IMHO, the city ought to refine its current land use which relate to urban agriculture. There currently exists an Extensive/Intensive Agriculture use which is allowable as a permitted use in a relatively small number of districts (such as the Transportation Utility Corridor, on Direct Control sites, on Future Urban Development land, in floodways, etc.).
The current land use is as follows:
191 “Extensive Agriculture”(a) means a use:(i) where land is used to raise crops or graze livestock;
(ii) where crops and livestock are not covered by
structures;
(iii) where trees and shrubs are intensively grown; and
(iv) that may have agricultural buildings required for the
operation of the use;
(b) is a use within the Agriculture and Animal Group in Schedule A
to this Bylaw;
(c) does not require motor vehicle parking stalls; and
(d) does not require bicycle parking stalls – class 1 or class 2.
As far as I can tell from the LUB, there is no other use related to community gardening. It seems to be an ill-defined area which is not explicitly permitted but at the same time not prohibited either. Just to be clear, I am not talking about you growing food in your backyard plot either (which is also an ill-defined use of a use, but it's current ambiguity is probably fine anyways).
I also can't seem to find a proper definition of what the city considers "intensively grown."
If I was going to update the uses (work with me here, I'm just brainstorming while I type), I would probably make a clear distinction between
High Intensity Agriculture vs.
Low Intensity Agriculture. The level of intensity could be decided on a variety of factors, such as the percentage of the parcel dedicated to agriculture, allowing/disallowing use of large motorized equipment in cultivation (ie. your average zamboni-sized tractors and larger), allowance/disallowance for an ancillary business on site, type of irrigation system used, etc.
With the definitions in place, it's simply a matter of figuring out which districts they slot into best. The more intensive urban agriculture uses would probably still be permitted uses only on Special Purpose districts and similar. The less intensive agricultural uses could be allowed as permitted uses in parks, low-density residential and commercial districts, direct control districts. I can see low-intensity agriculture as being discretionary on medium-density residential uses as well (for example, a situation where there might be a midrise complexes bordering an enclosed plot). And yes, also temporary permits for plots on unoccupied land that is otherwise zoned for more intensive development, as the post above has suggested.
After that, I think the next thing would be to try and promote development of and access to our farmer's markets, as Currie Barracks woefully has not.
Other than these kinds of points, I can't say I really buy much into these food charters, and I understand why Council members are a little tepid about it. IMHO, the City should be about as invested into making sure schools don't sell junk food as much as they ought be regulating what kind of fuel you can use in your vehicle. Which is to say, not really at all. Those just aren't really urban issues, but rather public health (and/or education) and environmental issues.