • PRO
    • Space
    • Potential for “site control”
    • Water access
    • Proximity
    • Quickest
    • CON
    • Requires trust relationship
    • Access can be difficult
    Resources: http://www.permaculture-sf.org http://gardenregistry.org/ http://www.sfvictorygardens.org/ http://www.kitchengardensf.org
  • 41. Ease of Site Implementation
    • Liability considerations
      • Personal liability clauses
      • CA Civil Code 846
    • Water
    • Access
    • Funding
    • Community Organizing
    Resources: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file=840-848
  • 42. Site Types – Comparison Table LAND Ease of Site (1-5) # of Potential Sites Backyards 1 60,000+* Street Parks 2 500 * Private Vacant Lots 4 952 Sidewalk landscaping 2 20,000+ * SFUSD 3 150 RPD 4-5 ?
  • 43. Future…
    • Mayor’s directive about surplus, vacant city property
      • Likely public Fall 2010
      • ~ 60 acres, 40-50 sites of various size
    • Leasing RPD land
    • Community Orchard land-use designation
  • 44. [email_address]