Full Text
MISSOULA OFFICE OF PLANNING & GRANTS 435 Ryman MISSOULA MT 59802-4292 PHONE: (406) 258-4657 MISSOULA COUNTY MEMORANDUM DATE: April 23, 2010 TO: Mayor, City Council and Board of County Commissioners FROM: Roger Millar RE: Proposed Forum on Local Food and Agriculture Policy OPG staff in the Urban Initiatives division has been in contact with some of the parties interested in issues related to local food and agriculture. Staff has also engaged in research to learn how other communities are addressing these issues. The purpose of this outreach and research is to inform the emerging community discussion about the role of the City and the County in local food and agriculture. The impetus for this work has come from recent review of subdivision proposals within and adjacent to the Missoula Urban Services Area. An emerging concern in the public discussion of these developments has been the transition of land with agriculturally valuable soils and other resources to residential or commercial uses. Citizen groups representing neighborhoods and local food and agriculture interests have argued that new subdivisions should either avoid impacts to, or mitigate the loss of, agricultural resources. In many cases, development interests have been resistant to these assertions. All parties agree that the City and County should adopt policies related to local food and agriculture. On April 7 the Community Food and Agriculture Coalition released Losing Ground: The Future of Farms and Food in Missoula County. This report describes the state of agriculture and local food in Missoula County and makes policy recommendations. We anticipate the release of a similar study by the Missoula Organization of Realtors in the very near future. I am recommending that the City and County respond to the heightened interest in local food and agriculture by hosting a community forum to gauge citizen support for local government action in this arena. If nothing else, stakeholders expect that both the City and County will adopt policy guidance for review of subdivisions. My recommendation to the governing bodies is that you couch any policy adoption in a broader discussion of local food and agriculture and that you commence the public discussion with a community-wide event that recognizes and incorporates the broadest range of community participation. Staff has prepared a tentative agenda for such a discussion and has begun to identify stakeholders that should be invited to participate. In addition staff is developing background information intended to inform discussion. I have attached copies of the draft agenda, participant list and background information gathered to date for your review. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mayor, City Council and Board of County Commissioners April 23, 2010 Proposed Forum on Local Food and Agriculture Policy Page 2 Assuming you are amenable to the community discussion, OPG will contact certain individuals on the draft invitation list and extend invitations from you to serve on a planning committee for the community event. The individuals that staff has recommended for this role are starred on the participant list. We would appreciate your suggestions as we finalize committee recommendations and contact the designees. To provide for the stakeholder availability and to allow time for the planning committee to organize the event, staff recommends that the community forum take place in September. I look forward to discussing this recommendation with you at our OPG Interlocal Agreement quarterly meeting on April 28. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Area Agricultural Policy Research General discussion of local agricultural policies Tom Zavitz, Planner II Missoula Office of Planning and Grants April 23, 2010 Any comments may be submitted to: Tom Zavitz Missoula Office of Planning and Grants 435 Ryman Missoula, MT 59802-4292 (email [EMAIL REDACTED] ) ---PAGE BREAK--- Bitterroot Introduction Missoula’s agricultural history is rich and varied. The valley’s loamy soils were fertile ground for native plants gathered by Salish and Kootenai people. In the 19th Century, white homesteaders introduced grains and livestock and paved the way for numerous subsistence farms. In 1910 the County claimed 570 farms; by 1920 that number had grown to more than 1300. Orchard Homes and MacIntosh Manor (south of Lolo) were developed as part of a 20th century agrarian movement and many locals still recall the community’s sugar beet industry or the Hughes Garden truck farm in Hellgate Canyon. Although many historic agricultural activities in the Missoula Valley have ceased, small farms and community gardens appear to be making a return in terms of production. The proliferation of farmers’ markets and the increasing demand for locally grown food in supermarkets and restaurants are the more obvious indicators of this trend. Recent increases in food transportation cost and the increasing demand for locally grown healthy food have brought renewed attention to the conversion of agricultural land (with accompanying soil and water resources) to non agricultural development in the Missoula Valley. Residential and commercial development within the city limits and urban fringe will likely continue, and new strategies may be needed to identify the most valuable soils for preservation and to promote cost effective preservation and design principles for new development. Most of the pasture and crop lands in and around the city have become fragmented as a result of development (see maps below). Approximately 3500 acres of prime-if-irrigated land remain mostly undeveloped within the Missoula Urban Services Area, although much of this land exists in relatively small parcels. Rising real estate values and the desirability of agricultural land for development certainly contribute to the erosion of agricultural resources. OPG staff has examined the approaches of several other communities that are committed to maintaining agriculture as a vibrant sector in their cultures and Hughes Gardens economies to facilitate a local discussion. ---PAGE BREAK--- ^õ ^õ ^õ ^õ ^õ ^õ ^õ ^õ ^õ North H ills HIGGINS ORANGE Miller Creek Hayes Cr. Bitte 55th BL VD VISTA LINDA Moose Can Gully RD FLAT BIG Clark Fork NORTH AVE McCauley Butte COTE LN RD MTN BL UE CLEMENTS Island Kelly RD DESCH AMPS LN Cr. The Wye KONA RD MULLAN Airport Missoula International RESERVE TOWER Bitterroot R. CR MILLER MONT. RAIL LINK Fort Missoula SOUTH Fork Clark S 3rd ST SPURGIN S 7th 39th 23rd GHARRETT RESERVE RODGERS PALMER AKER Fairgrounds 14th S.6th S.5th CURTIS COOLEY TOOLE HIGGINS BROOKS SOUTH STEPHENS RU SSEL L RU SSEL L WHIT HILLVIEW WY BL VD AIRWAY LN EXPRESSWAY WEST BROADWAY Landfill Sanitary RD. GRANT CR Grant Cr. RD WALDO Butler Creek RD SNOWBOWL YON Mt. Dean Stone Pattee Cr. DR Creek Marshall Cr. ROAD MONT. RAIL LINK Rattlesnake Mt. Jumbo NOU GH CAN PATTEE LOLO of Montana University N.5th Mt. Sentinel GREE VAN BUREN ARTHU R AVE BROADWAY Fork Clark CREEK DEER SPEEDWAY Missoula East Creek Spring RATTLESNAKE DR Gulch Clark Milltown West Riv erside ZAUGG DR Creek Deer RU STIC RD Fork Bonner Blackfoo Woody Ski Area Marshall Mtn. Rattlesnake Creek Bl Fraser Cr. 90 £ ¤ 93 ^õ Community Gardens Land Assessed by MT DOR as Agriculture Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) Final Land Unit (FLU) Data by Land Type Continuously Cropped - 19 acres Summer Fallow Farmland - 407 acres Non-irrigated Hay Land - 222 acres Irrigated Land - 1,821 acres Non-commercial Forest Land - 165 acres Forest Land - 678 acres Grazing Land - 2,999 acres Ag Soils on Public Lands - 2,978 acres MT DOR Vacant or Ag Parcels Overlapping Prime if Irrigated Agricultural Soils 2 - 4.99 acres (53 parcels, 176 acres) 5 acres + (113 parcels, 4,635 acres) NRCS Agricultural Soils of Importance Prime if Irrigated (5,918 acres) Statewide (210 acres) Local (15,064 acres) 169 Parcels 4,966 Acres Summary Agricultural Numbers in Missoula Urban Services Area Preliminary FLU data was provided by the Montana Department of Revenue (MT DOR). It is used in property valuation for agriculture and forest land on private properties. Data may exist in exempt land as a result of data conversion processes but no effort has been made to significantly enhance the data. NRCS farmland designations do not apply to lands already converted to non-ag uses (e.g. roads, highways, home sites, subdivision and urban land). Soil maps are to be used as a primary reference source and are not intended for use in site-specific planning. SOURCES: Soils data supplied by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The Montana Department of Revenue (MTDOR) distributes cadastral data, agricultural data assessment, and preliminary Final Land Unit classification data. Map by C. Wilson, 1/20/2010, File: 01152010_AG.mxd N ort h H ills H IG G IN S OR A N G E Miller C reek H ay es Cr. Bit te 55 th BL VD VIS TA LIN D A Moo se C an G u lly RD FLA T BIG Cla rk F ork N OR T H AV E McC au le y B ut t e CO TE LN RD MTN BL U E CLE ME N T S Isla n d Ke lly RD DE S CH AMP S LN C r. Th e W ye KO N A RD MU LLA N Airp ort Missou la In t ern a tio n al RE S ER V E TO W E R Bit t erro ot R . CR MILLE R MO N T. R AIL LIN K Fo rt Misso u la SO U TH Fo rk Cla rk S 3rd ST SP U R G IN S 7t h 39 th 23 rd G H AR R E TT RE S ER V E RO D G E R S PA LME R AK E R Fa irgrou n d s 14 th S.6t h S.5t h CU R T IS CO O LE Y TO O LE H IG G IN S BR O O K S SO U TH STE P H E N S RU SS EL L RU SS EL L W H IT H ILLV IEW W Y BL VD AIR W A Y FLY N N LN EX P RE S SW A Y W ES T B R O AD W A Y Lan d fill Sa nit a ry RD . G RA N T CR Gr an t C r . RD W ALD O Bu tler C reek RD SN O W B O W L YO N Mt . D ea n S t on e Pa t te e C r. DR Cry sta l C ree k Mar sh all C r. RO A D MO N T. R AIL LIN K Rat tles na ke Mt . J u mb o N OU G H CA N PA TT EE LO LO of Mo n ta n a U n iversit y N .5 t h Mt . S en tin e l G RE E VA N B U R E N AR TH U R A VE BR O A D W AY Fo rk Cla rk CR E EK DE E R SP E ED W A Y Missou la Ea st Cr eek Sp rin g RA TT LES N A KE D R G ulc h Cla rk Millto w n W est Riv er s id e ZA U G G DR Cre ek De er RU STIC R D Fo rk Bo n n er Bla ckfoot W oo dy Sk i A rea Marsh a ll Mt n. Rat tles na ke Cr eek Bl Fra ser C r. 90 £ ¤ 93 Z 1:100,000 City Limits Urban Services Area Boundary City Res. 7305 12/10/2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Approach/Tools Various regulatory and non-regulatory solutions to preserve urban agricultural lands have been in use around the country since the 1960’s. Successful strategies usually involve different combinations of the following approaches depending on local needs and conditions. Planning document support Boise, Idaho “Blueprint Boise” the new comprehensive plan Boise, Idaho is developing to put more focus on retaining its high quality of life and creating a sustainable community. The plan consists of seven themes. The Environmental theme incorporates numerous initiatives to promote urban agriculture. Proposals for promoting residential food production include designating public lands such as parts of public parks and school lands for community gardens, amending zoning to allow food production in compatible neighborhoods, and allowing farmers markets by-right in designated activity centers. Sustainable Development refers to development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. – Brundtland Commission 1987 The plan protects the use of the city’s canal system by coordinating with irrigation companies in the review of applications on lands adjacent to canals, requiring use of existing water rights as new development occurs, particularly to support urban agriculture, and developing programs to retrofit existing development with irrigation from canals where water rights are still available. Sustainability Management Plan Tucson, Arizona Tucson’s Food Sketch Plan (See Sustainabletucson.org) is a citizen-driven planning initiative that identifies the top priorities for making Tucson more sustainable. The plan writers conducted a review of the community’s food system from farm to market to consumer. Results of that review show that Tucson’s current food system is vulnerable to food and food-price crises. The plan identifies tools, information, and organizations that currently contribute to food sustainability. It also identifies problems like limited areas of arable land that are at odds with respect to long term food sustainability. They also identify action items like mapping resources, locating existing food distribution systems, and provision of community education regarding the benefits and potential negative impacts of different types of agriculture. ---PAGE BREAK--- Other action items are listed below. 1. Promote “Certified Naturally Grown” in place of “Certified Organic” which is not affordable/practical for small producers 2. Define “local” for the purpose of mapping information on resources 3. Locate existing sources of food needs 4. Explore the issue of providing a secure food supply through local producers of all types 5. Support a pricing and distribution system that allows local food producers to support their families and build their businesses… mutual security 6. Strive to understand the other elements influencing the sustainability of the food supply in Tucson and Southern Arizona, such as water, energy, transportation, land use, and other critical areas so that the community can intelligently balance Food Security and Food Sustainability Cleveland, Ohio Cleveland City Ordinance Part Three, Title VII, Chapter 336 includes an “Urban Garden District” that permits only community and market gardens and farmers markets. (Markets may only sell what is produced on the site of the gardens.) Agricultural Zoning Jackson County, Colorado Jackson County uses zoning to prohibit subdivision and encourage agriculture. The county only issues building permits in agricultural zones to those who can prove they will operate a commercial ranch and own at least 640 acres. This is one of the most extreme examples in the country. Marin County, California Marin County has a very sophisticated agricultural preservation program that integrates several different tools to preserve its agricultural lands. The elements of Marin County’s agricultural land protection are agricultural zoning, transfer of development rights, agricultural easements, cluster developments, and tax incentives. The Agricultural Zoning piece implements the intent and policy of the county’s agricultural policies and countywide plan by maintaining low densities in the inland rural and costal corridor zones where the agricultural soil resource exists. The zoning maintains agricultural production as the principal use on agricultural lands by limiting residential development to that which is reasonably related to agriculture. ---PAGE BREAK--- Preserve Nearby Lands in Lieu Yolo County, California Yolo County Local Agency Formation Commission reviews development proposals which could lead to the conversion of existing open space lands to uses other than open space uses. Yolo County has a total acreage of 661,760 acres; 550,407 are farmland. Yolo County produces tomatoes, almonds, citrus, olive oil and wine grapes among many other agricultural commodities. Zoning changes that result in Agricultural to Non-Agricultural use changes require mitigation of one of two types depending on area of land: 1. Loss of 20 acres or less of prime agricultural land: payment of in lieu fees that are sufficient to fully fund the acquisition and maintenance of farmland development rights or easements using a fee schedule or methodology developed by the commission. 2. Loss of greater than 20 acres of prime agricultural land: For every acre of agricultural land converted to non-agricultural zoning, one acre of equal or better quality agricultural land must be protected permanently by conservation easement or a payment of fees that are sufficient to fully fund the acquisition and maintenance of farmland development rights or easements. There are conditions the proposed “mitigation land” must meet to qualify such as having comparable water rights, etc. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR’s) Warwick Township, Lancaster County, The township first identifies and creates agricultural zones and “sending areas.” The sending areas receive the development that could have occurred on the agricultural lands. The development could be commercial, industrial, or residential. The Township maintains a TDR “Bank” which holds development rights purchased from farmers/landowners and funded by the local Lancaster Farmland Trust. This allows the agricultural lands to be preserved while allowing developers to build more intensively in the sending zoning after buying the TDR’s from the “Bank”. This tool is often used in combination with agricultural easements or agricultural zoning to preserve the agricultural resource lands in perpetuity. ---PAGE BREAK--- Conservation or “Cluster” Development Chester County, The main objective of cluster development is to allow residential or commercial development while still protecting an area’s environmental features, open space, farmland, or the character of rural communities. Cluster developments site homes on smaller lots with less emphasis on minimum lot size. However, the total number of homes, or density, on a given acreage does not necessarily increase over that allowed in the traditional subdivision designs. The same number of homes is clustered on a smaller portion of the total available land. The remaining land, which would have been allocated to individual home sites, is now converted into protected open space and shared by the residents of the subdivision and possibly the entire community. Example: ---PAGE BREAK--- Tax Reductions/Restricted Agricultural Zoning California California’s Williamson Act: “The California Land Conservation Act of 1965--commonly referred to as the Williamson Act--enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. Local governments receive an annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the state via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971.” – From www.ca.gov website. Urban Growth Areas/Boundaries Washington Washington (State) Growth Management Act of 1990: Counties required to plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA) required designating urban growth areas to accommodate projected urban growth over a 20 year period. In general, urban services will not be extended beyond the boundaries of urban growth areas. New, fully contained communities may be located outside urban growth areas if strict conditions are met; provision must be made to mitigate the impact of such developments on designated agricultural lands. Urban growth areas may not include designated agricultural lands unless the county has enacted a Transfer of Development Rights or Agriculture Conservation Easement program. Agricultural Land Trust Organizations Marin County, California Marin Agricultural Land Trust (non-profit) formed in 1980 to purchase conservation easements on agricultural land. – First land trust in U.S. to protect agricultural land. Agricultural Land is purchased outright by a non-profit organization providing permanence that zoning cannot. The organization has received funding from the state government (Proposition 70), county, and private trust funds. It currently holds 64 easements totaling 41,000 acres. One recent example is a prominent local dairy. Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT), with financial assistance from the Department of Conservation’s California Farmland Conservancy Program and the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) purchased an agricultural conservation easement on the Spaletta family’s 772-acre Cypress Lane Ranch. MALT paid the appraised value of $2,495,000 for the easement. The Department of Conservation and NRCS provided grants to MALT of $831,667 each for the project. The remaining third of the funds was raised from MALT members and supporters.