| ACTION NOTES
Brentwood Agricultural Advisory Committee
May 15, 2000
6:30 PM – 9:10 PM
American Legion Hall
Jack Adams, John Chapman, Mark Dwelley, Nancy Holloman, Councilman McPoland,
Edward Meyer, Ron Nunn, Laine Lawrence, Glenn Stonebarger, Richard Vrmeer
and Peter Wolfe.
Some of the Committee members inquired about whether alternates could
be selected to replace absent Committee members.
Community Development staff stated that alternates are normally selected
by the City Council at the beginning of the committee process prior to
the first meeting rather than during the series of meetings.
Some Committee members felt that the process was being rushed and requested
more meetings to be scheduled to enable them to thoroughly review the
draft report document. It was indicated that more meetings would be conducted
as necessary to complete the study.
REVIEW ACTION NOTES OF APRIL 27, 2000
A majority of the Committee members felt that public comments portion
of the Action Notes from the last meeting were too distilled and requested
more detail. Community Development staff offered to revise the Action
Notes with more detail based on the tapes from the meeting.
The committee continued the item until the revised Action Notes can be
reviewed at the next meeting.
REVIEW TONIGHT'S AGENDA
Jeff Loux, of MIG, said they needed to revisit Items 1.6 and 1.9; then
finish 1.10 to 1.17; then review the Item 2 Agricultural Enterprise recommendations.
Leonard Gerry said that there has been a change in agriculture in the
area over the years. He felt the program didn’t address that. Agriculture’s
viability depends on the value of the product being sold at the time.
The program needs to recognize the market, along with the effect of the
County Agricultural Core Area and Urban Limit Line, which reduce the value
of the land.
Leo Carroll asked what was the purpose of the program if the farmers don’t
want it. It seemed the committee was making the decisions. Where was the
freedom of enterprise?
CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE DRAFT AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
The committee discussed the following recommendation item numbers and
came up with the following changes, questions, and agreements:
1.1 This item was tabled for the General Plan process.
1.6 The committee agreed with the criteria listed. The committee was split
on the issue of easement size. Some members favored having a minimum easement
size while others did not want to set a minimum size. The committee was
also undecided on what minimum parcel size would be appropriate. Some
committee members suggested a minimum size of 15 to 20 acre parcels and
others suggested 40 acre parcels. Some of the committee felt the Land
Trust should decide. The committee did agree that if there was a minimum
easement size it could be on land owned by multiple property owners.
Community Development staff suggested that the consultant bring forward
wording at the next meeting on the issue of priority for selecting the
lands to be protected.
1.9 Several of the committee felt that term, as well as permanent easements
needed to be an option to encourage farmers to participate. The item was
discussed and was continued for further information regarding various
easements and further discussion of lending feasibility.
1.11 The committee was satisfied with this item as written.
1.12 The committee was satisfied with this item as written.
1.13 The committee was satisfied with this item as written.
1.14 The committee agreed that only a small portion of the mitigation
fees could be used for easement administration and management which needs
to be as self-supporting as possible. The committee thought administrative
costs needed to be kept low and that grants needed to be obtained.
1.15 The committee was satisfied with this item as written. They favored
the creation of a new East County Land Trust.
1.16 The committee was satisfied with this item as written.
1.17 The committee was satisfied with this item as written as long as
the Land Trust would take care of itself.
2.14 Concern was expressed over the creation of a farmer’s market since
it might be competitive with existing u-pick operations .
The next meeting date would be scheduled by the Community Development
staff as soon as possible.
Karen Rogge asked if the funds could be used to pay for property taxes
or be added to the mitigation fee.
A person from the audience felt that this program wasn’t going to help
because it wasn’t going to provide sufficient incentives to keep land
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM.