Council Meeting: November 22, 2005 Santa Monica, California

To: Mayor and City Council

From: City Staff

Subject: City Council Approval of Recommended Rules and Regulations for the Operation of the City’s Community Gardens

Introduction

This report recommends that City Council approve recommended Rules and Regulations for the operation of the City’s Community Gardens.

Background

The City of Santa Monica has seventy Community Garden plots on approximately one half acre of land. Sixty plots are located at 2200 Main Street and the remaining ten plots are on Park Drive off of Broadway. Plots are available on a first come first served basis to Santa Monica residents with a limit of one plot per household. There are currently 113 households on the waiting list with an average wait of five to six years.

An evaluation of the Community Gardens operation was conducted over the last two years and included a review of the following areas:

1. Rules and Regulations

2. Licensee Term Renewals

3. Physical Improvements

4. Feasibility of Additional Plots

As a result, staff identified a number of potential modifications to the existing operation. Municipal community garden programs in several other cities were researched and in September 2004, a survey of current and waiting list gardeners was conducted to obtain input regarding areas of potential modification. Current and waitlist gardeners were provided the results of the survey and invited to participate in a community meeting to discuss proposed operational modifications to balance the varying interests and desires of the gardeners and to develop clear and enforceable rules and regulations. Over fifty members of the gardening community were in attendance at the March 21, 2005, meeting and provided important feedback for staff.

A status report was given by City staff and public input was received at the April 21, 2005 meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission. Discussion focused on modifications to the rules and regulations, proposed term limits as well as possible physical improvements to the gardens, The Commission recommended that staff and the gardeners work together to refine the proposal and return at a later date.

Discussion

Rules and Regulations. A Community Gardeners Advisory Meeting was held on June 16, 2005. It was agreed at that time to form a subcommittee to develop a consensus plan. The subcommittee of eleven, consisting of eight current gardeners, one waitlist gardener and two staff members held meetings on July 21^st, August 1^st, September 1^st and September 27^th. Much was accomplished at these meetings. Consensus was reached on a variety of issues including: development of more clearly defined gardener responsibility guidelines; development of acceptable planting guidelines to protect open space and access to sunshine; modifications to the violation process to ensure well kept gardens; and an increased role for the advisory committee including helping with plot inspections, handling disputes between gardeners and welcoming and providing guidance to new gardeners. Consensus was not reached on the issue of term limits for garden plots. The new proposal was then presented at the October 6, 2005 Community Gardens Advisory Meeting and was well received with the exception of the term limit issue.

Under the current rules, licenses are for one year terms with a “nontransferable option to renew every year”. As a result, individual gardeners may keep plots for an unlimited number of years despite the fact that there is a long waiting list. Several gardeners have had their plots for more than twenty years. Because the current system allows private individuals to make exclusive use of City property for an unlimited period of time, the City Attorney has advised that the current practice is legally problematic.

Generally speaking, public resources must be used for the benefit of the public. Consigning public property to the exclusive use of a small number of individuals is legally problematic. The California Constitution prohibits making gifts of public funds (Article XVI, Section 6). While this provision is liberally interpreted to protect cities’ broad discretionary powers it does prohibit public entities from consigning money or anything of value to use for private purposes. While there is no doubt that communal or community gardens serve a public purpose, this public purpose is significantly eroded when each plot is consigned to the exclusive use of one individual for an unlimited period of time, particularly if other members of the public are awaiting the same opportunity. Moreover, unlimited and exclusive use of publicly-owned garden plots is particularly problematic in Santa Monica, because the City has adopted and enforces several regulatory systems based upon the principle that public recreational spaces must be shared. Examples include: the Community Events Ordinance and permitting systems which rest on the precept that City spaces must be shared through a rational system of allocation that protects everyone’s access; the Street Performance Ordinance which operates to protect shared use of public space; and the law prohibiting camping in public parks. Operating a City program at odds with the underlying premise of these regulatory systems may put them at risk. Consistent with the basic rule that public spaces and resources must be allocated in a way that protects shared public access, the City has worked to ensure that playing fields, public meeting rooms and other public facilities are shared pursuant to reasonable systems that provide similar opportunities to all resident and user groups. The main exception to this approach applies when the City is functioning in its entrepreneurial capacity. Thus, City property is leased for the exclusive use of private individuals and business entities and the leases are granted at rates that generate revenue for the City. Leaseholds are not allocated as a recreational resource.

Current gardeners overwhelmingly oppose the idea that term limits be instituted, citing a lack of a similar prohibition in other communities, the amount of time needed to establish their gardens and the positive aspects of developing a stable “gardening community” that adds to the gardeners’ quality of life. Waiting list gardeners are far more receptive to term limits. Twenty nine percent (29%) of survey respondents who are on the waiting list believe that if a term limit is required, a three year limit would be appropriate, thirty nine percent (39%) believe five years and seventeen percent (17%) believe ten years.

Given the legal considerations noted above and the extensive waiting list as well as the need to provide adequate time for gardeners to establish and enjoy their gardens and the gardening community, staff proposed a license agreement limit of seven years for all new gardeners. For current gardeners, to prevent complete turnover of all gardens in the same year, a staggered implementation plan was proposed. Approximately 1/3 of the plots would be randomly selected for reassignment in each of the next three years.

A follow-up report regarding the revised proposed rules and regulations was given by City staff and public input was received at the October 27, 2005 meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission. The Commission did not take a formal position regarding the issue of term limits, but did adopt a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the all other proposed rules and regulations. The Commission also adopted a separate motion recommending that the City Council explore all possible opportunities for creating new community gardens in the city in order to create more opportunities for gardeners, and that if term limits are imposed, that the gardener not have to vacate their plot until the replacement gardener has been on the waiting list for a minimum of two years.

Physical Improvements and Feasibility of Additional Plots. Under consideration at both Community Gardens locations was the replacement of the exterior and interior boundary fencing, new pathways and reprogrammable gate locks. At Main Street, installation of entrance gates on the southern border of the gardens was also proposed. The Community Gardens Advisory Committee will be working with staff in the coming months to further explore possible physical improvements to the gardens, contingent upon the availability of funding in future budgets.

The 1997 Recreation and Parks Master Plan calls for the City to expand the Community Gardening Program by developing two additional gardening locations. Staff considered the possibility of increasing the number of community garden plots by converting the open green space area to the south of the current Park Drive garden plots into a new Community Gardens site. This location could yield up to twenty additional plots.

The 24 raised planter beds included in the Euclid Park design are planned for gardening classes and workshops. They will provide an opportunity for residents on the Community Gardens waiting list to participate in programs that prepare gardeners prior to obtaining a plot for longer-term personal use.

Budget/Fiscal Impact

The recommendations presented in this report do not have a budget or financial impact.

Recommendation

It is recommended that City Council approve the recommended rules and regulations for operation of the City’s Community Garden plots for implementation January 1, 2006.

Prepared by: Barbara Stinchfield, Director

Karen Ginsberg, Assistant Director

Kathy LePrevost, Community Programs Manager

Department of Community and Cultural Services

Attachment: Proposed Community Gardens Rules and Regulations 10/27/05